Dude was a bag tosser

https://apnews.com/701faeff7c7a44ab89b1186f6ffa63be

quote:

Originally posted by furlough:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I'm curious if the F-15s were armed.

The guys in Portland sit Air Defense alert, so not much point in them being on alert and ready to launch if they are not armed.

Yea, that’d be like SWAT going to a call with empty magazines.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

May I ask how old you are? That's a super long career flying, wow, 60 or so years as a pilot from WWII to 9-11. Do you still fly now?

It wasn't that long ago that we retired these aircraft; 2002. And it wasn't until last year that the final piston tankers were retired in the US; the P2V-7 finished up at the end of last season and have been assigned museums. The last WWII airplanes fighting fire in the US were the PB4Y-2, of which five remained; one of which lost it's wings at Estes Park in 2002. The remainder went to museums.

(that's not entirely true; there are a handfull of radial-engine single engine air tankers left doing state contracts, some Canadian aircraft that come down from the north, and a couple of CL-215 scoopers in service. I still occasionally fly on some state fire contracts in the piston SEATs, as well as turbines on federal fires).

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:

"Climb into the cockpit of a plane and start it up. It’s as simple as flicking a switch.

“They don’t necessarily use a key so there’s a switch that they use to start the aircraft,” National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) official Debra Eckrote said Saturday as she briefed reporters on the theft of a Horizon Air Q400 by a “suicidal” airline employee who crashed it into a remote island in Washington State after a 90-minute fight."

It's not really so simple as flicking a switch. One wonders if Ekrote was ever a pilot, and if so, anything other than a private pilot.

Even if it were "just a switch," when one climbs in some transport category aircraft, there are over a thousand switches, breakers, lights, annunciators, switches, levers, dials, screens, gauges, indicators, etc. Picking the right one(s) in the right order at the right time, without any foreknowledge or training would be an amazing coincidence.

These aren't cars, and no, they don't use keys or need them, and are a tad more sophisticated.

quote:

I only ask because I was walking through BWI about two weeks after 9/11 and there were military in BDUs with weapons everywhere in the airport. Only problem was, none of them had any ammo. Not one of the probably 100 or so I saw that afternoon were carrying any ammo for their weapons.

They were probably Natl Guard under the States control and funding...and more than likely were not issued ammo to keep them from just gunning people down. Especially since creating a SOP and use of force policy w/I a populated airport for a bunch of army guys was not already in existence. And rightfuly so, as the army, be they natl guard units or regular army,are not trained to handle policing issues.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

quote:

I only ask because I was walking through BWI about two weeks after 9/11 and there were military in BDUs with weapons everywhere in the airport. Only problem was, none of them had any ammo. Not one of the probably 100 or so I saw that afternoon were carrying any ammo for their weapons.

They were probably Natl Guard under the States control and funding...and more than likely were not issued ammo to keep them from just gunning people down. Especially since creating a SOP and use of force policy w/I a populated airport for a bunch of army guys was not already in existence. And rightfuly so, as the army, be they natl guard units or regular army,are not trained to handle policing issues.

Agreed. PFC-shitforbrains with only his M4 qual and 8 weeks of training isn't qualified to police the US Civilian populace. And neither are most / any of them.

They're (1) Feel Good Window Dressing and (2) contingency support in case of a mass casualty event. Nothing more.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

I only ask because I was walking through BWI about two weeks after 9/11 and there were military in BDUs with weapons everywhere in the airport. Only problem was, none of them had any ammo. Not one of the probably 100 or so I saw that afternoon were carrying any ammo for their weapons.

So, nothing would surprise me anymore.

I hope times have changed and those guys were loaded for bear.

And, I agree, if they did shoot him down I have no problem with it.

Ohh yes they did have ammo. You just didn't see it. The ANG guys that were deployed to my airport were all issued one magazine daily and a small lockbox with 10 more mags stashed at the security checkpoint.

