Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sebb767 | Hacker News Reader

> Pilot: Again, this recommendation to divert to Minsk where did it come from? Where did it come from? Company? Did it come from departure airport authorities or arrival airport authorities?

Is it usual for a pilot to ask for all this information? From a "casual reader" perspective, it looks like the pilot really did not want to divert, but this might just be my reading.

View on HN

PIC is ultimately responsible for safety of flight, not controllers or authorities. Given the unusual message which is essentially asking the pilot to declare emergency and oddly specific instructions to divert I don't think this is unusual. Normally in an emergency the pilot would divert to either the filed alternate airport or to another at the pilot's discretion, they would not be told specifically where to go (they might be offered a suggestion, they would often even ask the controller for suggestions since the controller has all the weather at hand, but it would be odd in the US at least for a controller to just directly tell a pilot where to divert as this is understood to be the pilot's call). The transcript gives the feeling the pilot was confused about why they were being given instructions to divert to Minsk which I would assume was not their filed alternate. Pilots in general and airliners especially do not like last-minute changes of plan because they are a good way for an accident to happen, that's why there are planned and filed alternates.

Or put more simply: normally in an emergency the controller asks the pilot what they want to do ("say intentions"). The controller telling the pilot what to do is very weird and inconsistent with the general concept of the PIC as ultimately in command.

For people casually interested in this. What is PIC?

Pilot in command

Pilot In Command. On a commercial flight there are at least two pilots, and possibly three.

To be more precise, it's the designation of the pilot who is responsible for the plane, who may or may not be the pilot who is currently physically flying the plane.

It's "Pilot In Command"

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)

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.

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.

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

It is not uncommon in US for ATC to offer pilot options for diversion or emergency landing when pilot declares an emergency. Good controllers understand that pilot might be dealing with flying airplane and dealing with emergency (e.g. engine failure) and offering help with navigation. Of course, it is PIC responsibility to select the best option and communicate to ATC about it.

The radio exchange with Captain Sully is burned in my brain.

Departure control (15:29:21): Cactus fifteen twenty nine turn right two eight zero, you can land runway one at Teterboro.

[...]

Sullenberger (15:29:25): We can’t do it.

[...]

Departure control (15:29:27): Kay which runway would you like at Teterboro?

[...]

Sullenberger (15:29:28): We’re gonna be in the Hudson.

Departure control (15:29:33): I’m sorry say again Cactus?

Stone cold and matter-of-fact!

> Stone cold and matter-of-fact!

Not particularly.

"I intend to ditch into the Hudson River as we cannot reach an alternative airport" would have been clearer and avoided wasting time clarifying intentions.

That’s just redundant

I meant his tone of voice, which sounds very calm and collected for someone who's about to crash an airplane.

https://youtu.be/JItbos1tYZs?t=155

Also, when you look at the flight path, the Minsk airport was MUCH further from the Vilnius airport they intended to land at. They were almost to their destination and ALMOST out of Belarus airspace.

A read of the article will clear up this mystery for you.

No it doesn't. Please tell me what part of the article clears this up besides perhaps the previously reported fighter jet.

The first sentence the controller said explains why the pilot wasn't supposed to land at the Vilnius airport. I want to avoid quoting the line for fear of my account being flagged in government systems.

That it was suggested that the (non-existent) bomb on board was intended to explode near or at Vilnius.

If you were told there is a bomb on board your plane, would you not be the slightest bit interested in some additional information about where that intelligence has come from?

I suspect airlines get hoax bomb threats on a regular basis so pilots are keen to understand the source and veracity of the threats.

I haven't had time to follow this episode to the level of detail I normally would. I would expect a number of factors at play around hesitancy, not limited to:

* Expectation of contact on other frequencies.

* Minsk directly stating bomb on board with connection to Vilnius (may not be protocol)

* Airport staff sent email (again, is this correct protocol?)

* Message being that activation is over Vilnius (pilot may have accepted that, but also accepted that they had sufficient fuel to hold)

* Pilot considering bomb may be activated by altitude (hence wanting to hold versus make immediate landing in place with relatively poor facilities)

* Lack of NATO or other western agency involvement. Again, this is a sudden and extremely difficult situation, but pilot probably knows they fuel to make a more considered decision on actions.

I look forward to learning more from this incident. You should be able to trust any controller is acting in good faith as a civilian navigator, but that's clearly not the case.

>> You should be able to trust any controller is acting in good faith as a civilian navigator, but that's clearly not the case.

Maybe the controller believed the information they had? I'm sure it wasn't their plan to do this, so someone told them something. But then we can move your statement to the next layer - the controller should be able to trust that someone giving them that kind of information is acting in good faith. Apparently not in Belarus.

