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.

 

The end of 'Terrorist Couldn't Fly Planes That Well' threads

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Ah but the problem is that there is no standardized response to TCAS orders. There were 60+ Russian children killed because of conflicting orders between TCAS and ATC. There were several near misses as well because of this. They're working on a standardized response, but right now the pilots are trained to follow ATC immediately, so when they get conflicting orders, they follow ATC, which may get them in more trouble than if they listen to TCAS.




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   

The Pentagon hijacker had 600 hours total time with a commercial and twin-engine rating.

Can I just add, that, provided you have all the liscenses, 600 hours is more than enough to get you an Airline job... easily.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Zaphod58,

Different accident. There was a Russian airplane and an American DHL cargo airplane on the same airway, head on at same altitude due to controller error/miscommunication. They were on different ATC frequencies, about to be handed off between sectors. The DHL crew responded correctly to the TCAS. The Russian crew heard THEIR TCAS, but responded instead to what the controller told them. We were trained to ignore ATC and respond to the RA...and fill out the paperwork later for disobeying the ATC instruction, and the ATC know it's that way, at least the professional controllers here in the US.

(and, BTW, most air traffic controllers around the world, didn't mean to impugn anyone...)

[edit on 29-11-2007 by weedwhacker]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 

That’s pretty cool
Just have to comment though
If An American Non Commercial pilot can fly an airliner into the biggest city in Saudi Arabia
Well then (You’ll just have to fill in the rest yourself)







[edit on 29-11-2007 by moonking]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Zaphod58, off-topic but I must ask..."Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", am I right? Your screen name, I mean...




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yeah, but that's the thing. Right after that accident it came out that there were at least 12 near misses around the world because to TCAS/ATC conflicts. Pilots in the US were trained to ignore ATC and listen to TCAS, but pilots in different parts of the world WEREN'T trained that way.


But of course.


[edit on 11/29/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   
After having read all 4 pages of this thread, and sifting through the "My cockpit knowledge is bigger than yours" arguments, I do think there were some very common sense points made.

It seems like the hijackers, (if indeed they were on the plane) did not need to fly the plane even during their cruising around prior to the final approach. If I understand it correctly, all they had to do was to know a sequence of airport codes for the autopilot to take the plane in the desired direction. Since we are being told that this is independent of the altitude (which the pilot enters manually), with a carefully sequenced set of destinations, they could easily end up within a stone's throw away from the WTC, at their desired altitude.

I have not seen any conclusive argument as to whether or not a mildly trained and experienced pilot is capable of hitting WTC with such accuracy at such high speeds. It would be great if some professional pilots commented on this as opposed to the grandchildren, nephews or friends of real pilots.

But regardless of the technical details there are speculative considerations to be made simply from a "probability" perspective, which generally make these 19 guys look more like patsies or pawns and not the actual perpetrators of the ultimate crime.

1. The sheer complexity of the plan: To hit 4 targets accurately.....I tend to think that FLight 93 could have easily been a back-up which was eliminated once the other targets were successfully hit. They needed to take down the WTCs for the biggest psychological impact, but they also needed a military and/or government hit to make it all the more "reasonable" to go to war.

2. The utter perfection of the execution: Especially if my suspicion (not theory by any means) about 93 being a back up is true, the so called terrorist attack can be considered 100% successful. Two towers hit at bull's eye... With a simple mistake, misjudgment or miscalculation in flying, one of the wings could have missed the building or something but it did not. Both towers collapsed virtually completely... The military target Pentagon was also hit successfully, causing just enough damage on the reinforced wing of the building. Whether they were actually sent by AL Qaida, or knowingly or unknowingly participated in a black op, I tend to seriously doubt that an operation of this complexity would have been left in the hands of 19 characters with very dubious chances to succeed.

One simply can't avoid considering that these 19 numbskulls were either assisted and/or trained by a much more able and well equipped organization. The question, besides the whos and hows, is really "at what level?". Were they simply given tools and tricks to be able to pull this off? Were they trained extensively on simulators by someone?

I suspect the secret to the WTC approaches lie in two other buildings. One is WTC7 and the other is the Deutsche Bank building... Please note the location of both buildings in respect to the sides that were hit... One of these buildings, as we all know, collapsed the same day, and the other has not been demoed or renovated to date, with very shady stories surrounding the company that was assigned the demolition of this prime real estate that must be losing millions every year simply by being vacant.

From the really knowledgeable members out there, I would love to hear any comments as to how these buildings might have been used to guide the airplanes to their respective targets. (no no-planers, not on this thread please).

I am hoping my comments won't be seen as a digression from the OP. I believe the planes were navigated and slammed in to buildings with a lot less technology than the fantastic theories about the government's "30 year advanced technology would like to believe. A perfect plan is usually also a very simple plan and leaves virtually no room for error.

Training 6-8 guys extensively over a few years is much safer and easier than almost all of the other "theories".



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by may_be_true
 


Thanks for an interesting (if long) observation, may_be_true...

I am not a nephew, child or grandchild of a pilot. I AM a retired airline pilot, as is Capt John Lear.

It is difficult to explain all of the complexities, in a post...and I daresay Capt Lear has a certain opinion that differs from some who opine here. That is good for the discussion, I certainly lay no claim to knowing the absolute truth. I just have experience in the B757/767 and can therefore give a perspective to what I can imagine might have happened, given the premise of a co-ordinated hijacking that was planned and implemented on 9/11.

The four flights were chosen, I would assume, because they a) had nearly identical departure times, b) were trans-con flights, hence lots of fuel and c) it was off-season, that is, the 'shoulder' period as airlines call it, after Summer vacation but before any major US holiday. Pax loads are traditionally light...

UA93, far from being a 'red-herring', was, in hindsight, a fortunate combination of factors. Newark is a particularly busy, some might call it the 'ugly step-child' airport of the three in the NYC area, prone to extensive delays, sinced JFK and LGA get priority treatment, IMO. Hence, UA93 experienced an extensive delay from push-back to lift-off. What is more, there were only FOUR hijackers on UA93, as opposed to FIVE on the other three airplanes. The delay was instrumental in the scenario, since media reports had already covered the WTC attacks, and once UA93 was taken over, and descended by the hijacker to a low altitude on its way to target (DC) the passenger's cell phones could get signals. AND, they had the AirPhone installed in the seat backs as well....

I am told the VOR on UA93 was tuned to DCA...that's the VOR at National Airport. That's enough guidance info for a reasonably educated pilot to steer the airplane, and then take over visually once n the vicinity. It was a beautifully clear day...I was at home that morning, in Arlington, VA. I felt the tremor shake my house when the Pentagon's upper floors collapsed, sometime after AA77 impacted. My house shook at just after 10:00AM. (Maybe 10:08, not sure...you can look it up...)

OK, enough for now, thanks for reading.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


My apologies for the length of my previous post... As the famous saying goes, I did not have time to write any shorter.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by may_be_true
 


may_be_true,

Laughing...I didn't criticisize (sp?) your post, since I wrote one about as long anyway!!! I thought you wrote something interesting and pertinent, so kudos.

Actually, I have no right to give kudos, except that it is my personal opinion....

Cheers



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by tezzajw
Never in my life have I heard of anyone that I know ever being allowed to touch the controls of a 767.

This is a video of me at the controls of a Boeing 707...

Nice.

Notice that I stated that I had not heard of anyone being allowed to touch the controls of a 767 in flight? I stated that in response to a claim that it was common knowledge that people are allowed to touch the controls of a 767 during flight, with the permission of the pilot.

All your video proves is that you had a wonderful time holding the 'steering wheel' of a 707 - well done, it must have been a great ride! Seriously!


Originally posted by Zaphod58
I can think of two right off the top of my head right now. They weren't 767s but they were non-pilots flying the planes.

Notice that I stated that I had not heard of anyone being allowed to touch the controls of a 767 in flight?

Let's just drop it, ok. A claim was made that it was common for pilots to let people touch the controls of the 767 in flight and that everyone knows someone who has done so. It's a bogus claim. Totally bogus. Sure, some pilots may have let friends/family touch the controls, but I doubt that it would have been common or routine to permit that happening with any frequency, as I know a few people and none of them have ever touched the controls of a 767 in flight.

It only takes one counter-example to disprove a false statement.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


tezzajw, I can assure you that in my career as an airline pilot I have NEVER allowed an untrained nor unqualified person to control any airplane I have been on, whether I was PIC or SIC. In fact, even before September 2001 (and even more so now) access to the Flight Deck while the airplane was in operation by unauthorized individuals was prohibited per FAA regs. (at the gate, yes it's OK to invite someone to the cockpit...sorry, Flight Deck...).

If Capt Lear's offer still stands, re: his buying an hour in a B767 sim and letting interested Private Pilots fly the bugger to hit the WTC...(oh, I apologize, that was very disrespectful...).

