The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Originally posted by OrionStars
If someone has the expertise claimed, that will shine through in what he or she presents during discussion. If he or she is not, it will not.

Possibly the truest words you ever spoke there.

I do not have to fly a plane to know whether or not someone is qualified. Level of qualification shines through when a person, claiming to be qualified, flies a plane.

How does one obtain such a qualification?
Training comes to mind and what were those alleged hijacker pilots doing spending all that time at the flight school?
Perhaps they were learning the principles of flying aircraft.

It's documented fact with corroborating witnesses, not hearsay or opinion, that they undertook flight training.

A good example of hearsay and opinion is suggesting that some difficulty with english as a 2nd or 3rd language affects the ability to press the rudder pedals, hold the yoke, advance the throttles and read the basic instruments while maintaining level flight and compass bearing. It's a physical skill requiring co-ordination, not language.

Hijackers still do not need to be officially qualified but it would make it easier to keep an eye on them.

I want to know if John Lear is ever going to get his experiment rolling. It was talked about on hear and now its jsut gone....

Originally posted by Pilgrum
How does one obtain such a qualification?

Being a passenger on planes? Watching them be flown while waiting on flights? Etc.

If someone is incapable of flying, it will shine through when they try to pilot any plane. Something that cannot be accessed merely with simulators attached at ground level.

Het everyone, found a very funny bit on YouTube from Australian TV, filmed in a real full-motion sim.

I don't know how to pull the link, or whatever you call it, the vidie ID is

watch?v=xE1rE2vxUyM

Thought it's time for a little levity around here...

[adding]...you'll also find a link to a video of Ricky Martin...yes, the pop singer, THAT Ricky Martin,flying a Level D B737NG simulator...and NO, Ricky is not a pilot...interesting stuff, enjoy.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Het everyone, found a very funny bit on YouTube from Australian TV, filmed in a real full-motion sim.

I don't know how to pull the link, or whatever you call it, the vidie ID is

watch?v=xE1rE2vxUyM

Thought it's time for a little levity around here...

[adding]...you'll also find a link to a video of Ricky Martin...yes, the pop singer, THAT Ricky Martin,flying a Level D B737NG simulator...and NO, Ricky is not a pilot...interesting stuff, enjoy.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

This one?

www.youtube.com...

And Ricky Martin:

www.youtube.com...

Ricky is not a pilot...

Well they put him in the easyest to fly and most forgiving jet in production today (i'm currently flying 7 and 800's)

reply to post by Freaky_Animal


Thanks for putting those links up, Freaky.

Hunt around and you'll find two dudes and their buddy in a 767...two young guys you know NOTHING...and one, with some coaching, actually gets the airplane down on the runway, within the TDZ...

Remember to watch out for tail strikes on the -800!!

WW

Remember to watch out for tail strikes on the -800!!

Yeah, it's a long aircraft with not to much tail clearence.

In addition to that our NG's have the blended winglets, the 700 is fine, the extra lift is quite noticeable but in my book it's a more balanced aircraft than the 800.

The 800 have a tendency to just dump down on the runway if one chop the power a tad to early, and pitch up pretty fast on takeoff.

It's not as easy as on the 700 to make a greaser, and you have to be aware of the pitch up tendency on departure.

In my company there was dragged a few tails when the 800 came about.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by Freaky_Animal]

reply to post by Freaky_Animal


Thanks again, Freaky...

Pilots know other pilots, it's plainly obvious to me!!

As soon as we started delivery of the -800's, lots of emphasis on rotation speeds, and awareness...but, it still happens (not to me!) Seems to be more common on landing, especially in strong, gusty wind conditions. Trying to get that 'squeaker' landing...holding it off too much and 'boom'!

We have the 757-300...I think the tail clearance at a normal take-off attitude is less than 12 inches...but my manuals are packed away, this comes from memory.

Even our 777s have had tail strikes! NOT many, but embarrassing nonetheless...and kept 'in house', since the media do not care...

Do you guys have the data discs that are recorded, and regularly downloaded to review an airframe's (and engine) data over a period of time? Here in the US it is something that ALPA lobbied strongly, and won, to have the info de-identified, when limits are exceeded...whether it is flap-speed limits (a problem, as you know, when you fly both the -700 and -800)...or a really un-stabilized approach, or anything against SOPs...all of the data...it is basically sent not only to the DFDR, but to this CD that can be read. If an especially egregious violation is seen, the crew will be brought in BY THE Union, and counseled...and the really bad ones are put up for all to see (no names) in re-current training!! Some will shiver your timbers.....Of couse, Management sees it too...

