6 ms·

The comparison is a weak one. Sending a fighter jet to intercept an aircraft in your airspace is not the same as denying permission for an aircraft to enter you

The comparison is a weak one. Sending a fighter jet to intercept an aircraft in your airspace is not the same as denying permission for an aircraft to enter your airspace.

plank 5y ago
I am actually not convinced it is that different. Method is perhaps different, motivation and effect (had Snowden been on board) is quite similar. And yes, the threat to the flying airplane is the same: it would be a shame of something happened to that nice plane of yours in our airspace.
newsclues 5y ago
Raw power vs surreptitious influence. They achieved the same goal. I think I prefer the brutal honesty.
vkou 5y ago
If you believe that countries can have sovereign control over their airspace, which includes the power to demand that planes land, and also the power to send fighter jets up for any reason whatsoever, including no reason whatsoever, it's not a weak comparison. The United States, for instance, has, and will continue to send fighter jets up to intercept private aircraft, whenever the hell it chooses to. European, and other countries do the same. [1] [2] Pretty clearly, countries have the right to scramble jets, and also the right to deny flight privileges to planes in their airspace. Likewise, countries clearly have the right to send armed ships to tail ships in their territorial waters, send armed police to tail vehicles on their roads, etc, etc. The legality of it only becomes questionable when someone starts shooting. [1] https://news.sky.com/story/sonic-boom-after-raf-jets-sent-to-intercept-private-plane-12185918 https://news.sky.com/story/sonic-boom-after-raf-jets-sent-to... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18058855 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18058855
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wahern 5y ago
That seems like an irrelevant technical distinction considering that Austrian officials searched President Morale's plane when it made an emergency landing in Vienna. The whole charade was clearly planned. The optics may have looked different as compared to sending up a military interceptor, but certainly the political substance was the same. It's not like officials search every diverted flight; they search the ones they conspired to ground in their jurisdiction. And the legal substance may have been the same if those other EU countries violated treaties in rescinding their overflight permission.
littlestymaar 5y ago
Though in practice what happens if you deny permission to enter your airspace and the plane doesn't comply? You send the fighter jet…
a1369209993 5y ago
They didn't deny permission; they gave permission (when the flight plan was filed), then illegitimately (and specifically; other planes were allowed) revoked it after the plane was already in the air.
aaomidi 5y ago
One side has enough soft power they don't need fighter jets. End goal is the same. We set precedent and then we're surprised when others realize "Huh it's actually okay to do shit like this"
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  hijacked planes are often escorted anyway, with pilots prepared to down the hijacked plane should they be ordered to do so. Not something that's talked about frequently, but bomb threats do not actually open restricted airspace.

The comparison is a weak one. Sending a fighter jet to intercept an aircraft in your airspace is not the same as denying permission for an aircraft to enter your airspace.

plank 5y ago

I am actually not convinced it is that different. Method is perhaps different, motivation and effect (had Snowden been on board) is quite similar. And yes, the threat to the flying airplane is the same: it would be a shame of something happened to that nice plane of yours in our airspace.

newsclues 5y ago

Raw power vs surreptitious influence. They achieved the same goal. I think I prefer the brutal honesty.

vkou 5y ago

If you believe that countries can have sovereign control over their airspace, which includes the power to demand that planes land, and also the power to send fighter jets up for any reason whatsoever, including no reason whatsoever, it's not a weak comparison. The United States, for instance, has, and will continue to send fighter jets up to intercept private aircraft, whenever the hell it chooses to. European, and other countries do the same. [1] [2] Pretty clearly, countries have the right to scramble jets, and also the right to deny flight privileges to planes in their airspace. Likewise, countries clearly have the right to send armed ships to tail ships in their territorial waters, send armed police to tail vehicles on their roads, etc, etc. The legality of it only becomes questionable when someone starts shooting. [1] https://news.sky.com/story/sonic-boom-after-raf-jets-sent-to-intercept-private-plane-12185918 https://news.sky.com/story/sonic-boom-after-raf-jets-sent-to... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18058855 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18058855

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

wahern 5y ago

That seems like an irrelevant technical distinction considering that Austrian officials searched President Morale's plane when it made an emergency landing in Vienna. The whole charade was clearly planned. The optics may have looked different as compared to sending up a military interceptor, but certainly the political substance was the same. It's not like officials search every diverted flight; they search the ones they conspired to ground in their jurisdiction. And the legal substance may have been the same if those other EU countries violated treaties in rescinding their overflight permission.

littlestymaar 5y ago

Though in practice what happens if you deny permission to enter your airspace and the plane doesn't comply? You send the fighter jet…

a1369209993 5y ago

They didn't deny permission; they gave permission (when the flight plan was filed), then illegitimately (and specifically; other planes were allowed) revoked it after the plane was already in the air.

aaomidi 5y ago

One side has enough soft power they don't need fighter jets. End goal is the same. We set precedent and then we're surprised when others realize "Huh it's actually okay to do shit like this"

inter_netuser 5y ago
hijacked planes are often escorted anyway, with pilots prepared to down the hijacked plane should they be ordered to do so. Not something that's talked about frequently, but bomb threats do not actually open restricted airspace.