How "impossible" is it to fly low enough to hit the Pentagon?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by LoneGunMan

 

LoneGunMan,

Have you flown the B757 or B767? Do you know how the control wheel feels in your hand, how much force you apply...do you know how you FEEL the response as you move the control wheel? This is the much over-used phrase 'seat of the pants'.

Sorry but I come from a long line of pilots and that is not a very good description of flying by the seat of your pants.

Anyway you try and compare stopping an automobile to leveling out a 757 over uneven terrain at over 400 mph? My friend I have raced motorcycles since I was nine years old, I have driven high performance cars and driven every emergency apperatous you could think of. I have done time with lifeflight for helicopter medivac riding in a jump seat. I have flown light aircraft in the real world and have flown combat flight simulators in competition in an online world forum, in fact I was one of the best in the world. I had a squadron and one of my mates was an airline pilot out of Italy and I could fly better than he could in every situation. I fly radio control aircraft and helicopters and spent most of my life looking to the circling sky.

I am was born to be an aviator. My calling though was to be a Firefighter.

I fully understand more than most (I am confident from your analogy that I have a much better grasp than yourself) about the physics of most vehicles, both air and ground.

What I find odd about the people that would like to blame 9/11 on Bush's Presidency, is that he was only in office for about eight months when it happened.

If it was any Presidents "Fault" you would have to lay the blame at Clinton's feet, not GW's.

That excludes the "Bush did it" theories of course.

I agree with your comment about people who are more prepared to believe that we somehow "did this to ourselves" rather than some (at the time) obscure gang of rag-tag terrorists.

They would rather believe that their own "corrupt" government did this to them, than a small group of dedicated fanatics.

"Nobody can attack America...except America"

I dont know why that would be easier to live with, but hey...whatever cracks your nut.

reply to post by LoneGunMan


Actually, LonGunMan, while I'm not a firefighter, I AM a retired airline pilot, over 20,000 hours total time, nearly 22 years at the major airline, many years at various commuters before that, about 3 years Flight Instructing...AND I build and fly R/C to boot!

So, not knowing your level of skill or experience, I tried an analagy that was somewhat 'dumbed down'. Now, I know better about how to converse with you. Of course, others read these posts, and sometimes a simple analagy is useful to them...

Originally posted by Black Flag
What I find odd about the people that would like to blame 9/11 on Bush's Presidency, is that he was only in office for about eight months when it happened.

If it was any Presidents "Fault" you would have to lay the blame at Clinton's feet, not GW's.

That excludes the "Bush did it" theories of course.

I agree with your comment about people who are more prepared to believe that we somehow "did this to ourselves" rather than some (at the time) obscure gang of rag-tag terrorists.

They would rather believe that their own "corrupt" government did this to them, than a small group of dedicated fanatics.

"Nobody can attack America...except America"

I dont know why that would be easier to live with, but hey...whatever cracks your nut.

Sometimes I am just really slow, but can you please explain to me what any of this has to do with a commercial airliner that flew at 322mph 28 to 30 feet off the ground and it's relation to what happened at the Pentagon on Sept 11th? No where in the OP did I see any mention of "Bush did it" or "corrupt governments" or anything else you mention in your post. I should know, cause I wrote it. So please can you tell me what anything you are saying has to do with this thread or any single question I asked?

reply to post by MrWendal


Probly nothing in particular. It happens all the time.

I have no pilot experience tho I have done a bit of research. I don't think flying that low is impossible. It happened. If a computer can make a 757 do it I'd guess a man could to, or vice-versa. I would think the maneuver there would take some real skill, possibly dry runs somewhere, maybe not...

Either Hanjour was a better pilot than he let on, or than we've been led by some to believe, or someone else or something else was at the helm.

Here's an odd factoid: The hijack of 77 happened about 8:54, it turned around, stops communicating, transponder off, and races towards the Pentagon. At 9:24 it descends past the 18,000 foot threshold and the altimeter is re-set as per FAA regulations, as the original pilot had set it on ascent at 8:28.

This is odd because it's not automatic. The pilot does it manual. Why Hani?

Come to think of it, I HEAR that it's a manual op from John Doe X. Any pilots here to verify that? Anyway, it's an odd thing I learned. Never did a post on it but the numbers are shown here.

Originally posted by jtma508
As a pilot I have to object to comparing the fly-by executed by the Cathay Airlines pilot and the alleged Pentagon 'hit'.

First, the reported airspeed of the Cathay fly-by was significantly lower than that of the Pentagon plane.

Not really. You're only looking at an increase of about a hundred knots - which isn't that big of a deal in an airliner.

Second, the Cathay pilot was flying a structured, programmed approach course that was entirely clear of any and all obstacles. The pilot only had to fly the course and not concern himself with avoiding ground obstacles.

That's not much of an issue. You're clear of most obstacles in a city above 150 feet. And diving from 150 feet to skimming across the lawn and careening into the wall of a building doesn't take much skill. I can handle an F-15 at Mach 2 through a mountain region and stay about 50 feet off the ground without computerized assistance. Doing this would be a cakewalk.

Third, at no point was the Cathay pilot required to execute anything but standard rate turns. The Pentagon plane executed a dramatic flight path prior to establishing the ground proximity final approach. Stabilizing that course and arresting decent (most especially in the immediate proximity of all manner of ground obstacles) is immensely difficult. Not an issue in the Cathay pilot's fly-by.

Dramatic? That's a rather extreme word. What was performed was a rather slow and lazy diving bank that gave you just the right amount of room to level off and make any last minute corrections on your final approach.

Finally, the Cathay pilot was one of the airline's most senior pilots ($500k/year?). He had just picked up the new aircraft and therefore had just completed a 777 simulator course. Not so for the Pentagon pilots.

It's called Microsoft Flight Simulator. It's very, very accurate for civilian aircraft (and they are getting more accurate with the military aircraft). Aircraft are also not that hard to fly. Not to bust your bubble - but anymore, a three year old could land a 747 if they could reach the rudder pedals - not to mention hit a stationary target with an already flying plane.

The 'hard' parts of flying simply deal with navigation and being able to use a compass and map to keep track of your location, as well as be effective at "dead reckoning". The automated crap anymore makes even that a very simple issue (so long as it is working...).

Apples-and-wheelbarrows comparison in my opinion.

Not really. Apples and wheelbarrows is more like trying to compare a UH-1 Huey with a 747.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Here's an odd factoid: The hijack of 77 happened about 8:54, it turned around, stops communicating, transponder off, and races towards the Pentagon. At 9:24 it descends past the 18,000 foot threshold and the altimeter is re-set as per FAA regulations, as the original pilot had set it on ascent at 8:28.

This is odd because it's not automatic. The pilot does it manual. Why Hani?

If the objective was to navigate to, and impact, a relatively low height structure in the DC area then re-calibrating the altimeter for the local barometric pressure at ground level would be a recommended move for making the final approach.

The who or what was flying the plane is a good question that we'll probably never know the answer to.

Noone has been able to properly explain that altimeter reset, correct? Because that is the smoking gun.

And none of those 747 fly overs were anywhere close to being 75 feet off of the ground.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by Black Flag
What I find odd about the people that would like to blame 9/11 on Bush's Presidency, is that he was only in office for about eight months when it happened.

If it was any Presidents "Fault" you would have to lay the blame at Clinton's feet, not GW's.

That excludes the "Bush did it" theories of course.

I agree with your comment about people who are more prepared to believe that we somehow "did this to ourselves" rather than some (at the time) obscure gang of rag-tag terrorists.

They would rather believe that their own "corrupt" government did this to them, than a small group of dedicated fanatics.

"Nobody can attack America...except America"

I dont know why that would be easier to live with, but hey...whatever cracks your nut.

Sometimes I am just really slow, but can you please explain to me what any of this has to do with a commercial airliner that flew at 322mph 28 to 30 feet off the ground and it's relation to what happened at the Pentagon on Sept 11th? No where in the OP did I see any mention of "Bush did it" or "corrupt governments" or anything else you mention in your post. I should know, cause I wrote it. So please can you tell me what anything you are saying has to do with this thread or any single question I asked?

The thing is the terrorist was aiming at the Pentagon, the ground is not a factor except it is at the base of the Pentagon. The idiot, terrorist, was aiming at the Pentagon. He hit the Pentagon at 500 mph. The 757/767 are easy to fly and do very well at high speed. This is at the skill level of a grade school kid. Anyone could do it. Some people can't. Fling done on 9/11 was entry level bad! It takes no skill at all to get to the runway! It takes some skill to land. But 9/11 flying was too easy! Entry level. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Ask a pilot; the percentage should come out to about all the pilots in the world divided into the p4t membership.

youtube.com... Aiming at the Pentagon is easy! It is a big building, only an idiot could miss it when it comes to even the worse pilot skills.

reply to post by plopunisher


Re-setting the QNH on the Altimeter window is a red herring...

An accurate altimeter setting is only needed for an Instrument Approach.

Or, to be reporting the correct altitude to ATC from the transponder...

DID the altimeters ACTUALLY get re-set on AA77? Three are three alitmeters, the CAPT and the FO and the STBY (Standby) Altimeters. Were ALL of them reset?

Come on, give some answers, and make sure you know what you're talking about!...