It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:47 PM
There is no such thing as pilot controls being "locked out" on a Boeing 757/767's flight controls. On an Airbus however there is a computer override which prevents stalling the aircraft.

Have you bothered to look at the Youtube of a low pass by an RNZAF B757 ?

That aircraft pulled up at more than 1.5G I can assure you.

As for wargames there may well have been codewords, but you underestimate the amount of confusion and heisitation which might arise if hijacking wargames were going on at the same time.

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:59 PM
wow. after reading all this i wish i had something super intelligent to say, but both sides are doing fine on their own....

a question was asked about wether or not the terrorists were in the cockpit when it decended below FL180. well a possibility is that they had stormed but not taken over, so there fore the pilots thought they were returning to the airfield and set the altimeters themselves....

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 11:06 PM

Originally posted by jprophet420
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.

even when we do drills, there is confusion about whats going to happen in the drills, because by the time it gets to the enlisted it's like the telephone game. Something has been added changed and then changed again. Military ATC is enlisted, and it becomes confusing when somebody just throws something out there that's coinciding with what your doing but says it's not fake. Yes there are safety words, but even if you hear them it takes a bit for it to click then respond.

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 11:31 PM
So the hijackers just lucked out on the day with having the drills happening to 'aid' them due to the confusion? They also lucked out on hitting the Towers at such high speeds?

And then whats with leaving Logan Airport and spending all that time in the Air?? Why not leave from JFK?

Or whats with lowering your Landing Gear before you hit the Pentagon>?

"It seemed like the pilot was scrambling to keep control, and I watched as he dropped lower and lower," Sepulveda said. "Then he dropped his landing gear and started coming down even faster and lower.

I think there is something not right about all of this and I think anyone who thinks this has some good reasons to hold suspicions.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 12:14 AM
There is no luck about what happened that day... Your words not mine.

Al Qaeda planned meticulously and it is not impossible that they also had their own intelligence that there were wargames on that day.

If and I say if advisedly, if the Pentagon aircraft lowered undercarriage then lowering gear acts to stabilse the aircraft and to act as speed brakes. I am not aware of any suggestion that the wheels were lowered other than what you've just cited.

Nothing in these flights is beyond either human ability or the aircraft's ability.

I am not sure of the 757's VNE speed but the 767's is 514 knots. Both aircraft were designed for a common pilot's type rating.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 12:41 AM

There is no luck about what happened that day

Well let us present the *OFFICIAL STORY'S* Star Witness and his *CONFESSION*.

The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.

Talk about "LUCK".......

They didn't even *KNOW* what the targets were until just before they boarded the planes!

Now let us add this to the mix. They not only hit the WTC Towers, but they did so without knowing until that day what their operation was?? And who exactly in Al'Qaeda is going to get the INSIDE scoop on any war games in the United States?

It is unbelievable that they hit their targets now. And I would really like to find out if lowering the landing gear at that speed in the Pentagon Attack would really stabilize the plane.

Now, they were trained to fly. But didn't get the operation details till that day. And then they went on to hit their targets like that? I say "Houston we have a problem"..

[edit on 4-7-2007 by talisman]

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 01:16 AM
In the second Gulf War I seem to recall at least one muslim serviceman threw a grenade into a tent full of other servicemen. Is there some suggestion that security was so watertight that well planted informants couldn't get a clue what was coming ?

When you plan an exercise to respond to a fake hijacking (which is what this exercise was about) then you do have to formally notify FAA, ATC and various people in advance.

I read the transcript. Usama Bin Laden also said:

...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (who was "them all?") (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.

Clearly some of those involved knew roughly the aim was to strike a building. The teams comprised of pilots and heavies to do the violence. I can accept that the heavies had no clue.

What is so different from say the missions of the Dambusters in WW2 ?
They trained by flying low level and attacking dams in Wales. they practised flying low over water and releasing bouncing bombs.

Sure the Dambuster crews did not know their targets until the last moment, but they sure as hell knew what they were being trained for.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 02:04 AM
Originally posted by sy.gunson

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.

Sy, you are the one that is confused. VNE and VNO were limits which applied to both prop and jets certificated under CAR 4B. (Like the CV 880/990 series.) To accomodate the new livery of jets and their special requirments the Federal Aviation Administration changed CAR Part 3 and Part 4b to FAR part 23 and part 25 in the early 1960's. VNE and VNO and were left as airspeed limitations for prop and turbo-props. The airspeed limitation for jets became, VMO/MMO VD and MD. There is no VNE for any airplane certificated under Part 25. It is either VD or MD.

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

This is total poppycock. There was no VMO in the old says. It was VNO and VNE.

