The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

Either prove me wrong or drop it. That is what a reasonable person would do all the time.

Thats not how it works. Innocent until proven guilty. You made the claim, you better be able to back it up. You need to either prove what you're saying or retract it. Making false claims of harassment is a violation of the ATS terms. So what is it going to be?

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

Either prove me wrong or drop it. That is what a reasonable person would do all the time.

Dear Orion,

I have read through the last day or so, as you fought and fought very reasonable people, you fought with me as well. We all have tried, in this forum, to patiently explain things, yet you continue to attack. It is why I 'quoted' your latest one-line up above...jfj123 said it best, already, there is nothing else we can add. Sorry you don't seem to get it, but keep trying, maybe someday the lightbulb will go on.

reply to post by weedwhacker


As usual, you are entitled to your opinion on that.

''The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training''

Nishizawa used a knife to force the flight attendant to let him into the cockpit.

He then made 34-year old copilot Kazayuki Koga leave the cockpit, remaining in the cockpit with captain Naoyuki Nagashima, who managed to notify ATC about the hijacking. He then stabbed Nagashima in the chest and took control of the plane, at one point descending to an altitude of 300 meters. Wiki

Nishizawa was subdued by the first officer and an off-duty ANA pilot. The aircraft landed safely in Tokyo, and the hijacker later explained that he was an avid flight-simulation fan who commandeered the plane to try his hand at the real thing. "I wanted to soar through the air," said Nishizawa, 28, according to police. He had planned to fly the jumbo jet under Tokyo's Rainbow Bridge. Source

reply to post by Boone 870


Man!! Boone, that is an amazing link!!

Wish they had told us about THAT scenario in recurrent training...

Did I read the whole article too quickly, or did I miss how the guy with the knife got into the Flight Deck?

*edit*

OK, see it now. Wow! Well, as has been pointed out repeatedly, it was, THEN (1999), the strategy to comply ... but not to let the assailant in to the C/P (Flight Deck). IF that tactic failed, there were other strategies to put in place...designed to scare the perpetrator...problem is, if the assailant insists on a suicidal extremist freaked-out religious agenda...then all of the original training concepts fly out the window....



[edit on 20-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

I wanted to continue the thread, not sure if I put it up there already, but just to follow on Boone's great post...please be cognizant of an incident (actually, classified as an accident by the NTSB) that involved a FedEx DC-10 near Memphis, and a disgruntled pilot on the 'jumpseat'...He was actually a Flight Engineer, about to be fired for some company infraction, but while his case was pending he had access to the jumpseat, and sought revenge. He carried a fishing harpoon onboard, used it as a weapon, along with the crash axe in the cockpit...He is in prison now, all thre pilots suvived.

This is not made up...you can look in to NTSB reports to see the whole story.

It's been overwhelmingly shown that the alleged culprits had the ability and the training to do what it's claimed they did. I doubt they would be asked to flash a hijackers license (or any other license) before being permitted into the cockpit and licensed or not, they definitely had sufficient training (1 trained person per hijacked plane).

And full-motion flight simulators are exactly that IE full motion and capable of recreating everything you'd see, hear & feel in the real plane.

I never had any doubt myself but hopefully an uninformed minority not familiar with the true extent of the technology will see the light.

Here's a 767 flight sim lesson from youtube

Originally posted by jfj123
Here's a 767 flight sim lesson from youtube

Also remember the visual are extremely better to the naked eye than how the camera picked it up.

reply to post by jfj123
Thanks for that

Before we hear any cries of foul I better point out that the flickering of the projected image outside the window is merely an effect caused by the camera filming it and and the refresh rate of the image itself. The occupants of the simulator wouldn't be aware of any such flickering or, at most, only just aware of a little flickering.



[edit on 20/1/2008 by Pilgrum]

The article has a decent main point, but shoots itself in the foot IMHO. It mentions several times the hijackers poor english in relation to the ability to fly a plane.

This kind of bias discredits the author to the nth degree.

Just an observation that Xtrozero is quicker on the draw

Why do post edits seldom 'stick' for me?

edit - dang laptop keyboards

[edit on 20/1/2008 by Pilgrum]

reply to post by Pilgrum


Thanks for clarifying that. I assumed everyone knew that but I should not assume. I'm a bad poster

reply to post by jfj123


Thanks, jfj for that...wondering who the heck the guy in the left seat was? Real pilots know to use one hand on the control wheel, and the other on the throttle(s).

Man, this thing has gone on and on on... the facts were stated on the first page. It is quite obvious that you cannot debate or argue the truth into someone's mind if they are unwilling to accept it. Let them believe what ever illusion that they have. After all, lets not let truth get in the way and muddle things up, here!

If we want to argue about inexperienced pulling off something, lets leave the disillusion or fantasy that the hijackers couldn't have possibly done what they obviously very well could have done and think about Oklahoma City a few years earlier... Maybe I'll start a new thread...

As for this one, only those who are not willing to allow that nasty truth thing to stand in the way of their hopes or agendae would say it is not proven to be quite possible and even probable that the hijackers with at least some verified professional ground training and stick time and who knows how much computer or simulator time to fly point A literally into point B at speed.

reply to post by 5p3kt0r


I am not too sure if you can compare Oklahoma to this, maybe I am just not getting it?

