<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s been many years since I&amp;#x27;ve read it, but physics professor Richard A. Muller in his book &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Physics_for_Future_Presidents&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Physics_for_Future_Presidents&lt;/a&gt; argues that agricultural planes pose a great possibility of danger in relation to terrorism. They&amp;#x27;re small, nimble (meaning quite maneuverable) while holding a great amount of liquid. Gasoline is particularly suitable (911 attack were planes with tanks filled up for long distance flights for a reason) in attacks due to its high energy density.&lt;p&gt;He speaks of the farmer&amp;#x27;s community though as a tight nit community. Used planes are sold and bought within the community, farmers themselves would be very suspicious selling to someone &amp;quot;shady&amp;quot;, and the FBI knows about this threat vector as well and is monitoring it closely (iirc).&lt;p&gt;So there&amp;#x27;s an example of a small plane and its potential use case in terrorism. Not sure how easily a Cessna could be rigged up to do something of that kind.&lt;p&gt;Another attack vector in the future might be small drones. Due to them not holding tons of gasoline, some form of biochemical weapon or radioactive material could be distributed.&lt;p&gt;Muller argues that the mass panic of an incident involving biochemical materials or radioactivity would most likely be a greater danger than the &amp;quot;material threat&amp;quot; itself. Many people would be scared of &amp;quot;radioactivity&amp;quot; without much understanding. People are not particularly well educated how radioactive decline works, what half life times really mean (long half life meaning slow release, less imminent danger), why various types of radioactivity can be quite different from another etc.&lt;p&gt;So don&amp;#x27;t underestimate terrorists. Luckily, don&amp;#x27;t underestimate smart people in three letter agencies thinking about this either.</text><parent_chain><item><author>sellyme</author><text>&amp;gt; the max speed of a normal GA plane (think Cessna) is below the stall speed of many interceptors which can result in amusement&lt;p&gt;Somehow I get the inkling that terrorist groups probably aren&amp;#x27;t going to start trying to crash into office buildings with a Cessna.</text></item><item><author>bombcar</author><text>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&amp;#x2F;no-contact procedures).&lt;p&gt;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).&lt;p&gt;After 9-11 the chance that the interceptors are armed is probably 100%.&lt;p&gt;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.</text></item><item><author>mike_d</author><text>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 &amp;quot;don&amp;#x27;t get shot down.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.boldmethod.com&amp;#x2F;learn-to-fly&amp;#x2F;regulations&amp;#x2F;inflight-interception-procedures-for-pilots&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.boldmethod.com&amp;#x2F;learn-to-fly&amp;#x2F;regulations&amp;#x2F;inflight...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>Cullinet</author><text>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&amp;#x27;re going to be compelled to comply with the Belorussian diversions request... assuming that the escort fighter jets didn&amp;#x27;t simultaneously arrive on their wings to punctuate the &amp;quot;request&amp;quot; effectively.&lt;p&gt;Can anyone with FAA &amp;#x2F; CAA (the UK civil aviation authority) or EU airspace rules knowledge clarify what protocols exist for these situations?</text></item><item><author>stjohnswarts</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t see this happening though. It would seem reasonable to limit the countries seeing the passenger list to those countries that the plane is taking off from&amp;#x2F;leaving though.</text></item><item><author>dredmorbius</author><text>Noted elsewhere:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;The Belarus plane hijack is a small reminder why it&amp;#x27;s generally not a good idea to let governments know who is going to where. I&amp;#x27;m not sure why governments that like to think of themselves as democratic don&amp;#x27;t see the risks.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;-- Alexander Bochmann &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;mastodon.infra.de&amp;#x2F;@galaxis&amp;#x2F;106285985254850170&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;mastodon.infra.de&amp;#x2F;@galaxis&amp;#x2F;106285985254850170&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;d made a similar point following the assassination of Kim Jung-nam in 2017:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Travel and hospitality databases are widely accessible and shared amongst a tremendous number of organisations. State intelligence organisations might readily have access through their own state-run airline, or through private operations or plants within same. Similarly for terrorist, narco-criminal, money-laundering, or other organisations. Financial, banking, and payment-processing systems, only slightly less so. A P.I. license or position on a fraud or abuse desk at a major online retailer, or any skip-tracing agency, can have access to such information.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;old.reddit.com&amp;#x2F;r&amp;#x2F;dredmorbius&amp;#x2F;comments&amp;#x2F;5ud243&amp;#x2F;data_are_liability_book_your_assassination_now&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;old.reddit.com&amp;#x2F;r&amp;#x2F;dredmorbius&amp;#x2F;comments&amp;#x2F;5ud243&amp;#x2F;data_ar...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;What is your threat model?&lt;p&gt;Note that &lt;i&gt;your own&lt;/i&gt; threat model may not include possibilities which put &lt;i&gt;others&lt;/i&gt; at risk.&lt;p&gt;(In fairness, it appear that Protasevich was followed onto the plane itself, suggesting that in-flight availability of manifests played little role.  The question of what &lt;i&gt;pre-flight&lt;/i&gt; intelligence methods were employed remains open.)</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Belarus &apos;diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist&apos;, opposition says</title><url>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57219860</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Ashwinning</author><text>Depends on how angry you are with said office building.