Empty cargo pockets, empty ammo pouches, empty weapons, etc....

Unless they had one stuffed down their shorts or one live round in the chamber ala Barney Fife, they were not carrying any ammo. But they did look cool and kind of scary in their BDUs, LBEs, first aid pouches, and empty weapons.

Your airport may have had some, but this major airport on the east coast did not.

They should have issued them bayonets to give their weapons a purpose.

Regarding the empty rifle, it sounds the same as 50 years ago. Neither my Dad nor any in his unit were issued ammunition during the riots of the late 60's. Everyone knows the Army wasn't exactly well liked then by those protesting and rioting. He and his buddies often had a few rounds on their person. They didn't like standing guard with empty M14's. Sure, he probably could have been court-martialed, but from his perspective, that wasn't the worst that could have happened.

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — The theft of an empty plane by an airline worker who performed dangerous loops before crashing into a remote island in Puget Sound illustrated what aviation experts have long known: One of the biggest potential perils for commercial air travel is airline or airport employees causing mayhem.

The rest of the story:
https://komonews.com/news/loca...from-airline-workers

Well, no kidding. ANY "insider" can wreck mayhem on ANYTHING.
Computer programmer
Microbiologist
Construction worker
Nuclear power plant employee

This is where you get the "disgruntled employee/former employee" terminology.

Two examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...Airlines_Flight_1771

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525

quote:

Regarding the empty rifle, it sounds the same as 50 years ago. Neither my Dad nor any in his unit were issued ammunition during the riots of the late 60's. Everyone knows the Army wasn't exactly well liked then by those protesting and rioting. He and his buddies often had a few rounds on their person. They didn't like standing guard with empty M14's. Sure, he probably could have been court-martialed, but from his perspective, that wasn't the worst that could have happened.

The Ohio National Guard had loaded weapons. That was in 1970.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

Regarding the empty rifle, it sounds the same as 50 years ago. Neither my Dad nor any in his unit were issued ammunition during the riots of the late 60's. Everyone knows the Army wasn't exactly well liked then by those protesting and rioting. He and his buddies often had a few rounds on their person. They didn't like standing guard with empty M14's. Sure, he probably could have been court-martialed, but from his perspective, that wasn't the worst that could have happened.

The Ohio National Guard had loaded weapons. That was in 1970.

Case and point

I am not a pilot but I have an interest in aviation. So I have questions:
The plane is a turbo prop. My understanding is that starting a turbine engine requires a reasonable bit of knowledge. How does a neophyte start two turbines without experiencing failure?
There are more controls than the throttles. Isn't the pitch of the propellers a controllable aspect? Doesn't the balance of throttle and pitch require some knowledge of the aircraft?
Let's say this guy flew X-Plane in his mom's basement. Still doesn't represent the real world of offsetting forces (torque) that are likely exacerbated in a twin engine plane.
Then there are the stunts, I am aware of performance envelopes for specific aircraft. Even though it wasn't a barrel roll, it still stressed the airframe, was this dumb luck? Is the Q400 that good/tough?
I know there are pilots on the forum, is a modern twin engine turbo prop that "easy" to fly?

As for all the wringing of hands. The guy was authorized to be in those security zones. Either his background check was off or he went off the deep end (sounds like that is the case). It isn't as if some guy off the street would easily gain access to aircraft. My concern is some idiot politician is going to introduce legislation that complicates engine start and will translate into confusion and delays during emergencies with actual pilots in real situations.

quote:

Originally posted by SPWAMike0317:
Either his background check was off or he went off the deep end

Background checks aren't totally accurate predictors of future behavior. They're not crystal balls.

From the radio conversations and blog/Facebook it sounds like he settled in a place and job he didn't want to for his wife and instead of bettering his situation he decided to go out in a blaze of glory.

