Earlier quoted context omitted.
Belarus is already such a country. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/24/999920538/eu-asks-all-eu-base...
I doubt Russian, Ukrainian airlines will stope overflying Belrus.
Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
121–130 of 207 posts
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#122Unbelievable that they'd go through this charade to arrest ~Snowden~ Protasevich.
Denying access to airspace of a private plane feels a little different than forcing a commercial plane to land with threat (and real actions) of violence. The level of crimes involved is also an important distinction. What Snowden did is illegal in pretty much every single country in the world (if committed against that country). On the other hand, what Protasevich did, many countries have laws to protect such action…
I think you're choosing an arbitrary standard to defend your narrative. "Protasevich broke laws, but these are not laws that we consider bad."
I could also say that "being a whistleblower about a government agency violating the rights of millions of it's citizens" is something that Western democracies claim to protect, when it's not happening to themselves.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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…
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.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t get why comments mentioning the forced landing of Morales’ plane in Austria, and searching for Snowden in the plane (under Obama) get downvoted. US/EU made a precedent and now everyone is surprised when Lukashenko simply copied their tactics.
It's not analogous. The Morales incident was wrong, but not the same. Firstly, Morales' plane wasn't a civilian airliner, it was his government's private jet. Secondly, no fake bomb threat was involved. Thirdly, nobody was arrested. And it's now being employed as a "whatabout" distortion by those sympathetic to (or uncritical of) the Belarusian action. The two incidents differ drastically. Actions of a state against…
>> And it's now being employed as a "whatabout" distortion by those sympathetic to (or uncritical of) the Belarusian action.
You've made a huge assumption there, and characterisation, and that's exactly the problem. I and many others are not sympathetic or uncritical of the action at all. I'm just critical of not having debate about the differences between this and other actions and removing the debate.
I'd say, yes, it was a civilian airliner. It affects more people. However to do it to a private jet too shows precedent to abandon international norms. Nobody being arrested is merely because Snowdon wasn't aboard. If he was, he'd have been arrested. And the diversion of any plane to an airspace where the arrest of someone on board can take place by a foreign power, is ultimately what is the issue here isn't it? And there are enough obvious parallels that at least we have the discussion, not just remove the discussion forthwith.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's now flagged. A comment saying that the forced landing of the President of Bolvia's plane in Austria, due to the US belief that Snowdon was on board, could be somehow relevant to the forced landing of a Ryanair flight in Belarus of someone the government believes is damaging them. Free speech in action...
There was no such forced landing, the plane had enough fuel to return to its departure airport.
My information is different (e.g. Greenwalds account: Without enough fuel to fly an alternative route, the Bolivian pilot was forced to make a U-turn and land in Vienna.)
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can not possibly trust their version.
but you can blindly trust reuters?
Reuters seems to have reposted a shorter version of the .by statement. They should have waited until Lithuania publishes their transcript or some amateur listening station releases their audio recording.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"
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.
Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 (th…
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!