The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Xtrozero used a C-17 simulator in an example, pointing out that ALL of the initial flight training can be conducted in the sim because of the realism.

Well, same is true for 757/767/777 simulators around the world. Certain ones are approved by the FAA as what's called 'Landing Certified' simulators that are realistic enough, along with the visuals, that one can transition into the airplane with a Computer Based Training syllabus as 'ground school', then sessions in a CPT, or cockpit procedures trainer...a simulated cockpit with all the bells and whistles, but no motion or visual...to, ultimately, about 30-35 hours in a full-motion Sim. Everything state of the art realistic. Push back from the gate, salute the tug driver, taxi to the runway...etc. It is 'Landing Certified' because you can take your type-rating checkride in the Sim, get blessed, and next you will fly a live flight, with passengers, along with an Instructor Pilot for what is called IOE, or, Initial Operating Experience. You do that for 25 hours at minimum. NOW, you are free to fly on the line! You will have higher IFR approach minima restrictions until you fly for another 100 hours...

An airplane wing is not a bird wing. Therefore, exact comparisons to birds and airplanes, in aerodynamics, will be in error. When Daniel Bernoulli
(1700 - 1782) discovered his principle, there were no airplanes.

Various people, throughout history and without complete understanding in the physics of aerodynamics, have been interpreting and misapplying his principle in theoretical physics, particularly in the principles of aerodynamics of airplanes. That normally applied/applies to laypersons, plus, students unable to complete their education in physics, for lack of effectively understanding theoretical physics and quantum mechanics.

reply to post by Xtrozero


This is also true.
The US military in the 1990's turned off the the GPS dithering.
The dithering is used to make civilian GPS accurate to about 1 to 2 miles.
With the dithering off you can get location accuracy of inches or less depending
on the type of GPS that you have.

reply to post by weedwhacker


What is all the emphasis on simulators? Simulators have never proved people could effectively master actual planes using only flight simulators, and no human instructors in planes. Flight simulators can teach procedures, but they do not effectively prepare people for nature, in every case nature decides how nature will react at any given moment in time. That is a fact.

Originally posted by OrionStars
An airplane wing is not a bird wing. Therefore, exact comparisons to birds and airplanes, in aerodynamics, will be in error. When Daniel Bernoulli
(1700 - 1782) discovered his principle, there were no airplanes.

So the air going over a foil with the curve on the top doesn't produce a low pressure on top due to the air traveling faster because of the greater distance that the curve creates that then causes the higher pressure of the slower moving air underneath the wing to push up, creating the lift needed to fly?

reply to post by Xtrozero


True, Xtro, we can put in Lat/Long in the FMS...but it must be in a specific format. It was far easier for them to use La Guardia as a waypoint, then just look out the windows and aim, if you're talking about New York.

What's more, I had ead somewhere that the VOR tuning panel recovered from UA93 showed it was tuned to the DCA VOR. The EHSI has several display modes, one I mentioned is called 'Heading Up'. A simple knob can be turned to select 'Expanded HSI' or 'Full HSI' or 'Map' mode...map mode wouldn't do them any good, but since they at least had Commercial Pilot's licenses they would know how to navigate in 'HSI' mode. Really, a VOR is a VOR, it's just learning where the tuning knob is. Like, in different cars, where is the headlight switch, or the wipers, or the radio volume...

reply to post by OrionStars


Orion!! Did you or did you not read my post? Scroll up and read again.

In any case, four of these guys had at least a Commercial license...the MINIMUM requirement for a Commercial license is 250 hours. These suckers were barely able to pass, but pass they did. (Hate to say it, but there are probably still some 'Santa Clauses' out there in the General Aviation world, Designees who will sign off a guy, even if they're marginal.

BTW, to get a Commercial license, you have to have a Instrument Rating also. Ring any bells?

reply to post by OrionStars


Like the fact that airplanes, particularly airliners, cannot crash at an angle perpendicular to the ground, as you have stated in the past?

Originally posted by OrionStars
What is all the emphasis on simulators? Simulators have never proved people could effectively master actual planes using only flight simulators, and no human instructors in planes. Flight simulators can teach procedures, but they do not effectively prepare people for nature, in every case nature decides how nature will react at any given moment in time. That is a fact.

