Belarus forces diversion to Minsk of Ryanair flight carrying a dissident in order to arrest him

[Lux_avi]

Thx. It's not european ban, there are some national bans. I understand better. So national ban and european blah !

Well, the EU "suggests" and every EU country still has the right to make a decision.
I can't see anything wrong here, on the contrary.

[nordikcam]

Thx. It's not european ban, there are some national bans. I understand better. So national ban and european blah !

I can't see anything wrong here, on the contrary.

Of course, not ! Only the frog which wants to be bigger than the ox and which is often quite ridiculous! 27 bouillabaises !

[Bracebrace]

Thx. It's not european ban, there are some national bans. I understand better. So national ban and european blah !

Well, the EU "suggests" and every EU country still has the right to make a decision.
I can't see anything wrong here, on the contrary.

It’s a huge problem and this mentality is Europe’s problem. Because the opposite is also true: if Europe says stop and national politics says ’nah’ you make Europe useless. Imagine France saying ’we don’t care Europe’ to protect the French relationship with the specific country. Which is why American carriers and pilots are still allowed to come to Europe and do many intra-european flights btw. You just have to negociate with the country, not Europe as a unit. Every country only looks at their own profit because at the end of the day, they want to be the biggest in Europe.

[Lux_avi]

It’s a huge problem and this mentality is Europe’s problem. Because the opposite is also true: if Europe says stop and national politics says ’nah’ you make Europe useless. Imagine France saying ’we don’t care Europe’ to protect the French relationship with the specific country. Which is why American carriers and pilots are still allowed to come to Europe and do many intra-european flights btw. You just have to negociate with the country, not Europe as a unit. Every country only looks at their own profit because at the end of the day, they want to be the biggest in Europe.

Yep. I also wish things could be that simple...

[TLspotting]

Austrian Airlines & Air France entries in the Russian airspace denied because they have avoided the Belarusian airspace.

When Lukashenko needs help, Putin is always there.

[TLspotting]

Now Germany refuses Russian airlines to overfly the country : https://www.dw.com/en/germany-suspends- ... 7XVy12UHq0

[Homo Aeroportus]

NOTAM just published :

A2271/21 NOTAMN
Q) EBBU/QXXXX/IV/M /E /000/999/5030N00414E999
A) EBBU B) 2106041900 C) 2109031400 EST
E) BELGIAN AIR CARRIERS AND CAPTAINS OF ACFT IN CHARGE OF AIR
SERVICE MANAGED BY CARRIERS HOLDERS OF OPERATING LICENCE ISSUED BY
BELGIUM, WHETHER THEY ARE CONTRACTUAL CARRIERS AND/OR DE FACTO
CARRIERS, OR PERFORMING AIR SERVICE WITH COMMERCIAL CHARTER
AGREEMENT OR WITH CODE SHARING AND TO ALL FLT PERFORMED WITH
BELGIAN ACFT REG, ARE REQUESTED TO AVOID MINSK FIR (UMMV). FOREIGN
AIR CARRIERS INBOUND EU ARE RECOMMENDED TO AVOID MINSK FIR (UMMV


My emphasis in bold.


H.A.

[Homo Aeroportus]

I was just curious to see if there was a common front against BY and I checked for NOTAMs in some other EU countries.

How refreshing it is to see that they all use (almost) the same text.
Then I saw the dates of applicability ....

France :
F0868/21 NOTAMR F0784/21
Q) LFXX/QAFXX/IV/NBO/E /000/999/4412N00042E455
A) LFFF LFMM LFBB LFRR LFEE B) 2106040904 C) 2106252359
E) FRENCH AIR CARRIERS AND CAPTAINS OF ACFT IN CHARGE OF AIR SERVICE MANAGED BY CARRIERS HOLDERS OF OPERATING LICENCE ISSUED BY FRANCE ,WHETHER THEY ARE CONTRACTUAL CARRIERS AND/OR DE FACTO CARRIERS , OR PERFORMING AIR SERVICE WITH COMMERCIAL CHARTER AGREEMENT OR WITH CODE SHARING AND TO ALL FLIGHT PERFORMED WITH FRENCH ACFT REGISTRATION ,ARE REQUESTED TO AVOID MINSK FIR (UMMV). FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS INBOUND FRANCE ARE RECOMMANDED TO AVOID BELARUS MINSK FIR(UMMV).

