All the info from ATC is in that just vague enough category that you wonder if it’s just a language barrier issue or if what you’re thinking is really happening.
I feel like the pilot knew something was off, but eventually went along with it because he didn’t really have any other choice.
Is Belarus going to become another country international airlines avoid flying over?
The whole "there's a bomb that can be detonated over Vilnius" so you have to divert to an airport further away, where I am speaking from" thing sounds like a B-movie plot.
At the point they diverted they could have also flown to Kaunas (a Ryanair base) if the concern was to avoid flying over Vilnius. That would also have been closer than Minsk.
Flight plans include alternate airports, and Minsk is far enough away compared to other airports to not be on a filed flight plan for this particular route.
Filed alternatives are for fuel planning and satisfying the bureaucracy (showing the flight complies with ETOPS etc).
In a real emergency the pilots will select the most convenient airport based on whatever factors they are presented with. Especially so in today's world of paperless cockpits, in the past having the correct approaches to hand might have tipped the balance in favour of a planned alternative.
Russia yes, but Ukraine has no reason not to follow suit. Even ignoring the fact that this is the right thing to do, they want good relations with the EU and NATO instead of being isolated like Belarus.
> Pilot: Again, this recommendation to divert to Minsk where did it come from? Where did it come from? Company? Did it come from departure airport authorities or arrival airport authorities?
Is it usual for a pilot to ask for all this information? From a "casual reader" perspective, it looks like the pilot really did not want to divert, but this might just be my reading.
Definitely not usual. As for the pilot being suspicious, I agree. The plane was also only about 30 km (=2-3 min flying time) from the Lithuanian border. Imagine if the pilot had decided to make the attempt. A Belarusian MiG violating NATO airspace?
Russia had no reasons to take down that plane. The air space was open with planes flying over Donbas every day. A bunch of monkeys mistook it for a Ukrainian military plane and blew it up.
No, it was an explicit order, close down the airspace no matter what. This implied shooting everything that flies in the most literal sense. They knew fully they were shooting a civilian plane.
In the celebratory Facebook post right after the shooting they claimed it was a military transport. In the intercepted cell phone call by a militant to a commander from the crash site they find out it's a civilian plane because they find the bodies and luggage.
Sources are in Russian. Russian separatists told shortly after the incident:
"В районе Тореза только что сбили самолет Ан-26, валяется где-то за шахтой Прогресс. Предупреждали же - не летать в "нашем небе". А вот и видео-подтверждение очередного "птичкопада". Птичка упала за террикон, жилой сектор не зацепила. Мирные люди не пострадали. А также еще есть информация о втором сбитом самолете, вроде бы Су", - говорится в сообщении Стрелкова.
"In the area of Torez, an An-26 plane has just been shot down, lying somewhere behind the Progress mine. We warned not to fly in our sky. And here is a video confirmation of the next birdfall. Civilians were not injured. And there is also information about the second downed plane, like Su, "- said in the message of Strelkov.
Also https://youtu.be/_rbzlMeGToI?t=83 the "Cossack" referred in other tapes as a unit commander to whom the battery belonged pretty much says "and so? fuck them, we'll say they are spies, it's war"
It's surprising to see it being 7 years since, and there are still people from the West still dead convinced in finding "alternative facts."
There is one, and only ground truth. A battery had an order to "shoot everything that flies," and that's what they did within hours of the order.
Ukrainians blew their extremely valuable intercept source to bring this to attention of the world.
Now, seven year later, EU keeps soiling their pants, and still can't gather enough courage to point a finger on Russia. They are trying their hardest to pretend that they don't know what's going on.
Even if the shutdown was genuinely inadvertent, it would still be a cause for an immediate retaliation to any normal country.
And that source confirms the official version? They didn't have orders to shoot down anything, they had orders to shoot down anything of the Ukrainian military.
An-26 is a military cargo plane, a legitimate target in their eyes. Why on earth would they shoot down neutral civilian airliners, of which there were many?
Well what does violating the airspace in pursuit of the passanger plane achieve in this case? Of course the implication is that the MiG could have shot them down.
Would love some sources on that, because that would be a big issue. Russians regularly fly in international airspace along the Norwegian coast and are intercepted there by Norwegian fighters, but I have never heard about them actually violating Norwegian airspace. This is the closest I know of:
thank you. and to take this analysis a step further, claims of borders are also not static or a-political. (c.f. Kashmir). Wikipedia keeps a list of these [0]. On the other side of Asia, China makes a larger claim of maritime territory than the US recognizes...and the US Navy regularly sales through those waters [1].
I would encourage people to make a 2 by 2 matrix for soem perspective. Pick two country's...on one axis and put both on there as the 'violated' border and the 'violator' on the other. write headlines for all four boxes.
and to be clear to anyone not reading the parent. The headline and article wearywanderer mentions are literal quotes. The headline is the headline, and the quote from the article is literally the first sentence. They don't match as a factual matter.
Russian and NATO air forces regularly violate each others airspace (and the same with Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War), but not while making even implied specific threats to civil aviation. (Also, though usually, not quite always without consequence, e.g, the Russian aircraft shot down by Turkey in 2015. To be fair, this was on an actual combat mission and not a routine intrusion, but then again neither would the Belarussian intrusion being imagined have been the routine kind.)
There's a difference between countries routinely buzzing airspace with military aircraft to show they can and test the response, and entering airspace with military aircraft to threaten a foreign civilian airliner, which could reasonably be interpreted as an act of war.
I beg to differ. Controllers are not ultimately responsible for the safety of a plane and its passengers. The pilots not only had a right but IMO a duty to make sure they understood the situation and the request before making any decision to divert.
The Belarusian MiG wouldn't have followed them into EU airspace. This was quite obviously a succesful social engineering attempt on the ATC's part to divert the plane to Minsk. This is why it's so outrageous and why the international community took such swift action.
If you were told there is a bomb on board your plane, would you not be the slightest bit interested in some additional information about where that intelligence has come from?
I suspect airlines get hoax bomb threats on a regular basis so pilots are keen to understand the source and veracity of the threats.
Yes, I think it's normal to ask for more information while complying with instructions from ATC, [their] workload permitting. And you're required to comply with ATC instructions except in an emergency (doesn't necessarily have to be declared).
It would seem so, as that would be a situation which threatens the safety of the aircraft, which is a pretty good definition of an emergency.
I've not gone through the detail yet, but depending on altitude of the aircraft at the time of the alert, and its speed, continuing onward to Lithuania may have made more sense for the crew - if they were at or near cruising altitude, you're talking about (say) 100 nm of lateral distance to execute the descent (for a normal descent profile).