Still, I think Capt Lear did offer...in fact, he challenged ME! I offered, in return, to split the cost. No answer yet, so we will see...

Point is, want a final answer about whether a Commercial/Instrument rated 'amateur' pilot could figure out how to fly a B767 into a building? Let's go into a simulator and find out. After all, modern simulators are so realistic, today, you can get fully certified in one, and then be qualified to fly the real airplane...even if you've never flown the real airplane before!


(Don't panic...airline pilots are trained in the sim, then put on a 'live' flight with a Check Airman...). Believe me, when I tell you...we go through enough in the simulator, getting to a 'normal' flight is dead easy by comparison...No need to worry....



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
 



so, all things considered...is it really outside the realm of plausibility that they used the computer to get them lined up and then took over by hand? especially given the steep bank that teh one plane did in an apparent move to cut across several floors? (as opposed to the bank being a last second course correction i mean)

dunno, just asking questions. aeronautics arent my field.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


It's possible and very likely they used the computers to line them up. But they did NOT use them to hit the building as autopilot will NEVER bank that hard so close to a fix. Ever (Unless it's turning to the next fix).

Even if autopilot could fly it into the buildings, I have doubts the hijackers (Who HAD a fair amount of aviation credentials) would trust it to pull of the accuracy required. There's no real reason why they'd wouldn't have hand flown it.


I sure would have.



[edit on 30/11/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
While not discussing the possibility that a navigation aide was used such as ILS or similar systems, I do have to mention that the flight into the Pentagon was performing what pilots considdered impossible to do in such an aircraft, the main factor being G-forces and stress on the airframe during such high-G manauvers, a Jet liner is simply not build for that.

As for no windows, could this have been due to the windows of the aircraft being closed? perhaps not to make the passengers panic? well this is debunked by the alledged phone-call since she reported seeing "water and buildings" so never mind that, as for the strange pod, has this been indentified as something? in my most humble opinion this is not just a trick of shadow or lighting.

I simply have no flight history or pertinent knowledge of avionics to make an opinion about the main subject but I do find other circumstances around the attack dubious at best, there were many anomolies, esspecially the giant fireball, Kerosene is similar to diesel and does not necesarilly explode as a fireball as gasoline or propane would as far as I know.

Just my uneducated opinions.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 06:09 AM
link   

considdered impossible to do in such an aircraft, the main factor being G-forces and stress on the airframe during such high-G manauvers, a Jet liner is simply not build for that.

Actually, airliners design load is typically 2.5g's with a 50% margin. Excluding all other factors, at MTOW the wings would snap when the aircraft is pulling 3.75g's or more, and the planes involved in 9/11 where no where near MTOW..... I am not sure if the fuse could hold up to such forces, but that point is, aircraft is very very strong and are designed for forces which far exceed what they'd typically see in service. There's been other cases of Airliners doing far more excessive maneuvers than the aircraft involved in 9/11.

FedEx Flight 705 and China Airlines Flight 611 come to mind.




posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Should change the laser ring INS to AHRS. AHRS is updated, in the following bias:
· GPS (as installed)
· Two or more DME stations
· One VOR with a collocated DME
· One localizer and collocated DME
· One localizer.

And lastly, INS.

[edit on 30/11/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
The navigation in the 767 will NOT be abled to hit WTC unless there was ILS. Honeywell Pegasus, is a newer, better Flight Management Computer which started being retrofitted to 767s beginning in 1998. It most likely was on the aircraft involved, and if it wasn't, we're greatly overestimating the accuracy of the navigation performance, original FMS were NOT GPS.

Here is a table, from Boeing, representing the Required Navigation Performance (Nautical miles). A single nautical mile is 6076 feet, assuming you could hit any part of the towers which were 208 feet wide, 104 feet left or right from the fix, means you have to have a ANP (Actual Navigation Performance) of 0.017115 nautical miles or lower to even hit WTC.


Notice how as RNP gets halved, the precision goes down more and more dramatically as RNP goes down. Imagine a RNP of 0.017115 nautical miles to even get the fuselage to hit the WTC... both planes hit dead on.

The likelyhood of two aircraft hitting the towers with those odds if flown on autopilot is impossible.

Source: www.boeing.com...

[edit on 30/11/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
 


Back on the second page someone posted a link to some of the data from the flight recorders that stated the FMS was used to line up with the target, and that it was switched off at the last couple of min.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Well if anyone thinks that it was possible that the planes flew themselves into the towers, we can safely tell them; they're wrong.




new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join