The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

reply to post by miragewsu


You may have been misled by some posters. This is what the author of the article had to say, and goes beyond normal ground effect to keep the plane lifted by vacuum off the ground under the wing. Plus, considering the resistance over the wings trying to push down toward gravity.

"The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile."

Do you agree or disagree with the author regarding the impossibility of maneuvering at a Pentagon wall? Could you please explain why? Thank you.

reply to post by miragewsu


I realize pilots get used to it. The further back in the plane the bumpier it gets. I want those pilots to know how to deal with it. Which is why, unless people are subjected to actual conditions, changing at a moment's notice, I contend no one, who has never flown an actual jetliner before, will handle it effectively, particularly flying around NYC.

I find it quiet dubious that people listen to a physics defying, 'aeronautical engineer' and 'pilots behind 9/11', while still failing to even notice other professional pilots, such as 'Xtrozero', myself, or 'weedwacker'.... or even any other of the thousands of pilots over the world who DO think it's possible. It's even more amazing they add there own lingo about 'adverse conditions' and there experiances as a passenger to prove there point.

reply to post by C0bzz


You have a right to put your faith in anyone you please. I have a right to recognize expertise when I encounter it, and agree with it.

In the future, you could try writing the correct names of unions of people, while foregoing snidely misleading others, regarding those unions of people.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by Boone 870

 

IMO, these kinds of claims claims are best viewed under scrutiny of reality, context and the knowledge the "truth" movement is interested in neither truth or 9-11. It's a political movement that uses 9-11 as a rally cry to bind together otherwise disparate (far, far left political) interests.

Indeed!

You may have been misled by some posters.

Now look who's talking

and there experiances as a passenger to prove there point.

With the level of experience of todays pax perhaps the airlines should
introduce "fly to pay tickets", half price

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
I did a search and was not able to find this article discussed. I think that it raises some red flags to one that would believe the official story. Its a great read and I think its very important to the investigation of a truther.

www.lookingglassnews.org...

I'm sim captain my self. I have flown MSFSX simulator alot, and also the same simulator that real pilots use. I was invited to fly at Finnairs simulator, and controlling a jet is not that complicated in reality. I promise that i could navigate A320, A340 or even A380 to a building that size.

All that talk about how difficult it is, is utter bull#. Flying a commercial jet to a building is not that hard, i have flown many different jets with REAL simulator that REAL pilots use. Different commercial jets are not THAT different.

With some basic flying training in a simulator, and flying a jet in a building is a peace of cake.

Now i KNOW that 911 official story is bull#, and i know that goverment is behind it, but flying a commercial jet in a building is not that hard.

Peace

Sim Captain
Faxmachine

(ps. don't come and tell me that simulator is far from real thing, since it's not)

i am not a pilot , but i do have issues with mr Sagadevan and his assertions / assumption

here is the full quote

. Passenger/hijacker Hani Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a box cutter—Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let’s ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.

now the break down

viciously fights his way into the cockpit

did he really ? and mr Sagadevan knows this how ???

we do not have any recodrs of exactly what happened in the first crucial seconds - and no one on the flight deck / cabin crew was arawe that this was the prelude to a suicide mission -

i believe standing hi jack orders wre [ pre 9/11 ] not to fight back - but to comply , raise the alarm and allow negotiators / security services to do thier job

i have been on many flights - and passengers walk up and down the ailse unimpeeded getting to the flight deck door is far easier than Sagadevan pretends with his " vicious fight " fantasy

and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit

again a fantasy senario - we do not know what propted the crew to exit the flight deck Sagadevan opinies that they were " tossed " with no evidence to support his theory

[speculation] they could have elected to leave the flight deck because the hijackers had a blade at the throat of a steward - who was going to die if they did not reliquish the cockipt [/speculation]

rather than politely hand over the controls,

again Sagadevan is projecting testersterone addled fantasies about what to do in a hijack situation - that contradicr standing orders i believe were issued to airline lipots pre 9/11

Sagadevan is again projecting fantasies without any knowledge of what was actually happening in the ailse / flight deck in the first critical noments of the take over

as i state - co-operation was the standing order for hijack management in all previous senarios - as no suicide mission had been attempted previously - and co operation > alarm > negotiation and or armed intervention was the standard policy in all previous hijacks

would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor.

really ???

and what would have happened to the 58 passengers mostly unsecured in the cabins ???

such ` boys own stunts ` sound KEWL but it is not the actions of a responsible captain resonsible for the saftey of his passengers and aircraft

and executing suddend barrel rolls is the daftest response imaginable

appologies , but Sagadevan is a fantasist who is simply projecting his ramboesque ideas of what " should have happened "

a seperate croticism - whic deserves a seperate reply

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

i would like to know the souce of that quate - as HANJOUR actually held a commercial pilots licence with 600 hours in his log book

seems to me like Sagadevan has cherry picked his quotes



[edit on 16-1-2008 by ignorant_ape]

Originally posted by OrionStars
You may have been misled by some posters. This is what the author of the article had to say, and goes beyond normal ground effect to keep the plane lifted by vacuum off the ground under the wing. Plus, considering the resistance over the wings trying to push down toward gravity.

