Boeing spokesperson laughs at the idea of a Boeing 767 going at 500 MPH at 700 feet

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Then why does the FAA allow a pilot to be type rated in them? The 747-400's biggest problem was that pilots weren't getting enough landings in them because the autolanding feature. The pilots were having to spend more time in the sims to get landings, which were accurate enough that the FAA allowed them credit for making landings.

Don't pilots, being rated by simulation model, have to be licensed experienced commerical jetliner licensed pilots first? That means actual human instructor oversight, solo, and some length of time paid work experience flying with actual planes first, before simulation certification applies on a different model of commercial jetliner.

They have to have their commercial rating first, that's all. You don't have to be a jet pilot to be type rated, the schools will give you a jet transition course. But they can be type rated by the airline in question through a simulator. You can find listings for schools that will give you a type rating in a 707, 717, 737, A300, 757, 767, 777.... Somehow I don't think the schools actually have those aircraft laying around to give you training in, so no you can be type rated in a simulator without having to actually fly the plane.

Here are some schools that use CBT and simulator training to give type ratings:
www.aerospace-technology.com...
www.kandsaviation.com...
www.crjtyperating.com...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They have to have their commercial rating first, that's all.

Exactly how are those commercial ratings acquired allowing them to transports civilian passengers? Simulator alone or some other way?

An actual commercial rating is just getting your private pilot license, and then getting more training on instruments and other things you need to know to get your commercial rating. It involves simulators and real flying time. However, once you have your commercial rating all you have flown is small aircraft, POSSIBLY twin engine aircraft if the school had them. They are all turboprop and they are not jets. A commercial and type rating are two completely different animals however. Once you are hired by the airline they train you in their particular aircraft (or you go to a school to learn on those aircraft) and you learn how to fly them and get your type rating.

[edit on 2/10/2008 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
An actual commercial rating is just getting your private pilot license, and then getting more training on instruments and other things you need to know to get your commercial rating. It involves simulators and real flying time. However, once you have your commercial rating all you have flown is small aircraft, POSSIBLY twin engine aircraft if the school had them. They are all turboprop and they are not jets. A commercial and type rating are two completely different animals however. Once you are hired by the airline they train you in their particular aircraft (or you go to a school to learn on those aircraft) and you learn how to fly them and get your type rating.

[edit on 2/10/2008 by Zaphod58]

That is what I briefly explained as well. Thank you for confirming.

In other words, people who cannot become certified, on small aircraft, are not going to be able to fly commerical jetliners with a few hours of training in a simulator and nothing more. Would you agree with that?

Well, except for the fact that all of the people flying the planes on 9/11 WERE certified pilots, and held at minimum a private pilots rating. Just because it's a private rating doesn't mean that they can't fly something bigger. And even if you don't get the rating that doesn't mean that you can't fly a plane. It just means that you didn't finish training. I never got my rating, but if you put me up in a plane I know what I'm doing and can fly it. I might not be able to fly across country to California, but I can fly around the area and get it back on the ground.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Well, except for the fact that all of the people flying the planes on 9/11 WERE certified pilots, and held at minimum a private pilots rating. Just because it's a private rating doesn't mean that they can't fly something bigger. And even if you don't get the rating that doesn't mean that you can't fly a plane. It just means that you didn't finish training. I never got my rating, but if you put me up in a plane I know what I'm doing and can fly it. I might not be able to fly across country to California, but I can fly around the area and get it back on the ground.

You know that exactly how? Hearsay because it was reported that way? Or some other concrete proved way?

The rest are your opinions. I agree to disagree with your opinions.

9/11/2001 cannot properly be analyzed, evaluated, and concluded without more than people's opinions. It takes far more than opinion, particularly with events as complex as those occurring on 9/11/2001.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Just a qualification on my part. Perhaps, I should have said effectively, correctly fly a plane, not simply fly a plane. Would that make a difference in your agreement or disagreement, with that qualification of what I actually originally intended and meant?

So you're saying that if you went through a pilot training course requiring (just pulling a number out of the air) 350 flight hours, and you flew 335 of them, and then stopped for whatever reason, you couldn't correctly fly the plane? Even though you didn't have a rating you would know enough to be able to correctly fly that plane.

Oh right, I forgot that anything reported that might support the gov't theory is just opinion, no matter how it's reported. Stupid of me to forget that.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So you're saying that if you went through a pilot training course requiring (just pulling a number out of the air) 350 flight hours, and you flew 335 of them, and then stopped for whatever reason, you couldn't correctly fly the plane? Even though you didn't have a rating you would know enough to be able to correctly fly that plane.

Oh right, I forgot that anything reported that might support the gov't theory is just opinion, no matter how it's reported. Stupid of me to forget that.

Since I do not apply hypothetical scenarios in properly evaluating and assessing 9/11/2001, I see your hypothetical as a moot point from my perspective.

Perhaps you should take heed of what you accused others of doing you are doing yourself. Please ask yourself this: "How much of what the "official" reports state can I actually physically prove to be true?" Then you necessarily have to set about proving what you can, or simply accept hearsay at face value. The choice is yours to make.

What I accused others of doing? What did I accuse others of doing? I don't remember accusing anyone of doing anything except picking and choosing quotes, and experts to listen to.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Zaphod used a reference, when he mentioned the 747-400, as an example of how pilots on equipment of that sort can run out of landing currency requirements.

It isn't, (high-five to you, Zaph) just because of the 'auto-land' ability of the 747-400...it has to do with the fact that the 747-400, along with the 757 and 767...and for that matter, modern long-range Airbus models...are two-person cockpits.

In the USA, under FAA Part 121 regulations, there are different duty limits and rest requirements, depending on whether the airplane requires three pilots, or two. For foreign Air-Carriers to operate in and out of the US, they comply with the US Regs.

We all know the 747 is a long-haul jet. So is the 767...and even the 757 has been pressed into Trans-Atlantic, and even West Coast-Hawai'i service, by several Operators.

Point is, when a jet that is certified to be operated by just two pilots is on a flight that is scheduled to be, 'block-to-block', more than eight hours, there must be a third pilot crewmember to augment the crew. This 'relief officer'...or 'international relief officer', or whatever each airline may call it can bid these positions and as a result, never actually accomplish any landings for months at a time...except!!! FAA requires AT LEAST 3 landings, every 90 days, or else you lose currency (not money, 'currency' refers to being 'current' in the airplane you are currently flying...)

When a pilot, by his/her own bid choice, continues to fly as 'relief'...they will be flagged by the Crew Scheduling department, and sent in to the airline's Training Center to fly, and complete, at least three 'landings' in a Phase 4 simulator...since, these Sims are FAA-approved, landing-certified...

Yes, if you choose to have the airline drag you in for this, you will get 'paid'...but not enough to make up for about two days off, lost forever...IMO. Doesn't pay the same as real flight time.

BTW, these same Simulators, as Zaphod mentioned already, are approved by the FAA, along with the Airline's syllabus, which inludes the CBT training, and the modules that involve the Procedures Trainers, under an instructor's supervision, ultimately getting to the Full-Motion Sim, and following THAT syllabus, eventually results in the Type-Rating check ride, either with an actual FAA representative, or 'his' designee...

Hope this clears some things up....


second edit, as the first...spelling!


[edit on 11-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 11-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What I accused others of doing? What did I accuse others of doing?

I don't remember accusing anyone of doing anything except picking and choosing quotes, and experts to listen to.

Are these your own words from another post on this same page?

"Oh right, I forgot that anything reported that might support the gov't theory is just opinion, no matter how it's reported. Stupid of me to forget that. "

Have you not specifically indicated the "official" reports, without required proof of validity, are your preference for promotion? That is the impression I keep receiving when reading your own words, in various of your posts. Is that not the impression I or others were intended to receive?

Yet, above in your own cited words, you deliberately promote the "official" reports again using sarcasm. Sarcasm never gives any leeway for giving the benefit of the doubt to otherd. Sarcarm is a rude criticism of others' opposing opinions different than your own, without justification.

