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 Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

page: 18
8
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


The proof would be four replication successes. Because never before or after 9/11/2001, between the hours of 8:46 am and 10:03 am, has anything remotely of that "official" report feed ever happened in the history of aviation. You can believe actual aviation experts would have learned it had IF it had ever equally happened exactly the same way. They say it has not.

Your side can continue deluding yourselves it is possible. However, delusion is not reality proof nor precedent throughout history. If you think it has equal precendent at any point in history, please find it and present it. That would eliminate any "official" reports for presentation when precedent is being requested for proof.

Telling me to prove it is not possible, is not "proof it is possible" either.




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I still expect a full retraction of your false claim of harassment. Failing this, I will take the matter up with the site owners.


You will get no retraction.

You have proved nothing. All you have continue to do is force feed the meaningless, lacking in proof "official" report. Do that often enough, while throwing in a large number of red herring and ad hominem, and it easily becomes harassment. Particularly, when people tell you that you are entitled to your opinion, and you will not quit with the red herring and ad hominem against them.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123
I still expect a full retraction of your false claim of harassment. Failing this, I will take the matter up with the site owners.


You will get no retraction.

You have proved nothing. All you have continue to do is force feed the meaningless, lacking in proof "official" report. Do that often enough, while throwing in a large number of red herring and ad hominem, and it easily becomes harassment. Particularly, when people tell you that you are entitled to your opinion, and you will not quit with the red herring and ad hominem against them.

1st, if I'm wrong, all you need to do is prove it. You haven't and can't.

2nd, I can easily prove you have accused me of harassment. I can just as easily prove I have not. That being the case, you are simply digging yourself a deeper hole. If I were the only person here you were having this problem with, I can see you may have thought it was me but there are quite a few people here and other threads, you are having the same problem with. Doesn't that maybe suggest it could be you ????

You accuse me of attacking you yet I can go back in the thread and show you that you have been attacking others including myself for most of this threads existence. Those same people have calmly and logically tried to explain their position using supportive evidence. You have, in turn told them they they are wrong and provided no evidence as to why they are wrong.
So once again, let me ask, is it everyone else that is the problem and you are 100% right and righteous?

I strongly urge you to reflect on these words and evaluate what you expect here and maybe, just maybe you'll be able to improve yourself.

I also commend everyone else who have dealt with you in a calm manner and tried to help you understand.

Please don't bother responding to this post as I am not looking for a response but simply trying to, one last time, help you.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Originally posted by jfj123




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.




Thanks for your opinion jfj123. I'm assuming you'll agree to volunteer to be a candidate on my 911 simulator experiment. I will be renting a Category 4 (full visual and motion) Boeing 767-200 simulator and taking 6 candidates with various flying qualifications, some with just a private license in a Cessna 172 some current and qualified in the Boeing 767-200 and yourself.

We will be setting the simulator up in freeze position 20 miles out at 560 mph at 5000 feet. You'll have a little over 2 minutes to get down to 800 feet and lined up with the World Trade Center which is 208 ft wide and you have to hit it within 23 feet of dead center, just like UAL 175.

There will be 2 cameras: one focused on your face and the other focused on the World Trade Center. After you hit or miss you will go through a 30 minute video recorded interview on your impressions of the flight.

The interview and both videos (your face and the WTC) on a split screen will be placed on the web for all to see. You will able to show the world how easy it was for the hijackers to hit the towers.

Oh, by the way, I will pick up all the expenses for the simulator. I haven't picked a simulator yet.

How about it jfj123? Are you up to the challenge?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


That would be awsome !! seriously, instead of everyone speculating, we would really have some solid info one way or the other. What area of the country are you in and when are you thinking of doing this?

Will you post your videos here?

Seriously, it's very exciting !!!

Thanks for taking the time to do something like this.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Hey, I forgot to ask, what is your impression of the mythbusters being able to successfully land a commercial jet in a simulator with zero training and on the first attempt? They did have someone on the ground, so to speak, talking them through everything.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Greetings, John Lear,

Does that include instructors speaking in a foreign language, while instructing those who only speak English?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Originally posted by jfj123



That would be awsome !! seriously, instead of everyone speculating, we would really have some solid info one way or the other. What area of the country are you in and when are you thinking of doing this?

Will you post your videos here?

Seriously, it's very exciting !!!

Thanks for taking the time to do something like this.



I was originally going to use SimPro here in Vegas:

www.simprousa.com...

But I checked and they do not have a Boeing 757/767 simulator.

I have several other alternatives, a couple in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. I am certain that whoever we do use will not want any publicity about the experiment and part of the agreement will be that we do not divulge whose simulator we used.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Originally posted by jfj123




Hey, I forgot to ask, what is your impression of the mythbusters being able to successfully land a commercial jet in a simulator with zero training and on the first attempt? They did have someone on the ground, so to speak, talking them through everything.


