Boeing spokesperson laughs at the idea of a Boeing 767 going at 500 MPH at 700 feet, page 15

posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 12:50 AM

link

Will you STOP putting words in my mouth?! Where did I say they "freaked out"?!?! Oooo. You have law enforcement training. Guess what? Commercial pilots DON'T. A NORMAL person that has been doing the same job for years, that suddenly gets told to expect something bad to happen is going to do EXACTLY what the flight 93 pilots did. They're going to ask someone to confirm what happened, and they're going to wait for the confirmation and they're not going to expect it to happen to them while they're sitting there waiting for that confirmation. It's going to take a few minutes for it to sink in that something unusual is happening. Did they have a warning? Sure they did. Did they immediately jump up and grab the axe and wait for something to happen? Of course not! NORMAL people wouldn't do that! Did they "freak out" as you claim I said? NO! They probably didn't panic at all, they simply asked for confirmation, and waited for that message to come in, and while they were waiting the hijackers hit them.

ULTIMA1

posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 10:40 PM

link

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Will you STOP putting words in my mouth?! Where did I say they "freaked out"?!?! Oooo.

Here is where you imlpied the pilots freaked out. Quoted from your post.

"Oh my god we have to secure the cockpit right away before they get us!"

Please explain to me why the pilots would just sit around after getting a "secure cockpit door" mesasage? Are you stating they would not be intelligent enough to figure out something was going on ?

[edit on 16-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Zaphod58

posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 10:49 PM

link

It's called "shock" and "surprise". Us mere mortals feel it when we've done the same job over and over again for years, and suddenly something like 9/11 happens. The pilots on flight 93 were flying a regular run, that they had probably flown a lot, and suddenly get a message to secure the cockpit. They had absolutely NO WAY of knowing what was going on in NY at the time because it wasn't broadcast over the radio and it wasn't sent over the datalink. So all of a sudden they get an odd message saying secure the door. They're going to sit there scratching their heads and do just what they did, and ask for confirmation and what was going on. Not all of us are superheroes who see a message we're not expecting and jump up immediately. We sit there and go "What?" for a few minutes, and THEN react to it.

Btw, way to completely misquote me. The exact words I used were "Your first reaction is NOT going to be to jump up and yell 'Oh my god we have to secure the cockpit before they get us!'" I never implied, or stated that the pilots would freak out. You're doing your usual tactic of twisting things I say and putting words in my mouth.

[edit on 2/16/2008 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 2/16/2008 by Zaphod58]

ULTIMA1

posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 01:19 AM

link

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The pilots on flight 93 were flying a regular run, that they had probably flown a lot, and suddenly get a message to secure the cockpit. They had absolutely NO WAY of knowing what was going on in NY at the time because it wasn't broadcast over the radio and it wasn't sent over the datalink.

So again are you stating pilots are not intelligent enough to know what the "Secure Cockpit Door" messeage meant ?

Are you also stating that pilots are not trained to repsond to emergencies ?

Also they did get a message about the other hijackings over the datalink. I thought you knew something about what went on that day, but i guess not.

Zaphod58

posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 02:04 AM

link

Oh the hell with it. We've gone around and around and around on this and you still don't get it. I'm done with this topic altogether.

[edit on 2/17/2008 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 2/17/2008 by Zaphod58]

ULTIMA1

posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 02:20 AM

link

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh the hell with it. We've gone around and around and around on this and you still don't get it. I'm done with this topic altogether.

I am just trying to understand what you are saying.

Because it seems like you are saying the pilots were too stupid to know what a secure cockpit door message is and that they are not trained to handle such a message.

Also the fact the Flight 93 did get a message about the first hijackings.

[edit on 17-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Zaphod58

posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 02:26 AM

link

How much clearer do you want me to get about what I think?! Here, let me tell you what ANOTHER 767 PILOT SAYS after watching the Flight 93 movie:

Even the pilots of UAL Flt 93 are given a data link message that the Towers have been hit and to beware of cockpit intruders...they brush it off in disbelief... as I'm sure any pilot would have prior to that date.

www.raf-upper-heyford.org...

Is THAT clear enough on what I'm saying???

