The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

reply to post by Wing-nut


I am going to use the very site of people who have lied and were inconsistent in their reports regarding 9/11/2001? Surely you jest.

Originally posted by Freaky_Animal

Originally posted by weedwhacker

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

Thanks, Freaky!!

It's a little blurry, but there is an EFIS screen set to 'Heading Up'

The blue circles, with the four letters by them, those are airports...looks like we're in France. One VOR is displayed (in green), because the FMS is tuned to that one and using it for position update.

You can see the little green circle on the course line, with T/C next to it...that indicates 'Top of Climb', it's where the FMS has calculated the airplane will reach the altitude that is currently set in the MCP on the glareshield. Lower left corner, the white arrow, is the wind direction and velocity, as calculated by the IRS. The current heading is at the top, it is 203 magnetic, since you see the green M next to it. That is the same, of course, as the RDMI that is to the left of the EFIS.

Notice the RDMI needles are both pointing at the VOR, which is almost at the three o'clock position relative to the airplane, and at 34.3 NM. The next waypoint is the magenta star, and...I'm editing, so I can't see the image...but the distance is displayed in the upper left corner.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

wanted to add, also, for aviation geeks...the EHSI is on the 160NM scale, the scale on the screen is selectable 160NM down to 5NM. On the B767-400, and B777 it will range out to 320NM. Also, please note the 'barber pole' on the A/S indicator...the airplane is nearing top of climb, a flight level that cannot be determined from the pic...but the barber pole is adjusting automatically, from the ADC..air data compter...inputs. At sea level, it is at 340K.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

It's a little blurry, but there is an EFIS screen set to 'Heading Up' The blue circles, with the four letters by them, those are airports...looks like we're in France. One VOR is displayed (in green), because the FMS is tuned to that one and using it for position update.

A bit blurry, t'was a bumpy ride.

Paris-Stuttgart that is.

reply to post by Wing-nut
Hani Hanjour's Logbook

The link above is from the Zacharias Moussaoui trial. The photocopies were taken at Jet Tech International in February of 2001. The copies were taken when Hani had 255 hours total time. He had an additional 350 hours flight time before the attacks.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Wing-nut

 

Hani Hanjour's Logbook

The link above is from the Zacharias Moussaoui trial. The photocopies were taken at Jet Tech International in February of 2001. The copies were taken when Hani had 255 hours total time. He had an additional 350 hours flight time before the attacks.

Looks like Mr Hanjour was familiar with Boeing systems and navaids.
He was typerated on the B737 classics. It wouln't be any problem for him to operate the B757/767 as they are similar to the B737 in operation.

reply to post by Freaky_Animal


Freaky!! Two stars for you, my friend! One for the cockpit photo, Paris to Stuttgart, and the other for the FMS pic! Excellent.

reply to post by Freaky_Animal


He had a TYPE RATING on the B737?!?!? Holy...@#@#!!

Pretty much blows the 'couldn't fly a jet' theory all to heck!

Freaky, those are great finds!!!!

I actually have the same logbooks...four of them, three filled...

You know how big those Master Logs are (not bragging, it's just, well, after 33 years, stuff gets filled up...)

EDIT...somebody give Freaky_Animal some 'applause' points, please!

[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

Hmm, did any of the aircrafts used on 9/11 have GPS-input to the FMS?

I'm just curious

Originally posted by weedwhackersomebody give Freaky_Animal some 'applause' points, please!

Well it was actually Boone870 that came up with Hanjours logbook

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

So credit to him for that

Originally posted by Freaky_Animal

Sorry mods, had to bring this down for others to see, in case anyone missed it.

THIS is the CDU that accesses the FMS on most Boeing airplanes nowadays.

CDU = Control Display Unit
FMS = Flight Management System

Essentially, you DO NOT need an autopilot just to fly from A to B. In VFR conditions, hand flying works qute well, thank you very much.

The various electronics are handy in situational awareness, and navigation to desired points. You can see, in the pic, the LEGS page is currently displayed, it is showing the Route that is currently in the database. Course and distance info, with ETA info...lots of stuf. What is programmed there, is also displayed on the EHSI.

