9 ms·

FYI technically it wasn’t a forced landing by fighter jets. “Someone” reported there’s a bomb on the plane while they were in the Belarus airspace, hence they d

FYI technically it wasn’t a forced landing by fighter jets. “Someone” reported there’s a bomb on the plane while they were in the Belarus airspace, hence they did an emergency landing in Minsk. So while we know who “someone” is and that it’s all planned in advance (the journalist reported that he was followed minutes before take-off), technically speaking the safety protocols were followed, and when landed they arrested a wanted man once he was on their soil. This reminds me of force landing Bolivian president’s plane in the EU flying from Moscow when they thought Edward Snowden was on the plane.

tbenst 5y ago
This article and others report that the plane was instructed to land in Minsk, even though Vilnius was closer. That doesn’t sound like following safety protocols to me
- croutonwagon 5y ago
  There could be less nefarious reasons for that...such has what ATC was in contact at the time, headwind/tailwind can make a difference in speed/time even if the distance as the crow flies is shorter, or if there was more landing windows in Minsk. It should be considered and questioned, but it may not be nefarious.
  - ruined 5y ago
    you don't need to exercise reserved skepticism here. there was no bomb and we know what happened when the plane landed. you're playing devil's advocate when they've already won
    - tclancy 5y ago
      I’m stealing that line. It feels like the Internet has inspired a subset of people to play for that team and it’s so confusing as to why. I am trying to always “assume good intentions” as a rule now; I think it’s just deep denial about the world we live in and how free we really are.
      - wiml 5y ago
        It's a form of attempting to disconfirm your beliefs. If it's easy to put together an argument against yourself that you can't rebut, then it's a sign you need to think more. And you can't do that well unless you're in the habit of testing the weaknesses of every appealing new belief.
        tclancy 5y ago
        Oh ... Kay? The thing with that wonderfully high minded approach that seems to get missed: you can do that at home by yourself without involving me by musing out loud in a forum like just maybe you’re smarter than everyone else. You want to check yourself? Do it by yourself.
        ruined 5y ago
        that works both directions. speculating about the potential legitimacy of every detail of an extraordinary rendition is not intellectual vigilance, it's simping for state terror and it disconfirms nothing.
  - JshWright 5y ago
    "Landing windows"? Why are you straining so hard to give this criminal act plausible deniability? You can easily look up the track of the aircraft. There is no "tailwind" that would have made Minsk the shorter flight.
    - croutonwagon 5y ago
      Im just not outraged...Nor do I have any illusions to Europe, much less eastern europe being all that "free". And finally the plausible deniability was made by the bomb threat, i dont have to manufacture that or convince anyone of its veracity (and I have no illusions about how bogus it was or wasnt). Im not a pilot, much less a pilot in that part of the world. But I do know that planes are generally only talking to 1 ATC at a time and it takes time to get in touch with another. And that pilots have very specific checklists and procedures when needing to call emergency landings. Listen to the Sully recordings when he ditched in an emergency. NJ was closer but he was still in contact and it would have taken too long. So if they get called for an emergency and are forced to make a landing, there are protocols in place to swiftly determine the when, where etc of setting down. Unless you are going to make the accusation that the pilots are political agents/operatives...
      - jorvi 5y ago
        > Nor do I have any illusions to Europe, much less eastern europe being all that "free Europe consistenly gets the highest ranking in things that test for different aspects of freedom (democracy, press, police violence, etc.) To be clear: it's not that Europe can't do better, but if you care about 'freedom' it's a better place to be than pretty much any other region on the planet.
      - JshWright 5y ago
        > Listen to the Sully recordings when he ditched in an emergency. NJ was closer but he was still in contact and it would have taken too long. He was _talking_ to NY TRACON. That doesn't mean he was somehow required to land in NY, not NJ. His first request to ATC was whether he could land at Teterboro (in NJ). They got on the phone and got permission for him, in order to avoid having to switch frequencies. > So if they get called for an emergency and are forced to make a landing, there are protocols in place to swiftly determine the when, where etc of setting down. Indeed there are, and literally none of them have to do with which ATC center the pilot happens to be communicating with at that point. > Unless you are going to make the accusation that the pilots are political agents/operatives... The pilots were looking at a MiG-29 out their window. They did not have a choice in the matter.
