Mr.Nuke

Haven't checked in for awhile, but even this "younger" pilot knows what a FIR (and frequency protection) is. In its simplest forum a Flight Information Region is a defined space where alerting and information services are provided. Frequency Protection refers to terminal or "T-VORs." T-VOR's have a substandard area protected from interference compared to regular VOR stations. Your average VOR may provide accurate information for say 100 nm, while a T-VOR as the key shows is only accurate for 25 nm at 12,000 feet.

Yes. It is the current configuration with an additional runway that I'm guessing was designated 14/32. The end of Runway 14 is still visible near the Northeast side of the airport.

Snow, sorry if I wasn't clear. I was just commenting that I agreed with Orange's assessment. I'll elaborate a little building off of what Sluggo posted in the interim. The language doesn't sound like anything ATC would say at all. The whole he can't go anywhere type language A) doesn't sound like I would expect ATC or a pilot to talk and B) it simply doesn't jive with what we have in the transcript. This is part of the reason the Norjack passage just doesn't sound legitimate. If we want to say there is a 10,000 ft altitude restriction on 305, one would have to call it a very soft restriction. The transcripts we have, basically say alright the hijacker requested 10,000, if you want/need to go above that just let us know due to other traffic. Also there is no evidence of lateral restrictions in the transcripts that seem inplicit in the Norjack wording.

Indeed...

Orange said: Orange, it is exactly as you have assumed. The Flight Ops is with Northwest's Flight Operations department.

snowmman: What is your point? Normal IFR operations require clearance before departure. This clearance will include route information (either confirmation or alterations of the filed route) departure heading, speed, and altitude restrictions. Most of the groundwork for what the cockpit is expected to do is precisely that groundwork. Altitude is only mentioned, because it is the only relevant parameter to mention. You see on page 191, 305 is given discretion on the routing. However, this discretion applies only below 10,000 feet for the time being, due to 10,000 being the assumed cruise altitude based off of the given parameters. Anything above 10,000 could cause conflicts with other traffic. Note the controller isn't saying 305 can't go above 10,000, merely they are suggesting any intention to do so be stated. This isn't about confirming anyone's theory about the flight path. It is about answering specific questions you and others have posed. In this case you questioned the statement about latitude. Two posters came back with well thought out replies citing specific examples of broad latitude given to 305. It isn't an opinion or information seeking to confirm a theory. This is also precisely the reason that other contributors have left the board. It is rather frustrating when specific questions are asked, and knowledgably answers are given, but completely disreguarded.

Sluggo beat me to this, but I am going to try and provide a little more detail. snomman said: Under normal operating conditions you are exactly right. This is also why you have standardized "roads in the sky" in the form of V and J routes. . It significantly reduces the workload for ATC. ATC's job is to guarantee safe travel by insuring separation between aircraft. With standardized routes ATC will vector aircraft from the airport to the route and off of the route to the destination airport. During the flight ATC monitors the aircraft in their sector to ensure adequate separation is maintained. However, as we are all aware this wasn't a normal flight. The most obvious way of explaining how the rules can change is a pilot declaring an emergency. In a declared emergency, the rules of the road go out the window. ATC will give the plane declaring the emergency significant leeway. Controllers will not only do their best to guide the plane with the problem down, but they will also reroute other aircraft as needed to keep everyone safe. With 305, we see a somewhat similar situation. On page 188 there is an extended conversation where V-23 to Sacramento is decided upon by all parties. On Page 189 305, indicates that they have concerns about getting up to altitude in an expedited manner and asks about any possible restrictions. Normally departing busier airports you will be given heading/altitude restrictions that you are expected to comply with to ensure optimal traffic flow and safety. This is significant "latitude." Page 190 provides further clarification of how broad said latitude is. This statement goes to what has been asked in the previous couple of pages about other traffic. ATC basically says you are free to do whatever you want below 10,000. If for some reason you need to go above 10,000 advise us, because there will be not only chase aircraft, but other commercial traffic being routed above you. On page 191 again the range of the discretion given to the pilots is illustrated. The ground controller is talking to the tower/departure controller Under normal operations this would likely be a fair assumption. Once a commercial flight departs the airport, and especially when they get above 18,000 required communication levels drop significantly. Above 18,000 the altimeter gets set to the standard 29.92, and the airplane is likely already on the "J" route. Thus the only communication that is typically necessary is to alert to traffic conflicts. Again in this case, normal is obviously no longer in play. 305 was given significant leeway by ATC, and other traffic was kept out of the way. In this situation the only communication I would expect is if A) there was an plane somewhere where it shouldn't have been or B) if 305 was heading towards say Mt. St. Helens. What happens if you're flying and you start diverging? Does ATC say anything to you usually? If you are on ATC flight following on a VFR flight you dictate your own route. For commercial operations, flights in inclement weather, anything above 18,000, or pilots choice that necessitates IFR flight rules and an IFR flight plan, You bet ATC will tell you if you were deviating. However, as Sluggo and I have been saying and I think you realize this was not a normal flight. In this case ATC is essentially becoming a support service for 305. They are going to clear the airspace below 10,000 for 305. They are also standing by to act as a communication intermediary, and provide any support services that they can at the behest of 305's crew.

Georger said: Yes, but I'm almost certain they were operating under instrument flight rules (IFR). We have been looking at sectional charts and particularly the sectional that had the estimated flight path traced on it. Under IFR they would have used the IFR inroute low altitude chart (In this case L-1). You can see sectionals, low altitude (victor), and high altitude (jet) at: http://skyvector.com/ As you will see the enroute IFR charts provide you a lot less information about the ground. They do give you the necessary information to maintain instrument navigation.

snowmman said: We do know of Captain Bohan who reported that he was a few miles behind and above 305. And as for the ATC, remember 305 is well below what a commercial aircraft would normally be flying the route at. Traffic at 10,000 on a night with marginal weather would have been minimal at best. Plus, given the situation aboard the plane, 305 would likely have been given significant latitude by ATC.

Agreed to me that means they are 10 miles off of the VOR/DME. I'll preface this by saying I'm not sure how northwest's pilot rotations worked in the 1970's, but if it is anything like today it is possible that crew A) had never worked with each other and B) had never flown that route. Like you said, none of the crew would have ever had any reason to be on V-23.

Yes, but certain scenarios are more "possible" or likely than others. You are also taking Sluggo's reply slightly out of context. Georger specifically asked if they would have ever flown V-23. We can say with a fairly high degree of certainty the answer to that question is no. They were given the low altitude victor airway charts when the plane was on the ground at SEATAC. As Sluggo mentioned, they would likely be more familiar with the jet or "j" high altitude routes assuming they had done that route before, which is a fairly big assumption in itself. And as for your comment, I wouldn't assume any previous takeoffs or landings would have given them much familiarity with the area. A pilot doesn't gain anything or do their job better by knowing the difference between Seattle and Vancouver. As has been mentioned, there really isn't a distinction between the two on the 71 charts. This is compounded by the fact that the cockpit crew's workload increases significantly during the takeoff and landing phases of flight. There often isn't a lot of time to do sight seeing. Sluggo is giving you insight into how a generic pilot would think and act in the situation, not how you would.

It certainly would seem to make some sense if this were the case. That being said, I don't get that impression at all. If it were something along these lines I think Ckret would have been giving more focus and direction to the way the discussion was going.

Agreed, and if Cooper was "smart enough" to be looking for a VOR site, specifically BTG, then he wouldn't need any device other than something to keep the time.

Snowmman said: Aviation calculations are pretty simple. Google E6B emulators.

Thanks for the mild insult...