It's not an interactive pic to demonstrate, but one just pushes the 'LEGS' button, and five squares display at the bottom. You type in the waypoint designation, press the top left button to bring it up as next waypoint, THEN press 'EXEC' (for execute) and a new course is displayed to the point you just entered, since it jumps to top of screen, along with a message about a 'Route Discontinuity'. But, if you just want to crash into a building, you have what you need already to guide you there...

edit...before the EXEC button is pushed, a dotted magenta line is displayed on your EHSI to show you what course you have just requested...when executed, it becomes a solid magenta line. IF the autopilot is engaged, and in the LNAV mode, it will now follow the new course. Easy as pie...

[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

modern jets literally fly themselves, can land and take off themselves and are infinelty superiour to humans at the controls, 90% of all plane crashes are human error(or not, as is the case of certain "terrorist" events)

reply to post by weedwhacker


My company have all the routes we fly stored in the FMC, so we just upload, activate and execute them, and then the all the waypoints show up on the legs page(s).
Of course we have to activate the correct SID and STAR for the trip ourself.
I guess UAL and AA had company routes stored as well, would make navigation a lot easyer for a hijacker with knowledge of how to use the FMS

What language was Hani Hanjour's diary written in?

Someone in the following is not telling the truth. Is it the PamAm flight instructor or the FAA?

www.prisonplanet.com...

"When Hanjour enrolled in January at Pan Am's Phoenix facility, Oberstar said, his instructor made a more critical assessment of his English.

The FAA began clamping down on U.S. flight schools in recent years to ensure that no one who cannot speak conversational English receives a flight certificate.

Oberstar and others said the Pan Am instructor questioned how Hanjour got a flight certificate with his English, felt it was inadequate to complete the firm's course and phoned the FAA. Oberstar said the instructor asked: "What do we do about this? We don't think we should continue a person in flight training whose English is so inadequate."

Pan Am officials were dissatisfied by the FAA inspector's response: suggesting he might know of an Arabic-speaking person who could assist him with his English, Oberstar and others said. That approach apparently didn't work. Hanjour "flunked out" in March, a company executive told legislators.

Oberstar said the FAA representative had no reason to believe that Hanjour was a terrorist. But, recalling that he held a subcommittee hearing a few years ago into a New York plane crash caused by the pilot's failure to understand instructions in English from air traffic controllers, he said Hanjour's language problem should have sounded "alarm bells" with the FAA.

Jerry Snyder, an FAA spokesman in Los Angeles, said he could not comment because the matter is under investigation.

Pan Am also came in contact with a third Sept. 11 figure: Atta. The company's Miami office recently discovered it had received an inquiry from Atta early last year, one source said. The school sent him information, but he chose instead to attend a flight school in Venice, Fla., the source said.

-- Greg Gordon is at [email protected] ."

Of course, if people are planning on running commercial jetliners into big buildings, always be certain to inform the flight trainer before starting training. So they can alert the authorities well in advance and start training anyway.

Same article as above:

"New details of how Moussaoui raised suspicions at the Pan Am International Flight Academy in Eagan -- and the company's eerily prescient tip -- are emerging from the briefings the school recently gave to congressional offices.

The still-unidentified flight instructor became wary of Moussaoui immediately, according to Minnesota Rep. Jim Oberstar and others with direct knowledge of the briefings.

Moussaoui first raised eyebrows when, during a simple introductory exchange, he said he was from France, but then didn't seem to understand when the instructor spoke French to him.

Moussaoui then became belligerent and evasive about his background, Oberstar and other sources said. In addition, he seemed inept in basic flying procedures, while seeking expensive training on an advanced commercial jet simulator.

Besides alerting the FBI about Moussaoui, the school's Phoenix office called the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) early this year about another student -- Hani Hanjour, who was believed to be the pilot of the plane that flew into the Pentagon on Sept. 11. The school had raised questions about Hanjour's limited ability to speak English, the universal language of aviation.

