undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCullinet5y ago0 comments

I doubt that the pilot or copilot could have done this themselves, but I would be very surprised if they never asked their corporate control operating command to explain and establish what exactly was going on and whether they're going to be compelled to comply with the Belorussian diversions request... assuming that the escort fighter jets didn't simultaneously arrive on their wings to punctuate the "request" effectively.

Can anyone with FAA / CAA (the UK civil aviation authority) or EU airspace rules knowledge clarify what protocols exist for these situations?

0 comments

8 comments · 1 top-level

mike_d5y ago· 7 in thread

The generally accepted worldwide rule is that airspace is owned by the country under it. You actually pay overflight fees for use of a countries airspace and are subject to its air traffic control. The corporate response will always be "don't get shot down."

In the US and most everywhere else, when you willfully ignore ATC they scramble fighter jets. Every pilot is trained in what this looks like and how to respond, but the safe next step is always to respond in the affirmative and land. https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/regulations/inflight...

bombcar5y ago

Note that many VFR flights are NOT under direct ATC control (though requesting flight following is always recommended) so unless you appear to be flying erratically or otherwise attract attention you may not even be noticed - it’s standard to send an interceptor if they have reason to believe your radio is inoperable and they need to get in contact (there are established intercept/no-contact procedures).

In reality it is highly unlikely for a commercial airline to ignore a direct ATC command (unless the pilot believes the plane is in distress) - and in a case like this where ATC reports a hazard onboard and divert it wouldn’t be unexpected to see an escort (even if just so that there is a witness if the plane were to actually explode).

After 9-11 the chance that the interceptors are armed is probably 100%.

Fun fact: the max speed of a normal GA plane (think Cessna) is below the stall speed of many interceptors which can result in amusement.

iso16315y ago

> Fun fact: the max speed of a normal GA plane (think Cessna) is below the stall speed of many interceptors which can result in amusement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD77nyoEyug&t=116s

mike_d5y ago

> Note that many VFR flights are NOT under direct ATC control

I was answering in the context of flying from one country to another while crossing over a third. You'll need a flight plan and overflight permits, which generally require ATC contact at least on entry.

Belarus specifically requires a fixed flight path using defined entry and exit points for any aircraft, a Sunday afternoon VFR wander-about is just as likely in Yemen or Iran. :)

sellyme5y ago

> the max speed of a normal GA plane (think Cessna) is below the stall speed of many interceptors which can result in amusement

Somehow I get the inkling that terrorist groups probably aren't going to start trying to crash into office buildings with a Cessna.

5 more replies

useryman5y ago

> After 9-11 the chance that the interceptors are armed is probably 100%.

Why wouldn't they be? What else can they even do? Especially in the case that the radio is inoperable. Other than seeing what's happening, and reporting back.

irjustin5y ago

On a tangential yet related note to paying overflight fees to a country - most expensive route to fly over: Serbian Flight Corridor[0].

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNDYBt9e_U

massenpunkt5y ago

I was wondering why Serbia, but you meant Siberia. Thanks for the interesting video, though!

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse