6 ms·

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

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
      I guess there is no international penal code. There are treaties but for many of them, there is no enforcement-no worldwide police to knock on your door. So repercussions tend to range from nothing, through wagging fingers, slaps on the wrist, to sanctions, UN resolutions, UN-sanctioned wars, or if you really piss someone off, non-sanctioned wars. I don’t think Belarus will be invaded, and I guess Russia would veto any particularly nasty move in the UN, so really this leaves stern words and some unilateral sanctions against the Lukshenko regime. Doesn’t seem like overwhelming penalty (though well-targeted and enforced sanctions can bite quite badly).
      - pc86 5y ago
        I think in this context they basically mean that there are no countries in which a fake bomb threat against an airliner isn't illegal, so whoever did this, in whatever country they happened to be, committed a serious crime.
        tonyarkles 5y ago
        Committed a serious crime? Sure. Will there be actual consequences for that individual? Unlikely.
        Mountain_Skies 5y ago
        So someone from the Belarus intelligence service made a call to Ryanair and made a bomb threat. What can Ireland or any other jurisdiction do about it? Pretty much nothing, especially if the call originated in Belarus.
    - cortesoft 5y ago
      There is no such thing as "highly illegal" international law... international law is just a set of conventions, and are enforced by each nation choosing what to do about the 'violation'. There aren't a set of prescribed penalties, and if there were, there is no one to enforce them.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > It would be illegal for the pilots to ignore such an order while inside a country's airspace. The pilots could report that they are having technical difficulties and are unable to override the current route programmed into the autopilot. They are also have issues disengaging the autopilot. So they are "forced" to continue their flight on their pre-filed flight plan. Any direction from ATC would be replied with "Unable": * https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2021/01/10-times-you-should-say-unable-to-atc/ https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2021/01/10-times-you-s... * https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7915/who-has-the-higher-authority-the-pilot-in-command-or-atc https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7915/who-has-th... * https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24756/when-can-a-pilot-disobey-atc-commands https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24756/when-can-... * https://atccommunication.com/cannot-comply-with-an-atc-clearance-unable/ https://atccommunication.com/cannot-comply-with-an-atc-clear... Short of shooting down the plane there's nothing anyone can do about it.
throwaway21_ 5y ago
> What happened in the Snowden case was DIPLOMACY ("you may not travel here if you carry this man"), not force. And MiG-29 sprinkled same kind of diplomacy here - they weren't shot down, they just were diplomatically notified that in their best interest is to land down. See, no force, pure diplomacy.
- newacct583 5y ago
  Again, there was no force with the Morales plane. No one can enter another nation's airspace without permission. They were simply denied permission. It's the difference between being denied boarding for an international flight because you forgot your passport and being arrested once you land. One is "force", one is not. Denying Morale's plane permission was an act of diplomacy, albeit a very uncommon one and one in pursuit of an unjust goal. Forcing down a foreign airplane on an international flight to arrest someone on it is an act of war. Sorry.
  - caf 5y ago
    What would have happened if his plane had tried to cross into Spain regardless? Do you think 'force' might have been involved? Is not denying overflight ultimately backed by force?
    - newacct583 5y ago
      > What would have happened if his plane had tried to cross into Spain regardless? A major international incident (the head of state of one nation violating the airspace of another) that completely and utterly dwarfs whatever nonsense was going on with Snowden. I know it's hard for geeks here to understand, but Snowden just isn't that important. Again: he wasn't even on the plane. And Morales apparently had no intention of putting him on there. He was just pissed off that no one trusted him about that.
      - caf 5y ago
        It would have been intercepted and forced to land, that's what.

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
    I guess there is no international penal code. There are treaties but for many of them, there is no enforcement-no worldwide police to knock on your door. So repercussions tend to range from nothing, through wagging fingers, slaps on the wrist, to sanctions, UN resolutions, UN-sanctioned wars, or if you really piss someone off, non-sanctioned wars. I don’t think Belarus will be invaded, and I guess Russia would veto any particularly nasty move in the UN, so really this leaves stern words and some unilateral sanctions against the Lukshenko regime. Doesn’t seem like overwhelming penalty (though well-targeted and enforced sanctions can bite quite badly).
    - pc86 5y ago
      I think in this context they basically mean that there are no countries in which a fake bomb threat against an airliner isn't illegal, so whoever did this, in whatever country they happened to be, committed a serious crime.
      - tonyarkles 5y ago
        Committed a serious crime? Sure. Will there be actual consequences for that individual? Unlikely.
      - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
        So someone from the Belarus intelligence service made a call to Ryanair and made a bomb threat. What can Ireland or any other jurisdiction do about it? Pretty much nothing, especially if the call originated in Belarus.
  - cortesoft 5y ago
    There is no such thing as "highly illegal" international law... international law is just a set of conventions, and are enforced by each nation choosing what to do about the 'violation'. There aren't a set of prescribed penalties, and if there were, there is no one to enforce them.
throw0101a 5y ago
> It would be illegal for the pilots to ignore such an order while inside a country's airspace. The pilots could report that they are having technical difficulties and are unable to override the current route programmed into the autopilot. They are also have issues disengaging the autopilot. So they are "forced" to continue their flight on their pre-filed flight plan. Any direction from ATC would be replied with "Unable": * https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2021/01/10-times-you-should-say-unable-to-atc/ https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2021/01/10-times-you-s... * https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7915/who-has-the-higher-authority-the-pilot-in-command-or-atc https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7915/who-has-th... * https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24756/when-can-a-pilot-disobey-atc-commands https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24756/when-can-... * https://atccommunication.com/cannot-comply-with-an-atc-clearance-unable/ https://atccommunication.com/cannot-comply-with-an-atc-clear... Short of shooting down the plane there's nothing anyone can do about it.

throwaway21_ 5y ago

> What happened in the Snowden case was DIPLOMACY ("you may not travel here if you carry this man"), not force. And MiG-29 sprinkled same kind of diplomacy here - they weren't shot down, they just were diplomatically notified that in their best interest is to land down. See, no force, pure diplomacy.

newacct583 5y ago
Again, there was no force with the Morales plane. No one can enter another nation's airspace without permission. They were simply denied permission. It's the difference between being denied boarding for an international flight because you forgot your passport and being arrested once you land. One is "force", one is not. Denying Morale's plane permission was an act of diplomacy, albeit a very uncommon one and one in pursuit of an unjust goal. Forcing down a foreign airplane on an international flight to arrest someone on it is an act of war. Sorry.
- caf 5y ago
  What would have happened if his plane had tried to cross into Spain regardless? Do you think 'force' might have been involved? Is not denying overflight ultimately backed by force?
  - newacct583 5y ago
    > What would have happened if his plane had tried to cross into Spain regardless? A major international incident (the head of state of one nation violating the airspace of another) that completely and utterly dwarfs whatever nonsense was going on with Snowden. I know it's hard for geeks here to understand, but Snowden just isn't that important. Again: he wasn't even on the plane. And Morales apparently had no intention of putting him on there. He was just pissed off that no one trusted him about that.
    - caf 5y ago
      It would have been intercepted and forced to land, that's what.