FR4978 ATH-VNO diverted, escorted to Minsk, alleged bomb threat – but was it?

[iome]

There was a similar assumption when that Norwegian landed in Iran.
Am I the only one who couldn't care less about politics and international relations between countries?
I didn't even know Bielorussia was a dictatorship (depending from the point of view)
It remains a despicable act of terrorism by an entire country, and don't try to shift the blame onto the crew by saying they should have known.

[Less Hair]

Germany has revoked the permit for Russian airlines to fly to German destinations until Lufthansa gets it's monthly Russian permit for the month of June that had not been issued yet.

P.S.
Sounds like everybody is flying again.

[2unlimited]

iome

The Ryanair security team should have known, and if the crew had been able to contact their companies Security team, they would have been better informed to make a judgement. As I am pretty sure the Security team of Ryanair would have known the geopolitical situation. The airline has failed both their crew and even more importantly their passengers, as there was no access for their crew to communicate with their Security team, to be able to assess if this was indeed a credible security threat.

"I didn't even know Bielorussia was a dictatorship (depending from the point of view)"

No it does not really depend on your point of view, just because you are ignorant on the issue, does not mean we need to go the "both sides of the story" route here.

My understanding is that this was Vilnius based crew, so unless they have not followed the news the last 9 months, they would know there are great tensions between Belarus, Russia and Lithuania at the moment, as most of the opposition to Lukashenko has fled to Lithuania, to be in safety.

The facts are the facts, the crew did not take the shortest route to safety. From the transcript it is reasonable to assume that the crew was hesitant, and unless there is more compelling evidence available, it does seem they got coerced by ATC to divert to a destination that most definitely was not the best Option available, and the penny pinching Ryanair has some part to play with how this all ended unfortunately.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1319x1094/191959772_316167620055443_6197303931404581139_n_2aef712d4030 6ded94bc63138d8ef3e3a0d71681.jpg

[Dannyboy39]

The post above is rubbish - crews were overflying Belarus all of the time from various countries - it has significant routes to the Far East. I myself have been up the pointy end over their airspace and not had a problem. VNO’s approach is very much within their airspace if you’re coming from the south and it’s only a short distance to the border.

FWIW EASA in the last few mins has just released a SD for operating in their FIR albeit not adding much new.

[atakacs]

It remains a despicable act of terrorism by an entire country, and don't try to shift the blame onto the crew by saying they should have known.​

May I ask your definition of terrorism ?

Definitely unacceptable to use ATC to "trick" an aircrew but terrorism !? Why not genocide ? Crime against humanity ?

Let's be serious for 2 min.

[WillowRun 6-3]

EASA issues Safety Directive calling on Member States to mandate avoidance of Belarus airspace

Link to EASA announcement:
EASA issues Safety Directive calling on Member States to mandate avoidance of Belarus airspace | EASA (europa.eu) (https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-issues-safety-directive-calling-member-states-mandate-avoidance)

Text of announcement - which includes internal link to the SD document:

"The European Union Aviation Safety Agency issued Safety Directive 2021-02, calling on the National Competent Authorities in EASA member states to instruct aircraft operators with their principal place of business in their territories that conducting operations in Belarus airspace (FIR Minsk) is no longer allowed, unless required for safe operations in unforeseen circumstances. The safety objective of the SD, which was published in consultation with the EASA Member States and the European Commission, is to reduce the potential risk to passengers and crews that could arise from operations in this airspace. This follows the incident involving Ryanair flight FR4978 on May 23, 2021. The SD will be reviewed as circumstances require and in any case at intervals of no more than one month.

The NCAs are required to put these measures in place within two days of the effective date of the SD and to inform EASA of the steps taken.

EASA had earlier issued a Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) with respect to operations in Belarus airspace. The SIB has the status of a recommendation directly to operators, whereas the SD recommends mandatory action by the National Competent Authorities for those operators."
EASA SD No.: 2021-02 (https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_SD_2021_02.pdf/SD_SD-2021-02_1)

[shared reality]

A B738 has at least 2 VHF radios onboard, so irrespective of RYR not having ACARS they should easily and rapidly have been able to call Vilnius on VHF 2 since they were within minutes from entering Vilnius FIR.
Did they contact Vilnius? If no, why not?

When you see a doctor and you get bad news, you seek a second opinion. In this case, a call to Vilnius to see whether they had received the threat etc would shed light on the seriousness of the situation and give the crew some credible options.

And why not divert to Kaunas in Lithuania? Friendly skies, an easy bus ride for the pax to Vilnius, RYR base etc...

For myself, as an experienced commander, the only thing that would have me going to MSQ would be a visible, immediate threat such as a MiG with missiles dictating me to follow..

[UnderneathTheRadar]

It remains a despicable act of terrorism by an entire country, and don't try to shift the blame onto the crew by saying they should have known.​
May I ask your definition of terrorism ?

So if an aircraft gets hijacked, flown to a different destination and the hijackers surrender taking only one hostage with them - that's not terrorism?

Normal SOP's for bomb threat is LAND AS SOON POSSIBLE, so the question is why did the crew not follow this SOP? Why would you risk flying double the time you needed into a country that is run by a dictator, and the issue was only if going to Vilnius according to Belarus ATC transcript.

This crew were told that if they flew to Vilnius that their aircraft would explode - what did you expect them to do?

[hoistop]

Willowrun, could you please enlighten some of us regarding the meaning of: ....Recomended Corrective Action....... and ...NCAs should ensure.... (not: SHALL ensure) Is that an order to EU member States that MUST be executed, or is this still a reccomendation, allowing individual Member State to decide on its own. I am over 30 years in aviation, but this language to me looks like a proverbial "wooden stone" that I cannot understand. (I am not an English native speaker)

[UnderneathTheRadar]

I did read the transcript again:

Pilot:09:39:30: RYR 1TZ Any adverts?

ATC: RYR 1TZ Standby, waiting for the information.

Pilot: Could you say again that I have to call for the airport that authorities ...(unreadable) to divert to..

ATC: RYR 1TZ I read you THREE, say again please.

Pilot:09:39:57: Radar, RYR 1TZ .

ATC : RYR 1TZ ,Go.

Pilot: Can you say again the IATA code of the airport that authorities recommended us to divert to?

ATC: RYR 1TZ roger, standby please.

Pilot: OK, I give you (unreadable) can you say again IATA code of the airport that authorities have recommended us to divert to?

ATC: RYR 1TZ Standby.

Pilot: Standby, Roger.

ATC :09:41:00: RYR 1TZ .

Pilot: Go ahead.

ATC: IATA code is MSQ.

