3 ms·

But the plane was not forced to land in the first place. It landed under some flimsy excuse about being unclear how much fuel they had. The plane could have s

by emn13 5y ago

But the plane was not forced to land in the first place. It landed under some flimsy excuse about being unclear how much fuel they had. The plane could have simply flown around. It could have returned.

vkou 5y ago
Planes carry only enough fuel to get to their destination, plus a little more. If in the middle of the flight, you are told that you were surprise - banned from flying over multiple countries in your flight plan, you are forced to abort your flight and land, unless you want the plane to run out of fuel and crash in the middle of nowhere. And again - this is a pointless semantics game. Yes or no - is messing with airplanes, in flight, in order to make political arrests acceptable behaviour? You seem to think so (As long as its done in some particular way.) The only difference is that one of the two planes had more options for where it could land. Both had to land at somewhere other than their destination, though, unless the pilots wanted everyone on board to die. I don't give a rat's ass if France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy can deny an in-flight commercial airplane access to their airspace to make a political arrest. They clearly can, and did. I am asking you if they should do that. Does that seem right to you?
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > can deny an in-flight commercial airplane access to their airspace to make a political arrest. They clearly can, and did. I think GP has done a fabulous job explaining why this isn't true, so your continued assertions that it is are strange. Perhaps there are differences between these two circumstances after all?
  - throwaway21_ 5y ago
    Sure there are differences - in one case it was us (and we are good guys of course) and in another case it was them (and they are bad guys). Nothing new under the sun, it has always been like that, us vs them.
    - relativ575 5y ago
      In Snowden case the plan weren't forced to land and was free to pick a different path. Ryanair's flight didn't have a choice. Belarus ignored all the convention and put passengers in danger. Not a big difference?
      - throwaway21_ 5y ago
        Passengers were in danger in a same way passengers are in danger over New York if pilot refuses ATC directions. Yeah, Morales's pilot could choose a different path provided there's air refueling available. Otherwise it had to land somewhere, and then airplane was searched. I'm pretty sure there are conventions that forbid that kind behavior against diplomatic personal. So, in the end, we are again at the same place - when we ignore conventions that's perfectly fine, and when they do the same it's a completely different. btw read first article of Chicago convention, then check what sovereignty means.
        emn13 5y ago
        According to Morales, no Viennese authorities boarded to plane, and in any case it's a bit of a moot point - after all Morales may well have cooperated well beyond what was required; after all, he had no reason to prevent transparency here, and indeed it's a PR win for his anti-imperialist cause if he can demonstrate the US and its allies are essentially bullies. Assuming he intended to fly to the azores to refuel, he should have had enough fuel to fly back to Moscow too. The austrian air traffic control did not induce him to land; he chose to do so when portugal refused refueling rights and a small number of countries did not immediate grant permission to fly over their territory (but according to France, once it became clear it was Morales's plane they did, so... somebody is being economical with the truth there). In any case, even without air refueling it would have been extremely unlikely that the 900EX only had enough fuel for the around 3000km to Vienna as opposed to the 8000km it could carry when the overall trip is around 15000km. Almost certainly Morales had his pick of airports to land at, including Moscow, Basel, perhaps Turkey or Egypt or who knows where. There is clear evidence Morales' plane could not follow its original flight plan nor fly without any refueling all the way to La Paz; but there is no evidence he couldn't have chosen to avoid landing in the EU if he had wanted to. But... he didn't want to avoid that; he wanted to make the point that the US is imperialist. And that's fine! I don't begrudge him that. But it's just an entirely different story to the Belarusian abduction of a journalist by temporarily kidnapping an entire civilian plane. Those aren't at all the same, and claims in this discussion thread to the contrary seem like strained attempts at whataboutism; presenting the US government as not just having its own flaws, but having equivalent flaws to Belarusian dictatorships' flaws. At that point, it seems like people are living in some kind of alternate reality they've imagined to suit their predetermined world view.
- scatters 5y ago
