Hacker News Reader

Comment by HatchedLake721 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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...

> 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.

> 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.

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

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.

> 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.

About right. I almost did this once by watching the pilot of Lost near landing on a flight to Hawaii in economy.

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?

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....

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.

Indeed - I don't think the President is normally personally involved in safety protocols...

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...

Yes. It wasn't forced to land though, as far as your article asserts, unless I'm missing something in it?

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."

> “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.

In that sentence, "on the plane" refers to the bomb, not to the "someone"

You can tell some shit's about to go down when somebody sets you up the bomb and then you get signal.

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.

As far as I know 7700 is a generic emergency code:

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/squawking-7700-in-flight-...

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.

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.

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.

> a lot more aggressive

Yep, unsophisticated peasants tend to use more force than experienced urbanites. Dreadful, don't you know.

> 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.

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.

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.

> This is exactly what Belarus just did.

No it's not?!

Spain, France and Italy closed their airspace to the plane. It was a disgraceful incident, but not the same as this.

Had Belarus closed their airspace, the ryanair flight would have had to fly around (or divert to Warsaw or Lviv)

They are closed their airspace in coordinated effort to land the plane within reach of authorities searching for Snowden. It's same.

Plane could have returned to Russia (and probably would if Snowden was aboard)

Not defending it, especially the alleged search once it landed, but it was very different to a hoax bomb threat on a commercial plane

The general question is - can you alter the other country’s airplane path to pursue political goals? And the answer is yes.

Wasn’t the Bolivian plane the President’s which meant it was entitled to additional diplomatic protections and couldn’t be required to stop at all? Hence the various governments refusal to allow them into specific airspace so they’d run out of fuel and be forced to stop without being ordered to? It seems like the same goal and the same end result just that it required a little more finesse in their malicious compliance with international treaties.

> Hence the various governments refusal to allow them into specific airspace so they’d run out of fuel and be forced to stop without being ordered to?

> 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-s...

* https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7915/who-has-th...

* https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24756/when-can-...

* https://atccommunication.com/cannot-comply-with-an-atc-clear...

Short of shooting down the plane there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Who are you quoting in the second paragraph? Because it looks like you’re quoting me and I don’t believe I said that...

It looks like the throwaway was re-using their reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27257113

Not really. US using implicit financial coercion is no better than Belarus using their air-force. Clearly a larger display of corruption.

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

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

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...

P-lease! the case is crystal clear: the MIG was used to threaten the plane into landing!

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-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)

Have you read this? https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/05/911-oral-...

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.

Huh, surely the Belarusian government wouldn't dare shoot it down? But I guess if I were the Ryanair captain responsible for all souls onboard, landing it is the safest choice.

> Huh, surely the Belarusian government wouldn't dare shoot it down?

No sane or insane pilot is going to risk it, however. Unless the pilot was certain that his and all of passengers fate were in danger, they are going to follow that fighter jet.

I think that just changed hours ago. Flying over Russian/Belarus is now considered harmful.

Iran shot a commercial passenger plane down last year, so it isn't exactly outside the realm of possibility.

Not intentionally.

No need to go looking for examples from halfway across the world, Russia was complicit in the downing of MH-17 over Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH-17#Cause_of_the_crash

And directly responsible back in the Soviet era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

A court in Canada ruled that it was intentional https://nationalpost.com/news/world/iran-shot-down-plane-ful...

It was a default judgment.

Would that need to be either Iranian or some international court? Why would a Canadian court be responsible for Iranian air zone?

What international court?

Because it was mostly Canadians murdered on that aircraft.

Yes, intentionally:

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/iran-shot-down-plane-ful...

Iran shot a commercial passenger plane down last year, so it isn't exactly outside the realm of possibility.

Don’t forget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/09/14/a...

A sane government would not, but a sane government would also not hijack the plane.

The fighter jet was there to intercept. All commercial pilots are trained to follow standard procedures when intercepted. Which comes down to: 1. Let ATC know, 2. Establish radio communication or use standard signals if unable, 3. Follow directions by the intercepting plane instead of ATC.

The radio words to use are standardised so they even work in case one side doesn't speak English. The signals are also very simple (rock wings, certain turns, gear up/down).

No need to think about being shot down or not, no need to scare, any commercial flight being intercepted would follow directions.

This does not refute the parent commenter's point.

> 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?

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.

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.

If I land on a plane in America, shoot someone before I clear immigration, then depart, does that mean I can't be arrested?

No, it does not.

>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.

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

International law is not a real thing that has loopholes... it is just a set of agreed upon principles that are usually followed.

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.

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.

>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.

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?

I think that airplane will be considered captured by terrorists. If there's a danger of it being used as a weapon of mass destruction, it'll be blowed up to prevent more deaths. I don't think that it would be considered reasonable to blow up aircraft if it didn't present a danger to big cities.

So IMO pilot could ignore their requirements and I think that nothing would happen outside of angry transmissions. Especially if the plane was near border. But I don't think that it would be reasonable, especially in an airplane full of innocent people.

That MIG-29 on their tail will help them obey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

> to this loophole that has now been abused twice (that we know)

Twice?

Here are some links of the Bolivian presidents plane being grounded:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-23166146

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

Committed a serious crime? Sure. Will there be actual consequences for that individual? Unlikely.

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.

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.

> It would be illegal for the pilots to ignore such an order while inside a country's airspace.

Any direction from ATC would be replied with "Unable":

* https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2021/01/10-times-you-s...

* https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/7915/who-has-th...

* https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/24756/when-can-...

* https://atccommunication.com/cannot-comply-with-an-atc-clear...

Short of shooting down the plane there's nothing anyone can do about it.

> 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.

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.

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?

> 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.

It would have been intercepted and forced to land, that's what.

You're completely missing the point, or else trolling.

The Ryanair plane didn't deliberately violate the airspace of Belarus in violation of withdrawn permission, they filed a flight plan to Vilnius just like they had every day for years and years. It was an airliner on a scheduled flight.

Your counterfactual involving a deliberate invasion of another country seems... extraordinarily weird. I mean, yes, countries defend their airspace when it's invaded by other nations in violation of established treaties. Duh. That is not what happened yesterday at all and you fucking know it. Stop this.

Nope, that airplane was in Belarus airspace so it's up to them to decide if they want it landed or not. If you don't like it nobody is forcing you to fly over Belarus. Their airspace - their rules.

Same thing happened on 9/11 - US chose do land all aircrafts, and in case that anyone disobeyed orders it would be promptly shot down - foreign planes or not, it didn't matter in slightest.

First, no, there are no international treaties about forcing aircraft to the ground. That is an extraordinary thing done in circumstances of immediate safety concerns. There are, however, treaties that have been in place about unfettered airspace transit access (no idea which exactly Belarus is a signatory to), and this was pretty clearly in violation of those. There is no "you're in our airspace so we do what we like" rule in international air travel, and that's ridiculous to suggest.

Second: they let the plane in on a flight plan that clearly took it to Vilnius. Again, that's false pretenses.

Per the analogy above: consider a consulate telling someone "sure, you can board this plane without your passport, it's fine" and then arresting the person for a visa violation on landing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro_hijacking#Interc...

Looks like they learned from the best.

The whataboutism here is just insane. Ronald Reagan OK's an interception of a plane containing a known terrorist 36 years ago and now it's OK to hijack airliners anywhere in the world for any reason?

Yeah, this is trolling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com