FR4978 ATH-VNO diverted, escorted to Minsk, alleged bomb threat – but was it?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Downunder
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trust in ATC is a pretty fundamental requirement and given that IFALPA has described this as "a wilful hazard to safety of passengers/crew" (Twitter 24th May), I'd have expected a bit more pressure from the pilot unions (quite apart from the UK/EU "requests" to airlines and ongoing ICAO discussions) in respect of overflight suspension.
Have I missed something?
Have I missed something?
There goes the belarussian story, the email service provider has confirmed that the email was sent AFTER the plane was already turned (read: lured) to Minsk.
"A bomb threat cited by Belarusian authorities as the reason for forcing a Ryanair jetliner carrying a dissident journalist to land in Minsk was sent after the plane was diverted, privacy-focused email provider Proton Technologies AG said on Thursday."
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ss-2021-05-27/
"A bomb threat cited by Belarusian authorities as the reason for forcing a Ryanair jetliner carrying a dissident journalist to land in Minsk was sent after the plane was diverted, privacy-focused email provider Proton Technologies AG said on Thursday."
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ss-2021-05-27/
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bracknell, Berks, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57271949
So, the Russians are now complicit. We really should shut down ANY flights going to OR through Belarus, AND Russia if they're going to play hardball like this. It was only ever going to end this way.
So, the Russians are now complicit. We really should shut down ANY flights going to OR through Belarus, AND Russia if they're going to play hardball like this. It was only ever going to end this way.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not bet on that one , the current Tran Siberian routes are the only reason Russia keeps the ATC centers along the routes , and collect the hefty route charges associated with the overflights. The centers largely sustain the (poor) local economy , IATA will make pressure to keep the routes open, too much money involved , and not in the current Covid-crisis. But with Putin you never know.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: EFHK (Finland)
Age: 61
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AvgasDinosaur
Long-scheduled meeting of the post-Soviet CIS states' heads of government in Minsk today. Belarus currently chairs the state alliance. Got carried away at work (media) myself as 96017 is a plane frequently used by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. But I had to pull my headlines after this down-to-earth explanation was to be found, outside all main Western media.
Long-scheduled meeting of the post-Soviet CIS states' heads of government in Minsk today. Belarus currently chairs the state alliance. Got carried away at work (media) myself as 96017 is a plane frequently used by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. But I had to pull my headlines after this down-to-earth explanation was to be found, outside all main Western media.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 671
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Tow
The alert issued by IFALPA also included the European Cockpit Assn. (ECA) - not certain of this but I don't recall the Int'l Federation having been joined by other pilot labor organizations in issuance of prior bulletins about urgent safety-related issues or matters.
Regardless of that smaller point, if you were in charge - officially - of IFALPA, would you not take the most strident and definitive position, consistent with the facts as they reasonably appear to be at that time, in your initial public statement about the incident? IFALPA (and ECA) certainly are aware of the difficulties involved for mobilizing meaningful, actual, concrete action against entities or countries who violate important safety-related procedures and provisions. Aren't the interests of pilots best advanced and protected by taking the strongest (reasonable) stand to begin with, hoping to influence the several next phases of responses by civil aviation groups on the international level?
Article 55(e) may or may not have been relied upon previously by ICAO Council for instituting an investigation; if it has been relied upon, the situation is not one this SLF/atty recalls. This is not to claim that the Council's action yesterday will lead to adequate, or even partially adequate, solutions. I'm not sure there's even a consensus at the Council or in the broader civil aviation community internationally about how to define the problem at this time. Is it applying leverage (also known usually as "sanctions" though leverage has heavier meaning) to force release of the persons removed from the passenger cabin of the aircraft? Is it something intended to "teach Belarus a lesson"?
Not shrugging at the expressions of cynicism - about whether anything real can or will be done. At the same time, if one agrees this situation is unprecedented either in its severity, or methods deployed, or both, then cynicism can wait. The IFALPA-ECA statement has a ring of seriousness about it, IMHO, and this warrants endowing the Article 55(e) process to be conducted by the Secretariat with a measure of confidence. If you have heard the SecGen give a speech, and especially if you've heard the SecGen take Q&A after such a speech, perhaps you'd agree that any process this particular SecGen will conduct about a matter of such seriousness will also be a very serious and focused process. (True, a new SecGen takes office soon, but then there's something about "legacy" kicking around the big office building in Montreal.)
The alert issued by IFALPA also included the European Cockpit Assn. (ECA) - not certain of this but I don't recall the Int'l Federation having been joined by other pilot labor organizations in issuance of prior bulletins about urgent safety-related issues or matters.
Regardless of that smaller point, if you were in charge - officially - of IFALPA, would you not take the most strident and definitive position, consistent with the facts as they reasonably appear to be at that time, in your initial public statement about the incident? IFALPA (and ECA) certainly are aware of the difficulties involved for mobilizing meaningful, actual, concrete action against entities or countries who violate important safety-related procedures and provisions. Aren't the interests of pilots best advanced and protected by taking the strongest (reasonable) stand to begin with, hoping to influence the several next phases of responses by civil aviation groups on the international level?
