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.

 

CIT's flight path can't be impossible because we never had one

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


WW,

Nobody is trying to fool you.

I understand the totality of the information I have provided is "long" but you can't have an educated discussion on this issue without viewing the evidence.

All of the interviews I linked you to contain independent evidence proving where the plane flew which in turn proves a military deception on 9/11.

Driving to Thomas Trappasso's old Barton street address is not going to help you understand the explosive information we present because as it turns out....the plane did not fly where this previously published witness (and former Clinton appointee) claimed he saw the plane.

The independent witnesses who we found from canvassing your neighborhood are much stronger.

Please view the evidence before continuing this discussion as it is imperative in order to contribute appropriately.




posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Craig-

Please post a photo including a line drawing of a flight path which:

- Conforms to the statements made by all of your eyewitnesses
- Is not physically or aerodynamically impossible

Thanks!

[edit on 10-4-2008 by nicepants]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by nicepants
 


Sure.

Here is another POTENTIAL flight path.



Naturally the plane was descending the entire time much like how we see the final loop in the NTSB animation.

Steve Chaconas describes this loop perfectly. Are you willing to tell him in person that what he saw is "impossible"?

Sean Boger and ironically Mike Walter describe the very final bank over the Navy Annex perfectly. Are you willing to tell them in person that what they saw is "impossible"?

To suggest this is "impossible" is to suggest that Steve Chaconas, Jamal, Edward, all the citgo witnesses, and Sean Boger all hallucinated. Have you called Brooks or Lagasse to tell them what they saw is "impossible"?

Why don't you do that and record the phone call?

Why do you insist on denying or spinning evidence in favor of unadulterated faith in the government?




[edit on 10-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by nicepants
 


Sure.

Here is another POTENTIAL flight path.



That view is far too wide. Zoom in on the citgo, navy annex, and pentagon so that we can confirm that the path matches your witness statements.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITHave you called Brooks or Lagasse to tell them what they saw is "impossible"?

Why don't you do that and record the phone call?


No, I haven't.
Have you told either of them that the impact of AA77 they report is "impossible"?


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITWhy do you insist on denying or spinning evidence in favor of unadulterated faith in the government?
[edit on 10-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]


The laws of Physics & aerodynamics prove that what your witnesses claim to have seen could not have happened. I don't have to believe the government's story to know that yours is wrong.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by nicepants]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants

That view is far too wide. Zoom in on the citgo, navy annex, and pentagon so that we can confirm that the path matches your witness statements.


Zoom in yourself.

The view has to be that wide to include the cirtical account of Steve Chaconas.

The witness statements simply prove that the plane banked around from east of the river and flew north of the citgo.

That is what this path does.

A constant descending loop exactly as described by Steve Chaconas and similar to what we see in the NTSB animation just in a different place.



No, I haven't.
Have you told either of them that the impact of AA77 they report is "impossible"?


Of course.

I even pointed this out in the video.

They prefer not to ponder this reality but at the same time stand by the north side claim 100% and have said they would even willingly testify to it under oath in a court of law.

Lagasse said this in an email AFTER watching the documentary.



Like I said before what I said contradicts the theories
of engineers that never asked me or Sgt Brooks or any Police
eyewitnesses what he-she or they saw. Obviously what I saw
happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt
see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be
miscaculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane
was on the North or South side of the gas station.


-William Lagasse
(bold added but he capitalized "NOT" for emphasis himself)





The laws of Physics & aerodynamics prove that what your witnesses claim to have seen could not have happened. I don't have to believe the government's story to know that yours is wrong.



You are wrong. You can't determine mathematical values from eyewitness statements so to fabricate values that are allegedly "impossible" is not an intellectually honest way to consider real evidence.

To suggest all the witnesses are hallucinating is nothing but pure denial on your part.

Do you believe the government story?




[edit on 10-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by nicepants

That view is far too wide. Zoom in on the citgo, navy annex, and pentagon so that we can confirm that the path matches your witness statements.


Zoom in yourself.

