Factual error: There is absolutely no way the villains could remotely recalibrate the instruments on the plane itself. Even if it would be possible to remotely readjust the ILS glideslope - which it isn't - the pilot would've noticed their approach angle being suspiciously steep on the attitude indicator and the aircraft's radar altimeter would've given a terrain warning. (00:52:44)
Question: Stewart gives the tower 2 minutes to talk to planes and tell them to hold at the outer marker. Why didn't they just use that 2 minutes to say they are under attack or something and to land elsewhere? They could have said it quickly and the bad guys wouldn't have had enough time to turn their communications off.
Answer: Because then the movie would be over. The filmmakers have said that they included deliberate mistakes in the plot so that actual terrorists would not be able to "recreate" the scenario in real life. This is one of those instances where, in reality, the control tower WOULD do what you say, but in an action film, it's a deliberate deviation from reality in order to advance the plot.
Answer: Because the Control Tower employees would have been murdered or some innocent person. The Terrorists could have taken over given the wrong landing coordinates to crash a plane as punishment, as they did later on in the movie.
That's not how it would work. If the tower tells all the planes that someone has taken over their systems, and they've lost all control, then the terrorists wouldn't be able to crash any planes because the pilots would already be aware of it. It's simply because like the other reply said, if the tower warned the planes during the time Stewart gives them, then there would be no film.
Corrected entry: Right before The Windsor flight crashes, the stewardess tells two passengers that they've made arrangements so they would make their next flight. Obviously this could only be done with communication with the ground. If they had sky phones the tower would have called them to warn what was happening.
Correction: This isn't a mistake, this is ordinary customer service. She is assuming her company would arrange travel for the inconvenienced passengers because airlines typically do. She doesn't know anything about the terrorists, Barnes hasn't yet been able to contact the flight crews to tell them what's really going on.
Disagree, she'd say "we will have." or similar. Any customer-facing staff would know not to promise something they cannot guarantee. She would assure them that arrangements should have been taken care of and she'd update them as soon as she knew more. Also, why was she only now, after all this time, reassuring them. If she truly believed the company would have already taken care of arrangements, she'd have told them this a long time ago.
Question: The reporter asks John about the body at the airport. "I saw the stiff, word is that's your handiwork." John responds "I only do needle point". What was that supposed to mean?
Chosen answer: His way of dodging the question, of being sarcastic as he tries to get away from the reporter, trying to push the blame off himself and needlepoint being a craft/hobby that everyone is familiar with.
What was he being sarcastic about?
He was being sarcastic about needlepoint (a type of embroidery or hand stitching) being his only handiwork.
Answer: I believe it was in response to the reporter who said, "Rumor has it that was your handiwork" (the handiwork being killing of one of the stiffs).
Corrected entry: The plane crashes into the runway because they think they are higher than they really are, but the runway lights are never turned on. I'm no pilot, but I don't think a pilot would try to land a plane on an unlit runway.
Correction: A pilot got in touch with me about this: If necessary we will land a plane without runway lights - there is this thing called an ILS (instrument landing system) which they used to land the plane. If not tampered with you would be able to land the plane safely. On the other hand with that much snow on the runway, no plane would be able to land, not enough space to stop the planes. Another thing there is is a safe altitude and approach slope warning that would have went off no matter what the ILS was telling them.
They think they can't see the lights due to the storm, and are flying through clouds. I've seen and been on planes that have taken off and/or landed in heavy fog. The pilots are assuming the lights are on, and they just can't see them yet.
Question: When McClane asks Barnes to 'break the code' on one of the baddies' Walkie Talkies, Barnes tells him it is impossible as it is a 10 button device with a 6 digit readout..."There could be a million combinations!" How can there be a million combinations? Surely the largest number on a 6 digit readout is 999,999.
Answer: You forgot 000000.
Answer: Totally agree with the other answer, but also, someone saying, "There could be a million combinations!" can also just be a deliberate hyperbole, and never meant to be taken literally. It's like saying, "I told you that a thousand times already."
Except that a 6-digit code literally has a million combinations. It's not hyperbole at all.
