必须让航空更安全 否则社会难有稳定之日

Fifty-five aircraft flew over eastern Ukraine on July 17, carrying the flags of nine nations. They flew in airspace declared safe by air traffic controllers, and on flight paths approved by European regulators appointed by the UN’s global aviation body. But out of a clear blue sky came violent destruction. Evidence suggests that Flight MH17 was shot down.

7月17日，有55架飞机载着9个国家的国旗飞越乌克兰东部。它们飞经的空域被空中交通管制员认定是安全的，飞行的航线也经过了由联合国(UN)旗下全球航空组织任命的欧洲监管员的批准。但蔚蓝的天空上却发生了暴力破坏活动。有证据表明，MH17客机是被击落的。

In Malaysia, still recovering from the loss in March of MH370, there was disbelief. As we began to understand what had happened, this gave way to anger. Responsibility for the lives lost lies with those who brought MH17 down. We will pursue every avenue to bring them to justice. But that will not prevent another tragedy. For MH17 exposed an uncomfortable truth: there are no clear standards for determining whether a flight path is safe.

当时的马来西亚仍沉浸在今年3月MH370航班失联的痛苦中，全国上下弥漫着怀疑的情绪。当我们开始明白发生了什么事情后，这种怀疑被愤怒所取代。击落MH17的人应为那些逝去的生命负责。我们将寻求通过各种途径将他们绳之以法。但这不能防止另一场悲剧的重演。因为MH17失事暴露出了一个令人不安的事实：在判断一条航线是否安全方面，缺乏清晰的标准。

As airlines revealed their vastly different approaches to conflict zones, passengers were left wondering who ensures the safety of the skies. The International Civil Aviation Organisation, the UN global aviation body, issues advice on areas to avoid – but does not declare flight paths unsafe. Instead, individual countries are responsible for issuing warnings for their airspace.

随着各航空公司公布迥然不同的经过冲突地区的航线，乘客不禁在想，谁来保证天空的安全？联合国旗下的全球航空组织——国际民航组织(International Civil Aviation Organisation)会发布有关避让区域的建议，但没有宣布哪些航线是不安全的。各个国家负责发布有关各自领空的警告。

Yet countries benefit from keeping airspace open because they collect fees for every aircraft that flies over their territory, a global revenue stream of more than $20bn a year. In fragile states, this conflict of interest could have dangerous consequences.

然而，保持领空开放有利于各国，因为它们可以向飞越本国领空的飞机收取费用——在全球范围内，这项收入每年超过200亿美元。在脆弱的国家，这种利益冲突可能会带来危险的后果。

Avoiding flying over every conflict zone is impractical; that would paralyse aviation and the world economy. Instead, passengers rely on airlines, regulators and aviation authorities to ensure safe passage. In this case, the system that governs global air safety failed. There are three things we can do to improve it.

避开所有冲突地区是不切实际的；这将令航空业乃至全球经济陷入瘫痪。乘客依赖航空公司、监管机构和航空管理机构来确保飞行安全。在这种情况下，规范全球空中安全的体系却失灵了。我们可以采取三项措施来改善这个体系。

First, airlines can share data about flight risk. In the weeks after MH17, it became clear that carriers differ vastly over conflict zones. Germany’s Lufthansa, which flew over Ukraine, avoided northern Iraq and Israel. Australia’s Qantas flew over Iraq but avoided Ukraine and Israel. British Airways flew over Israel but avoided Ukraine and Iraq. Why? Because airlines do not share their risk assessments. That must change.

首先，航空公司可以共享有关飞行风险的信息。在MH17失事后的数周内，有一个事实浮出水面：航空公司飞经冲突地区的路线大不相同。德国的汉莎航空(Lufthansa)会飞经乌克兰，但避飞伊拉克北部和以色列。澳大利亚的澳洲航空公司(Qantas)飞越伊拉克，但避飞乌克兰和以色列。英国航空公司(British Airways)飞越以色列，但避飞乌克兰和伊拉克。为什么？因为航空公司不会共享它们的风险评估。这一点必须改变。

Second, countries can share more information from their intelligence services. One reason carriers choose different routes is because they receive such information from their national agencies. But some countries have more extensive networks than others, and even the most comprehensive have blind spots. A system for sharing sensitive information would narrow the gaps in intelligence and aviation warning systems, providing greater protection for passengers.

其次，各国可以共享来自情报机构的更多信息。航空公司选择不同航线的一个原因是它们从本国情报机构那里得到了相关信息。但一些国家拥有比其他国家更广泛的情报网络，而即便是最完善的情报网络也有盲点。共享敏感信息的机制将有助于弥补情报体系与航空警告体系所存在的缺陷，为乘客提供更有力的保护。

Countries are understandably reluctant to share sensitive material. But, as the International Air Transport Association has pointed out, recommendations based on intelligence can be presented without compromising security. If sanitised information can be shared with civilian national carriers, it can be shared with other airlines.

各国不愿共享敏感资料是有情可原的。但正如国际航空运输协会(International Air Transport Association)所指出的那样，可以在不损害安全的情况下，提出依据情报得出的建议。如果经过审查的信息可以与民用国家航空公司共享，那么这些信息也可以与其他航空公司共享。

Third, we should improve the information published by national aviation authorities. Restrictions over Ukraine, for example, made no mention of the presence of surface-to-air missiles, or the recent downing of Ukrainian military aircraft. More comprehensive information would allow airlines to better understand why airspace is restricted.

第三，改进国家航空管理机构的信息发布。例如，关于乌克兰的限制信息没有提及地对空导弹的存在，也没有提到最近乌克兰军机被击落的消息。更为全面的信息会让航空公司更好地了解空域被限制的原因。

These changes require action. Strong words in the aftermath of one tragedy must become actions that will prevent another. After MH17, ICAO set up a task force on conflict zones. It is considering recommending enhanced warnings from national aviation authorities, and a central system for sharing flight risk information. We should seize this opportunity to fix the flaws in the global aviation system.

实现这些改革要求我们付诸行动。在一场悲剧发生后所发表的强硬言辞必须转化为行动，以阻止另一场悲剧的发生。在MH17航班失事后，国际民航组织成立了一个负责冲突区域相关事项的工作小组。该小组正考虑建议加强来自各国航空管理机构的警告，并建立一个共享飞行风险信息的中央机制。我们应抓住这个机会，修复全球航空体系存在的缺陷。

After Air France Flight 447 crashed in 2009, investigators called for new aircraft tracking standards. Yet progress fizzled out over questions of cost and implementation. We cannot afford to wait for another tragedy.

在2009年法航447客机坠毁后，调查人员曾呼吁制定新的飞机跟踪标准。然而，由于成本和实施的问题，这一努力最终流产。等待另一场悲剧的发生是我们无法承受的。

Information sharing can save lives; that was the conclusion of intelligence services after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001. After MH17, we must choose collective security over national interest. We should commit to sharing flight risk information – among airlines, aviation bodies and nations. In so doing, we can honour those who lost their lives by making our skies safer for all.

信息共享可能会挽救生命；这是情报机构在2011年9•11恐怖袭击之后得出的结论。在MH17事件后，我们必须将共同的安全置于国家利益之上。我们应致力于在航空公司、航空组织和国家之间共享飞行风险信息。这样做，我们才能让我们的天空更加安全，以此来纪念那些逝去的生命。

The writer is prime minister of Malaysia

本文作者是马来西亚总理