The view has to be that wide to include the cirtical account of Steve Chaconas.


No amount of zooming clarifies the path around the citgo, which is the part of the path that's impossible. You need to draw it on a closer view as you did in previous posts, otherwise it's impossible to discern a reasonable level of detail.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT



The laws of Physics & aerodynamics prove that what your witnesses claim to have seen could not have happened. I don't have to believe the government's story to know that yours is wrong.



You are wrong. You can't determine mathematical values from eyewitness statements so to fabricate values that are allegedly "impossible" is not an intellectually honest way to consider real evidence.


Your own witnesses statements were used to plot lines on a map. Those lines formed a flight path that is impossible.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
To suggest all the witnesses are hallucinating is nothing but pure denial on your part.


Quit with that ridiculous strawman argument. No one suggests that they were hallucinating, physics & aerodynamics show that they are incorrect. They were incorrect about other things too (Lagasse/gas pump)...that doesn't mean that they were hallucinating.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants


No amount of zooming clarifies the path around the citgo, which is the part of the path that's impossible. You need to draw it on a closer view as you did in previous posts, otherwise it's impossible to discern a reasonable level of detail.


It is on the north side.

That's all that matters.

Steve Chaconas' account is critical and the entire loop that he describes is also critical to this discussion.

The plane did not have to make a sudden bank.

It was a gradual descending bank much like you see in the NTSB animation and exactly like Chaconas describes.




Quit with that ridiculous strawman argument. No one suggests that they were hallucinating, physics & aerodynamics show that they are incorrect. They were incorrect about other things too (Lagasse/gas pump)...that doesn't mean that they were hallucinating.


Front or back pump has NO BEARING whatsoever on his placement of the plane.


"Maybe it was closer, maybe it was farther away, but it HAD to be on the north side. There is NO WAY it was on the south side"

-William Lagasse


Remember that?

He knows that it's impossible for the plane to have been on the south side because he would not have been able to see it at all due to the building blocking his view. So yes....he would have had to completely hallucinate the plane on the north side.

He could not have made such a drastic and ridiculous mistake.

It would be extremely difficult for ANY of them to have made such a drastic mistake but to suggest they all did in the exact same way is a statistical impossibility. They would not simultaneously hallucinate the same thing.

The fact that ALL the eyewitnesses right down to Sean Boger in the heliport tower independently corroborate the north side claim scientifically PROVES that they are all correct about this very simple and very general claim.

If this was merely an issue of eyewitness fallibility their accounts would differ in this regard.

The north side claim has been proven via the scientific process of corroboration.

It's how all investigators scientifically determine the validity of eyewitness statements.

Why do you deny scientifically validated evidence in favor of unyielding faith in the government story?

Do you believe in the official story?



[edit on 10-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
He could not have made such a drastic and ridiculous mistake.


There's your problem. You refuse to accept the possibility that he could be wrong about NOC, while categorically claiming that he's wrong about anything that disagrees with your theory. Cognitive bias.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITIt would be extremely difficult for ANY of them to have made such a drastic mistake but to suggest they all did in the exact same way is a statistical impossibility. They would not simultaneously hallucinate the same thing.


The same argument could be applied to their statements regarding the impact.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITThe fact that ALL the eyewitnesses right down to Sean Boger in the heliport tower independently corroborate the north side claim scientifically PROVES that they are all correct about this very simple and very general claim.


The same could be said for the impact.
Agreement doesn't make them correct. If it did, you would have to conclude that they were correct about impact.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITIf this was merely an issue of eyewitness fallibility their accounts would differ in this regard.

The north side claim has been proven via the scientific process of corroboration.


The same can be said of the impact.
Agreement does not make them correct.



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITIt's how all investigators scientifically determine the validity of eyewitness statements.


Physical evidence/physics/science trumps eyewitnesses when there is a discrepancy. If the witnesses claim to have seen something that is impossible, then they are wrong.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITWhy do you deny scientifically validated evidence in favor of unyielding faith in the government story?