Guesswhotoo6

posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 01:48 PM

link

reply to post by Pilgrum

This issue of aircraft speed is not only one of just how fast can the engines plus gravity move the plane. The aircraft POH will give Vne (Velocity Never Exceed) parameters based on the structural abilities of the given aircraft. Meaning, even if you manage to get to the stated speeds, especially with a light load, you may have no wings or other control surfaces which which to continue flight. Boeing's POH and possibly engineering and test data will determine what really can happen and what is likely never to be possible. At low altitude the aero-dynamic forces would be huge, especially in the tight turns indicated in the second hit WTC videos.

Boone 870

posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 02:37 PM

link

reply to post by ULTIMA1

So again are you stating pilots are not intelligent enough to know what the "Secure Cockpit Door" messeage meant ?

For Christ's sake ULTIMA! Are you still going on about ''Secure Cockpit Door''? The pilots didn't have 20/20 hindsight like you do. They didn't secure the cockpit door and they died. Do you think that is what they wanted?

Are you also stating that pilots are not trained to repsond to emergencies ?

That's a dumb question.

Also they did get a message about the other hijackings over the datalink.

PROVE IT! You've made that statement before and you have absolutely no way of knowing if the pilots received any warning about hijackings. The message was sent at almost the exact same time of the hijacking. How do you know that they read the message?

ULTIMA1

posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 10:35 PM

link

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Even the pilots of UAL Flt 93 are given a data link message that the Towers have been hit and to beware of cockpit intruders...they brush it off in disbelief... as I'm sure any pilot would have prior to that date.

www.raf-upper-heyford.org...

Is THAT clear enough on what I'm saying???

So now your saying they just blew off the messeage and were not professionals ?

ULTIMA1

posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 10:35 PM

link

Originally posted by Boone 870
For Christ's sake ULTIMA! Are you still going on about ''Secure Cockpit Door''? The pilots didn't have 20/20 hindsight like you do. They didn't secure the cockpit door and they died. Do you think that is what they wanted?

PROVE IT! You've made that statement before and you have absolutely no way of knowing if the pilots received any warning about hijackings.

1. So your also trying to tell me that the pilots would have not known what a "secure cockpit door" message means and were not professional enough to care about thier safety ?

2. There is proof. If you had done reserch you would know this becasue the pilots responded to the message.

www.globalsecurity.org...

At 9:21 United dispatchers are told to advise their flights to secure cockpit doors;
At 9:24 a United dispatcher sends a “Beware of cockpit intrusion . . . Two aircraft in NY hit Trade Center Builds” message to Flight 93. Flight 93 responds to this message at 9:26 , requesting that the dispatcher confirm the latest message;

So Flight 93 responded to the "secure cockpit door" message and the message about the first hijackings, proving that they had prior warnings and should not have been surprised by the hijackers.

[edit on 17-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 17-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Pilgrum

posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 03:28 AM

link

Originally posted by Guesswhotoo6
reply to post by Pilgrum

This issue of aircraft speed is not only one of just how fast can the engines plus gravity move the plane. The aircraft POH will give Vne (Velocity Never Exceed) parameters based on the structural abilities of the given aircraft. Meaning, even if you manage to get to the stated speeds, especially with a light load, you may have no wings or other control surfaces which which to continue flight. Boeing's POH and possibly engineering and test data will determine what really can happen and what is likely never to be possible. At low altitude the aero-dynamic forces would be huge, especially in the tight turns indicated in the second hit WTC videos.

That Vne figure would be based on a typical airframe with recommended inspection & servicing to determine a MTBF lifetime and a safety factor then added to assure no airframes in the worst case would suffer failure at that stress level with suggested maintenance intervals. What this all boils down to is that the average airframe in average condition could safely exceed the Vne figure but without the manufacturer's blessing.

I doubt the operators of the planes in question would be concerned about accelerated ageing of the airframe.

Something like running your lightbulbs at a little higher than rated voltage - they won't necessarily fail straight away but shorter than rated service life will be the result of increased stresses.

Boone 870

posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 06:39 PM

link

reply to post by ULTIMA1

1. So your also trying to tell me that the pilots would have not known what a "secure cockpit door" message means and were not professional enough to care about thier safety ?

Are you trying to tell me that it means jump out of your seat, grab the fire ax, and bar the door? Can you show me where any ''professional'' pilot that was trained to do that? What other means did the pilot have to secure the door other than locking it?

originally posted by Boone 870
PROVE IT! You've made that statement before and you have absolutely no way of knowing if the pilots received any warning about hijackings.

originally posted by ULTIMA1
2. There is proof. If you had done reserch you would know this becasue the pilots responded to the message.

