Learning to Fly a Commerical Aircraft from Simulators

Gee, Im sorry I did not realize that responding to a post on this thread about whether or not a 757 crashed and what would have happened to its passengers wouldnt fit.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Gee, Im sorry I did not realize that responding to a post on this thread about whether or not a 757 crashed and what would have happened to its passengers wouldnt fit.

I think you need to reread the topic titile..here let me show you..

"Learning to Fly a Commerical Aircraft from Simulators"

Back on topic...

So is wing in ground effect realisticly simulated on Microsoft Flight Simulator? Anyone know? I have about 10000 hours on MFS, because I have baught every release since the original release, and don't remember anything of that sort. I was actually able to land a 747 at Meigs Field lol.

From earlier posts on this thread.....

The short explanation...To line up with the missile that was fired somewhere close and that he trajectory of both the plane and the missile add up..... Now the chilling question is, where are those people and the plane?

Oh i am sure they were killed, they wee identified. Which brings up the question if they were on the plane when it crashed and the fire wass hot enough to destroy the plane it would have also destroyed the bodies and the DNA evidence

So, i'm wondering, how come I am the only one that gets the "please stick to the subject line".

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
So, i'm wondering, how come I am the only one that gets the "please stick to the subject line".

Because you are going further off subject that anyone else.


--back on subject--

What are all the avalible flight simulators that a normal joe can get their hands on?

It looks like microsoft fs reproduces "ground effect", however it may not be very accurate. Here is from a file to upgrade the C-172 to get "more ground effect":

This zip file contains the Microsoft's .air file for the Cessna 172SP tuned by Pedro Oliveira. Now there is more "ground effect" and a more realistic and fluid roll behaviour.

www.planesimulation.com...

Originally posted by NoobieDoobieDo
I don't think this is the case.

If they learned to fly on simulators then why did their flight instructors say they were such terrible pilots ?

Every description of these guys as pilots is total incompetence.

Well Moussoui was a terrible pilot, he was kicked out of a flight school in oklahoma, because he was just really bad, and was an ass to people, especially female flight instructors.

Flight schools and instructures use FAA standards, often that for a private pilot test is within 10 knots and 100 ft during a checkride or flight check of some kind. Also being able to take off and land safely is tested.

Having the ability to hit an airplane is not tested on, so its not part of the practical test standards. If you were in flight, and steering it into a huge building, IS NOT HARD. Anyone on this board, could get into a sim, or the real plane and fly it into something. The bigger the plane is, the easier it flies.

Flying a plane into a building is far different than takeoff/landing an aircraft according to the precision from test standards.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by firepilot]

firepilot, you say one of the hijackers went to school in Oklahoma? I've heard this before once, (someone said they were at the same flight school as me) but never seen or heard this again.

Wow! John Thanks for your input this really set many things straight in my mind. Especially someone with your years of experience, in fact you have more years in the air than many of the peoples ages here.

Regards,

RT

Originally posted by johnlear
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?????

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Which brings up the question if they were on the plane when it crashed and the fire wass hot enough to destroy the plane it would have also destroyed the bodies and the DNA evidence.

I see we are back on the "there was no wreckage" kick again. There was plenty of wreckage from Flight 77, and plenty of bodies. Out of all the people on board the plane and in that part of the Pentagon, only FIVE sets of remains did not leave enough "biological" material for a DNA sample.

www.cstl.nist.gov...

Of course, since it is a "government" site the CT'ers wont believe this..

Funny this post which makes you really really look bad.
You are trying to debunk one last sentence but can you debunk the other part of the thread of Mr Lear?
PLease you make yourself look bad

For the most part, Mr. Lear tends to ignore my postings.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
For the most part, Mr. Lear tends to ignore my postings.

Why bother with a pro derailer?

Originally posted by kix

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
For the most part, Mr. Lear tends to ignore my postings.

Why bother with a pro derailer?

Yeah LOL...

Actually I think most people ignore your postings...
It's just a very slow day for me...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

I see we are back on the "there was no wreckage" kick again. There was plenty of wreckage from Flight 77, and plenty of bodies. Out of all the people on board the plane and in that part of the Pentagon, only FIVE sets of remains did not leave enough "biological" material for a DNA sample.

Please show me the FBI and NTSB reports that match the parts found at the Pentagon to flight 77.

As stated NIST DNA experts had to come up with new testing for 911. The testing was not ready untill 2002.

www.nist.gov...

Dr. John Butler is a research chemist within the Biotechnology Division at NIST. He has written Forensic DNA Typing: Biology and Technology behind STR Markers (Academic Press, 2001), which received high honors from the British Medical Association Book Competition in November 2001 and is now the leading textbook in the field. President George W. Bush recognized Dr. Butler in July 2002 as one of 60 young scientists to receive the prestigious Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE). Dr. Butler leads the forensics/human identity testing project team at NIST and has been involved in the field for the past ten years developing new methods and technologies for forensic DNA typing.

Due to the nature of the World Trade Center disaster, it quickly became evident that traditional methods for performing DNA typing were not likely to be fully successful in identifying all of the recovered remains. Traditional DNA ID methods depend on the presence of long, intact segments of DNA in order to accurately type the sample. The DNA in many of the samples recovered in this situation were so fragmented that these standard methods were ineffective.

In early November 2001, Dr. Robert Shaler, the director of the WTC DNA identification effort, contacted me and asked if I would be willing to develop some new DNA tests to help in the identification effort. I agreed to fast track our research efforts over the next several months and produce some test materials for his laboratory to try by January 2002.

[edit on 17-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


www.nist.gov...

Dr. John Butler is a research chemist within the Biotechnology Division at NIST. He has written Forensic DNA Typing: Biology and Technology behind STR Markers (Academic Press, 2001), which received high honors from the British Medical Association Book Competition in November 2001 and is now the leading textbook in the field. President George W. Bush recognized Dr. Butler in July 2002 as one of 60 young scientists to receive the prestigious Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE). Dr. Butler leads the forensics/human identity testing project team at NIST and has been involved in the field for the past ten years developing new methods and technologies for forensic DNA typing.

Due to the nature of the World Trade Center disaster, it quickly became evident that traditional methods for performing DNA typing were not likely to be fully successful in identifying all of the recovered remains. Traditional DNA ID methods depend on the presence of long, intact segments of DNA in order to accurately type the sample. The DNA in many of the samples recovered in this situation were so fragmented that these standard methods were ineffective.

In early November 2001, Dr. Robert Shaler, the director of the WTC DNA identification effort, contacted me and asked if I would be willing to develop some new DNA tests to help in the identification effort. I agreed to fast track our research efforts over the next several months and produce some test materials for his laboratory to try by January 2002.

BUSH: Hey, Dr. John Butler, if I give you a Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), would you lie about the DNA results?

BUTLER: Sure!

[edit on 18-3-2007 by Connected]

Please show me the FBI and NTSB reports that match the parts found at the Pentagon to flight 77.

Not released yet. Next point?

As stated NIST DNA experts had to come up with new testing for 911. The testing was not ready untill 2002.

And as the report you posted states, it was for the human remains at the WTC, NOT the Pentagon. Please stick to the thread.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

And as the report you posted states, it was for the human remains at the WTC, NOT the Pentagon. Please stick to the thread.

You don't do your homework do you. 5 people from the Pentagon crash were not able to be identified, because of the explosions and fire.

www.arlingtoncemetery.net...

Weird how fire and explosion only damaged 5 peoples DNA, dont you think?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Not released yet. Next point?


And as the report you posted states, it was for the human remains at the WTC, NOT the Pentagon. Please stick to the thread.

1. Why havn't they been released yet, its been 6 years ? I can find FBI and NTSB reports on any other aviation crime scene but nothing on any of the crime scenes on 911.

2. Well maybe because heat destroys DNA, if its at WTC or the Pentagon the DNA will still be destroyed from heat and they will need the new test at the Pentagon too.

Originally posted by PisTonZOR

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.

I'm fairly sure the 757 can be fitted with "remote control" systems. I think the government (or someone?) tested it and did several successful take offs and landings - it did very well. If it wasn't a 757 it was some other type of big passenger jet.

Originally posted by NoobieDoobieDo

I'm fairly sure the 757 can be fitted with "remote control" systems. I think the government (or someone?) tested it and did several successful take offs and landings - it did very well. If it wasn't a 757 it was some other type of big passenger jet.

It was a Boeing 720. They were using it to test a new kind of fuel that wouldn't explode. On Dec 1, 1984, the NASA pilot (Fitzhugh Fulton) flew the Boeing 720 from takeoff at Edwards AFB to an intentional crash landing 9 minutes later. The airplane was supposed to land straight ahead with posts shearing off both wings. The airplane was slightly right of course at 150 feet and Fitz tried to correct but ended up going through the posts in a yaw. The plane exploded and it was an embarrassing and expensive failure both in terms of equipment and technology. NASA tried to put a spin on the crash by saying something to the effect, "We obtained a lot of valuable data."

In the last 23 years the technology of remote control has increased exponentially where spy ships (like Predator) can take off, cruise for a day, and land half way around the world being controlled from a cockpit in the command center at Creech AFB, Indian Springs, NV.

Creech AFB may have been where the 2 767's that hit the WTC were controlled from.

Talk about stirring the pot!

I never really thought of remote controlled until reading all the info here, but with all the technology we possess these days it is very possible.


Good info thanks.

Originally posted by johnlear

In the last 23 years the technology of remote control has increased exponentially where spy ships (like Predator) can take off, cruise for a day, and land half way around the world being controlled from a cockpit in the command center at Creech AFB, Indian Springs, NV.

Creech AFB may have been where the 2 767's that hit the WTC were controlled from.