An FAA representative sat in on a class to observe Hanjour, who was from Saudi Arabia, and discussed with school officials finding an Arabic-speaking person to help him with his English, said Oberstar and others with direct knowledge of the school's briefings."

So why was the FAA so interested in the training of some foreign national who could not speak English, and, therefore, not understand flight training?

reply to post by Fada126


Fada, almost right...they cannot take-off by themselves...oh, and automation is fantastic, but there are still many things that require a human to program, adjust or change...

For instance, to accomplish an auto-landing...the Localizer has to be tuned, by hand. The airplane has to be within a finite distance and angle of the Localizer for the runway intended. The autothrottles have to be engaged...the autopilot has to be engaged...there are separate buttons to push. What is more, the autopilot has various modes...HDG, ALT HLD, VNAV, LNAV or ILS.

The ILS button has to be pushed, but ONLY after a valid Localizer signal is being received, that is, you must be within a prescribed distance, both from the runway and laterally within about 30 degrees, or so. NOW, other things have to happen...slow down, configure slats and flaps, lower the gear...all done by hand, NOT automatic!

SO...now we are at flaps 30, gear down, on LOC and GS at about six miles from touchdown. ON speed, since you also slewed the Speed Bug (on the MCP) down to your 'reference' speed for the approach...let's say it's 132 Knots today. OK, autothrottles, and autopilot have now been programmed for the autolanding. Whew! Not very automatic, is it? Lots to do, needs a human there. Oh...forgot to mention...there are three autopilots, since a 'fail-active' system is different from a 'fail-passive' system...but, I am getting too deep. (Visibility requirements for auto-lands vary depending on autopilot status...fail-active or fail-passive...we take all of this into account).

THAT's why pilots are there...we do this over and over in the simulator, it is procedure, it is structured. It is tested and practiced so it is almost second nature.

SO...please do not diminish the roles of the pilots....


edit to add...and all of what I wrote about autoland applies when the weather, or more correctly, the visibility is such that CatIII operations are required. ON a nice day, 99% of the time, landings are hand-flown. There is a requirement, to maintain the validity of the system, to conduct an auto-land in VFR conditions every month or so, just for record-keeping purposes. It is for the airplane records, and for the pilot's records as well. BUT, in VFR, an auto-land can always be over-ridden if necessary, and a safe landing accomplished.

Hope this clears a few things up for you.


[edit on 17-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 17-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

The immediate period of 9/11/2001 has MOSSAD written all over it. I wonder just exactly which language "Hani Hanjour" was actually speaking. I have little to no doubt it was a Semitic language. I have serious doubt is was Arabic.

I fail to see how his english is a factor in the ability to control an aircraft especially if he was already rated to fly them. I dare say there's numerous other pilots worldwide who don't speak english but perhaps not on international routes.

reply to post by Pilgrum


You expect someone unable to understand English to survive in a school using the English language? How would he know how to operate any flight simulator, if he could not understand the language of the instructor? How could anyone pass the mandatory written test in English without being able to read and write English?

Even sign language is done in the native language of any deaf individual.

Originally posted by OrionStars
The immediate period of 9/11/2001 has MOSSAD written all over it. I wonder just exactly which language "Hani Hanjour" was actually speaking. I have little to no doubt it was a Semitic language. I have serious doubt is was Arabic.

Oh, man!

OK, you "...have little to no doubt..." ..."Hani Hanjour" was speaking a Semitic language. But, you have doubts it was Arabic?? OK, then here are some questions...do YOU speak Arabic? What languages do you speak, and what qualifies you to be a judge on this subject?

Please, since you know so much, translate for us and post it here. We will enjoy reading it.

Well, I'm glad more people chimed in on this thread. I think we established that it is possible for these guys(who got more training that I initially thought) would have been capable of crashing these large planes into buildings.

Now did they actually do it? I'm not sure but that is a topic for another thread.

Oh... another thing.. there is no such thing as Quantum Aerodynamics.. Quantum effects are averaged out over such large systems.