Pilot: can you say again please?

ATC:IATA code MSQ.

Pilot: MSQ, thanks.

Pilot: 09:41:58: RYR 1TZ 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?

ATC: RYR 1TZ this is our recommendations.

They were not told to fly to Minsk, they were recommended by an ATC who probably was at gun point with Lukashenko's KGB.

The subtleties of 'told' vs 'recommended' are important here.

Again consider this: you're flying, the only person you're talking to says you have a bomb on board and you should turn for Minsk - imagine you then say "no thanks, we're going to fly NEAR to where we've been told we shouldn't go", the bomb goes off and you somehow survive? What sort of reception do you think you'd receive?

Not saying it entered their heads (or that it would enter mine at the time) but turning away from the perceived threat location towards somewhere you're being enticed to seems pretty reasonable to me. More importantly, until now, it seems that no-one or very few have considered that ATC could be co-opted into abetting an act of terrorism. Until this fades from collective memory, you can be certain the next crew in this situation might consider the potential political interference in the situation more critically and make a different choice.

The one bit I don't get is how they had no idea how to contact their own ops department - 100km or so way from home?

[shared reality]

Why didn't they verify this "recommendation" with Vilnius control? They were well within coverage, and Vilnius is , at least to me, immensely more trustworthy than ATC in a dictatorship.

[lear999wa]

atakacs

Oxford dictionary

terrorism
/ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

I think that the use of the word terrorism is the correct word to use, especially from the prospective of Protasevich.
The transcript clearly shows that Belarus was in violation of the Montreal conversation of 1971. Clearly the EU had to take action to avoid such an event from happening again. At the end the day the EU ultimate responsible is the safeguard its citizens. And knowing this the EU was left with very few other options then to close the Belarusian airspace. What other options did they have?

[WillowRun 6-3]

hoistop (thanks for the follow-up question)

Three quick points in reply. They're about language, legalities, and realities.

As to language, let it be recalled that although English and French are widely regarded as the most international languages, and although English has a 'standard' role in civil aviation globally, there isn't a monopoly on comprehension. In fact, in many situations I have encountered in the realm of civil aviation organizations with a global focus, non-native English speakers very often have provided much better and more meaningful clarity than otherwise. (I don't want to launch into more of a rant about the decline, or disappearance, of foreign language requirements in U.S. secondary and post-secondary schools.... but I could, rant about it, I mean.)

Now, to the main point of this, the legalities. I think one would have to be well-versed - and probably well-versed indeed - in the European Commission rules, statutes and regulations, as well as the "interagency" set-up as between EASA and the EC, and possibly other components of the institutional governmental structures, to give a definitive answer. Whether or not the current Safety Directive is legally binding -- we can read its language and draw our own conclusion, that it is a stronger recommendation that the one that came before it. But: is this form of language in the SD the form in which something mandatory needs to be expressed, in accordance with how the EC, EASA structure is organized? I don't know the answer to that. Maybe this is as mandatory, in terms of language, as EASA is allowed to get. And maybe it actually means a more mandatory instruction than the simple words suggest. (I missed that particular day in law school when so many of my peers and predecessors obviously were instructed never to say, "I don't know.")

But at the same time..... I think in context, the SD approaches a mandatory instruction. And I'm not relying on anything in the structure set up as between EASA and the EC, the EU. Instead I'm reading the SD in context - in the context of the previous SD; in context of the very specific reference to the investigation being started by the ICAO Council; and in light of what, as a non-pilot, I still feel confident is a broad and emphatic consensus among global civil aviation professionals that the actions of the Belarus government in this situation were unprecedented and completely wrongful. It is almost like saying, Mike Tyson. You know, everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the mouth. Every EASA rule and process is well and good, until something like this has occurred. And so regardless of the specific words written in the current SD, count this SLF/atty as reading - and understanding it - as a requirement on the part of Member States.

[DaveReidUK]

WillowRun 6-3

"And so regardless of the specific words written in the current SD, count this SLF/atty as reading - and understanding it - as a requirement on the part of Member States."

What sanctions do you think would be levied against member states who disregard the requirement (if indeed it is one) ?

[WillowRun 6-3]

DaveReidUK

I'm starting from the premise that the EASA directive probably is a compromise between an absence of explicit legal authority on one hand, but a strong intention to stretch what authority that does exist perhaps further than it has been applied previously. (This process - stretching existing legal authority to apply to a situation not previously encountered and not expressly covered by what's on the books - happens pretty commonly in U.S. legal processes, subject to due diligence beforehand and good faith, of course (see, e.g., Fed. Rule of Civil Procedure 11)).

If by "sanctions" we are referring to the type of penalties, barriers to doing business, and the like which are imposed by (say) the U.S. against (say) Iran, I don't imagine the EASA or EC has authority to do that.

However, a lot could depend on what happens in ICAO - specifically the investigation which the Council delegated to the Secretariat, having invoked Article 55(e) of the Chicago Convention of 1944. (By the way, are you aware of any prior instance of Art. 55(e) having been invoked by the Council?) If the investigation produces a set of facts which is broadly accepted as pretty conclusive or definite by a large majority of global civil aviation officialdom (CAAs, pilot organizations, Eurocontrol, safety-focused groups, and certainly the diplomatic corps of Member States of ICAO with seats on the Council, and Member States more generally within ICAO), that leads to one sort of next step (in my view). Even though not in the category of a conventionally defined sanction, a clear set of facts emerging from the investigation by the Secretariat would likely cause Belarus to become a kind of world civil aviation pariah. What practical effects this would have, may be unclear. But restricting overflights and barring entry to airspace of Member States seem accessible as a consequences, if not "sanctions" in the usual meaning.

Commonly observed in situations where rules have comparatively minor importance, or actually minor importance, is the observation that "rules are made to be broken." Is this not a situation though, where whatever the formal legal structure by and through which EASA exists and operates, those legal structure rules are made to be stretched in this incident? Stated differently, are there any pilot groups, or individuals with bona fide pilot experience and credentials, who would let this incident fade away, with just rhetoric and, ultimately a shrug?

[Gipsy Queen]

Stated differently, are there any pilot groups, or individuals with bona fide pilot experience and credentials, who would let this incident fade away, with just rhetoric and, ultimately a shrug?

Sadly, I fear that this inevitably will become the conclusion of this piratical incident. The potential consequences of responding in anything much more than token gestures have become so great that there is a distinct possibility that the reaction will create more mayhem than the original act. This applies particularly when a super-power is fomenting the trouble in the first place. Thus anything of any real substance rarely happens.