Now the requirement to publish VNE has gone..

Sy, you are beginning to irritate me with you lack of knowledge. VNE has not gone away and is still published for aircraft certificated under FAR part 23.

It is no longer required under FAR Part 121 or Part 135, nor Part 25. .

Sy, strop it. FAR 121 has nothing to do with airspeeds. FAR 121 is the regulation that airline companies are certificated under. Part 135 are the regulations that charter operators are certificated under. Neither have anything to do with airspeeds nor do they regulate airspeeds. Part 25 are the regulations that jets, airliners or private are certificated under.

Many pilots nowadays refer to VMO as if it were VNE, which it is not.

No they don't. That statement is complete false. VNE applies to propeller powered airplanes or those certifcated under the old CAR 4b. VMO is velocity max operating, MMO is mach maximimum operating. And those limitations are all that are given to the pilot, printed on the airspeed indicator and published in the limitations manual. VD and MD are certification limits and are much higher but not to be used or even known about by other than certification test pilots.

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

Sy, stop it. I am not citing VMO and VNE. You re mixing horse apples with oranges.

VMO is not an aerodynamic limit. It is a notional limit for the safe operation of the airframe to avoid structural damage.

This statement is false. It may or may not be an aerodynamic limit. Most VMO are restricted by their ability to withstand a 4 pound bird shot 90 degrees to the plane of the window. It is not a 'notational limit'. It is an iron clad limit.

I don't think a little thing like a warning horn is going to deter some guys bent of flying into a building.

Then you have never been in the cockpit of a Beoing airliner when the overspeed warning horn started blaring. It is not a 'little thing' and it cannot be silenced. And yes, it would be a major distraction to someone trying to fly into a builiding.

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.

And thats what you call stabilized?

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.

I checked back at what I said and I don't see myself saying that the Pentagon jet would suffer wing flutter at 350 knots. Your statement is untrue and its also ridiculous. Its as ridiculous as you saying 'you doubt' that flutter will affect the 757 below about 420 knots. Flutter is designed out of modern jets. It does not matter what speed they are going. They could be at terminal velocity straight down a mine shaft and the wings will not flutter.

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.

This statement is incorrect. Again, again and AGAIN, VNE does not apply to jets certificated under Federal Air Regulation Part 25.

The 767 and 757 were designed to allow pilots rated on one type to also fly the other.

This statement is correct.

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.

This statement is incorrect. The Federal Aviation Adminisitration limits all aircraft in the Continental US at 10,000 feet and below to 250 knots for safety and has done so since about 1966. This does not prove VMO is not an absolutely handling limit. As stated before VMO is generally a bird strike issue. MMO would be the aerodynamic limit.

Take a good hard long look at the RNZAF 757 flyby. That is one helluva lot more than 250 knots!

I don't know what the airspeed limitations are where that airplane is flying but I can tell you this: that pilot left his brains back in the hangar.

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?

The above 6 or 7 statements are mixing horse apples with cow droppings. They were copied off a web page about airspeed indications with no reference to CAR 3, CAR 4b, FAR 23, or FAR25. I would take the time to rip them to shreds line by line but I just don't have the time. And by the way Sy, who's 'we'. You can't possibly be an airline pilot.

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.

This is nonsense and it is also incorrect. VMO is a certification limit and is determined by the manufacturer. In no way is the operator involved.

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.

VMO and MMO can change between countries of certification but it has nothing to do with the operators. FAA has their standard and the CAA has their standards. VMO does not vary from operator to operator unless you are talking about one operator from the US and one from the UK.

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.

This statement is incorrect and absolute poppycock. It is most definately 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.

What is the point of this statement please?

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.

The aircraft manual is indeed not the final word on an aircraft's performance limit. It is the certification limit based on restricted bank angle and rudder input per FAR 23. Anyone with a modicum of experience and lack of judgement can exceed them.

Sy, I will continue to try and separate the wheat from the chaff as long as I can. But you need to know you are cutting into my TV time.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 02:32 AM

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret

a question was asked about wether or not the terrorists were in the cockpit when it decended below FL180. well a possibility is that they had stormed but not taken over, so there fore the pilots thought they were returning to the airfield and set the altimeters themselves....

lol thats exactly what i was trying to say but you know how it is when your heads throbbing and you really should be in bed vs typing on the net.

thanks wen for posing my question in a more intelligible form

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 03:36 AM
Originally posted by wenfieldsecret

wow. after reading all this i wish i had something super intelligent to say, but both sides are doing fine on their own....

a question was asked about wether or not the terrorists were in the cockpit when it decended below FL180. well a possibility is that they had stormed but not taken over, so there fore the pilots thought they were returning to the airfield and set the altimeters themselves....

