Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk • Hacker News Board

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#201

Post by Svettie » Wed, May 26, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

mola wrote: post #138

Svettie wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an apt comparison. And if we don't like the consequences, all the more reason to reflect on our own actions

How is it apt? In one case a fake bomb threat and a fighter jet force land a commercial flight for political reasons of a despot. on the other side refusal to allow air travel through sovereign air space of democratic countries, and was "downed" after failing to comply. This is far from apt comparison.

politically motivated interference with airliners in flight, to force a landing and arrest people in transit who are currently not within your jurisdiction

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#202

Post by lazide » Thu, May 27, 2021, 5:37 AM UTC

Svettie wrote: post #200

lazide wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It definitely is not. Denying someone access to airspace the way they did for Snowden to a gov’t level official is the equivalent of a bouncer stopping just the head of a competing club from entering - so the cops could grab him. Not seen as supportive, but not that crazy. What happened in this case is the state level equivalent of holding someone and their friends who were walking on the sidewalk in front of your ho…

I don't disagree with you. Yes, one is worse than the other. The point that I'm making is that the distinction is dwarfed by the baseness of the paradigm itself: politically motivated interference with airliners in flight, to force a landing and arrest people in transit who are currently not within your jurisdiction. Anyway you want to look at it this happened in both cases, and we shouldn't be celebrating "ooh, but…

But that is my point - the morales flight incident wasn't an airliner. Near as I can dig up, there is no evidence anyone but Morales was on it and staff. It's more equivalent to stopping an officials car (via roadblock) than the hijacking of a civil airliner at gunpoint (or fighter jet point).

It's not a distinction without a difference, these are big differences with many non-subtle distinctions.

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#203

Post by phkahler » Thu, May 27, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

iso1631 wrote: post #87

neves wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better one https://greenwald.substack.com/p/as-anger-toward-belarus-mou...

If it's better then use it to improve the wikipedia entry, unless you run into NPOV issues.

If one is not really up to par as a wikipedia editor, the more informative link could be dropped on the talk page for the main article. Then maybe an editor will incorporate it.

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#204

Post by ric2b » Fri, May 28, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

A_non_e-moose wrote: post #150

neves wrote: post #60

Don't forget that the country that started to divert planes to catch democrat dissidents was the United States. But Snowden wasn't in the plane. Details here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/as-anger-toward-belarus-mou...

I have seen this line of whataboutist reasoning as a counterpoint in every single forum that approaches this topic. I can't understand how such a contrived equalization is spread in so many different forums. The other replies make excellent, well-sourced points for the distinction of the Morales and Belarusian situations, so I won't repeat them. It seems easy to understand and prove this distinction. I'm genuinely cu…

As someone who has brought this up in previous discussions, I just want people to criticize both events (not necessarily equally) and pressure their own governments to be better instead of forgetting Snowden, who is still not able to go back home or to most of the western world.

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#205

Post by ric2b » Fri, May 28, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

FeeJai wrote: post #196

dingaling wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rescinding permission to transit Thought experiment: what could have been the immediate consequences of disregarding that rescindment and continuing with the flightplan as filed?

They might have been intercepted by military. It is doubtful that they would have been shot down, but it would have been legal to do so. The big difference is: No one forced them to land at a specific location -- they could have turned around and fly all the way back to Russia had they desired to do so. They landed in Austria because they decided to go to a neutral country and that they wanted to avoid NATO. It is fa…

> they could have turned around and fly all the way back to Russia had they desired to do so.

Not sure if it's that simple, the plane has limited fuel and if they are banned from most of Europe's airspace on the way back it might become inevitable to choose between unauthorized entry or crashing down. And that's assuming Russia would also not ban them, which is also a risk when you're already in the air.

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#206

Post by relix » Sat, May 29, 2021, 10:42 AM UTC

wearywanderer wrote: post #126

relix wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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...

Re: Transcript of controller telling plane to land in Minsk

#207

Post by stordoff » Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:46 AM UTC

iso1631 wrote: post #124

jcrawfordor wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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