News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Belarus 'diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist', op... by elliekelly on Sunday May 23, 2021 @03:18PM (#27257714)
What would happen if a pilot refused? My understanding is pilots have near total authority when operating an aircraft so if a pilot knew the “threat” stated was fabricated could they, in theory, just keep flying? Or even landed at a different, closer airport than the one specified?

To be clear, I don’t think pilots should be in a position to judge the truthfulness of ATF or the government they’re flying over and I don’t think pilot judgment is the “solution” to this loophole that has now been abused twice (that we know). I’m just curious about the process and what would happen if a pilot decided to call the bluff. Would Belarus (or whichever country) scramble fighter jets to force a landing? Would the pilot get in trouble? Is the answer different for a private flight vs commercial flight vs diplomatic flight?

Re:Belarus 'diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist', op... by vbezhenar on Sunday May 23, 2021 @04:11PM (#27258127)
I think that airplane will be considered captured by terrorists. If there's a danger of it being used as a weapon of mass destruction, it'll be blowed up to prevent more deaths. I don't think that it would be considered reasonable to blow up aircraft if it didn't present a danger to big cities.

So IMO pilot could ignore their requirements and I think that nothing would happen outside of angry transmissions. Especially if the plane was near border. But I don't think that it would be reasonable, especially in an airplane full of innocent people.

Re:Belarus 'diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist', op... by T-A on Sunday May 23, 2021 @04:54PM (#27258512)
Re:Belarus 'diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist', op... by RegnisGnaw on Sunday May 23, 2021 @04:25PM (#27258279)
That MIG-29 on their tail will help them obey.
Re:Belarus 'diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist', op... by JshWright on Sunday May 23, 2021 @06:29PM (#27259232)
> to this loophole that has now been abused twice (that we know)

Twice?