Under normal circumstances, you would be unlikely to want to divert to a new airport for this emergency landing, unless there was an issue like poor visibility or very limited emergency services at your destination - since diverting would likely require new descent and approach calculation and routing and briefing.
I haven't had time to follow this episode to the level of detail I normally would. I would expect a number of factors at play around hesitancy, not limited to:
* Expectation of contact on other frequencies.
* Minsk directly stating bomb on board with connection to Vilnius (may not be protocol)
* Airport staff sent email (again, is this correct protocol?)
* Message being that activation is over Vilnius (pilot may have accepted that, but also accepted that they had sufficient fuel to hold)
* Pilot considering bomb may be activated by altitude (hence wanting to hold versus make immediate landing in place with relatively poor facilities)
* Lack of NATO or other western agency involvement. Again, this is a sudden and extremely difficult situation, but pilot probably knows they fuel to make a more considered decision on actions.
I look forward to learning more from this incident. You should be able to trust any controller is acting in good faith as a civilian navigator, but that's clearly not the case.
>> You should be able to trust any controller is acting in good faith as a civilian navigator, but that's clearly not the case.
Maybe the controller believed the information they had? I'm sure it wasn't their plan to do this, so someone told them something. But then we can move your statement to the next layer - the controller should be able to trust that someone giving them that kind of information is acting in good faith. Apparently not in Belarus.
Which is one particularly heinous aspect of this whole saga btw - the loss of trust due to the abuse of the emergency protocols. A bit like abusing the Red Cross or a white flag to commit an attack in war. One just doesn’t do that.
If they genuinely believed the information, why were they so circuitous in answering the captains questions? For example
> Pilot: Again, this recommendation to divert to Minsk where did it come from? Where did it come from? Company? Did it come from departure airport authorities or arrival airport authorities?
> Controller: This is our recommendations.
I'm more like to believe that the ATC controller was acting under duress
PIC is ultimately responsible for safety of flight, not controllers or authorities. Given the unusual message which is essentially asking the pilot to declare emergency and oddly specific instructions to divert I don't think this is unusual. Normally in an emergency the pilot would divert to either the filed alternate airport or to another at the pilot's discretion, they would not be told specifically where to go (they might be offered a suggestion, they would often even ask the controller for suggestions since the controller has all the weather at hand, but it would be odd in the US at least for a controller to just directly tell a pilot where to divert as this is understood to be the pilot's call). The transcript gives the feeling the pilot was confused about why they were being given instructions to divert to Minsk which I would assume was not their filed alternate. Pilots in general and airliners especially do not like last-minute changes of plan because they are a good way for an accident to happen, that's why there are planned and filed alternates.
Or put more simply: normally in an emergency the controller asks the pilot what they want to do ("say intentions"). The controller telling the pilot what to do is very weird and inconsistent with the general concept of the PIC as ultimately in command.
To be more precise, it's the designation of the pilot who is responsible for the plane, who may or may not be the pilot who is currently physically flying the plane.
In situations where a controller believes that an aircraft has hostile intent (say believe it's been hijacked), then they (and/or air force) will give specific instructions. Obviously if you think you might have a 9/11 situation with a plane coming into say London, you tell them to divert to Stansted (well away from the city). If they continue flying to central London, then at some point you have to take the decision to shoot it down, or hope that the pilot isn't going to fly into a building.
That decision would probably come from the PM in the UK.
An engine failure situation then sure, it's upto the pilot.
(Of course in this specific case it was a hostile government hijacking a commercial plane and there was no legitimate reason at all to divert to Minsk)
This is kind of a weird area. I only have the US FAR/AIM in front of me, a lot of this is harmonized internationally by ICAO but I'm not sure how complete that is in these more edge cases. But in general there is no procedure that allows a controller to "take command" of an airplane, however, there is a procedure (this is ICAO harmonized) for the military to instruct aircraft via emergency security control (ESCAT) or intercept. In the case of ESCAT the book doesn't say compliance is mandatory but rather expected, so presumably a PIC could refuse to comply under the normal safety of flight rules (a pilot is not obligated to obey any instruction that, in their judgment, puts the aircraft in danger). In the case of intercept compliance is mandatory, but intercept is also a very specific procedure which is not reported to have occurred here. At least from the reporting it sounds more like the fighter that was sent appeared as an escort, which is a distinct situation from intercept (and fairly normal in a bomb threat situation, in order to immediately report the what and where if a bomb does go off to speed SAR response). For the US rules see AIM 5-6-12 and up. It does not appear that any of these rules were invoked in this situation.
I certainly have no idea on the formality, I do remember on 9/11 discussion about whether the airforce had shot down flight 93.
There was a British "reality tv" show a few years later where some idiots got to run the country (heh). One scenario had a plane approaching London and refusing to divert to Stansted. The people 'in charge' just ran the clock down, not making the decision to fire, and the plane crashed into westminster, so not a total loss I guess.
I know I'm a bit late to respond, but I think you're thinking of Crisis Command (2004). There's a copy floating around on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkSeuD-8yA
It is not uncommon in US for ATC to offer pilot options for diversion or emergency landing when pilot declares an emergency. Good controllers understand that pilot might be dealing with flying airplane and dealing with emergency (e.g. engine failure) and offering help with navigation. Of course, it is PIC responsibility to select the best option and communicate to ATC about it.
"I intend to ditch into the Hudson River as we cannot reach an alternative airport" would have been clearer and avoided wasting time clarifying intentions.
Also, when you look at the flight path, the Minsk airport was MUCH further from the Vilnius airport they intended to land at. They were almost to their destination and ALMOST out of Belarus airspace.
The first sentence the controller said explains why the pilot wasn't supposed to land at the Vilnius airport. I want to avoid quoting the line for fear of my account being flagged in government systems.
Is it unusual for a human being having a human response? This request was obvious raising a lot of alarm bells. Nobody should follow order blindly. You act like a pilot is some sort of butler who should only do as followed?
I don't think you can even ask if it's usual for a pilot because this request was anything but usual.
Anecdotal but Ryanair also really really don’t want to be diverting.
I remember circling an airport for 2 hours with them waiting for very heavy snow to be cleared for a runway! Eventually they diverted.
Is this specific to Ryanair? I imagine a plane not landing at the intended destination airport is much more disruptive than being late to that destination. E.g. passengers waiting at the destination airport for a flight involving that incoming plane, different airlines having only a fixed number of gates leased at a specific airport, etc
This is actually a good development. A number of countries purporting to hold the highest standards on human rights were actually the ones to use this tactic of diverting flights to apprehended those they deemed to be their enemies. I am referring to the United States and EU countries in the Snowden case and other cases before that. They lowered the bar first. Now Belarus joined to the new level. It’ll be interesting to see the impact this has on their plans to keep lowering the bar for everyone in the world. Or perhaps some common sense will prevail?
