2 ms·

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

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)

jcrawfordor 5y ago
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.
- iso1631 5y ago
  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.
  - stordoff 5y ago
    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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkSeuD-8yA

jcrawfordor 5y ago

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.

iso1631 5y ago
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.
- stordoff 5y ago
  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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkSeuD-8yA