  - deepserket 5y ago
    if you check the flight path the plane took a really long path to minsk, getting as far away as possible from the border https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/fr4978#27cce9a2 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/fr4978#27cce9a2
  - grogenaut 5y ago
    Was on a flight from Frankfurt to SEA about 2 years back, someone thought they were having a heart attack. Plane was about even between SEA and YVR, we took the most direct route to the runway and terminal I've ever taken coming into SEA over 200 flights. Especially since they kicked a plane coming in before us to the international terminal. Other interesting tidbit, the person claimed to be fine about 30 minutes later after talking to 2 doctors. But the ground crew said they required people to go to the hospital now for a full eval.
    - jefftk 5y ago
      > the ground crew said they required people to go to the hospital now for a full eval. I see, so if you want an expedited landing you need to convince one of the other passengers on the plane to fake a heart attack.
      - grogenaut 5y ago
        About right. I almost did this once by watching the pilot of Lost near landing on a flight to Hawaii in economy.
  - scottLobster 5y ago
    You realize plausible deniability is part of tradecraft right? When conducted with any intelligence there will always appear to be a chance nefarious actions "might not have been nefarious". Your odds of a correct judgment are better if you take into account the motives of the parties involved and how directly the inputs/outputs of the system align with said motives. Or do you think it's just a happy coincidence when a politician votes no on a bill the day after a lobbyist opposed to the bill makes a donation? Or one of President Xi's political opponents just goes on an extended and very silent vacation? Or a used car salesman being super friendly to you is just because he's a really friendly guy?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - croutonwagon 5y ago
      Of course I do. I never said the bomb threat wasn't planned as a false flag, or that the timing wasnt done in a specific manner to ensure the flight was redirected to Minsk. Only that I have doubts that the pilots did NOT follow the proper protocols or were somehow involved in a conspiracy here. Commercial aviation is one of the few jobs where theres little tolerance for deviation of established protocols and checklists, especially in declared emergencies. And a lot of the routing decisions arent necessarily made by them. I understand some may find that offensive.. But it doesn't change my view on the matter. Nonetheless, i dont really see what is so controversial about stating it. It doesn't really excuse anything here....
      - JshWright 5y ago
        I think you're overlooking the fact that the pilots were not the ones who chose to land at Minsk. The fighter jets "escorting" them make that decision for them.
- robbick 5y ago
  Indeed - I don't think the President is normally personally involved in safety protocols...
- bombcar 5y ago
  NATO scrambled fighters from four countries to just watch a plane a few weeks ago. https://onemileatatime.com/bomb-threat-el-al-787-fighter-jet/ https://onemileatatime.com/bomb-threat-el-al-787-fighter-jet...
  - girvo 5y ago
    Yes. It wasn't forced to land though, as far as your article asserts, unless I'm missing something in it?
ptx 5y ago
From the article: "Belta, the state-owned news agency in Belarus, said Mr Lukashenko had personally given the order for the plane to land in Minsk following the bomb alert, and that a MiG-29 fighter jet had been despatched to accompany the Ryanair plane."
newacct583 5y ago
I'm curious what constitutes a "technical" forced landing by fighter jets. I mean, you can't "technically" force a landing at all. Clearly what happened here is that the fake bomb threat was an excuse, and the purpose of the interceptor there was to demonstrate to the crew of the airplane that the use of force was a possibility. This plane was "forced down" by any reasonable use of the term. > This reminds me of force landing Bolivian president’s plane in the EU flying from Moscow when they thought Edward Snowden was on the plane. Had to correct this elsewhere: there was no forced landing there at all. They were denied airspace privileges to cross most of western europe, which isn't the same thing at all. They landed in a friendly-ish nation, and were never boarded by anyone hostile or otherwise intercepted by law enforcement. What happened in the Snowden case was DIPLOMACY ("you may not travel here if you carry this man"), not force.
- FartyMcFarter 5y ago
  Fighter jets can intercept a plane, and tell it to land via radio. It would be illegal for the pilots to ignore such an order while inside a country's airspace.
  - newacct583 5y ago
    Indeed, this plane was indeed intercepted and directed to land via radio. I think you're missing my point. Clearly it was forced down, technicalities notwithstanding.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - loceng 5y ago
      Is it not highly illegal internationally to claim a false bomb threat as well? Any repercussions or do countries not keep track of bad actions like this?
      - rich_sasha 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bandyaboot 5y ago
This seems a lot more aggressive than what happened with the Bolivian President. The man who had tasked himself with harboring Snowden made everyone think Snowden was on the plane and the US presumably influenced some allies to not allow him to be transited through their airspace. That doesn’t seem totally unreasonable to me. That’s not to say that I side with the US govt in general regarding Snowden.
- B1FF_PSUVM 5y ago
  > a lot more aggressive Yep, unsophisticated peasants tend to use more force than experienced urbanites. Dreadful, don't you know.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- mrandish 5y ago
  > to not allow him to be transited through their airspace. This is exactly what Belarus just did. The US and it's allies are now strongly objecting that it's illegal and improper to do exactly what they've previously done. The idea of mutually agreeing to allow commercial transportation aircraft to transit your airspace is supposed to be that this is not done. It is hugely hypocritical for the US to have used this same tactic, even if done through proxies.
  - bandyaboot 5y ago
    Not allowing transit into and through your airspace is not exactly the same thing as allowing transit into your airspace then forcing them down in your country.
    - throwaway21_ 5y ago
      It's not exactly the same but it's almost the same - multiple countries synchronously closing their airspace so plane can't just go around single one thus basically forcing plane down as it could run out of fuel is quite similar to faking bomb alert in order to force plane down. Only lame excuse is different.
lotusmars 5y ago
As for Bolivia plane example: Go fuck yourself yourself with your whataboutism. Speaking it as a Russian with Belarussian friends and relatives living under Putin and Lukashenko’s oppressive regimes.
mrandish 5y ago
> “Someone” reported there’s a bomb on the plane while they were in the Belarus airspace The article doesn't say that the bomb threat claim came from anyone on the plane. Rather, it implies the pilots were informed of the alleged threat by Belarus air traffic control as the pretext for demanding that the plane divert. Based on the current facts being reported, it seems pretty clear what is going on here.
- wodenokoto 5y ago
  In that sentence, "on the plane" refers to the bomb, not to the "someone"
- Lammy 5y ago
  You can tell some shit's about to go down when somebody sets you up the bomb and then you get signal.
anotheryou 5y ago
But minsk wasn't the nearest airport and there are reports of a fighter jet scrambling about.
slim 5y ago
An emergency landing does not need a fighter jet. The fighter jet was there to scare the pilot
- varispeed 5y ago
  That depends - they wouldn't want a plane with a bomb to explode over a city for example, so the jets could be used to "neutralise" the threat. Obviously in this case the bomb was fake and so the threat...
  - ilyaeck 5y ago
    P-lease! the case is crystal clear: the MIG was used to threaten the plane into landing!
    - iso1210 5y ago
      The MIG was no doubt there to ensure the plane obeyed air traffic control It's not unheard of for military jets to escort civilian planes to an airport, for example https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ryanair-flight-escorted-by-two-raf-fighter-jets-into-stansted-airport-a3650106.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ryanair-flight-escort... (Of course the situation of how the bomb threat came to be is different in this case, and IMO airlines now need to avoid Belarus overflights)
    - varispeed 5y ago
      Have you read this? https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/05/911-oral-history-flight-93-book-excerpt-228001/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/05/911-oral-... https://twitter.com/PavelLatushka/status/1396519000830582784 https://twitter.com/PavelLatushka/status/1396519000830582784 Belarusian Air Force fighter-interceptor manoeuvred to signal to the pilots of a Ryanair airliner:follow me”. The captain of the civilian aircraft was obliged to obey. The captain may have disobeyed the dispatcher's command, but the threat from a military aircraft was obligatory.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
