It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Professional Pilot Instructors Discuss Airliner Approaches

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
These guys explained a lot that I never knew about, and I thought I'd share:

www.youtube.com...


They talk specifically about going into their own flight simulator equipment and trying to recreate the attacks. They found hitting WTC1 at 600 MPH to be extremely difficult even for themselves, and could not do it, because of a dutch roll that continually developed, G-forces and other considerations that lead them to say in their professional opinions that the planes were not guided by people on the inside of them (I'm guessing the suggestion is remote control).

They talk about flights 77 and 93 too. A lot of good information.




posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
wouldn't the plane react the same way if it was being controlled by remote as the same as if a person was actually flying it from the cockpit?

I don't understand why it's impossible for a person not to be able to make the moves, but someone flying it by remote can...



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
wouldn't the plane react the same way if it was being controlled by remote as the same as if a person was actually flying it from the cockpit?



I think the suggestion was that the target's exact position would have to not only be known but also accounted for by the plane's trajectory in order to hit it that fast accurately, to make any directional changes very slowly and in a very calculated manner from a pretty long distance.

If anyone's ever seen Flight 11's approach from a distance, this assertion would be consistent with it. I've seen a video clip of Flight 11 incoming from a larger distance than the Naudet footage and it comes down extremely fast at a very steady angle, like a bullet that's already been aimed.

If they had been just a little off, they wouldn't have had any time to correct for it without losing control of the aircraft.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
wouldn't the plane react the same way if it was being controlled by remote as the same as if a person was actually flying it from the cockpit?


That's why I wonder how sophisticated the government gyrochips are that were put on the 737's? I doubt those amateurs could have flown those flights. Boeing Iridium and the gyro sound plausible.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
The precision issue is most relevant to Flight 77, as it had ground effect going on as it hit the ground floor without hitting the ground. For left-right accuracy it wasn't so spectacular, since we don't know what spot on the Pgon's wall they were aiming for. But as far as hitting the towers, at 208 feet wide I believe, how is that too precise for humans? I'm agreeing with elevated one here. I mean, how wide is the average runway? Pilots can visually hit these almost every time they land.

I think the best argument for RC is not the technical aspects of the flight (and I admit I'm no expert) but the choice of targets. It's as if the NWO was programming the targets itself to maximize the imperial symbolism they needed. It all hasn't done too much good for al Qaeda and resistance to the empire. IMO either they used RC for the planes, or bin Laden and co. serve as human remote control for the empire, giving our leaders just what they need in a timely manner. It seems to me it'd work either way. And one wouldn't require faked phone calls.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
But as far as hitting the towers, at 208 feet wide I believe, how is that too precise for humans? I'm agreeing with elevated one here. I mean, how wide is the average runway?


Show me a pilot landing at 600 MPH and I'll take this into consideration over professional opinions.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
But as far as hitting the towers, at 208 feet wide I believe, how is that too precise for humans? I'm agreeing with elevated one here. I mean, how wide is the average runway?


Show me a pilot landing at 600 MPH and I'll take this into consideration over professional opinions.


As I said I'm not an expert. I don't trust these guys on their word that they're using their expertise with 100% honesty and up-frontness, but I won't challenge Balsamo's take on this either. Point ceded, I remain a RC skeptic, and can still see both sides. Peace.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   
First of all the fastest plane United 175 which hit the south Tower was not doing 600mph. MIT analysis revealed that it struck at 537mph which is a mere 466 knots.

www.pprune.org...

The first plane American 11 struck much slower at 372 knots. Clearly the "brothers" in the second plane saw that the first had not brought down the building so they poured on the herbs hoping that greater speed would fell the other building.

Second the significance of VMO (Velocity Maximum Operating) is that it is a certified limit below which the manufacturer certifies that you will not overstress the airframe. It is not an aerodynamic limit as such.

Clearly the terrorists were not concerned about overstressing the airframe.

