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.

 

9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

page: 106
141
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JakeHarper
 


Truth must be unknown to you.


Good night and sleep well. Karlsen over and out



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

edit on 23-1-2011 by alien because: ...post removed - sock a/c banned...



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 



....here in euroland they tend to keep us high to the last minute, so when DRAG NEEDED comes up i just add another 5 kt....


On the NG....you don't have the snitch? The QAR ??

I thought it was pretty common on most late-model Boeings (don't know about Airbus, but assume so too).

Part of the FOQA program, and Flight Operations plan ( and gets nods from FAA to add into the recurrent curriculum ) for "heads up" awareness of safety/procedural trends out on the line. Part of "ASAP" ties in, a bit, at times too.

The "identity" is supposed to be scrubbed, when the Company sees it...just ship number....date and time wiped, so the offenders (minor variances, flap overspeeds, Vmo excursions....unstable approaches, that sort of thing) UNLESS particularly egregious. Geez, one really HAIRY unstable approach into Santo Domingo, by a 777 crew stands out in my mind....it was used as an EXAMPLE in that year's recurrent training. Don't know how they managed to get it stopped on the pavement, without going off the end.....in THOSE cases, when it spikes that much, the UNION has to be called in, per the agreement....and the pilots involved are handled by their peers....

If you saw the news about a recent American Airlines runway overrun....(A B-757, forget where)...AAL is in trouble with NTSB, for merely downloading/copying the memory, or just pulling the flash card. (Some old ones might use CD R/W tech, not sure). They were NOT "hiding" it from NTSB, just wanted to do their own parallel internal investigation, I suppose...NTSB angry because THEY didn't see it first!! Don't know (but guessing) that AAL have the ASAP program too...or, over-eager Flt Ops management wanted to nail the pilots....Ah, article on American. Their ASAP was suspended for a while:

www.eturbonews.com...


Yeah, the FMC descent profiles aren't particularly sharp...but, if you're being held up beyond its calculated ToD (TD) anyway....not the computer's fault....when you have ATC altitude/speed restrictions up ahead on the profile and route....but, yeah, the speed brakes do a lot of buffeting, not much else! LOL!

Software is better in the 75/76 family (Smith versus the Honeywell....especially with the Pegasus upgrades).






edit on 17 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 



It WAS a high speed pass, and in the aviation community the 57 with the rollers are known as the hot rod of the skies.


Usually when a real pilot gets asked what speed, they answer in knots,miles or kilometers an hour..
You just say high speed?? That your best estimate??

I'll say it was under 350knts, what do you say.???


edit on 17-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhackerOn the NG....you don't have the snitch? The QAR ??


Yes we do, and it can be pulled any minute, keep in mind that a hasty deccent doesnt have to mean a unstable approach.


flap overspeeds
We never do that because it's expencive, and we DO have the flap speed limiter, on F40, F30 and 25 on the latest ships.




one really HAIRY unstable approach into Santo Domingo, by a 777 crew stands out in my mind....


I've flown the B777, it's a heavy ship and an unstable approach would be the last thing on my mind.




If you saw the news about a recent American Airlines runway overrun....(A B-757, forget where)...


It was in Jacson Hole, and i'm not too sure that the pilots were to blame. yet. The boards didn't come up, delayed thrust reversers, it all point out for a tech failure. (I've flown in and out of the hole myself and you gotta get it right or you're gonna run of the end.)




Yeah, the FMC descent profiles aren't particularly sharp...but, if you're being held up beyond its calculated ToD (TD) anyway....not the computer's fault....when you have ATC altitude/speed restrictions up ahead on the profile and route....but, yeah, the speed brakes do a lot of buffeting, not much else! LOL!


We're currently running the bugfix of the latest software version, going back to 10.7 next month. Personly i prefer level change and the old kind of calculation leaving TOD



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 



It WAS a high speed pass, and in the aviation community the 57 with the rollers are known as the hot rod of the skies.


Usually when a real pilot gets asked what speed, they answer in knots,miles or kilometers an hour..
You just say high speed?? That your best estimate??

