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.

 

Flight School Head Admits Neither He Nor 9/11 Hijackers Could Fly 9/11 Planes

page: 13
18
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Boy do I disagree. Yes a jumbo jet is much different than a Cessna But.. once you understand the dynamics of flight if you spend some time in a professional simulator you can fly a 747.. easy..

The guy in the video says they couldn't do it because they couldn't descend and change speed because the jet used hydrolics. This is false information. Most of the fancy things in a jet are extras. Most of the normal controls for basic flight are pretty straight forward - as with any airplane.

Sure you've got your trim, mixture, flaps and aileron to worry about as well as stepping on the ball correctly, the air speed indicator, the altimeter an understanding your angle of attack (Angle of attack is the angle between the lifting body's reference line and the oncoming flow) but these things are just a matter of a different feel then a Cessna. With spending time in a professional simulator they could have done it.

Am I a pilot no. but I have spent enough time in PC simulators to know the controls and the difference between a pc simulator and a professional simulator. Before you laugh, let me remind you.. Microsoft does not say " As real As it gets" for nothing.

There is enough valid information in a pc flight simulator that when I was offered to take the controls in a real plane I flew for 15 solo minutes with no problem. ( that was a blast).

The point is the Pro Simulator that is a 20 thousand dollar machine cqan be mastered with enough practice once you know how to fly already. I have seen these machines and they teach a 747 with the basic controls you need as well as a few standard extras. I firmly believe it's possible for a pilot to learn this way if all he's gonna do is crash the aircraft into a building. Professional jet aircraft simulators can be purchased by anyone who can afford one.

That being said, Do I believe these Hijackers did this? Heck no. I believe it was an inside government false flag operation done to us by our government and they flew those planes some other way.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by JohnPhoenix]




posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I find this article disgusting!

Disgusting in the sense that after almost a decade of the greatest attack on the U.S., they only find this out NOW and not even through an investigation.

Just imagine, just goes to show you that nothing was done investigation-wise.

That's repulsive.

We hear about 911 everyday even after almost a decade after the attack but behind the scenes it's nothing but question marks.

I feel like puking



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Aircow
 


'Aircow', may I disabuse you of a few misconcpetions???


I am not a pilot.


Thank you for being honest and forthright. I, actually, AM a pilot --- with experience in type. Thousands of hours. You mention a desktop flight simulator program that you 'fly'...and, while that may seem, to you, as if you have expereice, I assure you, it is not the same as real-life.



I find the hologram theory put forth by John Lear very interesting and worthy of serious consideration and here is just a couple of reasons why.


You are in a very small minority there, bud. Even the esteemed Capt Lear says he doesn't really believe that...he just put it out for fun, I think...but, that's open to interpretation I guess...



A civilian 767/757 can not be flown without a pilot. Someone has to put inputs into the FMS and AFCS and other places as well.


Ummmmm....true. Thank you for finally pointing out the errors of the 'remote-control' nonsense theories that abound out there....



The autopilot system is very complicated and just disconnecting it would have been trouble for the 9-11 hijackers if all they had was the minimal training described in the official story.


Well.....actually, the autopilot is NOT all that complicated, IF you have the training and understanding of how to operate it. It's quite intuitive, to any pilot. Certain aspects may seem puzzling to non-pilots who are using their desktop computers, though. I would be happy to explain, if you have specific questions or concerns.



I've always leaned toward the remote control theory, concerning the three planes on 9-11 that hit their targets.


Here's the problem: First, we have certain factions saying that the airplanes on 9/11 were manuevered in ways "impossible"....but then the claim that they were 'remote-controlled'?? Cannot have it both ways.

It is far, far more difficult to 'fly' an airplane by remote, than to do it whilst sitting in and 'feeling' with all senses. This is fact.

Also, as you aptly stated in the beginning, the MCP and autoflight systme needs a human touch, to input and change programming. The complexity required to alter a stock airplane (four of them, to boot!!) is immense.


I do not believe someone with a 1000 hours in a Cessna could fly the plane, navigate the plane, execute the required maneuvers and maintain control of the plane, and then hit those towers going 400+ knots. They would most likely get lost... if they managed to stay straight and level long enough, and crash.


Again, this is from YOUR experience with a desktop computer simulation. You don't have actual expereice, and knowledge, of the real airplanes. You, as claimed, are NOT a pilot. I gurantee you, IF you had 1000 hours, even in a Cessna, YOU would quickly be able to do everything yo umentioned...not expertly, of course, but sufficiently --- as seen on 9/11.



The 767/757 monitors itself extremely well using a system known as EICAS.


Oh....dear. OK....well, you DO have a computer, and the skills to read. Wow.

EICAS (do you even know the acronym??) is just a way to consolidate any fault, or other alerts, to the crew's attention...part of the trend toward the 'glass cockpit' concept of airplane design, and automation.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

The autopilot system is very complicated and just disconnecting it would have been trouble for the 9-11 hijackers if all they had was the minimal training described in the official story.

[edit: one of the ways...] To disengage the autopilot on the 767 / 757 you pull a handle labeled "DISENGAGE". You don't need any training for that - just some prior knowledge of the systems, which are to be honest, very easy to find on the Internet. I honestly don't know how likely it would be for the hijackers to navigate though - but I wouldn't call it impossible because the systems are not that complex and the information is (today) readily available.


Boy do I disagree. Yes a jumbo jet is much different than a Cessna But.. once you understand the dynamics of flight if you spend some time in a professional simulator you can fly a 747.. easy..

Devout flight simulation fans usually can step into a level-d heavy aircraft simulation and awkwardly fly the damned thing. I definitely would not call it easy by any stretch.


I've always leaned toward the remote control theory, concerning the three planes on 9-11 that hit their targets.

No autoflight or navigation systems in the aircraft were accurate enough to hit a 208 feet wide object while in a steep bank. This can be verified by looking at the navigation performance of the navigation systems (Pegasus FMS RNP). So if it was remote controlled, then a big bunch of additional hardware would of needed to be added.

[edit on 30/11/2009 by C0bzz]

[edit on 30/11/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Actually, buzz....

The A/P will disengage for various reasons, and by various methods.

It WILL disengage if the control column is moved excessively, especially if counter to the intended motion by the A/P servos.

Each control wheel has a thumb-button disconnect as well. Click once to disconnect, a second click cnacels the warning, both aural and visual. Although, some airplanes (the B-737, and some Airbuses) the aural still annunciates...annoying as hell, but that's the way they were designed. You can hear it, when you ride...especially from First Class. Listen up nex time, if on an A320 or B-737...sometime just prior to landing, on the Boeing it is an electronic 'warble' sound, can't really describe it...repeats three times. It cannot be canceled, only the Master Warn lihgt is cnacelled.

Airbus have a different sound...rapid chimes in quick succession, I think (been a while since I jumpseated on one...never flew the airplanes, except for the A300 back in the late 1980s...an OK airplane, handles much like the DC-10)

These disconnects are on the left side of the CAPT's wheel, and the right side of the FO's. Logical, since pilots sitting in either seat use the opposite hand for the thrust levers, see? Also, the mic button is there, too...AND the STAB TRIM pickle switch...
____________________________________________________________

Forgot to add...the A/P can also be disengaged by simply either pushing the button on the MCP (if it is that style) or, in earlier versions, moving the lever on the MCP to the 'OFF' position. Turrning off the flight director won't disengage the A/P, but it will change the programmed modes....not particualrly relevant, but just FYI.


Oh...AND there is the big 'DISENGAGE' gang bar on the MCP, just below the A/P engage buttons, or levers (as appropriate, depending on equipment installed, and date of manufacture). We don't use that button...it is there, but no one actually uses it. Guess IF you needed to disconnect for an out-of-control A/P...well, we use the yoke switch instinctively...but that is one more option that's available.



[edit on 30 November 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
LOL I love how all you real "pilots' try to dubunk my post above and don't take into account the point of my post that training in a professional simulator could have taught these hijackers to fly it enough to crash it into a building.

Perhaps you guys should go back re-read my post more carefully.

But since your so gunho to comment.. how about it Real Pilots?
Do you think if trained with a professional simulator, ( Not a desktop PC type) combined with what they learned at the flight school they could have flown the jet good enough to crash it into th WTC's?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


To answer the question you posed just above this post, I reviewed an earlier comment of yours, included:


The point is the Pro Simulator that is a 20 thousand dollar machine cqan be mastered with enough practice once you know how to fly already. I have seen these machines and they teach a 747 with the basic controls you need as well as a few standard extras. I firmly believe it's possible for a pilot to learn this way if all he's gonna do is crash the aircraft into a building. Professional jet aircraft simulators can be purchased by anyone who can afford one.

That being said, Do I believe these Hijackers did this? Heck no. I believe it was an inside government false flag operation done to us by our government and they flew those planes some other way.


Firstly, a modern simulator is going to cost you about 20 MILLION dollars, not a measely $20,000 (that doesn't take into account the building to house it, the technicians needed to be hired to maintain the thing, to fix it when it malfunctions, etc. NOR the other expertise to amintain the hydraulics too...)

So, you agree that even the 'camel jockeys' that were responsible for the 9/11 hijackings and mayhem could have flown the airplanes, based even on the very basic of piloting knowledge? I agree.

Furthermore, even a few hours' familiarization in a B-757/767 simulator would also have been useful for them. They demonstrated, at the very least, basic understandings of the autoflight system usage. This is undeniable.

But, I am confused by your next assertion --- of the 'Gov't False Flag' complicity claim...this flies in the face of logic and reason. And, has no, none, zero corroborating evidence to back it up. At all. Zilch.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 

But, I am confused by your next assertion --- of the 'Gov't False Flag' complicity claim...this flies in the face of logic and reason. And, has no, none, zero corroborating evidence to back it up. At all. Zilch.


Thank you. About the false flag.. I know we don't have evidence, but it makes since to me.

How else could these planes get near the buildings and the Pentagon without any alerts? I have heard experts testify that jet fuel wouldn't burn like the Gov says it did to make those buildings come down so expertly in demolition pancake fashion. Plus knowing these buildings were designed to withstand jets crashing into them - the Jets alone would not cause them to collapse like they did. Why is there not a jet size hole in the Pentagon? Where is the debris in the pictures - surely that very large plane didn't just vaporize. Where is the Pentagon video? Knowing how government loves high tech stuff especially at such an important place like the Pentagon, we get 5 frames of crap. There is no way this is real Pentagon footage from real Pentagon security cameras.

All these things that don't add up tell me someone in government either had to be in on it or knew of this happening ahead of time to try to pull off such a massive cover up. To me this leads to a False Flag.

If you have a better idea that would explain governments strange involvement in all this I'd like to hear it.. but so far, no one has come up with anything that satisfies all these answers but the False Flag theory.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





I, actually, AM a pilot --- with experience in type. Thousands of hours. You mention a desktop flight simulator program that you 'fly'...and, while that may seem, to you, as if you have expereice, I assure you, it is not the same as real-life.


To me a non-pilot is a person who has no pilot's license. I never said I hadn't flown a plane before. Nor did I say that a desk top sim was the same as the real thing, or use that as the basis of anything else I said. I was simply telling a little bit about myself and flying MSFS is something I enjoy. OK?



You are in a very small minority there, bud. Even the esteemed Capt Lear says he doesn't really believe that...he just put it out for fun, I think...but, that's open to interpretation I guess..


Whatever else can be said of holograms, it does solve the catch-22 like problem, that when choosing between the two scenarios, one of RC planes hitting the WTC or two, hijackers with little or no 767 experience/training flying into the towers, presents.

Secondly, about the size of the group that considers a hologram an interesting possibility. Peer pressure is not a consideration of mine.



Well.....actually, the autopilot is NOT all that complicated, IF you have the training and understanding of how to operate it. It's quite intuitive, to any pilot. Certain aspects may seem puzzling to non-pilots who are using their desktop computers, though. I would be happy to explain, if you have specific questions or concerns.


Uh, I think that's what I was saying when I said..."The autopilot system is very complicated and just disconnecting it would have been trouble for the 9-11 hijackers if all they had was the minimal training described in the official story."

I should've put the word IF in caps. Also, you never miss an opportunity to point out that you're a pilot. After you do that, you basically repeat what I said. And I disagree about the 757 autopilot being intuitive. Any pilot who is not familiar with it will have problems, to say otherwise is absurd.

Lastly,since you offered, I do need help with the CDU. How do I program the AP with it for a "real" flight from...KTUS to KSFO. No passengers or freight, standard jetways, crz alt, intersections, wx, stars and sids. No landing overweight. Just take off, switch to APs and the plane flies itself all the way to the inner marker at KSFO. Should be easy for you so what do I enter where?



You don't have actual expereice, and knowledge, of the real airplanes.


As I said before, I love airplanes and I have all of my life. As you pointed out, I know how to read. What do you think a person who loves airplanes tends to read about? Are you saying that no one but a type rated pilot can read and learn about a plane?



I gurantee you, IF you had 1000 hours, even in a Cessna, YOU would quickly be able to do everything yo umentioned...not expertly, of course, but sufficiently --- as seen on 9/11.


That's quite a guarantee. I'd be able to do everything, but just not expertly. The WTC towers left no margin for error. You either hit them, or you didn't. You either flew as an expert, or you missed.

Furthermore, all you have to support this claim is the authority one would usually accord to a B-757/767 pilot about the aircraft he or she flies. But that too, is an unsubstantiated claim of yours... Frankly I find it extremely difficult to believe.



Oh....dear. OK....well, you DO have a computer, and the skills to read. Wow. EICAS (do you even know the acronym??) is just a way.....


I'm pretty sure my ten year old could look that acronym up on Google and tell me what it means in about a minute or less. Or any other acronym for that matter. So what's the point? It's stupid, and your claim of 31 years in the cockpit is as well.

Cheers.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Aircow]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Lastly,since you offered, I do need help with the CDU. How do I program the AP with it for a "real" flight from...KTUS to KSFO. No passengers or freight, standard jetways, crz alt, intersections, wx, stars and sids. No landing overweight. Just take off, switch to APs and the plane flies itself all the way to the inner marker at KSFO. Should be easy for you so what do I enter where?


1. Fill in INIT page on CDU. Press EXE.

AHRS is a seperate system so that will not be discussed here.

Optimum cruise alt will be on CRZ page. Select an even flight level (below MAX alt and above OPT).

2. Go to Departures page, select runway and SID.

3. Go to leg page and add

GBN J104 CULTS J212 DECAS J65 PMD J6 AVE

You put the jetway in the VIA part, navaid in the TO part.

4. Close any discontinuities. Execute.

5. Set the altitude window in the MCP to cruise alt, enable autothrottle.

6. Takeoff, once a thousand feet high or so enable VNAV and LNAV.

7. Add a STAR / approach. Close any discontinuities and execute.

8. Set MCP alt to whatever the approach needs.

9. Set NAV1 and NAV2 frequency to the runways ILS frequency.

10. Once lined up enable APP mode. Intercept ILS from BELOW. Then enable all 3 (?) autopilots.

11. Set speed to VREF +5. VREF is found in the approach page on the CDU.

12. Get around any weather adding offsets.

13. Don't land too heavy by not loading too much fuel.


That's really simply stuff, dooooood. All from my memory and reading on the internet.

If I wanted to fly to New York I would add KLGA (or LGA) to the top of the LEGS page, execute. Fly there using heading select, or LNAV. It would greatly surprise me greatly if the hijackers did not have very very basic information about the aircrafts systems.


Certain aspects may seem puzzling to non-pilots who are using their desktop computers, though. I would be happy to explain, if you have specific questions or concerns.



Certain aspects may seem puzzling to non-pilots who are using their desktop computers, though. I would be happy to explain, if you have specific questions or concerns.

Which is true.

Other parts of the autoflight system are relatively basic. Like heading / speed etc..

[edit on 2/12/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Aircow
 


Since my private offer was rebuffed, by mention that it should be in an open forum as I 'offered', I shall run the risk of an off-topic by repeating here, for all who are interested in how the FMC works, how to use the CDU to program, etc.


Oh, and I truly doubt anyone's 10-year old could Google sufficiently to fully comprehend, and describe the knowledge that the few ATS members here have with the systems.

Now, everyone can judge for themselves my level of politeness, and restraint. Should be noted that I was invited to share this openly, although, of course, I have not provided any other details from Private comms:

(original, unedited message)

[Me] Answering here, rather than going off-topic in thread.




[other ATS member]Lastly,since you offered, I do need help with the CDU. How do I program the AP with it for a "real" flight from...KTUS to KSFO. No passengers or freight, standard jetways, crz alt, intersections, wx, stars and sids. No landing overweight. Just take off, switch to APs and the plane flies itself all the way to the inner marker at KSFO. Should be easy for you so what do I enter where?





[Me]Not sure if you're asking, or testing my knowledge. You are already passingly familiar with the terms...do really not know how to program the FMC?


Am I wasting my time by responding?

Enter the PERF/INIT data with whatever reasonable number you wish...ZFW figures should be available from your Sim documentation, depending on the airplane type it's emulating.

I assume you already know how to bring up the various pages on the CDU, and enter the data...the SIDS, Runways, STARS, etc, on the DEP/ARR page...assuming you have all the appropriate charts and airport procedures too...but you don't really need the SIDS and STARS in print form, since they're programmed into the box. You need the high-charts for the Jet Airways ("jetway", to me, means the loading bridge...

Anyway, I assume you know how to enter the route info, on the RTE page, or in the LEGS pages (that's more time consuming), but you go there anyway to check for discontinuities.

But, I'm guessing you know this already.

Do you know how to enter hard altitudes in the LEGS page, for your VNAV refinement? Well, as long as you have STAR (not needed, but it will have hard altitude crossing restrictions, likely in the database) and at least the desired approach procedure, and runway selected, that gives you altitude info too, for the VNAV.

But, I am still guessing you know this.

There are more arcane things, but you can play with it for yourself, faster to learn by doing than by reading about it...

BTW, in modern fleets at most airlines, the flight plans are uplinked to us. Happens after initializing the ACARS. It loads in the RTE page, we 'EXECute', check that it matches the printed flight plan. Saves a lot of work, not having to enter everything manually.

We also get a weight and balance uplink, after it's finalized by the dispatcher, sitting at his/her desk at HQ. Easy as cake. (Policies vary, but we're supposed to have the 'Accuload' uplink before pushback. Less distraction during the taxi, is the logic there...same reason they dropped the 'Taxi Checklist'...it is incorporated into the 'After Start').

But, that's probably TMI...


Hope this is useful to those out there who dabble with the desktop computer sims (if there are others besides the person I've responded to).

Now, there is a lot more I could have said, stuff you will never find on "Google", but I think that I've tempted the 'off-topic' fates enough already. Personally, I think it is pertinent to the thread's topic, since I have long maintained that despite the title, and claims otherwise, actual programming and basic usage of the autoflight system is fairly intuitive, and needs only, at most, a few hours of hands-on for someone with even minimal piloting experience to get the gist. Basics of flying don't change, from a Cessna to a Boeing.
__________________________________________________________
edited to add BB codes for clarity. AND, also to see that 'C0bzz' beat me to it, except for his mention

All from my memory and reading on the internet.
Again, not ALL the knowledge of the sytem can be had from the internet. Basics, yes...which actually tends to further refute the claim as stated in OP.

'C0bzz' also demonstrated an understanding of how to code in FLT Plan data in the RTE page. Note that, for the purposes of the hijackers on 9/11, all that would have been necessary for them would have been to go to the LEGS menu, go to last page, and type in any VOR or airport code at their intended destination. (DCA, KDCA for the Washington area, LGA, KLGA, KEWR, KJFK). Any of those, when executed, would display on the EHSIs and be easy to steer along the magenta line, using HDG SEL, as seen...or, if they were better trained on the FMS, they could have used LNAV.