Which is one particularly heinous aspect of this whole saga btw - the loss of trust due to the abuse of the emergency protocols. A bit like abusing the Red Cross or a white flag to commit an attack in war. One just doesn’t do that.

If they genuinely believed the information, why were they so circuitous in answering the captains questions? For example

> Pilot: Again, this recommendation to divert to Minsk where did it come from? Where did it come from? Company? Did it come from departure airport authorities or arrival airport authorities?

> Controller: This is our recommendations.

I'm more like to believe that the ATC controller was acting under duress

Definitely not usual. As for the pilot being suspicious, I agree. The plane was also only about 30 km (=2-3 min flying time) from the Lithuanian border. Imagine if the pilot had decided to make the attempt. A Belarusian MiG violating NATO airspace?

Russian airforces regularly violates NATO airspace in Norway. They never get any consequences for it, so why wouldn't they?

Because a MiG firing on a NATO-country airplane that's in NATO airspace is definitely sound reason of invoking NATO Art 5

There is an enormous leap between "violating airspace" and "shooting down a passenger plane while violating airspace"

The Russians, via their proxies in Ukraine, blew up an airliner a few years back.

But only through carelessness. They thought they were shooting at a Ukrainian military transport plane.

No carelessness, that's exactly what they were told to do: shoot down everything that flies. That was their explicit order.

Russia had no reasons to take down that plane. The air space was open with planes flying over Donbas every day. A bunch of monkeys mistook it for a Ukrainian military plane and blew it up.

No, it was an explicit order, close down the airspace no matter what. This implied shooting everything that flies in the most literal sense. They knew fully they were shooting a civilian plane.

In the celebratory Facebook post right after the shooting they claimed it was a military transport. In the intercepted cell phone call by a militant to a commander from the crash site they find out it's a civilian plane because they find the bodies and luggage.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/world/europe/ukraine-mh17-int...

Do you have a source for that?

The official investigation concluded it was a mistake by poorly trained soldiers who thought they were downing a military An-26 plane.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

Sources are in Russian. Russian separatists told shortly after the incident:

"В районе Тореза только что сбили самолет Ан-26, валяется где-то за шахтой Прогресс. Предупреждали же - не летать в "нашем небе". А вот и видео-подтверждение очередного "птичкопада". Птичка упала за террикон, жилой сектор не зацепила. Мирные люди не пострадали. А также еще есть информация о втором сбитом самолете, вроде бы Су", - говорится в сообщении Стрелкова.

"In the area of Torez, an An-26 plane has just been shot down, lying somewhere behind the Progress mine. We warned not to fly in our sky. And here is a video confirmation of the next birdfall. Civilians were not injured. And there is also information about the second downed plane, like Su, "- said in the message of Strelkov.

Also https://youtu.be/_rbzlMeGToI?t=83 the "Cossack" referred in other tapes as a unit commander to whom the battery belonged pretty much says "and so? fuck them, we'll say they are spies, it's war"

It's surprising to see it being 7 years since, and there are still people from the West still dead convinced in finding "alternative facts."

There is one, and only ground truth. A battery had an order to "shoot everything that flies," and that's what they did within hours of the order.

What? Look at the transcript again, they're wondering why it's a civilian plane and not an An-26, and thinking of a way to deal with that...

He is not looking for a way to "deal with it," he very well knows what's going on, and aware of the order, and tell the caller to fuck off.

There is no "alternative facts" there. An order to shoot everything that flies, and they did it.

There are hours, and hours of Ukrainian intercepts, probably listened by every Western intelligence agency 100 times over.

If that doesn't seal the deal, it's for people who fully willingly choosing to believe in a lie for sake of playing a cause celebre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot#:~:text=In%20poli....

Ukrainians blew their extremely valuable intercept source to bring this to attention of the world.

Now, seven year later, EU keeps soiling their pants, and still can't gather enough courage to point a finger on Russia. They are trying their hardest to pretend that they don't know what's going on.

Even if the shutdown was genuinely inadvertent, it would still be a cause for an immediate retaliation to any normal country.

> EU keeps soiling their pants, and still can't gather enough courage to point a finger on Russia

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53367425

https://www.rferl.org/a/dutch-court-rejects-request-to-inves...

I don't think that EU doesn't keep its finger pointed to Russia. Russia is heavily sanctioned already, what do you expect EU to do, invade them ?

And that source confirms the official version? They didn't have orders to shoot down anything, they had orders to shoot down anything of the Ukrainian military.

An-26 is a military cargo plane, a legitimate target in their eyes. Why on earth would they shoot down neutral civilian airliners, of which there were many?

Well what does violating the airspace in pursuit of the passanger plane achieve in this case? Of course the implication is that the MiG could have shot them down.

Any source?

