Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Denied to cross airspace is worse than being forced to land at gunpoint?



Denying enough airspace to a plane already in flight is just as dangerous as a gun to the head, and just as much of a threat.

The machinations pretending it's not is what pushes it into being worse.


A Europe -> South America flight being denied airspace while still in Europe is clearly not as threatening as a literal gun to one’s head.


NATO countries revoking airspace when you're flying through NATO controlled airspace over a US geopolitical matter is a threat as deadly as a gun to your head. Rerouting and not landing would be met with more airspace walls the opposite direction.

It's not a question of fuel, it's a question of geometry. You have two options, comply or death.


An audio tape was subsequently released which appeared to be a recording of the flight crew requesting to land in Austria on the grounds they "could not get a correct indication" of their remaining fuel levels.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incide...


Rather than citing wikipedia, read the article that citation is from. It's literally titled "minute by disputed minute", and should be read between the lines.

They were going to refuel in the Canary Islands, but Spain blocked access to Spanish airspace if they wouldn't subject themselves to a search. Italy, Spain, and France had all blocked access to their airspace and they were boxed in. Austria also admits they only gave landing permission (to a plane already in their airspace, that even then tried saying it was an emergency that they need to land) under the condition that they consent to a search.

So yeah, like I was saying, it was ultimately a question of them being boxed in while over NATO airspace.

The end point, yes, they were threatened with their plane being cut off from all options and falling out of the sky if they didn't submit themselves to a search. Just as deadly as a gun to their head. I'm not sure how your citation could be interpreted to back up your original argument.


Since I can’t just copy & paste the entire article back to this comment:

- All mentions of Canary Island refueling are post Austria landing

- Spain is the conditional search-for-landing country (comment given by Spanish PM in aftermath of Austria landing)

- Morales’ flight requested to land in Austria because of fuel reading issues, not geometry.

There is no indication of “boxing in”, unless Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia are part of it. The flight had permission through Poland, Czechia, and Austria before being denied Italy, France, and Spain. Morales called their bluff by landing in Austria instead of calling Czechia’s or Poland’s by heading back to Russia and proving the box-in.

We’re left with “More airspace walls & boxing-in” being entirely hypothetical and untested, “geometry > fuel” with a flight choosing to land because of fuel issues, and an end point in Vienna because they never turned around.

A gun to one’s head is much simpler, and indeed significantly more threatening than the convoluted political games involved in searching a diplomatic flight, if only for the reason I can’t call the gunman’s bluff by simply sitting down in Austria.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: