Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 207 posts

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#161

Post by [deleted] »

topspin wrote: post #145
publicola1990 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there even a credible report of it being accompanied by a military jet? The reports I have seen are all sketchy on that part.

TASS reported it thus: MINSK, May 23. /TASS/. Belarus’ defense ministry has confirmed that a MiG-29 fighter jet was scrambled on Sunday to escort the Ryanair passenger plane that made emergency landing at Minsk’s airport. "After the polit[sic] of this civil aircraft (the Ryanair plane - TASS) decided to land at an alternate airport (Minsk-2) and turned the plane towards Minsk, it was decided to scramble a MiG-29 crew…

[deleted]

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#162

Post by SahAssar »

zokier wrote: post #139
balozi wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any indication that the pilots were aware of the military jet?

Assuming the transcript is genuine and reasonably complete, then I would be surprised if captain would have been aware of their escort (if it existed), at least before making the decision to divert to Minsk. Feels like it is something that would have come up in the communication. Also, sky is pretty big, and a MiG-29 has no problem tracking and following a fat passenger jet at a distance. Most likely only way pilot c…

Fighters can optionally turn on the same transponders (but with different identifiers) as normal civilian aircraft, right? It's not impossible for it to have been intentionally showing it's presence without flying close.

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#163

Post by petre »

gspr wrote: post #15
Sebb767 wrote: post #7

> 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.

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?

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.

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#164

Post by qwertox »

SahAssar wrote: post #155
underyx wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#165

Post by dragonwriter »

djxfade wrote: post #44
gspr wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.)

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#166

Post by baybal2 »

drran wrote: post #153
sofixa wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#167

Post by goatsi »

baybal2 wrote: post #133
nGW56Nak60 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#168

Post by petre »

publicola1990 wrote: post #97
md_ wrote: post #9

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.

Russia yes, but Ukraine has no reason not to follow suit. Even ignoring the fact that this is the right thing to do, they want good relations with the EU and NATO instead of being isolated like Belarus.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37750.htm

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#169

Post by barbazoo »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #114
barbazoo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pilot is not powerless at all in "usual" emergencies. Declaring an emergency allows them to do pretty much anything. Once you get hijacked by a fighter plane though, that's a different story.

> The pilot is not powerless at all in "usual" emergencies. Declaring an emergency allows them to do pretty much anything. Arguably once you are within firing range of two Mig-29's, the power dynamics changes slightly.

That's what I said in the only part of my response you didn't quote, yes.

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#170

Post by [deleted] »

Svettie wrote: post #122
somethingwitty1 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN