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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Listen carefully to the Betty Ong tape; she sounds to me exactly like a person reading from a script. See if you can pick that up. She speaks in a flat and emotionless tone and also says things that sound like a script; she hesitates and seems to be coached to a degree.

No matter what happened in the back of the plane, no professional pilot is going to give up the cockpit to anyone no matter how many screams they hear; they are intelligent enough to know that if they did open up, they would likely be next, or at least lose the aircraft to highjacker demands, which is always a dangerous situation in itself.

No, until you can answer the above scenario in the COCKPIT, there is no way to get past the logic here. Mr. Lear makes very salient points about the blood and removal of bodies. Do you have any idea how hard it is to slash two big guy's throats while they resist in a tiny space? The official story just cannot be.

And because a report of a ' bomb ' unattributed to any solid source, a rumor really, like all the alleged weapons they managed to smuggle past the security checkpoints at the airports ( you know, the ones that did'nt take any provable pictures of the "Arabs "? ); might as well say that they might have had machine guns and grenades too,right? It is as likely as them having ANY metal weapons or anything else that could kill men ' immediately '.

This is a major point and must be addressed before any arguments about pilot abilities are more than an academic exercise, although fascinating discussion I admit. But if no one can explain how it could be done in a sensible manner, I will stay with the remote highjack as a valid fact.

Perhaps Mr. Lear or other pro's could tell us about how long it would take to broadcast the highjack code, how many seconds and the likelihood of not being able to get one off when a problem was noted. If only a few seconds or less and there is NO WAY that at least ONE of the pilots would have done so, no doubt. Thats a clincher.




posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Think PRE-911!!

Highjackers of the past pretty much wanted to go to Cuba! These pilots may or may have not been sprayed with mace!

They more than likely witnessed two flight attendants murdered. (yes two were killed on flight 77)

To say that she was coached is a JOKE. These people are trained to stay calm.... No one knows how they would react.

John...please go to:
United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui Trail exhibits. It has all the data you need that shows all the connected and unconnected calls from all 4 planes.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Originally posted by CaptainObvious




John...please go to:
United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui Trail exhibits. It has all the data you need that shows all the connected and unconnected calls from all 4 planes.



Thanks for the info CaptainObvious. My opinion is that all of that information regarding those calls was fabricated by the government. In the case of the American Airlines airplanes all seat back phones had been removed at the beginning of 2001. As to the use of cellphones at those altitudes and speeds and the places they were allegedly used: No. Impossible. Its ridiculous to even suggest that.

But thanks anyway for the info.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   

In the case of the American Airlines airplanes all seat back phones had been removed at the beginning of 2001.

Not doubting you, but any evidence to back this up? First I heard of that one!



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Part 1 of 4:
All of the following is offered with all due respect to Mr. Lear and his background…

It (Vmo) is an aerodynamic limit which will activate the overspeed warning horn which is very loud and very annoying … It could not happen and it did not happen.

Vmo is NOT an aerodynamic limit. It is a speed, specifically selected by engineers and test pilots, to help ensure safe flight operations. Simply exceeding Vmo has no effect on the airplane or its occupants. The overspeed warning is triggered mechanically in most aircraft (referenced to the physical position of the indicator in the Captains instrument). To presume that people cannot perform perfectly well under the stress of an audible warning is less than honest. Ask UAL who used to routinely examine prospective pilot candidates in a flight simulator and have them complete an approach while an unsilenced warning was blaring throughout the approach and landing. Most overspeed warning systems are protected by a circuit breaker. When this circuit breaker is pulled, the overspeed warning is silenced and would not be an issue.


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, … 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.


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

Well, first, “simulator instructors” are NOT certificated by the FAA. Such persons are nominated by the organization (airline or training center) and the FAA “accepts” such nominations by simply making no comment.

Prior to 9/11 it wasn’t at all unusual for folks to seek simulator time, either from an airline training department or from another training organization, as a “warm up” for an interview with XYZ airlines. In these situations it would have been rare to heavily scrutinize such a person – in fact, there was probably some willing “tips” offered by the instructors on how to fly that particular airplane type.

As far as “advanced flying techniques” is concerned, flying straight and level isn’t much of an advanced technique, and such “training”. In fact, I have personally seen a group of girl scouts touring a US airline training facility and shown the inside of a B757 simulator. I watched as several of the more adventuresome young ladies took the captain’s seat and flew the simulated B757 on a “knife edge” between the WTC towers in the visual display – by simply following verbal instructions. Flying toward the buildings was not very complicated as doing so required no specific help from the simulator instructor – and, no, the autopilot was not used in these cases. The instruction, issued at an appropriate lead-time was basically, “pull the nose up to this position (pointing at about 10 degrees nose up), release the back pressure and roll it over on its side and fly between the buildings.” End of instruction. Of course the airspeed was a bit high – and not all of the girls made it “through the gap” precisely – but, after all, they were “tween-aged” girls! Based on what I saw, if any of these girls were so motivated, I doubt that they would have had any trouble at all in piloting the “real deal” straight and level into either of those towers. And, to my knowledge, NONE of those “tweenagers” had a commercial pilot’s certificate!



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Part 2 of 4

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'.

Well, I have read the tabular data for this flight; and focusing on the time period after descending through about 5000 feet it certainly appears to me that whomever was flying had pretty decent control of the airplane; and during the last 45 seconds of recording, the FDR indicates the following:

The column force varied from –280 to –320, and control wheel force varied from –239 to –320.

Radio altimeter rates of descent went from just under 3000 fpm for the first 1/3 of that time, to approximately 2200 fpm for the middle 1/3 of that time, and increases to just under 6000 fpm for the last 1/3 of that time.

The calibrated airspeed (CAS) gradually increases from approximately 300 knots to approximately 315 knots in the first 1/3 of that time. During the middle 1/3 of that time it increases from approximately 315 knots to approximately 375 knots. And, during the final 1/3 of that time, the CAS increases from approximately 375 knots to approximately 460 knots.


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.

I don’t know where you obtained the information about resetting of the altimeters – because I don’t see an indication of that on the FDR raw data table. How do you know, for sure, that the altimeters were reset? However, why is it that you would assume that the local altimeter setting at Reagan Airport was “not available to pilots in the air?” If the hijackers had tuned the radio to the Reagan approach frequency, they would have heard every airplane checking on to that frequency and being advised of the local altimeter setting.


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.

Your statement is partially correct … It is correct that neither Part 121 nor 135 have anything to do with regulatory requirements for airspeeds. However, these two parts of the regulations have to do with operating requirements. Certificate holders operating under Part 121 or 135 are certificated for that operation under Part 119.


It (Vmo) 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 know of one airplane that has a Vno established due to windshield strength. That, doesn’t make it a requirement on all airplanes! Vno (maximum structural cruise speed) is a speed that is selected such that the aircraft would not be damaged by a 30 fps vertical gust. Notes say that "flight above Vno should "only be conducted cautiously and in smooth air." So you can fly faster than Vno, just do it carefully. While, no one would tolerate a line pilot exceeding that speed on purpose, you can see that if that speed were exceeded, the airplane wouldn't fall apart!


[edit on 7-7-2007 by AirRabbit]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Part 3 of 4

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.

You don’t have to talk to approach control to be listening to them! Until you can substantiate that they didn’t have their radio tuned to the approach control frequency, you can't make such a definitive statement. Well, actually, it’s not that can’t make the statement; of course, you can – the fact is you can say whatever you want – but it might not be accurate unless you know all the facts; and you don’t have all these facts.


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.

Hmmm… here’s an idea. Perhaps he put the airplane into a right bank until he could see the Pentagon.


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.

Hmmm… do you think you are the only person who has 40-some years of experience doing what you have done? All I can say is that with statements such as this, in that 40-some years of experience, you haven’t learned as much as you think you have!


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.

Not to be overly repetitive but, how do you know that the altimeters were set correctly?


This statement is incorrect. The Shuttle landing speed is 193 knots or about 225 mph.

I think some research is needed
I would second that motion. Type: shuttle landing speed on Google and press enter. Thanks.


No need. Maximum shuttle landing speed is 415 kmph, 257 smph, or 225 kts.


My opinion is that the Flight #77 Pentagon flight profile was flown at a different place at a different time previous to 911. Then that FDR was given to the FBI as if recovered inside the Pentagon. … The only really weird thing is the right hand turn over the Pentagon. Its impossible to fly the profile as recorded on the FDR from over the Pentagon in a right hand bank back into the Pentagon from the left seat with one smooth turn without correcting simply because you wouldn't have been able to see the Pentagon from the left seat to gauge the turn. … The right turn starts over the Pentagon and continues until the rate of turn is shallowed until it is dead on. Not one single time is there a correction back to the left. Now that is some really accurate flying, … come out EXACTLY on heading toward the Pentagon without having to turn left once. I know I couldn't have done it.

You know, there probably are some inexperienced folks reading this who might “buy” your statement – except for the fact that when sitting in the LHS on B757, and place it into a right bank of about 30 degrees, you would be surprised what you can see out of the right side window! You ought to try it sometime.


[edit on 7-7-2007 by AirRabbit]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Part 4 of 4

My opinion would be if, and I say IF real airplanes did in fact crash into the WTC towers, … switch airplanes after takeoff … and flown from an Airborne Command Post. … Since it would have been far too difficult to hand fly this maneuver with any certainty of crashing into the towers probably a laser beam or signal was being focused on the side of the tower which the automatic flight controls where programmed to follow, just like you see in the footage from Iraq you see the laser guided bombs hitting their target.

But the one factor that I think everybody is overlooking here is how 'they' (whoever ever 'they' were) got everybody who had to be in on 911 to go along with it. You're simply not going to get as many people who had to be 'in on it' to go along with this kind of murderous campaign without a really good convincing reason. It couldn't have been just "bringing democracy to the middle east " thats plain silly. It couldn't have been just 'oil'. A lot of 'good' people participated in the murderous 911 campaign because they were told 'something else'. They were given information that the rest of us don't have that made them think that the murder of 3000 innocent civilians was worth whatever 'else' was going to happen.

Oh come ON! Do you have any idea of the number of people that would have to have been involved to “cover up” something like this? Do you think that whatever story had to be concocted (as you seem to think happened) that not even one of those people would have realized the monetary benefit they could realize by simply “telling the truth.” And, what kind of demented lie do you believe would (heck, even could) convince that many people that the sacrifice of lives of over 3000 people and the impact that would have on over 3000 families and the rest of the nation would be to anyone’s benefit?!?

Besides, you really need to go back up and re-read my comments about the girl scouts who flew the B757 simulator quite nicely thank you.

Admin edit: Removed worthless, childish, derogatory remarks. We are GROWN UPS here and don't need to resort to rudeness. Because of the "High Scrutiny" level and "fair warning" given in this forum this Member has earned a 3 day Time Out.


[edit on 7-7-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Originally posted by eyewitness86





Perhaps Mr. Lear or other pro's could tell us about how long it would take to broadcast the highjack code, how many seconds and the likelihood of not being able to get one off when a problem was noted. If only a few seconds or less and there is NO WAY that at least ONE of the pilots would have done so, no doubt. Thats a clincher.






This is what a transponder looks like (outlined in green). This is the center radio console of a Lockheed L-1011 but the size, shape and location of transponders are generally the same in any transport category aircraft. Sometimes it is located on the eyebrow or overhead radio panel but is usually located were either pilot can reach it easily.

The knob I have indicated with a blue arrow labeled ‘1’ is the knob that controls the left 2 numbers (orange square) of the 4 numbers that make up the transponder code. The knob with the blue arrow labeled ‘2’ is the knob that controls the right 2 numbers of the code.

If an airplane is hijacked all the pilot has to do is turn the left hand knob, labeled ‘1’, to the left or right, depending on where it is currently set, to the emergency hijack code. It should take less than 2 seconds to set it in.

The right two numbers, controlled by the knob labeled ‘2’ don’t matter. They can be set anywhere in a hijack situation. They don’t have to be set any particular place.

On the top of the knob labeled '1' are the letters IDNT which stands for Ident. That is actually a push button that fits inside the knob and can be pushed for identification when ATC requests. when you press this button at ATC's request your little 'aircraft tag' on their radar screen gets brighter for a second or two. That enables them to positively identify you as the target that they are looking at. On the top of the knob labeled '2' are the letters TEST. This is also a push button and can be pressed for the TEST function.

It is not believable that in all 4 airplanes, none of the 8 pilots were able to set the hijack code before they were incapacitated. It only takes 2 seconds and the knob is easily reachable.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Air Rabbit thanks for your comments they a greatly appreciated. Girls Scouts knife edging through the World Trade Center towers? Thats truly amazing! Thanks again for your input.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
In the case of the American Airlines airplanes all seat back phones had been removed at the beginning of 2001. As to the use of cellphones at those altitudes and speeds and the places they were allegedly used: No. Impossible. Its ridiculous to even suggest that.

But thanks anyway for the info.


Your information was proven wrong in regards to the seatback phones. I believe the memo that the pilots for truth received was doctored. So, with all respect, the ridiculous suggestion is the person that sent the false memo to the pilots for truth.

I wont comment on the ridiculous notion that phone calls were fake since it was only your opinion.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
The 9/11 hijackers were pretty good at getting their targets. It was slick for them to use box cutters and fake bombs to get past security without people noticing. I don't doubt that terrorism was involved in 9/11. However, except their motivation, their tradecraft was very unique. They forged passports, trained in boeing simulators, killed with proficiency, executed commando like technique's on some passengers, and were skilled in avoiding authorties while they were in the planning stage. Somebody taught them to kill, forge passports which is not easy to do, may have been engaged in stealing hence the fake passports. Its not far fetched but suspicious to me, in the 9/11 commission report they recieved boeing simulator training, which surprised me no one noticed that was strange, even the pilot instructors I think it was two of the hijackers in florida reported it to the FBI and the same agents reports were refused by their superiors. And maybe at the pensacola naval air station that two of the hijackers recieved pilot training. It kind of reminds of the Iran Contra Affair, where most of the contras were sent arms but the the US took certain groups to train with special forces in the US and then send them back to be part of the death squads. I don't know what happened on 9/11, but I will say that I don't believe in the intelligence failure excuse because the FBI and CIA were always in contact with each other especially in clandestine operations. When the CIA funded mujahideen, the FBI runs on the same level when it comes to clandestine operations for the reason that the CIA doesn't want its people to be busted when they are selling arms in the US to known terrorists or doing any other illegal activity. I know this seems off topic I wanted to put my 2 cents.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by johnlear
In the case of the American Airlines airplanes all seat back phones had been removed at the beginning of 2001. As to the use of cellphones at those altitudes and speeds and the places they were allegedly used: No. Impossible. Its ridiculous to even suggest that.

But thanks anyway for the info.


Your information was proven wrong in regards to the seatback phones. I believe the memo that the pilots for truth received was doctored. So, with all respect, the ridiculous suggestion is the person that sent the false memo to the pilots for truth.

I'm kind of curious are you an expert in doctored paperwork?

I wont comment on the ridiculous notion that phone calls were fake since it was only your opinion.







[edit on 7/7/2007 by grassyknoll7]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
is there a possibilty the hijackers had the stewardess ask the pilot to open up the cock pit....the hijacker pulls out a gun...blam blam...to pilots dead...

just throwin it out there....

[edit on 7-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
is there a possibilty the hijackers had the stewardess ask the pilot to open up the cock pit....the hijacker pulls out a gun...blam blam...to pilots dead...

just throwin it out there....

[edit on 7-7-2007 by wenfieldsecret]

I seriously doubt they had guns with them, otherwise you would have heard that on the cockpit recordings. And it was damn near impossible to get guns in but if you had someone on the inside thats a different issue altogether. Are you trying to be funny?

[edit on 7/7/2007 by grassyknoll7]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
no i was seriously throwing out there....

even after 9-11 people were able to get stuff on the jet...
www.strike-the-root.com...

and i couldnt find the one where the government did it..then told the airliner they did....i remember it being on the news....in the past year...



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
no i was seriously throwing out there....

even after 9-11 people were able to get stuff on the jet...
www.strike-the-root.com...

and i couldnt find the one where the government did it..then told the airliner they did....i remember it being on the news....in the past year...


In my opinion, the security is a joke. And too many people have access to the plane and airport. It just makes people feel safe. The illusion of safety. In the words of George Carlin. Sorry about the asshole comment I made.

[edit on 7/7/2007 by grassyknoll7]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by grassyknoll7
In the words of George Carlin. Sorry about the asshole comment I made.

[edit on 7/7/2007 by grassyknoll7]


nah it's cool...i can see how you thought i was joking....



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Your information was proven wrong in regards to the seatback phones. I believe the memo that the pilots for truth received was doctored. So, with all respect, the ridiculous suggestion is the person that sent the false memo to the pilots for truth.



Originally posted by grassyknoll7
I'm kind of curious are you an expert in doctored paperwork?


I am not at all. But the document was shown to have been photoshopped and dates blackened out. In addition a member at another forum had an on going dialog with a member of AA media:


(June 27, 2007)

*** I am doublechecking with my maintenance folks so I give you accurate data.

(June 29, 2007)

***,engineers at our primary Maintenance & Engineering base in Tulsa tell me that they cannot find any record that the 757 aircraft flown into the Pentagon on 9/11 had had its seatback phones deactivated by that date. An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time.


It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected.

(Who is John Hotard?)

I am a manager in the Corporate Communications department of American, meaning I deal with media.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by grassyknoll7
In my opinion, the security is a joke.


There is a reason why airport security is a “joke”. It’s simply because there is no heightened airplane security problem to begin with. There never were any 9-11 highjackers. There is no islamo-terrorism in America – no matter how badly some (people like Benjamin Netanyahu) wish it were present. The entire department of Homeland security is either bogus or serves an entirely different purpose.

Why exactly the new airport security procedures are in place is any one’s guess. Either to intimidate the populace or to discourage airline travel (as a means to conserve fuel since the age of oil may be nearing its end).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 7/8/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods


Why exactly the new airport security procedures are in place is any one’s guess. Either to intimidate the populace or to discourage airline travel (as a means to conserve fuel since the age of oil may be nearing its end).


small steps toward greater population control and the nazi like police state which has pretty much been admitted by various members of the government, essentially coming straight from the horses mouth. And its many different actions that are being taken in various different things. IMO we should be worried about a lot of these new security measures as they are pretty damn useless and can be easily exploited in really awful ways. It also pushes the perps to do more outrageous things. An example would be when they started talking about giving guns to pilots soon after 9/11 which seems a good idea but it can also be exploited for the worst, think about that and why. Determined preps will always find a way. Like goes for retina scans for security checks and automated identification. People might end up getting their eyes gouged out over that one, or worse.



[edit on 8-7-2007 by VicRH]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join