ernesth 5y ago
> when landed they arrested a wanted man once he was on their soil. Did he get on their soil though? Usually, you stay in the international zone when between flights, so, here, the passengers should not have entered Belarus. Do we know what happened in the airport?
- elliekelly 5y ago
  I suspect this is why a “bomb” is a convenient cover story for the government. They can force everyone off the plane rather than having to extract a single passenger.
- monocasa 5y ago
  The international zone is a individual national concept to simplify their customs ingress at that country's discretion. All countries have the right to ignore it if they see fit, such as law enforcement actions.
- iso1210 5y ago
  If I land on a plane in America, shoot someone before I clear immigration, then depart, does that mean I can't be arrested?
  - sigzero 5y ago
    No, it does not.
- trhway 5y ago
  >Did he get on their soil though? Usually, you stay in the international zone when between flights for example, when US agents capture people outside US and load them on a plane to bring in to US they actually formally arrest and charge them only when the plane enters US airspace.
amelius 5y ago
A loophole in international law then. I hope this gets fixed before we see more exploits.
- cortesoft 5y ago
  International law is not a real thing that has loopholes... it is just a set of agreed upon principles that are usually followed.
  - libria 5y ago
    Sounds more like an International Wishlist. Wherever the venn diagram of What a Country Does and What the World Wants intersects, they pat themselves on the back. Everything else, they shrug. I wonder what's the point.
    - dTal 5y ago
      That is exactly point; so that at least everyone agrees beforehand when praise/condemnation is appropriate. It doesn't enforce itself, but it does at least provide a notional focus point. Countries do attempt to reward and punish each other in various ways, and "international law" gives some direction to it.
  - optimalsolver 5y ago
    >International law is not a real thing that has loopholes... it is just a set of agreed upon principles that are usually followed Nation states exist in a state of nature, and unfortunately might usually makes right. Superpowers can, and often do, simply decide that aspects of international law just don't apply to them. Of course, that doesn't stop them holding weaker powers to those standards.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  What would happen if a pilot refused? My understanding is pilots have near total authority when operating an aircraft so if a pilot knew the “threat” stated was fabricated could they, in theory, just keep flying? Or even landed at a different, closer airport than the one specified? To be clear, I don’t think pilots should be in a position to judge the truthfulness of ATF or the government they’re flying over and I don’t think pilot judgment is the “solution” to this loophole that has now been abused twice (that we know). I’m just curious about the process and what would happen if a pilot decided to call the bluff. Would Belarus (or whichever country) scramble fighter jets to force a landing? Would the pilot get in trouble? Is the answer different for a private flight vs commercial flight vs diplomatic flight?
rdslw 5y ago
Please, do not repeat false version of the story, promoted by Lukashenko. Plane crew change squawk code to intercepted (7700) not 7500 which would indicate terrorist act. What happened is clear even before crew and passengers start giving press interviews in Vilnius. And please do not compare it to Bolivian case, then crew decided (to land) and was not put under duress by fighter plane.
- T-A 5y ago
  As far as I know 7700 is a generic emergency code: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/squawking-7700-in-flight-emergencies-from-a-pilots-perspective/ https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/squawking-7700-in-flight-...
  - upofadown 5y ago
    I think the point being made here is that 7500 would be used for unlawful interference like a hijacking or bomb threat. 7700 would be more appropriate for an interception.
- bananabiscuit 5y ago
  The US has more resources at its disposal to finesse a forced landing. Less powerful countries have to resort to more barbaric means to achieve the same exact result.
1cvmask 5y ago
Here are some links of the Bolivian presidents plane being grounded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-23166146 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-23166146