Germany :
B0670/21 NOTAMN
Q) EDXX/QAFXX/IV/NBO/E /000/999/5123N01019E262
A) EDGG EDWW EDMM B) 2106022200 C) 2109022200 EST
E) WITH REFERENCE TO EASA SD NO.: 2021-02: GERMAN AIR CARRIERS HAVING THEIR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE TERRITORY OF GERMANY AND CAPTAINS OF THAT AIRCRAFT ARE REQUESTED TO AVOID OPERATIONS IN FIR MINSK (UMMV), UNLESS THE USE OF THAT AIRSPACE IS DEEMED NECESSARY TO ENSURE SAFE OPERATION IN CASE OF UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES.

Netherlands :
A1244/21 NOTAMN
Q) EHAA/QXXXX/I /NBO/E /000/999/5255N00454E140
A) EHAA B) 2106030000 C) 2107022359 EST
E) OPERATIONS IN FIR MINSK (UMMV) NETHERLANDS AIR CARRIERS AND CAPTAINS OF ACFT IN CHARGE OF AIR SERVICE MANAGED BY CARRIERS HOLDERS OF OPERATING LICENCE ISSUED BY THE NETHERLANDS, WHETHER THEY ARE CONTRACTUAL CARRIERS AND/OR DE FACTO CARRIERS, OR PERFORMING AIR SERVICE WITH COMMERCIAL CHARTER AGREEMENT OR WITH CODE SHARING AND TO ALL FLIGHT PERFORMED WITH NETHERLANDS ACFT REGISTRATION, ARE REQUESTED TO AVOID MINSK FIR (UMMV). FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS INBOUND EU ARE RECOMMENDED TO AVOID BELARUS MINSK FIR(UMMV).

Spain :
B3987/21 NOTAMN
Q) LEXX/QAFXX/IV/NBO/E /000/999/4220N00345W433
A) LECM LECB B) 2105270918 C) 2106152200
E) SPANISH AIR CARRIERS, OPERATORS HAVING THEIR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN SPAIN OR PERFORMING AIR SERVICES WITH COMMERCIAL CHARTER AGREEMENTS OR CODE SHARING WITH SPANISH AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION, ARE REQUESTED TO AVOID OPERATIONS IN FIR MINKS (UMMV) DUE TO SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERNS POSED TO COMMERCIAL AVIATION, UNLESS THE USE OF THAT AIRSPACE IS DEEMED NECESSARY TO ENSURE SAFE OPERATIONS IN CASE OF UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES. FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS INBOUND SPAIN ARE ADVISED TO AVOID BELARUS MINSK FIR (UMMV

Greece :
A1689/21 NOTAMN
Q) LGGG/QAFXX/ /NBO/E /000/999/
A) LGGG B) 2106030001 C) 2106302359
E) GREECE- AIR CARRIERS AND CAPTAINS OF ACFT IN CHARGE OF AIR SERVICE MANAGED BY CARRIERS, HOLDERS OF OPERATING LICENCE ISSUED BY GREECE, WHETHER THEY ARE CONTRACTUAL CARRIERS AND/OR DE FACTO CARRIERS, OR PERFORMING AIR SERVICE WITH COMMERCIAL CHARTER AGREEMENT OR WITH CODE SHARING AND TO ALL FLIGHT PERFORMED WITH GREEK AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION, ARE REQUESTED TO AVOID MINSK FIR (UMMV). FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS INBOUND EU ARE RECOMMENDED TO AVOID BELARUS MINSK FIR (UMMV).


Agreed, NOTAMs can be cancelled, amended and re-issued with a prolonged date but would it have been too difficult to agree on a common end-date?
Henry Kissinger 1973 : Europe, what telephone number?

H.A.

[Passenger]

Statement from IATA on the ban of Belarus carriers:

Aircraft Operations Must Not Suffer from Political Interference

Geneva - 4th June 2021. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) called on the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to maintain the critical separation between politics and aviation safety issues. The call followed the latest development in events following the incident when Ryanair FR4978 was intercepted over Belarus Airspace and forced to land in Minsk. On 2 June EASA replaced its recommendation (Safety Information Bulletin) for European airlines to carefully assess the risk of flying in Belarus airspace with a blanket prohibition (Safety Directive) on European aircraft entering Belarus airspace.

“Aviation safety must never be politicized. IATA condemned the actions of the Belarus government and called for an independent investigation. Banning European aircraft from using Belarusian airspace with a Safety Directive is also a politicization of aviation safety. This is a retrograde and disappointing development. EASA should rescind its prohibition and allow airlines to manage safety as they do each and every day—with their normal operational risk assessments. “Two wrongs do not make a right. Politics should never interfere with the safe operation of aircraft and politicians should never use aviation safety as a cover to pursue political or diplomatic agendas,” said Willie Walsh, IATA’s Director General.

