Hacker News Reader

Comment by slim | Hacker News Reader

An emergency landing does not need a fighter jet. The fighter jet was there to scare the pilot

The fighter jet was there to intercept. All commercial pilots are trained to follow standard procedures when intercepted. Which comes down to: 1. Let ATC know, 2. Establish radio communication or use standard signals if unable, 3. Follow directions by the intercepting plane instead of ATC.

The radio words to use are standardised so they even work in case one side doesn't speak English. The signals are also very simple (rock wings, certain turns, gear up/down).

No need to think about being shot down or not, no need to scare, any commercial flight being intercepted would follow directions.

This does not refute the parent commenter's point.

Huh, surely the Belarusian government wouldn't dare shoot it down? But I guess if I were the Ryanair captain responsible for all souls onboard, landing it is the safest choice.

> Huh, surely the Belarusian government wouldn't dare shoot it down?

No sane or insane pilot is going to risk it, however. Unless the pilot was certain that his and all of passengers fate were in danger, they are going to follow that fighter jet.

I think that just changed hours ago. Flying over Russian/Belarus is now considered harmful.

Iran shot a commercial passenger plane down last year, so it isn't exactly outside the realm of possibility.

Not intentionally.

No need to go looking for examples from halfway across the world, Russia was complicit in the downing of MH-17 over Ukraine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH-17#Cause_of_the_crash

And directly responsible back in the Soviet era: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

A court in Canada ruled that it was intentional https://nationalpost.com/news/world/iran-shot-down-plane-ful...

It was a default judgment.

Would that need to be either Iranian or some international court? Why would a Canadian court be responsible for Iranian air zone?

What international court?

Because it was mostly Canadians murdered on that aircraft.

Yes, intentionally:

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/iran-shot-down-plane-ful...

Iran shot a commercial passenger plane down last year, so it isn't exactly outside the realm of possibility.

Don’t forget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/09/14/a...

A sane government would not, but a sane government would also not hijack the plane.

That depends - they wouldn't want a plane with a bomb to explode over a city for example, so the jets could be used to "neutralise" the threat. Obviously in this case the bomb was fake and so the threat...

P-lease! the case is crystal clear: the MIG was used to threaten the plane into landing!

The MIG was no doubt there to ensure the plane obeyed air traffic control

It's not unheard of for military jets to escort civilian planes to an airport, for example

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ryanair-flight-escort...

(Of course the situation of how the bomb threat came to be is different in this case, and IMO airlines now need to avoid Belarus overflights)

Have you read this? https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/05/911-oral-...

https://twitter.com/PavelLatushka/status/1396519000830582784

Belarusian Air Force fighter-interceptor manoeuvred to signal to the pilots of a Ryanair airliner:follow me”. The captain of the civilian aircraft was obliged to obey. The captain may have disobeyed the dispatcher's command, but the threat from a military aircraft was obligatory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com