Please re-read what you wrote there and, in the light of the simplest physics of flight, see how it's misleading in several regards.

There's no question that the alleged hijackers had the ability to fly those planes under the conditions on the day.

For me there's still a question of 'did they?'

Originally posted by OrionStars

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.

Please excuse the quote to comment ratio: I didn't think my comment would make sense without it.

Orion,
You are completely entitled to your own opinion so please don't misinterpret what I am saying.

At this point, the discussion has moved beyond laughable and is solidly in the realm of something mental, IMO.

Originally posted by OrionStars
what you know about the physics and quantum mechanics of aerodynamics. You blatantly implied I was too stupid to know.

What is/are the "Quantum Mechanics of aerodynamics"?!


[edit on 16-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by C0bzz
I find it quiet dubious that people listen to a physics defying, 'aeronautical engineer' and 'pilots behind 9/11', while still failing to even notice other professional pilots, such as 'Xtrozero', myself, or 'weedwacker'.... or even any other of the thousands of pilots over the world who DO think it's possible.

This is an open question to you and the other professional pilots on the board--and really has no ulterior motive to it other than to learn your honest opinions, as I don't pretend to any expertize on the subject at all:

What do you estimate as to the odds that all 3 jets that navigated to their targets did indeed impact them, in light of flight skills of the hijackers, the difficulty or lack thereof of targeting the buildings after disengaging autopilot, and the final speed of the planes?

Where does this fall on the scale between 10 being inevitable and 0 being impossible?

reply to post by gottago


Actually the question is not all 3 but is 3 out of 4 which is quite different.

Personally, I don't think it would take too much skill to crash a plane.
I bet I could do it on the first try.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by dirtonwater]

reply to post by dirtonwater


No the question, being my own, concerned the jets that made it to their targets. Shanksville has nothing to do with it, as it crashed for whatever reason and obviously Shanksville was not a high-priority target on 9/11--or ever will be, for that matter.

And yes, I think literally everyone is capable of crashing an airplane. That goes without saying. The question is, how? What I want to know is an informed opinion about the difficulties and the probability of doing it three times successfully in the way it was carried out.

Finally, are you a pilot? Or is that just a guess?

[edit on 16-1-2008 by gottago]

Well, I've sat here and read most of this and every time someone with actual aviation experience points out the errors in the Nila Sagadevan article they get hit with some of the silliest nonsense imaginable.

Nearly every part of Mr. Sagadevan's article is pure hogwash. He is intentionally misleading especially when talking about the weather conditions. It was a bright, beautiful cloudless sky that day! I know...I was there...about 3 miles from the Pentagon. And we've all seen the films from New York. So, along with his other assertions, that one stands out as the most blatant one to destroy his credibility.

I do not understand this continued insistence a 9/11 conspiracy exists, unless it's just to sell books...

reply to post by weedwhacker



To sell books? Well sir there are a great number of us that are not authors and we are not making money off of any investigation.... I think that the conspiracy is the official story.

Originally posted by OrionStarsThat pilot is going 400 mph 20' above ground? Does not look like that to me.

The A-310 in the video was moving at approximately 400 mph during the low pass at show center.

How do we know?

A-310 length 153 ft.
Time for aircraft to travle one aircraft length = .25 seconds. This is easily confirmed by using a stopwatch to measure the time it takes for entire aircraft to pass a stationary object in the scene (I used one of the static displays along the runway)

So in this video, the A-310 traveled approx 153 ft in .25 secs. (612 ft/sec)

612 fps = 391 kts = 416 mph.

Also it can be easily determined from the video that the Airbus is approx 25 ft above the ground. The A 310 fuselage dia. is 17 feet. Compare the fuselage dimension from top to bottom to the distance between the ground and the bottom of the engine nacelles.

reply to post by darkbluesky


Hey, darkblue, you have a lot of time (pun intended) on your hands!!

Love the avatar! But, of course there's a hoax believer somewhere who will point out inconsistencies in the photo and 'prove' it is faked... (sigh).

edit: I don't know the A-310, but most airliners have a VMO of around 340K at sea level...varies up or down depending on the airplane. Of course, that is KIAS, so True Airspeed will vary, and ground speed will be the sum of TAS and whatever wind exists, i.e., head- or tail-wind component (which, in the case of the video, just a few knots either way...).
Anyway, thanks for your calculations, but I wonder if he was that close to the Barber Pole...of course, it IS an airshow, and maneuvers like that are allowed for that reason. You know, back in the 80's it was a common practice for a Captain on his Retirement flight to make a low pass down the runway at, say 100 or 150 feet, in the clean config before climbing back up, going around the pattern and landing. The Feds decided to put a stop to it for some reason...probably when there was an adminstration change, who knows? At least they haven't stopped the fire truck water salute!



[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks WW.

I happen to be 100% positive the pic used in my avatar is authentic.

[edit on 1/16/2008 by darkbluesky]