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.

 

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

page: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Perhaps we can all agree that there are issues not being addressed here.

Since I can only speak to what I have direct knowledge and experience about, it is the flying of airplanes.

I certainly never flew a B767 at max throttle at below 1000 feet...didn't want to lose my license!

BTW, when I refer to 'max throttle' it simply means the thrust levers are pushed all the way forward, to the stops. Depending on prevailing conditions, temp and altitude, this will likely result in exceeding engine operating limitations...in other words, it will 'cook' the engines. Maximum values for N1 and N2, and EGT limits will likely be exceeded. In a emergency situation, such as a windshear encounter, we are currently trained to exceed those limits in an effort to save the airplane...two new engine rebuilds are worth the price of the lives of the people onboard, obviously. Same scenario applies in a GPWS 'terrain' warning...of course some judgement is used, i.e., whether or not you are in 'mountainous terrain', and the prevailing visibility, etc...it'a all about situational awareness.

Back to my attempted point...the final speeds of the B767s, assuming they were at max throttle, and in one case, allegedly in level flight, and the other in a dive just before impact (thus gaining extra speed, and momentum, due to the assistance of gravity) have been estimated. Have these numbers been 'massaged' by NIST in some way? I don't know, that's not my area of knowledge, that's why I read other's posts on ATS. How much damage can be imparted by an object traveling at...let's say, for sake of argument, 400 MPH...a piece of metal and a quantity of Jet-A that weighs, statically, nearly 300,000 lbs has a lot of kinetic energy in it, at those speeds. Of course, the Jet-A has all of that latent energy as well, to come out upon ignition. I am sure there must be physicists out there who could calculate the Newtons involved, for us??

No matter how many of these questions swirl around, I believe we are forgetting a very important fact. Thousands died on that day. These dispassonate, at times, discussions seem to forget that.

Again, we must ask ourselves...is there any way a United States Government official would promulgate such a heinous act? We dance around the how, and argue about it...but what about the why??!

Four airplanes commandeered, three targets achieved. That is a 75% 'success' rate, to be callous and look at it that way.

Terrorists blew up Army barracks in Lebanon, got close to the USS Cole in a port in the Gulf and blew a hole in her...they strap bombs on mentally challenged people in Iraq, now one of the most despicable examples of depravity...

UA93 failed to hit its target, thankfully, because of the notorius delays that Newark Airport is famous for. All four flights had the approximate same 'departure' time, that is the 'push-back' time...UA93 had a very long taxi, due to the usual morning rush, from 'push-back' to 'wheels-up'. This made all the difference in the outcome....

Let's not forget the victims. A Hollywood producer, and his wife, on AA11...an entire class of school children on AA77...those in the WTC Towers, those others on UA93 and UA175...it is high time we stop and think about all of the victims.




posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhackerAgain, we must ask ourselves...is there any way a United States Government official would promulgate such a heinous act? We dance around the how, and argue about it...but what about the why??!


Well just look at history.

I mean we even have recently released information that the governemnt planned or let the USS Liberty get attacked.

We also have released documents about the government knowing ahead of time about the attack on Pearl Harbor.

If people really cared about the people that died that day they would do some mroe research and try to find out what really happened that day.



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Dont forget when Hezbollah terrorists attacked the USS Deyo in 1989 using ultralights or when the again attacked the Deyo in Valencia, Spain the same year.......

Oh wait, they didnt actually happen, but we had "reliable" reports that they were planning both attacks.

And before you ask, I was assigned to the Deyo and was privy to the reports that came in about terrorist threats.



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
it is high time we stop and think about all of the victims.



I don't know about you, but every time I participate in one of these discussions I'm thinking about the victims. The victims are the reason the disgustingly negligent report of the NIST should not be allowed to stand.

Any other suggestions?



posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA,

I am not familiar with USS Liberty, so not sure your point there.

As to Pearl Harbor I just watched a doc on History Channel, today. Pretty new, focused on 'mini' subs that were deployed ahead of the air attack...five of them, to be exact...manned by two Japanese sailors, sporting two torpedoes each. Three of these subs were intercepted, one washed ashore on Oahu, the fifth has yet to be discovered. They, these 'mini' subs, were unsuccesful.

There were, apparently, delays in reports up the chain of command...according to the doc a radar operator saw the flight of Japanese airplanes an hour before the attack, but alarms were not raised. The Command at the time believed Hawai'i to be invulnerable to an air assault, they focused on an invasion from the sea...it was 1941, people made mistakes.

60+ years on, if there was ANYTHING to be uncovered, don't you think it'd been found by now?