tbenst 5y ago

This article and others report that the plane was instructed to land in Minsk, even though Vilnius was closer. That doesn’t sound like following safety protocols to me

croutonwagon 5y ago
There could be less nefarious reasons for that...such has what ATC was in contact at the time, headwind/tailwind can make a difference in speed/time even if the distance as the crow flies is shorter, or if there was more landing windows in Minsk. It should be considered and questioned, but it may not be nefarious.
- ruined 5y ago
  you don't need to exercise reserved skepticism here. there was no bomb and we know what happened when the plane landed. you're playing devil's advocate when they've already won
  - tclancy 5y ago
    I’m stealing that line. It feels like the Internet has inspired a subset of people to play for that team and it’s so confusing as to why. I am trying to always “assume good intentions” as a rule now; I think it’s just deep denial about the world we live in and how free we really are.
    - wiml 5y ago
      It's a form of attempting to disconfirm your beliefs. If it's easy to put together an argument against yourself that you can't rebut, then it's a sign you need to think more. And you can't do that well unless you're in the habit of testing the weaknesses of every appealing new belief.
      - tclancy 5y ago
        Oh ... Kay? The thing with that wonderfully high minded approach that seems to get missed: you can do that at home by yourself without involving me by musing out loud in a forum like just maybe you’re smarter than everyone else. You want to check yourself? Do it by yourself.
      - ruined 5y ago
        that works both directions. speculating about the potential legitimacy of every detail of an extraordinary rendition is not intellectual vigilance, it's simping for state terror and it disconfirms nothing.
- JshWright 5y ago
  "Landing windows"? Why are you straining so hard to give this criminal act plausible deniability? You can easily look up the track of the aircraft. There is no "tailwind" that would have made Minsk the shorter flight.
  - croutonwagon 5y ago
    Im just not outraged...Nor do I have any illusions to Europe, much less eastern europe being all that "free". And finally the plausible deniability was made by the bomb threat, i dont have to manufacture that or convince anyone of its veracity (and I have no illusions about how bogus it was or wasnt). Im not a pilot, much less a pilot in that part of the world. But I do know that planes are generally only talking to 1 ATC at a time and it takes time to get in touch with another. And that pilots have very specific checklists and procedures when needing to call emergency landings. Listen to the Sully recordings when he ditched in an emergency. NJ was closer but he was still in contact and it would have taken too long. So if they get called for an emergency and are forced to make a landing, there are protocols in place to swiftly determine the when, where etc of setting down. Unless you are going to make the accusation that the pilots are political agents/operatives...
    - jorvi 5y ago
      > Nor do I have any illusions to Europe, much less eastern europe being all that "free Europe consistenly gets the highest ranking in things that test for different aspects of freedom (democracy, press, police violence, etc.) To be clear: it's not that Europe can't do better, but if you care about 'freedom' it's a better place to be than pretty much any other region on the planet.
    - JshWright 5y ago
      > Listen to the Sully recordings when he ditched in an emergency. NJ was closer but he was still in contact and it would have taken too long. He was _talking_ to NY TRACON. That doesn't mean he was somehow required to land in NY, not NJ. His first request to ATC was whether he could land at Teterboro (in NJ). They got on the phone and got permission for him, in order to avoid having to switch frequencies. > So if they get called for an emergency and are forced to make a landing, there are protocols in place to swiftly determine the when, where etc of setting down. Indeed there are, and literally none of them have to do with which ATC center the pilot happens to be communicating with at that point. > Unless you are going to make the accusation that the pilots are political agents/operatives... The pilots were looking at a MiG-29 out their window. They did not have a choice in the matter.
- deepserket 5y ago
  if you check the flight path the plane took a really long path to minsk, getting as far away as possible from the border https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/fr4978#27cce9a2 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/fr4978#27cce9a2
- grogenaut 5y ago
  Was on a flight from Frankfurt to SEA about 2 years back, someone thought they were having a heart attack. Plane was about even between SEA and YVR, we took the most direct route to the runway and terminal I've ever taken coming into SEA over 200 flights. Especially since they kicked a plane coming in before us to the international terminal. Other interesting tidbit, the person claimed to be fine about 30 minutes later after talking to 2 doctors. But the ground crew said they required people to go to the hospital now for a full eval.
  - jefftk 5y ago
    > the ground crew said they required people to go to the hospital now for a full eval. I see, so if you want an expedited landing you need to convince one of the other passengers on the plane to fake a heart attack.
    - grogenaut 5y ago
      About right. I almost did this once by watching the pilot of Lost near landing on a flight to Hawaii in economy.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  You realize plausible deniability is part of tradecraft right? When conducted with any intelligence there will always appear to be a chance nefarious actions "might not have been nefarious". Your odds of a correct judgment are better if you take into account the motives of the parties involved and how directly the inputs/outputs of the system align with said motives. Or do you think it's just a happy coincidence when a politician votes no on a bill the day after a lobbyist opposed to the bill makes a donation? Or one of President Xi's political opponents just goes on an extended and very silent vacation? Or a used car salesman being super friendly to you is just because he's a really friendly guy?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - croutonwagon 5y ago
    Of course I do. I never said the bomb threat wasn't planned as a false flag, or that the timing wasnt done in a specific manner to ensure the flight was redirected to Minsk. Only that I have doubts that the pilots did NOT follow the proper protocols or were somehow involved in a conspiracy here. Commercial aviation is one of the few jobs where theres little tolerance for deviation of established protocols and checklists, especially in declared emergencies. And a lot of the routing decisions arent necessarily made by them. I understand some may find that offensive.. But it doesn't change my view on the matter. Nonetheless, i dont really see what is so controversial about stating it. It doesn't really excuse anything here....
    - JshWright 5y ago
      I think you're overlooking the fact that the pilots were not the ones who chose to land at Minsk. The fighter jets "escorting" them make that decision for them.
robbick 5y ago
Indeed - I don't think the President is normally personally involved in safety protocols...
bombcar 5y ago
NATO scrambled fighters from four countries to just watch a plane a few weeks ago. https://onemileatatime.com/bomb-threat-el-al-787-fighter-jet/ https://onemileatatime.com/bomb-threat-el-al-787-fighter-jet...
- girvo 5y ago
  Yes. It wasn't forced to land though, as far as your article asserts, unless I'm missing something in it?

