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: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
reply to post by jfj123
 



So you are saying that it would have been very easy for the planes to have been remote controlled into the building. I see, that makes sense. Since it would have been practically impossible to hire goons to hijack the plane and fly them into buildings they just used remote.....


No just saying it's not as hard as some people are making it out to be. If you want to see for yourself, there are a few perfect simulator software packages on the market with exact control replication. Go buy one and try it for yourself that way you don't need to take anyones word for it.




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Whatever people do after "mastering" computer progammed video arcade simulated flight games, do not take the computer out and try to "masterfully" crash it at high speed in to tall buildings. The building will be fine. But the computers and simulator programs can take a real bite out of personal finances trying to replace them.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I think the main question here to be asked is, was it an impossible task for them to do?

If everyone says no it was not impossible, then we would need to look at what would be the minimum needed to not make it impossible and go from there.

If anyone suggests it was a totally impossible feat then I have 100s of questions that would need to be answered, and the main problem with my questions is that the conspiracy would exponentially grow if everything happened as an alt conspericy and not be the real deal.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Whatever people do after "mastering" computer progammed video arcade simulated flight games, do not take the computer out and try to "masterfully" crash it at high speed in to tall buildings. The building will be fine. But the computers and simulator programs can take a real bite out of personal finances trying to replace them.


Can you explain the fact that in the C-17 (maximum gross takeoff weight is 585,000 pounds) world they do all their initial training in a sim and then jump into a real C-17 for the first time and get their first checkride successfully flying all phases of flight?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Why? I do not recall any C-17s mentioned in the "official" reports? Anyone else recall it?

Why don't you just throw in the Titantic for good measure? it would be just as off-topic.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Lets all get on the same physics page any decent phisics book will tell you
how a airplane fly's through the air.

Class is now in session boys and grils.....
Ther are four basic forces that work on a aircraft while in flight.
1. Gravity - The down ward pull of the planet
2. Drag - The friction of the air over the aircraft.
3. Thrust - That pulls or pushes the aircraft through the air.
4. Lift - The force that counters gravity.

The principal see the link below
home.earthlink.net...
Airfoils are located at the bottom of the page.

As to weather the hijackers could fly the airplane or not
given the modern cockpit it is totally possible!

I have yet to see any discussion about autopilots
You punch in GPS coordinates to navigate.

To adjust a airplane heading and altitude you just turn a knob.
and vola your flying a airplane.

Lack of knowledge is not bliss.

Class is dismissed.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Wing-nut
 


I cannot say I have ever encountered aerodynamics instructed quite that way. Imagine comparing fluid (liquid) movement to aerodynamics. That is a new approach. Have you considered writing your thesis and presenting it for peer review, to say, those at the Max Planck Institute?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Under certain conditions air will act just like a fluid such as passing
over an airfoil. There is in the air above us rivers of air that weather guessers
call jets streams these air rivers move at 100 + mph and they go all over the world.

This is not new science it has been around for a long time.
By the way I already wrote my theses Thank You.
I just have a way for taking the very complex and making it understandable
to others.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by Wing-nut]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Why? I do not recall any C-17s mentioned in the "official" reports? Anyone else recall it?

Why don't you just throw in the Titantic for good measure? it would be just as off-topic.


Well the titantic is not a plane silly....

The C-17 is a airplane 2x the weight of a 757. If you say that a 757 is not as easy as a 172 or other light plane then why can't I show that a much heavier aircraft can and is done with all sims?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Wing-nut
 

That's it in a nutshell alright

However you left out the vacuum lift generating device
(j/k)
Take-offs are optional but all landings remain mandatory as they say.

Would an autopilot be capable of making the observed maneuvers with the precision required?
As far as I know, they're limited to very conservative changes and maintaining altitude, speed and bearing. The idea of remote control comes up every so often but the duplex telemetry rate required for accuracy at those speeds possibly doesn't exist. It would need line of sight microwave comms at the very least and I didn't notice any dishes on the planes.

So it still looks the people alleged to have done it actually did do it



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Two people left out the fact they have not a clue concerning Bernoulli's Principle (aerodynamics of aviary (bird) construction in flight not airplane construction in flight).



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 
If highjacking a plane with little to no piloting experience and flying it into a target were so easy, why has it not been done (save 911) in the century or so of manned flight? Its seems like a GREAT plan and it instills terror in more than one way. It apparently is so easy you can even do it over some of the most heavily defended air space in the world without so much of a threat from the military...with planes in the air for over an hour and previous knowledge that said terrorists meant to do just this.... WOW.. Good thing it took terrorists nearly 100 years to figure out how easy this was to pull off.

And if your gonna tell me "well it wasnt easy"... they sure made it look easy.



[edit on 16-1-2008 by shug7272]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shug7272
reply to [
 
If highjacking a plane with little to no piloting experience and flying it into a target were so easy, why has it not been done (save 911) in the century or so of manned flight?
And if your gonna tell me "well it wasnt easy"... they sure made it look easy.


Same reason we didn't see 100s of suicide bombers in the past. Most did not do these kinds of things with the intent to commit suicide. Also they were 75% successful so not so easy...

We can also say the same thing about IEDs for they are another intelligent invention of a totally different direction than what we have seen in the past.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The idea of remote control comes up every so often but the duplex telemetry rate required for accuracy at those speeds possibly doesn't exist. It would need line of sight microwave comms at the very least and I didn't notice any dishes on the planes.

So it still looks the people alleged to have done it actually did do it



UAVs use local ground people to taxi, takeoff and land them with radio control. Once they are in the air the controls are transferred to satellite links and are then control all the way back here in the states.
Newer auto pilots can do everything and even land the plane. The flight paths though are way to erratic for the auto pilot or radio controlled through the auto pilot.

Most auto pilots allow a max of 30% bank and many only 20%, and all basically hold the heading alt, and airspeed spot on. When you are low to the ground the auto pilot would need to be able to use the radar altimeter or you run into the problem of not having the correct altimeter setting.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Wing-nut
 

That's it in a nutshell alright

However you left out the vacuum lift generating device
(j/k)
Take-offs are optional but all landings remain mandatory as they say.

Would an autopilot be capable of making the observed maneuvers with the precision required?
As far as I know, they're limited to very conservative changes and maintaining altitude, speed and bearing. The idea of remote control comes up every so often but the duplex telemetry rate required for accuracy at those speeds possibly doesn't exist. It would need line of sight microwave comms at the very least and I didn't notice any dishes on the planes.

So it still looks the people alleged to have done it actually did do it


Well the airfoil is a vacuum generating device!
The low pressure area is generated on top of the wing with a high pressure on the bottom of the wing.

AAAHHHH yes the old what goes up must come down, But any landing you can walk away from is a good one!

No microwave dishes required.
In the early 1980's the U.S. Army built the first microwave landing system.
The test bed was first built into a UH-1C model Huey. The other half was
a back pack unit that a ground pounder would take to some remote location.
Once airborne the units would be turned on and the helicopter would fly to within one foot of the back pack unit. This unit was later on installed on to the
STS-1 for landing tests. There were no microwave dishes involved in this project.

HHHMMM STS-1 what is that you ask why its the first spaceship to called Enterprise.

And yes I do have a mission patch with my name on it!

Yes they might have actually done it!



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by shug7272
reply to [
 
If highjacking a plane with little to no piloting experience and flying it into a target were so easy, why has it not been done (save 911) in the century or so of manned flight?
And if your gonna tell me "well it wasnt easy"... they sure made it look easy.


Same reason we didn't see 100s of suicide bombers in the past. Most did not do these kinds of things with the intent to commit suicide. Also they were 75% successful so not so easy...

We can also say the same thing about IEDs for they are another intelligent invention of a totally different direction than what we have seen in the past.
75% is pretty damn successful. Hell we have a lower success rate than that regarding simple medical procedures. They were 75% successful because the passengers forced them to ground the plane.. right? So that really doesnt play into it at all. If it were up to our Gov it would appear it would have been 100% success judging on how they handled they others.

As far as your other point, unless you can show me at what time "terrorists" decided killing themselves was good, I will assume they never cared for their own lives much. So please give me a link to your info showing in what time period terrorists decided that not dying along with the victims was no longer a good idea. Otherwise your point is moot.

Kamikaze anyone? That was a good while back. Seems the idea has been around and used for a little longer than you let on. But then again those are TRAINED pilots and they frequently missed didnt they... Yea they did.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by shug7272
So please give me a link to your info showing in what time period terrorists decided that not dying along with the victims was no longer a good idea. Otherwise your point is moot.


So a link makes everything real and true...hehe

Here is a link to some history on hijacks. As you wish

It was speculation so take it or leave it. Do some research and see how many suicide bombers were used as a main attack before 9/11 and how many suicide hijacking attempts were before 9/11? Maybe they did get the idea from the Japanese.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Darn, I wish I could link a picture of an EFIS screen in here. On a 757 or 767 one only has to pull up the 'LEGS' page on the FMS...it's the button labeled 'LEGS'...even a Saudi could do it...then type in on the keypad...all the letters are there, A to Z (Saudis must remember to read left to right, though)..type in your waypoint and press the "EXEC' button. A nice magenta line appears on the EHSI...there is a little white triangle, representing the nose of the airplane. Now, just turn to follow the magenta line and 'Voila!' You are now on your way to the waypoint you've selected. Sheesh, a monkey could do it! (Well...a smart monkey...).

BTW, what waypoint do you type in? Well, a VOR is three letters. Example, 'DCA' for the VOR at National Airport. Or, type in the aerodrome identifier...'KDCA' for, you guessed it, National Airport.

Simple, ain't it?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

By jove I do believe that you got it.
Yes it really is that simple!



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wing-nut
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

By jove I do believe that you got it.
Yes it really is that simple!


Hey don't forget that you can also type in a lat/long off a hand held GPS. So I go to the towers and write down the lat/long off my GPS and BAM!




top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join