@SPWAMike0317’
Turbine engines can suffer a “hot start” or a “hung start”. Generically, one engages the starter (or starter/generator), spins the engine up to a target RPM, turns on igniters, then introduces fuel, while carefully watching the instruments. The temp will rise. What you want to see is the rpm rising too, and the temp hitting a peak below a critical temp and start cooling. If it looks like things are going the wrong way (temp running away, rpm not taking off), you need to shut off the fuel and keep cranking.

Different aircraft/engines have different procedures with different levels of automation. I don’t know anything about the Dash-8, much less the Q400 variant.

That said, if you are going on a one way adventure in a stolen aircraft you may not care too much about the risk of burning up someone else’s expensive engines...

Everything one might want to know is pretty much readily available these days...




Link to original video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hMU5lHXNXZ8





Link to original video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uGAhNT1PKhc

The bottom line is this - if you have zero aviation experience and never studied / read about starting a plane, you'd have a hard time getting one of these babies started.

But anyone with a desire to learn can get the basics down watching tutorials online - because guess what, that is how pilots learn systems and procedures in the military - watching computer videos before moving onto a simulator.

Sure this guy got lucky by getting everything right and not stopped before taking off, but we aren't talking about brain surgery. Follow a simple checklist and you can get pretty much any of them running in pretty short order.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
Everything one might want to know is pretty much readily available these days...

Ah...no.

the videos posted are gaming videos, dealing not with the aircraft, not with a simulator, but video games played on laptop computers. Most of the information in the video is irrelevant and not related to the actual aircraft, and the starting of the engines was entirely glossed over.

Perhaps to put it in perspective; to get rated in the airplane I'm currently flying was two months of class and simulation training, full time, plus line training, and nearly seven months all together to get online and complete. That's been the case with several other type ratings in transport category aircraft.

What you see in the video is ridiculously over-simplified and misses the most important information, as well as includes a lot of things which do not occur with the actual aircraft and apply only to the laptop game.

Yes, it is possible to get enough information to get the engines started, obviously given recent events, but the odds of success for an untrained person are low, and the odds of creating numerous other problems are high. Additionally, insofar as starting engines, there are multiple problems that can occur, especially if performing the engine start out of sequence or applying fuel at the wrong time, which can have expensive and disasterous results.

Add to that the fact that most transport category aircraft require the use of an onboard small turbine engine and generator (APU) to get electricity and/or air for the start, or external air and ground power (GPU), a start typically takes several people.

It's not like starting the car, or operating a truck. The aircraft flight manual for the airplane I'm flying is over a thousand pages thick, and I have several dozen manuals to reference when operating.

The individual in question stole a straight-wing airplane, so he eliminated some of the immediate problems of swept wing flight that he'd have run into in most turbojet aircraft. It's a multi-engine airplane, which presents numerous traps for an untrained person, and the complexity of certain operations such as fuel lead to what the subject kept referencing in his dwindling fuel flow (and possible eventual asymmetric flame-out prior to his crash.

There are a lot of reasons that this individual was incredibly lucky in his guessing and didn't up in a fireball off the end of the runway, or somewhere in town. Swiss cheese theory let him slip through, but the odds were never in his favor.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:


Background checks aren't totally accurate predictors of future behavior. They're not crystal balls.

His "background check" consisted of a glance at his employment history, and a wants and criminal history check, but for intents and purposes, was essentially non-existent. Fingerprints are taken, employment history filled out. Employers do not actually do a background check, however. The system would be ground to a halt if they did.

quote:

Originally posted by SPWAMike0317:
I am not a pilot but I have an interest in aviation. So I have questions:
The plane is a turbo prop. My understanding is that starting a turbine engine requires a reasonable bit of knowledge. How does a neophyte start two turbines without experiencing failure?
There are more controls than the throttles. Isn't the pitch of the propellers a controllable aspect? Doesn't the balance of throttle and pitch require some knowledge of the aircraft?
Let's say this guy flew X-Plane in his mom's basement. Still doesn't represent the real world of offsetting forces (torque) that are likely exacerbated in a twin engine plane.
Then there are the stunts, I am aware of performance envelopes for specific aircraft. Even though it wasn't a barrel roll, it still stressed the airframe, was this dumb luck? Is the Q400 that good/tough?
I know there are pilots on the forum, is a modern twin engine turbo prop that "easy" to fly?