ptx 5y ago

From the article: "Belta, the state-owned news agency in Belarus, said Mr Lukashenko had personally given the order for the plane to land in Minsk following the bomb alert, and that a MiG-29 fighter jet had been despatched to accompany the Ryanair plane."

newacct583 5y ago

I'm curious what constitutes a "technical" forced landing by fighter jets. I mean, you can't "technically" force a landing at all. Clearly what happened here is that the fake bomb threat was an excuse, and the purpose of the interceptor there was to demonstrate to the crew of the airplane that the use of force was a possibility. This plane was "forced down" by any reasonable use of the term. > This reminds me of force landing Bolivian president’s plane in the EU flying from Moscow when they thought Edward Snowden was on the plane. Had to correct this elsewhere: there was no forced landing there at all. They were denied airspace privileges to cross most of western europe, which isn't the same thing at all. They landed in a friendly-ish nation, and were never boarded by anyone hostile or otherwise intercepted by law enforcement. What happened in the Snowden case was DIPLOMACY ("you may not travel here if you carry this man"), not force.

FartyMcFarter 5y ago
Fighter jets can intercept a plane, and tell it to land via radio. It would be illegal for the pilots to ignore such an order while inside a country's airspace.
- newacct583 5y ago
  Indeed, this plane was indeed intercepted and directed to land via radio. I think you're missing my point. Clearly it was forced down, technicalities notwithstanding.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - loceng 5y ago
    Is it not highly illegal internationally to claim a false bomb threat as well? Any repercussions or do countries not keep track of bad actions like this?
    - rich_sasha 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bandyaboot 5y ago

This seems a lot more aggressive than what happened with the Bolivian President. The man who had tasked himself with harboring Snowden made everyone think Snowden was on the plane and the US presumably influenced some allies to not allow him to be transited through their airspace. That doesn’t seem totally unreasonable to me. That’s not to say that I side with the US govt in general regarding Snowden.

B1FF_PSUVM 5y ago
> a lot more aggressive Yep, unsophisticated peasants tend to use more force than experienced urbanites. Dreadful, don't you know.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mrandish 5y ago
> to not allow him to be transited through their airspace. This is exactly what Belarus just did. The US and it's allies are now strongly objecting that it's illegal and improper to do exactly what they've previously done. The idea of mutually agreeing to allow commercial transportation aircraft to transit your airspace is supposed to be that this is not done. It is hugely hypocritical for the US to have used this same tactic, even if done through proxies.
- bandyaboot 5y ago
  Not allowing transit into and through your airspace is not exactly the same thing as allowing transit into your airspace then forcing them down in your country.
  - throwaway21_ 5y ago
    It's not exactly the same but it's almost the same - multiple countries synchronously closing their airspace so plane can't just go around single one thus basically forcing plane down as it could run out of fuel is quite similar to faking bomb alert in order to force plane down. Only lame excuse is different.

lotusmars 5y ago

As for Bolivia plane example: Go fuck yourself yourself with your whataboutism. Speaking it as a Russian with Belarussian friends and relatives living under Putin and Lukashenko’s oppressive regimes.

mrandish 5y ago

> “Someone” reported there’s a bomb on the plane while they were in the Belarus airspace The article doesn't say that the bomb threat claim came from anyone on the plane. Rather, it implies the pilots were informed of the alleged threat by Belarus air traffic control as the pretext for demanding that the plane divert. Based on the current facts being reported, it seems pretty clear what is going on here.

wodenokoto 5y ago
In that sentence, "on the plane" refers to the bomb, not to the "someone"
Lammy 5y ago
You can tell some shit's about to go down when somebody sets you up the bomb and then you get signal.

anotheryou 5y ago

But minsk wasn't the nearest airport and there are reports of a fighter jet scrambling about.