OK. Let's assume that the hijacker (Hani Hanjour) entered the cockpit somewhere in cruize and pointed a gun at the captain and said, "Turn off the transponder, start descent and head back to Dulles." OK, so he does all that and heads back to Dulles. Where does he get the Reagan International local barometric setting? He didn't get it from ATC because he is not talking to ATC. He didn't get it from the AWOS (automatic weather sevice) because they are broadcasting the local barmetric pressure that is an hour old and its different from the current.

And so where does the hijacker take over? There is no indication on the Flight Data Recorder that any of the controls are 'bumped' as the pilot gets out of the seat'. No sign on the FDR that there is a struggle in the cockpit. Certainly the pilots aren't BOTH going to get out of their seats without a struggle.

But specific to Flight #77 whoever is flying the airplane makes a RIGHT turn over the Pentagon. You can't see the Pentagon to make the lineup with the kind of precision that the FDR indicates from the left seat. The FDR records a near perfect right turn and lineup while descending. That would be impossible from the left seat because you can't see the Pentagon out of the right window from the left seat until you get almost all the way round in the turn.

OK you say well maybe the hijacker flew it from the right seat. All right well that means you got both pilots to get out of the cockpit and let the hijacker fly? No. Thats not unlikely. Thats impossible.

So then you say well maybe he shot them both. Well if he did that means he had to drag one of them out of the seat to get in the seat. There is no indication on the FDR of any of the flight controls being 'bumped' as the pilot is being dragged out of the seat. Got any idea of how difficult it would be to get a dead body out of a pilots seat without disturbing the control column which would show up on the FDR? Impossible.

Well then you say maybe the hijacker told the copilot to get out of the seat or he was going to shoot the Captain. The copilot gets out of the seat then the hijacker shoots the copilot and then shoots the Captain. Then sits in the right seat and crashes the airplane.

OK. Well then wheres the airplane? It sure as heck is not in the Pentagon. And for those of you still clinging to the fantasy that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon I can tell you that based on my 40 years in aviation, builiding airplanes, flying them and investigating accidents: no Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon.

Oh. And one more thing. At the instant of the crash the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) records the altitude of the airplane 400 feet above the Pentagon.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 03:54 AM

No, only maybe someone in Afghanistan knew of something. But Bin Laden himself says the ones that went to America didn't even know ONE LETTER>

and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter.

So No they didn't know. And now the story becomes unbelievable. The speeds of these planes are beyond WW-2 craft, the factors of hijacking and keeping cool under stress makes what your saying fundamentally unbelievable.

Now some might want to think someone else in America KNEW about what the operation was. But there is no getting around what Bin Laden said. It totally makes the 9/11 official story look ridiculous.

Bin Laden in a Cave with a laptop gets some other Cave dwellers to hit America, something I think I could only see in a James Bond Movie. Best of yet, he doesn't tell them what they are supposed to do!

That story is ridiculous any way you cut it.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 04:26 AM
What you say John Lear is just repackaging of what I said to refute me.

Yes FAR Part 25 does not require VNE. I said that myself, but Vne/MME has previously been published for jet aircraft under CARs. In reality these are two different figures. Unfortunately Vne/MME is wrongly quoted as VMO.

The 747-200 type for example has a VMO of 375 knots whilst the 747-200's VNE is 445 knots. For example:

Boeing refers to VMO as a limit which may only be exceeded for training, or test flying purposes with authorisation.

John Lear said: It is most definately the maximum speed at which the aircraft may be flown.

Please make up your mind John. Was the plane flown into WTC at 466 knots, or wasn’t it ?

John Lear said:
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:

How conveniently you change the subject. If you’re saying that it couldn’t possibly be done then good. So it was flown in at VMO. Now you can go back to watching “Days of Our Lives.” I wouldn't dream of disrupting you soaps.

[edit on 4-7-2007 by sy.gunson]

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 07:57 AM

Originally posted by sy.gunson
VNE speed but the 767's is 514 knots.


You make good points sy, however you fail to cover Mcrit in such dense air, center of pressure, center of lift, elevator effectiveness (and trim) at such speeds, etc etc.

I think Lear covered the Vmo issue...

I also notice you do not mention the NTSB claims that AA77 was descending at 4,600 fpm at 10-50 feet above the ground (if you believe the official story), when the pentagon lawn requires ~300 fpm descent in order to be level with the lawn as seen in the DoD "5 frames video".

You also fail to cover dutch roll.