The pilots responded to the ''beware of cockpit intrusion... Two aircraft in NY hit World Trade Center Builds'', no mention of hijacked aircraft.

At 9:33 United dispatch sends a message to Flight 93 stating “High Security Alert. Secure Cockpit.” No mention of hijacked aircraft.

So Flight 93 responded to the "secure cockpit door" message and the message about the first hijackings, proving that they had prior warnings and should not have been surprised by the hijackers.

Not true.

At 9:24 a United dispatcher sends a “Beware of cockpit intrusion . . . Two aircraft in NY hit Trade Center Builds” message to Flight 93. Flight 93 responds to this message at 9:26 , requesting that the dispatcher confirm the latest message;
At approximately 9:30, a United dispatcher reports that we cannot reach Flight 93;
At 9:31 and 9:32, messages from United Air Traffic Control coordinators are sent to Flight 93 stating “ATC looking for you on 133.37.” Flight 93 does not respond;
At 9:33 United dispatch sends a message to Flight 93 stating “High Security Alert. Secure Cockpit.” Flight 93 does not respond;
At 9:35 United San Francisco maintenance desk receives a call from a flight attendant on Flight 93 saying that the flight has been hijacked. This information is quickly relayed to United Chicago Operations Center;
At 9:36 United dispatch sends a message to Flight 93 asking whether dispatch can be of any assistance. Flight 93 does not respond;
globalsecurity.org

Flight 93 was hijacked at 9:28.

ULTIMA1

posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 05:06 PM

link

Originally posted by Boone 870

At 9:24 a United dispatcher sends a “Beware of cockpit intrusion . . . Two aircraft in NY hit Trade Center Builds” message to Flight 93. Flight 93 responds to this message at 9:26 , requesting that the dispatcher confirm the latest message;

Flight 93 was hijacked at 9:28.

Yes, but they responded to the message which means that had prior warning. So again how did the hijackers surprise them ?

[edit on 20-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Boone 870

posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 05:10 PM

link

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Because there was no warning of hijackers or hijackings.

weedwhacker

posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 12:25 AM

link

reply to post by Guesswhotoo6

Guesswhotoo, thanks for chiming in and pointing out that the real purpose of THIS thread was discussing speed capabilities, specifically to B767 and the, I'm assuming, UA175 because there is video of that impact to analyze and argue about.

Your point about an airplane's POH and the Vne speed was well taken, but in that parlance usually refers to light airplanes. IN the case of modern jets, we use the term Vmo, for 'max operating' airspeed. Unlike the A/S indicator in a small airplane, with the red line painted on, a large jet has an Air Data Computer (two, actually) that are fed static pressure, pitot pressure, SAT (you may understand SAT as the same as OAT in light airplanes) and TAT data to drive the 'barber pole' in the A/S indicator, since Vmo will vary depending on altitude and airspeed. Above approximately 20,000 feet, the 'barber pole' will now become your max mach indicator...that's about the time the little 'mach window' opens up...it is blanked at the lower altitudes.

I used the crash of EgyptAir to point out that the airplanes were physically capable of the speeds suggested, and noted that EgyptAir had the engines in flight idle, or low power. Yes, at those extreme speeds and high G force, with two pilots fighting on the control inputs and causing possible control reversal situations, there would be extreme forces that would begin to cause some structural problems...but not, in just a few minutes, would lead to catastrophic failure. My thinking is, especially in a shallow dive, at max throttle, the B767 couuld well exceed the airspeed limits...they only needed a few seconds at those speeds.

The damage to an airframe is a combination of the amount of the Gs and the duration. Plenty of airplanes have survived severe turbulence encounters, with little or no damage. Events that can break passengers' or crew members' bones, and that require an inspection afterwards (of the airframe of course...inspection of the people goes without saying), but turb Gs are very short duration...

ULTIMA1

posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 01:40 AM

link

Because there was no warning of hijackers or hijackings.

Oh really then please explain what “Beware of cockpit intrusion" means.

I would think that means hijacking. I also believe that what the pilots would take it to mean.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

weedwhacker

posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Because there was no warning of hijackers or hijackings.

Oh really then please explain what “Beware of cockpit intrusion" means.

I would think that means hijacking. I also believe that what the pilots would take it to mean.

[edit on 22-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

ULTIMA, do you know how the ACARS works, when integrated into the FMS?