  The plane in question had enough fuel to make it across the Atlantic; it certainly had enough to make it back to Russia. If Snowden had been on board they would indisputably have done so. The choice to land in Austria was a political decision.
  - vkou 5y ago
    What the pilot chose to do in the situation has no bearing on what France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain did, and whether they should have done it. I will ask again - do you think it is appropriate for countries to disrupt third party, commercial air travel, in order to force travelers down into a jurisdiction where they can make political arrests? It's a very simple, yes, or no question.
    - comex 5y ago
      Morales’ plane was not forced down, and there was no chance of a political arrest actually happening (because the plane would not have landed if Snowden had been on board). Moreover, the European countries would have known in advance that their actions would not force the plane down or create the possibility of an arrest. So your simple question is not relevant to the situation.
      - vkou 5y ago
        You are still avoiding the question, while misinterpreting my point. I'm not saying that the two situations are 100% identical in what happened. I am, however, saying, that the two situations are 100% identical in intent. So, again - yes or no - is it appropriate to disrupt a third party flight, in order to make a political arrest of a passenger on that flight? We've been dodging this question for the better part of a day, but nobody seems to be willing to stand up and say "Yes, it damn well is." Instead, everyone seems to be splitting hairs about the definition of 'disrupt'. I don't care about your definition of disrupt. [1] Is it, or is it not the sort of thing that we do? Is the intent behind this the kind of intent that you're going to sanction? Or the kind of intent that you're going to condemn? > (because the plane would not have landed if Snowden had been on board) Unsubstantiated speculation, and completely irrelevant. You have no idea what the pilot would have done if he were. > Moreover, the European countries would have known in advance that their actions would not force the plane down or create the possibility of an arrest Also unsubstantiated speculation, and completely irrelevant. You have no idea what the people who made that call were thinking. Your interpretation also fails to account for why four countries did just that. For shits and giggles? Because they were expecting that stunt to fail? Because someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed, and decided to play airspace roulette? [1] Further up in the thread, people keep saying that the plane was closer to Vilnius than Minsk, as if that is at all relevant. Were it closer to Minsk than Vilnius at the time of the call, would that have made this entire affair kosher for you? You seem to be incredibly concerned about the form, as opposed to the intent.
ric2b 5y ago
> But the plane was not forced to land in the first place. It was indirectly forced, if the other options were to either be shot down by entering unauthorized airspace or to land. If it could have returned safely it probably would, but fuel is a very limited resource in a flying plane.
- emn13 5y ago
  It surely was forced to land... somewhere. However, this plane is capable of crossing the Atlantic, and surely wasn't going to make unnecessary refueling stops. And indeed, they didn't make the implausible claim that they'd run out of fuel; they made the only slightly less implausible claim that they weren't sure of the fuel situation. And several European countries dispute the chain of events. The plane in question was a dassault falcon 900ex - https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/fab-001 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/fab-001 - that has a range of 8,340km; it would have needed only 1 refueling stop between moscow and la paz. The fact that portugal refused a refueling stop is perhaps relevant, because that stop may well have been planned for the azores - those are slightly further from Vienna than Moscow is; making the story about fuel yet more implausible. Finally, consider the motivations of its owner - Evo Morales. While I have no objection to his political aims; it is nevertheless wise to consider that he does have political aims. And as it so happens, he's a populist, anti-imperialist, anti-US political leader. For him, seeking this confrontation would have been a pure win; and furthermore being seen as the victim of imperialist oppression would have been the cherry on top. As such, it's just not reasonable to assume that his actions were aimed to defuse the situation; if he could appear to be victimized by imperialist forces, that's to his benefit. So it's entirely plausible for him to choose to land in Vienna instead of return. It's not very plausible fuel was running low. Additionally, there are about a dozen other countries very close by he could like have chosen to land in, even if fuel was scarce - he wasn't in some inescapable box.

