Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seattle Airport Employee Steals Airplane, Crashes It Into the Ground (latimes.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the shades-of-Icarus dept.

An anonymous reader quotes the Los Angeles Times: An airline worker stole an empty Alaska Airlines plane from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington on Friday night, and the National Guard scrambled two fighter jets to chase the aircraft, which crashed on a sparsely populated island in Puget Sound, officials said. No passengers were aboard the 76-seat Horizon Air Q400 turboprop plane, which was stolen by a 29-year-old Horizon Air ground service agent from Pierce County, according to airline and law enforcement officials.... The man was described as suicidal, and it appeared impossible that he could have survived the crash....

The plane made an unauthorized takeoff from the airport around 8 p.m. and crashed on Ketron Island, about five miles southwest of Tacoma, after the renegade pilot bantered erratically with air-traffic controllers who pleaded with him to land the plane, according to officials and dispatch audio. "This is probably jail time for life, huh?" said the man, identified on the radio as Rich, according to dispatch audio reviewed by the Seattle Times.... At another point, the employee said: "I'm gonna land it, in a safe kind of manner. I think I'm gonna try to do a barrel roll, and if that goes good, I'm just gonna nose down and call it a night...."

"Oh, my God! Oh, my God! He's OK? He's OK," one woman said in a video posted on Facebook, which showed at least one military jet in pursuit. It's not clear how long afterward the plane crashed.

148 comments

  1. Jackass by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Endanger a whole lot of other people just because you are having issues.

    1. Re:Jackass by Deadstick · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the psych eval, doctor.

    2. Re: Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just another stable genius going on a joyride. At least he only took down one plane with him. The stakes are much higher for the rest of us.

    3. Re:Jackass by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Endanger a whole lot of other people just because you are having issues.

      Give the guy a break. At least he used an empty plane. Better than EgyptAir 990, or Malaysia 370. Those guys took hundreds of innocent lives.

    4. Re:Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was worth it for the videos. Audio stream is a hoot too. If you're going to go out, go out with a bang and leave a crater!

      Blue skies and tailwinds forever my captain!

    5. Re:Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And Germanwings Flight 9525

    6. Re: Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you must look forward to the the ultimate suicide, initiating MAD by nuclear war. Some might disagree with your idea of fun.

    7. Re:Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A most masshooting sprees in the US.

      But not the mass shooting sprees in other countries? Not the Assad regime in Syria? Why do you apologize for some psychopaths but not others?

    8. Re:Jackass by blindseer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Citation needed.

      Seems to me that most any murder-suicide by plane would have a higher body count than even the deadliest murder-suicide by firearms. While we're at it we can compare this to murder-suicide by bombs, cars, poison gas, or whatever else the insane have come up with.

      Seems to me that the lesson here is we should be looking to put criminals in prisons and the insane in mental hospitals instead of trying to bubblewrap the world.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    9. Re:Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Assad regime is also called the Syrian government, and it's busy winning the war and allowing refugees to return.

      A country being attacked and defending itself is doing the right thing even if it means war on its own territory. E.g. the USSR had to fight war on its own territory else be overrun by the Nazis up to the Urals.

    10. Re:Jackass by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Wow, why is that so evil, typical modern corporate executives do it all of the time for fun and profit and leave a trail of pain, suffering and death and get celebrated for it. Oh I see the difference, they generated a profit for themselves doing it, so that makes it 'A' OK.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re:Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Endanger a whole lot of other people just because you are having issues.

      We live in a society where there are a lot of people, and in every such society there will be people with issues.
      Some suffers from schizophrenia, others as straight out psychopaths and there are plenty of other issues people have.
      You would have to be straight out delusional if you think those are going to just sit down and do nothing.

      You can either fight for having your taxes be used to provide mental care for those who need it or you can wait until they snap and does something like this.
      Asking that people with issues just doesn't act out on them and expecting things to be resolved is like shutting down all police station and expecting all criminals to just behave themselves or stop funding fire stations and expect fires to not inconvenience you.

      Well, another alternative to funding therapy would be to create a North Korean style police state where people can't move around freely. Then you might be able to stop some crazy people from doing stuff like this, but I think funding mental care is cheaper and more efficient.

    12. Re:Jackass by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

      But then little Johnny might actually have to learn about the real world.

    13. Re:Jackass by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      It was fine, he had done it tons of times in video games. GTA Saved you.

    14. Re: Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grand Theft Airplane?

    15. Re:Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me that the lesson here is we should be looking to put criminals in prisons and the insane in mental hospitals instead of trying to bubblewrap the world.

      And it seems to me that the lesson here is that he could have solved two problems at once by flying it in to your place of work.

    16. Re:Jackass by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Citation needed.

      Seems to me that most any murder-suicide by plane would have a higher body count than even the deadliest murder-suicide by firearms. While we're at it we can compare this to murder-suicide by bombs, cars, poison gas, or whatever else the insane have come up with.

      Seems to me that the lesson here is we should be looking to put criminals in prisons and the insane in mental hospitals instead of trying to bubblewrap the world.

      If we're comparing murder by firearms to murder by hijacking, bombs, vehicular murder, poison gas or whatever else, I'm assuming we're weighting it for degree of difficulty in obtaining said weapon.

      As for cars, we've seen here in the UK first hand just how few bodies that produces, you see cars are designed to stop functioning when damaged, so that limits their effectiveness as a weapon.

      Bombs are almost as ineffective as they need to be produced properly. Now that sounds easy but a lot of bombing attempts end up being abject failures because of the bomb makers inexperience with explosives. Most end up little more than mild incidiary devices that cause a little fire damage and maybe one or two cases of smoke inhalation. Same with poison gas except you now have the added problem of dispersion.

      Aircraft... There has not been a major hijacking incident in over 15 years because we've locked the cockpit door.

      Now firearms, they are something that are designed to maim and kill and are easy to acquire and operate.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    17. Re:Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cars aren't designed to stop functioning after a crash, it's just a fact of life. Trucks work fine though, as you know. Europe is putting concrete barriers up everywhere.

      The copilot hijacked a plane in 2015 leading to 144 deaths, that's not major?

    18. Re:Jackass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, how selfish. He should have crashed a plane for the glory of some god.

  2. Bad Aiming by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

    I guess he missed the tower!

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
  3. Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next step is to introduce mandatory plane immobilisers.

    1. Re: Next step by kenh · · Score: 1

      So the plane could drop out of the sky?

      How about a device to limit who can start a plane on the ground, you know, like an ignition key?

      --
      Ken
    2. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever thought that "large planes don't need ignition keys because no one would ever attempt to steal one" is proven wrong today.

    3. Re: Next step by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Keyswitch is less reliable than a regular mechanical switch. Same even goes for electronic immobilizer systems. It may introduce other problems, like engines being unable to restart in flight or shutting down in flight. Not worth it for a one-in-100-million risk.

    4. Re: Next step by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It seems like you could create a pretty safe system that is default mechanically open but which can be engaged to lock off the system. Make it only physically able to function while the gear is down, too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re: Next step by pollarda · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they could start putting a key in those things. Cars have had them since the 1920s. Might be a good place to start. Maybe in another 80 years they could put RFIDs in the key fobs.

    6. Re: Next step by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      We should not over react to a single one-off incident.

      People tend to focus on things that are in the news, and ignore far more common problems. America has about 120 suicides per day. Some of those harm other people, such as "suicide by car crash". These happen everyday, not once per century.

    7. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is well known that some people want to steal planes. It is rather "large planes don't need ignition keys because they are so expensive the owners actually guard them". And it works quite well, many years since the last time this happened. This thief had access though, he worked for the owning company.

      Forcing an ignition key system is not that hard either - car thieves do it all the time.

    8. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just a few days ago somebody killed themselves around here by jumping off a freeway overpass onto the freeway below. We've also had to install fencing along the Aurora Bridge because it was a popular place for people to jump off.

      Beyond just the suicide itself and the impact it has on friends and family, it causes a ton of damage to the people who have to clean up afterwards as well as people that see it. Not to mention the people that wind up running over somebody that just moments earlier jumped off a bridge.

      Suicide prevention is as you suggest something that we need to be taking more seriously. And we need to be taking it more seriously, not just in terms of direct prevention, but also in terms of addressing the lack of medical care available as well as the things which tend to push people towards the belief that they're in a position with no way out.

      There's also the easy access to things like firearms that can be both fast and effective at suicide which we can't do much about because the 2nd amendment people don't give a crap about how many people are killed by their firearms as long as they can have their dick compensator.

    9. Re: Next step by kenh · · Score: 2

      And it only took what, 50-75 years for someone to steal a large commercial plane?

      --
      Ken
    10. Re: Next step by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      'Make it only physically able to function while the gear is down, too.'

      So it (engine locked) can be engaged during take-off, approach, and landing; what could possibly go wrong?

      (And weight on wheels is no better.)

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    11. Re: Next step by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Keyswitch is less reliable than a regular mechanical switch.

      Even if that was true you could use a locking cover with keys, code, RFID or whatever. I've heard the same excuse with military equipment and there I can kinda understand that you need to go NOW NOW NOW and there's no time to fiddle with keys. Not so much for civilian airplanes...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re: Next step by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Between 1983 and 2003 there were 36 suicides by aircraft in the United States. All of them were by pilots who would have had access to any "ignition key". Most likely this ground crew guy would have also had access to the key. It is not like the key would be kept in an underground safe with an armed guard. Most likely the pilot would hand it off to the ground crew as they exit the plane.

      Sooner or later an incident would happen, such as an emergency landing crashing into a parked plane that couldn't be moved in time because the key was unavailable. Then the FAA would require a spare key to be kept in the cockpit (maybe in the glove compartment?) for "safety".

    13. Re: Next step by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's also the easy access to things like firearms that can be both fast and effective at suicide which we can't do much about because the 2nd amendment people don't give a crap about how many people are killed by their firearms as long as they can have their dick compensator.

      So, you get done explaining how resourceful people are at finding ways to kill themselves (and, by explaining that guns are "fast," seem to be implying that getting crushed on the pavement of the freeway after a jump isn't?), and then suggest that people who want to retain the right to defend themselves are responsible for the behavior of people who want to kill themselves? Even if you were willing to amend the constitution and take away everyone's right to self defense (though of course, not take away millions of guns in the possession of criminals who don't care what you think), do you really think that would stop the thousands of drownings, hangings, wrist-slittings, ODs, jumps, asphyxiations, and all the rest, rather than actually INCREASE the number of those things?

      Meanwhile, in a vain attempt to control people's agonized decisions to end their lives by controlling objects (but only for law-abiding people, the overwhelming majority of which never hurt themselves or anyone else with a gun), you're willing to prevent, say, my 5'2" wife from being able to defend herself because you think "those 2nd amendment people" (who are actually, you know, "Bill of Rights people). Such defensive uses of personal firearms occur hundreds of thousands of times every year, preventing and stopping violent crime. But you'd like to take away that means of self defense, and gamble on people bent on ending their own lives suddenly becoming less resourceful than they've been for all of human history. No, your actual agenda has nothing to do with suicide. Just be honest about it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what Immobiliser is does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immobiliser

    15. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, no amendment necessary, the individual right to a firearm was done via a series of incompetent judicial rulings by activist judges. No where in the constitution nor in any of the amendments is there a right to individual gun ownership specified.

      Secondly, jumping off a bridge is not something that you can count on being quick. Depending upon how you hit or whether you're hit by a subsequent vehicle and how you're hit by a subsequent vehicle, it can be a rather drawn out process versus the near instantaneous death by gun shot wound if you do it properly.

      Also, people don't normally have bridges in their houses, so you've got a period of time to get cold feet that you simply don't have with firearms. They saw a drop in suicides in the UK when coal stoves were phased out because people would have to put more effort into it and as a result would have more of an opportunity to have second thoughts.

      And on your last point, that's a complete load of crap. Situations where firearms are used in self-defense or to prevent crime are rare. They're at least an order of magnitude less common than suicides and in most cases there are other options for self-defense that are generally effective. For example, in most cases pepper spray and tasers work just fine. Or a tactical flashlight when you're out late.

      People claiming the have firearms as a means of self-defense are usually deluding themselves about the utility as well as the frequency that it is even an accepted form of defense. In most cases, you can't use the firearm legally and just pulling it out is criminal in many situations.

    16. Re: Next step by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Let's look at the facts:
      1. In America, suicides are twice as common as homicides.
      2. Only 10% of people that survive a suicide attempt go on to successfully kill themselves in later attempts.
      3. Women are more likely to attempt suicide, but men are more likely to succeed (in America, 3 dead men for every woman). China is the only country in the world where the female suicide death rate exceeds the male rate.
      3. Guns are not the most common method for attempting suicide. But in America they are the most common method of successful suicides. Drug overdose is the most common method, but is only successful 3% of the time. Gun suicides are successful 85% of the time.
      4. Gun owning households have significantly higher suicide rates.
      5. Gun suicides, in particular, tend to be "on impulse" rather than planned.
      6. The TYPE of gun matters. Handguns are used in suicides much more often than either rifles or shotguns.

      It is unlikely that people using guns to kill themselves would have done so successfully with a different method, since other methods require more planning and preparation, and have much higher failure rates.

      If you choose to keep a gun in your home, you should choose a rifle or shotgun (I own one of each), not a handgun. Keep it locked.

      Guns and suicide
      Guns, suicide, and public policy
      List of countries by suicide rate

    17. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Forcing an ignition key system is not that hard either - car thieves do it all the time.

      The phrase belt and suspenders comes to mind. Another is defense in depth.

      You don't add a layer just for fun, but if the layer adds a significant amount of protection then maybe it is worth it.

    18. Re: Next step by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      (And weight on wheels is no better.)

      Okay, weight on wheels, plus wheels not moving.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re: Next step by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Handguns are used in suicides much more often than either rifles or shotguns.

      There was that time I was feeling down and worthless and all I had was a WW2 Lee Enfield. Huge bloody thing. My arms aren't that long and my toes are too fat to fit in the trigger guard, so I started rigging up a contraption with bootlaces, meccano, a grandfather clock and all that.

      I got halfway through and thought, "you know, if you have the ingenuity to do that maybe you aren't so dumb - you should give it another go."

      I decided to go down the pub to celebrate but as I came in I tripped over the cord and shot myself in the arse.

      Such is life.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the individual right to a firearm was done via a series of incompetent judicial rulings by activist judges

      It's literally there in black and white lol. It's also the intention of the founders, as you can figure out by inspecting literally anything they ever wrote.

    21. Re: Next step by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > No where in the constitution nor in any of the amendments is there a right to individual gun ownership specified.

      BZZZT. Thanks for playing.

      The right is explicit, implicit, AND intrinsic.

      1. Explicit: What part of 2nd Amendment do you not know how to fucking read???

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        Furthermore,

      The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

      2. Implicit: At the time of writing, (unloaded) gun ownership was NOT prohibited by the states; ergo, it is reserved to the people. What part of the and 10th Amendment do you not understand???

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      3. Intrinsic: Governments derive their power FROM the governed. Meaning the people had the right in the FIRST place. From the Declaration of Independence:

      We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,

      QED.

      Learn to fucking read next time.

    22. Re: Next step by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

      You claim that the second amendment specifically states the right to bear arms is for use in a militia.

      No it doesn't, it uses the necessity of a militia as a reason justify why the people (not "the militia") have the right to bear arms. Take the following hypothetical statement:

      "Proper sanitation, being necessary to the preparation of healthy food, the right of the people to wash their hands, shall not be infringed."

      Would you interpret that statement to say that only people who prepare food are allowed to wash their hands?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    23. Re: Next step by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      If you choose to keep a gun in your home, you should choose a rifle or shotgun (I own one of each), not a handgun. Keep it locked.

      I'm with you up to the "keep it locked" bit...keeping it locked up slows your access to it, and that delay could be critical or even fatal.

      Rifles and pistols can be a real problem when used for home defense- they have waaaaaay too much penetrating power and even if you hit Mr Bad Guy with a perfect shot, there's a very good chance that the round will go right through him and end up in your nieghbor's house, and possibly inside your neighbor. Not a big deal out in the country but in the suburbs or a city....

      A shotgun is probably the best choice in home defense weapons for most folks. They're simple, pointable, and are much less likely to take out a neighbor by accident.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    24. Re: Next step by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Bill. There is no key.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    25. Re: Next step by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I'm with you up to the "keep it locked" bit...keeping it locked up slows your access to it, and that delay could be critical or even fatal.

      Statistically, your gun is WAY more likely to be used by a family member, either shooting another family member, or even more likely shooting themselves. You can make your own decision for your situation, but for most people, locking is better.

      A shotgun is probably the best choice in home defense weapons for most folks.

      Totally agree. If we had a lot more shotguns, and a lot fewer handguns, many lives could be saved. But keep in mind that shotgun shells have a shorter shelf life than rifle and pistol ammo, especially in high humidity. Replace your shells at least once a year.

    26. Re: Next step by adolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's no grand challenge -- don't let these swine tell you otherwise -- to build a functional interlock system for starting, flying, and landing airplanes.

      "Hurr-durr it's gonna fall out of the skyyyyyyy!" just means they haven't thought long enough about the problem.

      My question is: Do you think it would actually help? Surely, some echelon of non-pilot (such as perhaps this very maintenance guy from TFA) will be issued credentials that allow them to operate all systems of the aircraft otherwise maintenance would be impossible. And just as surely, such systems can be disabled.

      My BMW, for 1995, has a reasonably-robust mechanical keying system and multiple anti-theft systems including RF keys to start and user-set numeric codes, pick-resistant ignition tumbler, and so on. But none of this stops a would-be thief from smashing a window, opening the hood, replacing the DME with one that lacks these electronic functions (available everywhere, because race cars are things). Bypassing the steering lock is as simple as drilling a hole in just the right spot in the magnesium housing for the steering column right behind the steering wheel (easy -- I got it on the first try in a dark parking lot with a pictures on a cell phone as a guide and drew zero attention) which lets the locking parts fall out.

      The rest is just hotwiring it exactly like a car from the 1950s, and all of the right connections are there at the ignition switch to do that.

      My car is old in car years, but it isn't all that old in airplane years.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    27. Re: Next step by cstacy · · Score: 2

      Whoever thought that "large planes don't need ignition keys because no one would ever attempt to steal one"

      Nobody ever thought that.

      How about: Personnel who are authorized to enter the secure maintenance area where the plane is being worked on, rarely try to steal the airplane.

      Last time someone did this it was the co-pilot of MH-370, who killed everyone on the fully loaded plane, which has still never even been recovered and nobody knows where it crashed (well, they're pretty sure which OCEAN it's in....)

    28. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not prevent regulations of lesser rank to make washing hands for other purposes illegal.

    29. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is actually true. Larger planes don't have a key. Smaller planes that are usually privately owned do have a key. Indeed to avoid theft. But larger commercial planes usually don't have any key.

    30. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the plane could drop out of the sky?

      How about a device to limit who can start a plane on the ground, you know, like an ignition key?

      Really? You think a plane mechanic wouldn't be able to start the plane without the ignition key?

      Plane maintenance log:
      #1 Replaced ignition system.

      We are now entering the "Can God make a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it?" style of questions.

      Can you make a system that can be repaired but not used by the one repairing it?

    31. Re: Next step by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      On some aircraft the wheels begin to rotate before they touch the ground.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    32. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nethead - he knows that.

    33. Re: Next step by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      And on your last point, that's a complete load of crap. Situations where firearms are used in self-defense or to prevent crime are rare. They're at least an order of magnitude less common than suicides

      You know you're wrong, and deliberately getting the "order of magnitude" thing precisely backwards. We have, what ... well under 20,000 suicides that way per year? Gary Kleck's academic research into the matter found defensive personal gun use occurring over 2 million time per year. A separate CDC study essentially duplicated his results. But let's say they're off by a whopping 90%, and people defend their lives with guns only a tenth as often as the CDC's study says actually happens. That's over 200,000 times a year. Far more than ten times as often as anyone uses a firearm in a suicide. If you think that guns are only rarely used in self defense, then you must be thrilled that they're used even more (far more) rarely in suicides, right? No, you don't care about actual facts. That takes the fun out of your talking points.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    34. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time someone did this it was the co-pilot of MH-370

      That is something you assume, not something you know.

    35. Re: Next step by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      "Proper sanitation, being necessary to the preparation of healthy food, the right of the people to wash their hands, shall not be infringed."

    36. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You claim that the second amendment specifically states the right to bear arms is for use in a militia.

      No it doesn't ...

      You're wrong.

      Of course that hasn't prevented you from puking your moronic bullshit.

      Hopefully cancer comes to you soon and rids the earth of your useless existence.

    37. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is hardly the first commercial passenger plane to be stolen. I remember a 727 jet was stolen once, and never found.

    38. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you make a system that can be repaired but not used by the one repairing it?

      Yes, I can. See host-proof computing and fully homomorphic encryption.

    39. Re: Next step by whodunit · · Score: 1

      Yeah I'd hate for someone who isn't me to break into my home and commit suicide with my gun. FFS pal not everyone is suicidal.

    40. Re: Next step by blindseer · · Score: 0

      4. Gun owning households have significantly higher suicide rates.

      Gun owners tend to be white, male, and middle aged. Most suicides are committed by... that's right, white middle aged men. How about we look into why white middle aged men men decide to kill themselves instead of using some correlation is causation bullshit excuse to disarm people?

      Restrictions on gun ownership won't solve the mental health problems we have. We've seen this attempted in other nations, like UK, Canada, and Australia. They didn't see a reduction in suicides, only a reduction in the use of firearms to commit suicides.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    41. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every Cessna 172 has an ignition key, and a door key. Sure, these are pretty easy to defeat, but a little thought would lead to a workable solution for commercial aircraft. Don't tell me that Airbus, Boeing, etc. cannot come up with something that will work with the operations that commercial aircraft require, but preclude ramp personnel from starting the aircraft!

    42. Re: Next step by Outta_the_way_peck! · · Score: 1

      5. Gun suicides, in particular, tend to be "on impulse" rather than planned.

      I think #5 explains that. If they didn't have the gun they would be more likely to back out or at the very least, be far less successful.

    43. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right to bear arms is heavily dependent on us not running out of bears to take arms from. Once we run out, you may not be able to keep them due to risk of theft as bad taxidermy leads to their decay and the black market demand leads to theft of existing bear arms.

    44. Re: Next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say that my magic rocks repels a quintillion King Kong attacks at a thousand deaths each per year. Let's suppose that figure is off by 90% to be on the safe side. That's still 100,000,000,000,000,000 deaths over year saved.

      Statistics is fun!

    45. Re: Next step by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      The difference is that we have actual reality to work with on defensive firearm use. So I'm not sure what point you think you're making, since you're talking BS. Throwing up that sort of nonsense without addressing the CDC's research is a pretty good sign that you're just angry that I'm right.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    46. Re: Next step by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I doubt "his" agenda has to do with suicide too. It is fear that drives those types of decisions. Once the "fear" is allayed, critical thinking stops because, hey, the problem that aroused fear is dealt with. No more thought necessary, everything is taken care of... but its not. That is why the "no guns, no violence" people piss me off so much. Not that anyone cares what I think.

      Have a nice day. :)

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  4. 90 minutes by kenh · · Score: 3, Informative

    Reports say he was airborne for 90 minutes, performing 'stunts' before he went 'nose down'. A friend hear the radio chatter from the 'pilot' in real-time before he took his life.

    News 'analysts' are already wondering why the two fighter jets didn't shoot down the stolen craft, which points out the limits of their understanding - firing missiles in a residential area to destroy a plane so debris can rain down is typically considered a bad idea, better to observe and be prepared to take action if it looks like he was going to hurt others.

    I can't wait to hear we need to regulate who can buy flight simulator software to spare further 'copy-cat' tragedies!

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:90 minutes by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Or did the jet fighters wait until he was over a relatively unpopulated area to shoot? They could have used their guns, not missiles (AFAIK, F15 still has a Gatling gun).

    2. Re:90 minutes by MikeDataLink · · Score: 4, Informative

      They could have used their guns, not missiles (AFAIK, F15 still has a Gatling gun).

      Bullets and fragments will still fall out of the sky. A round that pierces the aircraft (and MANY will) will travel miles before striking the ground, people, houses, etc. Incredibly dangerous to do so.

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    3. Re:90 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or did the jet fighters wait until he was over a relatively unpopulated area to shoot?

      Reports were that F15's were scrambled, and then intercepted / tracked the plane until it crashed, but did not engage to shoot it down (since it was not a clear threat).

    4. Re:90 minutes by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      (AFAIK, F15 still has a Gatling gun).

      No, it doesn't. It does however, have a 20mm Vulcan autocannon.

    5. Re:90 minutes by CronoCloud · · Score: 4, Informative

      The M61 Vulcan IS a Gatling:

      The M61 Vulcan is a hydraulically or pneumatically driven, six-barrel, air-cooled, electrically fired Gatling-style rotary cannon

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

    6. Re:90 minutes by zamboni1138 · · Score: 1

      My question is why were they scrambled out of Portland, almost 200 miles to the South, and not out of McCord where the incident was taking place?

    7. Re: 90 minutes by slacktide · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are no fighters based at McChord. Itâ(TM)s an Air Mobility Command base for C-17 transports.

    8. Re: 90 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      200 miles is not very far away for an F15.

    9. Re:90 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's more or less standard for any aircraft flying in regulated airspace. The Puget Sound is home to several military installations including Fort Lewis, Fairchild AFB and Bremerton naval base. As well as heavily populated areas.

      Not sure if they decided that it wasn't a threat or if it took a nose dive prior to them making a decision on the matter. But, around here just because they're over the water doesn't necessarily mean that it's safe to shoot down a commercial airliner. There's a ton of shipping traffic in and out of the sound, not to mention the difficulties in cleaning up a airliner crashing into the water.

    10. Re:90 minutes by guacamole · · Score: 1

      This wasn't a densely populated residential area. If you looked at the videos, the airplane was mostly flying over the bay or very sparsely populated areas.

    11. Re: 90 minutes by zamboni1138 · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the clarification. Had no idea that when McCord became a joint base it lost it's entire ability to be a Base to project a Force into the Air, or, you know, an "Air Force Base".

    12. Re:90 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your wait is over. CNN is already saying pretty much that.