[edit on 2 December 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

again, not ALL the knowledge of the sytem can be had from the internet.

Aircraft manuals can be found on torrent websites. Of course, to get fully familiarized with the systems it requires practical experience.

[edit on 2/12/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Well...never heard of "torrent". Guess if those who wished wanted to, they could try to educate themselves..but, you'e right, nothing beats the practical hands-on. (edit)...looks like a quick Google search, and plenty of AFMs for sale, various sources...Amazon, essco...of course, you'd have to be willing to shell out your $50-60 for something that, again, you could read but without experience might not fully absorb. Plus, the Boeing manuals are notoriously dry and obscure, sometimes. Hence, various airlines produce their own, customized versions...with company-specifics that meet or exceed FAA requirements.

Airlines can even translate into a native language...English is supposed to be 'universal', but the reality is a mix of both, especially in traiing scenarios...and in certain countries.

(Remember back in the day, when the concept of FMS was first introduced on the B-737-300? Joke was, the most common question a pilot was heard to ask was, "Why is it doing that???" There was a distinct learning curve for the more advanced programming tecniques.)

[edit on 2 December 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
oh dear - this thread still going , ok riddle me this :

there have been numerous occasios where unqualified personel with little / zero prior flight experience have sucessfully taken control of aircraft - following pilot incapacitation and landed them [ admittedly while in radio surpervision by a qualified person ]

are all these stories fake ? or will you admit that the basisics of flight is quite straightforward if you know which cantrol to use for which manouver ?



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Basic flight is not a big deal at all, at least in a small plane it isn't.

A small plane doesn't weigh much, so the effects of inertia being relative to weight and speed (most small private craft are relatively slow as well as we all know) and they have little power. My first landing was in a Piper Arrow when I was 14. And I promise I was not an exceptionally bright child.

What makes airliners so complicated and more difficult for someone not familiar with them ( and I am not claiming to be ) is that first they are the opposite of all the above..weight power etc.

There are also multiple systems to monitor, redundant electrical systems and hydraulic systems, cabin pressurization, bla bla and bla.

Then there is the autopilot, which grows ever more complex with each generation.

I feel that if someone is technically orientated and calm, that someone could probably talk them down, especially in a newer ac with an autoland system.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I`ve never had any kind of license, only a few hours in powered aircraft, and maybe 150 total in sailplanes. I THINK I can get through engine start, but if it was airborne I KNOW that I could fly it, including use of the autopilot, which really ISN`T as hard as people make it.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





[edit on 3-12-2009 by Aircow]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 







[edit on 3-12-2009 by Aircow]

[edit on 3-12-2009 by Aircow]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Ditto. Those that have never flown before just have no idea how easy it is to fly any large aircraft, given some real instruction and very minimal realtime flight time in small, twin engine aircraft.

I am not a certified pilot, but I have enough hours in both small and medium sized military aircraft, I know that I could hit something with it. Landing one of these is much harder then flying one into something.

I would never be able to survive an in-flight emergency which required detailed knowledge of the limits of the aircraft, BUT , I know that if I was a passenger in a large aircraft and was thrust into the seat because no one else had any aircraft experience, I could get that plane on the ground with the help of someone in a headset.

I could certainly fly it to a specified destination, if I knew the basics of the flight controls. For navigation, DME is standard equipment and if you studied how to tune in a UFH signal close to the towers, you would certainly be able to fly to the vicinity. Once there, you could simply take a magic marker and put an X on the windshield and be able to put the plane's nose on anything you wanted to hit with some very slow stick and throttle finesse.

In order to post a reasonable response in this thread, you have to have flown an airplane. Period.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 





That's really simply stuff, dooooood. All from my memory and reading on the internet.


I'm sure your parents are proud of you. But I was asking Weed Whacker, dooooood, and it wasn't due to my inability to do it myself, because I do it all the time. U must not have noticed the obvious sarcasm in my request. (cough cough)

I had another reason entirely, and it served it's purpose. But thanks anyway.



new topics




 
18
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join