If playback is interrupted, you can restart it.
Air Tanzania’s rapid reversal of its Moscow suspension highlights a much larger aviation safety question: How safe is it for international airlines to continue flying into Russian airspace while Ukrainian drones and Russian air-defense systems increasingly operate around major airports?
Air Tanzania has decided to resume flights between Dar es Salaam and Moscow on September 7, only days after announcing that the service would be suspended following a risk assessment.
The Tanzanian national carrier said it had conducted another assessment with relevant authorities and determined that operations could continue.
“The decision follows a routine risk assessment of the operating environment along the route,” the airline said.
The reversal is significant because the underlying security environment has not disappeared. Ukrainian drones continue to penetrate deep into Russian territory, Moscow airports have repeatedly experienced temporary closures, and European aviation authorities continue to advise airlines against operating in much of Russian airspace.
The situation exposes an increasingly stark divide in international aviation: some airlines continue flying to Russia, others temporarily cancel flights when drone activity increases, while European and North American carriers remain absent.
The Danger Is Not Simply a Ukrainian Drone Hitting an Airliner
The most obvious fear may be a passenger aircraft encountering a Ukrainian drone, but aviation safety specialists are concerned about a more complicated scenario.
When Ukrainian drones enter Russian territory, Russian air-defense systems are activated to intercept them. This creates an environment in which military radar, surface-to-air missiles, electronic warfare and civilian aircraft may simultaneously be operating in the same general area.
The danger therefore includes not only drones but also possible aircraft misidentification, missile fragments, air-defense activity, GPS/GNSS jamming and spoofing, and rapidly imposed airport or airspace closures.
Ukraine says it does not target civilian aviation. Nevertheless, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has publicly warned airlines and insurance companies that continued drone operations are making Russian airspace increasingly dangerous.
Russia rejects the characterization and says appropriate aviation security procedures remain in place.
EASA Says Airlines Should Stay Away
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, currently takes a considerably more cautious position.
Its Conflict Zone Information Bulletin covers Russian airspace west of longitude 60° East, including the Moscow, St. Petersburg, Rostov, Samara and Yekaterinburg flight-information regions.
EASA recommends that affected operators not operate within this airspace at any altitude. The warning is currently valid through January 31, 2027.
EASA specifically identifies the danger of Russian air-defense systems being activated in response to Ukrainian drone and missile attacks. It also warns about deficiencies in reliable civil-military airspace deconfliction and the possibility of civilian aircraft being unintentionally targeted.
Of particular concern is that previous incidents have occurred when Russian airspace had not been closed in advance, potentially leaving civilian aircraft inside an active military response environment.
Azerbaijan Airlines Changed the Risk Calculation
The danger is no longer purely theoretical.
The December 2024 crash involving Azerbaijan Airlines became a critical reference point in evaluating civilian aviation operations around Russia during Ukrainian drone attacks.
The aircraft was operating toward Grozny while Russian air defenses were responding to Ukrainian drones. Thirty-eight people were killed.
Russian President Vladimir Putin subsequently acknowledged that Russian missiles had detonated near the aircraft while Russian air defenses were responding to Ukrainian drones.
The incident demonstrated the precise scenario aviation safety experts fear: civilian aircraft operating in an environment where air-defense systems are simultaneously attempting to intercept hostile unmanned aircraft.
It does not mean that another passenger aircraft is likely to be hit. But commercial aviation operates on extraordinarily low tolerances for catastrophic risk, making even a very small additional probability important.
Moscow Airport Closures Are Already a Reality
The much more common consequence for passengers is disruption rather than physical danger. Moscow airports have repeatedly been temporarily restricted or closed during Ukrainian drone attacks.
On September 2, Moscow Sheremetyevo reportedly recorded 21 cancellations and 235 delays, while Vnukovo experienced 22 cancellations and 94 delays.
Flights may be forced to hold, divert, delay their departures or cancel altogether when Russian authorities impose temporary restrictions.
For travelers, this means the probability of inconvenience is substantially greater than the probability of an aviation accident. The risks can therefore be separated into three categories:
- Airport disruption:A significant and recurring operational risk during drone attacks.
- Diversion or cancellation:A material possibility, particularly for flights serving Moscow.
- A catastrophic drone or air-defense incident:Still a low-probability event for an individual passenger flight, but a non-zero risk considerably outside normal peacetime commercial aviation conditions.
Airlines Are Reaching Different Conclusions
Air Tanzania’s brief suspension illustrates how differently airlines are assessing the same operating environment.
The carrier initially announced that flights TC422 and TC423 between Dar es Salaam and Moscow would be suspended from September 4 following a risk assessment.
Hours later, the airline reassessed the situation and announced that flights would resume September 7.
Bookings have reopened, and passengers who had received refunds because of the suspension can reportedly rebook without additional charges.
