Hacker News Reader

I don't see this happening though. It would seem reasonable to limit the countries seeing the passenger list to those countries that the plane is taking off from/leaving though.

I doubt that the pilot or copilot could have done this themselves, but I would be very surprised if they never asked their corporate control operating command to explain and establish what exactly was going on and whether they're going to be compelled to comply with the Belorussian diversions request... assuming that the escort fighter jets didn't simultaneously arrive on their wings to punctuate the "request" effectively.

Can anyone with FAA / CAA (the UK civil aviation authority) or EU airspace rules knowledge clarify what protocols exist for these situations?

The generally accepted worldwide rule is that airspace is owned by the country under it. You actually pay overflight fees for use of a countries airspace and are subject to its air traffic control. The corporate response will always be "don't get shot down."

In the US and most everywhere else, when you willfully ignore ATC they scramble fighter jets. Every pilot is trained in what this looks like and how to respond, but the safe next step is always to respond in the affirmative and land. https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/inflight...

Note that many VFR flights are NOT under direct ATC control (though requesting flight following is always recommended) so unless you appear to be flying erratically or otherwise attract attention you may not even be noticed - it’s standard to send an interceptor if they have reason to believe your radio is inoperable and they need to get in contact (there are established intercept/no-contact procedures).

In reality it is highly unlikely for a commercial airline to ignore a direct ATC command (unless the pilot believes the plane is in distress) - and in a case like this where ATC reports a hazard onboard and divert it wouldn’t be unexpected to see an escort (even if just so that there is a witness if the plane were to actually explode).

After 9-11 the chance that the interceptors are armed is probably 100%.

Fun fact: the max speed of a normal GA plane (think Cessna) is below the stall speed of many interceptors which can result in amusement.

> Fun fact: the max speed of a normal GA plane (think Cessna) is below the stall speed of many interceptors which can result in amusement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD77nyoEyug&t=116s

> Note that many VFR flights are NOT under direct ATC control

I was answering in the context of flying from one country to another while crossing over a third. You'll need a flight plan and overflight permits, which generally require ATC contact at least on entry.

Belarus specifically requires a fixed flight path using defined entry and exit points for any aircraft, a Sunday afternoon VFR wander-about is just as likely in Yemen or Iran. :)

> the max speed of a normal GA plane (think Cessna) is below the stall speed of many interceptors which can result in amusement

Somehow I get the inkling that terrorist groups probably aren't going to start trying to crash into office buildings with a Cessna.

It's been many years since I've read it, but physics professor Richard A. Muller in his book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_for_Future_Presidents argues that agricultural planes pose a great possibility of danger in relation to terrorism. They're small, nimble (meaning quite maneuverable) while holding a great amount of liquid. Gasoline is particularly suitable (911 attack were planes with tanks filled up for long distance flights for a reason) in attacks due to its high energy density.

He speaks of the farmer's community though as a tight nit community. Used planes are sold and bought within the community, farmers themselves would be very suspicious selling to someone "shady", and the FBI knows about this threat vector as well and is monitoring it closely (iirc).

So there's an example of a small plane and its potential use case in terrorism. Not sure how easily a Cessna could be rigged up to do something of that kind.

Another attack vector in the future might be small drones. Due to them not holding tons of gasoline, some form of biochemical weapon or radioactive material could be distributed.

Muller argues that the mass panic of an incident involving biochemical materials or radioactivity would most likely be a greater danger than the "material threat" itself. Many people would be scared of "radioactivity" without much understanding. People are not particularly well educated how radioactive decline works, what half life times really mean (long half life meaning slow release, less imminent danger), why various types of radioactivity can be quite different from another etc.

So don't underestimate terrorists. Luckily, don't underestimate smart people in three letter agencies thinking about this either.

>Many people would be scared of "radioactivity" without much understanding. People are not particularly well educated how radioactive decline works, what half life times really mean (long half life meaning slow release, less imminent danger), why various types of radioactivity can be quite different from another etc.

Sounds prudent of them. If a small plane spreads radioactive material over an area they are in as an act of terrorism, even a nuclear expert with 5 PhDs will first panic and try to get the fuck away and only much later care to go into the minituae of the situation.

People are not wearing masks in the face of a pandemic when experts tell them to. How well would calming down the public work (by authorities and experts) after a seemingly nuclear/biochemical terror attack and false claims from a terror organization?