UAL Dispatch sends the message at, per your post, 0924. Maybe it was sent to ALL UAL flights airborne at the time, maybe only to those flights on the Eastern Seaboard...let's look into that bit of data...but depending on AIRINC traffic, the message may take, ummmm, a few seconds to uplink. There is an audible chime, an EICAS message appears. The pilots have to push several buttons to access the message...their FMS's were likely in RTE on the screens, at that time...you have to push a button to get to the ACARS mode, then select the prompted button to read the message...NOW, you look at it for, what...10 seconds...look at each other, say a few words like what is this? You turn around, look at the door...it's closed. This was a very unusual and unexpected event, you can't expect a person to react without a few seconds of disbelief. The Capt may have told the FO to call the Cabin, while he (Capt) pulled up the page to type in a response. Actually, there is a single 'Acknowledge' prompt that can be pushed to respond quickly...maybe they never tried to ask any more...I don't know....DO YOU?

Just adding...I have no idea if 'beware of cockpit intrusion' was a common term taught to UAL pilots in their annual re-current Security training...maybe it was, (not at my airline...in 2001 we didn't have the uplink text ability in a lot of our airplanes...Dispatch could SELCAL us, or just tell ATC the message...) Guess you can now research what 'SELCAL' means...I could tell you, but I'll let you do it...

Monday-morning quarterbacking aside, it requires some perspective to remember our mindset on September 10, 2001. Have you, or can you, research UAL Security training, as taught to their pilots, before 9/11? The cat is, as they say, out of the bag, as pertains to pre-9/11 techniques involving hijackings. New stuff WILL NOT be discussed on an open forum, as you should well understand.

Back to researching UAL...use your formidable talents to further educate us, if you wish to.

Thanks, hope to see more!!

[edit on 22-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

ULTIMA1

posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Actually, there is a single 'Acknowledge' prompt that can be pushed to respond quickly...maybe they never tried to ask any more...I don't know....DO YOU?

Flight 93 responds to this message at 9:26 , requesting that the dispatcher confirm the latest message.

So if the pilots were on the system and the hijackers attempted to gain entry why couldn't the pilot type in a hijack mesage?

The main point still remains how did the hijackers surprise the pilots when thery had prior warnings?

Also the fact that it only takes a second to key a mike and call for help, and it only takes about 4 seconds to change the transponder codes. So again, please explain how hijackers took over 4 planes without any of the pilots getting off an emergency call or signal?

[edit on 22-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

weedwhacker

posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Sorry to all for this seemingly off-topic post, but I would like to respond to ULTIMA.

Actually, I just read your post, ULTIMA1, from the bottom of page 14. I am proud that you are a Federal Police Officer. You receive training, and have to make decisions in split seconds, sometimes. That can be stressful, but fortunately most of one's career won't have many of those moments.

Contrary to popular belief, an airline pilot is expected to make a 'reasoned' decision, not a 'snap' decision, in most cases that we trai for. Exception being a engine failure at or near 'V1' (Take-off decision speed) where prompt recognition and action are practiced...over, and over, and over, trust me.

Less time-significant, but also important for some prompt action is an engine failure close to the ground. We practice these scenarios in the Sim...On an approach, depending on the configuration at the time, you either continue to a landing; or go-around, follow the Engine Failure Checklist, and then return for a non-normal engine out landing.

Point is, most times we want to stop and assess, find the appropriate checklist and remain calm and methodical...no 'shooting from the hip' for a professional pilot. A message on the ACARS that was so unusual, and a sense of (we now know) false security...'it won't happen to us' mentality...there was deliberation going on, an attempt to discuss and understand some very odd information. That is it, re: ACARS. As to grabbing the mic, I have explained that already, please review.

Finally....I am not a MOD...obviously I am guilty, often, of taking a thread in a direction unintended by the original poster because things come up, and the discussion diverts. I sometimes recognize this, slap my forehead, and try to either stop MY posts, or sometimes mention it and refuse to engage anymore in the off-topic discussions. I tried to steer this back to the original idea a few posts ago...I felt compelled to say one last time how I understand the way pilots think, since you, ULTIMA, mentioned it again. No accusations, just observations.....

Personal thoughts...this is a volatile subject, and it is difficult to convey our thoughts completely in an online forum, but we ALL do the best we can. Some are really good at writing, but I guess I am not. Still, I try, and try to keep it informative, if a little long-winded at times!