Air Tanzania launched its Dar es Salaam-Moscow service via Zanzibar in July 2026 and operates three flights weekly. The route is strategically important to Tanzania’s tourism industry because Russia represents an important inbound tourism market.
Its decision to resume flying, however, should not be interpreted as evidence that the broader threat has disappeared. It means Air Tanzania and the relevant authorities concluded that the residual risk was acceptable for its operation.
That is different from declaring Russian airspace safe under normal international aviation standards.
Who Is Still Flying to Russia?
Russia remains connected to the international aviation network despite the disappearance of most Western airlines. Major airlines such from Turkey, the Gulf, China, Central Asia, and other countries continue operating Russian services.
Among the better-known international carriers maintaining connections are Turkish Airlines, Pegasus Airlines, Emirates, Etihad Airways, flydubai and other airlines from countries that have maintained aviation links with Russia.
Chinese, Central Asian, Caucasus, Serbian and Belarusian carriers also provide important international connectivity. Air Tanzania will again join that group when its Moscow service resumes.
Some airlines have nevertheless demonstrated a willingness to cancel individual flights when conditions deteriorate.
Pegasus, for example, temporarily canceled several Russian services during recent disruption, while flydubai has warned passengers that flights can be delayed or diverted as operating conditions are reassessed.
This creates several distinct airline responses to the Russian aviation environment.
Some carriers continue operating while monitoring the situation. Others maintain scheduled services but cancel individual rotations when drone activity or airport restrictions increase. Airlines such as Air Tanzania may temporarily suspend an entire route and then reinstate it after another assessment.
Western airlines, meanwhile, remain overwhelmingly outside Russian airspace.
Who Is Not Flying?
Major European, British and North American airlines generally do not fly to Russia.
Airlines including Lufthansa, British Airways, Air France, KLM, Finnair, SAS, LOT, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and American Airlines do not currently provide normal scheduled passenger services to Moscow.
Their absence cannot be attributed exclusively to drone risk. Sanctions, reciprocal airspace restrictions and regulatory measures imposed following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine already removed most Western airlines from Russian skies.
Nevertheless, EASA’s current conflict-zone warning adds a powerful independent aviation-safety reason for European operators to remain outside the affected airspace.
The United States Federal Aviation Administration also maintains restrictions affecting U.S. civil aviation operations in portions of Russian airspace.
GPS Jamming Adds Another Problem
Modern commercial aircraft do not depend exclusively on GPS, and pilots are trained to operate when satellite navigation becomes unreliable.
However, GNSS jamming and spoofing have become another feature of aviation around conflict areas.
Electronic warfare intended to interfere with drones can also affect civilian navigation signals.
Such interference does not automatically place an aircraft in immediate danger, but it increases cockpit workload and removes another layer of navigational certainty at precisely the time when military and civilian operations need reliable separation.
It therefore contributes to the cumulative risk rather than representing an isolated threat.
Russia Says Its Airports Remain Safe
Russian authorities dispute suggestions that the country’s aviation system has become unsafe.
The Transport Ministry and Russian aviation authorities say foreign carriers are familiar with existing security measures and that coordination between aviation, defense and security agencies protects civilian operations. Temporary airport closures themselves are evidence of those precautions.
Closing an airport when incoming drones are detected can substantially reduce exposure by keeping civilian aircraft away from an active interception environment.
The disagreement is therefore not over whether Russia takes precautions.
The critical question is whether those precautions reduce the remaining risk to a level acceptable for international commercial aviation. EASA’s answer remains no.
Flying to Moscow Is Not the Same as Normal Commercial Aviation
It would be misleading to suggest that passenger aircraft flying to Moscow are likely to be shot down. International airlines continue operating thousands of flights, and the probability of a catastrophic event on any particular flight remains low.
It would be equally misleading, however, to describe flying into western Russian airspace today as carrying ordinary peacetime aviation risk.
There is a documented precedent involving a civilian aircraft during Russian air-defense operations. Ukrainian drones routinely penetrate Russian territory. Airports around Moscow are periodically closed. Electronic navigation interference occurs, and Europe’s aviation safety regulator recommends avoiding a large portion of Russian airspace altogether.
The United Kingdom also advises against all travel to Russia and specifically identifies drone attacks, Russian air-defense activity, flight disruptions, diversions and cancellations among the risks travelers should consider.
Air Tanzania’s Decision Does Not Settle the Question
Air Tanzania’s decision to restart Moscow flights illustrates the fundamental dilemma facing international aviation.
A carrier can determine that a flight is operationally acceptable while another airline or aviation regulator reaches a completely different conclusion.
Emirates, Etihad, Turkish Airlines, flydubai and other major international carriers continuing to serve Russia provide evidence that professional airline safety departments do not universally consider the residual risk intolerable.
Leave a Comment