AFAIK, countries may lawfully deny entry to their airspace. If the outcome is that an aeroplane has to divert its route, well, tough luck. Those countries played their cards.
To be a comparable case two conditions should be met, namely that a) the bomb threat is real, and b) landing in Minsk the most rational decision.
If both a) and b) are real, well, everything was lawfully managed and the blogger just had bad luck. But if they aren't, no it's not the same case at all.
Your thoughts remind me a bit of the Gabriel character is the end of the movie Constantine - (paraphrased) Since you humans can't seem to appreciate what God's granted you in this free will thing, I'm going to help bring hell on Earth and mass murder you wholesale, so the ones left over will be more appreciative"
Not saying that I have any better alternative... politics have always seemed to me to be more of a "I just want to hold onto control of anything I can manage" system, as opposed to a "I'm going to try to bring understanding and the best good for all" system.
I don’t get why comments mentioning the forced landing of Morales’ plane in Austria, and searching for Snowden in the plane (under Obama) get downvoted. US/EU made a precedent and now everyone is surprised when Lukashenko simply copied their tactics.
If one is not really up to par as a wikipedia editor, the more informative link could be dropped on the talk page for the main article. Then maybe an editor will incorporate it.
It's now flagged. A comment saying that the forced landing of the President of Bolvia's plane in Austria, due to the US belief that Snowdon was on board, could be somehow relevant to the forced landing of a Ryanair flight in Belarus of someone the government believes is damaging them.
My information is different (e.g. Greenwalds account: Without enough fuel to fly an alternative route, the Bolivian pilot was forced to make a U-turn and land in Vienna.)
If the pilot had enough fuel to reach his original proposed refuelling stop in the Canary Islands, he had enough fuel to get back to Russia
(The cockpit audio suggests the pilot actually was worried about the amount of fuel he had left as he reported an issue with his fuel gauge, but "Morales forced to land by minor technical issue" isn't quite as compelling a story...)
It's not analogous. The Morales incident was wrong, but not the same.
Firstly, Morales' plane wasn't a civilian airliner, it was his government's private jet. Secondly, no fake bomb threat was involved. Thirdly, nobody was arrested.
And it's now being employed as a "whatabout" distortion by those sympathetic to (or uncritical of) the Belarusian action. The two incidents differ drastically. Actions of a state against another state's leaders is one thing. Actions against civilian aircraft is another thing entirely.
I don't believe those making the analogy are sympathetic to or uncritical of the Belarus government, rather they are saying "I told you so" or "the Morales incident set a precedent, surprise!". Now, Belarus might have pulled this stunt even if the Morales incident had never happened, and that's a fine counterpoint, but you really should not ascribe malice to those who point to the similarities in the two incidents because it's clearly not [always] the case. Should I ascribe malice to your ascribing malice? Please be polite.
> Actions of a state against another state's leaders is one thing. Actions against civilian aircraft is another thing entirely.
Wars have been fought over both, attacks on state ships, and attacks on civilian ships. Both are casus belli. Attacks on ships carrying heads of state are particularly problematic absent war, so technically the Morales incident was the worse one, yes (though, of course, if he'd been carrying Snowden then that would in itself have been casus belli), but that does not excuse attacks on civilians.
To whom? No-one on this site was instrumental in deciding to hinder Morales's flight, and I doubt many supported the action at the time. It's obnoxious and comes off like trolling for an argument. Dispassionately making the link is one thing, but most of the comments of this form I've seen are borderline tu quoque nationalist trolling.
The thing is that there have been many incidents like this, not just the Snowden incident. Israel has done this kind of thing before, dating back to decades ago (and kidnapped people [NAZI war criminals, so frankly probably justified] from other countries territory, too).
I doubt Belarus needed the Morales thing as a cover.
> Wars have been fought over both, attacks on state ships, and attacks on civilian ships.
Yes, this was the casus belli for the war of 1812, supposedly. But the reality in statecraft is that this is rarely the actual reason and there's much more in depth and structural reasons for the start of war.
Sure, but I don't think people mentioning the much-more-recent Morales incident are doing it because they're shills for Belarus. I seriously doubt Glenn freaking Greenwald is a shill for Belarus just because he wrote an article about the two incidents -- would anyone argue that he is?
> [...] (and kidnapped people [NAZI war criminals, so frankly probably justified] from other countries [...]
Yes, indeed, Israel's kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina was justified. Snowden is not a Nazi war criminal though, so the comparison only goes so far -- Snowden -at least thus far- is a much more pedestrian sort of criminal than a war criminal. It is possible to feel that the kidnapping of a war criminal abroad is justified and also feel that the kidnapping of a mere spy abroad is not.
> I doubt Belarus needed the Morales thing as a cover.
Have they mentioned it? Anyways, it's easy propaganda for them, isn't it. Sure, it can't be avoided to give the other side some propaganda wins from time to time.
> Yes, this was the casus belli for the war of 1812, supposedly. [...]
Not only. It was also the reason that the Marines exist, as they fought a small war in Tripoli over kidnapping of civilians. I'm sure there are many examples. Anyways, my point is just that we can't blanket condemn people who link these two incidents as shills for Lukashenko.
>> And it's now being employed as a "whatabout" distortion by those sympathetic to (or uncritical of) the Belarusian action.
You've made a huge assumption there, and characterisation, and that's exactly the problem. I and many others are not sympathetic or uncritical of the action at all. I'm just critical of not having debate about the differences between this and other actions and removing the debate.
I'd say, yes, it was a civilian airliner. It affects more people. However to do it to a private jet too shows precedent to abandon international norms.
Nobody being arrested is merely because Snowdon wasn't aboard. If he was, he'd have been arrested.
And the diversion of any plane to an airspace where the arrest of someone on board can take place by a foreign power, is ultimately what is the issue here isn't it? And there are enough obvious parallels that at least we have the discussion, not just remove the discussion forthwith.
Perhaps the OP was frustrated because this has been discussed ad nauseam in other threads, so may be you should check them out, but the two incidents are completely different.
Morales flight was denied the airspace in advance before it approached any of those airspace. They could go back to Russia if preferred. They chose to land in Vienna. Ryannair's flight was only informed of the fake bomb threat when it was already in Belarus's airspace. They were escorted by military jets. They didn't have a choice.
Morales incident, while being a bullying action, is legal, since countries have exclusive right over their airspace and can allow or deny any flight at their discreetion. At no time passengers were in danger, not to mention they were free to pick another course of action such as going back to Russia. No military jets involved.