Don't want to stray too far off of the topic here...but I have posted good stuff, thought I'd tell Zaphod I know where he's coming from....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Freaky_Animal

 

Thanks again, Freaky...

Pilots know other pilots, it's plainly obvious to me!!

As soon as we started delivery of the -800's, lots of emphasis on rotation speeds, and awareness...but, it still happens (not to me!) Seems to be more common on landing, especially in strong, gusty wind conditions. Trying to get that 'squeaker' landing...holding it off too much and 'boom'!

We have the 757-300...I think the tail clearance at a normal take-off attitude is less than 12 inches...but my manuals are packed away, this comes from memory.

Even our 777s have had tail strikes! NOT many, but embarrassing nonetheless...and kept 'in house', since the media do not care...

Do you guys have the data discs that are recorded, and regularly downloaded to review an airframe's (and engine) data over a period of time? Here in the US it is something that ALPA lobbied strongly, and won, to have the info de-identified, when limits are exceeded...whether it is flap-speed limits (a problem, as you know, when you fly both the -700 and -800)...or a really un-stabilized approach, or anything against SOPs...all of the data...it is basically sent not only to the DFDR, but to this CD that can be read. If an especially egregious violation is seen, the crew will be brought in BY THE Union, and counseled...and the really bad ones are put up for all to see (no names) in re-current training!! Some will shiver your timbers.....Of couse, Management sees it too...

Don't want to stray too far off of the topic here...but I have posted good stuff, thought I'd tell Zaphod I know where he's coming from....

We do have the DFDR's and thr QAR's and a engine monitoring maintenance record. (CFM based and a customer option)

On this side of the pond recording and storing data's is a pretty big deal if it can be used against a certain crewmember in court of law, or take legal action against any crewmember based on data collected in flight when there's not an accident or an accident investigation ongoing.

Several airlines have tried to stretch it, and failed.In the most recent case BALPHA got involved and i guess they set the standard for todays rules.

We're a small airline with only 32 aircrafts in operation, seems like our management likes to focus more on attitudes than monitoring.


Freaky

Originally posted by weedwhackerflap-speed limits

I had to respond on that one.

We're flying a relatively new fleet of NG's (no aircraft older than 4 years)

This new maintenance monitoring system is recording pretty much everything concerning cycles of the aircraft, not time and date.

Well the deal is that the flap load relief system works different
depending on which month the aircraft came out of the factory.

On the early models (after 2003) it simply retracts the flaps from 40 to 30 if the speed is higher than 157 kts. (800 that be)

On later models the flap load relief works also from F25 and on some new
birds will retract the flaps to 15.

This will make a mess of the monitoring system because it will show flap overspeed whenever the flap load relief kicks in

Originally posted by Freaky_Animal

Originally posted by weedwhackerflap-speed limits

I had to respond on that one.

We're flying a relatively new fleet of NG's (no aircraft older than 4 years)

This new maintenance monitoring system is recording pretty much everything concerning cycles of the aircraft, not time and date.

Well the deal is that the flap load relief system works different
depending on which month the aircraft came out of the factory.

On the early models (after 2003) it simply retracts the flaps from 40 to 30 if the speed is higher than 157 kts. (800 that be)

On later models the flap load relief works also from F25 and on some new
birds will retract the flaps to 15.

This will make a mess of the monitoring system because it will show flap overspeed whenever the flap load relief kicks in

You're right, Freaky! QAR, I had forgotten that particular acronym!

I flew at Continental....we had the 'original', if you wanna call them that...the -300 and -500 (actually, after a merger with Frontier...the old one...who got merged into People Express...who got merged intooooooo.....I have lost track, but for a while we even had som -200s in the fleet).

Anyway, one of the best CEOs of recent times, in the airline biz, is Gordon Bethune, recently of CO...he really set our airline back on course after a series of disasterous mergers and horrible management.... Yes, he was a hard Scoth-drinking SOB, but darn it! He pulled it together!!

I remember a lilttle bit about the flap-load relief, because we had to worry about all of the different flap speed limits since we flew the -300, the -500 and the -700 and -800 and -900...but the -700 had those odd variations in flap speeds. I mean, the -700 was really a variation on the -500, just a different wing?

Actually...only had to remember the flap limits for the oral...right?....They're on the indicator on the panel, justin case.

Buy I never understood why the same wing, designed for the NGs, that is on the -700 and -800 and -900, has different speed limits. Can't figure out why, unless it has something to do with the aerodynamics, as in how the flow from the wing may affect the Horiz Stab, and maybe the trim...?

Again, just guessing, since these 'limits' come from Boeing, from THEIR Flight Manuals, and are therefore incorporated into the airline's Flight Manuals....

[ I wrote, above about great CEOs and forgot to mention Richard Branson!! Damn, he is great!!! ps, can I get a job Mr. Branson? I know a lot, would be a great consultant....I can type!!!.......] I'd love to parachute with you! Oh!! And I know how to fly as well!

Guess nobody loves a suck-up..........

[edit on 26-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

[second edit to add] The QAR data is used, after being 'de-indentified' (hint: really bad info gets sent staight away to the Union Management, the piloys involved are 'counseled' by their peers, and the data cn then be sent to airline management for use in re-current training, or just to 'track' trends).....

In the States, we have a system called 'ASAP ' where we can, confess, in a manner of speaking, just in case we KNEW something happened.



[edit on 26-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 26-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

Follow-on to my post above...I may get hit with a penalty for exessive quoting, and if so, I will happily comply to the beating....

Thing is, I have not yet mastered the art of 'pulling' text out of previous quotes, as I make a new post.

In fact, I have seen that techique mis-used many times...what I mean is, an original post can have sentences or paragraphs 'snipped' out, and the next poster will 'reply ' to that sentence....yet context is changed, sometimes...

I have posted repeatedly on this thread...and I think I have made it clear that, based on MY experience as a pilot for over 30 years, the premise of the OP's opening line needed to be challenged...I have done that.

As a matter of fact, the very wording of the Title isi ntended to confuse, or maybe distract...or to inflame...

quote" The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Traing " unquote.

First, the OP has supposed an 'impossibility'....that should tip people off, immediately. Quite a few searches on the Internet will reveal that people, even without prior piloting training, can still manage to fly an airplane, even if it is a simulator. (I'll get back to that idea, of the simulator, in a moment...)

I spent about three years teaching people how to fly...I can tell you, with just a llittle coaching, and some enthusiasm from the student, you will learn the basics in just a few hours. By 'basics' I mean, how to hold altitude, descend, climb, turn....and before you get to 'fly' you spend time in 'ground school'...to learn aerodynamics, meteorology, navigation....

For any one who wants to learn to fly here is how to do it. Depending on where you live, costs and complications will vary.

Expect to spend a great deal of money, and time, since you will consider it, at first, a hobby.


As you learn more, you mqy or may not enjoy the experience. But, it's just not about the flying, there is about 40 hours of Ground School that is required, as well.

Aerodynamic, Navigation, Mechanics...how things work...that is covered n Ground School. A proper curiculum will involve the aspects of Flight School that integrate with the appropriqe Ground School...

[adding]

I think the term 'Heavy', as used in the Op's title, is a little bit deceptive, since a non-pilot will intrepret that in a way that a pilot would not.

The term 'Heavy' is simply a term used for ATC purposes. Has nothing to do with how the airplane handles...in fact, a larger airplane 'handles' better than smaller ones...

The term 'Heavy' is required, when you hear ATC tapes, or even transmissions from pilots. it is simply an ATC term to denote the airplane's capibility to exceed, at takeoff, over 300,000 lbs GTOW.

Doesn't mean the airplane weighs that, in the Terminal Environment, while landing...it is an ATC term to denote a Wake Turbulence separation standard...which is five miles 'in trail' on final approach, as opposed to, mormal spacing of 3 miles, for airplanes as they are vectored to the Final Approach, which is the LINE UP TO THE RUNWAY...which gets YOU, the pasenger, on the ground!





Watch out for anyone who wants to 'teach' you by all flying...although you WILL LEARN TO FLY...but you must also must know things, even if it's just to pass the written test...OH! Did I MENTION, THIS IS serious BUSINESS!)