I'll say it was under 350knts, what do you say.???


edit on 17-1-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


If it was me sitting in the left chair i would go balls to the wall, and then pull up in a hairy way. Its just as much fun a poor line pilot can have with the pants on.


Edit to add, yeah they were doing more than 350.
edit on 18-1-2011 by Ivar_Karlsen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 



Edit to add, yeah they were doing more than 350.


Again no answer??
Any chance of actually making a decision and giving a speed???



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 



Edit to add, yeah they were doing more than 350.


Again no answer??
Any chance of actually making a decision and giving a speed???


Sorry i can't, i wasn't there. However a friend of mine fly the 57 with the rollers, it's a sporty bastard for sure.

He have done stuff like that on airshows, 350 is no big deal on that machine.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 



Sorry i can't, i wasn't there. However a friend of mine fly the 57 with the rollers, it's a sporty bastard for sure.

He have done stuff like that on airshows, 350 is no big deal on that machine.


You've seen the video, you say you are a pilot, but that's the best you can do???

I know the plane can go over 350 but that's not the question..
This was a low level pass at an air show with civilians in the audience..



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Don't really see your point, there...about "civilians in the audience".

THAT is really quite normal at Air Shows. Hence, the term "show".....

AS TO the airspeed....I'm sure someone with the proper video analyzing software could come up with a pretty good estimate of the speed....using the distance from the camera (calculating by the relative size of the airplane image, in numbers of pixels, and its apparent size in the video, etc. HIGH tech stuff, and video experts probably eat up that kind of thing for breakfast...).

The only other thing I can say, is with experience, MANY of us can gauge and judge. One hint, the sound....of the engines, that's a clue to the power settings (high). AND, very telling also, the pitch attitude. The nose is down, nearly level. Typically, with flaps/slats retracted (clean wing) and, say....250 knots....nose is up to around 7-8 degrees, and power needed (for the RB-211 engines) only about 70-74% N1. Depends on weight/altitude of course.

Visually....compare to the videos from 9/11.....the BRIEF glimpse of American 11, and the more prevalent views of United 175, and gauge by comparing to the surroundings.

Also, just take a stroll through YouTube, or other video sources, of OTHER airshows....I have one in mind, of a B-727 somewhere...and the Air Show announcer mentions his airspeed....will search for it......

EDIT: Aaaaahhhhh....here it is. Be sure to have your sound turned up, so you can hear the announcer tell everyone the speed of "390 knots":



Oh, what was that? Another Air Show..."with civlians"?

BTW...love the YouTube username there...."Say Position".... LOL! (Ivar will understand my amusement...).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FINALLY, for pilots, the most telling indication of his speed was the CLIMB after the pass. IF you don't fly, then you don't realize the nature of the energy of velocity, and how the speed will "bleed off" very quickly, as you "trade it" for altitude. (These are some common flying terms).

Looking at that maneuver....and his nose up pitch attitude after the fly-by....nearly vertical. QUITE a feat for an airliner. Power to weight ratios aren't like in a fighter, for example. And, even most fighters, to sustain a long vertical climb will have to use reheat ("after burner")....and that uses a LOT more fuel, so that can't be done for long.

Of course, in that RNZAF demo....he was very light, I'd guess....minimal fuel, no payload to speak of....so, performance would be "snappier" than when at much heavier, close to max gross weight.

Many times we've "ferried" airplanes, for various operational reasons. NO passengers, no cargo. Sometimes, no flight attendants...(but, when they are with us, it's a chance to let them ride up front and see what we do.....it's flipped, from their perspective. When WE are most busy --- right after takeoff, up through most of the climb to cruise --- THEY are least busy. And, vice-versa on the arrival).

So, flying the airplane "empty", and on short trips, with low fuel required....yes, it's more of a "hot rod" than when loaded up......of course, depending on the airplane, with no payload there is a requirement for MORE fuel than just required for the flight, used as ballast....for the proper weight and balance ....


edit on 18 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



IF you don't fly, then you don't realize the nature of the energy of velocity, and how the speed will "bleed off" very quickly, as you "trade it" for altitude. (These are some common flying terms).