It has nothing to do with whether I believe the OT or not. The path reported by your witnesses is impossible. The plane couldn't have been where Paik said it was, then where Lagasse said it was, then fly over the pentagon at the impact point. There is no way to connect those 3 locations with a flight path that could have been flown without the plane either falling apart or stalling and crashing.

Draw a map showing us how the plane got from where Paik said it was to where it flew over the Pentagon. Make sure it's aerodynamically and physically possible.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The fact that ALL the eyewitnesses right down to Sean Boger in the heliport tower independently corroborate the north side claim scientifically PROVES that they are all correct about this very simple and very general claim.

If this was merely an issue of eyewitness fallibility their accounts would differ in this regard.

The north side claim has been proven via the scientific process of corroboration.

It's how all investigators scientifically determine the validity of eyewitness statements.

Why do you deny scientifically validated evidence in favor of unyielding faith in the government story?


Scientifically? You have no numbers, and all your non-paths have been scientifically prove wrong by physics (real science) using your witness statements.

Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon. Blows the rest of your story out of the water.

Most your eye witnesses disprove your NoC.

These are your witnesses, refuting your stuff.
William Lagasse, and Chadwick Brooks were Pentagon police officers when the American Airliner flew past. In an interview conducted in December 2001 , Lagasse described the secondary explosions and the search and recovery of injured Pentagon personnel. Brooks saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001.

William Lagasse

Chadwick Brooks

Your scientific data is interpretation solely done by you and CIT of your witnesses, and you can not even read my posts. How can you interpret witnesses when you can't understand me. I have listened to your videos, and your witnesses do not support your "scientific" story based on the not so scientific testimony of witnesses, which with physics has been shown to be Not Scientific.


You have no paths, because if you post one, from your scientific witness testimony from memory years after 9/11, those paths are shown to not match your witnesses statements. This is why after you posted many paths, you now have no paths?



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants

There's your problem. You refuse to accept the possibility that he could be wrong about NOC, while categorically claiming that he's wrong about anything that disagrees with your theory. Cognitive bias.


Incorrect.

If it was Lagasse alone you might have a point but his claim has been scientifically validated.




The same argument could be applied to their statements regarding the impact.


Incorrect because the north side claim proves a deliberate military DECEPTION whereas the south side claim would require them all to simultaneously hallucinate the same thing. What's more likely? Mass hallucination of the same detail or deliberate deception?

The fact that they were all infinitely closer to the plane as it passed by the station compared to when it reached the building is a scientific/physical reason why it makes more sense to choose this claim over the mutually exclusive impact claim.






The same could be said for the impact.
Agreement doesn't make them correct. If it did, you would have to conclude that they were correct about impact.


No it doesn't because the claims are mutually exclusive therefore eveyone MUST choose one.

You choose the least logical one due to your clear confirmation bias and unyielding faith in the government story.





The same can be said of the impact.
Agreement does not make them correct.


No it doesn't because the claims are mutually exclusive therefore eveyone MUST choose one.

You choose the least logical one due to your clear confirmation bias and unyielding faith in the government story.

The north side claim proves a deliberate military DECEPTION whereas the south side claim would require them all to simultaneously hallucinate the same thing. What's more likely? Mass hallucination of the same detail or deliberate deception?

The fact that they were all infinitely closer to the plane as it passed by the station compared to when it reached the building is a scientific/physical reason why it makes more sense to choose this claim over the mutually exclusive impact claim.






Physical evidence/physics/science trumps eyewitnesses when there is a discrepancy. If the witnesses claim to have seen something that is impossible, then they are wrong.


Where they all saw the plane is not impossible.

That is a false argument.

You have provided ZERO independent evidence contradicting them or proving the official story correct.





It has nothing to do with whether I believe the OT or not.


Why are you afraid to answer the question?

Do you believe the official story?

If so why do you dismiss independent verifiable evidence in favor of purely faith based claims?



The path reported by your witnesses is impossible. The plane couldn't have been where Paik said it was, then where Lagasse said it was, then fly over the pentagon at the impact point. There is no way to connect those 3 locations with a flight path that could have been flown without the plane either falling apart or stalling and crashing.