Keep digging, just in case...one never knows....



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Valhall,

Is it possible that NIST 'cooked the books' in order to bolster their claims, and thereby promulgate a lie? Of course, it is possible. Is it probable??

I still come back to logic. IF a lie is going to be continued, that means evidence to refute the lie has to be suppressed. Please, try to explain how so many people involved, in this particular instance, would agree to stay silent??

Enquiring minds want to know.....



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Has anyone tried a program for Flight 93 in the sim ?


Not that I've heard. They only simmed accidents if there was a question as to what happened, and they couldn't recover large portions of the wreckage. Flight 93 had eyewitnesses that saw the plane in a steep nose down attitude, and wreckage was recovered, as were the FDR and CVR.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Not that I've heard. They only simmed accidents if there was a question as to what happened, and they couldn't recover large portions of the wreckage. Flight 93 had eyewitnesses that saw the plane in a steep nose down attitude, and wreckage was recovered, as were the FDR and CVR.


But they had witnesses to flight 77 hitting the Pentagon but there is still questions about it. The witnesses could not agree on type of plane or if it hit the ground or building, and some witness stated they were told later it was a 757.

Also if flight 93 hit the ground in a step nose dive how did an engine get 1/4 of a mile away from the crash site?

Flight 77s FDR raised questions about the flight path of the official story, so i am wondering what the flight 93 FDR might say about its flight path.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Has anyone tried a program for Flight 93 in the sim ?


Not that I've heard. They only simmed accidents if there was a question as to what happened, and they couldn't recover large portions of the wreckage. Flight 93 had eyewitnesses that saw the plane in a steep nose down attitude, and wreckage was recovered, as were the FDR and CVR.


Zaphod, you know I am on your side here, so I am just adding to ytour post...I know what a 'CVR' and an 'FDR' are....just wanted to clarify, before they jump on you...that modern Boeings utilize a 'CVR' and a 'DFDR'...not sure, to be honest, if the CVR is digital....I tend to think it still is a 30-minute continuous loop, and that is due to ALPA...

But, the Flight Recorder is now digital, as opposed to the old days, when they used foil 'tape' with needles drawing lines....

In fact, the DFDR is recorded on CDs, now...or, can be downloaded to a CD...or some other digital recording device.

Point is, while the CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) is still required equipment, it can be erased....one just makes sure the Parking Brake is set, then presses and holds the 'Erase' button for a few seconds. Of course, since it is a continuous 30 minute loop, it is errally pointless anyway.

[adding....the DFDR is also required equipment, I want to make that clear. Thing is, while we have a panel in the cockpit ceiling, where the CVR microphone, 'TEST' button, (green), 'ERASE' button (red) and meter are located, we have no 'TEST feature for the DFDR. Just a circuit breaker, as every component has....)

BTW...part of our pre-flight, if performed fully....first flight-of-the-day, is to test the CVR. There is an earphone jack built into the panel...to properly test the CVR, we should plug our headset into the jack, and speak into the mic...there is a few second time delay, then we hear our own voice. The 'TEST' button, when pressed and held, will test all four channels on the CVR...as indicated by the meter 'pulsing' four times during the test, which takes only about five seconds...

Anyone wish to challenge my quals as an airline pilot? Can you find this kind of information on Google?

OK, carry on!

However, the DFDR is another thing. I cannot remember the acronym, but the data from the DFDR is de-identified and then used, when useful, in re-current training, usually in-house. Meaning, we see our own awful examples of near-accidents, or terrible excursions from procedures, and use them as training to prevent recurrences.

Sorry to state the 'awful truth', but this is how the Airline Industry has maintained such a stellar record, of late, regarding accidents. Anyone noticed? NO, it is not noticed, yet safety has been improving by leaps and bounds. We police ourselves, and it is paying off.



[edit on 10-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA,

Please be very careful when you repeat info about, for instance, AA77's 'FDR'. Who provided the info you convey? Too many rumors, stuff gets told on the internet, next thing you know it's the 'truth'...even if it's a lie. Be very careful....



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Also if flight 93 hit the ground in a step nose dive how did an engine get 1/4 of a mile away from the crash site?


Because the aircraft made violent side to side maneuvers to try to throw people off their feet. Engine mounts are not designed to handle side to side stresses nearly as well as they do vertical stresses, as aircraft are not designed to so sideways. I can cite several examples where a plane began maneuvering in a side to side roll through wake turbulence or some other outside cause, and suffered either severe damage to the engine mounts, or physically lost an engine (or more than one).



