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: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Yeah, but the 757/767 aren't FBW, so it would make a difference. Boeing didn't do their first FBW until the 777.




posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


Ummm...a B767 Flight Deck is fairly spacious. Besides the two Pilot seats, there are two jumpseats, and floor space underneath.

The sight lines from the Pilot's point of view are designed to be the same for the B757/767, hence the common type rating. A B767 is, or course, a Widebody and there is, therefore, more volume in the part of the Flight Deck forward of the bulkhead where the entry door is located. That is one reason why you step UP into the B757 Flight Deck (door opens out) and step DOWN into the B767 (door opens inwards). BTW, the physical steps are still there, when I refer to which ways doors open, I'm talking about BEFORE 9/11. Current information is something I'd rather not talk about...

Only ONE terrorist would need to sit in one seat, most likely the Left seat, since that's how pilots are trained (unless they're learning to be Instructors). A dead First Officer could be in his seat...BTW, the B767 has electric seats, switches on the side will operate fore/aft and up/down.

Really, in preparation for this, a few hours in a simulator would have shown these guys where to find the switches and buttons and how to do BASIC FMS programming...Heck, it's out there on the Internet now!!



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by KATSUO
 


KATSUO, even with Fly By Wire there is an artificial feel built in. I'm not terribly conversant with Airbus A319, 320, 330, et al, or even Boeng 777 flight control systems. (Not even sure if the B777 is FBW....maybe the B787 will be?). I do know the throttles on the B777 are FBW, just to eliminate all of the elaborate cables and pulleys out to the Fuel Control Units. But, I admit, not sure about Ailerons, Elevators and Rudder control on the B777.

IN any event, there has to be an artificial 'feel', probably accomplished with hydraulics. The 'feel' would be speed sensitive, of course...and the degree of available control surface deflection is limited depending on speed and Flap/Slat configuration as well. Sorry, it is all very complex to explain...think about the tragedy of AA987 in November 2001, Queens NY.

AN A300-600, being flown by the First Officer on the leg down to the Carribean. I have no doubt he was a good pilot, and knew how to use the rudder, as opposed to simply using ailerons, when flying. Thing is, it seems, he didn't know that the rudder would move as much as it did, in the 'clean' config at 250KIAS. (Maybe Airbus didn't make it clear...maybe it wasn't flight tested in the certification process...maybe they just assumed no one would 'walk' the rudder that hard, at that airspeed...).

When I flew, I allowed the Yaw Damper to handle a minor wake turbulence event, or even weather-related turb. We used the rudder for crosswind takeoffs/landings, and during engine failure training.

Just my $0.03...



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Originally posted by weedwhacker




AN A300-600, being flown by the First Officer on the leg down to the Carribean. I have no doubt he was a good pilot, and knew how to use the rudder, as opposed to simply using ailerons, when flying. Thing is, it seems, he didn't know that the rudder would move as much as it did, in the 'clean' config at 250KIAS. (Maybe Airbus didn't make it clear...maybe it wasn't flight tested in the certification process...maybe they just assumed no one would 'walk' the rudder that hard, at that airspeed...).


Thanks for the info WW. In my opnion there is not one shread of truth to that story. That AA Airbus was blown up by a bomb placed in the right rear cargo compartment.

I used to have tons of information on this, I will look around to see if I can find it.

Its amazing how many people bought that silly yaw damper story. And I wold like to know what kind of pressure was used to get Airbus to go along with it.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


WOW, Capt Lear!

That's volatile info. A bomb in the Aft Cargo compartment...didn't really have to be on either side, a big enough explosion there would bring the airplane down without a doubt.

I hope you can find the references. Because, while the 'official' explanation sort of makes sense, it is hard to reconcile when you consider this was an experienced AA pilot.

I did hear that AA was training their pilots to use the rudder aggressively to augment the ailerons in their 'Upset' maneuvering modules in Recurrent Training...is that true or not, to your knowledge?



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Originally posted by weedwhacker






I hope you can find the references. Because, while the 'official' explanation sort of makes sense, it is hard to reconcile when you consider this was an experienced AA pilot.


That was AA 587 Belle Harbour. I can tell you there were a lot really po'd pilots because that F/O took the blame for a phoney excuse.


I did hear that AA was training their pilots to use the rudder aggressively to augment the ailerons in their 'Upset' maneuvering modules in Recurrent Training...is that true or not, to your knowledge?


I remember that being part of the coverup story. I don't remember whether or not it was true.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


AA 587? I had a brain fart.

'Upset' training at AA, used as a cover? If so, that's just criminal. We did 'Upset' training, not too different from what you learn in recovering from unusual attitudes back when getting an Instrument rating. Close your eyes, and open when told...then recover. Nose high, speed low? Roll into it and drop the nose, add power if needed. Speed too high, nose too low? Reduce power, orient to the horizon (real or artificial and gradually recover, no chance of a stall, unless a secondary stall from too hard a pull-up...)...How am I doing so far? Now, if I just don't hit a Cumulo Granite cloud, we'll be OK...



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
so who loads in the new flight program?

would it be the navigator rather han the pilot or co-pilot??



now, there's a solid reason just why one 9-11 hijacked aircraft
crashed in PA....evidently the navigator got killed during the takeover
leaving at least one or the other pilot/co-pilot still alive but not knowing
how to operate that system...
and the terrorists doing the hijacking were flabbergasted as what to do...
(i don't by the Sears Tower as the target explaination,
which accounted for why the aircraft went so far away from the D.C. area)


where does the navigator sit in a 2 seat cockpit? i know that psycolgically you picture this immense cabin with room to walk around in, but thats in the movies. i was in a 737 on thanksgiving and there is NO room to move in a cockpit. you kind of have to step down on the seat then sit down. there is room for 2, i repeat 2 people. if there's a navigator, he's riding the nose,outside.
this also made me realize as the captain gave me a guided tour from the entrance to the cockpit,BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ROOM TO GO INTO THE COCKPIT, (HE WAS IN THE SEAT BELOW ME AND I WAS IN THE DOORWAY)that you could not murder someone, and leave their body in the cabin. unless you put them on the dash board lol. it is claustrophobic to say the least. so if you listen to the stewardess on flt 93,betty ong, you have to wonder why she didn't know that the pilots were dead. they WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND THROWN INTO FIRST CLASS, for anyone to have fit in there. sooooo i agree with you to a point...the planes were guided into the targets,probably with the aid of gps,but not by anyone on board!
and by the way , the plane i was on had a newly installed HUD, that flipped down to aid the pilot on landing. it used iff that put a red dot in a green circle. he said that he could land a plane in zero visability,but it was only used in situations with at least a quater mile. but it was the only time the plane was aided in navigation. everything else was hand set. he was very thorough in his description on how to fly the plane, and never once did he state he could program the entire flight, or any part of it.

what does 2 pilots and 2 terrorists in a cockpit equal???

no possible way to fly a passenger jet


[edit on 1-12-2007 by Spectre0o0]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Spectre0o0
 


Um, Spectre...You posted a post by someone else, talking about their experience in a B737 cockpit. What does that have to do with a B757 or 767?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Agreed, they didn't train to fly commercial carriers. I'm not saying they were "good" at flying either since, but I don't think they loaded any software, I think they manually crashed the planes.

I'll admit I never have flown a real plane but I would bet dollars to donuts the hardest part is taking off and landing and once you are in the air it's not that hard to crash into a tall building.



reply to post by jtma508
 



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Just how accurate is this automatic flight planning system? I personally went for a ride-along in one of Flight Safety's simulators and was amazed to see how accurate the pre-loaded flight plan could be. The scenario was a landing at Denver's airport with visibility at less than 1/4 mile. As the aircraft approaced the runway, it banked, adjusted altitude, lowered it's flaps and changed engine thrust. It's a bit unnerving when the plane is controlling everything and you cant see, but then the runway appeared right in front of us. There was nothing to do but grab the yoke cut back the engine speed and watch the plane settle down on the runway.

I doubt that the hijackers took the time to re-program the FMC after they got control, and as Mr. Lear stated on Page 1 of this thread, I think it very unlikely indeed that they used the AP all the way in, but I do find it interesting how they knew where to go from so far out. They were able to do something in terms of instrument flying, although I do question whether they really knew how to program the FMC.

Anyone any suggestions as to how they knew where to go after they hijacked the aircraft??



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


sorry i meant to type 767 i will edit for same

uh... guess i won't the option is gone sorry, but here is the cockpit i was standing behind. the first generation,pic on left


external image

[edit on 2-12-2007 by Spectre0o0]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

well I was using just an analog control pad and keyboard. I have about 20 buttons on my control pad and that's still not enough to utilize all the controls of a boeing. I have all the pitch roll yaw type (rudders, ailerons, elevators etc) controls mapped to the analog controls so its pretty responsive and analogous to fly, much much fun! Setting it to have full realism settings like overstress, crash and damage type things going on too to make it more realistic.

Ultimately it would be better with an advanced joystick with feedback and rumble, but analog controller isn't so bad and its much better than keys!

I have to control the whole navigation system with the keyboard, GPS, VOR, ILS and autopilot , tuning to airports, setting up approaches and flight paths, requesting clearance, taxi and various other control surfaces yada yada.