Ryannair incident is unprecedented. Belarus hijacked another country's aircraft, faked bomb threats for their own gain. Passengers were at risk, as with any time a flight is disrupted by military jets. No wonder EU's reaction is swift and strong.
There is a bit of a difference between using a legal framework to enforce a policy (the parties know what to expect) and arbitrarely chasing a commercial jet with a MiG (the parties don't know what to expect).
Because most of those comments are of the form "the US did this once, so why is everyone upset about Belarus doing this?" as if trying to point out some hypocrisy, or defend Belarus. (I can't read the original comment now since it's flagged, so maybe it's not such a comment.)
Which presupposes that the readers are "supporters" of either the US/EU or Belarus/Russia. As if geopolitical conversations are sports matches, and nuanced observations based on dispassionate logical thought and not political or national affiliation are not possible. Gag me with a spoon.
At best, these comments derail the conversation. At worst, they are trolling or borderline nationalist propaganda. Either way they drag down the quality of discussion here on HN.
Pointing out that the US's earlier actions gave Belarus cover to "justify" such actions is at least mildly interesting as dispassionate geopolitical conversation, but that's not what most of these comments are.
MSNBC reported on some CNN reporting the other week, while acknowledging that they haven't independently verified it yet. MSNBC was not saying that CNN isn't credible, it's just that they like to clarify that they haven't verified it themselves yet.
Yes, still unencrypted but I don't think any ATCs upload their recordings themselves. It's volunteers that record and upload recordings to sites like liveatc.net. So it requires that someone was already recording the ATC at Minsk for this recording to be available. Not sure how big the aviation community is in Belarus but I took a quick look and couldn't find anything.
Private pilot here. ATC are usually trained to follow very specific dialogues, and pilots are trained to expect them. ATC and pilots are also together in somewhat of a fraternity. This would be a very unusual dialogue and so it makes sense to me that the ATC would feel the need to decorate the instruction, given that it is not one the pilot nor ATC would have ever participated in before.
Every time someone makes this comparison all it does is strengthen Lukashenko and Putin's propaganda machine. It doesn't help Protasevich, it doesn't help Snowden, and it doesn't create room for any positive political change.
If the comparison to a recent event is strengthening the propaganda machine of those regimes, that says a lot more about said recent event than it does about those regimes.
You are assuming there is a neutral third party. Yes, the comparison does strengthen Putin's propaganda machine. But not mentioning it strengthens the US propaganda machine. You are picking sides either way.
Not mentioning it does nothing. The US propaganda machine is not hurt in any way by mentioning it. It happened nearly a decade ago and is not really a similar situation in any way except that it involved a plane.
How is it apt? In one case a fake bomb threat and a fighter jet force land a commercial flight for political reasons of a despot. on the other side refusal to allow air travel through sovereign air space of democratic countries, and was "downed" after failing to comply.
This is far from apt comparison.
politically motivated interference with airliners in flight, to force a landing and arrest people in transit who are currently not within your jurisdiction
Denying access to airspace of a private plane feels a little different than forcing a commercial plane to land with threat (and real actions) of violence. The level of crimes involved is also an important distinction. What Snowden did is illegal in pretty much every single country in the world (if committed against that country). On the other hand, what Protasevich did, many countries have laws to protect such actions. I'm not saying I agree with how either situation was handled (or laws involved, etc), but a 1:1 correlation between the two is ignoring important details.
I think you're choosing an arbitrary standard to defend your narrative. "Protasevich broke laws, but these are not laws that we consider bad."
I could also say that "being a whistleblower about a government agency violating the rights of millions of it's citizens" is something that Western democracies claim to protect, when it's not happening to themselves.
To me it seems minor in the grand scheme of things. It's still trickery. I assume that in the Snowden case the permissions were withdrawn precisely to force a landing in a country where Snowden could be arrested. Belarus doesn't have the same alliances, so they resort to dirtier trickery to accomplish the same goal
It definitely is not. Denying someone access to airspace the way they did for Snowden to a gov’t level official is the equivalent of a bouncer stopping just the head of a competing club from entering - so the cops could grab him. Not seen as supportive, but not that crazy.
What happened in this case is the state level equivalent of holding someone and their friends who were walking on the sidewalk in front of your house at gun point - and then dragging the one you thought had spray painted your house a week earlier into your basement never to be seen again.
There is zero expectation that someone would or could use state level military assets to force a civil airplane flying under legal authorization and long standing agreements with no expectation of it landing in your country, under the flag of another nation, to grab someone you like.
It’s not like it hasn’t been possible, it’s just exceptionally hostile to everyone else and in violation of pretty much every international norm.
I don't disagree with you. Yes, one is worse than the other.
The point that I'm making is that the distinction is dwarfed by the baseness of the paradigm itself: politically motivated interference with airliners in flight, to force a landing and arrest people in transit who are currently not within your jurisdiction. Anyway you want to look at it this happened in both cases, and we shouldn't be celebrating "ooh, but technically, we just withdrew permissions so it's not that bad is it?"
But that is my point - the morales flight incident wasn't an airliner. Near as I can dig up, there is no evidence anyone but Morales was on it and staff. It's more equivalent to stopping an officials car (via roadblock) than the hijacking of a civil airliner at gunpoint (or fighter jet point).
It's not a distinction without a difference, these are big differences with many non-subtle distinctions.
Laws don't really work in countries like Russia or Belarus. Vague laws that encompass anything under the sun + complete lack of judiciary independence means that laws are whatever Lukashenko, Putin, or a careerist prosecutor (who needs convictions) wants them to be in a particular case. There is a saying in Russian speaking countries "Был бы человек, а статья найдётся" which can be roughly translated as "For every man, there's a law to convict him under".
The pilot is not powerless at all in "usual" emergencies. Declaring an emergency allows them to do pretty much anything. Once you get hijacked by a fighter plane though, that's a different story.
Indeed, based on the caa.gov.by domain this is presumably an authentic/official Belarus release, so you need to interpret it as such - it's their version of the story.
Reuters seems to have reposted a shorter version of the .by statement. They should have waited until Lithuania publishes their transcript or some amateur listening station releases their audio recording.
They could officially confirm this transcript then (if it's legit)?
I mean we shouldn't trust Lukashenko with this stuff, he officially released some wild fakes:
>Alyaksandr Lukashenka declared recently that he got proof that Western powers stand behind both the Navalny case and the protests in Belarus. 4 September, the Belarusian security services, KGB (yes, KGB), published an audio recording of a super-secret conversation between officers of the German and Polish special forces, discussing details on the Navalny poisoning and noting that Lukashenka has proven to be a hard nut to crack.
