Learning to Fly a Commerical Aircraft from Simulators

I do not need to look it up,, thier is plenty of other evidence against them.

Appearantly you do, their skills improved by their continued training.

Please tell me how the hijackers surprised flight 93 pilots when thy were told to secure cockpit door and about the other hijackings ?

And you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Flight 93 crew actually received the warning?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Flight 93 crew actually received the warning?

Maybe you need to do some research.

www.globalsecurity.org...

At 9:21 United dispatchers are told to advise their flights to secure cockpit doors;

At 9:24 a United dispatcher sends a “Beware of cockpit intrusion . . . Two aircraft in NY hit Trade Center Builds” message to Flight 93. Flight 93 responds to this message at 9:26 , requesting that the dispatcher confirm the latest message.

I dont know how people can deny that there is a cover up of some sort. These attackes were not coordinated by Al-Qaeda and 'KSM' alone.

At 9:24 a United dispatcher sends a “Beware of cockpit intrusion . . . Two aircraft in NY hit Trade Center Builds” message to Flight 93. Flight 93 responds to this message at 9:26 , requesting that the dispatcher confirm the latest message.

And you know that it was Jason Dahl who responded to that message? I have yet to see a report from the FBI or the NTSB that verifies this. I mean it could have been Hani Hanjour or even Karl Rove from his office at the White House.........

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

And you know that it was Jason Dahl who responded to that message? I have yet to see a report from the FBI or the NTSB that verifies this. I mean it could have been Hani Hanjour or even Karl Rove from his office at the White House.........

Because the message came over the airlines internal system. The hijackers would have had to known how to operate and respond.

I have not seen any FBI or NTSB reports on any of the 911 hijackings or crime scenes.

Because the message came over the airlines internal system. The hijackers would have had to known how to operate and respond.

Yep, its really hard to type a message and hit send.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Because the message came over the airlines internal system. The hijackers would have had to known how to operate and respond.

Yep, its really hard to type a message and hit send.

Yes, if you need to type in the proper response..

The thing that worries me is the jets them self. Commercial jets have computers built into their flight systems that don't allow the pilot to pull high G maneuvers, either because they will damage the plane, or they will harm the passengers. These computers should have kept one of the jets from hitting the tower, because of the turns it made before impact. There is no way to disable this computer.

So how did it happen?

Originally posted by Connected
The thing that worries me is the jets them self. Commercial jets have computers built into their flight systems that don't allow the pilot to pull high G maneuvers, either because they will damage the plane, or they will harm the passengers. These computers should have kept one of the jets from hitting the tower, because of the turns it made before impact. There is no way to disable this computer.

So how did it happen?

Don't forget the speed and manouvers that flight 77 was doing before it was supposed to hit the Pentagon. Some air traffic controllers thougt it was a military aircraft.

On the flip side, could they not think that it was a military craft because it was flying so tightly and recklassly that they thought it must've been a jet fighter, since no sane pilot would be flying a jetliner like that?

Originally posted by WolfofWar
On the flip side, could they not think that it was a military craft because it was flying so tightly and recklassly that they thought it must've been a jet fighter, since no sane pilot would be flying a jetliner like that?

That is why they though it was a military craft, because of the way it was flying.. You can't do those maneuvers in a commercial jet, because of the built in computer that disallows high G maneuvers.

Its not that "no sane pilot would be flying a jetliner like that", is "no sane pilot CAN fly a jetliner like that".

I have 17 years experience in diverse simulator and twice I have been to a Md80 and 737 pro simulators.... Its a very diferent thing to fly in front of a computer to a "real" simulator" and to a REAL airplane.

For starters the speed at wich the "alleged" 757 chrased the pentagon was over MAX speed for the altitude, th eplane wuld have lost slats and some parts when flying that fast so low. PERIOD
Second to handle a 120 ton 767 full of fuel at 400 mph make turns and hit a building is a feat for an experienced pilot let alone a "terrorist" with experience in small planes.
Third, the transponder was inperative on the highjacked planes wich is in itself a BIG RED FLAG, do we have to believe that 4 planes had the same occurrence that day and nobody thought of highjacks? or terrorist till it was WAY TOO LATE?
To fly that fast and keep it level and not loosing control you need to adjust the trim manually.... thats a tricky part... way too little and you wont be able to manuver fast, too much and you will loose the rudder.
and then on top of that the super terrorist pilot had to deactivate the terrain warning system, the AIRCRAFT PROXIMITY ANTI COLLISION WARNING RECEIVER, and then deactivate the max V warnings, and keep the sirens off while aiming a 767 at over 350 mph towards a building.

