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.

 

Can a qualified pilot explain a couple of things regarding 757/767?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
What exactly would one have to go through to obtain a job at AA or UAL flying one of the 757 or 767 model aircraft?

To be precise say if someone with no experience at all woke up and decided they wanted to fly the above mentioned aircraft for those airlines, what would it entail please be as precise as possible especially in things like needed flight hours, needed exams or licenses, or any other details you can give.

Also would the answer to the first question be different if it was changed to no experience wanting to learn how to fly 757/767 for say another airliner say in the cargo business follow me? Would it be drastically different from answer one? Also, say you owned a 757 jet and wanted to fly it. What would be required to take it off the ground legally in the US.?

What exactly is a Multi engine license (I gather its a license to operate a aircraft that has multiple engines) but and If you cover this in the above question never mind. What is the significance of this license and what do you have to do to obtain it, what does the test involve?

These aircrafts cockpits look incredibly sophisticated is this not the case? Is it really possible with the knowledge of a few key things one could operate the aircraft with relative ease without ever had even flown these aircraft before ever except for a multiple hours in a simulator.




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
What exactly would one have to go through to obtain a job at AA or UAL flying one of the 757 or 767 model aircraft?

To be precise say if someone with no experience at all woke up and decided they wanted to fly the above mentioned aircraft for those airlines, what would it entail please be as precise as possible especially in things like needed flight hours, needed exams or licenses, or any other details you can give.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It would take YEARS, I think its the same now but back when I trained you had to have as minimums 40 hours (under various situations and conditions) of flight time to be qualified to take the exam for a private pilots license. 250 for a commercial license, not counting a needed instrument rating, a jet type rating and the multiengine rating.
all the detail you need can be found in the FAR/AIM.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also would the answer to the first question be different if it was changed to no experience wanting to learn how to fly 757/767 for say another airliner say in the cargo business follow me? Would it be drastically different from answer one?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, it would be the same
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, say you owned a 757 jet and wanted to fly it. What would be required to take it off the ground legally in the US.?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A pilots license and the required type certificates and ratings
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What exactly is a Multi engine license (I gather its a license to operate a aircraft that has multiple engines) but and If you cover this in the above question never mind. What is the significance of this license and what do you have to do to obtain it, what does the test involve?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Multiengine is an add on rating, not a license, you must show proficiency and knowledge required for safe operation of the aircraft.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These aircrafts cockpits look incredibly sophisticated is this not the case?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They are incredibly sophisticated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is it really possible with the knowledge of a few key things one could operate the aircraft with relative ease without ever had even flown these aircraft before ever except for a multiple hours in a simulator.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Possible? yes, probable?, a resounding no.
Again, google FAR/AIM all your questions will be answered.




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Are you hinting towards you think that those "guys" were not able to fly the aircrafts?

In my opinion it´s possible, If you took lessons for a private pilots license.
We are not talking about taking off or landing, just flying. The basic instruments in a cockpit are the very same in a cessna and a 747. For just flying the thing you need very few instruments and switches.
The biggest challenge would be to hit the targets.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Hani Hanjour: 9/11 Pilot Extraordinaire


From the ridiculous to the sublime...

Federal Aviation Administration records show [Hanjour] obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss. His limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots. [Cape Cod Times]

Flight Academy Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all." [New York Times]

At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.

However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.

When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997" Chilton said. [Newsday]

"This guy could not solo a Cessna 150 ... and what I mean by solo is a pilot's first time out without anyone in the cockpit with him. It's the most simple, the most fundamental flying exercise one can engage in..."

On December 12, 2000, [Nawaf al Hazmi and Hani Hanjour] were settling in Mesa, Arizona, and Hanjour was ready to brush up on his flight training [Brush up? He could barely fly a Cessna]. By early 2001, he was using a Boeing 737 simulator. Because his performance struck his flight instructors as sub-standard, they discouraged Hanjour from continuing, but he persisted.

At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." [NATCA]

But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot [Hanjour] executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said.

Less than an hour after two other jets demolished the World Trade Center in Manhattan, Flight 77 carved a hole in the nation's defense headquarters, a hole five stories high and 200 feet wide.

Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious. [Washington Post]

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said [ex-commercial pilot Russ] Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying. [LewisNews]

Is it pure coincidence that the above mentioned "fighter jet maneuver" steered Flight 77 into a barely habited newly reinforced section of the Pentagon? Why didn't the USAF intervene in the aerial acrobatics of Flight 77?