It's getting a bit boring the way you think anyone that doesn't fly, doesn't know..
There is nothing in that statement that someone with High School physics passes wouldn't understand..

The only bits that would be difficult are your off topic stories of past events that merely clog the thread with useless lines that would be better of in u2u's...



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I cannot always assume, without finding a way to explain some principles of flying, that most people will understand the point....not everyone has good grasps of physics....or, IF they do, still maybe not a grasp of the factors I pointed out, like power/weight ratios, and such. Flying, to the uninitiated, is still a sort of "black art" that, until experienced, is mysterious. Still, even after a few actual hands-on lessons, MUCH of the "theory" that can be read about becomes clear, in those "Aha!" moments of realization.

And....some people enjoy reading about another person's experiences....they generally come up as related to the point being made...and,in any case, further serve to flesh out the background, and illustrate for those who are not privy to this sort of information and experience.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JakeHarper

(by the way.. for those confused.. im not Jake Harper... nor Angus T. Jones)



That's probably for the best. I mean, the scripts are genius on that show - but is it just me, or has that kid's acting ability been on a steady decline ever since he went through puberty? A bit like weed's credibility, and Igor's ability to think laterally...or in a straight line...or at all.


Originally posted by weedwhacker

Well....if ALL your experience is from a desktop PC flight sim program...little wonder you don't comprehend.



Sheesh, whacker! Can't you get anything right? The whole purpose of my little anecdote was to HIGHLIGHT the fact that I have no training or experience flying aeroplanes - whatsoever. I have EXACTLY ZERO hours flying 767s or any other plane (unless you count the time my dad allowed me to take the yoke, for just a few seconds, when he was flying a hired Cessna...I remember another time, when my girlfriend was sitting in the cockpit next to my dad, and I was in the rear, and she decided to grab the controls as a means of helping herself pull her seat forward...I've never seen my dad turn so pale so quickly...)

By the way, your wiki link doesn't mention anything about the Flight Simulator program...Are you sure you didn't mean to say 'I know nothing at all about any "Chuck Yeager" - period'?

Anyway, the point is that the more you appeal to your own authority and demean me for my lack of it, the more obvious it is that you are deliberately trying to obfuscate basic principals which are easily grasped by the novice. I'm like some kind of unco-ordinated Ewok, wearing a blind fold, with my hands tied behind my back, trying to defeat Darth Vader, without a lightsaber and cooking an egg and bacon breakfast at the same time. Expertise and experience are no match for the facts. OF COURSE a 20 year old PC simulator won't help me to experience additional G-forces - that's not the point. If I can demonstrate an appreciation of the significance of "structural failure", and the conditions under which this situation is imminent, while you skip and dance around this issue, then you FAIL.

BADLY.

You even managed to avoid every one of my true/false questions, a task which should have taken less than 60 seconds, even if you had been prepared to answer all nine of them.

backinblack is wise to this as well. Retreating to your palace of aviation omniscience and speaking down to the rest of us may lull you into a false sense of security, but unfortunately, none of us are buying it.

The best you can do is cite "FMC Descent Profiles", "Level D Acceleration" and "Pegasus Upgrades" in a limp attempt to flummox the average Joe. Again, you shoot yourself in the foot, because most people's eyes glaze over when you jargonise and so blatantly avoid the question.

It's really no mystery why Balsamo has had to repeat himself over and over. You got one hellz of a nerve, labelling him as the kettle under these circumstances.

UAL 175 exceeded Vd by 85 knots.

EXPLAIN IT.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by lachstockn2

EXPLAIN IT.



I can explain it. Rob Balsamo has some sort of cognitive issue. Imagine creating what, 14 sock puppets in one thread. Starts off with a porno sock (a porno chick that Balsamo liked to blog about) to making up names from the boys he has crushes on at JREF.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by lachstockn2

EXPLAIN IT.