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

I still come back to logic. IF a lie is going to be continued, that means evidence to refute the lie has to be suppressed. Please, try to explain how so many people involved, in this particular instance, would agree to stay silent??

Enquiring minds want to know.....


Weed,

I am going to go out on a limb here and surmise from the questions you just asked that 1. you are new to looking at the NIST report and vetting the methods and conclusions draw in it, and 2. that you haven't taken the time to read a lot of my posts that clarify my position.

I'm not sure what "lie has been suppressed", or that I believe there is a lie. I don't know who the "so many people involved" are that you refer to, or what they would be staying silent about. So I can't even speak to those questions.

The issues I have with the NIST are not issues that are hidden - they are stated, and admitted by NIST. So there is no "vast conspiracy and cover-up" that requires anybody to stay silent or to "keep it secret, keep it safe". The NIST stated the errant methodology and assumptions right in their report. And when the Families of 911 Victims requested from NIST that they publish the lesser damage models' results, they admitted they would change a critical portion of the report - i.e. the reasons they left those models out - instead of just publishing them.

Take a minute and think about what I just said. The NIST report is an official technical document. There are 3 critical portions of a technical document: ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY, PROCEDURE, RESULTS. No one of those three are more important than the other two. In assumptions and methodology (some times called "Approach" or "Theory") the method and reason for accepting data and rejecting data are laid out. This portion of a paper is critical for peer review because it is this section on which some one "skilled in the art" will review whether your approach, assumptions and data manipulation and reduction are sound.

When the Families of 911 challenged the reasons given in the NIST report for why they would not publish the results of the lesser damage model (i.e they didn't produce external damage on the buildings that matched photographs of the day, and they didn't result in failure intitiation) the NIST responded with:

"We will remove the phrase 'they didn't result in failure initiation'."

This leaves the only reason left in the paper (even though the original report states clearly WHAT THEIR BASIS FOR REJECTION OF THESE MODELS WAS) for rejecting the lesser models as "they didn't produce external damage on the buildings that matched photographs of the day". But there is a problem with this because in NIST's report they clearly state that NONE of the damage models (including the most severe damage model which is the only one they have published reports on) matched the damage to the outside of the buildings as recorded in photographs of the day.

That is in plain sight, weed. No need to produce some mysterious group of people committing blood oaths and swearing to secrecy for life. The problems have been made public record.

Concerning the information that may have been kept from the public - NIST won't release their models, or the data used in those models. The only reason the blueprints of the buildings have finally made it to the public is because some one released them in an unofficial manner. NIST has refused (as far as I know) every request made to date to release data that could allow some one to duplicate their work for the purpose of review.

P.S. Just to assist you further in understanding what my problem is with the NIST report, here is the logic flow of the report as I see it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please note assumption, and objective. That objective is not what the American people thought they were paying for. They thought they were paying for an analysis of what caused the WTC towers to collapse. Some times you can hide your ineptness in plain sight when the VAST majority of the U.S. population will never even read the report assuming it just covers what they thought they were paying for. Well, it doesn't.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Deleted post and started a thread...it wasn't on the topic of this thread.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I am not familiar with USS Liberty, so not sure your point there.

As to Pearl Harbor I just watched a doc on History Channel, today.


NSA has the National Cryptologic Museum that has historical documents on almost all things dealing with codes.
www.nsa.gov...

Check out the exhibits you will find lots of documents on the USS Liberty.

We had the ability to decode the Japaneses embassy messages, and they decoded messages about the Japenese looking for information on the ships at Pearl Harbor well before the attack.

Here is inforation on what was decoded from the Japenese embassy.


www.rooseveltmyth.com...

Ambassador Grew, Tokyo, to State Department, January 27, 1941:


"THE PERUVIAN MINISTER HAS INFORMED A MEMBER OF MY STAFF THAT HE HAS HEARD FROM MANY SOURCES, INCLUDING A JAPANESE SOURCE, THAT IN THE EVENT OF TROUBLE BREAKING OUT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN, THE JAPANESE INTENDED TO MAKE A SURPRISE ATTACK AGAINST PEARL HARBOR WITH ALL THEIR STRENGTH AND EMPLOYING ALL THEIR EQUIPMENT. THE PERUVIAN MINISTER CONSIDERS THE RUMORS FANTASTIC. NEVERTHELESS, HE CONSIDERED THEM OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE TO CONVEY THE INFORMATION TO A MEMBER OF MY STAFF."
Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, September 24, 1941 (#83):


"HENCEFORTH, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU MAKE REPORTS CONCERNING VESSELS ALONG THE FOLLOWING LINES IN SO FAR AS POSSIBLE:

"1. THE WATERS OF PEARL HARBOR ARE TO BE DIVIDED ROUGHLY INTO FIVE SUB-AREAS. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOUR ABBREVIATING AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE.

"AREA A. WATERS BETWEEN FORD ISLAND ANT) THE ARSENAL.

"AREA B. WATERS ADJACENT TO THE ISLAND SOUTH AND WEST OF FORD ISLAND. THIS AREA IS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ISLAND FROM AREA A.

"AREA C. EAST LOCH.

"AREA D. MIDDLE LOCH.

"AREA E. WEST LOCH AND THE COMMUNICATING WATER ROUTES.

"2. WITH REGARD TO WARSHIPS AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU REPORT ON THOSE AT ANCHOR, (THESE ARE NOT SO IMPORTANT) TIED UP AT WHARVES, BUOYS, AND IN DOCK. DESIGNATE TYPES AND CLASSES BRIEFLY. IF POSSIBLE, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU MAKE MENTION OF THE FACT WHEN THERE ARE TWO OR MORE VESSELS ALONGSIDE THE SAME WHARF."

(Decoded in the War Department, October 9, 1941)
Consul General, Honolulu to Tokyo, September 29, 1941 (#178):


This message was in answer to Tokyo dispatch #83, and set up a two-letter code designation for each of the five prescribed Pearl Harbor areas.

(Decoded in the Navy Department, October 10, 1941)
Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, November 15, 1941 (#111):


"AS RELATIONS BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES ARE MOST CRITICAL, MAKE YOUR 'SHIP IN HARBOR REPORT' IRREGULAR, BUT AT A BATE OF TWICE A WEEK. ALTHOUGH YOU ALREADY ARE NO DOUBT AWARE, PLEASE TAKE EXTRA CARE TO MAINTAIN SECRECY."

(Decoded in the Navy Department, December 3, 1941)
Consul General, Honolulu to Tokyo, November 18, 1941 (#222):


This was a lengthy report of U.S. vessels in the different Pearl Harbor areas.

(Decoded in the War Department, December 6, 1941)
Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, November 18, 1941 (#113):


"PLEASE REPORT ON THE FOLLOWING AREAS AS TO VESSELS ANCHORED THEREIN: AREA 'N,' PEARL HARBOR, MAMALA BAY (HONOLULU) AND THE AREAS ADJACENT THERETO. MAKE YOUR INVESTIGATIONS WITH GREAT SECRECY."

(Decoded in the War Department, December 5, 1941)
Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, November 20, 1941 (#111): [1]


"PLEASE INVESTIGATE COMPREHENSIBLY THE FLEET . . . BASES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE HAWAIIAN MILITARY RESERVATION."

(Decoded in the War Department, December 4, 1941)
Tokyo to Consul General, Honolulu, November 29, 1941 (#122):


"WE HAVE BEEN RECEIVING REPORTS FROM YOU ON SHIP MOVEMENTS, BUT IN TILE FUTURE WILL YOU ALSO REPORT EVEN WHEN THERE ARE NO MOVEMENTS."

(Decoded in the Navy Department, December 5, 1941)
There is nothing more significant connected with the Japanese surprise attack than the foregoing decoded dispatches on the Tokyo-Honolulu circuit. They gave unmistakable evidence of the Japanese intentions to deliver such an attack upon the U.S. Fleet in Pearl Harbor.




[edit on 10-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I realize what I am going to reference is not directly on topic of Boeing spokesperson, but is directly on topic of 9/11/2001 and denial of what Boeing spokespersons were confirming, in direct contradiction to the “official“ reports.

There is an excellent source of detail for Pearl Harbor, plus, what transpired leading up to Pearl Harbor, in a book by John Toland entitled The Rising Sun The decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire. Pages 997 through 1018 are a bibliography of sources, with quite a number of them researched in the National Archives. Interviews with people, Japanese and US, run from page 997 to 1005, Notes run from pages 1019 through 1042. It is a well sourced and referenced book, of details, of exactly what led up to Pearl Harbor attack. The FDR administration could have warned Pearl Harbor at least 8 hours before attack, and deliberately chose not to do so.

Pearl Harbor was needed to enter WWII in Europe. US popular opinion, based primarily on anti-Semitism and finally economically renewing from the depths of the Great Depression, was what was keeping the US out of WWII in Europe. The US and allies deliberately provoked the Japanese into war in the Pacific arena. The Zionists had not yet gotten a stranglehold on US and European finances and politics at that time. At that time, WASP ideology still thoroughly permeated the US and Europe. That ideology was overtly, but not covertly, pro-Semite Arab, and overtly and covertly anti-Semitic toward Jews. Arabs controlled the Middle East oil supplies the WASP ideologues needed to profiteer.

The Johnson administration knew the Israeli Zionists attacked the USS Liberty under the guise of "Arab terrorists". It was no coincidence US Zionists, of money and power residing in the US and Europe, made it happen during what came to be known as the Six-Day War between Israel and Egypt.

www.hartford-hwp.com...

At the same time, the Johnson administration had already escalated the war in Vietnam, leaving little public attention paid to demand full investigation into what actually happened to the USS Liberty and by whom. Anti-Semitism and anti-sectarianism was running high against Arabs and any other country of people whose primary religion was Islam. That is strictly due to the successful black propaganda of Zionists getting that accomplished. Racism was also running high against Asians as well, and had since WWII.

What was needed to enter oil rich Afghanistan and Iraq? Another false flag 9/11/2001. The Bush administration immediately played on emotion appeal of 9/11/2001, in order to unilaterally and quite illegally attack Afghanistan and Iraq with lies. No US citizen wanted war against anyone. Unless, those in high places could provoke it with false flag attack on the US. Emotions got in the way of level headed remembrance of history repeating itself once again in US history immediately upon false flag attack on the US.

What will start looking high familiar, in the recommended book, is what transpired in secret in DC at the top level - FDR. PNAC stated they needed a new Pearl Harbor to ensure one world global economy and rule (Trilateral Commission founded by David Rockefeller , Council on Foreign Relations, and the Bilderberg Group).. That is why so many historians, academic and otherwise, began referring to 9/11/2001 as the new Pearl Harbor.

Two Boeing spokespersons, one an engineer, stated there is no way a 767 is going to fly at high speed at 700' above sea level. Even 400 mph is considered unsafe high speed at 700’ above sea level. Therefore, I have no idea why some posters keep insisting it can happen, without physically proving it can happen. That has apparently not been done by those insisting it can happen. So why continue to insist without physically proving? What is personally in it for the people who keep insisting the unreasonable without proving it reasonable?



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
There's that word that makes all the difference again. UNSAFE That's because the FLIGHT ENVELOPE was designed for passenger safety and comfort. Not to mention that FAA rules don't let you fly that fast that low. It doesn't mean that it CAN'T be done. If you're going to crash the plane ANYWAY what difference does it make if it's unsafe or not?

There are pilots that have gone into the simulator and DONE IT. They're not going to be allowed to EVER do it in a real plane, as the FAA would never allow it. But yet, it seems a simulator isn't good enough for you. Odd, it's good enough to allow a pilot to be licensed to fly that particular type of plane because it's so realistic, but not realistic enough to show that a plane can fly that fast that low.


[edit on 2/10/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There's that word that makes all the difference again. UNSAFE That's because the FLIGHT ENVELOPE was designed for passenger safety and comfort. Not to mention that FAA rules don't let you fly that fast that low. It doesn't mean that it CAN'T be done. If you're going to crash the plane ANYWAY what difference does it make if it's unsafe or not?


It is highly unsafe for the plane as well. It could start breaking up just as qualified pilots and scientists have explained, concerning high aerodynamic speeds at 700' above sea level. It can also throw the plane off course, depending on atmospheric conditions and from which direction the wind in blowing. For every action, there is alway an equal and opposite reaction. The more speed an airplane picks up, the more equal and opposite resistance it will encounter. Laws of nature fact not opinion.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Zaphod,

He's not going to listen to reason. He's not going to even act rational. He is only going to make damned sure he is right. His theory is more important than the truth....a truth, by the way, which we still have not arrived at concerning the possible maximum speed of these crafts at these altitudes.

And with that - this topic has been brought to the same circular stalemate by people who choose to entrench themselves in their respective theories and not give a damned about pursuing what the answer is...so I bid you all something - don't know what, but something. For the good of the facts, maybe I bid you a hard-drive crash, or permanent d/c.

Not sure.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Odd, it's good enough to allow a pilot to be licensed to fly that particular type of plane because it's so realistic, but not realistic enough to show that a plane can fly that fast that low.


You and i both know a sim cannot duplicate the real effects on a plane.



[edit on 10-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
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.

You aren't going to have a hyperaccurate representation to what the plane will do, no, but you're going to have an accurate enough representation that you will have an idea of whether something will work or not.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join