Next point. The instructional simulator pilot was a Boeing 737 procedural iinstructor. His brief was to teach young inexperienced pilots with the ink still wet on their Commercial Pilot Licences how to perform cockpit drills and fly by standard proceedures. He was not teaching students advanced flying techniques.

The Pilot whom he was discussing this with was a pilot from a Dornier 328Jet. The Dornier is a very small and relatively slow commuter jet.

Third if you're going to talk about simulation of the WTC attack, compare apples with apples, not oranges. The 767 has more mass and a heavier aircraft is less susceptible to the problems spoken of (aileron reversal and flutter) due to mass inertia.

In the NTSB animation of the attack on the Pentagon the aircraft was stabilsed on it's descent. All pilots know about a stabilised descent. That is where you steady the aircraft and have it pointed, descending at a predictable rate, so that the inputs required thereafter are only minor.

Clearly in the NTSB animation of the Pentagon attack, the pilot was making corrections for aileron flutter. One has to say that the hijackers flew their attacks quite competently and with aggression.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Clearly the terrorists were not concerned about overstressing the airframe.


I don't get this. They would have had to be concerned. Without the airframe, there is no plane. Without a plane, there is no collission with a building. Without a collision with a building, there are no virgins in heaven. So, IMO, I believe they wouldn't have been so careless with the airframe.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   
great post bsbray, the youtube vid with the pilots talking was v. true. Coincidently I had a go at the overspeeding WTC approach in fs2004 just the other night and it is pretty tough.

But its not so much hitting the towers thats tough, The thing is, hitting the building square on the face rather than hitting a corner or skimming it. 4/5 I hit the towers but only just, and 3/5 I skimmed the edge and it certainly wasn't a direct hit. And I never came in dead center aligned with a face, i tended to come in at varying angles either clipping the edge or entering at a corner rather than parallel to any of the face of the building.

Now consider both these planes hit pretty much square on the face of a side rather than a corner, the wtc1 got hit on the south face and wtc2 on the north face. That's pretty damn accurate in itself. If these guys weren't using any navigation the odds for them pulling that off would be heavily stacked against them.

Whats more, I had to do some very heavy banking left and right just to try and hit along with some serious rudder adjustments. I wasn't dive bombing into position either and didn't have to make much altitude adjustments. These guys were banking the whole time in one direction which suggests to me a pre calculated flight path. I really don't think the hijackers were flying on manual.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Originally posted by sy.gunson




First of all the fastest plane United 175 which hit the south Tower was not doing 600mph. MIT analysis revealed that it struck at 537mph which is a mere 466 knots.



466 knots is not 'mere'. Its 787 feet per second. It would be impossible for amateur pilots to fly an airliner into a tall building at that speed and the reason for that is at that speed corrections are difficult to make:

no. 1 Because ot the force required
no. 2 Because of the distance required.


The first plane American 11 struck much slower at 372 knots. Clearly the "brothers" in the second plane saw that the first had not brought down the building so they poured on the herbs hoping that greater speed would fell the other building.


This is a conjectural fantasy which deserves no comment.


Second the significance of VMO (Velocity Maximum Operating) is that it is a certified limit below which the manufacturer certifies that you will not overstress the airframe. It is not an aerodynamic limit as such.


It is an aerodynamic limit which will activate the overspeed warning horn which is very loud and very annoying and its made that way so that there is no misunderstanding about what it means. It means 'you are going too fast." To suppose that an inexperienced hijacker was flying a profile with incredible skill at 787 feet per second with the overspeed warning horm blowing is to ignore reality. It could not happen and it did not happen.


Next point. The instructional simulator pilot was a Boeing 737 procedural iinstructor. His brief was to teach young inexperienced pilots with the ink still wet on their Commercial Pilot Licences how to perform cockpit drills and fly by standard proceedures. He was not teaching students advanced flying techniques.