Looking forward to read the transcripts from the cockpit voice recorder. Curious to know whether the pilots knew or suspected that there were intelligence operatives on board.
It is asinine to compare the two situations. Greenwald is wrongly equating the two together for his puppeteers.
1) Snowden had already been charged at that point and was running from the law. Morales's plane was diverted because it was believed to be providing passage to a criminal. While I don't know what Snowden did was right or wrong, it is clear that Snowden broke laws. His intentions might have been good but he broke some very serious laws.
2) Roman Protasevich, on the other hand, is a blogger. He hasn't released any state secrets that he swore an oath to protect.
Even if you believe that there's little difference between Snowden and Protasevich, the scenarios are clearly different. Rescinding permission to transit is a far cry from falsely reporting a bomb threat, backing it up with military force, and then searching the plane and taking multiple passengers into custody as a condition of the plane's release.
They might have been intercepted by military. It is doubtful that they would have been shot down, but it would have been legal to do so.
The big difference is: No one forced them to land at a specific location -- they could have turned around and fly all the way back to Russia had they desired to do so. They landed in Austria because they decided to go to a neutral country and that they wanted to avoid NATO.
It is fairly obvious that not letting someone enter is very different from letting enter and then coerce.
> they could have turned around and fly all the way back to Russia had they desired to do so.
Not sure if it's that simple, the plane has limited fuel and if they are banned from most of Europe's airspace on the way back it might become inevitable to choose between unauthorized entry or crashing down. And that's assuming Russia would also not ban them, which is also a risk when you're already in the air.
Morales was the President of Bolivia. Thought experiment -- if a country like China or Brazil forced Air Force One down to search, how do you think the Americans would react?
It was really rather close to an act of war. There's a reason the Austrians rushed their president out of bed to go have tea with Morales while he waited.
Snowden case is worse than Protasevich. They diverted a plane of a president of another country. Snowden dennounced a government that was breaking the law. He wasn't convicted of anything, so he as innocent.
The two cases are a menace to democratic societies. I'm appalled that someone can find one terrible and the other one something normal. Great example of double standards.
The US (really its NATO allies) made no attempt to arrest Snowden (not that he was present) on the Morales plane. They simply said you can't fly him out over NATO airspace. If they wanted to pull the trick used here, they would have let Morales into German airspace and then intercepted the aircraft and forced it down. They did not.
> And you also don't have enough gas to go anywhere else.
This is just laughably spun. That airplane was fueled up for a flight To South America. Pretending like somehow it had to go through Germany or else run out of gas is just ridiculous. Turn around, fuel up in Moscow where you took off from, and fly back to the east if you want. It's an airplane. Don't be silly.
And it's a digression anyway. Even if this would have prevented Morales from reaching Bolivia in that jet, it's STILL not the same thing as forcing his plane down with threat of arms, forcing an evacuation, and arresting his passengers.
I have seen this line of whataboutist reasoning as a counterpoint in every single forum that approaches this topic.
I can't understand how such a contrived equalization is spread in so many different forums.
The other replies make excellent, well-sourced points for the distinction of the Morales and Belarusian situations, so I won't repeat them. It seems easy to understand and prove this distinction.
I'm genuinely curious if this whataboutist reasoning could be contributed to by an active campaign to muddy the Belarus discussion or just anti-west/pro-anarchy idealisms.
As someone who has brought this up in previous discussions, I just want people to criticize both events (not necessarily equally) and pressure their own governments to be better instead of forgetting Snowden, who is still not able to go back home or to most of the western world.
Pilot: Again, this recommendation to divert to Minsk where did it come from? Where did it come from? Company? Did it come from departure airport authorities or arrival airport authorities?
There he was on the right track to do what we always recommend to avoid being fished: Independently verify from the original source.
Controller: This is our recommendations.
Minsk thwarts it by telling the truth and going into Milgram Experiment mode:
I think what you are doing ia astroturfing but just in case anyone believes this bullshit, there is zero doubt that a fighter jet went up and 'escorted' the plane.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
MINSK, May 23. /TASS/. Belarus’ defense ministry has confirmed that a MiG-29 fighter jet was scrambled on Sunday to escort the Ryanair passenger plane that made emergency landing at Minsk’s airport.
"After the polit[sic] of this civil aircraft (the Ryanair plane - TASS) decided to land at an alternate airport (Minsk-2) and turned the plane towards Minsk, it was decided to scramble a MiG-29 crew on duty from the Baranovichi airport (Brest region)," the ministry said on its Telegram channel, citing Andrei Gurtsevich, chief of the air operations and first deputy commander of Belarus air and air defense forces.
Are you for real? When a fighter jet intercepts you, you damn well know it. That's the whole point of fighter jets intercepting planes; they are impossible for pilots to ignore.
Assuming the transcript is genuine and reasonably complete, then I would be surprised if captain would have been aware of their escort (if it existed), at least before making the decision to divert to Minsk. Feels like it is something that would have come up in the communication.
Also, sky is pretty big, and a MiG-29 has no problem tracking and following a fat passenger jet at a distance. Most likely only way pilot could have noticed the MiG would have been if the MiG would have intentionally made itself seen, i.e. flying very close by.
Fighters can optionally turn on the same transponders (but with different identifiers) as normal civilian aircraft, right? It's not impossible for it to have been intentionally showing it's presence without flying close.
I wrote this primarily because I think of the situation and the outcome as unfortunate. I'm not sure the pilot had a chance but rather I find it remarkable that he tried hard to do the right thing.
What about the claim that there was a bomb on that plane? From what I have read there was an email sent from a protonmail account and was talking about the Israel/Hamas situation.
If one attempts to scratch the facade of a "great" long-ruling leader one will be torn down with all available means. Regardless whether the leader is a chancellor of a developed country, member of a major political dynasty in superpower country, or a head of a poor authocratic state. Only difference is Belarus cannot afford to buy some positive press. Go ahead western world, agitate these poor youngsters to hop into abyss. They don't seem to be aware that the stake is not IG sponsorship deal but their life.
Are airliners in contact with their airlines, via say satelite phone?
Would the pilot be able to verify with Ryanair HQ whether they know about the bomb threat they are being fed from ATC?
Of course when the recomendation is accompanied by a fighter jet one doesn't have a choice regardless, but I'm still curious whether they are at ATC's mercy for information.
The people who collaborate with these regimes should be publicly named. I wouldn't be surprised if the agents would have detonated an actual bomb if the fake threat hadn't worked.
Honestly, it's becoming harder by the day to view them as people. Ever since 2014 I've wonder if the world would simply be better off without Russia and it's satellite states. I've never met someone from these countries that was worthwhile. Not once.