Easy is a moving target. Easy to drive once in the air? Yes, inso far as so long as one doesn't overspeed or overstress the aircraft, or stall it, then it's a matter of pitching and banking. Flying it precisely and correctly is another matter. In general, turbine aircraft are easier to fly in the sense that the engines aren't as sensitive to damage from mishandling in flight, and specifically, can be brought to idle for long descents, unlike piston engines. That said, there are multiple ways to damage turbine engines, chiefly through overtemping the engines. A moment at the wrong temperature can do millions in damage, and can result in catastrophic failure of turbine blades, etc.

Turbine engines don't have pistons or spark plugs firing repeatedly; the turbine engine has a fire burning continuously, as it's a continuous energy cycle (brayton cycle). Air is continuously sucked in, compressed, mixed with fuel and ignited, and used to drive the turbine and compressor, and to provide thrust; interruptions during this cycle can cause big problems; even introducing fuel into the start cycle at the wrong time can destroy the engine or aircraft, as can several types of start malfunctions. Considerable attention during training is focused on engine starts and start emergencies/abnormalities and procedures.

Torque isn't really an issue for multi engine aircraft, but asymmetric thrust is, if one engine produces more power than the other.

Yes, there are multiple levers, depending on the aircraft, but in most turboprops, the levers are moved forward. In some large airplanes, some levers move forward while others move aft. Additionally, on many aircraft, fully automatic digital control is available to protect engines from operating in unsafe conditions or temperature ranges, but not all aircraft have these features. In many aircraft, it's not possible to trim or protect the upper end of the power range, and it's possible to damage the engines by pushing the power up too far. The result is that if the power is pushed forward to the stops, it can result in overspeeds in some cases, overtemperatures, and engine failures. Additionally, in turboprop aircraft, and any propeller aircraft, there are harmonic vibration zones for certain power settings or RPM conditions, as well as limitations on the engine and propeller for RPM operations for a given period of time; one second, five seconds, up through five minutes, depending on the specific model and serial number. Further, an overspeed of a propeller can cause a very high drag increase, as can a power loss to an engine without the propeller "feathered" (placed in a low-drag configuration). The result can be a much more severe effect on performance and controllability than a simple engine failure, more akin to throwing a parachute out behind the problem-engine. In such cases, the resulting control problem is a roll and yaw, and a departure from controlled flight.

Any aircraft can be made to roll or to perform unusual attitudes and maneuvers; it's all about energy management. Someone who does not understand the aircraft or flight in general, and in particular aerobatic flight, can easily overstress or damage an airframe.

The thing that gets me, is that even with the online tutorials and lots of practice on them he still had to have loads of adrenalin flowing, yet he had the wherewithal to set the flaps back to neutral and raise the landing gear after takeoff. In my mind, that is almost super human. He must have had a checklist available as well, but without a co-pilot would be very difficult to use properly.

Just mind blowing!

Jim

What makes you think he set flaps for takeoff?

Gear is one lever. Up. One movement.

Not really superhuman...can be done with two fingers.

Checklists...read, do, and if he had it planned out, a quick pencil hand-scrawled few notes to hit the highlights, and off he goes.

There's a good chance that this wasn't the first time he was in those cockpits; he may have been rehearsing it for some time.

What's the gear-bitch mantra? Gear up, flaps, up, shut up?

Remember that traditionally the regional airlines have put VERY inexperienced pilots in the right seat, and even the most inexperienced first officer is expected to be able to operate the aircraft in the event that the captain is incapacitated. Typically those wet-behind-the-ears first officers also fly every other leg with and without passengers on board.