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...

IIRC the Belarus president himself said in a speech he had ordered a fighter to intercept the flight in order to protect his people from any possible terrorist act or danger. A fighter can be a threat without being seen just by being there.
As I have not seen any trustworthy uncut ATC records and the time lines are disputable they might have just mentioned the fact that a fighter is on his way to the crew to strengthen their point or similar.

wiggy

"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)."

I'm not sure that a recruitment agency's website would ever be my first port of call if looking for a definitive account of an incident.

Finally, Ukraine closed its airspace for Belavia. Now that's a hard punch, giving them the extra mile.
https://en.belavia.by/news/4732109/

wiggy

Surely that is just a second language / translation issue? loop vs circling vs orbit, something like that.

It may well be but IMHO if your intended audience is aviation professionals or potential/aspiring aviation professionals you need to get the technical language correct...

Less Hair

What's your source for that statement?

This president says many things, because he is an unstable lunatic, but nowhere have I seen any official statement from him saying this. The official reason for the fighter have been many explanations, but so far no proof of any fighter intercepting the aircraft.

2unlimited

It was in practice the first thing that was reported by the main belarus government media:

https://eng.belta.by/president/view/...t-140132-2021/

Also it is noteworthy that "president ordered the u-turn himself". So, how independently did the crew make the diversion decision?

wiggy

i see your point , but since you quote me , my own use of the word “ loops” was meant as “loopholes in the Belarus story “not referring to the alleged holding pattern in the article. Most of us here are not native English speakers, so is probably the writer of the article, but despite the use of the wrong term his recap of facts known so far and above all where they came from is very well done .

I seem to remember some official video or sound file of a speech of the president (maybe in Belarus parliament like at a speakers stand or similar) where he elaborated quite lengthy on how he ordered a fighter to intercept the flight and protect the people of Belarus from terrorist attacks. It was like "I ordered..." however translated.

Less Hair

I think you will discover that it was something along the lines, that he ordered fighter to assist (escorting them in and later out of Belarus) - And Lukashenko did this out of his gracious great heart to prevent a terrorist attack in Lithuania / Vilnius.
There is some disconnect here in the logic / logical thinking, so Lukashenko (ATC Belarus), convinced the RYR crew, that they rather have the RYR flight with a bomb divert over Belarussian land / city to a Belarussian airport, risking that the aircraft / bomb could detonate over Belarusia, in a flight that was at least double the distance from diverting to Kaunus in Lithuania.

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.

When did ATC dictate what actions you take during a Mayday?
I thought a Mayday call meant that you call the shots, what is the safest outcome for the flight / crew / passengers? Judging by the outcome, this was not the safest option, and this is mainly due to lack of equipment on the aircraft for the crew to get the information they needed, to know they were actually being hijacked by Lukashenko's KGB.

This shows how easy now for a potential future terror attack, by being able to get access the ATC frequency, you can give ATC orders to an aircraft that will go unchallenged, because the airline has no way to assess a security threat while they are in the air, as they are unable to contact their airlines security team, who would involve assessing the credibility of such a security risk.

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.

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.

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....e3a0d71681.jpg

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.

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.

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)

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

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..

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?

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

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)

I did read the transcript again:

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?

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.

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?

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.

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) ?

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?

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.

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?

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

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

EASA Safety Directive 2021-02
 

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][color=#555555] 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.

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 - http://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-a...ective-2021-02

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.

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

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?

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).

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...

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.

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

English is not my first language - is this really the meaning of „coerced“? I would have used persuaded or lured.

Wouldn’t it be great to have a satcom link in such a situation?
Aaah guarantees from europes last stalinist dictatorship… that’s definitely cheaper then! That‘ll do it!

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.

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