I can explain it. Rob Balsamo has some sort of cognitive issue. Imagine creating what, 14 sock puppets in one thread. Starts off with a porno sock (a porno chick that Balsamo liked to blog about) to making up names from the boys he has crushes on at JREF.



And so it continues.

I rest my case.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by lachstockn2
 


Then, stop playing games, and just SAY WHAT YOU MEAN>>>>


Can't you get anything right? The whole purpose of my little anecdote was to HIGHLIGHT the fact.... I have EXACTLY ZERO hours flying 767s or any other plane....


So, being such an "expert" on flying, you dare to criticize what I, and other large jet airplane pilots have to say? Some cheek.....

(BTW....up above, in this thread...."FrankBarone". Again, not even subtle anymore, is he???)



By the way, your wiki link doesn't mention anything about the Flight Simulator program...Are you sure you didn't mean to say 'I know nothing at all about any "Chuck Yeager" - period'?


?????? Was it the wrong Wiki link, then? I didn't check....could be, I'll go look....as to the rest? Is this your style, from here on out?? INSULTS?? Poor ones that FAIL...

BADLY.

Like this one, that I excised the worst ramblings from:


.... then you FAIL.

BADLY.




You even managed to avoid every one of my true/false questions, a task which should have taken less than 60 seconds, even if you had been prepared to answer all nine of them.


I told you....many of them were repetitive...they got answered all as one. The rest? Ridiculous baits, showing your severe lack of aviation understanding.



UAL 175 exceeded Vd by 85 knots.

EXPLAIN IT.


Yes, according to a variety of measuring methods (absent the MOST PRECISE method that would have been best, the FDR) the estimates of the final velocity at impact show quite a lot of speed beyond the "DEMONSTRATED" Vd. You don't understand what that means, to aerodynamic engineers, and pilots.

It's really quite funny....I've allowed Rob Balsamo to hoist by his own petard enough, I suppose. Haven't gone to "PPRuNe" yet, to see what [color=gold]Ivar_Karlsen said....but, I'm certain he handed Balsamo his lunch over there. Perhaps it is the same thing I'll post here, or a variation on it.

The amusing thing is, Balsamo (who, BTW, is apparently quite inexperienced, based on his distorted views of flying.....like, someone who MAY be "book smart", but not adept at a practical application of those "smarts". In another way, he is feverishly obsessed with this, to the exclusion of ANY rationality, anymore...and goes to great extremes to twist, play fast and loose with facts, and to alter intent in order to further his singular agenda).

He has already been shown to be in error that befits a buffoon, on many topics related to 9/11....about things involving the flying that he SHOULD have known better, but instead, chose to see everything with his "conspiracy colored" glasses on, instead.

The HOURS he must have fruitlessly spent on that hilarious "11.2 G level off" garbage alone, why....just think of the colossal waste of time. His claim that the 757 hitting the Pentagon at that angle should have "rotated" about its vertical axis, like a model airplane. His schlock "video" attempting to paint a picture of what he thinks "should have happened" to UAL 175....the stupid little cartoon, exaggerated nose down attitude to grossly misrepresent the descent, and then the *laugh, chuckle, snort* "wings breaking off" was flipping hilarious, too!!! (Almost forgot, his attempts to discredit AAL 77's FDR, failing at every turn, but the coup de gras was the "Flight Deck Door" stupidity, and that fiasco of dis/misinformation....STILL, I believe, being shovelled faster than horse manure at the race track stables at his website...even though TOTALLY discredited!!!)

(That was the "short list" of his "accomplishments"....)


His latest, and most tenacious, though, is in THIS very thread....the "Vg Diagram".

LOL, only a light airplane pilot would be foolish enough to try and pull that one off....and he sticks to it, with such dedication....makes us feel a little pity and sadness, at the self-delusions....

....for, as I think I've mentioned, that same chart comes from the FAA's own "Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge"....a tome designed for the student pilot, mostly. I downloaded it, from the Web for free...so can you. Maybe you can self-teach??