If it was so easy to fly, pilot would be paid like truck drivers....

I was interested in this article untill I read the line

"Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let's ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade."
www.mindfully.org...

Is that suppose to be serious? Just because the pilot was an ex-fighter pilot his first instinct is to flip a 757 commerical airliner MUCH bigger than a fighter jet on its back to avoid the hi-jacking. What kind of reasoning is this? you kidding me? If the author of the article believes that, I find it hard to believe his other arguments.

Originally posted by DoomX
Is that suppose to be serious? Just because the pilot was an ex-fighter pilot his first instinct is to flip a 757 commerical airliner MUCH bigger than a fighter jet on its back to avoid the hi-jacking. What kind of reasoning is this? you kidding me? If the author of the article believes that, I find it hard to believe his other arguments.

I think the author was exaggerating to make a point...In other words he wouldn't have given up command of his plane so easily.

You can learn how to fly, in a broad sense, through simulators, but the real thing is always a different feel and experience.

If I find something odd, it's not so much the criticism of whether they knew or not knew how to fly a plane but instead of going straight for the Pentagon, the 757 had to take such a huge bank and miraculously make it to the Pentagon.

So my Beef:

Why have to bank and not just go straight for it?

How did they manage to make such a percise hit after such a bank?

So I guess it does slightly take in account whether they could fly or not but being that the plane banked, makes it suspicious, I still feel a 757 hit the Pentagon, whether it was piloted by the terrorists or a remote control is a different story.

Let me start saying I do not know if 9/11 was real. However, I HATE BS 'evidence', so I'll do my best to get rid of it.

Originally posted by Connected
The thing that worries me is the jets them self. Commercial jets have computers built into their flight systems that don't allow the pilot to pull high G maneuvers, either because they will damage the plane, or they will harm the passengers. These computers should have kept one of the jets from hitting the tower, because of the turns it made before impact. There is no way to disable this computer.

So how did it happen?

Uhm. Only Airbus aircraft have computers which stop the pilot from doing high 'G maneuvers. These computers have nothing to do with stopping the plane from hitting the ground, and will not turn the plane so it dosn't flying into a object.

Don't forget the speed and manouvers that flight 77 was doing before it was supposed to hit the Pentagon.

LOL! The flight profile the plane flew was not hard to fly, and the plane did not go any faster than a normal commercial jet goes. However, once they lined the plane up they firewalled the throttles.

That is why they though it was a military craft, because of the way it was flying.. You can't do those maneuvers in a commercial jet, because of the built in computer that disallows high G maneuvers.

Two things:
A: It wasn't flying a high 'G turn.
B: The 757 is no Fly-By-Wire so the Pilot is in control.

Why say things you know nothing about?

For starters the speed at wich the "alleged" 757 chrased the pentagon was over MAX speed for the altitude, th eplane wuld have lost slats and some parts when flying that fast so low. PERIOD

Actually most of the flying by the terrorists was at or bellow 300 knots. They only firewalled the throttles when they lined up. I also heavily DOUBT the slats would of flown of at impact speeds. It may be over 400 knots, but they tested the 747 at .98 of the speed of sound, and a attempted hijacked Dc-10 almost broke the sound barrier when in a dive.

Second to handle a 120 ton 767 full of fuel at 400 mph make turns and hit a building is a feat for an experienced pilot let alone a "terrorist" with experience in small planes.

Forget procedures, how is it diferant from flying a Cessna?

and then on top of that the super terrorist pilot had to deactivate the terrain warning system, the AIRCRAFT PROXIMITY ANTI COLLISION WARNING RECEIVER, and then deactivate the max V warnings, and keep the sirens off while aiming a 767 at over 350 mph towards a building.

[sarcasm]WOW THAT IS SO HARD!!!!111[/sarcasm]

How did they manage to make such a percise hit after such a bank?

How could you not?
First, the Pentagon is right next to an airport

In the MFD on the 757, it can show you nearby airports and also a 'thing' which tells you how far you will turn at the present turn rate. Quiet simple really.

It also tells you how many miles you will go when you hit the altitude on the MCP.

That's it. Albeit bad taste, I am going to recreate Flight 77 in FLIGHT SIMULATOR, only this time, I am going to do it in zero visibility with an addon which accurately recreates systems in Boeing aircraft.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by PisTonZOR]

[edit on 17-3-2007 by PisTonZOR]

Yep you can learn stuff from Simulation, its cheaper than crashing the real thing, thats why organisations do it.