Oh really? No kidding? Never disputed that there was one million combinations. The character, however, could have intended his comment as a hyperbolized, off-the-cuff remark that was not meant to be an exact number count. He said, "There COULD be a million combinations!" He did not say, "There are precisely one million combinations." He could have meant it either way. There was more than one way to interpret what he said.
This is a strange situation because the wording suggests that Barnes is using hyperbole ("there COULD be a million combinations..."), but mathematically the number of possible combinations with a 0-9 keypad and a 6 digit readout is exactly 1 million (10x10x10x10x10x10 = 1,000,000). So he is technically not using hyperbole but that was his intent. So it's both hyperbole and not hyperbole at the same time. It's kind of fascinating, actually.
Factual error: When the terrorist clears the nearly fuel-exhausted plane to land on the lowered ILS, the terrorist says, "Windsor 114, you are cleared to land on Dulles Runway 29, ILS." Problem is: There is no Runway 29 at Dulles. The closest runway alignment for a 290 degree heading is Runway 30. (00:53:35)
Suggested correction: Runway numbers are based on the magnetic heading of the runway, and since the earth's magnetic field is in constant motion, a runway's magnetic heading can and does change over time. As an example, my local airport's main runway is 30/12, but 10 years ago it was numbered 31/13. Therefore, it is possible that in 1990, what is now runway 30 at Dulles was numbered 29.
Random guesswork isn't a valid correction. A simple google search will show that runway 30 at Dulles has been called that since it was opened in 1962. In 1990 there were 3 runways at Dulles: 1C/19C, 1R/19L, and 12/30.
Corrected entry: Since the terrorists have implausibly taken over all the radios at the airport, the good guys use the marker beacons to communicate with the airplanes. Even if they could be modified to talk rather than beep, marker beacons (outer, middle and inner) are on the approach path of a runway, and only transmit to an aircraft as it passes overhead. The signal is only picked up by an aircraft's marker beacon receiver, if so equipped. There is not enough time to get a message. Nor could a marker beacon be used to broadcast to a large number of airplanes. The outer marker is only 5 miles from the airport. At most, one airplane would be holding over the outer marker. (01:04:45 - 01:06:10)
Correction: Marker beacons do not transmit on-demand when passed over. They are continuous. You are correct that an aircraft needs to be equipped to hear them, which most airlines were at that time period. You can have multiple aircraft "stacked" at an outer marker, separated 1,000ft vertically. As one shoots the approach, the rest are lowered in queue.
The wording of the original post might need some polishing, but the gist of it is true. While a marker beacon does broadcast constantly (which was demonstrated by the endless looping of Barnes' message), its range is very limited so that the marker is picked up only for the few seconds that an approaching aircraft is flying over it. Otherwise, the point of HAVING marker beacons would be moot... you don't want a pilot thinking they're 5 miles out and close to the glide slope if they are in fact 7 miles out and 5000 feet too high.
Corrected entry: Prior to the 747 take off, Major Grant is sucked by one of the engines and all we see is blood being spit from its exhaust. Turbofans are very sensitive and would collapse after sucking a heavy bird (like a vulture), but this one remains intact after sucking a 200 lb man. (01:47:40)
Correction: Turbofan engines are specifically designed not to break during bird strikes and are tested using bird cannons to make sure they can continue to operate when hit. A man was sucked through a 737 engine on the ground in 2006 - photos are online of the aftermath, which is horrifically messy, of course, but surprisingly only a few blades are damaged. No doubt not good for the engine, but not totally destructive either.
Tell that to Captain Sullenberger and the passengers of US Airways 1549. Their plane's engines were completely disabled by some Canada Geese.
Correction: Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320. They could well have the same type of engine (CFM56s), but it is also not impossible the 737's may be different, depending on when it was built.
Question: Can someone please put to bed a question that has been raised and not answered...why would the terrorists try to blow McClane up with grenades that have enough of a delay to make a quick coffee in?
Answer: There is no in-universe explanation...they didn't go to an arms dealer and say, "Give us your longest-fused grenades, we want to give our target a sporting chance." There is no deleted scene where Col. Stuart wonders aloud why those grenades took so long to explode, while making himself a coffee. This-the hero in a deadly situation and escaping in the nick of time, regardless of how long grenades actually take to explode in the real world-is an action movie trope and nothing more, in a film that is chock full of them. It would be a pretty sad movie, not to mention a bad one, if McClane got blown to bits by grenades, and the bad guys won.