I remember watching the episode but I forgot the details. I will watch for it again and take notes.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
well well well, thanks Mr Lear for getting this set up. This is going to be great to watch, and I think that it will help the debate on this topic. I certainly do have a feeling that this task will be quite daunting for all the inexperienced. Then again, I have zero, so who knows.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Thanks for the update



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Originally posted by OrionStars




Greetings, John Lear,

Does that include instructors speaking in a foreign language, while instructing those who only speak English?



I'm not sure what you are getting at here OrionStars. There is going to be no instruction of any kind. This is an experiment to see how easy it is for a novice pilot with the experience the alleged hijackers had to hit a 208 foot wide target at 560 miles per hour and 800 ft. altitude within 23 feet of dead center.

At the peak of my proficiency as a Lockheed L-1011 Captain and Check Pilot I know I couldn't have done it without several practice passes. The reason you need the practice passes is to see which buildings to line up on as you are heading for the WTC because from 20 miles out you can't see the World Trade Center clear enough to line up on it.

When it does get defined you only have about 60 seconds to do your final adjusting and at that speed, to make any kind of significant correction in heading you have to use a 60 degree bank and the reason for that is a 30 degree bank will only give you what they call a '2 minute turn' or turn rate of 3 degrees per second.

The problem with a 2 minute turn rate is that a 20 degree correction will take 10 seconds and that is not including the time to roll into or out off the turn.

The precision required to hit a 208 foot wide target within 23 feet of dead center is phenomenal. It means you can fly an airplane to within one tenth of one degree of arc while maintaining 560 mph which is 150 mph per hour faster than Vmo (velocity max operating) and 115 mph above Vfc (390 kts) the maximum speed at which Boeing had to demonstrate the stability of the airplane (14 CFR 121.253) and 80 mph faster than the FAA limited dive speed of Vd (420 kts.) which the airplane may not exceed under any circumstances.

And you have to remember you will be doing all of this with that irritating 'clacker' which begins clacking at Vmo or 360 knots. It is intentionally irritating, varies in frequency, and loud enough to get the pilots attention and say, "Hey Buddy, you are exceeding the speed limit. SLOW DOWN!



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
So Mr Lear what do you think about the article? There are many people who have posted on here that think that its a fairly simple task. I really hope that these experiments do some good to show how easy or difficult the process actually is.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Originally posted by Jeff Riff




So Mr Lear what do you think about the article?


Very well written. I like the part where Hani Hanjour fights his way in to the cockpit and kills Chic Burlingame. Then somehow he gets him out of the seat and sits there himself. What the article doesn't say is that then as he is descending through 18,000 he carefully sets the field barometric pressure on the co-pilots altimeter and then 30 seconds later he sets the field barometric on the captains altimeter.

And guess which field barometric pressure he set? Ronald Reagan International. And guess how he got that field barometric for RRI since he wasn't talking with anybody on the radio?

Beats me.

I know you're out there Chic. Come out, come out, wherever you are!


There are many people who have posted on here that think that its a fairly simple task.


I think that the simulator excercise will shut most of those ignorant mouths. And I am going to personally be serving the crow.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 
Does the technology exist to use an autopilot or hack program for it to execute these technical maneuvers and is it possible these people accused weren't even on the plane or there was no pilot or at least an incompacitated one



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


John, my point was this. No instruction would have the same effect as not being able to comprehend the language of the instructors in oral or written form.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Cheers John

This will indeed be an awsome experiment and don't underestimate the amount of interest it will generate which I feel is international already



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


John, would you say an apt comparison, of what you are describing, would be very similar to being able to more easily manuever, with more precision, a Corvette vs. a loaded tractor-trailer rig? Of course, I realize it always depend on any person's level of expertise, in such similar cases of maneuving with precsion the weight and mass being mauevered.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 

Thanks for your opinion jfj123. I'm assuming you'll agree to volunteer to be a candidate on my 911 simulator experiment. I will be renting a Category 4 (full visual and motion) Boeing 767-200 simulator and taking 6 candidates with various flying qualifications, some with just a private license in a Cessna 172 some current and qualified in the Boeing 767-200 and yourself.


Hey John, instead of someone with just a private license in a Cessna 172, wouldn't it be better to have someone with similar experience to the ''alleged hijackers'' to participate in the experiment? Atta and al-Shehhi both had multiengine, instrument, and commercial certificates.

My brother would jump at the chance to sit in a 767 simulator. He has around 300 hours total time and has a multi-rating but no commercial license or instrument rating, although, he has around 20 hours of instrument training. What do you say?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I would also position them farther out at about 300 kts. Since the hijackers had some time to get some feel of the plane as they were flying in to the towers. It would also be a great experiment to see at what level of experience is needed to successfully do the Pentagon run in.

What I would really like is for OrionStar to join you and fly the sim too.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join