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. The group's Statement of Principles [PDF] published September 2000 stated that "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" would advance their policies.

Dov Zakheim is a co-author of the Statement of Principles and an ex-CEO of System Planning Corporation which manufactures equipment to remotely pilot aircraft. Zakheim was appointed as Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon by President Bush on May 4, 2001.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Here is some more information you may find interesting Golden:


Chevrette said that the school's student, Hani Hanjour, lacked adequate English skills to gain his pilot's license. An FAA official responded to her concerns by suggesting that Hanjour could use an interpreter even though mastery of English is a requirement for a pilot.

Chevrette said that when the Sept. 11 attacks occurred, she knew Hanjour must have been involved.

"I remember crying all the way to work knowing our company helped to do this," she said.
Chevrette said that Hanjour's English was so bad that it took him eight hours to complete an oral exam that should've taken two hours.

www.cbsnews.com...


FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license.

That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good."

www.cbsnews.com...


Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview (Apr.9, 2004).

Source: "Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 52­57.


"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
-Marcel Bernard Chief Instructor-www.historycommons.org...



As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the #ty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

www.salon.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
These aircrafts cockpits look incredibly sophisticated is this not the case? Is it really possible with the knowledge of a few key things one could operate the aircraft with relative ease without ever had even flown these aircraft before ever except for a multiple hours in a simulator.


Is it really possible? A resounding yes. "A few key things" is the important phrase. The yoke for control? Piece of cake. The throttles for power? Piece of cake. Turn off the transponder? You can find out where the transponder is and what it looks like and the on/off/standby switch from images of a 757 or 767 cockpit, and these hijackers even had 757 and 767 sim time, so that would be a piece of cake. Navigation? Dialing in an airport VOR or entering a GPS coordinate into a flight navigation computer is a piece of cake, if that is what you wanted. The visibility that day was clear and a million, so you could no doubt see the twin towers from a great distance (meaning visual navigation was possible for at least the NY aircraft).

In my opinion, the aeronautical requirements necessary to fly those aircraft for the purposes they were intending are pretty low, and any half-way experienced light-civil pilot could handle those requirements without any problem.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
What exactly would one have to go through to obtain a job at AA or UAL flying one of the 757 or 767 model aircraft?


I am not a pilot, but I am a flight enthusiast, who worked professionally for an airline, including working with the training pilots for an express airline. What it takes to fly one of those aircraft is a ton of money in flight training, way more then the average person can feasibly accomplish. This is why most of your pilots are ex-military, as they get to log their hours on the government. After you are down about $80k, you might land a job flying for a commuter making around $24K/year, you then move up to a larger airlines with larger planes as you gain experience. The salaries tend to go along with the type of equipment you fly, and the years of experience you accumulate.


Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
To be precise say if someone with no experience at all woke up and decided they wanted to fly the above mentioned aircraft for those airlines, what would it entail please be as precise as possible especially in things like needed flight hours, needed exams or licenses, or any other details you can give.

You need about 5000 total hours, I believe, in single VFR, IFR, Multi Engine, Jets by class (weight and engine), a commercial pilots license, and the big license you need is a TPL (transport Pilots License). You need to meet medical criteria for these licenses as well, especially eyesight. You can always find truthers out there trying to play that they are professional pilots by stating that they have a “commercial” rating, but that is a fairly simple license to get, and does not make them pilots qualified to fly for a commercial airlines.
Here are pilot ratings in the USA


Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Also would the answer to the first question be different if it was changed to no experience wanting to learn how to fly 757/767 for say another airliner say in the cargo business follow me?

Nope, the FAA still requires the hours and ratings ( I am not sure on the TPL), though its easier to fly cargo as you are not responsible for as many lives and they don't have as many classes of aircraft to advance through. A lot of what you fly is Dependant on the airline you work for, and advancement as in any other profession.


Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Would it be drastically different from answer one? Also, say you owned a 757 jet and wanted to fly it. What would be required to take it off the ground legally in the US.?