slim 5y ago

An emergency landing does not need a fighter jet. The fighter jet was there to scare the pilot

varispeed 5y ago
That depends - they wouldn't want a plane with a bomb to explode over a city for example, so the jets could be used to "neutralise" the threat. Obviously in this case the bomb was fake and so the threat...
- ilyaeck 5y ago
  P-lease! the case is crystal clear: the MIG was used to threaten the plane into landing!
  - iso1210 5y ago
    The MIG was no doubt there to ensure the plane obeyed air traffic control It's not unheard of for military jets to escort civilian planes to an airport, for example https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ryanair-flight-escorted-by-two-raf-fighter-jets-into-stansted-airport-a3650106.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ryanair-flight-escort... (Of course the situation of how the bomb threat came to be is different in this case, and IMO airlines now need to avoid Belarus overflights)
  - varispeed 5y ago
    Have you read this? https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/05/911-oral-history-flight-93-book-excerpt-228001/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/05/911-oral-... https://twitter.com/PavelLatushka/status/1396519000830582784 https://twitter.com/PavelLatushka/status/1396519000830582784 Belarusian Air Force fighter-interceptor manoeuvred to signal to the pilots of a Ryanair airliner:follow me”. The captain of the civilian aircraft was obliged to obey. The captain may have disobeyed the dispatcher's command, but the threat from a military aircraft was obligatory.
bellyfullofbac 5y ago

ernesth 5y ago

> when landed they arrested a wanted man once he was on their soil. Did he get on their soil though? Usually, you stay in the international zone when between flights, so, here, the passengers should not have entered Belarus. Do we know what happened in the airport?

elliekelly 5y ago
I suspect this is why a “bomb” is a convenient cover story for the government. They can force everyone off the plane rather than having to extract a single passenger.
monocasa 5y ago
The international zone is a individual national concept to simplify their customs ingress at that country's discretion. All countries have the right to ignore it if they see fit, such as law enforcement actions.
iso1210 5y ago
If I land on a plane in America, shoot someone before I clear immigration, then depart, does that mean I can't be arrested?
- sigzero 5y ago
  No, it does not.
trhway 5y ago
>Did he get on their soil though? Usually, you stay in the international zone when between flights for example, when US agents capture people outside US and load them on a plane to bring in to US they actually formally arrest and charge them only when the plane enters US airspace.

amelius 5y ago

A loophole in international law then. I hope this gets fixed before we see more exploits.

cortesoft 5y ago
International law is not a real thing that has loopholes... it is just a set of agreed upon principles that are usually followed.
- libria 5y ago
  Sounds more like an International Wishlist. Wherever the venn diagram of What a Country Does and What the World Wants intersects, they pat themselves on the back. Everything else, they shrug. I wonder what's the point.
  - dTal 5y ago
    That is exactly point; so that at least everyone agrees beforehand when praise/condemnation is appropriate. It doesn't enforce itself, but it does at least provide a notional focus point. Countries do attempt to reward and punish each other in various ways, and "international law" gives some direction to it.
- optimalsolver 5y ago
  >International law is not a real thing that has loopholes... it is just a set of agreed upon principles that are usually followed Nation states exist in a state of nature, and unfortunately might usually makes right. Superpowers can, and often do, simply decide that aspects of international law just don't apply to them. Of course, that doesn't stop them holding weaker powers to those standards.
elliekelly 5y ago
What would happen if a pilot refused? My understanding is pilots have near total authority when operating an aircraft so if a pilot knew the “threat” stated was fabricated could they, in theory, just keep flying? Or even landed at a different, closer airport than the one specified? To be clear, I don’t think pilots should be in a position to judge the truthfulness of ATF or the government they’re flying over and I don’t think pilot judgment is the “solution” to this loophole that has now been abused twice (that we know). I’m just curious about the process and what would happen if a pilot decided to call the bluff. Would Belarus (or whichever country) scramble fighter jets to force a landing? Would the pilot get in trouble? Is the answer different for a private flight vs commercial flight vs diplomatic flight?

rdslw 5y ago

Please, do not repeat false version of the story, promoted by Lukashenko. Plane crew change squawk code to intercepted (7700) not 7500 which would indicate terrorist act. What happened is clear even before crew and passengers start giving press interviews in Vilnius. And please do not compare it to Bolivian case, then crew decided (to land) and was not put under duress by fighter plane.

T-A 5y ago
As far as I know 7700 is a generic emergency code: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/squawking-7700-in-flight-emergencies-from-a-pilots-perspective/ https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/squawking-7700-in-flight-...
- upofadown 5y ago
  I think the point being made here is that 7500 would be used for unlawful interference like a hijacking or bomb threat. 7700 would be more appropriate for an interception.
bananabiscuit 5y ago
The US has more resources at its disposal to finesse a forced landing. Less powerful countries have to resort to more barbaric means to achieve the same exact result.

1cvmask 5y ago

Here are some links of the Bolivian presidents plane being grounded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-23166146 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-23166146