[edit on 26-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

maybe someone already posted this but I think most people also forget the power of determination. Let me first say that I don't believe the official story because there are too many holes and too many things that don't make sense, but that's another topic. The impossibility of flying this huge airliner is not out of hand. Yes, the two hardest and most dangerous parts of flying an aircraft are landing and taking off. If you gave me a year to study, giving me some flying lessons and reading materials, plus the vast amount of info on the internet and even just some MS flight simulator games, this is not impossible and very possible. I don't know the details of their supposed lives, but if they had steady income coming in and didn't need full-time jobs or maybe even jobs at all (money coming in from terror network), then all you need is drive/determination. I do not believe that they crashed the planes into the buildings because yes, that was wildly difficult considering how accurate they were. If they had maybe hit the WTC with half their plane and you could see the flying was sloppy, it would look MUCH more believable. They hit pretty direct on the WTC towers, plus the Pentagon. So, to go back to the original topic, I don't think this article proves that it was impossible. Also, you do not need huge amount of flying experience for getting to certain locations. It was pretty amazing that they were able to navigate as well as they did, but far from impossible. Even from their altitude, there are enough landmarks to stay in a general area. If the FAA or military says they weren't able to track the planes exactly, who's to say the planes weren't only say 5000 ft up? At that altitude, I'm pretty sure with less than a month training, I could fly a plane from from where they took over, to the WTC. Manhattan is pretty easy to see from many miles away. Again I'll state I do not believe the official story, but this article doesn't prove much in my honest opinion. One of the bigger holes in the story is the lack of fighters being scrambled. When I trained for my private pilot's license around 1998, there were huge warnings to us about being very careful about where you are at. Even approaching military airspace gave you a chance of being intercepted just based on your flight path. The military (from what I understand) can track pretty much anything in the US airspace, does not matter if they have transponders on or not. They can track ANY aircraft airborne. Our government radar capabilities are way better than they let on. Pre-2000, I believe the military could track anything in our airspace from VERY low altitudes and even very small craft. Of course, I cannot prove this, but it is just my understanding from military pilots I know.

JPT

reply to post by justpassingthrough


JPT, welcome. Seems you have stumbled across a thread that was withering in obscurity, until now...

Happens a lot, it seems....people get bored, and move on.

To address the last part of your post, you better believe NORAD is paying a lot more attention to the interior of the 48 contiguous....but in 2001, most attention was directed outwards.

A lot more attention is being paid to NORDO events within US Airspace, and are taken care of promptly....plus, pilots are more aware as well, as is the entire aviation community.

(if you need a lexicon to decipher my acronyms, just ask)

As to the ability of the hijackers....I have a copy in front of me from NTSB that is specific to the autopilot use on UAL93 and AAL77.

In summary, it shows that 'they' knew how to, at least, push buttons to control the autoflight system....not very well, of course, but enough to 'navigate', using the system.

These 'pilots' knew that they had experience in controlling light airplanes. They also knew that 'hand-flying' a jet at high altitudes required a light touch, and it's best to use the autopilot to 'smooth' it out.

Once they had descended to altitudes they were used to, say below 10000 feet, hand-flying a commercial airliner isn't much different than a small airplane...you're just going faster.

Aim at the target, and steer it in.....

(apologies to any Family or Friends of the victims....not intended to demean your losses...it is important to cut through the BS to honor your losses, and not let the 'monday morning quarterbacks' take over).

WW

yeah this thread got pretty heated in the past, but its great to hear everyones opinions. There are a lot of pilots on here that think it was impossible, and there are a lot that think it was manageable. Thanks for pulling this one up from the dust!

As a Commercially rated pilot, flight instructor, and former military aircrew, I can CLEARLY assert that what the 9-11 hijackers pulled off is ENTIRELY possible.
1) Look at the Kamakazi pilots of WWII...they were taught to TAKE OFF only...not land...and to fly straight and level and hit their targets THE FIRST TIME...(Read that ONLY time)...their flight training was VERY basic...maybe like 5 hours of flight time was all...
2) While flying a Zero, Kate or other Japaneese aircraft is nothing like flying a modern airliner, the basics are the same...Pull back...the trees get smaller...push forward, the trees get bigger...that was/is really all you need to know in a suicide mission.
3) While there may have been a cloud deck below the aircraft, there was a perfectly discernable horizon...they were ABOVE the deck...so that negates that one.
4) Even a basic intro to FMS (Flight Management System) flight teaches one to hit the 'D' (Direct button), punch in the ICAO identifier for a particular airfield, and follow the line that shows up on the screen to your destination. (You can do that in Flight Sim games) In the case of the WTC, there are 3 MAJOR airports within spitting distance of the WTC...and If I remeber that day right, it was CAVU over NYC that day...so even if they had a cloud deck while cruzing away from NYC, once they got closer, the vis/ceiling significantly cleared up.
5) Flying an airplane is flying an airplane...even a tail dragger flies the same once you take the thing off. The biggest deal with flying a modern airliner is when things go wrong and you have an Emergency Proceedure to perform (What we do in the sim for HOURS every Qtr) Remember, the planes were all started and flying...that solved probably 85% of the problems they could've had as opposed to hijacking one on the ground that was at the gate. Unless you know what valves to open on the fuel panel, pneumatics panel and hydraulic panel, you can't start the engines, let alone move.
6) I remember reading in this thread someone saying they believed that the policy was to pacify the hijacker and give in to demands and not do anything to upset them (Or words to that effect...sorry whome ever that was for paraphrasing) Even in the Military, that's what we were told to do...the hijackers were somewhat trained pilots that knew all of the emergency hijack codes that could be used on the transponder or radio.
7) If you think that flying a big airplane that low to the ground is impossibe, go to You Tube, and search "KC-135" or "F-4"...and yoou will see some planes doing some MOST EXcellent flybys VERY low...and as someone who HAS flown at 400KIAS and below 10 feet at that (Radar Altimiter confirmed) Take it from me....VERY possible

reply to post by PlaneIP


Thank you, PlaneIP!!!

It's kinda what I've been trying to say, as well.

What's more, and it bears repeating...I have, in front of me, an NTSB summary of the 'Autopilot, Navigation Equipment and Fuel Consumption Activity' report, based on UAL93 an AAl77 DFDR information....

In a nutshell, it indicates, from 'take-off' until 'take-over'....the flights progressed normally.

After 'take-over' the flights behaved erratically, though they were, at times, being controlled by the autoflight system....since it was being used by amateurs, it is obvious in the recordings.

Professional pilots know how to use the system, and to anticipate....amateurs, who have only a basic understanding, will make mistakes...and this shows clearly in the recordings.

WW

[misspelled 'DFDR'...]

[edit on 4/21/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by justpassingthrough

 

JPT, welcome. Seems you have stumbled across a thread that was withering in obscurity, until now...

Happens a lot, it seems....people get bored, and move on.

To address the last part of your post, you better believe NORAD is paying a lot more attention to the interior of the 48 contiguous....but in 2001, most attention was directed outwards.

A lot more attention is being paid to NORDO events within US Airspace, and are taken care of promptly....plus, pilots are more aware as well, as is the entire aviation community.


WW

Hey WW,

thanks for the post. I understand the focus of NORAD being our coasts and beyond (pre-2001), but I was also saying the technology was there (pre-2001) for the interior of the US as well. I have read several of the government's excuses and I just don't buy them. Despite the lower level military incompetence from time to time, we have some great, intelligent men and women working for our military. For whatever reasons, superiors were getting orders to either stand down or were given confusing directions to pass down to the troops actually out there. There are lots of little holes in all the 9/11 things, but to me, as long as there is a hole this big, no need to even go past this one. I suppose an equally large hole is the demolition of WTC 7. These two things alone are enough to make anyone with the least bit of skepticism, question what really happened on 9/11. I really have no idea what happened and for what reasons (I could speculate all day I suppose) on 9/11, but I do know there is a huge coverup. One hundred years from now, the info will finally be made public. History has always done this. A few generations need to pass away first I guess. It's a shame and I really appreciate all of those people who are risking their lives or careers trying to get the truth. It's a shame that the majority of Americans can't come together to find the truth. People are too busy with families and careers and don't want to have to think for themselves. They aren't taught to think for themselves either. I can't blame Americans on being lazy sometimes. It's the way we are all being taught through the education system and through the media. Anyone who questions anything is mocked and made fun of. America is truly turning into the movie Idiocracy. Not a great movie by any stretch, but the truth of it's silliness really hurts. Maybe we need the mob to make a come back and at least bring some basic honor back to the phrase "honor among thieves". From the few acquaintances I've known, at least the mob was patriotic, or moreso than the higher ups in the government. Okay, rambling again...thanks again for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate thought out and intelligent responses!

JPT

The Guy Who Flew Thousands of Passengers As a Fake Pilot

"This is Thomas Salme, a maintenance engineer who became a Boeing 737 pilot by flying a few nights in a flight simulator and printing a fake airliner pilot license. Amazingly enough, he flew passengers for thirteen years without any incidents.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a2589a6a92d4.jpg[/atsimg]


"Thirteen years of back and forth from Sweden to everywhere else in Europe. Nobody noticed until a couple of months ago, when Salme was caught by the police as he was getting ready for take off. He was in the cockpit of a Boeing 737, with 101 passengers at Amsterdam's Schipol airport. He admits that it was all a crazy idea:"

gizmodo.com...

Guess that was "impossible" according to 9/11 "Truth".

Mythbusters touched on this myth.

The myth that with someone walking you through it being able to land an airplane without any flight experience.

Both mythbusters got into this super flight simulator and both crashed without being able to land the plane. Both mythbusters were able to land the flight simulator with someone "walking them through it".