Background
On 23 May 2021, Ryanair flight FR4978, while overflying Belarus en-route from Athens to its final destination, Vilnius, was made to divert and land in Minsk by Belarusian authorities. In the immediate aftermath of the incident EASA issued a Safety Information Bulletin advising airlines to avoid operations in Belarusian airspace. This did not ban European aircraft from using the airspace but required any airline that continued to do so to satisfy themselves that the safety of the aircraft, passengers, and crew, was not at risk. IATA supported this measure as a proportionate response to the actions of the Government of Belarus. Several airlines have continued to use Belarusian airspace. IATA supports their decision to do so. On 27 May 2021, the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization decided to undertake a fact-finding investigation into the Belarus incident which IATA fully supports. On 2 June, after consulting with the EASA Member States and the European Commission, EASA issued a Safety Directive which effectively bans airlines from using Belarusian airspace. IATA does not support this action as it, in effect, politicizes air safety.

Source:
https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2021-06-04-01/

[ezis_bis]

Aviation safety must never be politicized.

How naive are they at IATA? Nothing is going to stop BY from doing this again, apart from not giving the chance.
The number of BY citizens who moved to the 3 Baltics has increased significantly, even during the pandemic. I would be very worried if I am an (ex-)BY citizen living in EE/LV/LT, and needing to take a flight overflying BY.

[Poiu]

How naive are they at IATA? Nothing is going to stop BY from doing this again, apart from not giving the chance.
The number of BY citizens who moved to the 3 Baltics has increased significantly, even during the pandemic. I would be very worried if I am an (ex-)BY citizen living in EE/LV/LT, and needing to take a flight overflying BY.

The Ryanair flight has been hijacked and as such IATA is plain wrong when they call “banning European aircraft from using Belarusian airspace with a Safety Directive” a politicisation of aviation safety. Taking measures to avoid possible hijacking is basic aviation security and has nothing to do with politics. By stating that “EASA should rescind its prohibition” they are in fact minimising the hijack and taking a political position themselves.
On the other hand banning Belavia from European airspace is political indeed, as there is no danger whatsoever for a hijack by a European country.

[Passenger]

How naive are they at IATA? Nothing is going to stop BY from doing this again, apart from not giving the chance.
The number of BY citizens who moved to the 3 Baltics has increased significantly, even during the pandemic. I would be very worried if I am an (ex-)BY citizen living in EE/LV/LT, and needing to take a flight overflying BY.

The Ryanair flight has been hijacked and as such IATA is plain wrong when they call “banning European aircraft from using Belarusian airspace with a Safety Directive” a politicisation of aviation safety. Taking measures to avoid possible hijacking is basic aviation security and has nothing to do with politics. By stating that “EASA should rescind its prohibition” they are in fact minimising the hijack and taking a political position themselves. On the other hand banning Belavia from European airspace is political indeed, as there is no danger whatsoever for a hijack by a European country.

IATA does not minimise the hijack. See their press release from 24th May: “...IATA strongly condemns any interference or requirement for landing of civil aviation operations that is inconsistent with the rules of international law. We call for an independent investigation by competent international authorities. We support the decision of the ICAO Council to launch such an investigation under the provisions of Article 55 (e) of the Chicago Convention..."

[ezis_bis]

IATA does not minimise the hijack. See their press release from 24th May: “...IATA strongly condemns any interference or requirement for landing of civil aviation operations that is inconsistent with the rules of international law. We call for an independent investigation by competent international authorities. We support the decision of the ICAO Council to launch such an investigation under the provisions of Article 55 (e) of the Chicago Convention..."

Then what is IATAs solution?
Say 'naughty naughty' and wait for the next incident?

[Poiu]

]
IATA does not minimise the hijack. See their press release from 24th May: “...IATA strongly condemns any interference or requirement for landing of civil aviation operations that is inconsistent with the rules of international law. We call for an independent investigation by competent international authorities. We support the decision of the ICAO Council to launch such an investigation under the provisions of Article 55 (e) of the Chicago Convention..."

If IATA really condemns the hijack, why don’t they welcome/support/understand the preventive security measures taken by EASA awaiting the results of such an investigation?
They way the press release is written, it sounds as “well yes, but actually no”.