If you care to give us undeniable proof the Bush administration has been truthful, I am willing to evaluate what you consider to be the truth. It does not mean I agree with your concept of the truth. It simply means I will be objective in determining whether or not truth has been told - giving benefit of the doubt with use of physical truth tables, IF I have to resort to that for truth or falsehood.

When "truth" is self-evidently contradictory, it is never truth. Then, I never need to use any physcial truth tables, it is that obvious.

Yes, I said that. However, the huge difference between what I post, and what several others post is that they have made up their mind based on what others online are saying, simply because it goes against the official report. What I have posted (about the aviation/military aspect) I know from either first hand experience, or from talking to people that were involved. I'm not running out and finding people that agree with me just to say that they agree. I'm also not accusing people of being thick, stupid, sheep, or anything else simply because they disagree with me (like a lot of truthers do and have done), or talking down to them and trying to run them out of a thread and wind up with people that only agree with me left.

Back to a Private Pilot, ASEL license...bare minimum hours to qualify, under an FAR Part 141 approved training syllabus, is 35 hours.

Part 61, Private Pilot, reguires (or at least, it did when I used to teach) minimum of 40 hours.

To achieve a Commercial license, the minimum is 250 hours, plus nowadays I think you have to have an Instrument Rating first...rules change, but the bare minimums are still published, maybe someone would care to look them up...I am working from memory and experience here.

Someone else mentioned 'solo' flight, and incorrectly related it to the Commercial license, if I read the post correctly. The concept of 'soloing' is, to a budding pilot, at first, a 'rite of passage', in a way...there is the 'first solo', traditionally as a suprise to the student, when the Instructor deems him/her ready...and, in my experience, will usually occur within the first 10 hours of primary instruction.

Of course, until the 'Student Pilot' (FAA term) earns the Private Pilot certiicate, there are some hoops to jump through...the written test (only need 70% to pass)...more hours of dual instruction, including Cross Country, short field and soft field take-offs and landings, turns about a point...S-turns, crosswind take-offs and landings...steep turns (60 degree banks, designed to teach confidence in the airplane, attitude and speed control)...hopefully, though not sure if required, I always taught spins, when we had an airplane that was aerobatic...at the very least, I taught how to recognize the onset of a spin, or a situation that would lead to a spin, and how to avoid them...and, of course, recovery techniques. Call me old school....

The 'Student Pilot', in the US, has a Medical Certificate that is a Third Class Medical, yellow in color, which when endorsed by the Instructor serves as both the Medical and Student Pilot license for the required 'solo' events that must occur after the initial 'first solo'...such as three solo Cross-Country flights, and the requisite building of solo time (about 20 hours) before the 'check-ride'...which consists of an oral and a practical, adminsistered by either an FAA check pilot, or an authoized 'designee'...

So far, we have only covered a few of the steps required to qualify as a 'Private Pilot', here in the USA....

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yes, I said that. However, the huge difference between what I post, and what several others post is that they have made up their mind based on what others online are saying, simply because it goes against the official report.

Perhaps you assume that to be true? Yet, people may well be doing far more than what you may be assuming they are doing. I know I did over the last 6+ years. I have noted others have done more than simply accept the words of others at face value.

Did you consider those in disagreement do not accept the "official" reports, because they contain many self-contradictory statements? That is why I do not accept them. From what others write, in the discussions, they do not accept them either for the same reason.

Exactly what is your complaint with rejection based on "official" reports' self-contradictions? Why should any reasonable person be expected to accept self-contradictions at face value?

OK, back from my break for dinner, and some TV...

A person gets their Private license, and with plenty of money available, they can continue to rent airplanes, get more dual instruction, whatever. Basic Instrument techniques are taught in Primary training...it is important, once the basics of VFR become entrenched, that at least a little of some 'hood' time (a device on the student's head to restrict his view to just the instrument panel) is taught, in order to convey how disoriented one can be, with a loss of outside visual reference, and to teach the basic instrument scan, commonly called the 'T' scan...in a light airplane, A/S indicator upper left, A/I center top, altimeter upper right, DG or HSI, depending on quality of the equipment, just below the A/I. The VSI (IVSI in a modern jet) is just below the altimeter.

'course, anything mentioned here could be seen by anyone who has taken a look at PC-based flight simulator programs, so it's not big news...maybe just a little more background terminology for y'all.

Remember, unlike a desktop PC, a real airplane will not 'freeze' in flight, and your inner ear will fool you if you lose the natural horizon and cannot relate to the intrument info...that's why it's valuable to continue Instrument training, where you not only learn to intrepret and rely on instruments (and learn to recognize when one or more are giving false info...we call that 'partial panel' training) but you also learn much more about communications, navigation in the ATC environment...how to read and intrepret STARS, SIDS, and Approach Charts...most common 800-pound Gorilla in the room nowadays is the Jeppesen company, publishers of these pages in a handy 6 by 9 inch, or so, seven-hole (or nine-hole, I never counted...) punched format to conveniently fit into a nice leather binder. Better than the ones issued by the US Military...

So, to get an Instrument rating, you learn how to file IFR flight plans, read back clearances, plan IFR flights...you learn what a holding pattern is, how to conduct an ILS approach, a Localizer approach, a VOR approach, an NDB approach...(NDBs going away, GPS is more prevalent now) but you still have to understand weather minima, for the various approaches. Yu have to learn about offset Localizers (LDA) approaches...'circling approaches', if that will apply to the airport and the runway you are 'shooting' the approach to...oh, and did I mention that this is now a pre-requisite, I believe, along with completing a written test (70% passing grade), an oral and a practical check ride.

Some may say..."Hey! That takes a really good knowledge of the English language!"

[edit in] I meant to add here, before I talk about the 'lexicon' in aviation, that passing a written test today can be helped by buying classes that 'help' you 'pass' the test. There are only about 100 questions in the official FAA test. These cram courses, for $300 or so, will show you about 600-700 possible questions, with answers...all gleaned from past applicants, and compiled and presented for anyone willing to spend two days and drop a few hundred dollars to pass a test.....[end of edit]

Well, yes....and no...there are certain key words in the lexicon of aviation language that can be learned, and understood, simply by repetition and example. A person whose first language is not English doesn't have to remember every time he uses the term "VOR" that it is an acronym for "VHF Omni-directional Radio", or that ILS means 'Instrument Landing System'...you learn, you gain experience, and you tend to speak in the same shorthand that everyone else in the aviation community speaks, and understands. Radio phraseology is standardized, and usually succinct.

Thick accents can cause short-term misunderstandings...I've flown in Asia, where you encounter various degrees of English ability, on the part of the controllers, as well as in Europe and in South America. (Although English is supposed to be the "Int'l" language in aviation, you will find many controllers will speak to pilots in their native language...it helps that I know a little Spanish, and a little French...but of course, I don't have to know much because radio speak is limited, mostly, to certain phrases and you can infer what they are saying, based on observations and situational awareness).

If I hear, for instance, "Air France neuf deux trois, Paris, then [blah, blah, blah]" I know that the controller is telling AF923 to do something...turn to a heading, climb, descend, whatever...and that stays in my head. I know if AF923 has been cleared to a waypoint ahead, or behind me, because I have the arrival or departure Route, with all of the waypoints programmed in, right in front of me...and I have the TCAS, if the airplane is within 40NM, so I know now which one it is...this is 'situational awareness'. (the preceeding mostly refers to the terminal area of an airport, where it is most busy and separation standards are reduced from those at higher altiudes, in the enroute environment...).

This has turned into a two-part article, such as you may see in an aviation magazine...not that it couldn't do with some revisions by a good editor!

Perhaps this should have been in the other thread, about the '''Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft"...but I think the two threads are related.

I have tried to supply some background to educate some of you about what is involved in getting a Commercial license...and to get more than 250 hours! This is not meant as a joke, it is serious....when I was a Flight Instructor, and after I had gotten to about the 1500 - 2000 hour level of experience, I began to understand what people told me when I was a hotshot at 200 hours...I thought I knew EVERYTHING at 200 hours!! There is, commonly, a period of accomplishment when you graduate from being overwhelmed by all the new information, to where you get a little bit big for your britches. If you have lots of money, it can turn tragic. I only have to mention JFK Jr, or earlier, a golf pro (forget his name...Munson?) from the late 1970s...There are no doubt others, not as famous, but nevertheless had more money than experience.

Is there a connection to 9/11? Well, history will tell. The main story seems to be, indeed, the Saudis had money, and they had just enough experience...but, unike all the others I mentioned above, the Saudis had a death wish....more than that, they had a fervent fundamentalist mentality that made them unafraid of death, in order to foment their sick plans.

Not to impugn anyone's religion here...but the story of 70 virgins waiting in the afterlife...what if, what IF! The 70 virgins are all 'comic book guy' from the "Simpsons"?? Now, THAT would be irony...

Just an attempt to lighten up...but in no way is ANY disrespect meant, nor intended, to anyone who suffered from the events of 9/11. My heartfelt feelings will now, and always will go out to anyone who lost loved ones. I had the privilege of attending a service for one of the victims, F/O David Charlesbois, here in DC (AA77). If the second-to-last paragraph is thought to be in poor taste, then attribute it to my poor editing skills....

Peace















[edit on 11-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by OrionStars


My complaint is the automatic rejection of the official story BECAUSE it's from the official story. Since they claim parts of the official story is wrong, it ALL must be wrong automatically.

Let's look at the thread that has decided the Betty Ong phone call was part of an antihijacking drill. Despite being told by an AIRLINE PILOT amongst others that antihijacking training NEVER involves live passenger flight crews (flights that are in the air with passengers) in the US, somehow the fact that INDIA uses live passenger flights is relevant and proves that the US does in fact use live passenger flights for training, because the FAA requires it every two years. Despite being told by an airline pilot that classroom training is sufficient, and being told by someone who worked airport security and with the FAA and knows the procedures, that if a plane is used for a SWAT exercise it's an inactive plane with no passengers on board, an article about a SWAT team storming a plane somehow proves that they really do use real passengers for training. Despite it saying IN THE ARTICLE that it was an inactive retired plane. Despite being told by someone who worked around the military for 25 years, and has experiences with exercises and is familiar with FAA rules and regulations, that if the military is doing a hijacking drill it's a COMMAND POST exercise involving no real intercepts the fact that NORAD does hijacking exercises somehow means that dozens of times a year fighters are intercepting passenger planes with real passengers on board for no other reason than to do training....

I could go on, but you get the point, and if you don't I don't feel like explaining it better to you. I have problems with people not being interested in the TRUTH of how something is done, and automatically assuming they KNOW how it's done because it fits their ideas.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by OrionStars

 

My complaint is the automatic rejection of the official story BECAUSE it's from the official story. Since they claim parts of the official story is wrong, it ALL must be wrong automatically.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion. However, isn't that a broad statement to make, if there is no proof everyone rejecting the "official" reports has done so based only on what you opine?

Is everyone rejecting those reports saying they reject them only because the Bush administration uttered them? Has anyone said that? Or do they actually give substantiated reasons for why they reject them, which are not acceptable to you as substantiated?

If people engage in any opposing discussions, embracing false hard set pre-conceived perceptions, they can only arrive at false hard set conclusions, during any opposing discussions. They are automatically going to reject anything not agreeing with their opinions.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
My complaint is the automatic rejection of the official story BECAUSE it's from the official story. Since they claim parts of the official story is wrong, it ALL must be wrong automatically.

But what about people who believe the official story just becasue its what we have been told.

I believe the official story is wrong because of education, experience, but mostly common sense.

Also the fact that i have been doing research, filed FOIA request, and e-mailed companies that were at ground zero.

What have the people that still believe the official story done to make sure the official story is correct?


[edit on 12-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]