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 .

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.

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. 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 $20billion (Dh73.4billion) a year. In fragile states, this conflict of interest could have dangerous consequences.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Information sharing can save lives; that was the conclusion of intelligence services after the terrorist attacks of September 11. 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.

- Financial Times

The writer is prime minister of Malaysia