The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

reply to post by Boone 870


That is not the way I understood the author. I agree with the author's contexual explanation in the article. You appear to have take words out of context to make your point.

reply to post by Jeff Riff

well apparently any old person can jump into a cockpit and fly the things. The Aeronotical Engineer must be wrong, and those trying to debunk him are obviously right.

You didn't read either one of the links I posted did you. The author of the first article is also a commercial airline pilot and he directly contradicts what the author says in the article you posted.

The author of the second article I posted is also an airline pilot. Do you believe him? Why is one airline pilot more credible than two airline pilots?

reply to post by OrionStars


Your confirmation bias is showing again OrionStars.

When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.

And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.

The author is clearly claiming that the hijackers would not have been able to determine if they were right side up or upside down without knowing how to use the instruments. He says IFR-like they were flying in clouds with no visible references to determine the attitude of the aircraft.

That is a silly statement.

reply to post by Boone 870


You got your misinterpretation out of what he wrote? How?

Do you remember reading about the trans-Atlantic flight of Charles Lindbergh? If not, please view what the author mean with his words. It is only an example of his words and correct interpretation of what he meant:

dc.about.com...

If I recall correctly, it is called "flying blind".

reply to post by OrionStars


During flight training we called it "flying under the hood". You put on this really goofy looking pair of safety glasses that are foggy and there's a little slit at the bottom that is left clear so that you can see the instruments and not outside of the aircraft.

You don't have to accept my interpretation of what he said. The fact is that all the pilots had some instrument training and they would have known how to keep from "buying the farm".

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by OrionStars

 

My only point is this: based on personal experience flying (with no official training in a far more dynamically complex machine), I see the idea of a poorly trained individual flying a large aircraft - without any regard for any semblance of safety, dexterity or overall concern for anything other than crashing into something - entirely possible.

Well there are ALOT of decorated pilots here:

www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

who strongly disagree with you and Boone, who think the worst pilot of the bunch of hijackers(the ones that died, not the ones still alive today), pulled off the hardest of all the manuveurs seen on 9/11.

The Twin Towers..., I'll give you those, it would'nt be impossible to turn a plane around get just low enough to see just enough land marks(I'm sure these guys studied terrain features and land marks) to find your way toward Manhatten Islands, after that it is fairly simple as aiming the plane at two of the largest buildings in the world, seems reasonable, but still not a walk in the park either. (hitting the exact floors that were being worked on the weeks leading up to 9/11 is a bit odd, but that's for another thread).

But as Far as the Pentagon Manuveur goes, I can't give you that one. Pilots for Truth, (as well as many other commercial and militarty pilots) say the move was nearly impossible.

But the bottom line is you can't look at 9/11 in individual pieces like this. You have to take every little piece, the "totality" of it all, everything that just doesn't fit common sense. It's just too many things. When you add up all this little things, that's when the BIG picture becomes clear.

It's kinda like a court case based on only circumstantial evidence. But if you have enough of it, which 9/11 sure as heck does.

There are hundreds if not thousands of discrepencies, lies, insane coincidences, money trails, prior knowledge, bombs, slips of the tongue by busch,"I saw the first plane hit on TV", and Rummy,"Shot down the plane over Pennsylvania", Silverstein, "Pull it", BBC reorting 7's collapse over 20 minutes before the actual collapse, Put options, The major discrepancies with the calls from the plane, (learn about each one, they are a story in them selves), Northside witnesses at the Pentagon, ceased tapes that showed what hit the pentagon (maybe this discussion is all for not, maybe a plane didn't even hit the Pentagon, and there's good evidence to support this), Condy telling her good friend (name escapes me at the moment, Willy Brown maybe?), don't fly tommorow ect.

I mean I could literally go on and on for 10 paragraphs on shady stuff like this that took place leading up to 9/11 and immediately after it. It's when you take ALL OF IT, and step back and look at it, that's when you see the truth, and the conspiracy is out in the open.