You could fly it without the ATPL because you are not carrying passengers for an airline, but you need the specific ratings for the aircraft type based on engines, weight, and instrumentation:

Some categories are further broken down into more specific classes of aircraft.
Airplane class ratings include single-engine land, multi-engine land, single-engine sea, and multi-engine sea.
Rotorcraft class ratings include helicopter and gyroplane.
Lighter-than-air class ratings include airship, and balloon
Type ratings are required in a specific make and model of airplane if the airplane is "large" (greater than 12,500 lb (5,700 kg) gross takeoff weight) or powered by one or more jet engines. Boeing 747, DC-10, and Dash-8 are examples of type ratings.
ultralight category of aircraft in the US requires no specific training and no certification. Examples include powered parachute, and weight-shift-control aircraft. However, sporting groups give extensive training and certification for these aircraft.
The pilot can separately add certain ratings, such as the instrument rating.



Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
What exactly is a Multi engine license (I gather its a license to operate a aircraft that has multiple engines) but and If you cover this in the above question never mind. What is the significance of this license and what do you have to do to obtain it, what does the test involve?

Obviously its a license to fly an aircraft with more then one engine, I am not sure what the test involves, but I can tell you some differences. In multi-engine aircraft you have to obviously monitor two engines, and you have to keep those engines trimmed up with the aircraft. Probably the biggest difference between the two is dealing with emergencies where you loose one engine, especially on take off or landing, and you have to adjust trim in one big hurry. Obviously the thrust/power and weight is increased on these aircraft, they generally fly faster, and have faster take-off and landing speeds then single engine aircraft. On the positive side you don't have to deal with torque as much on a multi-engine aircraft. As they are usually fancier aircraft they have more options available on the engines, such as variable pitch props, internal heating, and adjustable mixtures.


Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
These aircrafts cockpits look incredibly sophisticated is this not the case? Is it really possible with the knowledge of a few key things one could operate the aircraft with relative ease without ever had even flown these aircraft before ever except for a multiple hours in a simulator.

You have to understand that an aircraft is like a car, the more toys you add to it the more controls that you need in the cockpit. Yet at the same time you really only need the basic instruments for most things. The instruments are pretty standard, and easy to locate by look if you have some flying experience. The reason why a commercial aircraft looks so complex, is that much of the instrumentation is stuff for monitoring systems, and to try and fix things in an emergency. You would be shocked at just how many of the switches and breakers in the cockpit are for the electrical system, lights, heat, air conditioning, the overhead signs in the cabin, battery power, etc.

It is very easy to switch between aircraft, and I was told by the avionics mechanic on a 757, that he could show me how to fly that aircraft in about a half an hour. I recommend that you get a copy of Flight Simulator X, and try that out for a bit to see what I am talking about. Its not the same thing as reality, but it will explain to you the basic instrumentation, and you can look at each panel on those aircraft and see what everything does. There is a very nice set of basic flying instruction in there as well, and you can multi-player log in and have a flight instructor fly right seat.

But to sum up, a plane is a plane, going back to the early days of flying, and the basic instruments are the same across all of them, same with the theory on how it all works. The biggest difference you would feel in flying a large aircraft compared to a small aircraft is going to be when you are landing and taking off. You obviously cannot fly aerobatics with a large aircraft, but you cannot fly them in many small aircraft either, and a large plane is going to react more slowly then a smaller one.

Hope that is helpful.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Thanks for everyone's posts, especially defcon, now that I have a couple of your guys attention I have another question.

According to the commission Atta was the only one with a multi engine rating. Why would he have it..or would he get it for a specific aircraft? Is it basically insignificant and just something he obtained while on his way to supposedly be a commercial pilot.

How much it cost for flight simulator time. I remember hearing that this was how Moussaoui was basically caught, he tried to pay a large sum of cash for 747 time I believe. What would be the most expensive in dollar amount that someone or the hijackers would have to pay.

What I'm getting at is that the commission says they(the hijackers) spent at least half of a million dollars and I have to assume the majority was on flight time and lessons since it seems to be so expensive. I'm looking for typical amounts.

Thanks in advance for your help.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
According to the commission Atta was the only one with a multi engine rating. Why would he have it..or would he get it for a specific aircraft? Is it basically insignificant and just something he obtained while on his way to supposedly be a commercial pilot.

Why not get it, especially if someone else was footing the bill for it. Its like anything else in life, the more you practice something or the more knowledgeable you are about it, the better you will be at it. Those who pursue flying do it because they enjoy it, and they are going to spend as much time at it as they can afford to.


Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
How much it cost for flight simulator time. I remember hearing that this was how Moussaoui was basically caught, he tried to pay a large sum of cash for 747 time I believe.