This statement is as fatuous as it is incorrect. Simulator instructors are certificated as "Simulator Instructors" by the FAA after being nominated by the airline company. Very few 'young inexperienced' pilots get to the simulator in the first place, and no one gets there, particularly in a Boeing 737 with the ink still wet on their commercial license. The statement that "his brief was to teach cockpit drills and standard procedures" not including "advanced flying techniques" is meaningless drivel. You turn an airplane left and right and you make it go up and down. There are no 'advanced techniques to make it do so.


Third if you're going to talk about simulation of the WTC attack, compare apples with apples, not oranges. The 767 has more mass and a heavier aircraft is less susceptible to the problems spoken of (aileron reversal and flutter) due to mass inertia.


This statement it patently absurd. Aileron reversal was associated with early aircraft development in the 1950's. It is engineered out of current airplanes. Flutter is a condition induced by improper design and not by mass inertia. No airlpane, regardless of its weight, is more or less susceptible to aileron reversal or flutter. Those are engineering and design issues.


In the NTSB animation of the attack on the Pentagon the aircraft was stabilsed on it's descent. All pilots know about a stabilised descent. That is where you steady the aircraft and have it pointed, descending at a predictable rate, so that the inputs required thereafter are only minor.


Obviously you haven't read the Flight Recorder Tabluar data for Flight #77. Please read it careflly and then come back and tell me where either heading or descent is 'stabilized'.


Clearly in the NTSB animation of the Pentagon attack, the pilot was making corrections for aileron flutter.


Flutter is an aerodynamic manifestation of improper design and results in the ailerons moving up and down instantaneously. This cannot happen in jet aircraft designed after 1960 and certificated under FAR Part 25, If it were to occur, which it cannot, the airplane would be uncontrollable and would not be 'stabilized. To make a statement that the pilot was 'making corrections for aileron flutter' is to be ignorant of what flutter is in the first place and that a pilot could make any corrections for it in the second.


One has to say that the hijackers flew their attacks quite competently and with aggression.


I agree. In the case of the Pentagon flilght #77, on descending through Flight Level 180 both altimeters were reset to Reagan Internatinal current altimeter setting which was not available to pilots in the air, both altimeters were reset within 1 second of each other and both altimeters were reset without 'bracketting'. Which means whoever was flying #77 had been flying a long, long time, had the presence of mind to reset the altimters at EXACTLY Flight Level 180, set them both at the same time and had access to information (Reagan International local barmetric pressure setting) that no other pilots had. Whoever was flying #77 was truly competent and experienced. My only question would be that if he was planning to crash into the Pentagon why did he take the trouble to reset the altimeters to the current setting. You set the altimeters for precision ILS approaches...not to crash into the Pentagon.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
sy.gunson you got served big time... Well I am sure that you will be so competent to debate Jhon point by point. I love when this happens.

[edit on 3-7-2007 by piacenza]



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
sy.gunson you got served big time... Well I am sure that you will be so competent to debate Jhon point by point. I love when this happens.

[edit on 3-7-2007 by piacenza]



yeah let's add nothing to the discussion what so ever, that always helps.



John Lear is an expert when it comes to aviation, in my opinion, and while it looks that the other poster had some flaws in the message he was posting, I still say there are a lot of unknowns of the what, where, who and why of the events that took place on that day. I hate that we all keep speculating and guessing so long after....



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   



johnlear wrote:
466 knots is not 'mere'. Its 787 feet per second.







johnlear wrote:
It is an aerodynamic limit which will activate the overspeed warning horn which is very loud and very annoying and its made that way so that there is no misunderstanding about what it means. It means 'you are going too fast." To suppose that an inexperienced hijacker was flying a profile with incredible skill at 787 feet per second with the overspeed warning horm blowing is to ignore reality. It could not happen and it did not happen.



Why argue ?
A picture speaks a thousand words...
www.youtube.com...

www.pprune.org...

Proceedural simulation is going through cockpit drills, checklists, systems proceedures. By the commentatotor's own description of his job he was not training pilots on more advanced aspects like handling emergencies.