Given that it's simple for anyone to setup a powerful radio to spoof ATC, and it probably would be too hard to sabotage the real ATC radio, I'm surprised planes haven't been hijacked like this before, but without the use of official ATC.
206 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 265 ms ] threadI feel like the pilot knew something was off, but eventually went along with it because he didn’t really have any other choice.
Is Belarus going to become another country international airlines avoid flying over?
The whole "there's a bomb that can be detonated over Vilnius" so you have to divert to an airport further away, where I am speaking from" thing sounds like a B-movie plot.
In a real emergency the pilots will select the most convenient airport based on whatever factors they are presented with. Especially so in today's world of paperless cockpits, in the past having the correct approaches to hand might have tipped the balance in favour of a planned alternative.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/24/999920538/eu-asks-all-eu-base...
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37750.htm
That was an early rumor from another Nexta editor:
>Then when the plane has entered Belarus airspace KGB officers initiated a fight with the Ryanair crew
>insisting there’s an IED onboard. Eventually the crew was forced to send out SOS (literally moments before the plane would've left Belarus airspace).
https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1396446650718117890
I think it's still unconfirmed (or even can be called disproved at this point)?
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20210525165724/https://www.reute...
Is it usual for a pilot to ask for all this information? From a "casual reader" perspective, it looks like the pilot really did not want to divert, but this might just be my reading.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/world/europe/ukraine-mh17-int...
The official investigation concluded it was a mistake by poorly trained soldiers who thought they were downing a military An-26 plane.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
"В районе Тореза только что сбили самолет Ан-26, валяется где-то за шахтой Прогресс. Предупреждали же - не летать в "нашем небе". А вот и видео-подтверждение очередного "птичкопада". Птичка упала за террикон, жилой сектор не зацепила. Мирные люди не пострадали. А также еще есть информация о втором сбитом самолете, вроде бы Су", - говорится в сообщении Стрелкова.
"In the area of Torez, an An-26 plane has just been shot down, lying somewhere behind the Progress mine. We warned not to fly in our sky. And here is a video confirmation of the next birdfall. Civilians were not injured. And there is also information about the second downed plane, like Su, "- said in the message of Strelkov.
It's surprising to see it being 7 years since, and there are still people from the West still dead convinced in finding "alternative facts."
There is one, and only ground truth. A battery had an order to "shoot everything that flies," and that's what they did within hours of the order.
There is no "alternative facts" there. An order to shoot everything that flies, and they did it.
There are hours, and hours of Ukrainian intercepts, probably listened by every Western intelligence agency 100 times over.
If that doesn't seal the deal, it's for people who fully willingly choosing to believe in a lie for sake of playing a cause celebre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot#:~:text=In%20poli....
Ukrainians blew their extremely valuable intercept source to bring this to attention of the world.
Now, seven year later, EU keeps soiling their pants, and still can't gather enough courage to point a finger on Russia. They are trying their hardest to pretend that they don't know what's going on.
Even if the shutdown was genuinely inadvertent, it would still be a cause for an immediate retaliation to any normal country.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53367425
https://www.rferl.org/a/dutch-court-rejects-request-to-inves...
I don't think that EU doesn't keep its finger pointed to Russia. Russia is heavily sanctioned already, what do you expect EU to do, invade them ?
An-26 is a military cargo plane, a legitimate target in their eyes. Why on earth would they shoot down neutral civilian airliners, of which there were many?
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/02/11-russia...
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/russian-aircraft-violate-eur...
Article: "NATO jets intercepted Russian planes flying close to NATO airspace nearly 300 times in 2019, an alliance official said"
These do not mean the same thing.
I would encourage people to make a 2 by 2 matrix for soem perspective. Pick two country's...on one axis and put both on there as the 'violated' border and the 'violator' on the other. write headlines for all four boxes.
and to be clear to anyone not reading the parent. The headline and article wearywanderer mentions are literal quotes. The headline is the headline, and the quote from the article is literally the first sentence. They don't match as a factual matter.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-says-us-warship-il...
- https://news.err.ee/1608203641/russian-aircraft-violates-est... - https://euobserver.com/tickers/126198
etc...
Sources in Swedish:
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/tre-ryska-militarflygplan...
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/expressen-ryskt-stridsfly...
I suspect airlines get hoax bomb threats on a regular basis so pilots are keen to understand the source and veracity of the threats.
Yes, I think it's normal to ask for more information while complying with instructions from ATC, [their] workload permitting. And you're required to comply with ATC instructions except in an emergency (doesn't necessarily have to be declared).
I've not gone through the detail yet, but depending on altitude of the aircraft at the time of the alert, and its speed, continuing onward to Lithuania may have made more sense for the crew - if they were at or near cruising altitude, you're talking about (say) 100 nm of lateral distance to execute the descent (for a normal descent profile).
Under normal circumstances, you would be unlikely to want to divert to a new airport for this emergency landing, unless there was an issue like poor visibility or very limited emergency services at your destination - since diverting would likely require new descent and approach calculation and routing and briefing.
I mean, as a driver you’re required to obey traffic lights, but they would not normally impose a destination on you.
14 CFR 91.123(b) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.123
* Expectation of contact on other frequencies.
* Minsk directly stating bomb on board with connection to Vilnius (may not be protocol)
* Airport staff sent email (again, is this correct protocol?)
* Message being that activation is over Vilnius (pilot may have accepted that, but also accepted that they had sufficient fuel to hold)
* Pilot considering bomb may be activated by altitude (hence wanting to hold versus make immediate landing in place with relatively poor facilities)
* Lack of NATO or other western agency involvement. Again, this is a sudden and extremely difficult situation, but pilot probably knows they fuel to make a more considered decision on actions.
I look forward to learning more from this incident. You should be able to trust any controller is acting in good faith as a civilian navigator, but that's clearly not the case.
Maybe the controller believed the information they had? I'm sure it wasn't their plan to do this, so someone told them something. But then we can move your statement to the next layer - the controller should be able to trust that someone giving them that kind of information is acting in good faith. Apparently not in Belarus.
> Pilot: Again, this recommendation to divert to Minsk where did it come from? Where did it come from? Company? Did it come from departure airport authorities or arrival airport authorities?
> Controller: This is our recommendations.
I'm more like to believe that the ATC controller was acting under duress
Or put more simply: normally in an emergency the controller asks the pilot what they want to do ("say intentions"). The controller telling the pilot what to do is very weird and inconsistent with the general concept of the PIC as ultimately in command.
That decision would probably come from the PM in the UK.
An engine failure situation then sure, it's upto the pilot.