    13. Re:90 minutes by gravewax · · Score: 1

      200 miles is not a long distance for an F15, you are looking at well under 10 mins of flight time.

    14. Re:90 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News media today is all tabloid and clickbait.

      I'm sure that most on the scene were hopeful that the lunatic would come to his senses and land. But yeah, the jet pilots were probably ready to take action as a last resort despite what the plastic faces on TV say.

    15. Re:90 minutes by mjwx · · Score: 1

      They could have used their guns, not missiles (AFAIK, F15 still has a Gatling gun).

      Bullets and fragments will still fall out of the sky. A round that pierces the aircraft (and MANY will) will travel miles before striking the ground, people, houses, etc. Incredibly dangerous to do so.

      Not to mention a huge flaming aircraft wreck falling out of control.

      Most AA missiles are not designed to destroy the aircraft, especially not disintegrate it in a huge fireball leaving no debris... That's just a waste and makes the missile more complex than it needs to be. Most AA missiles are designed to cause enough damage that the aircraft loses control and crashes, most notably on the control surfaces. An AIM-9 Sidewinder is effectively a fragmentation grenade on a guided rocket, high speed fragments are projected forward and are designed to damage engines, control surfaces and pilots. This means they can detonate in proximity and be highly effective (as opposed to detonation on contact). Ejection seats are effective because anti aircraft weapons are expected to damage ailerons, rudders or elevators making the aircraft unflyable, but leaving the pilot relatively intact.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  5. Waste of a good plane... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Q400 is one of the few planes used by US airlines that is tolerable to fly on. Sadly, they've mostly been phased out on Northeastern flights in the US, though they still do NYC-Toronto-Montreal service.

    In all seriousness, glad no one other than the idiot who stole the plane was hurt. I'm surprised he was allowed to take off -- tower must have notices unauthorized movements. Could they have sent a fire truck or two to block it, or would that just have made the situation more dangerous?

    1. Re:Waste of a good plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was not allowed to take the plane, but he took it. He was not allowed to take off, but he did. All the tower could do, was to keep other traffic out of the madman's way.

      Blocking his way with a fire truck? An amateur like that might try to 'jump over', and then you have a plane crash that shuts down the airport for weeks.

    2. Re:Waste of a good plane... by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      That would be suicidal on the part of the fire truck driver. Not to mention by the time they noticed the problem, the plane was already on the runway so a truck would've had no chance of catching up.

      All things considered this situation ended pretty well. No one on the ground was hurt and the guy got what he wanted in his final moments.

    3. Re:Waste of a good plane... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      My worry was, what if he headed for Hanford or downtown Seattle? Would there have been enough time to shoot him down?

    4. Re:Waste of a good plane... by mschuyler · · Score: 1

      To downtown Seattle, no. To Hanford, yes. But it didn't happen that way. He went South. So much for your what-if worries.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    5. Re:Waste of a good plane... by PPH · · Score: 3, Informative

      Probably not. They scrambled F-15s out of Portland (don't know if they have anything closer at JBLM or Whidbey). Optimistically, they got on scene in 5 minutes. Some pilots are saying more like 10. People along I-5 would probably have heard sonic booms. But Seattle is closer than 5 minutes flying time from SeaTac for a commuter plane.

      Hanford is much further. But this guy was having low fuel issues, so he probably would never have made Hanford regardless.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re: Waste of a good plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He could have been headed for the State Capitol building. He was headed in that direction.

    7. Re: Waste of a good plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And had he gotten there nothing of value other than the airplane would have been lost.

    8. Re:Waste of a good plane... by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      If he wanted to kill people, there were plenty of planes right next to him that are full of passengers. No need to fly to Seattle for that.

  6. Low Sodium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously I have no idea what issues this man was dealing with but whenever I hear about sane people doing insane things I automatically wonder if they're suffering from low sodium levels. Short version: when your brain is dangerously low on sodium it starts to operate erratically. People have insane thoughts and urges. They _realize_ there is something wrong with their thinking but they can't do anything to stop it.

    1. Re: Low Sodium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, you have my attention. So what are you selling?

    2. Re: Low Sodium? by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      'So what are you selling?'

      (Magic) sea salt, of course.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    3. Re:Low Sodium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low sodium causes a thirst for piss. It's a common occurrence in animals and I have a hunch it's an instinct in humans, too.

      These Captchas are psychic. Mine is: repulse

    4. Re: Low Sodium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully not sodium, will be hard to lock down that market...

  7. The most important question by willoughby · · Score: 1

    Did he have nail clippers in his pocket?

    1. Re:The most important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he have nail clippers in his pocket?

      No, he had something even worse: a single container filled with 3.1 ounce of liquid.

    2. Re:The most important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank god he wasn't in a wheelchair. That's a crime now.

    3. Re:The most important question by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      Nah... he had a couple bottles of water.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    4. Re:The most important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you bring your wheelchair repair toolkit with you.

      You might try to "disassemble the aircraft while in flight"

    5. Re:The most important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he have nail clippers in his pocket?

      No, he was just glad to be there.

    6. Re:The most important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the most important question is did he actually do a barrel roll, or an aileron roll? Inquiring minds want to know how much Star Fox he'd been playing...

    7. Re:The most important question by Megane · · Score: 1

      I did a google image search for barrel roll just to be sure. And pictures of this plane have already appeared in the results for "barrel roll". An aileron roll is simply rotating along the long axis of the plane with no change in direction, and he definitely did not do that. What people are saying he really did was a Split S, and that does seem to be rather more like what I saw in the video, though I think he flipped in the middle of the loop, rather than at the start.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    8. Re: The most important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has already been identified by the voice recordin publically available. He was playing some relatively unknown ww2 flight simulation.

    9. Re: The most important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A split-s upwards is called an immelman.

      And for sure it wasn't a clean aileron role, which would go through 1g left/right as well as -1g. Barrel roll with positive load throughout is much easier (and no problem for the plane).

  8. How the F is this "news for nerds, stuff that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    matters"???

    This is just pop news. Nothing to do with technology sector at all. Slashdot editors are going way downhill pushing this crap across the feed.

  9. Random woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    None of us give a shit about what some random woman on facebook said.

    1. Re:Random woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of us give a shit about what some random woman on facebook said.

      You must be new here.

  10. "Last Friday Night", singit! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  11. pedantics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To side track the main story, would you explain, in hair splitting detail, the differences between a "Gatling" and an M-61 Vulcan? Feel free to not use your own words and just copy/paste instead, if you prefer.

    I'm sure it will all make a difference had the Air Force shot-down that wayward commuter plane. :-)

  12. Darwin Award? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just sayin

  13. Not a muslim nor illegal immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The man was neither a muslim nor an illegal immigrant. That must piss off trumptards very much.

    If we ever find out that he was a gun-owning white christian conservative, that will piss them off even more. But I'm not going to push my luck.

    1. Re: Not a muslim nor illegal immigrant by kenh · · Score: 1

      Suicide is not a terrorist act, why are you trying to act like it is?

      He went for a thrill ride before taking his own life in a dramatic fashion. I eagerly await the MSM telling us what station his car radio was tuned to, what websites he visited, and other such important information.

      --
      Ken
    2. Re: Not a muslim nor illegal immigrant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, guess what? He was a conservative christian. Pretty irrelevant to the situation, though. He was suicidal and made mentions about minimum wage to air traffic control.

  14. God needed another Angle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He has a plan for all of us and yesterday was this guy's time to go.

    1. Re: God needed another Angle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why, he already has 360 of them

    2. Re:God needed another Angle by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

      He has a plan for all of us and yesterday was this guy's time to go.

      Let us hope you are correct. The current state of the world is making more otherwise sane individuals take their own lives. Indeed we all need to become more gracious if we are to find peace and sanity in this God forsaken time. Suicide is not painless, in as much that it is a sin that harms deeply those who love you.

      PS: it is a misnomer that GOD is a man, the real GOD IS ANDROGYNOUS and without sex organs or the need for them. As indeed is real love.

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    3. Re:God needed another Angle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are more people than ever before on anxiety meds, most of which have suicidal tendencies as side effects. Forcing yourself through the use of drugs to think more positively about things also generally means you're more susceptible to think positively about otherwise irrational things. Thus, more suicides. Thanks #bigpharma! Keep up the good work!

  15. Donnie, is that you? by Grog6 · · Score: 2

    Are you off your meds again?

    Go find Melania, she has your pills.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  16. That's his problem right there... by Grog6 · · Score: 0

    Religion causes poor thinking, and removes critical thinking skills.

    Explains this nicely.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:That's his problem right there... by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Religion causes poor thinking, and removes critical thinking skills.

      I'm an avid consumer of several podcasts. A couple of which are atheist and a few others are religious. Each one at one time talked of the utility of religion, specifically the Jewish and Christian tradition. They all said roughly the same thing, even if there is not a god there is utility in believing in a god for the sake of a productive society. Many intelligent people can through study, thought experiment, and other means, find what works for a peaceful and prosperous society. Some of the rules are pretty basic, like don't steal, don't murder, don't fuck your neighbor's wife. These rules for a prosperous society are basically the 7 out of 10 Commandments from the Torah/Bible.

      These rules can be derived over time by people intelligent enough and with enough self control. But what do you do with people that lack this intelligence and self control? Such as a child? What of someone with sufficient intelligence to derive these rules but lacking the education to see what has failed in the past? Well, you create this imaginary friend that watches over them and can punish them for behaving badly and grant rewards for behaving well, and has created rules for everyone to follow. This imaginary friend can be Santa Claus, which rewards good behavior with gifts at the end of the year. This imaginary friend can be karma, where good deeds are rewarded with good luck. This imaginary friend can be a god, which rewards good deeds in the afterlife. So long as the rules make sense to even a child then intelligent adults can find the wisdom in following the rules as well.

      Maybe religion does in fact remove critical thinking, but if religion is based on a foundation of rules that are good for creating a peaceful and prosperous society then this is not necessarily a bad thing. There are religions that cause poor thinking, such as a religion that calls for killing nonbelievers and then defining nonbelievers to include people of the same religion that failed to interpret the rules of their prophet EXACTLY as you did. That's just asking for the creation of centuries of civil war.

      Good religion creates good people and a good society. Bad religion destroys people and society.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:That's his problem right there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good people doing good things, that's normal. Bad people doing bad things, that's normal too. It takes religion, for good people doing very very very bad things.

    3. Re:That's his problem right there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good people doing good things, that's normal.

      I'm with you so far.

      Bad people doing bad things, that's normal too.

      Sure, that works.

      It takes religion, for good people doing very very very bad things.