by emn13 5y ago

vkou 5y ago

Planes carry only enough fuel to get to their destination, plus a little more. If in the middle of the flight, you are told that you were surprise - banned from flying over multiple countries in your flight plan, you are forced to abort your flight and land, unless you want the plane to run out of fuel and crash in the middle of nowhere. And again - this is a pointless semantics game. Yes or no - is messing with airplanes, in flight, in order to make political arrests acceptable behaviour? You seem to think so (As long as its done in some particular way.) The only difference is that one of the two planes had more options for where it could land. Both had to land at somewhere other than their destination, though, unless the pilots wanted everyone on board to die. I don't give a rat's ass if France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy can deny an in-flight commercial airplane access to their airspace to make a political arrest. They clearly can, and did. I am asking you if they should do that. Does that seem right to you?

joshuamorton 5y ago
> can deny an in-flight commercial airplane access to their airspace to make a political arrest. They clearly can, and did. I think GP has done a fabulous job explaining why this isn't true, so your continued assertions that it is are strange. Perhaps there are differences between these two circumstances after all?
- throwaway21_ 5y ago
  Sure there are differences - in one case it was us (and we are good guys of course) and in another case it was them (and they are bad guys). Nothing new under the sun, it has always been like that, us vs them.
  - relativ575 5y ago
    In Snowden case the plan weren't forced to land and was free to pick a different path. Ryanair's flight didn't have a choice. Belarus ignored all the convention and put passengers in danger. Not a big difference?
    - throwaway21_ 5y ago
      Passengers were in danger in a same way passengers are in danger over New York if pilot refuses ATC directions. Yeah, Morales's pilot could choose a different path provided there's air refueling available. Otherwise it had to land somewhere, and then airplane was searched. I'm pretty sure there are conventions that forbid that kind behavior against diplomatic personal. So, in the end, we are again at the same place - when we ignore conventions that's perfectly fine, and when they do the same it's a completely different. btw read first article of Chicago convention, then check what sovereignty means.
      - emn13 5y ago
        According to Morales, no Viennese authorities boarded to plane, and in any case it's a bit of a moot point - after all Morales may well have cooperated well beyond what was required; after all, he had no reason to prevent transparency here, and indeed it's a PR win for his anti-imperialist cause if he can demonstrate the US and its allies are essentially bullies. Assuming he intended to fly to the azores to refuel, he should have had enough fuel to fly back to Moscow too. The austrian air traffic control did not induce him to land; he chose to do so when portugal refused refueling rights and a small number of countries did not immediate grant permission to fly over their territory (but according to France, once it became clear it was Morales's plane they did, so... somebody is being economical with the truth there). In any case, even without air refueling it would have been extremely unlikely that the 900EX only had enough fuel for the around 3000km to Vienna as opposed to the 8000km it could carry when the overall trip is around 15000km. Almost certainly Morales had his pick of airports to land at, including Moscow, Basel, perhaps Turkey or Egypt or who knows where. There is clear evidence Morales' plane could not follow its original flight plan nor fly without any refueling all the way to La Paz; but there is no evidence he couldn't have chosen to avoid landing in the EU if he had wanted to. But... he didn't want to avoid that; he wanted to make the point that the US is imperialist. And that's fine! I don't begrudge him that. But it's just an entirely different story to the Belarusian abduction of a journalist by temporarily kidnapping an entire civilian plane. Those aren't at all the same, and claims in this discussion thread to the contrary seem like strained attempts at whataboutism; presenting the US government as not just having its own flaws, but having equivalent flaws to Belarusian dictatorships' flaws. At that point, it seems like people are living in some kind of alternate reality they've imagined to suit their predetermined world view.
scatters 5y ago
The plane in question had enough fuel to make it across the Atlantic; it certainly had enough to make it back to Russia. If Snowden had been on board they would indisputably have done so. The choice to land in Austria was a political decision.
- vkou 5y ago
  What the pilot chose to do in the situation has no bearing on what France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain did, and whether they should have done it. I will ask again - do you think it is appropriate for countries to disrupt third party, commercial air travel, in order to force travelers down into a jurisdiction where they can make political arrests? It's a very simple, yes, or no question.
  - comex 5y ago
    Morales’ plane was not forced down, and there was no chance of a political arrest actually happening (because the plane would not have landed if Snowden had been on board). Moreover, the European countries would have known in advance that their actions would not force the plane down or create the possibility of an arrest. So your simple question is not relevant to the situation.
    - vkou 5y ago
      You are still avoiding the question, while misinterpreting my point. I'm not saying that the two situations are 100% identical in what happened. I am, however, saying, that the two situations are 100% identical in intent. So, again - yes or no - is it appropriate to disrupt a third party flight, in order to make a political arrest of a passenger on that flight? We've been dodging this question for the better part of a day, but nobody seems to be willing to stand up and say "Yes, it damn well is." Instead, everyone seems to be splitting hairs about the definition of 'disrupt'. I don't care about your definition of disrupt. [1] Is it, or is it not the sort of thing that we do? Is the intent behind this the kind of intent that you're going to sanction? Or the kind of intent that you're going to condemn? > (because the plane would not have landed if Snowden had been on board) Unsubstantiated speculation, and completely irrelevant. You have no idea what the pilot would have done if he were. > Moreover, the European countries would have known in advance that their actions would not force the plane down or create the possibility of an arrest Also unsubstantiated speculation, and completely irrelevant. You have no idea what the people who made that call were thinking. Your interpretation also fails to account for why four countries did just that. For shits and giggles? Because they were expecting that stunt to fail? Because someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed, and decided to play airspace roulette? [1] Further up in the thread, people keep saying that the plane was closer to Vilnius than Minsk, as if that is at all relevant. Were it closer to Minsk than Vilnius at the time of the call, would that have made this entire affair kosher for you? You seem to be incredibly concerned about the form, as opposed to the intent.

ric2b 5y ago

> But the plane was not forced to land in the first place. It was indirectly forced, if the other options were to either be shot down by entering unauthorized airspace or to land. If it could have returned safely it probably would, but fuel is a very limited resource in a flying plane.

emn13 5y ago
It surely was forced to land... somewhere. However, this plane is capable of crossing the Atlantic, and surely wasn't going to make unnecessary refueling stops. And indeed, they didn't make the implausible claim that they'd run out of fuel; they made the only slightly less implausible claim that they weren't sure of the fuel situation. And several European countries dispute the chain of events. The plane in question was a dassault falcon 900ex - https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/fab-001 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/fab-001 - that has a range of 8,340km; it would have needed only 1 refueling stop between moscow and la paz. The fact that portugal refused a refueling stop is perhaps relevant, because that stop may well have been planned for the azores - those are slightly further from Vienna than Moscow is; making the story about fuel yet more implausible. Finally, consider the motivations of its owner - Evo Morales. While I have no objection to his political aims; it is nevertheless wise to consider that he does have political aims. And as it so happens, he's a populist, anti-imperialist, anti-US political leader. For him, seeking this confrontation would have been a pure win; and furthermore being seen as the victim of imperialist oppression would have been the cherry on top. As such, it's just not reasonable to assume that his actions were aimed to defuse the situation; if he could appear to be victimized by imperialist forces, that's to his benefit. So it's entirely plausible for him to choose to land in Vienna instead of return. It's not very plausible fuel was running low. Additionally, there are about a dozen other countries very close by he could like have chosen to land in, even if fuel was scarce - he wasn't in some inescapable box.