You are wrong and have NOTHING to back up this completely false statement.



Draw a map showing us how the plane got from where Paik said it was to where it flew over the Pentagon. Make sure it's aerodynamically and physically possible.


I already did.

Steve Chaconas' account is critical to the flight path because he proves the plane was in a constant descending loop similar to what we see in the NTSB animation.

Your are insisting on removing this critical evidence from the equation because you and your pseudoskeptic buddies are taking the flight path out of context and suggesting it was a sudden bank out of nowhere so you can deem it "impossible" even though the evidence proves that this is not the case.

Are you suggesting that the loop around the airport that Steve Chaconas reports is "impossible"?

I would love to hear a recorded conversation with you and each one of these witnesses where you tell them what they saw was "impossible". That would be a very interesting conversation.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Wrong again "beachnut".

The north side claim is NEVER refuted or contradicted by ANY of them EVER.

If it was you would post the quote.

You don't because you prefer to lie with confidence in hopes that people believe you without clicking on the links and listening to the entire interviews.

Post the quote where they contradict the north side claim or concede that you lied.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by beachnut
 


Wrong again "beachnut".

The north side claim is NEVER refuted or contradicted by ANY of them EVER.

If it was you would post the quote.

You don't because you prefer to lie with confidence in hopes that people believe you without clicking on the links and listening to the entire interviews.

Post the quote where they contradict the north side claim or concede that you lied.

Post the quote where they saw 77 degree of bank, can you?
With Paik's testimony there are zero paths to make the impact, or fly over the impact zone and fly over the NoC area. Case closed.

You have no path that works, you can't have one because of the witnesses you posted.

Show me where the path is and how it is possible; otherwise your witnesses make the path from Paik to NoC, to impact, impossible. Physics is not changeable like twisting witness statements is it?

Wait, you have no path. The thread is done. Or; I agree, you never had a viable path, your thread is done. Or; I agree you will never have a path based on your witnesses and you can never show us. You stated this in the OP.

These two witnesses make your over flight false. Listen this was done in 2001, when did you talk to them? Yep, your witnesses make the over flight false because even Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon. Do you really want me to post what Boger said in 2001? No, you don't.

William Lagasse

Chadwick Brooks

I am not telling lies; I was using physics making your paths a false and you had to abandon. With impossible paths due to your witnesses, who never saw a bank angle greater than 10 degrees. 10 degree, the maximum bank angle (most said wings level) will give you a two mile radius at stall speed, to 21 miles radius at the speed 77 was really doing (which you ignore the meaning of fast, RADAR, and FDR). At the bank angles your witnesses saw Paik placing the plane on the road where he was makes it impossible. Plus many witnesses saw 77 coming down the road right in front of where Paik saw the plane was making you NoC backed up wrong.



[edit on 10-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Faulty logic does not refute hard evidence.


Ironically, lack of hard evidence is the only thing that can keep this debate alive for so long. As taxpayers, we paid into the investigation and received little to nothing in return.

Thank you Craig for all the (sic) hard evidence you have gathered and painstakingly compiled and shared. I have seen many many people attempt to debunk you, but none with as much research and or information (i.e. evidence).



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Faulty logic does not refute hard evidence.


Ironically, lack of hard evidence is the only thing that can keep this debate alive for so long. As taxpayers, we paid into the investigation and received little to nothing in return.

Thank you Craig for all the (sic) hard evidence you have gathered and painstakingly compiled and shared. I have seen many many people attempt to debunk you, but none with as much research and or information (i.e. evidence).
The DNA evidence alone places 77 in the Pentagon. As does witnesses. No one has prove the DMA wrong, the FDR wrong, and if one takes the witness statements you can get an idea what is happening as Craig falsely interprets statements to imply his non-path to go past NoC and then to the Impact zone.

You are right, the lack of hard evidence from CIT is why they have to keep talking and moving the path around. The fact 77 hit the Pentagon is backed by tons of hard evidence, people choose to ignore that. Why?
The only thing needed to debunk Craig is his own witnesses and logic. Easy stuff if you take the time.

The fly over ---

"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."
Boger, Sean

Fly over?

"... we saw a plane coming toward us, for about 10 seconds ... It was like watching a train wreck. I was mesmerized.... At first I thought it was trying to crash land, but it was coming in so deliberately, so level ... Everyone said there was a deafening explosion, but with the adrenaline, we didn’t hear it."
Marine Corps officer Mike Dobbs was standing on one of the upper levels of the outer ring of the Pentagon looking out the window when he saw an American Airlines 737 twin-engine airliner strike the building. "It seemed to be almost coming in slow motion," he said later Tuesday. "I didn’t actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running.
Dobbs, Mike
[edit on 10-4-2008 by beachnut]

[edit on 10-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

The DNA evidence alone places 77 in the Pentagon. As does witnesses. No one has prove the DMA wrong, the FDR wrong, and if one takes the witness statements you can get an idea what is happening as Craig falsely interprets statements to imply his non-path to go past NoC and then to the Impact zone.

listen closely:

If you are telling me that an explosion that all but vaporized flight 77 left behind a dna footprint of each passenger then please present the theory (as it would be a theory only) of how this precedent was set.

Of course, when a "conspiracy theorist" presents a theory it is just that. I'm holding you to this standard and expect you to have some sort of evidence to support your claim (theory at best, certainly not evidence), such as how many samples of dna were taken etc etc. Thanks again.



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
listen closely:

If you are telling me that an explosion that all but vaporized flight 77 left behind a dna footprint of each passenger then please present the theory (as it would be a theory only) of how this precedent was set.

Of course, when a "conspiracy theorist" presents a theory it is just that. I'm holding you to this standard and expect you to have some sort of evidence to support your claim (theory at best, certainly not evidence), such as how many samples of dna were taken etc etc. Thanks again.

Read carefully… Sorry, this is not theory it is reality. The impact of 77 resembled an explosion because the impact energy was over 2000 pounds of TNT. BIG impact, the fire ball was typical of a jet aircraft impact at high speed, the only thing vaporize was the fuel which burned. The parts, people and plane, fingers and engine blades, are all there and broken according to the energy available, remember that 2000 pounds of TNT KE impact(kinetic energy, ask a physics teacher).

You can take the fantasy of 9/11 truth if you like and ignore physics and evidence. Their "theory" is made up with disregard for science, this is why they have no viable path to get their nonexistent craft to fly over the Pentagon where it disappeared. No bomb at the Pentagon, just a 500 mph plus impact of 77. Anyone can learn how to identify this by going to aircraft investigator class. I wonder why no on in 9/11 truth does it to check these stories of 9/11 truth that defy physics and reality. .

Where is the proof the DNA was not there? This is not bigfoot. There was a flight 77, you can check with the parents, wives, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters of murdered passengers. They have things that were on the planes, rings, papers, and other stuff was returned. Yes you can make up fantasy and say more and more people are in on 9/11, but what a sad paranoid world that would be.

So you have proof the DNA was fake or planted?
You have proof the FDR was fake and planted?
You have proof the people who saw 77 hit are fake?
You have proof the RADAR data showing 77 drop off radar on a track to impact is fake?
You have proof the impact does not look like an aircraft impacting at 500 mph?
You have proof the witnesses above did not see 77?
You have proof of anything that shows the parts on the lawn and the parts inside are not from 77?

I am not asking you to prove bigfoot does not exits. We have the scat all over the place at the Pentagon, and it is from 77. Body parts, fuel, jet parts.

A trained aircraft accident investigator would never fall for a fake crash scene and since the Pentagon was seen by many people that day and no one planted the aircraft parts; the CT on 77 is at a loss for evidence.

Craig blames the military for the murder of flight 77, but since it never hit, I guess no one is dead. Go talk to the people who lost their loved ones. Craig's failure to incorporate reality in his work, has doomed his flight path and his witnesses have doomed his fly over.

The hard evidence is there if you want to use it and analysis it. The engine parts are from 77, the wheel is from 77. The landing gear is too. But then you have hard evidence to prove they are not, right?

If you are so sure you have hard evidence is time to go get the Pulitzer Prize, Woodward and Bernstein did it in less than two years and brought down a president with facts! 9/11 truth has made up stories for over 6 years and have not brought down anything and avoided finding any evidence. Take all the stuff you have and be first to get famous and break this 6 year old story. I can't wait.

The plane was not vaporized. I have been though accident investigation course and worked in the USAF investigating accident of aircraft and studying hundreds of accidents. I have not found one thing wrong with all four crashes. The parts are all over the Pentagon and at 500 mph the plane is smashed.

So if you want evidence first hand, go to the families who lost loved one on flight 77 and talk to them about the items found in and around the Pentagon that belongs to them now. Or go to an aircraft accident investigation course and learn what accidents at a KE of 2000 pounds of TNT looks like.

I have not seen any evidence from 9/11 truth, just made up stories, "theories". "Theories" from 9/11 truth with zero facts and evidence to support them. If you have a source of Pulitzer Prize quality evidence and research, please present it at your convenience (or links to it, I could use a Pulitzer Prize, a book deal and a movie).



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


beachnut, thanks for that, a very good post.

I went to the FO's funeral, David Charlebois. Never met him personally, but knew friends of friends, and thought it appropriate to go in my uniform.

Although I did not work for AA, I wore my uniform in honor, and most there also came in uniform. The AA base at IAD was fairly small, but those that could come, came in....and may from out of town, of course.

I am not Catholic....David was...but I went anyway, out of a feeling of honoring a fallen fellow....

WW



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I've seen several references to an "impossible flight path", but I don't see one (unless I missed a drawing somewhere??).

I did a calculation on CITs website (I'll let you find it) that shows mathematically what is required to maneuver for example, around the VDOT tower at 500 MPH. As a result of that, for every mile per hour less that you claim the aircraft was flying, or had to be flying in order to make the flight path possible to you, only makes the turn case better (forgetting for a moment the calculation was for a lateral avoidance for the VDOT tower).

Just what is it you're finding "impossible"???



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 10 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


mirage, I've not seen anything about the 'alleged' flight path,, except some stuff from CIT.

I wrote earlier, I have a summary from NTSB mentioning the Auto-Flight interaction on the flight, AA77. Scroll up, it's there on this thread, I hope, unless I posted somewhere else.....

But, in short, the AP and A/T were disconnected, and the lst few minutes of the airplane were hand flown. Because, this makes sense, these Arab monkeys knew how to fly below 10,000 feet, because that was what they were used to!

They had minimal, but enough, instruction in how to use the MCP (part of the autoflight and autothrottle system). They knew how to engage the AP...(push a button, not difficult) and how to manipulate the system, and how to navigate (not difficult....can you type, and push buttons? then you can do it too!)

I could take anyone, spend a couple of hours in a Simulator, and show you how to do these things.

I've offered, before, a challenge to bring six (My original idea was eight, but six works better) ATS members into a real, Level D Simulator and investigate just how we could fly airplanes.

What we would need is people who have a few hours, maybe only up to 500 hours, of actual flight training. This includes solo and dual time, of course.

Here's how it works: Airlines schedule their Sims in blocks of about 4 hours...in a real-life scenario, we come in as two pilots at a time, for that 'Sim session'....but, we have to show up two hours early, for the 'briefing'.

A Sim will easily accomodate the two pilots, and the Instructor. There is always another seat for an observer, and one more can safely stand, and hold on. That's why I recommend six, so there can be three at a time, for two hours....that's 20 minutes each.

We will need two Instructors, since we will hold two briefings, so that will cost more. After, there can be a 'de-brief', which could involve beer, since that's the standard...or wine, if you prefer...or water....depends...

It would help if we found a willing Sim owner who had a camera, so it could be videotaped for later viewing...

WW



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join