The end of 'Terrorist Couldn't Fly Planes That Well' threads

An automatic flight control system coupled with a computer allows storage of an entire flight plan and gives automatic guidance and control of the aircraft from takeoff to landing. Included in the system are not only navigation functions but vertical flight-path control to minimize fuel consumption.

aircraft such as the 767-200 may herald the end to most hands-on flying of transport aircraft and introduce an age in which the pilot is increasingly a button-pushing systems manager.
Boeing 767 - Global Security

Doesn't it ever cross anyone's mind that the terrorst didn't have to be good at flying the planes? I spoke with a sesoned instructor from Flight Safety International who mentioned that the terrorist only needed to load a new flight plan once they gained control of the cockpit. This new flight plan could have been tested in a simulator and in a modern GPS guided plane, would easily put the aircraft on course to impact a building at full speed.

Just how accurate is this automatic flight planning system? I personally went for a ride-along in one of Flight Safety's simulators and was amazed to see how accurate the pre-loaded flight plan could be. The scenario was a landing at Denver's airport with visibility at less than 1/4 mile. As the aircraft approaced the runway, it banked, adjusted altitude, lowered it's flaps and changed engine thrust. It's a bit unnerving when the plane is controlling everything and you cant see, but then the runway appeared right in front of us. There was nothing to do but grab the yoke cut back the engine speed and watch the plane settle down on the runway.

After the flight I asked the instructor if you could program a flight path that would run you into the ground. He stated that the software that helps you set up a flight plan will give you altitude warnings, but there's no restriction on what you tell it to do. This seems to be true with most flight planning sofware.

Flight Planning for FS2002

By Maury Pratt
Senior Managing Editor, AVSIM Online
...
Mainly I like the Boeing 757s, 767s, 777s and an occasional Airbus 320. One reason is that the panels used with these planes include fully functional Flight Management Computers (FMCs)

...in real-world flying you're obliged to observe speed and altitude crossing restrictions at designated points in the DP and/or STAR; these aren't recognized by FS2002's flight planner (and hence its GPS) or its built-in ATC. One more thing: there are often 'holds' in real-world flying; you'll doubtless encounter these flying
source

The writer in this article also mentions that the flight planning software doesn't have "knowledge of underlying terrain." So it's up to you as the pilot/planner to make the altitude adjustments as needed in your flight path. There's nothing that would restrict you from flying through New York City at 450 - 500 mph except for common sense and fear of losing your flight status and job. The terrorist had none of these worries.

All the 9/11 pilots had to do was take over the plane after take-off and load a new flight path. That's the secret to piloting a 767 so accurately when you don't have the experience. Just let the plane do it for you.


[edit on 28-11-2007 by dbates]

So, if the second plane had such an accurate GPS flight path to its target, why did it make such a hard left turn before striking the South Tower? It would seem to me that the aircraft would have come straight in without such a radical course correction at the last moment if what you are saying is true.

so who loads in the new flight program?

would it be the navigator rather han the pilot or co-pilot??



now, there's a solid reason just why one 9-11 hijacked aircraft
crashed in PA....evidently the navigator got killed during the takeover
leaving at least one or the other pilot/co-pilot still alive but not knowing
how to operate that system...
and the terrorists doing the hijacking were flabbergasted as what to do...
(i don't by the Sears Tower as the target explaination,
which accounted for why the aircraft went so far away from the D.C. area)

The pilot always has over-riding control over the automatic pilot system. Besides, there's no had left turn. The pilot just had to make a minor correction at the last second. Remember, every flight he had made before this was in a simulator. The plane is flying perfectly and smoothly towards the building. He just had to bank slightly to adjust for wind shear or a small GPS coordinate error.



Automatic pilot is 100% accurate over distance, but not second-by-second accurate. Wind speed corrections are done gradually. That's why pilots can only let the plane fly to 400 ft. from the runway and then have to take manual control of the plane.

I'm sorry, but I saw the impact live on TV from a much better angle and that was a hard left turn if I have ever seen one. It was no minor course correction, and the aircraft's right wing was significantly higher than the left one on impact, indicating the jet was still in its turn when it hit the building.

