32andBelow wrote:

Airbus747 wrote:

Richard "Beebo" Russell is now being called a "hero" and "sky king" in some parts of the internet, especially for having performed the aerobatic stunts.

A few articles try to understand what kind of a person he was: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/r ... 09306.html

His online profiles appear to depict a normal guy who loved traveling and sharing his story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ765Fnec8Q (video he made about himself and his work)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/beebo-russell-544730158 (his Linkedin profile)

This guy is going to be a hero for a long time. What he did was absolutely incredible.

There is nothing heroic about what this man did. It was irresponsible, poorly thought out, and had deadly consequences - thankfully only for the thief.

freakyrat wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

To the post above about blaming ATC for apparently not dispatching authorities to stop the aircraft on the ground before it even took off..... I get what you’re saying, but we have no idea what was going on. There is a very good chance they DID dispatch authorities as soon as they noticed something wrong. Based on the the YouTube VASAviation video with ATC audio and diagram of the aircraft taxiing, the location where the plane wasn’t parked may have been right there at the end of the runway and essentially he could have been near the runway by the time anything stood out to ATC. All I’m saying is I’m pretty sure the second things didn’t seem right to the controller at least a supervisor was notified at a minimum. I don’t work in a tower, but I would imagine there are procedures for things like this.

The hangar ramps were right by the end of the runway but how he got to the Center Runway and mixed in with planes on the left runway seems a mystery to me.

Maybe it wasn’t really packed with planes and he was able to just get right across. Seattle isn’t really a busy place I guess relatively speaking.

trnswrld wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

To the post above about blaming ATC for apparently not dispatching authorities to stop the aircraft on the ground before it even took off..... I get what you’re saying, but we have no idea what was going on. There is a very good chance they DID dispatch authorities as soon as they noticed something wrong. Based on the the YouTube VASAviation video with ATC audio and diagram of the aircraft taxiing, the location where the plane wasn’t parked may have been right there at the end of the runway and essentially he could have been near the runway by the time anything stood out to ATC. All I’m saying is I’m pretty sure the second things didn’t seem right to the controller at least a supervisor was notified at a minimum. I don’t work in a tower, but I would imagine there are procedures for things like this.

The hangar ramps were right by the end of the runway but how he got to the Center Runway and mixed in with planes on the left runway seems a mystery to me.

Maybe it wasn’t really packed with planes and he was able to just get right across. Seattle isn’t really a busy place I guess relatively speaking.

Listen to the ATC. It was busy. He just timed the taxi to 16C perfectly.

CitizenJustin wrote:

How much harder would it have been to take an Airbus or Boeing? Would that have even been possible?

Who knows. Both aircraft are rather complex and Airbus aircraft are flown with a sidestick which takes awhile getting use to. When you hear the ATC tapes of this incident it's obvious the guy never did the checklist because he never set up the pressurization even though it wasn't needed at lower altitudes he still was getting hypoxic from the high G manuevers he was doing. I really have no answer for your question and if I did I wouldn't post it for obvious security reasons.

prebennorholm wrote:

The authorities told the press that it was an illegal maneuver since the ATR was not certified in the aerobatic category. Therefore they would have a talk with Mr Nielsen.

Nielsen told the press that he was sorry that he had done something illegal, but it was no big deal and should be treated as if he had been speeding ten mph too fast on the motorway.

That's nuts. The only way I can take his analogy seriously is if he's also driving blindfolded in a smartcar towards the direction of oncoming traffic.

TWA302 wrote:

Listen to the ATC. It was busy. He just timed the taxi to 16C perfectly.

Oh ok was it? I listened to a few videos and none of the ones I listened to have any other aircraft chatter on it. They were modified to only have the comms between ATC and the stolen plane.

This is just a crazy story! Until I read the full coverage this afternoon, I thought the media reports were reporting some nut stealing and crashing a GA plane.

Reminds me of my ramp rat days. There was a overly confident guy, completely obsessed with Flightsim. He had like ten hours of Flight instruction in a C-172. He was always convinced that if he wanted to, he could start up and takeoff with one of our MD-80s. We were trained to start the APU and ride the beaks while repostioning the aircraft. I tried to reason with him, and asked if he thought he could land, too? He thought it was probable.

We basically had free run of the aircraft. There were no restrictions accessing it. We had to do cabin service, repostioning, etc. Maybe he really could have managed to steal one of the jets?

freakyrat wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

How much harder would it have been to take an Airbus or Boeing? Would that have even been possible?

Who knows. Both aircraft are rather complex and Airbus aircraft are flown with a sidestick which takes awhile getting use to. When you hear the ATC tapes of this incident it's obvious the guy never did the checklist because he never set up the pressurization even though it wasn't needed at lower altitudes he still was getting hypoxic from the high G manuevers he was doing. I really have no answer for your question and if I did I wouldn't post it for obvious security reasons.

With the possible exception of the 737 for a taller person, the cabin height would be a significant deterrent for any Airbus or Boeing.

trnswrld wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

Listen to the ATC. It was busy. He just timed the taxi to 16C perfectly.

Oh ok was it? I listened to a few videos and none of the ones I listened to have any other aircraft chatter on it. They were modified to only have the comms between ATC and the stolen plane.

AS322 told ATC that he had just passed them on their right as he approached 16C. They also reported that his tires were smoking and that he was now rolling down the runway, and that he had came out of the cargo ramp. It was interesting to listen to. I believe another QX Dash 8 had just departed as well.

NIKV69 wrote:

splitterz wrote:

He specifically called out poor wages and Alaska management in the video.

Maybe we should look at the work hours, conditions, and wages in commercial aviation.

RIP Rich.

Yet we won't get a utopia where you work Monday through Friday 9 to 5 and make 100k a year fueling planes and pushing them back to depart. That is not the industry and some guy who snapped and killed himself is not going to change that.

No one realistically expects that. What people ask for is a wage that allows them to live comfortably in a world that’s getting more expensive. That’s entirely reasonable and not much to ask for.

CitizenJustin wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

splitterz wrote:

He specifically called out poor wages and Alaska management in the video.

Maybe we should look at the work hours, conditions, and wages in commercial aviation.

RIP Rich.

Yet we won't get a utopia where you work Monday through Friday 9 to 5 and make 100k a year fueling planes and pushing them back to depart. That is not the industry and some guy who snapped and killed himself is not going to change that.

No one realistically expects that. What people ask for is a wage that allows them to live comfortably in a world that’s getting more expensive. That’s entirely reasonable and not much to ask for.

How much did he make? I hadn’t seen anything reported beyond his comment on the plan.

He might have some sort of training in order to fly a plane, it's not like you're in the cockpit, turn on engines and go.

aden23 wrote:

A lunatic flying barrel rolls over populated areas, and it’s in the public’s “best interest” to let him continue his antics? What’d they think, that this criminal was going to all of a sudden comply and make a nice landing? Give me a break.

He was flying close and low enough to people on the ground that they could identify it as an Alaskan Airlines plane. In other words, no more than a couple seconds at any given point from killing innoencents on the ground.

He was a suicide pilot, they should have taken him out immediately. It is ridiculous that they let him go on. To me this sounds like a major screw up not just on the part of Alaskan, Horizon, SeaTac, but the Air Force as well.

You're disregarding the possibility that other innocent people were on the plane. It looks like they assumed he was alone, but there's no way authorities could know for sure. In these situations the solution is never to always or never shoot a plane down. Lives are involved and that requires a sensible decision based on the circumstances, which the people actually making these decisions are trained to do.

ilovelamp wrote:

SuseJ772 wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Seeing the videos, I'm amazed how sim training enables a person to fly a plane pretty well on their first try....


David

Flying a plane - especially on a clear day - is not that hard. Landing the plane is the reasons pilots are trained and paid what they are.

You missed a lot and in the process - hopefully unintentionally - were demeaning to the profession.

Pilots aren’t onboard for the sole purpose of landing the plane safely. We are there for every other possible thing that can go wrong.

I am a pilot. I understand. That’s exactly my point. There were all these comments about if he can fly this plane how simple it must be. What I was saying is that what he was doing is not the complicated part of being a pilot. And in a normal flight - you are correct in that I did not go into all the abnormal - the hardest part on the pilot is landing. In a normal flight, taking to the skies and keeping it in the skies is not nearly as complicated as bringing it back down to a football sized square at the right speed. That’s the part he was unable to do even if not suicidal.

There was nothing demeaning meant by it.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

How much did he make? I hadn’t seen anything reported beyond his comment on the plan.

I don't know how long he had been there but agents at QX start at $13.75.

pwm2txlhopper wrote:

This is just a crazy story! Until I read the full coverage this afternoon, I thought the media reports were reporting some nut stealing and crashing a GA plane.

Reminds me of my ramp rat days. There was a overly confident guy, completely obsessed with Flightsim. He had like ten hours of Flight instruction in a C-172. He was always convinced that if he wanted to, he could start up and takeoff with one of our MD-80s. We were trained to start the APU and ride the beaks while repostioning the aircraft. I tried to reason with him, and asked if he thought he could land, too? He thought it was probable.

We basically had free run of the aircraft. There were no restrictions accessing it. We had to do cabin service, repostioning, etc. Maybe he really could have managed to steal one of the jets?

With the serious complexity of sims nowadays, he probably could. Pilots love to think it could never happen and that sims aren’t the same, which they aren’t, but procedurally anyways, they are now the exact same. Only difference being one is real and one is not. But, I sincerely hope this does not lead to restrictions on home-based flight simulators. I’ve already seen some so called experts calling for this on Twitter.

Shocking stuff. The ATC recording reveals a very complex situation. Great job to the controller for keeping him talking and trying to get him down safely.

I have spent a lot of time alone in an aircraft in a previous job, either walking on and checking the potable water, hanging out during an IROP to get out of the rain, etc., and I cannot say doing this ever crossed my mind. Though, from more remote locations, I can see how this was an open opportunity.

I hope no knee-jerk legislation comes from this.

ual763 wrote:

pwm2txlhopper wrote:

With the serious complexity of sims nowadays, he probably could. Pilots love to think it could never happen and that sims aren’t the same, which they aren’t, but procedurally anyways, they are now the exact same. Only difference being one is real and one is not. But, I sincerely hope this does not lead to restrictions on home-based flight simulators. I’ve already seen some so called experts calling for this on Twitter.

I would not at all be surprised if home computing has gotten to the point where at home we can have the amount of computing power needed to simulate the physics (just the physics) of an aircraft as accurately as in a full motion simulator from the 80s and 90s.

Do I dare look at the cringe festival that is so called experts calling for restricting flight simulators? Actually, I might be more amused than not - have any links?

travelsonic wrote:

ual763 wrote:

pwm2txlhopper wrote:

With the serious complexity of sims nowadays, he probably could. Pilots love to think it could never happen and that sims aren’t the same, which they aren’t, but procedurally anyways, they are now the exact same. Only difference being one is real and one is not. But, I sincerely hope this does not lead to restrictions on home-based flight simulators. I’ve already seen some so called experts calling for this on Twitter.

I would not at all be surprised if home computing has gotten to the point where at home we can have the amount of computing power needed to simulate the physics (just the physics) of an aircraft as accurately as in a full motion simulator from the 80s and 90s.

Do I dare look at the cringe festival that is so called experts calling for restricting flight simulators? Actually, I might be more amused than not - have any links?

X-Plane uses a physics-based flight simulation engine. It certainly has more computational power than what was available to the engineers who designed planes like the Dash-8.

Don't lose any sleep on regulation of flight simulator games. At least in the U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled video games a form of protected free speech (see: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association).

smithbs wrote:

Good to see the 142 FW - I visited their base at PDX a couple times for ANG duties and been around the alert hangar and F-15s therein.

So what's this process look like? How many pilots are always on duty awaiting this call? What are they doing with their time? Are planes always gassed and armed, ready to go?

PlanesNTrains wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

Listen to the ATC. It was busy. He just timed the taxi to 16C perfectly.

Oh ok was it? I listened to a few videos and none of the ones I listened to have any other aircraft chatter on it. They were modified to only have the comms between ATC and the stolen plane.

AS322 told ATC that he had just passed them on their right as he approached 16C. They also reported that his tires were smoking and that he was now rolling down the runway, and that he had came out of the cargo ramp. It was interesting to listen to. I believe another QX Dash 8 had just departed as well.

Probably the brakes smoking. Someone who doesn't know how to taxi would use the brakes to control speed.

yyztpa wrote:

The roll video shifted to the view of one of the two F-15s closing in with afterburners.

Afterburner? Negative...its clearly only in military power. He was way too close to need more power.

ucdtim17 wrote:

smithbs wrote:

Good to see the 142 FW - I visited their base at PDX a couple times for ANG duties and been around the alert hangar and F-15s therein.

So what's this process look like? How many pilots are always on duty awaiting this call? What are they doing with their time? Are planes always gassed and armed, ready to go?

- It looks like fully armed and fueled jets.
- Usually two pilots plus a spare.
- Training or crew rest.

Hope that helps.

T prop wrote:

Probably the brakes smoking. Someone who doesn't know how to taxi would use the brakes to control speed.

This is a really naive question, but how else would you control speed?

Erebus wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

The authorities told the press that it was an illegal maneuver since the ATR was not certified in the aerobatic category. Therefore they would have a talk with Mr Nielsen.

Nielsen told the press that he was sorry that he had done something illegal, but it was no big deal and should be treated as if he had been speeding ten mph too fast on the motorway.

That's nuts. The only way I can take his analogy seriously is if he's also driving blindfolded in a smartcar towards the direction of oncoming traffic.

If you do a barrel roll correctly then it's a positive G maneuver with low Gs. Any plane is able to do it, as there are no negative Gs that would cause trouble with the engines or controls.

ucdtim17 wrote:

smithbs wrote:

Good to see the 142 FW - I visited their base at PDX a couple times for ANG duties and been around the alert hangar and F-15s therein.

So what's this process look like? How many pilots are always on duty awaiting this call? What are they doing with their time? Are planes always gassed and armed, ready to go?

It's a good read how 9/11 changed how USAF approached alert aircraft. Its an interview with one of the scrambled pilots on 9/11.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f- ... 595627a04d

neomax wrote:

T prop wrote:

Probably the brakes smoking. Someone who doesn't know how to taxi would use the brakes to control speed.

This is a really naive question, but how else would you control speed?

I'm assuming you could reduce the throttle to idle and let the plane slow down on its own if it isn't going very fast.

He said "nah I'm a white guy" on the ATC audio. What does he mean by that?

T prop wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

Oh ok was it? I listened to a few videos and none of the ones I listened to have any other aircraft chatter on it. They were modified to only have the comms between ATC and the stolen plane.

AS322 told ATC that he had just passed them on their right as he approached 16C. They also reported that his tires were smoking and that he was now rolling down the runway, and that he had came out of the cargo ramp. It was interesting to listen to. I believe another QX Dash 8 had just departed as well.

Probably the brakes smoking. Someone who doesn't know how to taxi would use the brakes to control speed.

T Prop, I'm assuming you command turboprop aircraft. If so, can't many turboprop aircraft ground speed be controlled by prop pitch? With jets, I would further understand the need for braking. But I was always of the impression that many (if not most) jet-powered props could have their ground speed manipulated by the pitch of their props (beta range - hence that roar you occasionally hear during taxi).

treetreeseven wrote:

He said "nah I'm a white guy" on the ATC audio. What does he mean by that?

I ussumed that to mean he expected to be a victim of affirmative action, not allowed in most civilized countries, but a real thing in the USA.

I remember seeing a thread years ago about why a/c don't have have an ignition key or a code or something to start the engines.

Guy got dismissed by people saying things like "That's such a hassle", "Imagine if someone loses the key" and "Unecessary post 9/11"

Wonder if this will change anything. I mean if only the pilots scheduled on that flight have access to the key and take it with them when the engines are turned off at the gate.. that would cut the possibilities of this happening again by a lot.

plunaaircanada wrote:

I remember seeing a thread years ago about why a/c don't have have an ignition key or a code or something to start the engines.

Guy got dismissed by people saying things like "That's such a hassle", "Imagine if someone loses the key" and "Unecessary post 9/11"

Wonder if this will change anything. I mean if only the pilots scheduled on that flight have access to the key and take it with them when the engines are turned off at the gate.. that would cut the possibilities of this happening again by a lot.

How do they give the key to the next crew? How does maintenance get the key if they need to run the engines?

aden23 wrote:

He was a suicide pilot, they should have taken him out immediately. It is ridiculous that they let him go on. To me this sounds like a major screw up not just on the part of Alaskan, Horizon, SeaTac, but the Air Force as well.

Bradin wrote:

I want to go on record that whoever was on duty for ATC was a class act. Professional, calm, always keeping the conversation encouraging, seeking the best positive resolution for everyone.

I tip my hat to everyone yesterday for a job well done.

Completely different opinions here. I side, of course, with members like Bradin. And luckily there are more people who don't favour the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality.

32andBelow wrote:

plunaaircanada wrote:

I remember seeing a thread years ago about why a/c don't have have an ignition key or a code or something to start the engines.

Guy got dismissed by people saying things like "That's such a hassle", "Imagine if someone loses the key" and "Unecessary post 9/11"

Wonder if this will change anything. I mean if only the pilots scheduled on that flight have access to the key and take it with them when the engines are turned off at the gate.. that would cut the possibilities of this happening again by a lot.

How do they give the key to the next crew? How does maintenance get the key if they need to run the engines?

Here's a scenario for you: Cpt Chesley and FO Jeffery are in the middle of a tricky landing when suddenly dispatch calls them on the company frequency: "Hey, Jeff, did you remember to hand in the keys for N1234UA to the office before taking off? It's not the first time you know!" Jeff: "Sorry, but we're in the middle of something here, can I get back to you?" Dispatch: "Get back, that's exactly my point, you need to land that piece of junk you pretend to fly and do it now!" Jeff: "Ahh, as a matter of fact, that's what we're doing, so if I can call you..." Dispatch: "You call me the second you get on the ground!!!" Jeff: "Well, we sort of just, what do you say... landed, soo, ehrm, it's gonna take a while to get to land" Dispatch:"...say again, you said you landed, but it's gonna take a while ... if you landed you just catch a crew bus ASAP and bring me the keys!" Jeff: "Yeah, the boats are coming, so I guess I'll be there in a while...".

32andbelow, surely you've heard of electronic key tags, right? Each employee in the airline and related contractors could have one and each tag has a specific set of functions that are authorized. There are intricate systems where tags themselves remember updates and refreshes offline card readers with new data if needed, like when a specific tag is revoked or one tags permissions are changed. This would have to be a very reliable system of course, but with the quality of avionics, I doubt that it would be much of a problem. It could be as simple as just controlling the initial power up of critical systems and when powered on, those systems wouldn't need the tag any more. Surely there are technical solutions to this if that's the way airlines would like to go, but the problem would be the cost as always.

/Fredrik

neomax wrote:

T prop wrote:

Probably the brakes smoking. Someone who doesn't know how to taxi would use the brakes to control speed.

This is a really naive question, but how else would you control speed?

I’m guessing that riding the brakes is not a good thing, as it wouldn’t Be in a car. Nor is it the only way of controlling an aircraft, (or car).

plunaaircanada wrote:

Wonder if this will change anything. I mean if only the pilots scheduled on that flight have access to the key and take it with them when the engines are turned off at the gate.. that would cut the possibilities of this happening again by a lot.

I don’t think anything will change, the issue is the person was already trusted to be in the secure area as part of their job function.

Keys do not stop children taking the family car on a joyride, family members gaining access to a gun safe, of military personnel using service weapons. All of these actions have killed far more people every year.

Was this guy's future loading bags at extreme working hours for a minimum wage?

FredrikHAD wrote:

Surely there are technical solutions to this if that's the way airlines would like to go, but the problem would be the cost as always.

/Fredrik

Exactly.
Avionics that would limit access or engine use (for instance limited power for ground staff) would be very expensive to certify.

And let`s face it, this type of "incident" is extremely rare...it seems hardly worth it to implement electronic locks on ALL types of commercial aircraft.

No Tax On Rotax

freakyrat wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

How much harder would it have been to take an Airbus or Boeing? Would that have even been possible?

Who knows. Both aircraft are rather complex and Airbus aircraft are flown with a sidestick which takes awhile getting use to. When you hear the ATC tapes of this incident it's obvious the guy never did the checklist because he never set up the pressurization even though it wasn't needed at lower altitudes he still was getting hypoxic from the high G manuevers he was doing. I really have no answer for your question and if I did I wouldn't post it for obvious security reasons.

There are checklists for Boeing and Airbus planes all over the internet. So there wouldn't be much to stop someone using those. Of course the plane might not be fuelled up very much.

Is this type of event covered by the standard insurance for an aircraft - wilful destruction of the airplane by an employee of the airline?

vfw614 wrote:

Is this type of event covered by the standard insurance for an aircraft - wilful destruction of the airplane by an employee of the airline?

It will be paid out by the airline's war hull clause. Similar to how a vandalism claim would be paid out. Of course minus the deductible or self insured retention.

[quote="ual763"[/quote]

With the serious complexity of sims nowadays, he probably could. Pilots love to think it could never happen and that sims aren’t the same, which they aren’t, but procedurally anyways, they are now the exact same. Only difference being one is real and one is not. But, I sincerely hope this does not lead to restrictions on home-based flight simulators. I’ve already seen some so called experts calling for this on Twitter.[/quote]

They are rather complex. Flightdeck Soluttions makes some pretty realistic ones for IPilot and the first time I took a spin in one when visiting Germany i was pretty sweaty from the concentration. The second time I was pretty relaxed, had an instructor who was rated on the actual aircraft and had more fun. Even got to do some single engine stuff.

After my second session through it there was a young man and his parents who bought him some time for his Birthday. I wouldn't restrict simulation at all as with the shortage of pilot we have this encourages young people to maybe look at a career as a pilot.

mast2407 wrote:

neomax wrote:

T prop wrote:

Probably the brakes smoking. Someone who doesn't know how to taxi would use the brakes to control speed.

This is a really naive question, but how else would you control speed?

I’m guessing that riding the brakes is not a good thing, as it wouldn’t Be in a car. Nor is it the only way of controlling an aircraft, (or car).

When using the rudder peddles in these aircraft I guess this would be fairly common for a person who isn't use to where his foot positon should be. Plus he probably was taxxing with too much speed and was riding the top part of the peddles which are the toe brakes.

It’s unbelievable to know you don’t need a key or password on the screen to start these birds
Try getting into a john deer loader and starting it
It’s going nowhere without the four digit code inputted first

Sad to see that Q-400 treated that way and ending its service like that

The voice recordings of Rich are haunting to listen too
And a reflection of what seems to be the new norm of mental illness for the younger generation
RIP Rich

travelsonic wrote:

ual763 wrote:

pwm2txlhopper wrote:

With the serious complexity of sims nowadays, he probably could. Pilots love to think it could never happen and that sims aren’t the same, which they aren’t, but procedurally anyways, they are now the exact same. Only difference being one is real and one is not. But, I sincerely hope this does not lead to restrictions on home-based flight simulators. I’ve already seen some so called experts calling for this on Twitter.

I would not at all be surprised if home computing has gotten to the point where at home we can have the amount of computing power needed to simulate the physics (just the physics) of an aircraft as accurately as in a full motion simulator from the 80s and 90s.

Do I dare look at the cringe festival that is so called experts calling for restricting flight simulators? Actually, I might be more amused than not - have any links?

The non full motion simulators they have today with the advanced software programs make it very realistic.

No one brought this up and i'm sure Rich's medical records are private but some sleep drugs make people do irrstional and sometimes suicidal things. Some of these drugs caused a friend of mine to take his own life and I know this would have never happened if he wasn't on these.

HPRamper wrote:

Has anyone found a track of his flight path? ... So far I've seen nothing.

My understanding is that the ADS-B transponder was not switched on, so it won't ever appear on sites like FlightRadar24 and FlightAware that use that datafeed. It would still have been tracked on the control centre's actual surveillance radar systems (that is, a "skin-paint" return from aircraft itself) but these tracks are not (AFAIK) made available to the public.

scrumbum wrote:

Finn350 wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

I think some of the BBD test pilots have already done some of these with the Q400 during flight testing.

But surely it must have been the first barrel roll on a Q400 (and I suppose on any modern commercial airliner)?

The 707 might no longer be considered modern, but not the first time at all.
https://youtu.be/-KNbKFMBsQE

Well, a LH-crew tried that unsuccessfully on a training-flight with a B-720 (D-ABOP) in July 1964. They managed to complete one roll, but the second one attempted immediately afterwards was one too far:

»A complete roll was flown, but while attempting a second roll, the plane went out of control in the inverted position. The Boeing became overstressed, disintegrated and crashed in flames between Petersdorf and Forst.«
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19640715-0

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC72N9M_fatale-fassrolle-der-absturz-der-boeing-720

Hard to understand how this Rich Russel - guy yesterday, who apparently never before had flown an aircraft, managed to fly this barrel roll and moreover avoided impacting the sea and successfully kept control over the a/c.
Unbelievable.

Mortyman wrote:

N415XJ wrote:

Geez, what's with everyone stealing regional jets these days? I mean, if you're going to do something as idiotic as steal a commercial plane at least go all in and grab something cool like an A380 or 787.
.

Would one person be able to take off and fly an A380 ?

Sure...why not?

If a plane is not parked nose first at a gate, anybcommercial plane is stealable.

Pull the chocks, start the engines and go.