The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

I have always thoght the may have been beacons preset in the buildings , the impacts are pretty hard to do otherwise.
I am a wiz with fighter jets etc on flightsims but the big planes are really difficult. My attempts at recreating 911 in the sim took a lot of hours to close.
Sure a funny comparison but my REAL airbus/767 qantas pilot friend agrees.
He spent 6 years being a copilot or engineer, now 15 years a captain.
He agrees the plane could be loaded with a preset plan but a beacon would need to be there in the buildings as target for the program.
any other pilots here to confirm that?

uk.youtube.com...

Originally posted by aussiespeeder
I have always thoght the may have been beacons preset in the buildings , the impacts are pretty hard to do otherwise.
I am a wiz with fighter jets etc on flightsims but the big planes are really difficult. My attempts at recreating 911 in the sim took a lot of hours to close.
Sure a funny comparison but my REAL airbus/767 qantas pilot friend agrees.
He spent 6 years being a copilot or engineer, now 15 years a captain.
He agrees the plane could be loaded with a preset plan but a beacon would need to be there in the buildings as target for the program.
any other pilots here to confirm that?

Well to hit the towers on autopilot you would need something as accurate as a localizer to do that.

However there's plenty of NDB's and VOR's in and around NY and DC to set up a route very close to the target, and then handfly the last bit.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
What would manual flight on a clear day require apart from compass, altimeter, airspeed, rate of descent and artificial horizon?

And these guys were trained at it, not exactly A grade students but they knew the ropes nonetheless. Stressing the airframe in tight turns wasn't really something they would be concerned about considering their ultimate goal.

They alleged hijackers did not have pilots' licenses issued by any US bureaucrat agency. They could not fly a Cessna, and could not get passed the video arcade portion of the flight simulator of a commercial jetliner. Who issues licenses bases on that except forgers?

I cannot imagine why the FAA would not wish to discuss it. Anyone else care to try to explain it? The following is confirmed by the Pilots for 9/11 Truth:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

"Hani Hanjour:
9/11 Pilot Extraordinaire

From the ridiculous to the sublime...

Federal Aviation Administration records show [Hanjour] obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss. His limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots. [Cape Cod Times]

[Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all." [New York Times]"

reply to post by Boone 870


I play no games. I have every right to request validation. If you have nothing but media or bureaucratic hearsay that is not validation. Simply say you have none. That is what reasonable people would do.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by OrionStars

 

They allegedly could not pass flying instructions when they could see out the windows of a Cessna actually flying with an instructor. What they allegedly did manage to get, in the short time they allegedly tried, was the video arcade version, and could not pass that in commercial jetliner simulation. Nor could they pass the written test on a Cessna.

To acquire a private pilot's license you have to have a minimum of 40 hours and some of those hours are solo flights. Every one of the 9/11 hijackers had soloed multiple times. Only one of them had problems on one occasion. Also, the instructor that refused to rent Hani a 172 later stated that he had no doubt that Hani could do what he done.

Valdiation please. According to their instructors interviewed, that is not true.

Originally posted by OrionStars

It is part of aerodynamics lingo. Why haven't you heard of it "In 27 years of flying experience......" For example:

Even I knew that without being a student of aerodynamics. I just say it differently and mean the same thing is all. Exactly where have you been doing ".....27 years of flying"?

Hmm, my favorite buddy...

I swear to God my friend it seems you always fail to read the entire post and quickly form a rebuttal on half a statement while missing the true nature of the post. I got tired of it in the last 30 exchanges we had on the subject of flying.

If for once you actually had read my post you would have notice that I said “preventing from going below 1/2 distance of the wing at high speeds” and not what "downwash sheet" or "compressibility effects of the tip vortices" are defined as.

But no, you didn’t do it once again and in a smug way you needed to Google something I bet you do not even understand that had nothing to do with my statement other than a simple definition.

Also you once again assume too much in that I was in some way stating that the plane was actually flown at 400 kt 20 feet above the ground by inexperienced pilots. When in fact my post was about exactly what I posted...

Go figure...

Originally posted by Boone 870
Here's another one from the expert.

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH.

Don't tell that to this pilot.

That pilot is going 400 mph 20' above ground? Does not look like that to me. Remember, alleged Flight 77 was supposed to be at ground level of the Pentagon, which means the engines would have had to plow up the Pentagon campus to be at ground level, for the flat belly of the plane to be at the ground floor level of the Pentagon.

You do pick some of the strangest analogies to help you lose your points of argument.

reply to post by Xtrozero


I notice you did not cite yourself pertaining to what I wrote in response. Why not? Deiberately trying to mislead or what?

Originally posted by OrionStars
I notice you did not cite yourself pertaining to what I wrote in response. Why not? Deiberately trying to mislead or what?

I'm not sure what you mean. I quoted the part of my post you failed to read. What is it that I was misleading to you?



[edit on 15-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

I must agree with the article as a whole but some aspects of it are simply, totally, incorrect, and it really is fustrating when people use them as 'proof', that 9/11 was fake; because it isn't. And what's with these ridiculous comparisons with Microsoft Flight Simulator? It's NOTHING like reallife, why? Because:

• You cannot 'feel' the aircraft
  
• Its Flight Dynamics utterly suck
  
• The cockpits are NOTHING like real life
  

And most of all,

• The users completely misconceive what flying is actually like.
  

So could we please get away from comparing MSFS to real life? Thank you.

I'll handle the actual article later.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Visual aid time:

OrionStars
posted on 15-1-2008 @ 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Xtrozero

This made little sence to me.



At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.



In 27 years of flying I never heard of "downwash sheet" or "compressibility effects of the tip vortices" preventing from going below
1/2 distance of the wing at high speeds.

1/2 distance of the wing is what is called ground effect and this creates greater pressure on the bottom of the wing that basically enhances the ability to fly using Bernoulli's Principle.


================================

reply to post by Xtrozero (by Orion)

It is part of aerodynamics lingo. Why haven't you heard of it "In 27 years of flying experience......" For example:

www.allstar.fiu.edu...

"How Airplanes Fly: A Physical Description of Lift
Level 3

Fig 4 True airflow over a wing with lift, showing upwash and downwash.

The lift of a wing is equal to the change in momentum of the air it is diverting down. Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. The lift of a wing is proportional to the amount of air diverted down times the downward velocity of that air. Its that simple. (Here we have used an alternate form of Newton’s second law that relates the acceleration of an object to its mass and to the force on it; F=ma) For more lift the wing can either divert more air (mass) or increase its downward velocity. This downward velocity behind the wing is called "downwash". Figure 5 shows how the downwash appears to the pilot (or in a wind tunnel). The figure also shows how the downwash appears to an observer on the ground watching the wing go by. To the pilot the air is coming off the wing at roughly the angle of attack. To the observer on the ground, if he or she could see the air, it would be coming off the wing almost vertically. The greater the angle of attack, the greater the vertical velocity. Likewise, for the same angle of attack, the greater the speed of the wing the greater the vertical velocity. Both the increase in the speed and the increase of the angle of attack increase the length of the vertical arrow. It is this vertical velocity that gives the wing lift.

Wing vortices
One might ask what the downwash from a wing looks like. The downwash comes off the wing as a sheet and is related to the details on the load distribution on the wing."

Even I knew that without being a student of aerodynamics. I just say it differently and mean the same thing is all. Exactly where have you been doing ".....27 years of flying"?

At the Pentagon, they were allegedly doing all that "clean expert flying" at 20 ft from ground level at 400 mph, without tearing up any of the campus nor blowing over or damaging any buildings nor driving vehicles off the highway. You know - thrust foot pounds of force from the engines at that alleged height and that speed.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Ok....

You reposted both posts and I am still missing your point. How does you’re citing of "How Airplanes Fly: A Physical Description of Lift” have anything to do with this quote from my post below?

In 27 years of flying I never heard of "downwash sheet" or "compressibility effects of the tip vortices" preventing from going below 1/2 distance of the wing at high speeds.

I can now see why actual aviation experts never come on ATS.... LOL!

OrionStars, do you have any idea of how a plane actually flies? What knowledge do you have? Because around here, if anyone thinks a plane cannot fly at half its wingspan, they wouldn't be allowed even near an aircraft.



EDIT:Xtrozero, sorry I got mixed up.

[edit on 15/1/2008 by C0bzz]

[edit on 15/1/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz
EDIT:Xtrozero, sorry I got mixed up.

Lol NP brother

I might have written it poorly for I was in a rush to get it posted before I needed to leave the house.

My point was how does speed prevent an aircraft from going into ground effect? The article explained that “downwash sheet" or "compressibility effects of the tip vortices" prevents an aircraft from going below ½ distance of the wing to the ground (ground effect) at high speeds.

I find this to be false and that ground effect improves lift but doesn’t prevent an aircraft from flying close to the ground at highspeeds.

reply to post by C0bzz


"Half its wingspan"? Would you care to explain what that has to do with what I posted? Anything at all?

reply to post by OrionStars

Answer my previous questions and I'll answer yours.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by C0bzz
EDIT:Xtrozero, sorry I got mixed up.

Lol NP brother

I might have written it poorly for I was in a rush to get it posted before I needed to leave the house.

My point was how does speed prevent an aircraft from going into ground effect? The article explained that “downwash sheet" or "compressibility effects of the tip vortices" prevents an aircraft from going below ½ distance of the wing to the ground (ground effect) at high speeds.

I find this to be false and that ground effect improves lift but doesn’t prevent an aircraft from flying close to the ground at highspeeds.

"......ground effect improves lift...."?

The author of the article did an excellent job of explained the physics of aerodynamics quite well. For someone asserting he has "27 years of flying experience", how is you do not know the physics and quantum mechanics of aerodynamics?

Since you claim to be expert, where exactly is the author wrong? Are you a peer of his in aerodynamic engineering plus pilot?

reply to post by C0bzz


I am not going to play any silly child's games with you. If you do not care to answer my question(s), then so be it. Your perogative any time.