The imminent reaction of "let's get out of here" in the face of danger was not what I was referring to here.

Well,

Authorities and experts want to reduce panic to make their jobs (coordination, damage assessment, policing, rescue, etc.) easier and reduce the results of masses reacting panickly.

But authorities also lie time and again and downplay threats to keep panic low (or to make themselves look better, and also because they don't know shit yet, but must still pretend that they are in control).

The sole individual might be more beneficial to panic and get the hell out (not just directly after immediate blow).

The problem is that everybody else panicking will make things difficult, cause mayhem, stampedes, block the highways, limit petrol availability, etc. But that doesn't mean it's not a good strategy at the individual level.

So there's a friction on what might be best survival strategy for each individual, leading to crappy outcomes when adopted by millions.

What I'm getting at is two subtle additions to your comment:

(a) mass panic/exodus might be a crappy response, but it can still be great at the individual level (if only if it could be kept to that). But even if not, the few succeeding in pursuing it, will probably have an advantage over others that meekisly listen to the experts/gov and "stay calm".

(b) experts often don't know whats going on for a long time, have limited input, give contradicting expert advice, and often just flat out corroborate some story to assist the government political decision about handling a crisis.

> Muller argues that the mass panic of an incident involving biochemical materials or radioactivity would most likely be a greater danger than the "material threat" itself.

I mean, this was true of a similar incident that didn't involve those factors. The United States' overreaction to 9/11 has cost several orders of magnitude more lives than were actually taken on that day.

Although I suppose things get murkier if you include copycat crimes - not too easy to copy "hijack a commercial airliner", but a whole heap of people could very easily strap a biochemical threat to a drone.

You need to put on quite a show to recreate 9/11. You need little to distribute biochemical or radioactive material, or fake distribute. Imagine a crop plane spraying some mass event. Let's even assume for the sake of argument it being simple water, before crash landing somewhere and a terrorist organization thereafter issuing a claim of responsibility and gloat about the irreversible imminent death of a million people. Would be interesting to see that play out. And yes, you would not need drones or crop planes necessarily, but it would probably instill more fear it being done that way.

The gasoline attack (liquid fuel in general) vector in relation to agricultural planes (planes used to spray crops) is real though and the relevant part to your comment. Fly it into a full football stadium with 100k people, so small planes are not to be underestimated.

> So don't underestimate terrorists. Luckily, don't underestimate smart people in three letter agencies thinking about this either.

You can easily kill more people with a sewage pipe pipe mortar, or ramming a truck.

You don't see many those "smart people" even trying.

The "intelligence community" are a nest of inscrutable incompetence, and idiocy. That's the bottom line.

Depends on how angry you are with said office building. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack

Yeah, the amusement is more being buzzed/circled by the jet in full landing condition until they can get an Apache out to you.

And the Apache is way more intimidating than the jet.

> Somehow I get the inkling that terrorist groups probably aren't going to start trying to crash into office buildings with a Cessna.

1994 - Cessna 150 vs. White House South Lawn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eugene_Corder

2002 - Cessna 172 vs. Bank of America Tower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tampa_Cessna_172_crash

2010 - Piper Dakota vs. IRS office in Austin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack

The 150 story:

>on September 11, 1994

Wow.

> Somehow I get the inkling that terrorist groups probably aren't going to start trying to crash into office buildings with a Cessna.

The Tamil Tigers did run a campaign of dropping small bombs from planes that were too slow for the Sri Lankan air force to intercept at one point.

> After 9-11 the chance that the interceptors are armed is probably 100%.

Why wouldn't they be? What else can they even do? Especially in the case that the radio is inoperable. Other than seeing what's happening, and reporting back.

On a tangential yet related note to paying overflight fees to a country - most expensive route to fly over: Serbian Flight Corridor[0].

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNDYBt9e_U

I was wondering why Serbia, but you meant Siberia. Thanks for the interesting video, though!

Ah whoops! haha yeah. leaving my mistake

Except you have the emergency landing possibilities which require cooperation. And after all a country has a right/obligation to know who moves trough its territory.

Imagine, it wasn't the case prior to mid-nineties.

International air travel was possible with paper tickets.

Heck, you could've travel, immigrate, and settle all around Europe without papers prior to a certain mentally challenged emperor deciding to ruin it all.

prior to a certain mentally challenged emperor deciding to ruin it all

You might have to be more specific there have been more than a few of those in European history

Wilhelm II would be my guess. He would fit the bill. Though, as you said, many others would too.

Probably talking about the Saudis, who were allegedly behind 9/11?

a close friend of mine who settled in the UK after he only survived the war by fluke being Polish Danzig born but with a step uncle a unfortunate gauleiter (he was on the run one way or another consequently) still to this day hurriedly produces his German Police certificate of good conduct and freedom from trouble with the law, despite being here because he spied for us he cannot be persuaded that any of the 3rd reich or subsequently 4 powers or West German authorities hold any less power over his individual freedoms and liberties and right of abode and living, not one smallest bit less in all that time. And I believe my friend is perfectly correct to think that this is the case.

> Heck, you could've travel, immigrate, and settle all around Europe without papers prior to a certain mentally challenged emperor deciding to ruin it all.

I would really like to know when exactly was that.

My family are descendants of a gypsy from Romania who walked here in the late 19th century. He found a local wife.

That does not imply that anyone "could travel, immigrate, and settle all around Europe without papers" at the same time. Wherever I look, I am finding various requirements for documentation, permission and restrictions. They might be more or less strict, but I did not succeeded in finding period where whole Europe would allowed you to move and settle freely without some of that.

And even less the part "prior to a certain mentally challenged emperor deciding to ruin it all" where I really dont know who the original person means.

It's reasonable for the country owning the airspace to know who is on the plane. There are such things as emergency landings.

And most countries will probably just refuse overflight privileges if they don't get that information.

You are right, but yeah, wouldn't help in this case. This guy informed people in his telegram channels where he was going, and he was followed by KGB spies in Athens airport who verified he was going onboard and even tried to make photos of his documents.

Something similar has happened with the Thai government - seizing people from transiting flights to apply Thai lese-majeste laws to foreigners who were not expecting to end up in Thailand.

Any examples you could cite?

the arms dealer who was the model for Nicholas Cage in The Lord of War was finally arrested in Thailand on behalf of the USA.

for some reason non Americans always seem to think that SE Asian people won't help the Feds. But as anyone American who has visited the region could tell them, SE Asia is about the last place you should try hiding from the Feds.

edit : Vietnam and the region is very friendly to Americans and even Brits who avoid alcohol (apologies I'm British born with family in both countries and actually casual drinking alcohol is probably the number one error made by British business people when travelling) but the logic behind cooperation with the USA is simply keeping the USA off their regional collective backs. Just consider how much drug trade is at risk if you upset American interests in SE Asia...

edit the 2nd : actually trying to hide anywhere where life itself is cheap is fundamentally the worst error possible to make if you are hiding from existential danger of really motivated people.

1. The arms dealer was not on a plane that got grounded. He was enjoying time in Thailand. Yes, Thailand cooperates with the US. But this is not a relevant example to the parent comment.

2. Vietnamese people drink like fish. What are you talking about?

3. Vietnam does not assist or extradite to the US AFAIK.

It's not that you should hide where life is cheap. You should hide in countries that are sworn enemies of those you are wanted in.

Interesting, could you expand on the issue with Brits and alcohol?

I'm not sure what he means, as alcohol is very accepted in Vietnam and people there drink a lot.

But (as a fellow from another region where Brits and alcohol mix) he might be talking about asshole drunk tourists behaving badly. That's a common pest everywhere young British tourists come in masses to "have a good time", and the locals don't like them much (even if some locals working in tourism make a buck off them).

Then again, the parent writes about "the number one error made by British business people when travelling" -- and business people don't fit this profile.

I think it is quite common:

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna13907293

This is regarding a guy catching a connecting flight. This is more standard.

>The Belarus plane hijack is a small reminder why it's generally not a good idea to let governments know who is going to where. I'm not sure why governments that like to think of themselves as democratic don't see the risks

This is absolutely true. No mater what, there WILL be abuse.

It's also what worries me most about the normalization of "COVID passports". What's to stop me from putting a bounty on the owner of COVIDpass abcxyz? All you'll have to do is use an alternate scanning app and upload a video of you suckerpunching the owner of COVIDpass abcxyz to receive a 5k prize.