Does anyone remember the black and white footage of Japanese pilots learning to fly sitting on chair on a beach, with bits of wood for flying controls and if he was lucky a colleague holding up a picture of a horizon to simulate pitch, attitude etc. They did not have enough aircraft to waste at one stage and with things like the Okha suicide plane how do you dry run that with a novice? The West laughed at the inferior Japs and their quote "squint eyes" and silly training. Now I know not all pilots were trained that way, but the very least you get from this practice is coordination and aptitude.

Like has been said the real dangerous bit is taking off and landing, these guys did not need to know that.

As I see it in the air the majority of crashes must be due to mechanical failure or deliberate human intervention...a bomb for example.

The air / ground interface is more dangerous because of the stresses of acceleration / deceleration, the forces on the landing gear and the fact that the most failable part of the process..the human...has very little time to correct errors.

Regarding the hijackers navigation, who knows how long they had to navigate for? The pilots probably believed it to be just a highjacking "Fly me to New York, Infidel!" How would you respond?

Anyhow like all of these games do enough sim time and you could pull it off I reckon. I think the 911 cult guys should put up the money for an experiement and prove that it is not possible.

Christ, simulation is everywhere. The military have simulators for downing aircraft and shelling villages. Maybe thats why there is so much blue on blue, they are trained on simulators and the mindset is that there are no real world consequences

As I see it many organisations simulate stuff prior ro the real thing. It is cost effective and efficient. If it wasn't they would not do it.

I think it a bit arrogant and presumptious to think that an Arab man would not be intelligent enough to pull it off. I sometimes think that is the real issue with the CTers. Racism.

twopenneth over............

Originally posted by bash the bishop
I sometimes think that is the real issue with the CTers. Racism.

OMG! What are we going to be accused of next?

I guess it's my racism that caused the buildings to defy physics, huh?



Simulators are NOT a replacement for the real thing, they are used to familiarise pilots with the controls and basic handling. It's not even close to flying a real plane. Do you think driving a computer sim like NASCAR or GT for example, is anything like driving a real race car?

Microsoft Flight sim, the only sim they could have had access to, is not even close to real flying. For one the joystick you use is nothing like a real flight stick or yoke. You don't get the feel of the plane from a joystick sitting on a table. The stick pull and feel is nothing like a real plane. You don't get the feel of how a plane handles from looking at a 2-d flat computer monitor.

I have been flying a sim called IL2 for yrs now, as well a MFS, and there is no way I could jump in a real plane and expect to be able to fly it into a target. People don't seem to realise how hard it is to find that target to begin with. During early WWII only about 5% of bombs from B-17's etc landed within 5 miles of their target, because at altitude it's almost impossible to see ground object clearly. Flight paths were set to follow shore lines because they are relatively easy to see. Yet the flight paths of the planes show no sign of getting lost and having to circle around trying to figure out where they were?

The pilots place of birth has nothing to do with it.

Do you think driving a computer sim like NASCAR or GT for example, is anything like driving a real race car?

If that game is GTR 2, then yes.

I have been flying a sim called IL2 for yrs now, as well a MFS, and there is no way I could jump in a real plane and expect to be able to fly it into a target.

What if the plane is already flying, and all you need to do is press a couple of buttons to find out where your 'target' is?

Yet the flight paths of the planes show no sign of getting lost and having to circle around trying to figure out where they were?

That's because they can't get lost.

I read the Flight 77 FDR for the first time a few days ago. Other than the fact that there is not the slightest indication throughout the flight that any hijacker disabled the pilots, dragged them out of their seats and then sat down and began to fly the airplane all I want is for someone to tell me who reset the altimeters to field barometric at exactly FL180.

Then I want to know where the pilot or pilots obtained field barometric. They weren't talking to ATC, right? Do you want me to believe they tuned in an AWOS? And if that is so how did they get the current altimeter setting for the Pentagon 30.24 and not the one that was an hour old 30.22?

And then after you tell me where they got the field barometric pressure tell me why 30.24 is set on both altimeters. There is only one pilot right? Hani Hanjour? Who set the copilots altimeter within one second of the pilots altimeter. Do you mean to tell me Hani asked the dead copilot to reset his altimeter or did he reach over and set himself. And if he reached over and set himself as is displayed on the FDR how did he do this in 1 second from the left seat.

And then after you tell me that please tell me how Hani remembered to reset the altimter at EXACTLY FL180. I flew for 40 years and I couldn't always remember to get it set at EXACTLY FL180. So that means he had to get the local barometric at the Pentagon (probably used Reagan) well before descending through FL180). Wow! This is one well prepared and smart pilot except for.........WHY?

He's going to crash the airplane! Why is he resetting local field barometric pressure?????