It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:13 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

edit: I don't know the A-310, but most airliners have a VMO of around 340K at sea level...varies up or down depending on the airplane.

Right, but as you know, design specs, certification specs, and operating specs are all predicated on safety factors which assume worst case scenarios. VMO is a value that a pilot should not exceed under normal conditions, not a value that is physically impossible to exceed.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by darkbluesky

Yeah, yeah dbs....says you!!

Where's your proof? Because I bet I can find at least two people somewhere to point out all of teh 'flaws'...shadows all wrong, there was a giant spotlight..etc, etc...

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by darkbluesky

Hey, dbs re: VMO. Yup, I know that, was just referring to the airshow...THEY weren't suicidal religious extremist nut-jobs with a whacked agenda...the Saudis were.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:27 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by darkbluesky

Yeah, yeah dbs....says you!!

Where's your proof? Because I bet I can find at least two people somewhere to point out all of teh 'flaws'...shadows all wrong, there was a giant spotlight..etc, etc...

You got me. Of course the photo is a fake, there is no way an airplane can fly to 75,000 ft and safely land again due to "quantum aerodynamics", "vacuum lift" and of course the famous "fluttering leaf phenomenon".

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:43 PM

Originally posted by dirtonwater
reply to post by gottago

Actually the question is not all 3 but is 3 out of 4 which is quite different.
[edit on 16-1-2008 by dirtonwater]

Your quite right. Star for you!

It's this kind of subtle wording that helps the "Truth" movement exist, IMO.
Context and full understanding are critical if you claim to be after the truth.

What's struck me,in this particular thread, is how truthers claim they are after the truth but absolutely will not honestly consider anything that doesn't agree with them.

My working theory is that the truth movement is interested in neither truth nor 9-11. It's leaders use 9-11 as a rally cry to bring unknowing people into the mix. The leaders of the truth movement, and IMO, the vast majority of opinions I see articulated in this forum, are far left in nature (at the core).

The second part of my theory is the only "debunkers" in the debate are actually "truthers". The only ones I have seen go to absolute extremes to disqualify any evidence that doesn't jive with their opinion, before any discussion actually takes place, are truthers, IMO.

The third part of my theory is the schizophrenic nature of reasoning truthers employ. Just look at this thread; the logic tree is impossible to follow. Before someone knee-jerk responds, let me explain: I am not quarreling with the opinions (why bother?). I am taking issue with the logic employed to get to the conclusions they draw.

A very superficial example: the 9-11 report is total bunk, but a aeronautical engineer and claimed pilot claims it is impossible for the hijackers to do what I believe they did and it's considered gospel. Think about that. In one fell swoop, they discredit literally thousands of professionals who complied thousands upon thousands of man hours of exhaustive research based on sound evidence and simply dismiss them as 'hacks' or 'shills'. At the same time they discredit the 9-11 report, they "go to the mat" to defend someone with dubious credentials at best; a person who has a history of peddling political agendas wrapped in the "NWO" blanket of conspiracy.

Orion, before you fly off the handle, please find the FAA cert for "Heavy Aircraft". Actually, don't bother; it doesn't exist. The author lists his credentials as "qualified in heavy aircraft" in an attempt to make their qualifications more relevant than they actually are. He claims to be commercially rated. Whoopie. Is he ATP rated with experience flying for a professional outfit, using the equipment he professes to be an expert on? Who says he is an expert besides the author? What peers, of his, point to his knowledge level as being 'expert'? How can he be an expert in aviation or engineering when he works as a consultant for the communications industry!?

Before you mis-characterize my comments; I haven't claimed to be an expert, nor have I claimed expert credentials. When I do, you're more than welcome to question my ability to make assertions.

Edit for clarity and typos.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:48 PM

Originally posted by darkbluesky
reply to post by weedwhacker

Thanks WW.

I happen to be 100% positive the pic used in my avatar is authentic.

[edit on 1/16/2008 by darkbluesky]

I'm guessing, from the window of an SR-71? That's an amazing picture!

I would love to see the full sized original. Is that possible?

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:57 PM

Originally posted by OrionStars
That was 20' above ground at 400 mph not 20' in distance at 400 mph. Did you even bother to read the article? If you did, you certainly keep misinterpreting what the author did say.

Come on dude don't be a you know what....

All my posts are about 400 KT at 20 feet above the ground and you know it. What is the point here? You really do not want to discuss this I can see.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by OrionStars
If you knew all you said about flying you would have no problem agreeing with him.

I ended up asking only 18 pilots if they could fly a 757 or larger Aircraft at max speed (350kt and up) within ground effect and all 18 said yes. I have flown at 320kt at 25 feet over the Indian Ocean in a 290,000 aircraft though this was not 400 mph there were no issue at that speed.

I do not need to agree with him…

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by OrionStars
It certainly does. It agrees with my understanding of the physics and quantum mechanics of aerodynamics very well. The author is an expert in aerodynamic engineeering. Something you admit you are not.

Ok what does subatomic particles and how they interact with each other have anything to do with flying or aerodynamics? You are just spouting junk that you have no clue to what it is other than it sounds good, but in really it makes no sense.

Who says this guy is an expert in aerodynamic engineering? He has a degree (at least he says he does) but that doesn’t make him an expert. I have a degree in psychology and I’m not an expert in that field. Normally what makes you an expert is the recognition of your peers. How many top aerodynamic engineers say this guy is an expert…it is also funny that he doesn’t even work in either the field of aviation nor aerodynamic engineering but he knows it all about them at the “expert” level.

First rule of disinformation is to say something like "quantum mechanics of aerodynamics" and then back it up with statements like you have a PhD in aerodynamic engineering to add validity to your statement. Of course all of it un-provable...

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by Xtrozero

Xtrozero, well put!

Or, should I call you Dr. Strangelove? Excellent avatar...

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:22 PM
Please see NEW: Civility and Decorum are Required]

Thank you.


[edit on 16/1/08 by JAK]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:35 PM

Originally posted by miragewsu
I'm sure people "determined" to carry out these attacks could have done the above. With some study... its totally possible.

I would say that the real-world statistics prove pretty conclusively that with a limited amount of study and hands-on experience, a bunch of religious extremists can indeed fly large aircraft and hit their targets approximately 75 percent of the time. No, they can't do it safely, or within manufacturer specifications. But that's hardly the point.

Now, as for people with absolutely no training at all, that percentage would probably go down a lot, but that's irrelevant to what happened on 9/11, anyway, and certainly not what is implied in the thread title.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

Originally posted by OrionStars
what you know about the physics and quantum mechanics of aerodynamics. You blatantly implied I was too stupid to know.

What is/are the "Quantum Mechanics of aerodynamics"?!

[edit on 16-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

With all your touted "knowledge" of aerodynamics, you seriously have to ask that question while answering your own question at the same time. Unbelievable.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:51 PM
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

You do not understand the use of analogy to make valid points. That is obvious. That was my point. Your video had nothing to do with what is alleged to have occurred at the Pentagon. If you understood the principles of aerodynamics, you would know that. Which is the why the author, of the article, is obviously versed in aerodynamic engineering, and those of you drastically disagreeing with the author are not. It is self-evident from your (plural) own words. I would not know that without being versed as well. Clearer now?

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:55 PM

Originally posted by gottago
Where does this fall on the scale between 10 being inevitable and 0 being impossible?

Well as I see it, it was a 75% success rate since one group didn't make it.

I have many posts on how easy it would have been to takeover a cockpit prior to 9/11. The pilots with little warning would not have had a chance do to anything being strapped in their seats in the 4 point harness.

The hardest part was most likely navigating to the crash points. But navigation is something that can be learned in ground school or even on your own if you wanted to. With the towers, the hijackers would only need to know which direction New York City was and then they could just follow a heading until the city became visible, and then the towers would have been easily visible. The ability to firewall the throttles and then hand fly into the towers would have been a rather easy event to pull off for an inexperienced pilot.

The Pentagon is a little different in that the plane was much closer to the ground and that would increase the difficulty level. I would think the Pentagon would be harder to visually pick out and so the hijackers would need to know more about navigation. How much more I have no clue to what would be the minimum knowledge needed to successfully navigate from the point the hijackers took over the plane and get to the pentagon, but it is not rocket science.

Many claim that the Pentagon plane flew 20 feet above the ground for at least a mile at 400 mph. I find this to be a extremely hard event for a inexperience pilot to accomplish, but as I have said if the hijacker was porpoising lets say between 20 feet and 200 feet in altitude then that would be a better scenario to what an inexperience pilot would be capable of.

One thing to remember that no one seems to bring up or understands is the last mile only took about 6 seconds to cover. People have a mental image that this guy was flying low level (below 100 feet) for a while and that would have been extremely hard thing for him to do, but they were only at a low altitude for 6 seconds or so after they clipped the poles.

I would vision this guy flying in and almost crashing short, but was able to pull up some after hitting the poles. He then started his descent again that would have been for just a few second until impact.

For a person with just some flight/navigation experience the towers on a scale 1 to 10 is no more than let’s say 7 in difficulty to do. The Pentagon I would rate it a 2 out of 10 for difficulty of a pilot that was inexperienced. So I would say in the Pentagon case either the guy had more experience than many believe, or he was damn lucky not to crash when he hit the poles one mile out at 20 feet.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by dirtonwater

If anyone knew how to start and move it, anyone could. However, you, or anyone else, may not hit the air before crashing. That is completely different than consistently changing conditions in the air, when the plane may be in control not the pilot, no matter how hard that pilot works to maintain control of that plane. If someone cannot fly a Cessna in a circle around a field at 900' in the air, on a clear calm day, no neophyte is going to be controlling a plane the size of a 767 over NYC, clear day or not.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Well, I've sat here and read most of this and every time someone with actual aviation experience points out the errors in the Nila Sagadevan article they get hit with some of the silliest nonsense imaginable.