Sim time is very expensive, and there are not a lot of places that have those high level sims. Today I doubt you could even get access to one unless you are working for an airline or attending a full flight school (something like Embry Riddle University).


Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
What I'm getting at is that the commission says they(the hijackers) spent at least half of a million dollars and I have to assume the majority was on flight time and lessons since it seems to be so expensive. I'm looking for typical amounts.

If flying is anything, its defiantly expensive.
When I took training, back in the early 90's, I was paying $45 an engine hour just for a Cessna 150 or Piper Tomahawk, $90 an hour for a complex single engine aircraft like a Piper Cherokee, and you would double that for multi-engine. I knew the flight instructor, so I did not have to pay for his time, he simply was logging the hours while I paid for the aircraft. Right now flight time is running around $300/hour (single engine) with your VFR license costing about $8000 (at my local airport). Part of the reason for the cost is that aircraft engines have to be overhauled every 500 hours, even if that plane sat idle on the ramp with the engines running for those 500 hours. Your hour starts when the engine starts, and it ends when the engine shuts off, all recorded on a Hobbs Meter. Additionally, as I stated before, when you try and rent a plane at an airport that you have not flown at before, or when you have not flown for awhile, they ding you for a flight with their instructors before they let you rent an aircraft. I am sure that you can find even more accurate figures on the net by simply looking up flight schools, this kind of stuff is public information.

I can easily see them spending that kind of coin, especially if it included living expenses.



[edit on 2/3/2009 by defcon5]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Very Helpful thanks for your time, one last question though. The Commission says one of the biggest mysteries of 9/11 will be how exactly they were able to enter the cockpits so easily with the pilots in some cases not even breaking radio silence. The commission says that there was a idea floated that b/c at that time Boeing had one key fits all access to the cockpit that maybe they were able to obtain these keys for all of the flights. I mean in the f93 the pilots are actually warned minutes before hand of the attacks and takeovers yet they are still breached. They also floated the idea that maybe someone (not following procedure) let one of the hijackers into the jump seat. They said they have no proof of this and in all except f93 (which strangely mmultiple passenger reports of only 3 hijackers when there are really 4) that all of the hijackers were accounted for outside of the cockpit before takeovers.

So personal opinion(any pilot can jump in here on this also) here Defcon with two people in the cockpit how did they breach the cockpits so quickly and efficiently without the pilots being able to give some warning or keep them out or enter hijacking codes?

They must of had some system to breach the cockpit that was full proof. I have to suspect that the only reason f93 pilots were able to key there mics were because they did not immediately fall for the ruse due to the warning they received. Any thoughts there?

Again Defcon thanks for the professional and unbiased responses look forward to next one.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Here are some links which may help you from actual 757/767 pilots who put their name on their claims.

Regarding "what it takes"...
"Why Airline Pilots Should Make 200,000 Per Year" - Captain Jack Fearneyhough, Delta Airlines, 767 Capt



Regarding "Hijacker" pilot skill from a seasoned United Captain who has time in the actual aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.




Captain Russ Wittenberg
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Has time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Watch Youtube clip of Capt Wittenberg here...
youtube.com...




More on Hani Hanjour here....




"I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, the JetTech manager."

"The operations manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix said she called the FAA inspector that oversaw her school three times in January and February 2001 to express her concerns about Hanjour. "

Check right side margin of Source page for more on Hani.


Hope this helps.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911They must of had some system to breach the cockpit that was full proof.


Sure, kick in the cockpit door and take out the pilots.

Sitting there strapped up one would be a easy target for anyone with bad intentions.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Prior to the door reinforcements, cockpit doors were thin pieces of wood pressed together. A 5 year old could probably kick through one in three or four kicks. One or two good strong kicks and you're in. Meanwhile the pilots aren't concerned about a radio because they're trying to figure out what's going on. If you're sitting there doing a nice routine flight that you've done day after day, and suddenly the door is being kicked you aren't going to immediately say "Hijacking!" Especially when there hadn't been one in the US in many years. You're going to be sitting there going "Wha?!" and trying to figure out what's happening first.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


So if it is truly that easy to gain entry(pre 9/11) and basically as you put it and the previous (Ivan?) poster put simply kick the door in.

Why do you think the 9/11 Commission put so much emphasis into the issue in the report? As if it was some giant mystery? This makes no sense at all, were they deliberately trying to bring attention to things that held little significance to 9/11?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Stillresearchn911
 


I worked on aircraft just prior to 911, and as Zaph mentioned, the doors were quite flimsy back then. However, despite the fact that they have changed them, I would not even tell you how to do it in the old days as that is an obvious security issue, but I will tell you this:

I once had a RON Dash-8 that I had turned on the battery for so I could add ground power without spiking the Gyroscope. After I was done working on the aircraft, I closed and locked the cockpit, then went outside to remove the ground power unit. When I looked back up in the window, all the lights were still on! I had obviously forgotten to shut the battery power off before locking the door. The pilots had gone to the hotel with the Keys, and as this was a subcontract express aircraft. The main airline mechanics did not have the keys or any way to get into the cockpit, and no one else flew Dash-8's into our station. When I asked them about recharging the battery in the morning, they told me that the subcontract airline would have to fly in their own mechanics, and it would take hours. When faced with the idea that I would be explaining why that aircraft was INOP for the morning flights, and be out of service for most of the day, I figured out a way to do it in about 5 minutes with no damage to the bulkhead, doorframe, knob, lock, or door.


I would guess that the committee were simply shocked at the way that the old doors were built, or how easily they could be breached. There were a lot of things in the old days that would shock those not in the know. Hopefully that has all changed post 911.

BTW I am glad to see that Zaph is here, he is far more knowledgeable about much of this stuff then I am. Hopefully he will jump on any mistakes I make, and help you get correct answers..


[edit on 2/4/2009 by defcon5]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Remember above where I pointed this out:


Originally posted by defcon5
You need about 5000 total hours, I believe, in single VFR, IFR, Multi Engine, Jets by class (weight and engine), a commercial pilots license, and the big license you need is a TPL (transport Pilots License). You need to meet medical criteria for these licenses as well, especially eyesight. You can always find truthers out there trying to play that they are professional pilots by stating that they have a “commercial” rating, but that is a fairly simple license to get, and does not make them pilots qualified to fly for a commercial airlines.


Here is another example of someone confusing a “Commercial” Rating with a TPL:


More on Hani Hanjour here....




"I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had," said Peggy Chevrette, the JetTech manager."

"The operations manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix said she called the FAA inspector that oversaw her school three times in January and February 2001 to express her concerns about Hanjour. "

Check right side margin of Source page for more on Hani.

As I have already stated, a Commercial rating is very easy to get, it is not a TPL, and it does not qualify anyone to be an expert in jets. Additionally, if you recall I stated this:


Originally posted by defcon5
Additionally, when you try and rent a plane at an airport that you have not flown at before, or when you have not flown for awhile, they ding you for a flight with their instructors before they let you rent an aircraft.

Flight schools, and private airports ALWAYS have some problem with a pilot that they have not trained, as its nothing more then an excuse to charge them more money for a check flight...


Don't fall for truther BS, deny ignorance.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I would guess that the committee were simply shocked at the way that the old doors were built, or how easily they could be breached. There were a lot of things in the old days that would shock those not in the know. Hopefully that has all changed post 911.


Heck...I can remember sitting in an aisle seat while airborne and looking forward at the flight crew through the open cockpit door.

I can also remember watching a flight attendant taking coffee or whatever up to the cockpit door, tapping once or twice then opening it immediately with little or no effort.

Bottom line is that I doubt there was much emphasis on flight-deck/cockpit security prior to the morning of 9/11. It just wasn't perceived as that much of a priority because the risk of anything bad happening with the cockpit door open or unsecured was little to none.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911simply kick the door in.


Yup, pre 9/11 that's the drill.

Can remeber one case where a runaway trolley opened the door in moderate turbulence on approach to a Norwegian airport.

We didn't know that that damn door was open until the chief ca stuck her head in and said sorry guys


She closed the door behind her!



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 


Sorry, I have to ask.
You a Speedbird Driver?
I used to work them at least once a week.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   


They said they have no proof of this and in all except f93 (which strangely mmultiple passenger reports of only 3 hijackers when there are really 4) that all of the hijackers were accounted for outside of the cockpit before takeovers.


The reason for the difference in number of hijackers was that the
designated pilot would be sitting in row directly behind cockpit - he would
not engage in any of the rough stuff. Would wait for the so called "muscle
hijackers" to subdue the pilots, only then would hijacker pilot make his
move and enter cockpit. It would then be locked and guarded by other hijackers



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join