It is quite common these days for young pilots to sign up with a flight school and gain almost all of their required hours as part of programmed flying training so that when they reach airlines they have little experience of real flying.

[edit on 3-7-2007 by sy.gunson]



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
No takers yet ?
I thought you were all chomping at the bit to take chunks out of me ?

John Lear is confusing VMO with VNE and VNO.

www.airliners.net...

In the old days, airliners had published figures for their VMO and their VNE and VNE was always higher than VMO.

Now the requirement to publish VNE has gone. It is no longer required under FAR Part 121 or Part 135, nor Part 25. Many pilots nowadays refer to VMO as if it were VNE, which it is not.

With all respect to John Lear, you cannot cite VMO as if it were VNE which is what John is doing.

VMO is not an aerodynamic limit. It is a notional limit for the safe operation of the airframe to avoid structural damage. I don't think a little thing like a warning horn is going to deter some guys bent of flying into a building.

As for the aircraft flown into the Pentagon, the turn in was at no more than 280 knots on the NTSB animation and only when lined up for impact did the aircraft's speed increase over that.

In the case of 757 and 767, their VMO is structurally limited to 313 knots up to 8,000 feet, not because of aircraft handling issues, but rather because over 313 knots the pilots windshield cannot be certified to withstand birdstrike. The airframe will not fall apart over 313 knots either.

John Lear is quite wrong that the pentagon jet would suffer wing flutter diving at the Pentagon around 350 knots+. I very much doubt flutter will affect the 757 below about 420 knots.

Above 10,000 feet the 757's VMO is 350 knots because the birdstrike danger is not considered a threat there. This still is not the upper airspeed limit for the 757/767 family of airframes. VNE is higher again

The 767 and 757 were designed to allow pilots rated on one type to also fly the other. Some regulatory authorities also limit the 757’s VMO to 250 knots below 10,0000 feet, so this proves that VMO it is not an absolute handling limit. Take a good hard long look at the RNZAF 757 flyby. That is one helluva lot more than 250 knots!

VNE (Velocity Never Exceed) is the limit at which control of an aircraft may be lost if exceeded. This is the speed at which flutter is dangerous. Not VMO.

VNE is the limit in still air and does not provide gust protection limits.

VNO (Velocity Normal Operating) is the airspeed limit at which a 30 ft/sec vertical gust should not damage the aircraft.

VNO is set at 90% of Vd for flutter protection. Vd is the maximum dive speed (for decompression recovery).

Airliners used to have a posted VMO and a VNE speed, but now they just don’t talk about VNE because like good little boys, airline pilots follow the rules don’t we ?

www.pprune.org...

Let me cite some examples of other airliner types to illustrate:

The Boeing 727-100 had a VMO of over 400 knots whilst the Boeing 727-200 had a VMO of 380 knots at sea level.

VMO speeds are often not prescribed by the manufacturer, per se, but are set by the operator in consultation with the regulatory authority when drawing up the airline’s operations manual based upon manufacturer’s recommendations.

In other words VMO for the same aircraft type can change from one airline to another. 757 VMO can vary from operator to operator between Mach 0.84 and 0.86. UK CAA set the 757 at Mach 0.84 whilst the FAA set it at Mach 0.86.

The VMO is a speed limit for descent from altitude such as towards an airport and is normally intended to avoid structurally harmful wing bending. This is not the VMO limiting factor for the 757/767. It is not the maximum speed at which the aircraft may be flown.

There are extreme cases of aircraft such as a Chinese 747SP falling out of “deadman’s corner” and descending at well above VMO in a dive from extreme altitude and being recovered.

forums.randi.org...

The above link refers in discussion to video of the low flying RNZAF 757 which I posted earlier.

I have myself landed a Gulfstream Cheetah in crosswinds gusting to 55 knots. The manual for that aircraft says it is limited to crosswinds of just 11 knots. The aircraft’s manual is not the final word on an aircraft’s performance limits.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   
i have found an hour long audio commentary in which a professional pilot mentions many discrepancies. one of the things he mentions is that in his opinion there is no way the pilots in question followed the 'known' flight paths.

