On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 02:59:57PM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
CNN at one point showed the ground track of the flight (it was available on some website). The flight kept it's normal track (slightly north of west from Boston) until it crossed over the NY state border. Soon after that, it took a sharp left turn and headed south for NYC. But not a straight line - it was clear that they were following the Hudson River.
Another explanation: Could they be following a usual flight corridor to deflect suspicion? I have no idea if this is the case, but it would make sense to have such corridors above water, if only not to annoy residents overmuch. That's what National does, more or less.
Further on the skills thing - at one time I toyed with the idea of getting a private pilots license, and even took a couple lessons. I found that the experience I had gained using a Flight Simulator program on a PC was invaluable, particularly for getting the hang straight-and-level flight, making coordinated turns, changing altitudes, etc, which are all the skills that the terrorist would have needed.
Agreed, if they were flying small one or two engine planes. Not sure if that translates as well to a large, modern jet aircraft.
This morning the local media here in Massachusetts were reporting that a bag for the flight which fortuitously failed to get on the plane was found to contain a Koran, "Islamic materials", and a videotape on flying commercial jets. Clearly, someone who was already a commercial pilot would not have needed the latter item.
Maybe I'm being a little suspicious, but why in the world would a terrorist who doesn't want to be caught and doesn't need the videotape (can't watch it on the plane, realistically, I presume) any more take it on the plane with him? -Declan