In the 2003 version (one I found online, for free) the diagram is on Page 3-31, Figure 3-38, 'Typical Vg Diagram'
Discussion about it begins on the preceding page (3-30).

Now, here is the funny part, where Balsamo's ignorance (??) or, is it intentional deception? Or, as I said, maybe self-delusion??....shows through. SINCE, in many cases on this (and I assume his own, and other forums) he references the "Handbook", and snidely and smugly claims that HE knows more than anyone else he's talking to....by citing it, and attempting to "talk down" to the person he's conversing with.

But, the funny part? IN the section about the *Vg Diagram*, is this text, in part:


The limit airspeed (or redline speed) is a design reference
point for the airplane—the subject airplane is
limited to 225 m.p.h. If flight is attempted beyond
the limit airspeed, structural damage or structural
failure may result from a variety of phenomena.


I highlighted those words, for emphasis. He NEVER concedes this, in any of his diatribes, that I am aware of. He waves it away, and insists, incredibly, that the airplane will "break apart" at any velocity above (he used to claim Vmo/360kts, now its Vd/420kts. BTW, the "425" is a mistake in the graphing of the chart...since he LIFTED it from the "Handbook", and just altered the airspeed numbers along the bottom).

Continuing, from the text:


Thus, the airplane in flight is limited to a regime of
airspeeds and g’s which do not exceed the limit (or
redline) speed, do not exceed the limit load factor,
and cannot exceed the maximum lift capability. The
airplane must be operated within this “envelope” to
prevent structural damage and ensure that the anticipated
service lift of the airplane is obtained.


As I, and many, many others with the proper experience keep telling him, THAT part (about the service life) IS the point!!!


It continues:


.... Any maneuver, gust, or
gust plus maneuver outside the structural envelope
can cause structural damage and effectively shorten
the service life of the airplane
.



"CAN" cause structural damage. CAN. MIGHT.

It all depends not only on the amount of speed exceeded, but the DURATION of time at that excessive speed, AND any mitigating forces of Gs, whether from pilot control inputs that are excessive, or from external influences, such as turbulence (which also exert Gs).

The length of time that United 175 (or American 77, for that matter) was operating in extreme excess of the "Max Dive" speed was very short.


In the continued spamming (oh, and his claims of "100 pages??? HE WAS THE REASON!!! It was his spam that did that, the same posts, over and over and over.....even though, it was pointed out that he was wrong!!).

In those spams, the continued "citing" of some other cases:

China Airlines 006. Exceeded Vmo by a significant amount...AND experienced FIVE Gs! He points to some horizontal stabilizer damage as "proof" that United 175 should have "fallen out of the sky"...although UAL 175 NEVER achieved anywhere near FIVE Gs...at most, about 1.5 to 1.7, worst case.

AND, the China Air B-747 FLEW for over another 30 minutes, to a safe landing in San Francisco. Yes, there WAS significant structural damage, and certainly required major repairs. BUT, it did not "fail" to an uncontrolled crash.

TWA 847, the "Hoot" Gibson "high-dive"? B-727, exceeded MACH 1. Caused wing spars to bend (IIRC) and suffered other damage...yet, flew and landed safely, no deaths. AND the airplane was repaired, and returned to service!!!

I could go on, but I forget his other fine "examples"? Oh, Egypt Air 990....again, his claim of "structural failure" there is a red herring....the (Muslim) co-pilot was TRYING to crash!! He was fighting with the Captain, on the controls. I'd say, in those circumstances, of course something's going to break. Turns out, an engine separated from the airframe, just seconds before impact with the water. BUT, an airplane can fly just fine on one engine, even if it's fallen off!!! Assuming that you:

A): Don't stall it and;
B): Don't WANT TO CRASH on purpose!!!


_______________________________________________________________________

Adding: I mentioned "PPRuNe" earlier, and hadn't dropped in there for a while, so did a "google" and found a page that you should read, as it is a discussion amongst other PROFESSIONAL pilots, such as myself, that you will (I hope) find educaitonal:

www.pprune.org...

edit on 19 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
141
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join