Dan Govatos is an FAA Examiner/Check Airman for his airline at the time. The pilots he was "training" were quite experienced and learning a new aircraft. They were hardly the type with the 'ink still wet'. Perhaps sy can fill you in on this.

We are currently trying to obtain wind tunnel specs of the 75/76 through one of our Boeing team members to determine exact speeds at which control surface flutter, high speed buffet, Mcrit et al become a factor. So far he has been unsuccessful. Once we have the data, we will be sure to post an article.

In the meantime, here are some highlights of a well put together article regarding Hani. The "pilot/hijacker" which the 9/11 Commission Report considers the "most experienced" of them all.

Hanjour's own piloting skills were shaky

eventually was asked to leave by instructors who said his skills were poor and his manner difficult

a "weak student" who "was wasting our resources."

his instructors regarded him as a poor student, even in the weeks before the attacks.

Fults recalled. "He had only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do"

got overwhelmed with the instruments."

"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."

And my favorite...

"I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, the JetTech manager."

"The operations manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix said she called the FAA inspector that oversaw her school three times in January and February 2001 to express her concerns about Hanjour. "

"Chevrette, the flight school manager, said she told Anthony she believed Hanjour could not write or speak English fluently as required to get a U.S. commercial pilot's license."

"The thing that really concerned me was that John had a conversation in the hallway with Hani and realized what his skills were at that point and his ability to speak English," Chevrette said.

Chevrette said she was surprised when the FAA official suggested the school might consider getting a translator to help Hanjour.

"He offered a translator," Chevrette said. "Of course, I brought up the fact that went against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently before they even get their license."

Imagine.. an FAA Inspector suggesting a translator for a pilot who already had a Commercial... supposedly.

All quotes above sourced by a well written article here...

I sorry folks, there is only so much i can take before i start to waive my BS Flag high. Some others prefer to make excuses.



[edit on 4-7-2007 by johndoex]

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 08:06 AM
A few more for good measure...

August 2001

deemed him incompetent to fly alone.

Hanjour could not handle basic air maneuvers

Hanjour was not ready to rent a plane by himself. Cape Cod Times (10/21/02)

they still felt he was unable to fly solo

he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172

ETA: By the way sy.. how much time do you have in the 75/76? We actually have a pilot who has time in the planes reportedly used on 9/11...

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Has time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

A few Accident Investigators as well...

[edit on 4-7-2007 by johndoex]

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:23 AM

Good link. With all this expert evidence (experienced pilots’ insights) showing the impossibility of the 9-11 flights being flown by ‘highjackers’ and all the other unfeasibilities (Barbara Olson’s phone call, etc.) why do so many think it’s outrageous to conclude there were no planes at all? Yes, I’m one of those ‘no-planers’. And it keeps on baffling me how the majority insists those four flights did happen on 9-11.

The Wizard In The Woods

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 09:47 AM
Originally posted by sy.gunson

Now you can go back to watching “Days of Our Lives.” I wouldn't dream of disrupting you soaps.

Actually Sy, it's "Twilight Zone". Get's me in the frame of mind to answer your posts.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by sy.gunson

WTC 2 collapsed after burning for 56 minutes and then the rubble burned for days.

burned for 3 months actually, burning for days is mearly watering down the facts. Like Jet fuel brought down the towers is watering down the facts.

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 12:58 PM
people do get lucky...i've survived my entire life being lucky.....

i'm sure they were aiming for the centers of the WTC and the Pentagon. and i'm sure they would have been happy had they just clipped them, then the plane at least would continue down into the streets and other buildings below. With the pentagon i'm not so sure what to think.

also we learn of our exercises well in advance, and technically we're not allowed to talk about them. from the "older guys", the service was more lax "back in the day"...they even tell me stories of how they could drive straight onto base without stopping and showing ID

[edit on 4-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 01:12 PM
sy.gunson would you mind sharing with us your background? Jhon has a quite solid history. Do you as well? One question about the wings at the pentagon do you believe they actually folded?

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 02:46 PM
Speaking of the Pentagon, if the Gov had nothing to hide then where is some good quality footage of what happened? I don't buy the 'they only had those cameras on the side working' etc.

Michael Moore has gone on the record recently and said that he filmed at the Pentagon before 9/11 and knew about hundreds of camera's that had the right angle to show what happened, and since he is a film maker and knows a thing or two about a camera then I would believe him.

The unusual flight times and time in the Air, the precision of the strikes on the WTC towers, the Pentagon and us never seeing it, the fact that the hijackers only knew that day exactly what they were supposed to do, the lack of a military response.

All of the above lead me to conclude that there are good reasons to doubt the Official story.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in