(Of course in this specific case it was a hostile government hijacking a commercial plane and there was no legitimate reason at all to divert to Minsk)
There was a British "reality tv" show a few years later where some idiots got to run the country (heh). One scenario had a plane approaching London and refusing to divert to Stansted. The people 'in charge' just ran the clock down, not making the decision to fire, and the plane crashed into westminster, so not a total loss I guess.
Departure control (15:29:21): Cactus fifteen twenty nine turn right two eight zero, you can land runway one at Teterboro.
[...]
Sullenberger (15:29:25): We can’t do it.
[...]
Departure control (15:29:27): Kay which runway would you like at Teterboro?
[...]
Sullenberger (15:29:28): We’re gonna be in the Hudson.
Departure control (15:29:33): I’m sorry say again Cactus?
Stone cold and matter-of-fact!
Not particularly.
"I intend to ditch into the Hudson River as we cannot reach an alternative airport" would have been clearer and avoided wasting time clarifying intentions.
https://youtu.be/JItbos1tYZs?t=155
I don't think you can even ask if it's usual for a pilot because this request was anything but usual.
The irony of using CNN as a cite though... :)
To be a comparable case two conditions should be met, namely that a) the bomb threat is real, and b) landing in Minsk the most rational decision.
If both a) and b) are real, well, everything was lawfully managed and the blogger just had bad luck. But if they aren't, no it's not the same case at all.
Not saying that I have any better alternative... politics have always seemed to me to be more of a "I just want to hold onto control of anything I can manage" system, as opposed to a "I'm going to try to bring understanding and the best good for all" system.
I hadn't heard about that. Any good references?
Edit: Found it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
Free speech in action...
(The cockpit audio suggests the pilot actually was worried about the amount of fuel he had left as he reported an issue with his fuel gauge, but "Morales forced to land by minor technical issue" isn't quite as compelling a story...)
Firstly, Morales' plane wasn't a civilian airliner, it was his government's private jet. Secondly, no fake bomb threat was involved. Thirdly, nobody was arrested.
And it's now being employed as a "whatabout" distortion by those sympathetic to (or uncritical of) the Belarusian action. The two incidents differ drastically. Actions of a state against another state's leaders is one thing. Actions against civilian aircraft is another thing entirely.
> Actions of a state against another state's leaders is one thing. Actions against civilian aircraft is another thing entirely.
Wars have been fought over both, attacks on state ships, and attacks on civilian ships. Both are casus belli. Attacks on ships carrying heads of state are particularly problematic absent war, so technically the Morales incident was the worse one, yes (though, of course, if he'd been carrying Snowden then that would in itself have been casus belli), but that does not excuse attacks on civilians.
To whom? No-one on this site was instrumental in deciding to hinder Morales's flight, and I doubt many supported the action at the time. It's obnoxious and comes off like trolling for an argument. Dispassionately making the link is one thing, but most of the comments of this form I've seen are borderline tu quoque nationalist trolling.
I doubt Belarus needed the Morales thing as a cover.
> Wars have been fought over both, attacks on state ships, and attacks on civilian ships.
Yes, this was the casus belli for the war of 1812, supposedly. But the reality in statecraft is that this is rarely the actual reason and there's much more in depth and structural reasons for the start of war.
> [...] (and kidnapped people [NAZI war criminals, so frankly probably justified] from other countries [...]
Yes, indeed, Israel's kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina was justified. Snowden is not a Nazi war criminal though, so the comparison only goes so far -- Snowden -at least thus far- is a much more pedestrian sort of criminal than a war criminal. It is possible to feel that the kidnapping of a war criminal abroad is justified and also feel that the kidnapping of a mere spy abroad is not.
> I doubt Belarus needed the Morales thing as a cover.
Have they mentioned it? Anyways, it's easy propaganda for them, isn't it. Sure, it can't be avoided to give the other side some propaganda wins from time to time.
> Yes, this was the casus belli for the war of 1812, supposedly. [...]
Not only. It was also the reason that the Marines exist, as they fought a small war in Tripoli over kidnapping of civilians. I'm sure there are many examples. Anyways, my point is just that we can't blanket condemn people who link these two incidents as shills for Lukashenko.
You've made a huge assumption there, and characterisation, and that's exactly the problem. I and many others are not sympathetic or uncritical of the action at all. I'm just critical of not having debate about the differences between this and other actions and removing the debate.
I'd say, yes, it was a civilian airliner. It affects more people. However to do it to a private jet too shows precedent to abandon international norms. Nobody being arrested is merely because Snowdon wasn't aboard. If he was, he'd have been arrested. And the diversion of any plane to an airspace where the arrest of someone on board can take place by a foreign power, is ultimately what is the issue here isn't it? And there are enough obvious parallels that at least we have the discussion, not just remove the discussion forthwith.
Morales flight was denied the airspace in advance before it approached any of those airspace. They could go back to Russia if preferred. They chose to land in Vienna. Ryannair's flight was only informed of the fake bomb threat when it was already in Belarus's airspace. They were escorted by military jets. They didn't have a choice.
Morales incident, while being a bullying action, is legal, since countries have exclusive right over their airspace and can allow or deny any flight at their discreetion. At no time passengers were in danger, not to mention they were free to pick another course of action such as going back to Russia. No military jets involved.
Ryannair incident is unprecedented. Belarus hijacked another country's aircraft, faked bomb threats for their own gain. Passengers were at risk, as with any time a flight is disrupted by military jets. No wonder EU's reaction is swift and strong.
The tactics are not remotely the same.
Which presupposes that the readers are "supporters" of either the US/EU or Belarus/Russia. As if geopolitical conversations are sports matches, and nuanced observations based on dispassionate logical thought and not political or national affiliation are not possible. Gag me with a spoon.
At best, these comments derail the conversation. At worst, they are trolling or borderline nationalist propaganda. Either way they drag down the quality of discussion here on HN.
Pointing out that the US's earlier actions gave Belarus cover to "justify" such actions is at least mildly interesting as dispassionate geopolitical conversation, but that's not what most of these comments are.
Why do they even post it then?
MSNBC reported on some CNN reporting the other week, while acknowledging that they haven't independently verified it yet. MSNBC was not saying that CNN isn't credible, it's just that they like to clarify that they haven't verified it themselves yet.
Shouldn't ATC just say the code is red instead of trying to distance him/herself from it? Could any pilots here provide more context?
If he was, you think he wouldn't be arrested and would just fly with Morales to Bolivia? The agents that searched the plane was just there to say hi?
I don't understand how you assert this.
I could also say that "being a whistleblower about a government agency violating the rights of millions of it's citizens" is something that Western democracies claim to protect, when it's not happening to themselves.