Article 55(e) may or may not have been relied upon previously by ICAO Council for instituting an investigation; if it has been relied upon, the situation is not one this SLF/atty recalls. This is not to claim that the Council's action yesterday will lead to adequate, or even partially adequate, solutions. I'm not sure there's even a consensus at the Council or in the broader civil aviation community internationally about how to define the problem at this time. Is it applying leverage (also known usually as "sanctions" though leverage has heavier meaning) to force release of the persons removed from the passenger cabin of the aircraft? Is it something intended to "teach Belarus a lesson"?
Not shrugging at the expressions of cynicism - about whether anything real can or will be done. At the same time, if one agrees this situation is unprecedented either in its severity, or methods deployed, or both, then cynicism can wait. The IFALPA-ECA statement has a ring of seriousness about it, IMHO, and this warrants endowing the Article 55(e) process to be conducted by the Secretariat with a measure of confidence. If you have heard the SecGen give a speech, and especially if you've heard the SecGen take Q&A after such a speech, perhaps you'd agree that any process this particular SecGen will conduct about a matter of such seriousness will also be a very serious and focused process. (True, a new SecGen takes office soon, but then there's something about "legacy" kicking around the big office building in Montreal.)
Belavia flight refused entry into Polish airspace and returned to Minsk. Not really shocking considering the past couple of days, but I think that they need a refresher course on holding patterns!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of the lack of a definitive detailed account of what actually happened, I can't help thinking that this was a clumsy, ill thought through solo run by Belarus.
I'd expect Putin is furious about this incident, it threatens his strategy regarding allied states buffering his borders and indirectly drags him into an international s**t storm.
I'm glad this mess is not in my in tray.
I'd expect Putin is furious about this incident, it threatens his strategy regarding allied states buffering his borders and indirectly drags him into an international s**t storm.
I'm glad this mess is not in my in tray.
Last edited by 1978; 28th May 2021 at 17:42. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: The Midlands
Age: 38
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really feel that if the international community doesn't take serious action, not only in aviation - such as a no-fly zone over Belarus - but also serious sanctions, then this sort of thing will be seen as acceptable practice. It's a very dangerous, and also a very sad moment for international air travel.
"The White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Friday the United States was also suspending a 2019 agreement between Washington and Minsk that allowed carriers from each country to use the other’s airspace, and taking other actions against the government of President Alexander Lukashenko."
In essence, BY carriers not allowed in US airspace, but does this mean that US based carriers are out of BY skies, too?
Furthermore, United States will reimpose “full blocking sanctions” on nine Belarusian state-owned enterprises on 3 June, prohibiting US persons from dealing with those businesses. I'm struggling to find out what are the companies, if it is oil/potash, it can hit pretty well.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...plane-incident
In essence, BY carriers not allowed in US airspace, but does this mean that US based carriers are out of BY skies, too?
Furthermore, United States will reimpose “full blocking sanctions” on nine Belarusian state-owned enterprises on 3 June, prohibiting US persons from dealing with those businesses. I'm struggling to find out what are the companies, if it is oil/potash, it can hit pretty well.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...plane-incident
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Downunder
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
diffident
Whilst you are quite right in that view, I see little evidence of most leaders taking serious action against leaders like Lukashenko or Putin. Tinkering at the edges seems to be the norm, with a few exepctions, like the Polies.
The PM in the UK had to be leaned on hard by back benchers and commitees simply to bin the idea of Huwawei in our phone networks and his record against Putin is pretty weak. He and others will put larger economic interests at the fore and Putin et al know it.
Whilst you are quite right in that view, I see little evidence of most leaders taking serious action against leaders like Lukashenko or Putin. Tinkering at the edges seems to be the norm, with a few exepctions, like the Polies.
The PM in the UK had to be leaned on hard by back benchers and commitees simply to bin the idea of Huwawei in our phone networks and his record against Putin is pretty weak. He and others will put larger economic interests at the fore and Putin et al know it.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: India
Age: 85
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using fighter aircraft to help divert a crippled or erring airliner, is an approved Geneva Convention procedure in the age where all ATP's did not speak English. Fighters/Military aircraft, flying abreast of airliner's cockpit waggled their wings as a sign language to persuade the airliner in question to follow the guiding/friendly/military aircraft. What I wish to convey is that procedure is perfectly legal.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The article in aerotime is very well made and identifies the loops in the story . As the the interception or not by the Mig29, the Lithuanian air defense have received a beautiful JTPS primary radar for Japan in 2020 , so the interception has been watched and recorded, and the Lithuanian prosecutor will most probably had access already , so the truth will come out one day or the other.
I know this sounds very pedantic but whilst the article gets top marks for presentation many of us here will hear alarm bells ringing when they see the author use "loops" in the context they have done. It might also bring into question how accurate the rest of the piece is (I see in the comments somebody has a gripe about the author switching between UTC and local, UTC plus 2).
Last edited by wiggy; 31st May 2021 at 07:49.
mayam13
Most of us here know that and it was the subject of discussion upthread...the bigger query is whether any fighter was anywhere near the Ryanair flight at any time during this whole episode...
Most of us here know that and it was the subject of discussion upthread...the bigger query is whether any fighter was anywhere near the Ryanair flight at any time during this whole episode...