But this was part of the plan. To create so much chaos and dissaray, and things that don't add up, you can't pin down one thing. It's just too much.

Plus the initial shock and awe had us all wanting Bush to Nuke Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan and anyone else we suspected might be "harboring" terrorists back to the stone age. These feelings lasted long enough for Bush to start his War, by that time it was over and they'd gotten away with it.

Not down playing the Pentagon Crash(explosion) at all, (it may actually be the catalyst if/when we do ever get these dirty bastards who did this), it's still just 1 of a thousand puzzle pieces that make up the 9/11 Conspiracy.

I still cannot fathom that there are people who believe the 9/11 Commission report. I mean unless your a schill or something (not saying anyone in this thread is), I just can't believe it. With all the evidence and knowledge we have now about the months leading up to 9/11 and the weeks following it, how anyone can "buy" the official story is just beyond me.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by Nola213]

And yet, those articles (granted I did not read all of them) neglect to mention the, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.....That being that a couple of the hijackers completed enough training to earn commercial pilot's licenses.

reply to post by Boone 870


They allegedly could not pass flying instructions when they could see out the windows of a Cessna actually flying with an instructor. What they allegedly did manage to get, in the short time they allegedly tried, was the video arcade version, and could not pass that in commercial jetliner simulation. Nor could they pass the written test on a Cessna.

No one is going to solo any commercial jetliners, under those conditions, and actually expertly maneuver and hit an intended target, partcularly at the Pentagon. Completely impossible.

When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules. And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have! The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.

BS, i sense a certain political agenda here.

As long as one doesn't have to take off or land it's no difficult task to train a non pilot how to set a route in the FMC and how to activate it and having the autopilot following the route and manage the speed in LNAV and VNAV mode.

Nor is it difficult to train a non pilot to handfly using the flight director as guidance for pitch and roll, and autothrottle for speed.

Here's another jewel from the expert.

According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).

Now he has the transponder being turned off 30 minutes after it actually was. I'm almost convinced that 9/11 was an inside job.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Would you care to provide certifiable proof of that and not hearsay from media and/or US bureaucrats?

reply to post by Boone 870


Why don't you have any validation? Hearsay from US bureaucrats is not validation.

What would manual flight on a clear day require apart from compass, altimeter, airspeed, rate of descent and artificial horizon?

And these guys were trained at it, not exactly A grade students but they knew the ropes nonetheless. Stressing the airframe in tight turns wasn't really something they would be concerned about considering their ultimate goal.

reply to post by Freaky_Animal


Political agenda? From an aeronautical engineer and pilot describing what it takes to be an experienced pilot? What political agenda would that be?

reply to post by OrionStars



Well gee, since any verification of a commerical pilot's license would come from the FAA (i.e. government bureaucrats) we seem to have a problem then

reply to post by OrionStars

They allegedly could not pass flying instructions when they could see out the windows of a Cessna actually flying with an instructor. What they allegedly did manage to get, in the short time they allegedly tried, was the video arcade version, and could not pass that in commercial jetliner simulation. Nor could they pass the written test on a Cessna.

To acquire a private pilot's license you have to have a minimum of 40 hours and some of those hours are solo flights. Every one of the 9/11 hijackers had soloed multiple times. Only one of them had problems on one occasion. Also, the instructor that refused to rent Hani a 172 later stated that he had no doubt that Hani could do what he done.

reply to post by OrionStars

Why don't you have any validation? Hearsay from US bureaucrats is not validation.

Do we have to play this game again Orion?
I'll counter your ridiculous question with one of my own. Can you validate that there was a Pentagon? Hearsay is not sufficient, you must provide valid physical evidence.

reply to post by Boone 870


Now, Boone, what are you doing pointing out facts to Orion???

reply to post by Boone 870


Now, Boone, what are you doing pointing out facts to Orion???

Here's another one from the expert.

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH.

Don't tell that to this pilot.