I have been interested in flight and planes since a very early age, almost joined the ATC but I had other things going on. I played and watched the evolution of flight sim games for over a decade now, i think the first one i played was on a zx48k spectrum. The current sims like fsx are incredible and in some ways much better than some early commercial sims used to train pilots. I have heard various times the most recent MS flight sims are so good you can literally train up pilots in it so they are ready to fly. The whole flight dynamics are very good too, you can experiment with any type of weather, day or night, windy or calm (good for practicing cross wind and poor visibility landings). It contains all the ground school material and simulated tutorials all the way from first take off to running commercial airline routes in large passenger planes.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spectre0o0
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


sorry i meant to type 767 i will edit for same

uh... guess i won't the option is gone sorry, but here is the cockpit i was standing behind. the first generation,pic on left


external image

Spectre, your external image wasn't a real picture of an actual B767 cockpit. I can assure you, and others who read this, there is room on the floor of a B767 Flight Deck for someone to take a nap (I have let Flight Attendants do just that, on long late night flights...).
[edit on 2-12-2007 by Spectre0o0]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
both those panels look all too familiar, they are included in fs2004 virtually. You can look all around the cockpit and fiddle with it all.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Insolobrious, since you are already an avid aviation enthusiast you would be thrilled, no doubt, to be included in Capt John Lear's B767 simulator challenge.

A Full Flight Simulator is a very close re-creation of the real thing. When coupled with proper visuals (what you see out the windows) these sims have been approved by the FAA to be so realistic, that you can receive a type rating without ever having flown the actual airplane. Of course, real life dictates that you must at least see and touch a real one, and as I've pointed out before, in modern airline training environments...you finish the Ground School (now Computer Based Training, or 'CBT') followed by the Simulator syllabus, which is aobut 12 or 14 hours. THEN, a 'live' airline flight with an instructor pilot. By the time you reach this stage, you've already been flying another airplane for the airline, this is just how it works when you transition to a different airplane type. SO, no need to worry, it is all still professional in every way.

Guess my point here is, besides trying to explain the process...to properly re-create the 9/11 flights into the WTC in a simulator, we must first insist that the sim used is set to 'daylight' on the visuals. Then, we must assume the 'perps' had at least SOME initalization and familiarization with the B767 cockpit controls and their layout, to tie in with their earlier experience as Commercially Instrumented Rated pilots. Maybe not good pilots, but they passed some tests, at least. (In my years as an Instructor I had to 'check out' potential renters...it's not like renting a car, you don't rent an airplane to anyone who walks in, you fly with them to assess their skill sets). So, ratings and hours don't always equate with skill level...except this caveat....after abut 1500 or 2000 hours, that is getting to be a solid skill set. Though, I know quite a few people, no longer with us, with many more hours....humans are never perfect

Wanted to edit spelling for 'caveate' oh, heck, you know what I meant!!

[edit on 3-12-2007 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I forgot to ask...who, that is, what Airline or what company has a B767 simulator in the Las Vegas area? And, since it is a very sophisticated multi-million dollar device, who is going to operate it? Obviously, when you rent a sim, the cost includes the techs who pay attention to the computers and the hydraulics, but there has to be someone to sit in the back and run the thing. OH, of course, it's best not to turn on the motion, since sometimes it can get rough.

We're talking here about a Full Flight Sim, when the motion is turned on, you can damage the machine by 'crashing'. Heck, I've been in Sims when there was a lightning storm outside...the power to the building failed...and the thing stopped where it was, in the attitude it was...and the hydraulic pistons and jacks let us down into a position that, to say the least, was not level. SO, we hang there in our seatbelts until the techs in the bay below can help....which usually means we wait until the power comes back on, or we unstrap, and climb out (which we did one night).



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by dbates

If there were actually airplanes that crashed into the WTC on 911, which I don't believe there were "

Hi John - What do you think flew into the WTC, if they weren't planes ?



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Originally posted by Pyridion



Hi John - What do you think flew into the WTC, if they weren't planes ?



Hello Pyridion. I don't think anything flew into the Pentagon. There was no identifiable wreckage except for an engine core that didn't come off of the plane it was allegedly attached to.

There is a small piece of metal with window panels that some say came from one of the Boeing 767's that allegedly crashed but I find that unlikely as it is crumpled up, there are no burn marks and no evidence it has been in a crash.

People are often confused by the extrusions laying around that panel. They think those extrusions are airplane parts. They are not. Those extrusions ran up the side of the WTC.

There were some alleged parts on top of a roof but no parts anywhere in any of the 4 airplanes allegedly involved in crashes on 911 have been identified through the companies maintenance records as being from one of those airplanes.

So the bottom line is nothing crashed into the WTC. It was a PsyOp. They blew it up with explosives and a Direct Energy Weapon from space.

The only real serious mistake in the PsyOp was building no. 7. I believe that the holographic project that was simulating the airplane crashes for some reason could not be used to simulate Fllight 93 crashing into building No. 7 so they had to control demo it anyway and hope the public wouldn't notice.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Hello Pyridion. I don't think anything flew into the Pentagon. There was no identifiable wreckage except for an engine core that didn't come off of the plane it was allegedly attached to.


These people don't seem to agree with you on that:Pentagon Evidence

Feel free to take your time and appreciate all of the hard work they did compiling evidence from various sources.



The only real serious mistake in the PsyOp was building no. 7. I believe that the holographic project that was simulating the airplane crashes for some reason could not be used to simulate Fllight 93 crashing into building No. 7 so they had to control demo it anyway and hope the public wouldn't notice.


john, can you at least tell us who makes this equipment?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join