[2unlimited]

UnderneathTheRadar

Or you could have gone to your alternate Kaunas, neither close to where the "bomb" might have exploded and half the distance of going to Minsk.

What happen to common sense?

[renfrew]

It's a bit disappointing that American companies are still crossing?

[ORAC]

The EU has introduced a ban on the overflight of EU airspace, and on access to EU airports, by Belarusian carriers of all kinds.

[WillowRun 6-3]

EASA has posted this comment on its website with regard to the Safety Directive:"On June 2, 2021, after consultation with EASA Member States and the European Commission, EASA issued Safety Directive 2021-02.[/color] The Safety Directive (SD) calls on the National Competent Authorities in EASA member states to instruct aircraft operators with their principal place of business in their territories that conducting operations in Belarus airspace (FIR Minsk) is no longer allowed, unless required for safe operations in unforeseen circumstances.

The safety objective of the SD is to reduce the potential risk to passengers and crews that could arise from operations in this airspace. This follows the incident involving Ryanair flight FR4978 on May 23, 2021.

Regrettably the Safety Directive, introduced for the safety of passengers and crews, brings additional cost and work for the airlines, many of which are represented by IATA.

[color=#555555]Safety remains a key driver of the activities and the mission of EASA in providing safe air travel for EU citizens in Europe and worldwide."

Link - www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-comment-concerning-safety-directive-2021-02

[zerograv]

What must be remembered is the hard fact that Ryanair, on the whole does not promote or allow “independent” thinking amongst the flight crew.


Now we are getting somewhere ...
Getting to the foundation, or the "root cause", of the rational why the crew followed "instructions" and went to Minsk.

[Less Hair]

They were tricked into it.
Please don't make this an anti FR thread. This is far too serious and not limited to FR.

[pilot9250]

shared reality

What on earth would you expect Vilnius to say besides we have no idea what they're talking about?

You're talking to folks who approved this routing and have less information than you do.

At the pointy end it's still your aircraft, isn't it?

[shared reality]

That's my point, as PIC it's ultimately "my" aircraft, so in order to make as good a decision as possible, I need as much info as possible.
Hence calling Vilnius.
If Vilnius would have confirmed the threat, then it would have, at least to me, been credible. If they "would have no idea what they're talking about", then I would have been much more sceptical as to the credibility of the threat. At the end of the day, with a bomb threat you land as soon as possible, if not VNO due to threat, then KAU (weather permitting).

[fab777]

Well. Another occurrence of a situation like that happened over Algeria a couple of weeks later (I do not know of the real reason, as not the airline neither the states involved have released any official piece of inforlation). BTW, thread about this was quickly closed after I wrote what has been made public by the union reps from the airline. I would appreciate to know why?

The difference in the way it was handle by the crew is probably this: this major EU airline has a fairly reputed security dept, hooked with the country's services. When made aware of the threat, the crew contacted operations via satcom. The answer was: threat not credible. Flight was continued against "ATC" orders.

In this matter, the crew can hardly make a decision by itself...

[FlightDetent]

, if not VNO due to threat, then KAU (weather permitting). It's an excellent idea when a threat is geo-located to VNO to cross the trigger latitude on the way up north towards Kaunas.

No. It's not your aeroplane. It's the aeroplane of mothers and children of those seated behind your itchy back.

[Piper_Driver]

I ran across an interesting article about the treatment the crew got in Belarus. It seems they were coerced into making false statements about the “voluntary” diversion..

Telegraph article (https://news.yahoo.com/belarus-pressured-hijacked-ryanair-captain-111202466.html)

[BDAttitude]

"repeatedly attempted to get the crew to confirm on video that they had voluntarily diverted to Minsk"
English is not my first language - is this really the meaning of „coerced“? I would have used persuaded or lured.

He said the captain "repeatedly" asked Minsk ATC to provide an open line of communication back to Ryanair's operations control centre in Warsaw, but was told: "Ryanair weren't answering the phone"

Wouldn’t it be great to have a satcom link in such a situation?
We need to have an outcome where the European and the UK authorities, hopefully assisted by international partners, receive appropriate assurances from the Belarusian and/or Russian authorities that this will never happen again.

Aaah guarantees from europes last stalinist dictatorship… that’s definitely cheaper then! That‘ll do it!

… the captain was put under "considerable pressure" to land in Minsk. "He wasn't instructed to do so, but he wasn't left with any great alternatives," he told the committee.

Can we drop that “forced at gun point” propaganda now? Thank you. An airplane became prey of a stalinist regime because of lack of state of the art means of communication with their operations centre. That‘s it. If you are cynical you could indeed congratulate the secret services of Belarus.

[FlightDetent]

And having a 3D hologram image of the OPS centre on the centre windshield would change exactly what?

[Less Hair]

It was a trap to arrest that guy.

[Piper_Driver]

Testimony from Michael O’Leary in front of parliament on the event. “O’Leary said the pilot was put under “considerable pressure” to land in Belarus instead of the more standard options of Poland or other Baltic countries.”

O’Leary testimony article (https://news.yahoo.com/ryanair-ceo-says-diverted-flight-160141952.html)

[FlyingStone]

BDAttitude

So if the aircraft had ACARS, and the Belarus ATC would have passed the same information about threat to aircraft via OCC, what would have changed then? Should the airline just ignore the threat message, because they can't trust the ATC of the country which their aircraft is currently overflying?

The solution here isn't in ACARS, it's in stop flying to/from and over countries where ATC is complicit in endagering aircraf - which is what has happened.

[pilotguy1222]

atakacs

So a bomb threat made against an aircraft full of passengers is not terrorism?

ATC can piss off in this situation. Any viable threat information against an aircraft will come from the company itself, not ATC.
If the MiG was visible, now you are out of luck as you must comply with the Pilot(not ATC), as per any manual I have ever read.

A bit more experience and the crew could have faked any number of emergencies to descend into their destination airport, especially considering it was the closest. Now there may not have been enough time to get a solid grasp of this situation, but there were still a lot of other possibilities to consider.

[Timmy Tomkins]

Given that a passenger can get arrested for joking with airport security about a bomb in their baggage, then surely ATC in this instance were a few notches up the scale of terrorism.

They terrorised the crew effectively and should recieve the appropriate reaction from the international community

[WillowRun 6-3]

From the ICAO Council meeting on June 28, 2021.

"Interim report into incident involving Ryanair Flight FR4978 in Belarus airspace on 23 May 2021
1. The Council considered this item on the basis of a C-WP/15224, which presented the interim report of the fact-finding investigation team into the incident involving Ryanair Flight FR4978 in Belarus airspace on 23 May 2021. The Council was joined in its deliberations by representatives from the non-Council Member States of Belarus, Ireland, Lithuania, and Poland.