[Passenger]

IATA is not the watchdog / policeman / judge for such incidents.
ICAO has to react. And they do so:

Montréal, 27 May 2021 – The ICAO Council expressed its strong concern today at the apparent forced diversion of Ryanair Flight FR4978, a commercial passenger aircraft flying in Belarus airspace on Sunday, 23 May 2021. At a special meeting convened, the ICAO Governing Body underlined the importance of establishing the facts of what happened, and of understanding whether there had been any breach by any ICAO Member State of international aviation law, including the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) and its Annexes.

Recalling Article 55 (e) of the Chicago Convention, the Council decided to undertake a fact-finding investigation of this event, and in this connection requested the ICAO Secretariat to prepare an interim report to the Council for a subsequent meeting of the current session, presenting the available facts and relevant legal instruments.

The Council also called upon all ICAO Member States and other relevant stakeholders to collaborate with this fact-finding investigation in the interests of ensuring the safety and security of civil aviation, and offered the assistance and expertise of ICAO in the pursuit of this endeavor. "The Council has therefore decided that all relevant facts should be officially established through an ICAO investigation conducted by the ICAO Secretariat," emphasized ICAO Council President Salvatore Sciacchitano.

ICAO Secretary General Dr. Fang Liu responded to the Council's decision during the meeting and assured the full support and cooperation of the Secretariat in implementing this decision.

https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/ICA ... ident.aspx

[Poiu]

IATA is not the watchdog / policeman / judge for such incidents.

Exactly! And so they shouldn’t call a preventive security measure a “politicization of aviation”.

Andre’s article on the home pages clearly proves that the interpretation, by a neutral reader, of the press release is “yes but actually no”. (https://www.aviation24.be/organisations ... erference/).

[sn26567]

Lufthansa has received the green light from Russia to resume flights there, after being briefly denied permission (because of its refusal to fly over Belarus), which resulted in a reciprocal blocking of flights by Germany.

[sn26567]

Ryanair does not support a ban on Belarusian airspace in the long term, its chief executive said and called on international authorities to secure assurances from the country that there would be no repeat of last month’s forced landing.

[Xan]

Thx. It's not european ban, there are some national bans. I understand better. So national ban and european blah !

Well, the EU "suggests" and every EU country still has the right to make a decision.
I can't see anything wrong here, on the contrary.

It’s a huge problem and this mentality is Europe’s problem. Because the opposite is also true: if Europe says stop and national politics says ’nah’ you make Europe useless. Imagine France saying ’we don’t care Europe’ to protect the French relationship with the specific country. Which is why American carriers and pilots are still allowed to come to Europe and do many intra-european flights btw. You just have to negociate with the country, not Europe as a unit. Every country only looks at their own profit because at the end of the day, they want to be the biggest in Europe.

I wasn't aware that this was a political forum. I thought it was about aviation, leaving politics aside.

Since you turned it into a political discussion, I cannot leave your comment unanswered (remaining silent would turn me into an accomplice which I most certainly do not want to be), although I will try to limit my comment to a description of what the EU is, which should help to clear up your confusion.

The EU is not some UFO that descended on Brussels, it is not a federation. It is a formidable peace project, a union of sovereign member states in a continent where for centuries countries were at war with each other until visionary leaders of the founding father states stood up and said: enough of all that bloodshed, enmity and hatred!n and instead unanimously decided to share a little bit of their competences into a pool that grew over time and that currently contains the single market, customs union, fisheries, eurozone and trade deals. It is the member states who run the EU and who define what goes into this pool. The EU therefor is - and cannot be anything other than - what its member states want it to be.

The board that leads the EU is the EU Council, consisting the elected heads of state/government of the member states. Their meetings are prepared by the Council of national ministers, who also make EU laws together and on par with the EU parliament (that is elected with proportional representation throughout the EU).

Those laws and regulations are needed to underpin free and frictionless circulation of all factors of economy (goods, services, capital, labour) between 27 sovereign member states, as such creating the largest single market on earth, giving them the strength to protect our values against the onslaught by the globalist race to the bottom and against the attack on our democraties by authoritarian regimes.

You seem to be upset that the competences these 27 member states shared into a pool that they govern together, is only limited and that very much remains a national sovereign decision.

Perhaps you could turn your upset into something constructive and start advocating adding more competences that currently still are national competences to the EU pool that is governed collectively?

[Passenger]

KLM no longer uses Belarus airspace, as strongly requested by the Dutch prime minister.
https://www.businessinsider.nl/klm-wit-rusland-rutte/
(Dutch only)