How is that different from any other identifier? Passport, driver’s license or even just someone’s name?

What does that have to do with a COVID passport? Citizen just put a bounty on a homeless guy with no ID at all. A COVID pass based bounty seems way more cumbersome than an old school WANTED poster.

If a government cares enough to deploy fighter jets to hijack a plane like this in violation of every international norm, you can be sure it has the resources to know where you are at all times regardless of how tightly those databases are locked down.

Edit: for improved discourse as pointed out

Please omit snarky swipes like "Oh please" from your HN comments—they just make the thread worse, and your comment would be quite fine without that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Your shallow dismissal not only ignores a substantial portion of my linked article concerning risks and actual case history, but even the portion quoted above.

Information is not power, information is a power multiplier. It enables actions (including attacks and defences) to be specifically focused and targeted.

In the case of Kim Jung-nam, two women (by all accounts innocent accomplices) managed to kill a significant political target in what they thought wasn an entertainment prank by splashing him with liquid, on the ground, at an airport.

Critical to the success of that attack was not access to supersonic military jet fighter aircraft, but simply knowing where and when the target would be in a specified location.

Information that's now broadcast to accuracy of centimetres and seconds on many hundreds of millions if not billions of people worldwide right now.

To give another example I've noted previously, what rights to privacy should a rhinocerous have?

https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/25ll1v/does_a_...

> Information is not power, information is a power multiplier.

That’s deep and insightful, and now that you’ve written it, perfectly obvious in hindsight.

Thanks, though as a caution, I'm not fully sold myself, and I'm curious about cases in which information, knowledge, storage/retrieval, transmission, or processing might be either defensive or equalisers.

Various forms of camouflage come to mind. Though the thought occurs that those can also be used by the more- and less-empowered, perhaps asymmetrically.

> If a government cares enough to deploy fighter jets [...] it has the resources to know where you are at all times

these are very different capabilities. the former is limited to state actors the latter can be found out by any Amadeus employee without any security clearance. the only way to avoid this is not to fly or use a passport that isn't in your name.

if one were to speculate it is likely not even Belarus that made this happen.

> to deploy fighter jets to hijack a plane like this in violation of every international norm

it is pretty standard practice in case of a bomb threat around the world as no one knows where the bomber(s) would force the plane to fly to :

https://abcnews.go.com/US/16s-scrambled-escort-jets-bomb-thr...

"An apparent bomb threat against two passenger flights that was tweeted today resulted in two F-16 fighter jets being scrambled to escort the two airliners.

The two flights were both enroute to Hartsfeld-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta, where they landed safely NORAD said."

Reminds me of that Huawei lady who was pulled of her private jet in Canada because the US had a warrant on her.

Wanzhou was not "pulled off her private jet"; she was detained after Canadian customs processing for something that was a crime in both the US and Canada.

Gary Botting, Canada's leading expert on extraditions disagrees with that "crime in Canada" part. Reading "Legal Commentary" section of Wikipedia's article about Wanzhou leaves the impression that Canada had decided to play poodle for whatever reasons. Trump's comment about the case and the way the US had acted in similar matter with Ericsson also leaves impression that the case is largely of political nature.

I mostly agree with you; I just don't agree it can be characterized as "pulled off her private jet" nor that the case has anything in common with diverting a commercial passenger jet via a fake bomb threat to arrest a journalist.

I did not characterize it as her being "pulled off her private jet" and never said it has any relation to a fake bomb threat. I was replying strictly to someone's point about why she was arrested at all.

Well if you're just going to ignore any context in statements, so will I. (Besides that: Fraud is a crime in both Canada and the US; the arguments presented in the Wikipedia article amount to "it's weird to extradite a specific person for this level of fraud", not that it's legal to commit fraud in Canada. I also agree with this!)

I suggest you read the whole thing carefully. "Allegation of misrepresentation" section in particular. It appears that no fraud had been committed.

"The new court filings contend that since HSBC was made aware that Huawei and Skycom were operating in Iran...".

The slides proving that were however removed from the US submission to Canada.

Further to that: "In October 2020, a judge blocked an attempt by Canada's attorney general to dismiss parts of the extradition case,[121] allowing arguments for the misrepresentation of Meng's case to move forward.[122]"

So it appears that earlier ruling in regards to fraud does not hold much water.