So, first you say the GPS guided it all the way in with pinpoint accuracy, and now you say the hijacker had to disengage the autopilot and resume control of the jet to make a course correction in the last few seconds of flight.

I'd say you just debunked yourself.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by Icarus Rising]

If you have the cruise control in your car set at 70 mph and then step on the brake and slow down to 40, what happens when you hit resume? Does the car red-line the RPMs to 7000 to get back up to the programmed speed? No, it gradually accellerates back to 70 mph.

What happens in aircraft when a wind gust moves the plane off it's flight path? Would a 767 bank and turn like a F-16? Of course not. It makes gradual adjustments to get back on course. You wouldn't notice if you were 100 miles from your destination but if you're just 1/2 a mile from your destination you might be concerned and need to make a manual adjustment. Like I said, that's why FAA regulations require the pilots to take control of the plane at a min. of 400 ft from the runway.

The pilot doesn't have to turn off the auto pilot to take manual control of the plane. Do you have to turn off cruise control in your car to apply the break?

[edit on 28-11-2007 by dbates]

Ok answer these simple questions:

How did they get hold of the (surely it's Boeing) Boeing software and hardware in the firstplace?

How did they know how to use it i.e. who trained them in this state of the art technology? (there would be records right?)

Surley they were'nt able to steal it and if they were trained on how to use it then this would make the governments story a whole lot easier.

Sorry I just don't buy it.....disinfo....!

MR

What form does a flightplan take? A cd?

Do the AFC systems have no built in safety mechanisms that would prevent a flightplan from telling the plane to crash into buildings or to fly over restricted airspace - OR BOTH?



[edit on 28-11-2007 by paranoia]

[edit on 28-11-2007 by paranoia]

reply to post by paranoia


The only thing I hear about collision avoidance system is that it recommends you to go left and right to avoid something that you could collide with, IF you listen.

Is there any evidence that the technology was in use at the time of 911 and was the hardware and software part of the standard equipment on the aircraft involved ? Sorry for the short post. Thankyou.

They would have to load their sesired flight path into the FMS waypoint-by-waypoint. That being the case, how do you explain the completely nonsensical flightpaths all 4 planes took? The 'hijackers' knew that the longer they were in the air the greater their chances of being thwarted. Why, then, did each plane take unnecessarily long, circuitous routes to their objectives? And why bother with the much ballyhooed flight training? What could they possibly learn in a Cessna 172 that has any bearing whatsoever in your scenario?

reply to post by dbates


I'm sure the autopilot in a jumbo jet is much more complicated than the cruise control in my car.

Your last post is somewhat non-sensical to me. The fact remains that you opened by saying the hijackers only needed to load the autopilot with the correct GPS coordinates and the jet would fly itself into the target. Now you say the hijackers made a manual course correction at the last moment due to winds blowing the jet off course. The wind would have to be blowing pretty darn hard to push a jumbo jet going 500 mph off course like that. Besides wouldn't the advanced GPS and flight system on the jet have built in corrections for wind drift? I think so.....

reply to post by deltaboy


The simulator I was in just has a lady making gentle remarks in a soft, kind voice.

"Pull up, Pull Up"
"Altitude, Altitude"

You'd think that someone telling you you're about to die would sound more harsh, but that's not the case

reply to post by michial

The 767 began production in 1978 and has always included a FMS (Flight Management System) Of course newer models have FANS (Future Air Navigation System) which incoorporates GPS guidance. Here's a FAA document that's discussing Boeing's Pegasus FANS back in 1997.

Take a look around the Boeing 767 FMS controls. It's the top left item in this part of the aircraft.
meriweather.com...

reply to post by Icarus Rising


Watch the videos. The aircraft would have impacted the tower without the left bank. The pilot was just making a last second adjustment to the flight path.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
wouldn't the advanced GPS and flight system on the jet have built in corrections for wind drift? I think so.....

What? As if they could predict the future. "At 08:00 hrs the wind will shift from the North and suddenly gust to 30 mph from the East". There's no way they can know this ahead of time.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by dbates]

There is absolutely no way the second jet could have hit the South Tower without the course correction it made. You may think different, and you are entitled to your opinion, but I saw it live from a way better angle, and the jet banked hard left in its final seconds of flight.

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by paranoia

 

The only thing I hear about collision avoidance system is that it recommends you to go left and right to avoid something that you could collide with, IF you listen.

And unless I'm mistaken, it only works with the ground generally, not a specific building or so on, and the TCAS is the only other thing and that only works with another plane, which would also need a TCAS system in order to avoid disaster.

reply to post by dbates

What? As if they could predict the future. "At 08:00 hrs the wind will shift from the North and suddenly gust to 30 mph from the East". There's no way they can know this ahead of time.

Come on. You have to know that isn't what I meant. That isn't even credibly insinuated from what I said. I said wind drift. As in the wind causing the jet to drift off the designated GPS course. I am assuming, and I believe rightly, that the nav system would notice the jet was off its assigned course to its next waypoint, and the autopilot would correct for this to maintain progress to the intended destination.

Originally posted by deltaboy
The only thing I hear about collision avoidance system is that it recommends you to go left and right to avoid something that you could collide with, IF you listen.

Thats why they are trying come out with a new system that will make its own adjustments if it is about to hit something.

That way a plane cannot be flown into something.

Thanks dbates, I lost my connection for a while (darn dialup) and I drifted to another thread or more after I got back on. I'd like to know if any one out there knows what kind of air turbulence was present around the Towers and the other high rise buildings in Manhattan at that time. I can't remember where I read it but I remember reading about high rise buildings creating weather patterns in large cities especially thermal updrafts. Thankyou and I hope I didn't stray off topic.

Originally posted by dbates

Just how accurate is this automatic flight planning system? I personally went for a ride-along in one of Flight Safety's simulators and was amazed to see how accurate the pre-loaded flight plan could be. The scenario was a landing at Denver's airport with visibility at less than 1/4 mile. As the aircraft approaced the runway, it banked, adjusted altitude, lowered it's flaps and changed engine thrust. It's a bit unnerving when the plane is controlling everything and you cant see, but then the runway appeared right in front of us. There was nothing to do but grab the yoke cut back the engine speed and watch the plane settle down on the runway.

Thanks for the post dbates. Lets be sure and not confuse the approach you made while coupled to the ILS with an approach to the WTC in heading mode. They are 2 entirely different programs with different parameters.

When you are coupled for an approach on the ILS you are getting continuously both left/right and up/down commands from the signal to the autopilot.

This is not the same mode or signal you would be getting if you had programmed the Lat/Long of the WTC into the FMS. In this case it is getting its signal from GPS updates and while it always strives for perfection, the GPS signal is intentionally downgraded by the military so that it cannot be used by civilians for other than navigational purposes.

I believe that GPS accuracy is plus or minus one half of a mile. I could be wrong. If it where accurate to one quarter of a mile that would be accurate to plus or minus 1320 feet.

But in no way could a GPS signal be accurate to within 208 feet at 500 mph which is the maxium width of the WTC. And if an automatic pilot was coupled to a GPS updated coordinate in no way would it be able to hit the WTC as the airplane was traveling at allegedly 430 kts about 70 knots above Vmo and even if the autopilot was operating properly which I doubt it would at that speed it would be operating at minimum rates of very shallow banks.

The theory that the alleged highjackers used an autopilot coupled to an FMS to fly the profile of the alleged World Trade Center crashes on 911 is, in my professional opinion, ridiculous.

If there were actually airplanes that crashed into the WTC on 911, which I don't believe there were and if they alleged planes had hijackers flying them believe me the very last thing they would be doing is depending on an autopilot coupled to an FMS depending on GPS for accuracy to hit a 208 wide target dead center.

That theory is not only ridiculous, it is without substance or fact and probably made by someone who has never qualified in an airplane that used FMS.

Thanks for the post and the information. :

I am uninformed and don't know where to look so I'll ask another question or more. Does the equipment in question (or did the equipment) have tamper resistance built in? In other words does the user have to present some sort of key or code to input data? If he or she does, is that code given to them specifically as flight crew before the flight or on take off? Can any in the cockpit acces the equipment and if knowing the procedure, use the equipment? If so why not a finger print recognition lock out to prevent tampering or the use of the equipment during a high jacking? I might sound naive but I'm just uninformed and I still don't believe it could have been done the way the official information says it was. Thankyou_javascript:icon('')
_javascript:icon('')