The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

[Twist_U_Up]

http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm

by Nila Sagadevan

There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.

more.....

<snip>
To get an idea of what Hanjour would have seen from his seat at 35,000 feet, please see photo below (Note altimeter reading ):



The author recently received a letter from a senior 757 captain currently flying with one of the airlines involved in 9/11. It contains the following statement:

“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”




<snip>
The differences in complexity between a Cessna 150 and Boeing 757 are indescribably huge. Twenty-five years ago, I transitioned from an 18,000-lb, 28-passenger twin-turboprop commuter aircraft, to a 150,000-lb, 4-engined turboprop freighter. After several thousand hours of flight time in the smaller aircraft (which was ten times heavier and far more complex than a Cessna trainer) and then two months of ground school and flying the simulators of the more advanced aircraft for 20 hours, I was still in ‘information overload’ for the first few weeks of flying the latter.

I find it impossible to believe that someone who couldn't solo a Cessna 172 could navigate his way back across two States to the target and execute a diving spiral from high altitude, at a very high rate of descent but without overspeeding or overstressing the aircraft to the point of shedding parts (a very narrow margin for error), and then line up on the most difficult approach to the Pentagon to hit the side that was virtually unoccupied.

[Kai]

1. The perpetrators

can count on the ignorance of the public over what a technical and often counter-intuitive activity flying an aircraft can be. From my own experiences in a Cessna, I cannot imagine trying to transfer the unique elements of flying a light aircraft weighing 2500 pounds with a top speed of about 140 miles per hour to a 130,000. pound 757 going 500 miles per hour. You could compare it to attempting to pilot a Navy destroyer after learning all you know about seamanship from skidding around the harbor one summer in a motorboat.

[FourScore]

100. LOL

Great analogy!:D

[hack89]

2. So one instructor makes a comment about one hijacker ..

and all of a sudden none of them can fly worth a damn? Kind of a shaky foundation for a smoking gun wouldn't you think? Is that the best you have? Why don't you try to make your case by detailing the flight experience of each hijacker first - then it would be obvious one way or the other whether they had the ability to pull it off.

[savemefromdumbya]

53. whoever did it must have been 'inhuman'

[spooked911]

59. did you even read the article? why don't you.

[hack89]

61. I did. nt

[Debunking911]

3. Not as hard as Conspiracy theorist suggest...

They flew this flight sim



And were found with this...





And more.

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php?sortby=datedesc

The idea that all they had was some cessna training is deceptive. Clearly thay had more.

[file83]

6. But holding the yoke during level flight and making a precision

strike on a building (3 times) are two completely different things. Those "training sessions" in the simulator aren't just "free play around time" - they are monitored for performance by their trainers - and those hijackers NEVER had ANY experience or practice flying a full sized commercial jet (with various loads of passengers, fuel, cargo) in different kinds of cross winds and weather into buildings in those simulators.

So to go from saying they had some experience in a simulator (and had a few cockpit diagrams) to having the kind of expert level piloting required to make the kinds of precision approaches required to hit those buildings, simply doesn't hold water.

And to bolster the claim that these hijackers were NOT very "experienced", and in fact, totally incompetent in the cockpit, just listen to this description of the hijackers on Flight 93:

Confused hijackers on Flight 93

[greyl]

10. The specific degree of precision simply isn't known.

How can it be?
All we know(most of us) is that the planes hit huge buildings.

It's curious how some will sometimes say that the terrorists showed too much skill during the attacks, and then at other times say they showed too little during the attacks.
Sometimes in the same thread.

[file83]

11. You don't understand what you are reading.

PRECISION.
Flying a commercial airliner between the edges of a building (WTC towers) just barely wider than the wings of the aircraft at high speed is considered a very "precise" hit.
Flying a commercial airliner between the roof and ground of a 45 ft building (Pentagon) without hitting the ground nor overshooting the roof at highspeed is considered a very "precise" hit.

SKILLS OF TERRORISTS.
The seeming contradiction of the "skills" of the terrorists is one of the core arguments AGAINST the official 9/11 story. On one hand, we have all learned that the men who supposedly flew the planes on 9/11 were very poor pilots with low skill from the flight instructors that trained them at the flight schools.

We have also learned from the latest Flight 93 audio recordings and the reporters that listened to the tapes that the terrorists were very confused in the cockpit of UA 93, making mistakes.

So, despite all that, the Government is trying to sell us the idea that it was these SAME incompetent hijackers that made the PRECISION strikes which are very difficult maneuvers to pull off. VERY DIFFICULT.

Keep in mind, if the supposed hijackers were ACTUALLY the pilots that performed these amazing aerial stunts on Flights AA 11, UA 175, AA 77, they did this during their FIRST HOUR OF REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE flying said jet liners (not just "simulator" experience).

That's like playing Grand Turismo 3 on PlayStation 2 for 40 hours, and then expecting to win a REAL CAR RACE the FIRST HOUR YOU DROVE THE REAL CARS. It's a completely implausible story.

[greyl]

12. Ummm. Do you think that CNN reporter is intelligent?

In addition to being a dingbat who works for CNN, she was clearly emotionally distressed to some degree while giving her report.
Does your belief that the hijackers were "confused" rest primarily on her interpretation and relation of the recording?
Do you suppose the hijackers rehearsed the attacks with a flight simulator and that they should have been cool, calm, collected, and infallible?

[file83]

14. I read the transcript - yes, it read like they were confused.

[greyl]

15. Did you post the transcript?

I'm not aware that you did.
I know that you posted an audio file of a dingbat CNN reporter to support your incoherent POV.

[file83]

16. Find the transcript yourself.

If you haven't caught up on current events and downloaded a copy of the UA93 voice recorder transcript for yourself, that's not my problem. So don't whine to me about your own short comings. Find it yourself.

[greyl]

17. I have the transcript saved as .html

Your point is becoming less sharp.

[file83]

18. Then WTF are you asking me to post it for? Do you ever try to make sense?

:rofl: Dude, have you been drinking?

[greyl]

19. I didn't ask you to post it. nt

[savemefromdumbya]

55. many of the so alled hijackers are stil alive

and the others didn't exist in the first place!

[libhill]

105. Bingo -

Interestin'. Ain't it? And I have to wonder how it is, that the Government claims to this day that the 9/11 attacks were a total surprise. But I recall that within hours of the attacks, names and faces of at least some of the alleged hijackers were being broadcast on television. Amazing how fast they pulled all the pieces together. Since we're supposed to believe that they caught with their pants down. Yeah, uh huh.

[smb]

20. Puh-leeze...

those hijackers NEVER had ANY experience or practice flying a full sized commercial jet (with various loads of passengers, fuel, cargo) in different kinds of cross winds and weather into buildings in those simulators

Gee, I wonder if that's why they picked a CLEAR STILL DAY to commit their outrage. :eyes:

[spooked911]

37. how on earth did they manage to control the weather?????

granted, they apparently had some amazing powers, but I don't think they were able to predict the weather perfectly.

[smb]

46. You're Kidding, Right?

Obviously, the goons got into place and waited until the forecast indicated nice clear skies, then the Grand High Supreme Goon gave the go-code.

[spooked911]

58. I assume you are joking?

supposedly the date was planned far in advance

[file83]

79. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they LUCKED OUT by picking

a day that they got perfect weather AND the same day there were at least 4 separate War Game plane crash/hijacking scenarios being carried out by our government. Yeah, just blind luck. :eyes:

[savemefromdumbya]

54. but even then

it is impossible to fly like that

[MrSammo1]

91. it is impossible to fly like that

Let's not bring any logic into this discussion.

Flying a 757 six feet off the ground at high speed is perfectly normal in neocon world!

Even if it isn't physically possible in real life............it was that day!

Got it?

[Chomp]

4. "Impossibility"

is an awfully big word, in more ways than one.

[Ezlivin]

5. If you're a pilot and have something to say, go ahead

I earned my pilot's license and I'll say that the arguments put forth by Nila Sagadevan are very good.

Fellow pilots also think that it is "impossible" that the terrorist hijackers we've been shown were capable of doing what was claimed.

I've flown flight simulators and I've flown real aircraft; there is very little comparison. You can rack up all the hours you want in a flight simulator and you will never earn a pilot's license.

If the hijackers were gifted pilots, why did they fail to qualify to rent a Cessna? Hell, I can't walk and I was able to wheel out to an airport and convince them that me, a paralyzed guy in a wheelchair, could be trusted with their aircraft. How bad were these guys?

[file83]

7. Thanks for contributing that Ezlivin. It's important to have a realistic

perspective on the relationships between simulators and real flight and how much they differ. When you consider the fact that these hijackers were only on their FIRST HOUR OF REAL FLIGHT in those Boeing jets when they supposedly managed to make precision strikes on 3 buildings - it goes beyond all anything that is believable.

That only leaves us with two other choices - either they hijackers that were piloting those planes were completely different individuals than what the OFFICIAL story claims, or those planes were controlled by a third party (either some advanced on-board avioncs autopilot system OR remotely controlled).

I don't know what really happened, but I do know that there is no way in hell those guys flew those planes.

[Kai]

8. Let us not forget

that while one of them was flying the jet liner with aerobatic precision, four of them were holding off sixty passengers with deadly box cutters.



_____________________:eyes:

[greyl]

13. Fear is a powerful damn motivator.

As far as we know, the passengers thought that if they didn't cause trouble, they would live.
Retail stores have been robbed using no weapons whatsoever.

Look around. Iran has no nuclear weapons, yet some gullible people are afraid of them.

[Kai]

21. Thanks for the insight,

more good, solid "common sense" debunking to subdue whacked-out conspiracy nutcases. This forum is starting to feel like a Bushbot playground. Once again, the official explanation, on the face of it seems completely ridiculous but "impartial", "common sense" consideration reveals that the official story is the only thing that could have happened. Terrific. Now tell us how we're winning in Iraq.

[HughBeaumont]

34. I'm starting to think the same thing.

About the "Bushbot Playground" thing. Sorry, but I DO believe this adminstration IS "that bad". Worse, if you want my opinion. I especially don't buy the whole 4 on 40-something "box cutter" thing.

[mirandapriestly]

80. Now , Ward....;)

[MrSammo1]

92. This forum is starting to feel like a Bushbot playground

Means only one thing!

The neocons are getting a little worried!

[petgoat]

50. Passengers who were presumably armed with blankets,

briefcases, belts, and seatbelt buckles.

[MrSammo1]

93. briefcases, belts, and seatbelt buckles.

Oh My!


===============================================================
"Mom? This is Mark Bingham."
===============================================================

[politrix]

98. Oh, SHIT!! WARN US Before You Show The BOXCUTTERS!!

Scared the shit out of me. Truly frightening...

[Jazz2006]

75. I'll go further than that and say that ....

if you've ever flown a large aircraft, even without simulator training, you will realize how easy it really can be and how irrelevant flight simulator training can be.

[greyl]

9. Do you know why Nila isn't in the FAA database?

Do you know why he shouldn't be considered an expert in flying 757s?
Do you know what his name was before he changed it?
Did you know that your first photo doesn't show a plane in flight and that the altimeter reading is faked?
You may contact him here:
www.warpaintofthegods.com/wp/contactformwp.cfm

And once again, how do you know that the plane hit its target exactly where it was intended to?

Here's just one of the discussions on the net with actual pilots about Sagadevan's article.

[Kai]

23. Attaboy,

parse it out, attack credibility, move the discussion down to a microscopic level until we lose track of what we were talking about in the first place. I do not currently hold a pilot's license but I have flown light aircraft and I know damned well that there is no way that I could have stepped out of a Cessna and a flight simulator and piloted a Boeing 757 with the level of precision that these planes supposedly were piloted.

To save you the trouble of actually scrolling up and reading my original post, here it is again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=82058&mesg_id=82061

Here's a selection from the enlightened discussion you linked in your post:

rom: anon
Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 11:18 am
Email: anon <[e-mail]>
Groups: rec.aviation.piloting, rec.aviation.homebuilt, rec.aviation.student, alt.politics
Not yet rated
Rating:
show options

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

If you are claiming that the lives of the passengers and crews of these
aircraft were not lost and that they are part of a larger conspiracy, I
wouldn't mind putting a bullet in your head.

Among others, you are indicting many that have distinguished themselves
in the defense of this country.

You are an idiot that hasn't taken the time to research the facts,
instead relying on the conclusions of like-minded nut cases that never
were interested in the facts or are just insane.

[Maven]

49. Gee, that certainly looks like a reputable discussion group

I stopped reading after one poster called people who doubt the official story "clueless ragheads." :eyes:

[greyl]

76. Gee, so does this one. nt

[petgoat]

51. I don't see any discussion. I see an assertion to which nobody

responded.

I also see a bunch of assertions on your part that you do not support in any way.

[Chomp]

22. Hang on a moment...

Surely the only question is: how experienced were the 3/6 pilots/co-pilots who actually flew the planes on 9/11? Do we know for sure that they were of limited experience?

I don't buy any of the tinfoil hat stuff at all. But I will conceed that if all the experience the piltos had was a bit of Cessna and simulator training and they managed to hit 3 targets out of 3 in jet planes, then that is a quite startling feat.

However, I think a far more likely explanation for all this is:

a. The pilots were more experienecd than some are suggesting
b. They perhaps had a "lucky day". Even if there was only a 20% chance that all 3 would hit, 20% is not an imporssibility by any stretch of the imagination.

[Kai]

24. This is really rich:

b. They perhaps had a "lucky day". Even if there was only a 20% chance that all 3 would hit, 20% is not an imporssibility by any stretch of the imagination.

Compelling. You should rethink this. And while you're working on your argument, please do something about your spelling and syntax. Thanks.

[greyl]

25. What time do you stop mocking and begin

contributing?

[Kai]

30. I don't know what's wrong with me.

Let me try to get my head straight. What really happened (from another poster whose explanation makes perfect sense now that I'm thinking right.):

WTC 1 & 2

Each tower had a large jumbo jet fly into the building at a high rate of speed. This impact damaged the building structure, it's life safety systems, and started massive fires over a large area. The combination of the damaged structure and fires weakening the steel, allowed the building to collapse.

WTC 7

This building was damaged by the collapse of the WTC towers. Fires were allowed to burn for many hours. The structure was a unique design due to the substation inside. There was also large fuel oil tanks inside that most likely added to the fires. The bottom line is the building collapsed because the unique design lacked redundancy.

Pentagon

Very bad stuff happens when a jumbo jet crashed into a building.


I feel better now. But, listen I gotta go, terror alert is magenta and that means I've got to duct tape the windows and lay in a supply of canned tuna. See you at the Rapture, toodles.

[greyl]

77. I have a pretty good idea. nt

[Chomp]

26. Kai

I'll sort out my syntax if you sort out your manners. Deal?

Given that I've have an excellent education and you clearly have had a very bad upbringing, I suspect I'll get there first.

Luv and kises.

[Kai]

28. "kises"?

:loveya:

[Chomp]

31. Oh you are a humourless moran

[Kai]

32. Let me think about that

and get back to you.

[KJF]

27. The Phillipines

The 9/11 Timeline says:

1998-2000: Atta and Alshehhi Are Seen Living in Philippines
Hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi live periodically in the town of Mabalacat, Philippines. They stay in the Woodland Resort hotel and apparently learn to fly planes at a nearby flight school. Although Philippine and US investigators have not been able to confirm their presence in Mabalacat, locals are certain they saw them frequently partying, drinking alcohol, sleeping with local women, and consorting with many other, Unknown Arabs (most of whom disappear shortly before 9/11). For instance, according to a former waitress at the hotel, Alshehhi throws a party in December 1999 with six or seven Arab friends: “They rented the open area by the swimming pool for 1,000 pesos. They drank Johnnie Walker Black Label whiskey... They came in big vehicles, and they had a lot of money. They all had girlfriends.” Several employees recall Atta staying at the hotel during the summer of 1999, acting unfriendly and cheap. One hotel employee claims that most of the guests were Arab, and many took flying lessons at the nearby school. These witnesses claim the two used aliases, but the other Arabs referred to Atta as “Mohamed.” Apparently, other hijackers and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed visit the Philippines during this time. However, according to the official version of events, Atta and Alshehhi are in Hamburg, Germany, during this time. Atta is still working on his thesis, which he completes in late 1999.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_alleged_9/11_hijackers=mohamedAtta

Moussaoui was also sent to learn to fly in Asia before going to the US.

And don't forget Osama had a fleet of Boeings - maybe he lent Atta and Co. one of his to practice.

[Bouvet_Island]

52. How did you arrive at the 20% number?

Like, based on what? DO you think if you would repeat it with people with no real flight experience, that you would have 20% complete successfully? An odds at 20% for all three planes hitting means you put the odds for each case at 80% for hitting the towers or pentagon, or higher at the towers if you are to account for a difference in difficulty. I'd say 20% would probably be a high possibility for anything like a *good* hit from any of the planes if you were to reproduce it with unexperienced pilots, no matter their zeal and lust for virgins. I find it hard to believe Bin Laden would be able to calculate a high likelyhood of the planes not being intercepted as well. I find it hard to believe he would have such good access to army and fligth controller procedures to know not only of normal procedures but say, a favorable day, and then have the luck that the particular day would coincide with the number to 911. The missions were planned years in advance. How could he be sure there hadn't been changes? There were many successful interceptions the year before.

The planes did not only hit their targets, they were all inside the red circle, clean hits. Its not that a fella like Bin Laden could have satisfied with hitting the ballpark, just have them crashing in New york and maybe one or even two in the WTC. Crashing it on the doorstep of the pentagon would clearly put him on top of them, defeating their defences and tearing down their image. It is the proportion of their luck that is hard to believe. Incredibly difficult and dangerous maneuver and say so hit matches incompetent pilots. Or simple maneuvers and incredible hit. Incredibly difficult maneuver and incredbible hit though doesn't, and even just one case (a minimum) generally wouldn't be acceptable outside hollywood. He wouldn't have to be lucky just one or two times, he would have to continually get 0 or 00s on the roulette table, say one for every second. Because any error way back there wouldn't afford him even a bad hit. If you are not willing to believe Allah led their hands, you probably have doubts about the official story, it doesn't mean you believe that they were remote controlled from mars.

[HamdenRice]

29. Let's get the "Cessna story" straight, before we argue about it

The OP is about 9/11 hikackers "proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172" performing the downward spiral maneuver that some pilots have said is nearly impossible to accomplish.

I think this OP refers to Hani Hanjour, the pilot who is alleged to have flown a plane into the Pentagon. It was Hanjour who was refused permission to rent a Cessna by a flight school because he was judged incompetent to fly a Cessna. This not about all the pilots. It's about Hanjour, proven to be incompetent who is alleged to have carried out the most difficult maneuver of 9/11.

[sabbat hunter]

33. auto pilot

correct me if i am wrong but
1)cant one program the auto pilot with the course heading and let the computer fly it most of the way?
2) isnt the hardest part of flying an aircraft the take off and landing? that "Flying" the craft is easier in comparison.

[Kai]

35. You are so right Sabbat Hunter!

After reading over the description on the Boeing website it is clear to me
that piloting a Boeing 757 is probably easier than maneuvering a Toro
riding mower around your quarter acre of lawn. Everything is automated!
What happened is plain as day to me now. The hijackers just waited until
the commercial pilot completed the hard part, taking off, and then they
just subdued the flight crew with their deadly box cutters, set the controls
on “Pentagon” or “WTC1” or “WTC2” “Direct Hit”, “Flight level = Aerobatic” and
kicked back until they were delivered to Allah and their forty virgins.
If the passengers tried to raise a ruckus, they just brandished their box cutters.
Simple. I don’t know why the tin foil hat guys can’t handle this. I guess their
partisan fervor and Bush Hatred blinds them to reason. God Bless em.

It’s probably harder to program a DVR than fly a 757, it practically flys itself.
Just read over this excerpt from the Boeing website entry on the extensive
automation on this puppy:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200back.html
Flight Deck

The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crew member operation, pioneered
the use of digital electronics and advanced displays. Those offer increased
reliability and advanced features compared to older electro-mechanical instruments.

A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS)
provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately
after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors
controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management
system assures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight
profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated
air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features
are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS)
flight management computer.

The captain and the first officer each have a pair of electronic displays for
primary flight instrumentation. The electronic attitude director indicator
displays airplane attitude and autopilot guidance cues. The electronic
horizontal situation indicator displays a video map of navigation aids,
airports, and the planned airplane route and can display a weather-radar
image over these ground features.

The engine indicating and crew alerting system, often called EICAS, monitors
and displays engine performance and airplane system status before takeoff.
It also provides caution and warning alerts to the flight crew if necessary.
EICAS monitoring also aids ground crews by providing maintenance information.

The 757-200 is available with a wind shear detection system that alerts flight
crews and provides flight-path guidance to cope with it. Wind shear, caused by
a violent down-burst of air that changes speed and direction as it strikes the
ground, can interfere with a normal takeoff and landing.

Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical and both aircraft have a
common type-rating. Pilots qualified to fly one of the aircraft also can fly
the other with only minimal additional familiarization.

Built-in test equipment helps ground crews troubleshoot avionics and airplane
systems quickly for easier maintenance than on earlier aircraft. Structural
maintenance needs are reduced, owing to new methods of corrosion protection
including application of special sealants and enameling of major portions of the fuselage.


Easier than a walk on the beach!

[sabbat hunter]

44. did you even bother to read

what i said?

i asked if it was possible that the auto pilot was used and asked if take off and landings are the hardest parts of the flight.

if you know the coordinates of the WTC or just NYC you would put those coordinates into the planes computer right?

so stop with the inane sarcasm

[Kai]

45. did you even bother to read

Twist-U-Up's original post and the links contained therein? If you had, you wouldn't have had to ask about take offs and landings.

And I resent my sarcasm being called "inane". My sarcasm makes perfect sense.

[Make7]

36. RE: autopilot

You may find this interesting:

Information from the flight recorder recovered from Flight 77 indicated that the pilot had input autopilot instructions for a route to Reagan National Airport. It should be noted the flight management computer could be programmed in such a manner that it would navigate the aircraft automatically to a location of the hijacker's choosing, not merely a commercial airport, at a speed and altitude they desired, provided the hijackers possessed the precise positioning data necessary.

By using the sequence waypoints dialed into the computer, the hijackers could also approach the target from the direction they wanted. Financial records indicate that one of the hijackers had purchased a global positioning system, perhaps for the purpose of acquiring precise positioning data on al Qaeda's 9/11 targets.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-27.htm

- Make7

[Kai]

38. Hello Make7

Information from the flight recorder recovered from Flight 77 indicated that the pilot had input autopilot instructions for a route to Reagan National Airport. It should be noted the flight management computer could be programmed in such a manner that it would navigate the aircraft automatically to a location of the hijacker's choosing, not merely a commercial airport, at a speed and altitude they desired, provided the hijackers possessed the precise positioning data necessary.

By using the sequence waypoints dialed into the computer, the hijackers could also approach the target from the direction they wanted. Financial records indicate that one of the hijackers had purchased a global positioning system, perhaps for the purpose of acquiring precise positioning data on al Qaeda's 9/11 targets.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-27.htm

Certainly, they could have set the autopilot for approach to the target. But as for impacting it with pinpoint precision at low altitude and high speed, this would require manual control and a level of experience and expertise that none of these men had. To have scored three out of four direct hits with nothing more than experience in light aircraft and flight simulators is absurd to me. A simple comparison would be to the cruise control on a car. You can set it on a cross country trip and travel for a hundred miles with an occaisional poke at the steering wheel to keep it on course. But when you have to pull over or navigate heavy traffic you have to turn it off.

[KJF]

39. The autopilot was turned off at 9:29

9:29 a.m.: Autopilot on Flight 77 Disengaged
Flight 77’s autopilot is disengaged. The plane is flying at 7,000 feet and is about 38 miles west of the Pentagon. <9/11 Commission, 8/24/2004> Information from the plane’s recovered flight data recorder (see September 13-14, 2001) later will indicate the pilot had entered autopilot instructions for a course to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (which is nearby the Pentagon). <9/11 Commission, 2/27/2004>
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77

Whoever was flying the plane (and I doubt it was Hani), did the last 8 minutes on his own.

[Kai]

40. I wonder where the

mystery pilot took the plane. It certainly didn't hit the Pentagon.

[Jazz2006]

67. Au contraire....

it clearly did hit the Pentagon.

[Jazz2006]

66. Even with the autopilot turned off...

I'm not sure that the hijackers were necessarily on their own as the actual pilots may well have still been in the cockpit as well.

I'd love to hear the actual tapes myself.

[KJF]

68. I'd love to hear the tapes too

I really, really doubt the actual pilots flew the plane at the end - into the Pentagon? There is evidence to suggest they were not in the cockpit of either American 11 (stopped activating talkback button) or United 93 (CVR transcript) and the hijackings appear to have been similar.

[Jazz2006]

69. Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that they did....

I wasn't suggesting that the actual pilots flew the plane at the end. I should have been clearer in my prior post. What I meant was that the hijackers had the benefit of having the actual pilots in the cockpit and that therefore they weren't necessarily entirely "on their own" up until the very last moments.

In other words, I meant that the hijackers may well have had the benefit of forcing the pilots into giving them info, plotting coordinates, etc. up until the last moments.

I wasn't for a second suggesting that the actual pilots flew the planes into the buildings.

And yes, as I said above, I'd love to hear the tapes.

[Make7]

47. I'm not convinced.

Did you ever see the movie Executive Decision starring Kurt Russel as Dr. Grant and the lovely Halle Berry as Flight Attendant Jean? Remember when Dr. Grant was asked if he was a pilot? He answered, "I've had a few lessons, but I've never really soloed." Of course he was the hero that had to land the 747 he was on, with some invaluable assistance from Jean. It seems that Dr. Grant was not exactly clear on the procedure for landing a jumbo-jet since he had never done it before. The following is the conversation that takes place when he is trying to obtain this crucial information:

Dr. Grant: Pilot's Operating Handbook. That's what I need. Over there.

Jean: I don't see it. What's it look like?

Dr. Grant: It'll say, "Flight Manual. " Back there! In the back.

Jean: Okay, I got it, I got it. Flight manual. What do I look for?

Dr. Grant: The normal procedures. Landing approach speeds.

I bet you're on the edge of your seat right now - I know I was at that point.

He proceeds to land the plane with no (additional) fatalities or major injuries and when safely on the ground he remarks, "Things almost land themselves, don't they?"

Now if Dr. Grant, with some assistance, could successfully land a 747 with no experience, think how much easier it would be to crash a smaller jet like a 767 or 757 with at least some hours logged on a flight simulator and with some help from someone reading the procedures from the manual found in the cockpit.

You should really watch that movie if you haven't seen it already. I think it was based on a true story.

- Make7

[Kai]

48. I did see it.

and it is great fun. Particularly the boarding at 39,000 feet. But I don't believe that it has any basis in actual events.

I am inclined to regard Dr. Grant's comment on his casual mastery of the plane as an aspect of action/adventure poetic license.

Summary of “Executive Decision”
fr. IMDB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116253/plotsummary

A Boeing 747, Oceanic Airlines flight 343, has just taken off from Athens, Greece, and is headed for the USA. Minutes after takeoff, the airplane is taken hostage by a group of terrorists led by Nagi Hassan. One of the hostages is a United States senator named Mavros. Hassan is demanding the release of one of his comrades, Elsai ad Jaffa, who is being held by United States authorities. Lieutenant Colonel Austin Travis is the leader of a military team. As the jet approaches the USA, engineer Dennis Cahill designs a plan in which a military plane will be able to transfer Austin and his team onto the 747 in mid air. Also along for the mission will be Dennis and intelligence agent David Grant. When Austin is killed in the process of boarding the 747, David is forced to take over the rescue attempt, and after boarding the airplane, David and the military team discover that Hassan has some stolen Soviet nerve gas attached to a bomb, and he is using the 747 to smuggle the deadly gas into the United States, where he intends to use it to wipe out Washington D.C. and possibly the entire Eastern seaboard. It's up to Dennis to defuse the bomb while David and the team try to rescue the hostages from Hassan.

Summary written by Todd Baldridge

One of the staple elements on movies involving airplanes is the critical scene where the amateur with little or no flight training is forced to land the craft under the direst of circumstances. I have yet to see one of them crash.


o/t Do you know if it is true that the PE of a moving object increases disproportionately as the speed of the object increases?

[Make7]

57. You mean it wasn't based on a true story?

 

Posted by Kai:

Do you know if it is true that the PE of a moving object increases disproportionately as the speed of the object increases?

The change in PE would be directly proportional to any change in the displacement along the axis perpendicular to the reference being used for height. Depending on the direction of the velocity component along that height axis, the PE may increase or decrease as the velocity increases.

- Make7

[Kai]

63. I will look again, but

I believe that Executive Decision is entirely fictional.

Make7 responded:
The change in PE would be directly proportional to any change in the displacement along the axis perpendicular to the reference being used for height. Depending on the direction of the velocity component along that height axis, the PE may increase or decrease as the velocity increases.

Kai asked:
Do you know if it is true that the PE of a moving object increases disproportionately as the speed of the object increases?

So, if I understand you correctly, if V x 2 results in PE x 2 than V x 4 results in PE x 4. I know this is simplistic but it it correct? Is there ever a case where V x 5 results in PE x 5.1 ? Is there ever a case where change in PE is not directly proportional to any change in the displacement along the axis?

The reason I ask is because I think one of the elements lacking in the presentation of the argument for progressive structural failure (pancaking) are compelling examples of the way in which steel behaves in highly stressed applications like skyscrapers. Somewhere in my fuzzy recollections of college physics I had some vague notion that energy increased disproportionately as speed increases. If that were true I don't recall seeing it included as a factor in arguments which include calculations for kinetic energy. Perhaps I should have stipulated KE instead of PE.

In our earlier discussion, I mentioned the John Hancock Tower in Boston.

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/peihancock/peihancock.html


This is a magnificent building which was constructed in the same period as the World Trade Center. Unfortunately, they had many problems with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hancock_Tower
excerpt:
Falling glass panes

Inventing a way to use the blue mirror glass in a steel tower came at a high price.

The building's most dangerous and conspicuous flaw was its faulty glass windows. Entire 4' x 11', 500 lb (1.2x3.4 m, 227 kg) windowpanes detached from the building and crashed to the sidewalk hundreds of feet below. Police closed off surrounding streets whenever winds reached 45 mph (72 km/h). According to the Boston Globe, MIT built a scale model of the entire Back Bay in its Wright Brothers Wind Tunnel to identify the problem. The exact cause of the malfunction was never revealed due to a legal settlement and gag order. Most now diagnose the problem as a combination of the double-paned glass construction method, and the pressure differentials between the inside and outside air.

In October 1973, I.M. Pei & Partners announced that all panes would be replaced by a different heat-treated variety—costing between $5 million and $7 million. During the repairs, plywood replaced the building's windows, earning it the nickname "Plywood Palace" and the joke that it was "the world's tallest plywood building."


Nauseating sway

The building's upper-floor occupants suffered from motion sickness when the building swayed in the wind. To stabilize the movement, a device called a tuned mass damper was installed on the 58th floor. As described by Robert Campbell, architecture critic for the Boston Globe:

Two 300-ton weights sit at opposite ends of the 58th floor of the Hancock. Each weight is a box of steel, filled with lead, 17 feet (5.2 m) square by 3 feet (0.9 m) high. Each weight rests on a steel plate. The plate is covered with lubricant so the weight is free to slide. But the weight is attached to the steel frame of the building by means of springs and shock absorbers. When the Hancock sways, the weight tends to remain still... allowing the floor to slide underneath it. Then, as the springs and shocks take hold, they begin to tug the building back. The effect is like that of a gyroscope, stabilizing the tower. The reason there are two weights, instead of one, is so they can tug in opposite directions when the building twists. The cost of the damper was $3 million.

The dampers are free to move a few feet relative to the floor. LeMessurier Consultants says the dampers are located in relatively small utility rooms at each end of the building, leaving most of the 58th floor usable.

According to Robert Campbell, it was also discovered that—despite the mass damper—the building could have fallen over under a certain kind of wind loading. Ironically, it could tip over on one of its narrow edges, not its big flat sides. Some 1,500 tons of diagonal steel bracing were added to prevent this, costing $5 million.

What the Wikipedia article does not mention in relation to the falling glass is that, unless I am mistaken, the glass fell out because the building was flexing so much. This required much more than merely installing a more rigid grade of glass. I believe they had to actually reinforce the structure of the building. But as you can see from the Wiki entry even after reinforcing the building they still had such serious problems with flexing that they had to install counterweights on the 58th floor. Amd to insure tht it didn't topple over they had to add 1,500 tons of steel bracing.

My point is that steel structures built on this scale can be prone to instability but I think that people tend ato attribute a solidity and stability to them that are fanciful. An example of this in 9-11 conspiracy theories is the notion that passenger jets upon hitting the exterior of the towers should have encountered more resistance, essentially crumpling up and falling to the ground (see Morgan Reynold's absurd no plane theory). Even a cursory examination of the perimeter structure of the towers shows it to be relatively light weight. In fact, my fuzzy qualitative thoughts on this are that I find it hard to understand how it even held up its own weight much less the weight of over one hundred floors and their contents. The 47 central columns, look fine but the perimeter structure of the building looks to me, relative to the huge scale of the building, like it is just one step above a decorative facade.

Of course I still think that controlled demolition was the cause of the WTC collapse but in order to understand the merits of the arguments that it was not, I need to see clear examples of how the argument that progressive structural failure as a final consequnce of the jet impacts could be correct.

Of course there is also the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge

excerpts;
The Tacoma Narrows Bridge is a mile-long (1600 meter) suspension bridge with a main span of 2800 foot (850 m) (the third-largest in the world when it was first built) that carries Washington State Route 16 across the Tacoma Narrows of Puget Sound from Tacoma to Gig Harbor, Washington. The first version of the bridge, nicknamed "Galloping Gertie," was designed by Clark Eldridge and altered by Leon Moisseiff. It became famous for a dramatic filmed structural collapse in 1940. The replacement bridge opened in 1950.

Collapse

The collapse occurred on November 7, 1940. From the account of Leonard Coatsworth, a driver

Just as I drove past the towers, the bridge began to sway violently from side to side. Before I realized it, the tilt became so violent that I lost control of the car… I jammed on the brakes and got out, only to be thrown onto my face against the curb… Around me I could hear concrete cracking… The car itself began to slide from side to side of the roadway.

On hands and knees most of the time, I crawled 500 yards <457 m> or more to the towers… My breath was coming in gasps; my knees were raw and bleeding, my hands bruised and swollen from gripping the concrete curb… Toward the last, I risked rising to my feet and running a few yards at a time… Safely back at the toll plaza, I saw the bridge in its final collapse and saw my car plunge into the Narrows.

The final destruction of the bridge was recorded on film by Barney Elliott, owner of a local camera shop. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse (1940) is preserved in the U.S. National Film Registry, and is still shown to engineering, architecture, and physics students as a cautionary tale1.

No human life was lost in the collapse of the bridge. Theodore von Karman reported that the State of Washington was unable to collect on an insurance policy for the bridge, because its insurance agent fraudulently pocketed the insurance premiums.

On November 28, 1940, the U. S. Navy's Hydrographic Office reported that the remains of the bridge were located at geographical coordinates 47°16′00″N, 122°33′00″W, at a depth of 30 fathoms (55 m).

[Make7]

64. Don't bother, it was entirely fictional.

I was trying to offer an alternative to the "piloting a Boeing 757 is probably easier than maneuvering a Toro riding mower around your quarter acre of lawn" theory by offering the "man with almost no flight training lands 747 to impress pretty girl theory".

Kai wrote:

So, if I understand you correctly, if V x 2 results in PE x 2 than V x 4 results in PE x 4. I know this is simplistic but it it correct? Is there ever a case where V x 5 results in PE x 5.1 ? Is there ever a case where change in PE is not directly proportional to any change in the displacement along the axis?

I don't think that's how it works. Velocity is not directly related to PE, however it can be useful in calculating the changes in the height. In my last post I said that PE was directly proportional to the height, not to velocity. Check out the following equation:

PE = mass * gravitational acceleration * height

So, potential energy is directly proportional to the mass, the acceleration due to gravity, and the height above some zero reference. (Which is usually the earth's surface, but not always.)

Since velocity is not in the equation, how it relates to it is not straightforward. If we use this equation for displacement (change in height) that will hopefully help explain this further:

displacement = (velocity_initial + velocity_final) / 2 * time

So if we use this to represent the change in height in the PE equation, it appears that the change in the average velocity over a given time interval would be directly proportional to the resulting change in PE. That does not mean that a doubling of the average velocity would double the potential energy - it would depend on what the initial height was in relation to those velocity figures. I'm just saying that mathematically there are no exponents in the equations, therefore the changes are directly proportional. I've never thought of potential energy in terms of velocity, so I'm not entirely sure if the above supposition regarding average velocity is valid. It makes sense to me mathematically though. Just to be safe, I'm going to stick to calculating PE by using the height. :)

I think you are correct when you said you might have been thinking of Kinetic Energy. As the following equation shows:

KE = 1/2 * mass * velocity²

Kinetic energy is directly proportional to the mass, but it is exponentially proportional to the velocity.

There are many examples of man made structures not performing as designed because of limited knowledge and/or failure to correctly account for something already known. The Tacoma-Narrows Bridge is a good example of not taking into account something that had an obviously significant impact on the stability of the structure. People sometimes make mistakes. When they build very large things those mistakes can be magnified greatly with potentially catastrophic results.

As for very tall buildings, the engineers say that the wind loading is a far greater factor than that of the gravity loading. Remember the problems with the Citigroup Center? They said it might have fallen down from the wind before they went back and welded steel plates across the bolted connections. Apparently they didn't let word out about that little issue for many years.

The steels used in the WTC towers were of varying strengths to accommodate the loads and also the potential shortening of the columns caused by the gravity loads. Some of the perimeter sections used the strongest steel built into the towers. In addition to having to support a share of the gravity loads, I believe they also withstood most of the wind loading. There has been some really interesting information released by the PANYNJ through the NIST concerning some of the initial design considerations and testing done for the towers. Lots of drawings done by hand back then. It's actually very remarkable what they were able to accomplish in designing and building the towers in the time frame that they did. Some extremely talented people worked on that project.

- Make7

[spooked911]

60. what a load of crap. I suppose you believe every movie is real???

[seatnineb]

62. LOL!.......agreed!

The trolls probably believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger really did hang from the doorway of this plane in the 1996 film ERASOR........and because he did .....it would be easy for someone to do in real life:

[Make7]

71. Ah, a critique from the man who brought us these gems:

The Simpsons Pre-Sages WTC Explosive Collapse

Must See Video Clip of the "Lone Gunman" pilot Show!!!

- Make7

[Jazz2006]

73. Hee hee - those predate my time here on DU but good god, how hilarious!

Thanks ;)

[sgsmith]

41. So funny, on many levels.

I have a Single Engine Land Private Pilots license. I haven't been Pilot In Command for quite a number of years, but let me tell you, some of the cow manure here is amazing.

If all you're trying to do is fly straight and level, flying a large jet isn't that hard. It's even gotten easier with the advanced flight management systems on aircraft like the 757 and 767. Set the coordinates of where you're trying to go into the FMS and let the electronics take care of getting you there. That would match with the reports of the autopilot being set for National airport.

If you're trying to land, things get harder. But I once landed a Boeing 707 simulator at Atlanta's Hartsfield airport without any training. This was one of the early simulator models that could just display night time, so the normal visual clues were even harder to interpret. One approach and one landing. And I wasn't the only person to successfully land the simulator that day.

None of the hijackers were concerned with aircraft systems. All they wanted to do was to crash the airplane into their targets. Having said that, the two WTC impacts showed a level of airmanship beyond straight and level. Both WTC airplanes were rolled just before impact to order to facilitate making as much damage in the buildings as possible. Those rolls were well timed, not too early and not too late. The WTC-2 pilot also completed a descending approach, with the last second roll, in order to (barely) hit the building.

As to the pilots being bumbling fools who couldn't fly a C-172. It's a lot easier to fake incompetence than it is to fake ability.

[Ezlivin]

42. Flying large heavy aircraft is *easy*?

If all you're trying to do is fly straight and level, flying a large jet isn't that hard.

Did you read the attached article? Then you would get a chance to rebut the professional pilot's points.

I find it impossible to believe that someone who couldn't solo a Cessna 172 could navigate his way back across two States to the target and execute a diving spiral from high altitude, at a very high rate of descent but without overspeeding or overstressing the aircraft to the point of shedding parts (a very narrow margin for error), and then line up on the most difficult approach to the Pentagon to hit the side that was virtually unoccupied.

Especially when flying jets, airspeed management is crucial. And managing airpeed in a heavy jet is nothing at all like in a simple prop trainer. Shove the stick forward on the trainer, and relatively little happens in terms of vertical speed because of the light weight, low airspeed, and high drag of the aircraft. Do the same in a slippery 200,000-lb jet flying at 500 MPH and you’ll lose it all very quickly.

It's even gotten easier with the advanced flight management systems on aircraft like the 757 and 767.

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.

But I once landed a Boeing 707 simulator at Atlanta's Hartsfield airport without any training.

That is great for you, but as I said in a previous post, you can't earn a pilot's license flying simulators. And what did professional pilots say about the manuevers on 9/11?

"Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension."

None of the hijackers were concerned with aircraft systems. All they wanted to do was to crash the airplane into their targets.

They had to have the basic skill set to even operate the large heavy aircraft. Remember how daunting the cockpit on your Cessna/Piper looked the first time you sat in the left seat? How easy was it to adjust the radio while flying at a leisurely 80 knots?

The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers “took control” of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they’d realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.

In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH—and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.

As to the pilots being bumbling fools who couldn't fly a C-172. It's a lot easier to fake incompetence than it is to fake ability.

True. But who are the hijackers? Are they skilled pilots or bumbling fools? If they were type-rated, skilled pilots, then the story is plausible. (And where did they get this advanced training in real aircraft, not simulators?)

It seems that the official story falls to pieces upon examination.

[Jazz2006]

72. Exlivin....

it really isn't particularly difficult to fly a large airliner unless you plan on taking off or landing safely.

If you are knowledgable about flying large aircraft - and your prior posts suggest that you have some knowledge in this area - you would have to know this, wouldn't you?

[Mr.USA]

85. I think you know but..........its Ezlivin

Its all about head games with you guys.

Sheesh

[Kai]

43. "All they wanted to do was to crash the airplane into their targets."

You really nailed it SG. It's that simple. These conspiracy guys just don't get it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the hijackers just dialed up the destination on GPS, set the flight level for "Very Low", then turned off the autopilot, rolled in at below 1000 feet and, bingo, nailed their targets three out of four times. That's because flying a two hundred and thirty thousand pound jet liner is a snap thanks to modern techonology.

Here's a little exercise for you, Lindberg. Hop into this White Freightliner



take it out to the local expressway, crank it up to one hundred and fifty miles per hour and see how easy it is to make it between the toll booths. Good Luck!

[greyl]

74. Jabbar Gibson story is a government lie!

13 hours on the commandeered bus driven by a 20-year-old man. Watching bodies float by as they tried to escape the drowning city. Picking up people along the way. Three stops for fuel.
www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/topstory2/3334317.html

____________________________________________________________________________

I don't understand why some people think it's impossible to aim an aircraft with rudimentary knowledge of the controls. I think the same people probably believe that changing the oil in their car or swapping a harddrive is beyond their abilities.

[Kai]

78. Hey,

if Johnny Neutron can build a spacecraft in his backyard and fly to another planet, anything's possible.

Don't ever stop dreaming!

http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2001_Jimmy_Neutron,_Boy_Genius/steve_oedekerk_john_a_davis_albie_hecht_jimmy_neutron_boy_genius_001.jpg

[savemefromdumbya]

56. but YOU haven't flown a 767 or 757!!!!!

when you do i won't be easy

[Jazz2006]

65. I haven't flown a 767 or 757 either...

but I have flown a fully loaded stretch DC-8 and it was pretty easy.

[Sinti]

97. Kind of off topic, but having flown a large airplane, you may know this

Are there assist controls on large jets that would allow for the rolling just before impact? In my reading, these fly-by-wire systems basically take over physical control of the plane. It's not at all like cruise control. The pilot can leave the cockpit, mid-flight, and say hello to the passengers, etc.

These systems are computer controlled, in my understanding, could someone else with access to the source code (perhaps via having one of these jets themselves) have written a "macro program" if you will, to assist the hijackers, which they could have uploaded, if they knew how to do it.

Pardon my ignorance on this matter, but I can't seem to find this info on my own. :)

[Jazz2006]

101. I'm not sure I understand the question completely, Sinti, but

certainly, auto pilot systems use software to follow the input for such things as altitude, latitude, longitude, roll, pitch, yaw, etc. A roll (or bank), which you referred to, is the rotation of the latitudinal axis (i.e. nose to tail), which is adjusted by increasing lift on one wing while decreasing lift on the other wing.

It is not at all like cruise control, you're quite right. Autopilot controls a lot more than just speed.

As I recall, (it's been several years since I've flown a large aircraft - I only did so a few times as I'm one of those people who has done so without formal training, thus my response to the opening post, the topic of which is flying large aircraft without formal training), you can input data on the fly, so to speak, and the autopilot will respond to that input and follow the data you've given it - turns, altitude adjustments, coordinates, etc. In fact, you HAD to input data on the fly because autopilot systems, over long flights, would sort of accumulate errors over the length of the flight and they had to be corrected to adhere to the flight plan or other contingencies. I'm led to believe that the current systems are much better due to advancements in GPS units, autopilot systems, software and hardware systems since then, but the basics are most likely still the same.

So, the best I can say is that I don't know if it's as simple as creating a macro program and uploading it, but I would guess that some form of rudimentary flight training and a passing knowledge of Jeppesens and autopilot systems might well give you enough to plug in the data that you want the plane to follow.

As an aside, and equally off topic, I think that even if you inputted data that put the plane on a collision course with, for instance, the Pentagon, there would be alarms going off all over the cockpit when altitude and speed went awry, but I saw no mention of alarms in the transcript of the CVR. Of course, the alarms aren't "voice" but still, they would have been heard and would have been obvious. I think that if I was transcribing that recording, I would have included them at least in parenthesis. It bugs me that there is no mention of those warnings that would have, no question, been going off when the plane hit that low of an altitude at that speed.

{on edit: I know I have some photos of me flying a fully loaded stretch DC8 over the Pyrenees Mountains in Spain - and this just reminded me that I should dig them out and look at them again - spectacular view! - and besides that, it was the first officer (co-pilot) taking the photos while I was in his seat flying the plane, and I think that someone with aircraft knowledge could probably even interpret the readings on the panel that show the flight path as I meandered about.}

[Jazz2006]

106. And a clarification,

just so that my last post is not misunderstood.

Regardless of the advancement of autopilot systems and gps systems, etc., I do not believe that an aircraft can be autopiloted to crash into the Pentagon in the manner that it did. I.e. someone had to be controlling a whole lot of conditions in order to hit the building and prevent it from crashing into the ground or crashing elsewhere in light of its speed and altitude. But the autopilot could do most or all of the work until very near the end.

[Sinti]

107. Actually I was thinking about the two that hit the Twin Towers

It occurred to me that perhaps the pilots had more computer/machine assistance than most of us assume they had. That someone with access to such a system could have written a patch/program to override some defaults, add some capabilities, and/or taught them better how to use it. Therefore, they would not have needed to be expert pilots in order to do the "roll" and thread the needle in that fashion.

I know nothing about autopilot systems, but I do know programming, and if autopilot is a computer/machine flight assistance device that actually takes physical control of the plane rather than just keeping it going straight, at X altitude, and Y speed, I don't see why, given the amount of time they had, (which I would argue close to 10 years) someone in their network couldn't have written a patch to the autopilot program. They could then use much less experienced pilots and achieve the same ends.

:shrug:

As far as the Pentagon goes, I'm a little amazed at how they managed to do that without crashing into the freeway, the lawn, or another building along the way. It had to be a wild and hairy ride. Perhaps that guy actually had fighter pilot training somewhere else that we don't know about. Particularly considering, the FBI isn't sure that some of their identities weren't falsified. IOW, on some of these guys we may not really know who they were.

Thanks for your help.

[Jazz2006]

70. In fact, very easy.

Have you ever flown a stretch 8?

Or a 767 or 757? Or other large aircraft?

If so, how would you compare them in terms of ease of flight, etc?

[mirandapriestly]

81. WOW, extremely effective article

no wonder the jackals are working overtime.

[Jazz2006]

82. So, hasn't anyone else here besides me flown a large aircraft?

That would seem a bit odd for all of the kerfuffle upthread.

Just asking.

[mirandapriestly]

83. Are you sure it wasn't a hot air balloon?nt

[Mr.USA]

84. click here

:toast:

dat was a good one, spot on !!

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mr.USA]

86. irrelevant

"I haven't flown a 767 or 757 either..."

your quote

Why would someone discuss this with you when you admit you have never flown these types ?

[Jazz2006]

88. Um, because....

it wasn't just about flying a 757 but about flying large airliners.

See posts 1-87 for instance.

:)

[mirandapriestly]

90. God only knows...nt

[Jazz2006]

89. So, I'll ask again... has anyone else here besides me flown a large...

aircraft?

(The only responses to that legitimate query so far have been miranda and "Mr. USA" each posting a completely ridiculous and silly/stupid non-response to the question in lame attempts to ridicule without managing a single word that actually responded to the question)

So, I'm asking again...

"Has anyone else here besides me flown a large aircraft?"

[Chomp]

94. Tick tock tick tock

Seems not.

I'll add another question.

If someone here tells us that they have flown a large aircraft, should we:

a. Lend a bit more credibility to what they say about same than we would a normal poster
b. Disregard their experience and assume they have nothing to teach us

[Rich Hunt]

95. that's a really good point

One thing that has always bothered me was the great skill demonstrated by the pilot of 175 in particular. I mean, it was a very skillful swoop and bank, as if he wanted to hit the building at the corner and at an angle....on purpose.

There's something really compelling about watching that scene over and over again, and I think what makes it compelling is the obvious skill of the pilot. The same with the Pentagon - how could a plane fly that low without some professional skills? My understanding is that landing and taking off are the most difficult parts of flying, so whoever hit the Pentagon had some skill as well.

[gbwarming]

96. Landing is much harder than hitting something

Even a crappy landing requires that you control a lot of variables: You have to arrive at a rectangular target area (middle of the end of the runway) within a fairly small window of speed, descent rate, heading, roll and yaw angles.

This has to be done at fairly low speed which makes the effects of crosswinds and gusts relatively larger. The landing approach is only a few degrees from horizontal, so small errors in altitude translate to large errors in how far down the runway you touch down. The attempt fails if you're too fast, too slow, too high, too low, off centerline, rolled with a wing too low, pointed the wrong way even if you arrive over the end of the runway properly.

Hitting something on the other hand only requires that you arrive at the target - speed and approach angle are not critical, and since the speed can be high crosswinds and gusts have less effect.

I think a crude analogy of the difference can be illustrated with a frisbee (or paper airplane) and one of those long folding tables - see how much harder it is to land gently on the end of the table slow enough and straight enough that it doesn't side off the other end or sides, and then stand the table up vertically and just try to hit it from the same distance.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

102. Tsk tsk. You're trying too hard....

and failing spectacularly.

Might I gently suggest that you buy a clue?

[politrix]

103. Spoken Like A Man With A Good 401K Plan

I don't HAVE to try hard to shine the light on you - you have to try hard to avoid it.

[Jazz2006]

104. No idea what you're on about, "politrix" -

If and when you have something to say to me, say it clearly, ask a straight question and you'll get a straight answer.

In the meantime, you can continue to post silly shit all day long if that's the best you can do, but don't expect me to spend any time trying to make sense of your nonsense.

Generally speaking, if you have anything to say that has any redeeming value whatsoever, most people would probably think it wouldn't be a bad idea to actually say it instead of playing silly buggers.

And, by the way, do you have any knowledge whatsoever about the topic of this thread? If so, now would be a good time to mention it.