Every move and feel in an airplane is artificial for everything is powered by hydraulics and what you feel is an artificial feel spring that fakes the resistance on the control surfaces. The altitude you fly at is all fake for you set in altimeter settings to match other planes flying and these setting always change until you are above 18,000 feet then it is standard 29.92. You hardly need to look outside for you got these little needles that tell you were you should go. Flying is as fake as the sim…

I think, YES.. you might be able to fluke it
If I sat down in a already flying planes cockpit, took the controls in my hand and moved them, i could quickly judge what concepts i needed to steer...

but for it to happen, precisley, and without failure on 3 occasions within the same half hour?
thats a stretch.

The WTCs.. yes maybe... all they did was steer and fly

the pentagon though?

Its an absurd comment, made by a fool to believe a muslim hijacker could move a plane in that fashion with limited cesna training, especially when he was dubbed as a dumb novice pilot.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Oh, Xtro! You are teasing the guy!

Really, Miss Manners might come along and smite you!

I know, sense of humor...hard to find any humor in this subject though...

I went to the funeral for FO David Charlebois, from AA77, in the District of Columbia. I knew him, remotely, through mutual friends. I was in MY full uniform...most were, of course, in AA uniforms, both Pilots and Flight Attendants. The American Airlines DC crew base was small, and close-knit.

edit-spelling

[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by OrionStars
An airplane wing is not a bird wing. Therefore, exact comparisons to birds and airplanes, in aerodynamics, will be in error. When Daniel Bernoulli
(1700 - 1782) discovered his principle, there were no airplanes.

Various people, throughout history and without complete understanding in the physics of aerodynamics, have been interpreting and misapplying his principle in theoretical physics, particularly in the principles of aerodynamics of airplanes. That normally applied/applies to laypersons, plus, students unable to complete their education in physics, for lack of effectively understanding theoretical physics and quantum mechanics.

While a airplane wing and a bird wing are dissimilar in appearance they BOTH
work by Bernoulli's principle. While birds are able to shape there wings with muscles and tendons we use flaps, slats, ailerons, hydraulics, and electric motors, it does not matter whether it is a fixed wing of an airplane, the rotor blade on a helicopter, or even a hang glider or a birds wing they ALL work on the same principle! This is a FACT!

theoretical physics - this means the physics is a theory only and has not yet been proven!

quantum mechanics is the study of subatomic particles.
What these thing have to do with aerodynamics is beyond me!

Now if you wish to talk about laminar air flow I will start another thread.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Hani had more than training in Cessnas. He had a multiengine rating, commercial rating, and simulator time. 600 hours total time. None of them just jumped into the cockpit and flew for the first time.

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Agit8d, you didn't pay attention. ONE on each airplane was a Commercial Pilot. Didn't mean he was very good, and didn't mean any of us would trust him to fly...but they passed JUST ENOUGH to be qualified...

Plus, with plenty of money to back them, they would have had no trouble buying time in a simulator for familiarization purposes. There are simulators in other countries besides the USA, remember....

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Agit8dChop

 

Hani had more than training in Cessnas. He had a multiengine rating, commercial rating, and simulator time. 600 hours total time. None of them just jumped into the cockpit and flew for the first time.

I do not know much about there training I have read so many conflicting
accounts of there training I do not now what to believe.

I will say this if they had any kind of training at say even a single engine land licence then they could have done it with little or no difficulty.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Orion!! Did you or did you not read my post? Scroll up and read again.

In any case, four of these guys had at least a Commercial license...the MINIMUM requirement for a Commercial license is 250 hours. These suckers were barely able to pass, but pass they did. (Hate to say it, but there are probably still some 'Santa Clauses' out there in the General Aviation world, Designees who will sign off a guy, even if they're marginal.

BTW, to get a Commercial license, you have to have a Instrument Rating also. Ring any bells?

Prove that statement with certificable proof. No one becomes a certified commercial pilot based on nothing but flight simulator practice. No one.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Darn, I wish I could link a picture of an EFIS screen in here.

Originally posted by Wing-nut

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Agit8dChop

 

Hani had more than training in Cessnas. He had a multiengine rating, commercial rating, and simulator time. 600 hours total time. None of them just jumped into the cockpit and flew for the first time.

I do not know much about there training I have read so many conflicting
accounts of there training I do not now what to believe.

I will say this if they had any kind of training at say even a single engine land licence then they could have done it with little or no difficulty.

Those alleged to attend Cessna school all flunked Cessna school, including the written test and instructor flying time hours almost immediately. Still think the alleged they could do it based on nothing but the video arcade portion of flight simulation?

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Prove that statement with certificable proof. No one becomes a certified commercial pilot based on nothing but flight simulator practice. No one.

It all so simple just go to
www.faa.gov...
and read...