Nearly every part of Mr. Sagadevan's article is pure hogwash. He is intentionally misleading especially when talking about the weather conditions. It was a bright, beautiful cloudless sky that day! I know...I was there...about 3 miles from the Pentagon. And we've all seen the films from New York. So, along with his other assertions, that one stands out as the most blatant one to destroy his credibility.

I do not understand this continued insistence a 9/11 conspiracy exists, unless it's just to sell books...

Then, by all means, please share all your knowledge of the principles of aerodynamics and meaning of all the gauges and lights, on the control panel of a commercial jetliner. Please do forget to be explicit in how planes are controlled under any and all weather conditions. Please do not forget what limitations commercial jetliners are faced with, in the air, before blowing engines or breaking apart in mid-air.

You say the article is "hogwash". Please explain exactly how it is "hogwash" You have not done that. Neither has anyone else in disagreement with the author. Unless you can prove the author is a fake, your and others opinions comments are only your biased opinions and nothing more in defense of the highly illogical and inconsistent "official" reports.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
I did a search and was not able to find this article discussed. I think that it raises some red flags to one that would believe the official story. Its a great read and I think its very important to the investigation of a truther.

The terrorists that supposedly flew the plane into the Pentagon was said to have been a terrible pilot. His teacher even said he couldn't fly a cessna safely. He couldn't have executed a 270 degree turn at 400+ mph while navagating obsticles and flying the airline into the pentagon a few feet off the ground only to create a hole 2-3 semitrucks wide.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by OrionStars


I believe the point here is...your phrase 'quantum aerodynamics' is, well...nonsense.

Something else I will mention, not to you, Orion, specifically, but back to the OP's original post, and link to the 'essay by Mr. Sagadevan.

A few posts, many actually, back I mentioned that the B757 and B767 have a common type rating. IN case you don't know what that is...the FAA requires a specific 'checkride' and subsequent (if you pass) rating on your Airman's Certificate for any airplane over 12,500lbs Gross Weight, or for any Turbo Jet airplane.

When Boeing was developing the 757/767 models they made a corporate decision to offer a way, for sales purposes, to make them similar enough that they would be a common type rating. Quite brilliant, really.

Now, with that said, to my point---the term you hear on audio, or read on written transcripts, the term 'heavy' refers to any airplane that has a designed Max Gross Take Off Weight of more than 300,000 lbs. This ATC vernacular, and FAA requirement, came about after it was discovered that the newer widebody airplanes, the DC-10, the L-1011 and the B747 produced a wake turbulence far greater than any predecessor. So, in the terminal environment (AKA near an airport, low altitude) the minimum separation standards were increased from 3 to 5 miles when a 'heavy' was in front. that out of the way...Now, with the exception of the B757-300, which were not involved in 9/11, the B757-200 does not classify as a 'heavy', since it does not have a MGTOW above 300,000lbs. It was discovered, though, that the wake produced by a 757-200 was strong enough that a controller knew he had to provide separation standards of five miles, even though the designation was not 'heavy'. This was found out WELL after the airplanes had been in operation for many years...tragically, because of accidents.

Back to the point...Mr. Sagadevan says the hijackers could not fly a 'Heavy' airliner. Well, hate to rain on his parade, but if you've kept up with me this far, you will know that the cockpit layout, the control 'feel' and the pilot's sight-line form both the 757 and 767 had to be similar enough as to comply with the FAA certification requirements in order to be granted the common type rating.

What this means, simply is...the 757 feels just the same as the 767...the view out of the windows is the same...they handle the same...and, really, they are easier to fly than a Cessna. All airplanes require a light touch, and when you get into a commercial jet you are manipulating controls that are hydraulically actuated...think of the power steering in a car. Bad analogy, but you have to feel it to understand it....

Don't know how else to explain it. I could put you into a full motion Simulator, and then it would become clear to you. With a little instruction bet you could find a target and hit it. Even better...if you had a Commercial Pilot license, as four of the Saudis did, you would be even more capable, once you felt familiar in the these guys spent money on too...

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by darkbluesky

Then I am surprised not to see any of those much smaller, lighter planes wavering, much less not being blown away, by the thrust of the engines at 400 mph, at 20' above ground level, at that close to sea level and so close to those other smaller planes. Yes, I am well aware they tie down those smaller planes at airports, when not in hangars, and why.

What people are passing off in this discussion, is never done at air shows. If people say it is, then prove it with something besides a misleading video and very bad analogy to 9/11 reports.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in