      No, for good people to do very very bad things takes a government. A bad religion lacking the force of government means street thugs beating up the weak and other thugs. When a government becomes bad, either by losing any constraints of faith or by adopting a bad faith to enforce its rule, then very bad things can happen. This can mean good people doing very very bad things in the hope to survive long enough to escape, outlive the bad government (as in a time of war or revolution), or the good person justifies the bad actions as serving some greater good.

      A good person raised in a bad religion will leave the religion so long as the government enforces such freedoms. A bad person raised in a bad religion will do bad things, but under a government that enforces freedoms of the people this person is limited to petty thuggery. Should this petty criminal graduate to larger crimes then this will come to an end quickly by good people doing good things and/or a government enforcing good behavior.

      I've been "informed" that the founders of America were atheists. Since then I've come across some evidence that this may be true. What is lost in this translation was that the founders were still Christians. How can anyone be both an atheist and a Christian? By denying the divinity of Christ. People can pick and choose which of the founders were atheistic Christians and which were theistic Christians but the result is the same, they created a nation on the basis of values as professed by Christ. A person does not necessarily have to believe in some divine being to be a good person. What would be difficult to do is both adhere to Christian values and be a bad person doing bad things, being a good person doing bad things while claiming to follow the teachings of Christ is impossible.

      I'll hear the claim that Christians kept slaves, and justified it with Biblical passages. Well, the Bible did allow for slavery, but it also laid out the rules for which slaves could be kept. One rule was that slaves were to be offered freedom after seven years of service. Other rules were that slaves were to be allowed rest, be free from abuse, and otherwise treated well. There was a death penalty for killing a slave in the Bible, not so much in America before Reconstruction. The evil that was slavery required a government that allowed it. Without that the racists could only continue their abuse by cover of night and masks.

    4. Re: That's his problem right there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what religion is called if you remove the magic? Philosophy.

      Religion sucks. Religion is bullshit stories with magic passed off as truth. What you want is civil behavior. You don't need magical religion for that and believing in one set of bullshit magic gives you the regular flaws of life, plus h necessary bullshit flaws.

  17. God HAS another Angle by Grog6 · · Score: 0

    Ever hear of Satan?

    Why did you elect him to the White House?

    I never thought Christianity was PRO SAtan; now I guess we know. :(

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:God HAS another Angle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever hear of Satan?

      Idiots like you are proof that Democratic party attracts bottom-feeders and fools.

    2. Re:God HAS another Angle by Holi · · Score: 1

      Christianity has worshiped Satan since Peter took over and corrupted Jesus's teachings.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  18. The US National Guard has better fighter planes... by gawdonblue · · Score: 0

    The US National Guard has better fighter planes than most of the world's air forces. Why does a National Guard need F15s? Are they planning on taking on the US Air Force or is it somewhere that USAF planes go to retire?

  19. Soooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He steals a plane and crashes it. Bet he won't try that again.

    Too soon?

  20. Re:The US National Guard has better fighter planes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can sell twice as many jets if you have twice as many air forces.

  21. Airplane Repo by cstacy · · Score: 1

    I loved that show!

  22. Re:The US National Guard has better fighter planes by blindseer · · Score: 2

    The US National Guard has better fighter planes than most of the world's air forces. Why does a National Guard need F15s?

    I don't know, maybe in case some suicidal asshole decides to hijack a plane and threaten to crash it?

    Are they planning on taking on the US Air Force or is it somewhere that USAF planes go to retire?

    A bit of both, at least in theory. The National Guard is a dual role service. The first role is as a state defense force, to combat threats "both foreign and domestic". One can assume this means having to go up against the federal forces if things break down that far. The second role the National Guard serves is that as a reserve force for the regular forces. The National Guard does get a lot of second hand gear, as do the federal reserve forces.

    I had a medic in the Army tell me that you can tell how close you are to danger by the quality of the gear you've been issued. If you have a shiny new radio and rifle then expect to have to use them. You don't want the new gear if you just want to pay off your college loans in the military.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  23. R.I.P. a Star Fox 64 player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shooting the plane wouldn't have worked. He was ready to do a barrel roll!

  24. Second amendment by hankwang · · Score: 1

    "Proper sanitation, being necessary to the preparation of healthy food, the right of the people to wash their hands, shall not be infringed."

    I'd say that the use of commas in that sentence makes it gibberish, just like in the second amendment. I cannot parse that sentence in a way that is grammatically correct, which means that I have to guess what the author probably meant, based on what I know about him and his background.

    Disclaimer: I'm not from the US, nor a native speaker of English.

    --
    Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
  25. LA Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

  26. Eerie audio clip by chesh1re · · Score: 2

    I listened to the ATC audio and it was eerie. I just felt bad. You could tell this kid had just given up. No hope, he didn't even sound sad about it anymore, like he had come to terms with everything already. When the ATCs asked him about endangering other planes he apologized and pretty much took the plane out of altitude as instructed and away from the airport. You could tell the whole time he was just having a one way trip. Very sad.

  27. Liberal terrorists by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

    Another Liberal off their "meds". Legalize more drugs, surely that will help! SMH

    --
    -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
  28. Re:The US National Guard has better fighter planes by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

    The Air National Guard receives airplanes that are passed down by the USAF. Since the USAF has been getting F-22's they have had F-15's to pass down. There is actually a concern right now that with the Air Force getting so many F-22's there will be a gap in available aircraft for the USAF to pass down for a number of years as the F-22's are expected to have a long service life.

    --
    -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!