The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
reply to post by OrionStars

 

They made it up to prove their point. It proves you wrong, cant you see that?

Thanks, Jeff. Seems they never learn if they have to make it up as they go along, there can be no truth. So much for all those "facts" they keep touting while they make it up as they go along.

If some commercial jetliner is flying 500 mph at near to ground level, I want to be at least a mile away and watching it through a telescope or pair of binoculars.

reply to post by OrionStars


If those planes were flying that fast I think there would be a lot more wind blowing as it passed

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Capt Lear,

Welcome back. You swore an affidavit in New York? Did you drive, or fly? 'cause, I read somewhere here on ATS that you don't fly anymore, you drive everywhere.

I do not fly anymore for any reason. Everything is done by fax or web these days. I got the affidavit notarized at my attorneys office here in Las Vegas and faxed a copy to New York and then mailed the original.

But that's not why I chimed in...I was wishing to comment about your use of 'mph' in your post. You know as well as I that we speak in knots, nowadays.

NIST used mph so we put everything is knots (kts) miles per hour (mph and Mach (M) in all court documents.

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
If those planes were flying that fast I think there would be a lot more wind blowing as it passed

Where do you think the wind would come from? The aircraft slipping through the air or the engines, or both?

The Google video, showing various airliners making low passes...not sure what speed they were flying, probably under 250K.

Point is, it shows that, indeed, the airplanes can fly near to the ground.

NOW, two that hit the WTC Towers were not close to the ground. One hit the Pentagon...I know a person who SAW the airplane fly by his balcony that morning...he lived on Columbia Pike...all that had to happen was at the last minute, aim down to impact the Pentagon. Doesn't follow that the airplane needed to be flown at 20 feet off the ground for three miles!!

I went to the funeral for the FO of AA77. So I take this concept very seriously...(BTW, his name is David Charlesbois). He was excited because his seniority was such that he was going to be an MD-80 Captain very soon....

The original topic of this thread is ...'The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training'...

Well, that headline alone is deceptive. The use of the term 'Heavy' detracts from the premise.

The B757 and B767 share a common type rating, meaning, when you pass the checkride and get 'typed' on one, you are typed on both. Of course, there are 'differences' training requirements, depending on the Ops Specs of the Company that is operating the airplanes.

SO...a B757 is not a 'Heavy'...unless it's a B757-300. See, 'Heavy' is a term for ATC to denote an airplane capable of a GTOW of over 250,000 pounds. This is something discovered when the B747 was developed...it related to the wake of the airplane. Turns out, even a B757-200, though not classed as 'Heavy', produces a wake strong enough that requires ATC to provide, in the Terminal Area, separation standards AS IF it were a 'Heavy'.

Now, I've given a little bit of data, but back to the point...the B757 and B767 'feel' the same, when you fly them. They are designed that way. In fact, anyone who knows a little bit about flying would, with only a few hours of acclimation, feel comfortable flying a jetliner.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The Google video, showing various airliners making low passes...not sure what speed they were flying, probably under 250K.

Point is, it shows that, indeed, the airplanes can fly near to the ground.

I do not believe anyone is arguing the obvious. Planes always have to fly close to the ground when they take-off and land.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The Google video, showing various airliners making low passes...not sure what speed they were flying, probably under 250K.

Point is, it shows that, indeed, the airplanes can fly near to the ground.

There was a thread about this very subject here a few months ago, and it included a video also.

The captain, a New Zealand air force officer stated that the video is him doing 350kts (420mph) at sea level, close to the ground.

reply to post by Richard Gizinu


420mph and he was an airfoce officer....not some incompetent terrorist

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
reply to post by Richard Gizinu

 

420mph and he was an airfoce officer....not some incompetent terrorist

You could be making a grave error there if you assume a terrorist to be incompetent. Especially if the terrorist is at the controls of an aircraft he's been trained to fly.

reply to post by Pilgrum


I am pretty sure that incompetent was used by the teachers of all the guys that flew on 9-11. I do however understand the threat of a competent terrorist pilot.

I realize there are reports of the hijackers being "incompetent" but if you read about it it is not really refering to their flying skills, but to their communication and attitude.

Hani Hanjour had his FAA commercial pilots licence, had flown many solo flights in very busy areas.

Al-shehhi passed his commercial, multi engined small craft exam.. He passed at about the mean score of 83% This indicates he was a "average" pilot.

Atta passed the same exam as Al-shehhi but with better scores which indicates he was an "above average" pilot.

Their communication skills were such that they needed much improvement.

Jahhrad was the least experienced but had still made solo flights across Florida in the Bahamas in a smaller beechraft. He also has a pilots licence.

Link-- www.debunk911myths.org...

You might ask yourself: "Why to the promotors of these conspiracies usually downplay or refuse to acknowedge this information?" "Is that honest?"

No one has yet explained how people, with little to no English comprehension skills, can learn anything taught in oral and written English. They simply keep dancing that pertinent issue.

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
reply to post by Richard Gizinu

 

420mph and he was an airfoce officer....not some incompetent terrorist

So at least you agree that it's not impossible for a passenger jet to go that fast, that close to the ground.

That's the first step towards enlightment. Congratulations.

reply to post by OrionStars


Sorry, Orion...they could speak and read English.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Sorry, Orion...they could speak and read English.

And you know that for certain exactly how?

reply to post by OrionStars


Did you hear the tapes from ATC? Couple of times, the Saudis thought they were on the PA, but instead were transmitting on VHF Comm 1.

You see, there is a microphone at each pilot's seat, plus another at the jumpseat. The interphone is a telephone looking handset, mounted on the center console, aft.

Pilots normally wear a headset, with a boom mic, and use the PTT switch on the control wheel to transmit. The hand mic is there, as well...the Saudis must have thought the hand mic was for the PA...

You use the audio selector panel to choose which device to transmit on...VHF 1, VHF 2, HF 1, HF 2 etc...

Flying the airplane is relatively easy...using the bits, in the cockpit...that is more complicated. They knew, at least, how to disconnect the autopilot (a button on the control wheel...push once for disconnect, puch again to silence the alarm...)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Did you hear the tapes from ATC? Couple of times, the Saudis thought they were on the PA, but instead were transmitting on VHF Comm 1.

How do you know for certain they were not faked? Are you taking that on faith alone? Or do you have some way being certain the rest of us do not?

reply to post by OrionStars


Sorry, the argument works both ways...how do you know the tapes WERE faked? That is your assertion, n'est pas?

It comes back to Occam's Razor...the simplest explanation is most likely the truth.

Either 9 September 2001 went off as advertised, or it was the most incredible, well-orchestrated mass deception ever pulled off...and NONE of the participants in the 'hoax' have yet to come forward to 'spill the beans'?

There would be big money in this story, if true, for someone willing to tell all.....

Originally posted by OrionStars
No one has yet explained how people, with little to no English comprehension skills, can learn anything taught in oral and written English. They simply keep dancing that pertinent issue.

No, it is just a half-baked question, sorry.

Tu piensas yo no puedo communicarme en espanol? e mi esposa no puedo habla, o leo ingles?

Obviously you have never been in a relationship with a person who is just beginning to learn english. You would be blown away at how wrong you are.

reply to post by Taxi-Driver


Golly, Taxi-Driver, my Spanish skills are worse than my English skills, yet I could almost understand what you wrote there!

Your spouse is learning English as a second language ( I filled in the context, but I get the meaning ).

First part of the sentence had to do with comprehension? Am I close?

Nice to see your post, Mr. Driver.