2. Following consideration, the Council:
a) recalled its earlier decision on this subject (C-DEC 223/2 refers) in which the Council had initiated a fact-finding investigation in order to determine the relevant facts of this event;

b) welcomed the preliminary information provided and recognising the constricted timeframe, expressed appreciation to the Secretariat for the investigative efforts undertaken, while at the same time acknowledging that the information and materials received to date remained insufficient for the purposes of definitively determining the facts and specific sequence of events;

c) took note therefore, that the investigation remained ongoing, and in this connection underscored that these efforts should continue to be carried out in a transparent and impartial manner;

d) reiterated the importance of establishing the facts of what had happened, and in this connection, expressed appreciation to those Member States that had conveyed documentation and materials to the investigation, and encouraged all relevant stakeholders to continue to collaborate with the investigation and to comply with ICAO’s requests for information in a timely manner; and

e) requested the Secretariat to present an updated report of the investigation at the first meeting of the 224th Session, which is scheduled to occur on 13 September 2021."

[DaveReidUK]

Rarely does one witness a can being kicked down the road so eloquently.

[FlightDetent]

I read it Belarus did not provide data.

[ATC Watcher]

Correct , not all the data requested that is , and I have heard the time table they gave does not match the timetable given by RYR/Ireland.

[FlightDetent]

The other two "bomb" smoke-screen calls that happened in the following months should be added to the table. Quacks like a duck, badly drawn image of "It's pranksters everywhere, hey look! Not our KGB!".

[ATC Watcher]

ICAO report is out . not yet seen it .
https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/ICAO-releases-factfinding-report-on-Ryanair-FR4978.aspx

[WillowRun 6-3]

Highlights of the fact-finding report are provided in a news article published in The Wall Street Journal, based on the news organization having reviewed the report. Insofar as can be found, the report isn't yet publicly available; presumably all ICAO Member States which currently hold seats on the Council have received it.

WSJ news article keys in on factual items pertinent to the bona fides of the "bomb threat" reported by Belarus ATCOs to the flight, or lack of such bona fides. Evidently the report does not draw conclusions; just the facts, ma'am. Yet the facts reported about details of emailed communications do, without elaboration, lead quite readily to reasonable inferences. The WSJ says the ICAO report, in addition to a timeline, sets out the most detailed and complete information on the incident to date. The report, it also is noted, identifies several items of information not provided by Belarus. And while justifications or excuses, or purported justifications and/or excuses, for declining to provide information or about its unavailability also are noted, again without elaboration, inferences seem readily to be drawn.

ICAO Council, 31 January in Montreal, could be other than a dry dull and boring, bland diplomatic affair. Perhaps the star power of the new United States Permanent Representative will liven the proceedings up?

[ATC Watcher]

I have not seen the WSJ article but I read the report now . I am sure it will surface pretty soon as it was sent to 193 States and not all of them have clear policies to keep things out of the media. . It does not apportion any blame but reading between the lines you can see where the loopholes were everyone involved has some degree of responsibility, no one really comes out clean except the crew that was clearly a victim, procedurally let down by its own airline at a crucial moment they needed to communicate with them . the Belarus authorities have an excuse for everything but not much is convincing as they refused to provide any evidence ( e.g CCTV cameras recordings, telephone records etc..)
Number of International agreements and conventions were not adhered to by Belarus and Poland ( the State of registry of the aircraft ) is bringing this to court.
One thing debunked is the Belarus Mig 29 interception that clearly did not occur, even the Social media video "proving it " and used in this Forum here , was a fake one.( taken over Lithuania after the event) One more reason to treat social media videos with extreme care .

[DaveReidUK]

5. CONCLUSIONS AND MISSING INFORMATION

5.1. As stated in paragraph 3.1 e) of its Terms of Reference, the FFIT was expected to "identify pieces of information potentially missing and that would be necessary to complete the investigation". As indicated in paragraph 1.5 above, some specific information, including critical information indicated in the Analysis section of this report as highlighted below, was requested but not made available to the Team. Considering the above, the Team's conclusions below are based exclusively on the information availed to it as of the time of this report.

5.2. According to the authorities of Belarus, a first email was received at 09:25 UTC (12:25 local) followed by a second email at 09:56:45 UTC (12:56:45 local), both containing identical information about the bomb threat. On the other hand, information obtained from Switzerland through the authorities of Lithuania shows that only the second email was sent to Minsk Airport at 09:56:45 UTC (12:56:45 local). The FFIT was not able to verify that the first email was effectively received at 09:25 UTC (12:25 local) as the authorities of Belarus did not provide logs of the email server airport.by nor the email files containing the threat messages saved in their original format including their metadata, citing their erasure in accordance with their data retention policy. The receipt of the first email is crucial to explain the basis for the communication of the bomb threat by Minsk ACC to the flight crew, which occurred at 09:30:49 UTC (12:30:49 local). In the absence of the first email, it could be presumed that the information about the bomb threat would have been obtained by the authorities of Belarus by other means, which the FFIT could not establish. If the first email was in fact received at Minsk Airport, the diversion of the flight to Minsk Airport could be considered to be a tenable option in view of the circumstances.

5.3. The FFIT could not corroborate the information provided by the authorities of Belarus regarding the transmission by phone of the contents of the threat email from airport personnel to Minsk ACC personnel leading to the notification of the threat to RYR 1TZ. As cellular phone records of the personnel involved documenting the time and duration of the calls and person or entity contacted were not made available, those statements could not be supported by evidence.

5.4. As neither a bomb nor evidence of its existence was found during pre-departure screening in Athens Greece and after various searches of the aircraft in Belarus and Lithuania, it is considered that the bomb threat was deliberately false. Knowingly communicating false information which endangers the safety of an aircraft in flight is an offence under Article 1 (1) (e) of the Montreal Convention. The Team was unable to attribute the commission of this act of unlawful interference to any individual or State.

5.5. The FFIT was neither able to meet with, nor interview the Minsk ACC controller who was assigned to the RYR 1TZ flight. The authorities of Belarus informed the Team that this individual did not report for duty after his summer leave and that they had no information on his whereabouts and no way to contact him.

5.6. The authorities of Belarus did not provide the FFIT information demonstrating that attempts were made to contact the Operator (RYR or RYS) for the purposes of meeting the obligations contained in Annex 11, 2.24.3 and Belarus ATM Aviation Regulations, 15.12.9. to exchange information with the operator or its designated representative.

5.7. Communications could not be established between the flight crew and the OCC during the flight when such communications would have been necessary in line with the operator's procedures. Had such communications between the flight crew and the OCC been established it would have impacted the course of events.

5.8. Video recordings from cameras located adjacent to aircraft parking stand 1 and inside the terminal which could have shown certain significant activities regarding the processing of passengers from the point of disembarkation and in the terminal building were not provided to the FFIT. Although short extracts of the said video recordings had been used in a documentary type video that was shared with the Team, the authorities of Belarus explained that not all recordings were available due to the length of time that had elapsed since the event. The FFIT was not provided with a satisfactory rationale to explain why records had not been preserved considering that criminal and other investigations in respect of the event had been initiated by the authorities of Belarus and had not been completed.

5.9. Inter flight-crew coordination conversations that led to their decision to divert to Minsk Airport could not be fully confirmed since the CVR circuit breaker was not pulled after landing in Minsk. As a result, the full flight-crew conversations, prior to the period when the aircraft was on short final to Minsk Airport, were not preserved.

5.10. From the evidence provided by Belarus, no escort or intercept occurred between the MIG-29 and RYR 1TZ and no communications by the MIG-29 was recorded on the radio channels used by RYR 1TZ. According to information provided by the flight crew and cabin crew, there was no communication, interaction, visual sighting or other knowledge of military aircraft involvement with the flight.

5.11. Some of the States connected to the event have issued formal requests to other States for information and assistance in connection with criminal and other investigations into the event. Such investigations could assist in establishing any missing facts relating to the event. In this regard, States and entities that have received such formal requests should be encouraged to respond as appropriate.

https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/19/ICAO-Fact-Finding-Investigation-Report_FR497849.pdf

[WillowRun 6-3]

Four Belarusian officials have been indicted in this incident, according to a news item in The Wall Street Journal. The indictment was filed by federal prosecutors in New York and unsealed on 20 January. It alleges conspiracy to fabricate a bomb threat as well as conspiracy to cover-up the fake threat. Reportedly the indictment alleges unlawful acts of air piracy, and refers to or relies upon violations of international norms, U.S. criminal law, and endangering the lives of four U.S. citizens who were on the flight.

Although the article includes names of the four officials, I'm not including those here. But one is said to be Director General of the state air navigation authority, another the deputy director general, and the other two, members of the "state security service."

The Journal dtyly notes that the defendants remain at large. Neverless, the potential for an incendiary ICAO Council meeting at the end of this month seems likely to have been increased.

[zambonidriver]

Not a law scholar but does US grants itself universal legal sovereignty (bit of a rethorical question, I know that it acts as such, but is it formally in US law) ?

I'm actually impressed by the report, they went into lots of efforts to establish the facts (which are, as usually, far from the the initial press coverage). Interesting to see what will come of it in the next ICAO meeting.

[andrasz]

...does US grants itself universal legal sovereignty...
No it does not (at least not on paper...). However there were four US citizens on board, thus the crime was committed against US interests on a territory that is the equivalent of 'high seas' (according to the Chicago convention overflights without landing do not enter the jurisdiction of the overflown state) permitting persecution in US courts.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Press Release issued today. It is being posted here, in that the incident involving Belarus airspace, first of all was - or was scheduled to be - on the agenda of ICAO Council yesterday January 31, and secondly, given that military and diplomatic issues at the present time include or involve Belarus.
Press release is quoted verbatim (comments by this SLF/attorney follow).

MONTREAL/BRUSSELS – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA) and the European Cockpit Association (ECA) are highly concerned with the situation of heightened tensions in Eastern Europe.

The situation appears comparable to that of summer 2014, which led to the tragic downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17.

In hindsight, we know that in 2014, both the open and closed source intelligence information were far from accurate. The risk of misidentification was underestimated, and for these and other reasons, many risk assessments resulted in a false sense of security which led to the decision to continue to overfly the area.

The current situation now expands over a much larger area. IFALPA and ECA are extremely concerned that the same false sense of security might arise again. They call on States and operators to carefully consider the lessons that should have been learned from MH17. States should not hesitate to take appropriate measures, such as closing down their own airspace or banning the overflight of high-risk areas.

In case of doubt, always choose the safest option. The safety and security of the passengers and crew should be of paramount importance.
_______

Noteworthy is the direct reference to the tragic incident of MH17 as a major premise for context for this statement by IFALPA and ECA. Without meaning to suffer thread drift within just a single post, the lack of effective sanctions against parties responsible and/or liable for the destruction and fatalities caused in the MH17 incident -- that lack of sanctions continues as a stark background to safety concerns in this quasi-conflict zone. Even the laudable effort by ICAO, especially what appears to be an unprecedented fact investigation delegated by Council to Secretariat, so far has given little or no indication of forward-looking sanctions with regard to Belarus. A slap on the wrist does nothing when the misbehaving party (even when referring to an ICAO Member State) gives plentiful indications that its next behavioral problem will involve anatomical counterparts with heavier force. All the more so in a situation where the threats to safety of civil aviation operations appear, on essentially all available evidence and information, to be both urgent and credible.

[ATC Watcher]

Willow, ICAO is not the security council of the UN , it is a technical agency issuing standards and recommended practices, not sanctions. The words used in the Chicago convention are " foster planning " and "encouraging aircraft operations for peaceful purposes" not to pass judgement or apportioning blame . The FR /Belarus report goes as far as they can go.
It is up to individual States to take the court cases and the sanctions parts in case of major issues , like Netherlands does for MH 17 or Canada for the Air Ukraine , or in this FR case, Poland . .
The IFALPA/ECA press release was drafted just to prevent a repeat of those times where basically profit goes before caution in flight planning overflights of conflict zones. It was not related to FR/Belarus.

[ATC Watcher]

ICAO Press release :Montréal, 31 January 2022, – In the first meeting of its 225th Session today, ICAO Council member States considered the ICAO Secretariat’s Report on the Fact Finding Investigation into the events surrounding the diversion of Ryanair flight FR4978 on 23 May 2021.

Also taking part in the discussions were official representatives of non-Council States considered to have a special interest in the proceedings namely, the Republic of Belarus, Lithuania, Poland and Ireland.
A point of convergence from States’ discussions included the Council’s appreciation to the ICAO fact finding investigation team for the exhaustive analysis undertaken, and the high quality of the report it produced.

The Council expressed concern at the gaps in information provided by Belarus and the inconsistences contained in the evidence available at the time of the investigation in relation to crucial aspects of the factual reconstruction of the events, and highlighted that the bomb threat against FR4978 was deliberately false and had endangered the safety of an aircraft in flight.

The Council further recalled that communicating false information which endangers the safety of an aircraft is an offence under the Montreal Convention, and in this connection, strongly condemned such practices.
In light of some newly emerging information relating to the FR4978 events and timeline, the Council requested the ICAO investigation team to continue its work with a view to establishing the missing facts, including in connection with the related ongoing criminal and other investigations, and to report to it any further findings.
Additionally, the Council called upon all Member States and other relevant stakeholders, to continue to collaborate with the ICAO investigation, and requested the President of the Council to eventually forward the final Fact Finding Investigation Report to the United Nations Secretary-General

Strongly worded statements against an ICAO member State, things are moving slowly against Belarus .

[WillowRun 6-3]

Montréal, 19 July 2022 – The ICAO Council concluded its discussions yesterday on the May 2021 incident in Belarus airspace involving Ryanair Flight FR4978, condemning the actions of the Government of Belarus in committing an act of unlawful interference.

The latest updates to the ICAO fact-finding investigation report (https://www.icao.int/Security/Pages/FFIT.aspx) into the incident benefited from new information and materials following the Council’s initial consideration of the report in January 2022, as well as an interview and audio recordings from the Minsk air traffic controller assigned to the flight.

Following its consideration of the completed fact-finding results, the ICAO Council acknowledged that the bomb threat against Ryanair Flight FR4978 was deliberately false and endangered its safety, and furthermore that the threat was communicated to the flight crew upon the instructions of senior government officials of Belarus.

The Council Representative for the Russian Federation meanwhile expressed his State’s strong objection to identifying Belarus as the source of the unlawful interference which took place.

The Council expressed appreciation to the ICAO fact finding investigation team for its strenuous efforts and comprehensive analysis and reiterated its condemnation of the communication of false information endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight is an offence under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the safety of Civil Aviation (Montreal Convention).

The Council also recalled that the use of civil aviation in this manner contravenes the spirit of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), in particular its Preamble and Article 4.


In terms of next steps, the Council has directed ICAO to convey the FR4978 report findings to all ICAO Member States, to report the infractions of the Chicago Convention by Belarus to the ICAO Assembly during its upcoming 41st Session (27 Sept. – 7 Oct. 2022), and to post the report for public and media access on the agency’s website.

It further requested the President of the Council to forward the fact-finding investigation report, and the Council’s related decisions thereon, to United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres for consideration and any appropriate action.

[DaveReidUK]

It further requested the President of the Council to forward the fact-finding investigation report, and the Council’s related decisions thereon, to United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres for consideration and any appropriate action.

Any suggestions as to what, if any, that "appropriate action" might be ?

[Lonewolf_50]

It further requested the President of the Council to forward the fact-finding investigation report, and the Council’s related decisions thereon, to United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres for consideration and any appropriate action. Any suggestions as to what, if any, that "appropriate action" might be ? You may as well send a bone to a toothless dog and see if he'll chew it. It would be nice to see my lack of confidence in holding Belarus accountable to be incorrect.
The Council Representative for the Russian Federation meanwhile expressed his State’s strong objection to identifying Belarus as the source of the unlawful interference which took place.
He would say that, wouldn't he. :p

[WillowRun 6-3]

A few ideas about effectiveness.

Sending the report and findings - that is, about violations having occurred - to the UN SecGen could serve a kind of indirect purpose. There isn't any expectation that the UN would take direct action (even if it were not completely consumed by climate change agitation and hysteria). But if the premise is accepted that the actions by Belarus in this incident bear some linkage to the onset and progress of the Ukraine war, then sending the report and findings along is expected to contribute to stabilizing the environment, if not consensus, with regard to sanctions. Especially so, with regard to sanctions pertaining to civil aviation. Indirect, yes, but still in the direction of effectiveness. (Similar logic applies to keeping stable the environment in which Finland and Sweden as NATO allies are before many national legislatures.)

Also, meanwhile back at ICAO - its Council, the Assembly this fall, and its many technical and support programs - the report and findings now are matters of record. Though again the logic is indirect, these actions by Council are likely to be part of the context, or "frame" in today's vernacular, when other issues are before the Organization. Case in point - when further support for information resources about conflict zones was before the Organization at a High-Level Safety Conference in 2015 and specifically in the aftermath of MH17 being shot down, the Russian participant objected to any significant action being taken. With this report and findings on the record, in the next instance of ICAO addressing issues of this variety, the credibility - and hence IMO effectiveness - of such objections and objectors will be substantially reduced.

One of the roles and responsibilities of EUROCONTROL, as I understand it, is civil-military cooperation in the Eurpoean skies, and to provide solid foundations for such cooperation as the SESAR project moves forward. Knowing that this states the obvious, as SLF/attorney I'll say it anyway: the actions by Belarus in this incident were antithetical to such cooperation. Making the report and findings matters of record might be looked back upon, a few years from now, as very useful when the next nefarious conduct incident occurs.

[ATC Watcher]

Any suggestions as to what, if any, that "appropriate action" might be ?
A strongly worded condemantion of Belarus authorities that will be vetoed by the Russian federation for sure and maybe be even by China..So not much.
That said a near global condemnation has its consequences on the aircrfat leasing , insurance and buisness fields. One day Belarus will have to return to the table if they want they economy to work. I do not think Belarus wants to end up like North Korea in a few yaers.

[Bidule]

One of the roles and responsibilities of EUROCONTROL, as I understand it, is civil-military cooperation in the Eurpoean skies, and to provide solid foundations for such cooperation as the SESAR project moves forward. Knowing that this states the obvious, as SLF/attorney I'll say it anyway: the actions by Belarus in this incident were antithetical to such cooperation. Making the report and findings matters of record might be looked back upon, a few years from now, as very useful when the next nefarious conduct incident occurs.

To my knowledge, Belarus is not a member of Eurocontrol, nor it has a Comprehensive Agreement with Eurocontrol.

.

[WillowRun 6-3]

@Bidule

Yes, the country is outside EUROCONTROL (AFAIK). But despite that fact, sending fighter aircraft on pretext of false and maliciously issued "bomb threat" anywhere in European skies is quite antithetical to the pertinent type of cooperation. I don't think a rough equivalent of the Iron Curtain in the skies will be helpful when the Single European Sky and digitization become realities, in operations.

[ATC Watcher]

One of the roles and responsibilities of EUROCONTROL, as I understand it, is civil-military cooperation in the Eurpoean skies.
No it is not a tpriority as you think, the joint cooperation is mainly there to provide Flexible use of airspace ( FUA) and Free route airspace . Capacity. issues . Military affairs are Soverein issues, outside the scope of the Eurocontrol Convention,
We have nough issues inside Eurocntrol between currents member Staets ( e.g Cyprus- Turkey , or even Spain-UK over Gibraltar etc..) we do not need to be involved with issues of non-members.
As Bidule correctly said, Belarus is not a Eurocontrol member, or even associated .Their ( very competent) Civil aviation Authority really wanted to work closer with Europe , but this incident plus their Governement support for Russia in Ukraine is unfortunately putting them years backwards.

A last point you said : sending fighter aircraft on pretext of false and maliciously issued "bomb threat" anywhere in European skies is quite antithetical
There was no interception. the media reported one based on a SLF Tweet but there was none . The ICAO report confirms this ( page 35 :)
3.9.2. At 10:15 UTC, when RYR 1TZ was landing, a MIG-29 was recorded 55 km southwest of RYR 1TZ. From the evidence provided by Belarus, no escort or intercept occurred between the MIG-29 and RYR 1TZ and no communications by the MIG-29 was recorded on the radio channels used by RYR 1TZ. According to information provided by the flight crew and cabin crew and, subsequently, the controller, there was no communication, interaction, visual sighting or other knowledge of military aircraft involvement with the flight.

It is one of the major shortomings of PPRuNe : a media report or a post on social media very quickly becomes a fact .:rolleyes:

[WillowRun 6-3]

I'll stand corrected, then, insofar as the occurrence of an actual intercept is concerned. Nevertheless, that the occurence of such an intercept was regarded as plausible by many if not most knowledgeable observers - because it would have been (if it occurred) consistent with the rest of the Belarus actions - still provides a warrant for the claim here.

As for whether EUROCONTROL's initiatives oriented toward the future of ATM, airspace architecture, projects such as ECHO, are reasons for the organization to be particularly concerned about Belarus actions in this incident, well, I don't speak for EUROCONTROL. Nor do I write on its behalf.

[WideScreen]

....
The Council expressed appreciation to the ICAO fact finding investigation team for its strenuous efforts and comprehensive analysis and reiterated its condemnation of the communication of false information endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight is an offence under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the safety of Civil Aviation (Montreal Convention).

The Council also recalled that the use of civil aviation in this manner contravenes the spirit of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), in particular its Preamble and Article 4.
.......
It further requested the President of the Council to forward the fact-finding investigation report, and the Council’s related decisions thereon, to United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres for consideration and any appropriate action.
Given the current UN structure and regulations, there is (probably) very little that can be done about this incident itself.

The lessons taken are that future regulations need to be setup more from a point of view, that those states with a powerful position currently looking "honest" might turn rogue in the future. Regulations should become more resilient against that. Too many people ignore the fact that sometimes bad actors can come into power and even increase their power position using large scale manipulation, as we've seen in Russia and China in the past 10 years, effectively derailing a prosperous future for all on earth.

Just imagine what would happen, in the fortunately unlikely event, when Trump would become president again in 2025 (or G forbid, would have succeeded with his insurrection attempts, only just 1.5 years ago) ?

[FlightDetent]

Eurocontrol really isn't the FAA. Different scope, mostly overlay of PANS-ATM.

Other agendas may or may not be covered by different EU multinational bodies of varying authority and the individual countries' ethical obligations to ICAO standards.

ECAC perhaps?

[DirtyProp]

I can't post urls, feel free to google it.

...eng.belta.by/president/view/lukashenko-describes-icaos-report-on-ryanair-flight-incident-as-falsification-151954-2022/Lukashenko describes ICAO's report on Ryanair flight incident as falsification MINSK, 21 July (BelTA) – The International Civil Aviation Organization's report on the Ryanair Flight 4978 incident is falsified. Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko made the relevant statement in an interview with the news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP), BelTA has learned.



Speaking about the recently released report of the International Civil Aviation Organization, Aleksandr Lukashenko said: “It is falsification.” The Belarusian side has already evaluated this document. “Why was it released today or yesterday? What right does ICAO have to introduce sanctions? What right does France have? What right do you have? The right belongs to the United Nations Organization. But the UN has not even recommended it,” the Belarusian leader stated.

Aleksandr Lukashenko pointed out that European countries introduced sanctions to close air space for Belarus even before any documents or reports were published. “You introduced sanctions against [the Belarusian air carrier] Belavia two years ago without a reason. On the second day on orders from Washington all of you starting with Macron and ending with German Chancellor Merkel started shouting: ‘Belarusians are criminals!' You didn't have facts at your disposal back then.”

Meanwhile a much more serious incident involving an Indonesian aircraft, which was shot down in Ukrainian sky, is still being investigated, Aleksandr Lukashenko noted. “Where is the result? So many people died there,” he noted.

Speaking about Roman Protasevich, who was on board of Ryanair Flight 4978, Aleksandr Lukashenko noted he lives a calm life in Belarus and does not want to go to the West.

This last line is just golden.

[Lonewolf_50]

Lukashenko describes ICAO's report on Ryanair flight incident as falsification He would say that, wouldn't he?
MINSK, 21 July (BelTA) – Aleksandr Lukashenko pointed out that European countries introduced sanctions to close air space for Belarus even before any documents or reports were published. “You introduced sanctions against [the Belarusian air carrier] Belavia two years ago without a reason. On the second day on orders from Washington all of you starting with Macron and ending with German Chancellor Merkel started shouting: ‘Belarusians are criminals!' You didn't have facts at your disposal back then.” Meanwhile a much more serious incident involving an Indonesian aircraft, which was shot down in Ukrainian sky, is still being investigated, Aleksandr Lukashenko noted. “Where is the result? So many people died there,” he noted.
Whataboutery: such a compelling position to take. :rolleyes:

[paulross]

Meanwhile a much more serious incident involving an Indonesian aircraft, which was shot down in Ukrainian sky, is still being investigated, Aleksandr Lukashenko noted. “Where is the result? So many people died there,” he noted.


Err, Indonesian?

[WillowRun 6-3]

From Wall Street Journal - 4 May 2023

Belarusian Blogger Sentenced To Prison (BY ANN M. SIMMONS)

Roman Protasevich, the Belarusian activist who was arrested after the government scrambled a jet fighter to divert his Ryanair flight from Greece, was sentenced to eight years in prison.

The Minsk Regional Court in the Belarusian capital Wednesday found Mr. Protasevich guilty of organizing riots, calling for acts of terrorism and insulting Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, among other crimes, Belarus’s state news agency Belta reported.

The dissident blogger will now stay under house arrest until the court’s verdict comes into force, prosecutor Natalya Sokolova told journalists, the news agency reported, when he will be taken to serve his sentence in a high-security penal colony. She didn’t specify when that would happen.

Mr. Protasevich was one of Mr. Lukashenko’s most ardent critics following the disputed election that returned the Belarusian leader to power in 2020. From his base in Poland, Mr. Protasevich ran an opposition news channel, NEXTA, on the Telegram messaging app, which quickly became one of the most widely viewed news sources in Belarus.

Authorities in Minsk put him on and other NEXTA journalists on a list of people involved in what they described as terrorist activities, and in May 2021 sent a jet fighter to divert the flight on which he was flying from Greece to Lithuania, forcing it to land in the Belarusian capital, where he was detained.

Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary called the incident “a case of state-sponsored hijacking,” and the move triggered European Union sanctions against Mr. Lukashenko.

[magyar_flyer]

Obviously not condoning this whole mess but for such an outspoken and virulent opponent to overfly Belarus was rather presomptuous.

[Bksmithca]

Obviously not condoning this whole mess but for such an outspoken and virulent opponent to overfly Belarus was rather presomptuous.
Magyar_flyer, you really need to go post one and read what actually happened. Belarus literally high jacked this flight with armed fighter jets.

[atakacs]

Magyar_flyer, you really need to go post one and read what actually happened. Belarus literally high jacked this flight with armed fighter jets.

Nope, never happened.


5.10. From the evidence provided by Belarus, no escort or intercept occurred between the MIG-29 and RYR 1TZ and no communications by the MIG-29 was recorded on the radio channels used by RYR 1TZ. According to information provided by the flight crew and cabin crew, there was no communication, interaction, visual sighting or other knowledge of military aircraft involvement with the flight.

They tricked the pilots to land in Minsk - which is despicable, as ATC should obviously be always trustworthy. But the flight routing was overflying Belarus in the first place. Admitedly boarding such a flight was a rather risky proposition.

[Herod]

atakacs. Are you saying that hijacking an international flight, by whatever means, is acceptable? Does anyone check the actual routing of a flight before booking?

[Less Hair]

They tricked the crew to emergency land in their country in order to have certain passengers arrested. A trap.

[ATC Watcher]

Reading the ICAO report would make you understand what happenned . Stop coming back with the debunked theories . The Minsk authorities are 100% responsible for this hijacking and it is not the pax that should face justice but the perpetrators responsible.
As to ATC, the controllers just relayed to the crew what they were told by their supervisors and state security men behind them. We all would have done the same. Hindsight is always a wonderdul thing.
Less hair here resumed the situation very well in 20 words.

[Imagegear]

Reading the ICAO report would make you understand what happenned . Stop coming back with the debunked theories . The Minsk authorities are 100% responsible for this hijacking and it is not the pax that should face justice but the perpetrators responsible.
As to ATC, the controllers just relayed to the crew what they were told by their supervisors and state security men behind them. We all would have done the same. Hindsight is always a wonderdul thing.
Less hair here resumed the situation very well in 20 words.

If it walks and quacks, its a duck

IG

[CHfour]

https://www.politico.eu/article/belarus-hijack-minsk-ryanair-athens-to-vilnius-control-room/

[sf25]

Absolutly agreeing that the pilots had no other choice than to lnad at Minsk. But am I the only one who thinks that it was at least questionable that the crew took off again without the hijacked passenger(s), without at least trying to create some diplomatic upset?
I mean, somehow the captain is responsable for getting his passengers where they want to go ... ...

[hans brinker]

Absolutly agreeing that the pilots had no other choice than to lnad at Minsk. But am I the only one who thinks that it was at least questionable that the crew took off again without the hijacked passenger(s), without at least trying to create some diplomatic upset?
I mean, somehow the captain is responsable for getting his passengers where they want to go ... ...

So the captain should have gone into the terminal and gotten the missing pax? He's not in the marines.... He is responsible for the people who are on the airplane when it is moving.

[thetimesreader84]

Absolutly agreeing that the pilots had no other choice than to lnad at Minsk. But am I the only one who thinks that it was at least questionable that the crew took off again without the hijacked passenger(s), without at least trying to create some diplomatic upset?
I mean, somehow the captain is responsable for getting his passengers where they want to go ... ...

"Captain, this passenger is a wanted terrorist in Belarus. Here we have signed & stamped arrest warrant from the Belarus High Court. Will you release him to our custody, or are you aiding and abeting a wanted fugitive?"

Hindsight is always 20/20, and the Captain on the day has my utmost sympathy.

[WillowRun 6-3]

The assertion that a PIC, whether in general terms or in this specific real incident and situation, has such obligation as to attempt to wrest custody and control of a deplaned passenger from the authorities of the jurisdiction to which the aircraft was diverted -- this assertion seems quite novel.

One point that, imho, is important to note here is that the interests of PICs in this general subject area typically flow in the exact opposite direction. In other words, how to get local authorities in the jurisdiction where the aircraft has landed - whether by diversion (by the PIC's discretion) or as scheduled - to exercise legal authority over an unruly passenger who the PIC either has caused to be deplaned or requests the local law enforcement to remove from the aircraft. The Tokyo Convention of 1963 (much longer formal title), and Montreal Protocol of 2014, address the problems, or some of the problems, of jurisdiction with regard to unruly passengers - but in the context of getting them off the aircraft and/or prosecuted, not retrieving them for continued transportation after being wrongfully and unlawfully removed by the state where the aircraft has landed. Unless I've gotten really rusty on some main provisions of Air law, that is......

As to diplomatic incident causation.... somehow I think, stretching my imagination to the breaking point as if this SLF/attorney were a PIC and in this fact situation - I think getting the heck out of Dodge would be what the estimable Mr. O'Leary would want, demand, and expect.

[Big Pistons Forever]

As to diplomatic incident causation.... somehow I think, stretching my imagination to the breaking point as if this SLF/attorney were a PIC and in this fact situation - I think getting the heck out of Dodge would be what the estimable Mr. O'Leary would want, demand, and expect.
Exactly.......

[fdr]

The last "dicktater" of Europe the USSR was tempted with too easy an opportunity to soil his own sandbox to pass it up by thinking before acting. The false bomb threat is itself a criminal act, which has not yet been aired but hopefully will see the light of day at some point. There isn't much that can be done at the time to stop stupidity by the 'tater topper, and hopefully Vlad's tea party will soon relieve him from his problems permanently. (I suspect that the 'tater has medical problems that don't involve vlad's teapot antics, but his potential demise may be a sign to vlad to go to Minsk and take up residence, to help his "mate", which historically means annexation. Mr p has never missed a chance to do the wrong thing)