&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;2010_Austin_suicide_attack&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;2010_Austin_suicide_attack&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>sellyme</author><text>&amp;gt; the max speed of a normal GA plane (think Cessna) is below the stall speed of many interceptors which can result in amusement&lt;p&gt;Somehow I get the inkling that terrorist groups probably aren&amp;#x27;t going to start trying to crash into office buildings with a Cessna.</text></item><item><author>bombcar</author><text>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&amp;#x2F;no-contact procedures).&lt;p&gt;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).&lt;p&gt;After 9-11 the chance that the interceptors are armed is probably 100%.&lt;p&gt;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.</text></item><item><author>mike_d</author><text>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 &amp;quot;don&amp;#x27;t get shot down.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;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. &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.boldmethod.com&amp;#x2F;learn-to-fly&amp;#x2F;regulations&amp;#x2F;inflight-interception-procedures-for-pilots&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.boldmethod.com&amp;#x2F;learn-to-fly&amp;#x2F;regulations&amp;#x2F;inflight...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>Cullinet</author><text>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&amp;#x27;re going to be compelled to comply with the Belorussian diversions request... assuming that the escort fighter jets didn&amp;#x27;t simultaneously arrive on their wings to punctuate the &amp;quot;request&amp;quot; effectively.&lt;p&gt;Can anyone with FAA &amp;#x2F; CAA (the UK civil aviation authority) or EU airspace rules knowledge clarify what protocols exist for these situations?</text></item><item><author>stjohnswarts</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t see this happening though. It would seem reasonable to limit the countries seeing the passenger list to those countries that the plane is taking off from&amp;#x2F;leaving though.</text></item><item><author>dredmorbius</author><text>Noted elsewhere:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;The Belarus plane hijack is a small reminder why it&amp;#x27;s generally not a good idea to let governments know who is going to where. I&amp;#x27;m not sure why governments that like to think of themselves as democratic don&amp;#x27;t see the risks.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;-- Alexander Bochmann &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;mastodon.infra.de&amp;#x2F;@galaxis&amp;#x2F;106285985254850170&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;mastodon.infra.de&amp;#x2F;@galaxis&amp;#x2F;106285985254850170&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;d made a similar point following the assassination of Kim Jung-nam in 2017:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Travel and hospitality databases are widely accessible and shared amongst a tremendous number of organisations. State intelligence organisations might readily have access through their own state-run airline, or through private operations or plants within same. Similarly for terrorist, narco-criminal, money-laundering, or other organisations. Financial, banking, and payment-processing systems, only slightly less so. A P.I. license or position on a fraud or abuse desk at a major online retailer, or any skip-tracing agency, can have access to such information.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;old.reddit.com&amp;#x2F;r&amp;#x2F;dredmorbius&amp;#x2F;comments&amp;#x2F;5ud243&amp;#x2F;data_are_liability_book_your_assassination_now&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;old.reddit.com&amp;#x2F;r&amp;#x2F;dredmorbius&amp;#x2F;comments&amp;#x2F;5ud243&amp;#x2F;data_ar...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;What is your threat model?&lt;p&gt;Note that &lt;i&gt;your own&lt;/i&gt; threat model may not include possibilities which put &lt;i&gt;others&lt;/i&gt; at risk.&lt;p&gt;(In fairness, it appear that Protasevich was followed onto the plane itself, suggesting that in-flight availability of manifests played little role.  The question of what &lt;i&gt;pre-flight&lt;/i&gt; intelligence methods were employed remains open.)</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Belarus &apos;diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist&apos;, opposition says</title><url>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57219860</url></story>