It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
He may not have been a great pilot, but he wasn't a noob.
[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]
he was enlisted because of his extensive piloting background. He had more hours than people more advanced than him.
And he had several pilots lisc which aren't just given out to anyone
they require being able to pass flight tests to determine that one is capable, and that included a commercial lisc.
I think calling him a noob, is being very dishonest. And I don't blame that on you, but I blame it on many of these conspiracy sites that use such misleading language. That is simply bad journalism. Journalism should be presenting the facts, not trying to con people into a pre-determined opinion.
So the theory is basically based on selective adjectives and opinion on what is or isn't difficult.
he also had over 600 hours of flying time. More than many people getting a lisc. And a big reason he wasn't called a good pilot was his lack of desire to learn landing. A skill not needed to fly a plane into the biggest target in a city.
So is it your belief that he acquired his private pilot license, complex rating, multiengine rating, and commercial license without ever having to solo any aircraft and land it by himself?
I'm sure these guys spent alot of time using a flight simulator.
The mission could have been accomplished by a person who had never flown a real plane.
Any fool with some practice time in a simulator and some basic aviation knowledge can fly a real plane on a clear day. I did.
Confusion aside, I can tackle a few of the more commonly heard myths that pertain to the airplanes and their pilots, point by point.
The terrorist pilots lacked the skill and training to fly jetliners into their targets.
This is an extremely popular topic with respect to American 77. Skyjacker Hani Hanjour, a notoriously untalented flier who never piloted anything larger than a four-seater, seemed to pull off a remarkable series of aerobatic maneuvers before slamming into the Pentagon. The pilots of American 11 and United 175 also had spotty records. They should have had great difficulty navigating to New York City, and even greater difficulty hitting the twin towers squarely. To bolster their belief that the 19 skyjackers were Oswaldian pawns, the conspiracy-mongers invoke impressive-sounding jargon and fluffery about high-tech cockpits, occasionally trundling out testimony from pilots.
Reality: 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.
Originally posted by johnlear
I would not characterize you as a fool as you have done
The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. [Editor's note: Destruction of the light poles near the Pentagon by Flight 77 was stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.] Essentially it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon. ... Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former combat fighter pilot. Aerospace engineer. Currently Captain at a major airline.
The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ... Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired Naval aviator (Grumman E-1 and E-2). Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot (Boeing 707 and 727).
At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired fighter pilot. Former Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). 20-year Navy career.
"The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."… Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot.
Originally posted by dbates
No doubt the person flying the plane in to the Pentagon flew the same path several 100 times in a simulator.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You made that up.
this would have been impossible for a military drone to pull off let alone an inexperienced terrorist pilot.