What happened in this case is the state level equivalent of holding someone and their friends who were walking on the sidewalk in front of your house at gun point - and then dragging the one you thought had spray painted your house a week earlier into your basement never to be seen again.
There is zero expectation that someone would or could use state level military assets to force a civil airplane flying under legal authorization and long standing agreements with no expectation of it landing in your country, under the flag of another nation, to grab someone you like.
It’s not like it hasn’t been possible, it’s just exceptionally hostile to everyone else and in violation of pretty much every international norm.
The point that I'm making is that the distinction is dwarfed by the baseness of the paradigm itself: politically motivated interference with airliners in flight, to force a landing and arrest people in transit who are currently not within your jurisdiction. Anyway you want to look at it this happened in both cases, and we shouldn't be celebrating "ooh, but technically, we just withdrew permissions so it's not that bad is it?"
It's not a distinction without a difference, these are big differences with many non-subtle distinctions.
Were they reading from a script and did they improvise?
Arguably once you are within firing range of two Mig-29's, the power dynamics changes slightly.
EDIT: copy-pasta from (Belarusian) source https://gist.github.com/SpComb/849b97bae720cb77ab4c43ef92dae...
>Following are excerpts from the transcript, which Reuters was unable to verify.
I would wait for a Ryanair transcript.
I mean we shouldn't trust Lukashenko with this stuff, he officially released some wild fakes:
>Alyaksandr Lukashenka declared recently that he got proof that Western powers stand behind both the Navalny case and the protests in Belarus. 4 September, the Belarusian security services, KGB (yes, KGB), published an audio recording of a super-secret conversation between officers of the German and Polish special forces, discussing details on the Navalny poisoning and noting that Lukashenka has proven to be a hard nut to crack.
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/mike-and-nick-vs-die-hard-lukashenka/
Details here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/as-anger-toward-belarus-mou...
1) Snowden had already been charged at that point and was running from the law. Morales's plane was diverted because it was believed to be providing passage to a criminal. While I don't know what Snowden did was right or wrong, it is clear that Snowden broke laws. His intentions might have been good but he broke some very serious laws.
2) Roman Protasevich, on the other hand, is a blogger. He hasn't released any state secrets that he swore an oath to protect.
Thought experiment: what could have been the immediate consequences of disregarding that rescindment and continuing with the flightplan as filed?
The big difference is: No one forced them to land at a specific location -- they could have turned around and fly all the way back to Russia had they desired to do so. They landed in Austria because they decided to go to a neutral country and that they wanted to avoid NATO. It is fairly obvious that not letting someone enter is very different from letting enter and then coerce.
Not sure if it's that simple, the plane has limited fuel and if they are banned from most of Europe's airspace on the way back it might become inevitable to choose between unauthorized entry or crashing down. And that's assuming Russia would also not ban them, which is also a risk when you're already in the air.
It was really rather close to an act of war. There's a reason the Austrians rushed their president out of bed to go have tea with Morales while he waited.
Great way to start a debate.
Snowden case is worse than Protasevich. They diverted a plane of a president of another country. Snowden dennounced a government that was breaking the law. He wasn't convicted of anything, so he as innocent.
The two cases are a menace to democratic societies. I'm appalled that someone can find one terrible and the other one something normal. Great example of double standards.
This is just laughably spun. That airplane was fueled up for a flight To South America. Pretending like somehow it had to go through Germany or else run out of gas is just ridiculous. Turn around, fuel up in Moscow where you took off from, and fly back to the east if you want. It's an airplane. Don't be silly.
And it's a digression anyway. Even if this would have prevented Morales from reaching Bolivia in that jet, it's STILL not the same thing as forcing his plane down with threat of arms, forcing an evacuation, and arresting his passengers.
I can't understand how such a contrived equalization is spread in so many different forums.
The other replies make excellent, well-sourced points for the distinction of the Morales and Belarusian situations, so I won't repeat them. It seems easy to understand and prove this distinction.
I'm genuinely curious if this whataboutist reasoning could be contributed to by an active campaign to muddy the Belarus discussion or just anti-west/pro-anarchy idealisms.
PILOT ASKS FOR FURTHER DETAILS
Pilot: Again, this recommendation to divert to Minsk where did it come from? Where did it come from? Company? Did it come from departure airport authorities or arrival airport authorities?
There he was on the right track to do what we always recommend to avoid being fished: Independently verify from the original source.
Controller: This is our recommendations.
Minsk thwarts it by telling the truth and going into Milgram Experiment mode:
Pilot: Can you say again?
Controller: This is our recommendations.
Pilot: (unreadable.)
Pilot: Did you say that your recommendation?
PILOT AGREES TO LAND IN MINSK
Unfortunately (but understandably) pilot obeys.
https://apnews.com/article/belarus-europe-edcf633281e3e9a55b...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/05/belarus-journ...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-23/belarus-d...
In case of any doubt left, here is an official sanction decision on this signed by 27 countries:
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021...
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
Estaseuropano should have read a news article rather than ask a useless (at best) question.
MINSK, May 23. /TASS/. Belarus’ defense ministry has confirmed that a MiG-29 fighter jet was scrambled on Sunday to escort the Ryanair passenger plane that made emergency landing at Minsk’s airport.
"After the polit[sic] of this civil aircraft (the Ryanair plane - TASS) decided to land at an alternate airport (Minsk-2) and turned the plane towards Minsk, it was decided to scramble a MiG-29 crew on duty from the Baranovichi airport (Brest region)," the ministry said on its Telegram channel, citing Andrei Gurtsevich, chief of the air operations and first deputy commander of Belarus air and air defense forces.
https://tass.com/world/1292845
That's a Russian state controlled 'news' agency reporting on the events of an ally.
Also, sky is pretty big, and a MiG-29 has no problem tracking and following a fat passenger jet at a distance. Most likely only way pilot could have noticed the MiG would have been if the MiG would have intentionally made itself seen, i.e. flying very close by.
Was this not the right decision?
If not, can you clarify what the pilot should have done, even if it is understandable that they didn't do it?
Are there any developments in that field?
Would the pilot be able to verify with Ryanair HQ whether they know about the bomb threat they are being fed from ATC?
Of course when the recomendation is accompanied by a fighter jet one doesn't have a choice regardless, but I'm still curious whether they are at ATC's mercy for information.
Perhaps Russia has already done this in the past, and went undetected due to ISIS trying to take credit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrojet_Flight_9268
Honestly, it's becoming harder by the day to view them as people. Ever since 2014 I've wonder if the world would simply be better off without Russia and it's satellite states. I've never met someone from these countries that was worthwhile. Not once.