Valean's (EU comissioner for transport) take on the matter is bizarre to say the least, too:

"The @Ryanair flight took off just now from Minsk bound for Vilnius. Great news for everyone especially the families and friends of people onboard."

https://twitter.com/AdinaValean/status/1396513415007506432

"Everyone"??

“Nothing untoward was found and the aircraft and its passengers were cleared to depart”

The omissive wording is utterly revolting. While the Ryanair PR people were at it they could’ve taken it a small step forward and said that a few passengers decided to stay as they really enjoyed the sights.

"... which was outside Ryanair's control."

No refunds for anyone...

Nothing can finish off a corporate announcement better than a Liability Avoidance and Risk Reduction statement :)

It would be out of character for Ryanair to do or say anything different.

They didn’t charge the passengers extra for the added flight, which is something

Apart from this jarring omission, they repeat the propaganda claim that Minsk was the closest airport at the time, which is blatantly untrue.

aviation nit to pick here—

I haven't tried to find the actual flight path, but for a transport aircraft at cruise the "closest airport" would not be underneath the flight's position, but rather at some distance away corresponding to the computed distance to reach the surface in an idle power descent.¹

From 30,000+ feet I'd expect that value to lie around 60–80 miles, iirc.

/Acey

¹–ignoring in-flight fires, medical emergencies, etc., that might dictate an unusually steep descent profile.

Approximate flight data from ADS-B has been plotted and is visible in the article.

Even with the benefit of the doubt, it looks very shady. You could probably argue that it's the closest airport within the airspace they're currently occupying (which was Belarus airspace at the time) but the whole Belarus narrative stinks.

What particularly stinks is the Ryanair response/reaction. I can only assume that Ryanair is being coy about the whole situation because they want to continue using Belarus airspace, but there might be more to it.

It’s likely the pilots were fed a relatively standard line and asked to divert to Minsk.

Unless it’s an inflight emergency pilots will normally follow the recommendations of ATC. “There is a report you have a bomb onboard and divert to Minsk where we have a bomb squad” would likely work.

The flight was travelling due north from Lutsk and had already passed over Lida, approaching the Lithuanian border, before it was diverted. It was significantly closer to Vilnius (its destination) than to Minsk.

How is this relevant considering that according to FlightRadar the closest airport was the destination airport, where they were supposed to land anyway?

And then there is obstacle clearance.

Over any terrain with appreciable elevation differences, topographic features can easily rule out otherwise eligible airfields because you'll have to cross granite on the glide down.

/Acey

I left that off before but it begged mentioning since it's a question that asks for a real answer/confirmation if starting from jet cruise altitudes. If you are starting at FL410, you could easily head down a box canyon accidentally when the Alps, Pyrenees, Rockies, etc. are nearby.

It was the destination airport, can we stop making up possible reasons about why they couldn't land there?

They couldn't because the fighter jets forced them to land at Minsk.

Well, that's the statement from whichever employee was manning the twitter account. The statement from the CEO which is more what counts was quite different:

>"This was a case of state-sponsored hijacking - state-sponsored piracy," Michael O'Leary told Newstalk radio.

>"It appears the intent of the authorities was to remove a journalist and his travelling companion. We believe there were some KGB (State Security Committee of the Republic of Belarus) agents offloaded at the airport as well,"