Source


this is concurrent with what i have seen john lear post in the past.

this is a very interesting commentary that i believe both sides should give a listen. its a few years old but key points remain.

the guy lists standard procedures for many in flight incidents and none were followed.

he attempts to debunk the 'no orders given to shoot down airliners' theory by citing the actual document which lists this directive, but mentions another document which supercedes this and diverted the authority to give the order to shoot down to rumsfeld.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
john,
ive never seen this and im not famililar enough with the timeline to just assume anything one way or another...

but do we KNOW exactly when the hijackers took over flt77? (assuming there were actuall hijackers) i mean according to the "official" story (quotes intentional) were the hijackers already in the pilots seats when the altimeters were reset or were the pilot/copilot possibly still in control of the plane prior to their remval/replacement by the terrorists? (again under the assumption there were terrorists) adn when i say under control of the plane i mean just physically in the seats either before the terrorists stormed the cockpit or after.


im sure the answers to this are easy to find, i just have a headache so im lazy.

ty in advance

damo



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
jprophet420, I am typing whilst listening to your linked conversation. I am 75% through.

IMHO this is merely proof of a cock up. Not of a conspiracy. Clearly there was a military exercise underway which added to confusion. There is a famous transcript of a controller trying to warn someone and the person responding by asking if this was "real world."

Obviously both controllers and the president were paralysed by disbelief. I think it does prove lack of leadership and indecision by Bush. Was there cover up. Probably there was, but people do cover up incompetence far more so than they will for a conspiracy.

If false targets were painted on radar screens who is to say this was not part of the planned military exercise ?

Who is to say that 9/11 conspirators didn't have prior knowledge of a planned military exercise and exploited the fact ?

Who is to say that the inconsistencies were not caused by terrorists with prior knowledge of an exercise exploiting a confusing situation and that cover up was to cover up simple human incompetence ?



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I have listened to the last part of this recording.

It is not so incredible that the black boxes did not survive the WTC fires. FAA Technical Specifications orders only require a black box to survive a fire for 60 minutes.

WTC 2 collapsed after burning for 56 minutes and then the rubble burned for days. WTC 1 collapsed after burning for 102 minutes and likewise the rubble burned for days. I beams were found to have congealed into molten slugs in the rubble.

The other point of the recording is about alleged high g forces turning into the Pentagon. Most of the turn was performed at a bank angle of less than 30 degrees and the airspeed about 280 knots. This is not excessive nor impossible to perform.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I try to take one piece of the puzzle at a time. from what he says there were 'extra blips on the screen' because of the wargames. I've never been in the military but i am sure there is a safeword. they have it in wrestling, they have it in sex. I'm sure there is a way to verify that 'this is not a drill'. once that takes place, everything should fall into place, shouldnt it? In other words once he verified that it was 'real world' they should know it hit the fan.

Whatever the case I'm not debating the governments involvement here. I'm saying this guy is a pilot and therefore has a professional opinion and knowledge of standard procedure. You can ascertain what you wish from this but I tend to choose my questions carefully, one layer at a time. saying that the pilots could not have flown the plane into the building because the plane was locked out to not allow 1.5G maneuvers leads me to ask "where can i verify this" as opposed to "the government did it". however he directly states in his opinion as a pilot that there is no way it could have happened leads me to the conclusion that the plane was not flown into the WTC's and Pentagon under amature hands, or intermediate hands for that matter.

His knowledge of standard procedure, and description of what goes on in flight control coupled with the official story are a good cause for this train of thought: It seems like war games were standard issue back then. the directive he mentions signed in June 01 makes it a requirement to get his (rumsfelds) permission to shoot down a plane. If you were 'unsure' if it was a drill or not it would seem that you would IMMEDIATELY be alerted if something in your loop went awry. And you would certainly be foolish to not report any anomaly you found unless you were 100% certain it was a drill.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join