Yeah I think that we have gone on and on about this, and while everyone does valuable information to share, I am not sure that anyone is having a change of heart on the whole thing. I have certainly been able to understand the side of those who support the official story, and while I dont agree 100% with everything, they say, I understand their point and I can certainly uinderstand their beliefs.

Orion has held his ground firmly and whithstood much criticism, as have other, but I love the way this thread had gone

Instead of criticizing their opposition, they should be asking why the guy in the alleged flight simulator was allegedly doing the flying. While the guy with the Saudi pilot's license, plus, name and face splattered all over the international media coming forward and saying, "But I was not in the US on 9/11/2001 and was still alive the same day.", actually was not. That is the type of arguments they make which make no logical sense and sensibility to me. Then, instead of reasoning out the impossibility of why the "official" reports are so illogical, they mimic the exact same excuses fed to them by the US bureaucrats.

Adding to insult to injury of logic and/or expert people, they promote flight simulation programs as the "real thing". Unless they try it themselves, or have precedent (proved cases in the past), how would they know if it can actually be done? The obvious answer is they will not know anything for certain. "I bet I could do that using only a flight simulator in a course I could not pass.", never makes anyone's arguments valid. I could not help but laugh when someone promoted Microsoft's video arcade flight simulations at the "real thing" to "prove" it was possible.

Then we have the people insisting flight simulation is the same as actually flying commercial jetliners, while enduring all types of airborne negative atmospheric conditions, suddenly arising or not, having learned it all in a flight simulator firmly attached to the ground.

The coup de grâce - I know for certain people are lost when they cannot speak the language of those doing the instruction. That is a fact not illusion.

I am interested in knowing exactly when the opposition is going to give live demonstrations, of all that flight simulation training and no actual flying time with commercial jetliners. Just to make it more believable, I prefer someone training them who does not speak English, and whose language they do not speak. Being the scientist I am, I would not want to miss those demonstrations to prove it can actually happen the Bush administration way any and every time.

This also raises the question of how much actual flying time George W. Bush had while in the National Guard. Or did he spend all of his time in flight simulators? The rest of his administrative crew did not see any military time. They made certain they got deferments from Vietnam, as did W via the Texas National Guard his daddy placed him. To my knowledge, none of W's crew have ever flown any commercial jetliners for a living or fun.

If George H. W. Bush came up with that absurd accounting of the “official” reports, he must be badly slipping from being away from flying for a very long time. During WWII, they had no flight simulators to play at flying.
Rather than engaging in real flying time and no modern commercial jetliners on which to practice actual flying time.

reply to post by 5p3kt0r


I think by now, we're mostly in agreement with other posters that it is not impossible to fly a heavy aircraft with not a lot of training.

I think most people understand that landing and take off are the hardest thing to do and the terrorists didn't care about either and thus were able to focus on flying only.

Information about simulators has been posted.

Even the mythbusters were able to land in a simulator with ZERO training and from what I understand, landing is the hardest thing to do.

At this point, I'm not sure where else this thread can go.

reply to post by jfj123


A simulator. OK. So when can we plan on seeing four real time replications, with real flying time, in real commercial jetliners?

Of course, it is going to require people who cannot understand English instruction in flight simulation, and having no actual flying time in commercial jetliners, in order to prove your live demonstrations are valid. We need four real time demonstrations for authentic real time proof and four successes. They have to be done exactly the way it was done on 9/11/2001 under the exact same conditions. Or the replicating demonstrations will be a flop before they begin.

Your side has relentlessly argued but proved nothing to validate the "official" reports. The plural you are convinced you proved your arguments. All lack of logic and proof from our opposition screams the opposite to your oppostion.

When can we expect the live replications? You can use robots if it makes you feel better. Just program them the same way as the "official" reports state real people were behaving in those alleged planes under exactly the same alleged conditions. Allow the "official" reports to be your guiding light for relplication using robots instead of real people.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

A simulator. OK. So when can we plan on seeing four real time replications, with real flying time, in real commercial jetliners?

Of course, it is going to require people who cannot understand English instruction in flight simulation, and having no actual flying time in commercial jetliners, in order to prove your live demonstrations are valid. We need four real time demonstrations for authentic real time proof and four successes. They have to be done exactly the way it was done on 9/11/2001 under the exact same conditions. Or the replicating demonstrations will be a flop before they begin.

Your side has relentlessly argued but proved nothing to validate the "official" reports. The plural you are convinced you proved your arguments. All lack of logic and proof from our opposition screams the opposite to your oppostion.

When can we expect the live replications? You can use robots if it makes you feel better. Just program them the same way as the "official" reports state real people were behaving in those alleged planes under exactly the same alleged conditions. Allow the "official" reports to be your guiding light for relplication using robots instead of real people.

Evidence has been provided. You fail to understand it.

I will present nothing more for your benefit.

I still expect a full retraction of your false claim of harassment. Failing this, I will take the matter up with the site owners.