But surely they could have filmed this scene in slo-mo to stretch out the 7 second delay to whatever it becomes, OR edited it in such a way it appears to take longer when it actually doesn't?
The grenade fuse time is deliberately lengthened so the audience can process what is happening. The audience has to see the danger of the grenades, understand that McClane must get out of the cockpit without the bad guys shooting him, see McClane think of the ejector seat plan, and then execute that plan. It's ridiculously unrealistic but McClane is meant to be clever and resourceful so the audience has to see him work out the problem. If you used slo-mo it would make it seem like McClane instantly figured out a solution, which would make him look superhuman.
Answer: It's worth noting that they wouldn't have to pull the pins out of all the grenades, just one. That one would cause the others to explode as well.
Corrected entry: When Willis is in the pilot's seat of Esperanza's plane, he ejects when grenades are thrown in by the terrorists. First of all, those aircraft are sealed tight and have no canopy or hatches to blow off for an ejection. In that case, ejection seats would be useless. Also in that scene, multiple grenades are thrown in the cockpit, yet it takes 23 seconds before any of them blow. The type of grenades they were using, which were US issue, have a fuse no longer than 7-8 seconds upon release.
Correction: Some C-123 Sherpa (Esperanza's plane type) transport aircraft are equipped with ejection seats. The V-22 Osprey's model is so equipped for example.
And the grenade explosion time?
That's why it's suggested people only put in 1 mistake per entry and not combining mistakes, since part would be wrong. It's not up to the corrector to correct every part of the mistake entry, just the part that's wrong. If you think the grenade part is a valid mistake, make an entry.
Esperanza's plane is NOT a C123 Sherpa, which is a twin turboprop cargo aircraft with a square profile fuselage, fixed undercarriage and a twin vertical tail. It looks nothing like the weird (and completely fictional) aircraft in this film.
Continuity mistake: When the army truck arrives at the 747 hangar, we see a line of snow on the ground behind it. The actual truck has no snow on it at all, despite its journey to the hangar.
Suggested correction: Snow doesn't generally accumulate on a moving vehicle. Anything resting on the vehicle will blow off once it's in motion unless it's very wet and/or heavy.
As a truck driver, I can tell you that the conditions shown would have snow accumulating on a moving vehicle at least in some places.
Factual error: Firing a full magazine of blank cartridges from an automatic weapon in the police station office as McClane does would be painfully loud. Nobody shows the slightest effect - nobody even winces. Some of the men wince slightly but their reaction is grossly underplayed. Obviously the sound was looped in later. (01:37:40)
Suggested correction: Every person jumps/winces and cowers out of the way of the bullets, one other officer even draws his gun in response.
What has never made any sense to me about this is that in a room full of cops everyone just stands around watching McClane seemingly gun down their Chief and only one officer even bothers to draw his gun.
Probably because everyone hates the chief. I wondered about that too.
Suggested correction: What makes the loud bang from guns is not the explosion of the gunpowder, but the bullet itself breaking the sound barrier as it leaves the gun. It's very noticeable when a gun fires a blank because it's so much quite, as the only sound is the small pop of the gunpowder inside. It's little more than the sound of a firecracker, but even more muffled by being inside metal.
Makes you wonder this gun makes the same sound as a gun loaded with real bullets, then. You can't have it both ways.
I have shot blank and live with the military. Both are loud, but sound different. More of a crack with live.
Blanks are very loud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6PESH5LSE0.
Corrected entry: When Esperanza shoots the pilot of his plane the sound of the engine changes its pitch immediately. Why does it do that? It is not as if the pilot's foot slid off the accelerator when he died. (01:10:45)
Correction: When the pilot was shot, he leaned forward on the control column, which would've started the plane into a dive. When Esperanza pulls him off the controls, the sound returns to normal, consistent with the plane leveling off again.
Even so, the plane going into a dive shouldn't cause a change in engine speed (or by extension, tone). Wind noise would change, but what we hear is the engine spooling up to full power. That shouldn't happen.
Plot hole: The only reason the terrorists' plot can work is that the airports around Dulles are all closed to landings because of the violent snowstorm. If there were no storm, the pilots of the airliners in the holding pattern would simply divert to nearby airports when they started running low on fuel. If they were able to do that, the whole plot would simply fall apart. How were the terrorists able to count on the storm happening on the very day General Esperanza's flight was due to land? They didn't have any influence over the date of his flight. How did they know the storm would be so bad that all airports would be closed - except Dulles? I don't think they had any way of predicting the weather quite that accurately, and If the storm hadn't hit or had been even slightly less severe the pilots of the stranded airliners could easily have diverted to any one of half a dozen alternate landing sites, including a nearby Air Force base. They could do this without consulting or even contacting air traffic control. The whole plot falls apart from there - no hostages, no leverage, and who cares what happens to the people on Esperanza's plane? They'd have it shot down as soon as they knew Esperanza had killed the pilot and taken over the flight.
Suggested correction: The terrorists in the film planned extensively for this operation, but the storm occurring may have just been a coincidence for them. They may also have had the plan waiting for a perfect opportunity, like a snowstorm. In the beginning of the movie, there's a news story on while the Colonel is exercising nude. The story says Esperanza's extradition has been long and drawn out, until a phone call from..." and he cuts the TV off. Given his connections, Colonel Stewart may well have been able to arrange a State Department call the week of a predicted snow storm. Esperanza's adherents may also have been able. Another scenario they may have had is to take the Air Traffic Controllers hostage (as they did) and have the other aircraft diverted for a supposed emergency, but the snowstorm worked out. Whatever the case, that element of the plot is an interesting discussion, not a mistake.
If the storm hadn't hit the pilots of the stranded airliners could easily have diverted to any one of half a dozen alternates, including a nearby Air Force base. They could do this without consulting or even contacting air traffic control. The whole plot falls apart from there - no hostages, no leverage, and who cares what happens to the people on the Esperanza's plane? They'd have it shot down.
That bothered me too when I first saw this in theatres. The chances of it snowing in D.C. on any particular day are pretty low, and the plan falls apart without it. The only way to 'fix' this is to assume that when the film was originally written, it was set in New York City. This makes more sense thematically...with the original set in Los Angeles. But at some point, probably late in the production, they changed it to D.C. for some reason, and made it fit as best they could.
The snowstorm was not part of the plan. Early on when the group of terrorists is sitting around the table about to exchange the package, Cochran is listening to a weather report and states that a huge storm is approaching, which makes the other men smile and one of them responds "God loves the infantry." The terrorists could still crash planes without the snow storm because they could impersonate the tower. The planes that are circling overhead are the planes that didn't have enough fuel to be diverted to another airport and that has nothing to do with a snow storm. The blizzard was simply fortuitous for the terrorists.
The airliners we see could easily glide to any one of seven nearby airports from the airspace over Dulles, let alone fly there when fuel began running low.
That is a separate issue (and is indeed a mistake in the film) that doesn't really have anything to do with the blizzard. This film acts as if Baltimore Washington International or Richmond International Airport don't exist.
And since they do, it is both a plot hole and a factual error. If they had called their fictional airport Springfield International, fine, but they didn't. They identified it as Dulles International which is within easy flying - or gliding - time to half a dozen other airports.
This is possible that other airports were closed due to bad weather.
Which necessitates the terrorists knowing that! They had to know the storm was coming for their plan to work. The stranded airlines could easily have diverted to an alternative even if that meant gliding, and they could do so without consulting air traffic control.
The terrorist obviously knew that. They are very arrogant and planned everything very accurately. They knew that other airports are closed because of the bad weather.
The airports were closed AFTER Esperanza's flight took off. The storm is an essential part of the terrorist's plans. Storms like the one we see can can diminish very rapidly or veer away from their original course (I have seen both happen) and cannot, ever, be counted on to the meticulous extent the terrorists do.
Suggested correction: If the pilots are given an incorrect altimeter setting (outside barometric pressure), then yes, they can be fooled as to their altitude.
Even if the pilots would've been given an incorrect QFE for the barometric altimeter, the radio altimeter would've still given the correct altitude, and there's nothing the bad guys could do to mess with it.