Would love some sources on that, because that would be a big issue. Russians regularly fly in international airspace along the Norwegian coast and are intercepted there by Norwegian fighters, but I have never heard about them actually violating Norwegian airspace. This is the closest I know of:

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/02/11-russia...

You can find tons of data on that on Google, maybe not Norway but EU airspace. It happens about once a day.

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/russian-aircraft-violate-eur...

Headline: "NATO says Russian aircraft violated European airspace nearly 300 times in 2019"

Article: "NATO jets intercepted Russian planes flying close to NATO airspace nearly 300 times in 2019, an alliance official said"

These do not mean the same thing.

thank you. and to take this analysis a step further, claims of borders are also not static or a-political. (c.f. Kashmir). Wikipedia keeps a list of these [0]. On the other side of Asia, China makes a larger claim of maritime territory than the US recognizes...and the US Navy regularly sales through those waters [1].

I would encourage people to make a 2 by 2 matrix for soem perspective. Pick two country's...on one axis and put both on there as the 'violated' border and the 'violator' on the other. write headlines for all four boxes.

and to be clear to anyone not reading the parent. The headline and article wearywanderer mentions are literal quotes. The headline is the headline, and the quote from the article is literally the first sentence. They don't match as a factual matter.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-says-us-warship-il...

PRC took part in negotiating UNCLOS from 1973 to 1982, and ratified in 1996. They recognized the territories of other countries when they ratified it.

There are more sources that are more explicit about crossing into the airspace.

- https://news.err.ee/1608203641/russian-aircraft-violates-est... - https://euobserver.com/tickers/126198

etc...

It's happened a couple of times to Sweden which while not in NATO is in EU (and is generally considered a close ally to NATO).

Sources in Swedish:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/tre-ryska-militarflygplan...

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/expressen-ryskt-stridsfly...

Russian and NATO air forces regularly violate each others airspace (and the same with Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War), but not while making even implied specific threats to civil aviation. (Also, though usually, not quite always without consequence, e.g, the Russian aircraft shot down by Turkey in 2015. To be fair, this was on an actual combat mission and not a routine intrusion, but then again neither would the Belarussian intrusion being imagined have been the routine kind.)

There's a difference between countries routinely buzzing airspace with military aircraft to show they can and test the response, and entering airspace with military aircraft to threaten a foreign civilian airliner, which could reasonably be interpreted as an act of war.

I beg to differ. Controllers are not ultimately responsible for the safety of a plane and its passengers. The pilots not only had a right but IMO a duty to make sure they understood the situation and the request before making any decision to divert.

The Belarusian MiG wouldn't have followed them into EU airspace. This was quite obviously a succesful social engineering attempt on the ATC's part to divert the plane to Minsk. This is why it's so outrageous and why the international community took such swift action.

Not an airline pilot, but I am a private pilot.

Yes, I think it's normal to ask for more information while complying with instructions from ATC, [their] workload permitting. And you're required to comply with ATC instructions except in an emergency (doesn't necessarily have to be declared).

Would "being told you have a bomb on board" qualify as an emergency in this sense?

It would seem so, as that would be a situation which threatens the safety of the aircraft, which is a pretty good definition of an emergency.

I've not gone through the detail yet, but depending on altitude of the aircraft at the time of the alert, and its speed, continuing onward to Lithuania may have made more sense for the crew - if they were at or near cruising altitude, you're talking about (say) 100 nm of lateral distance to execute the descent (for a normal descent profile).

Under normal circumstances, you would be unlikely to want to divert to a new airport for this emergency landing, unless there was an issue like poor visibility or very limited emergency services at your destination - since diverting would likely require new descent and approach calculation and routing and briefing.

You’re required to follow ATC instruction, yes, but usually in order to avoid other traffic and sequencing, not anything more.

I mean, as a driver you’re required to obey traffic lights, but they would not normally impose a destination on you.

In Belarus that may be the case (I seriously doubt it though), but it is not the case in the US. You are required to comply with all ATC instructions.

14 CFR 91.123(b) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.123

Anecdotal but Ryanair also really really don’t want to be diverting. I remember circling an airport for 2 hours with them waiting for very heavy snow to be cleared for a runway! Eventually they diverted.

Is this specific to Ryanair? I imagine a plane not landing at the intended destination airport is much more disruptive than being late to that destination. E.g. passengers waiting at the destination airport for a flight involving that incoming plane, different airlines having only a fixed number of gates leased at a specific airport, etc

If you're Russian? I would. No point in trusting any authority to be doing the right thing over there.

Is it unusual for a human being having a human response? This request was obvious raising a lot of alarm bells. Nobody should follow order blindly. You act like a pilot is some sort of butler who should only do as followed?

I don't think you can even ask if it's usual for a pilot because this request was anything but usual.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com