Project Camelot's NEW 4hr long interview with John Lear

how realistic are those SIMs? I have an Xbox 360 and play Zero G Fighters on it. It is pretty tough, but playable. Those games are certainly "dumbed" down to make them playable in someone's living room. Is here truly a difference in difficulty?

I can imagine that the sluggishness of a commercial craft would be immensely different than a prop engine plane that one would learn in.

I don't know if it was a holograph or not. But i know that the possibility is certiainly there. And it does seem difficult to imagine these adrenaline charged lunatics maneuvering those planes to surgically.

Keep us posted on the results. It should be an interesting endeavor.

reply to post by zysin5


zysin....am I to infer that 'COOLHAND' is to participate as well???

Well....we have quite a few....Springer and Crakeur have some seniority, I will think....so that's two.

I'm trying to include my friend 'greeneyedleo'....we....(forgive me K....) should have a woman in the mix...(I can't believe I just said that, MY APOLOGIES to all who read it.....)

But....I know everyone wants to think it, even if they don't express it....

SO! We have....Springer, Crakeur, greeneyedleo, and COOLHAND!


Looks like we're done here!!

Springer....(Mark) has told me he has about 47 minutes of time....

Crakeur....I have no idea....same with the other two. Would like to know, just for the ATS audience....

For the record...I, WW (TIm) have at least 30,000 hours....I stopped logging when I got hired at Continental....but THEY keep track...I just estimated, when I went in for my Medical Application (pilots will understand this).

( the Medical....every year, if you're a First Officer....every six months, if you're a Captain). One box, on the form....is your "occupation". Another box, on the form....your total time....we don't bring our bloody logbooks to the Doctor's office!!! So, we guesstimate......typical airline pilot flies about 70 hours per month....hard time....you can do the math!!!

WW

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Need only one more....JL won't come....but he will watch, I am sure. Zorgon? Can you fly???

158 hours in a Cessna many moons ago... I almost bought a Piper Cherokee just before the price skyrocketed due to insurance issues... Still have all my flight manuals

but no thanks... I will defer to someone else



[edit on 8-5-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

I will be one of the "test pilots" right? I have about 47 minutes (if I remember all the flights I took the controls correctly) experience. But heck, if we are "funding it" I get to play yes?

I am pretty sure Crakeur will want in too, so we need to make sure we get enough time.

Springer...

Well, I want in too!! Why? Because I have some experience in Microsoft’s Flight Sim – about 4years to be precise. Now MS Flight Sim is being used to train student pilots of the Navy at the Flight safety International Academy in Vero Beach, FL and must complete 27 hours on the Microsoft Flight Sim Lab to qualify. It’s as real as it gets. I dunno how many have had a shot at it. Except for the gyros controlling yaw and pitch giving you a feel of ‘movement’ it has what the real thing has. It can be programmed with whatever parameters one wants.

I wonder if weedwhacker has had a go with the MS FS? I tried crashing it with the following parameters:

> Target: The Empire State Building (MS have removed the Twin Towers, so there’s nothing there!)
> Aircraft: Boeing 767
> Air Speed: 470 mph and holding.
> Altitude: 4200 ft at last way point 30 miles away.
> Bank angle: 30 deg on impact.
> Autopilot disengaged.
> Flaps and undercarriage: up
> Realism level: Max. (P factor, Torque, gyro drift, crash tolerance, etc)
> Scenery complexity: Very dense
> Weather: fair with medium dynamic rate change.
>Joystick: Force feedback enabled.
> GPS: enabled.

The result? Bang on! It was a cinch smashing into the ESB with little practice! No big deal! But that’s probably because I have a little experience having flown gliders before. And, according to info, the hijackers practiced on none other than Microsoft’s Flight Sim FS9!!!

So I feel this whole talk about the impossibility of flying a 767 into a building as big as the WTC tower is rubbish!

Here’s a vid from the Microsoft flight sim that gives some idea. The first part is a fly-by, by a Beachcraft, followed by a 737 at around 2:30 into the vid. Unfortunately the resolution and frame-rates suck, you can't read the instruments etc, (thanx to YouTube! ) but it gives a little idea of what the sim can really do. If one has no experience of actual flying or haven’t spent hours on the sim to get accustomed to the nuances of flying, then one shouldn't even attempt this maneuver!



Cheers!

P.S. I’m a zillion miles away, so no chance of me joining the bandwagon anyway!


[edit on 8-5-2008 by mikesingh]

reply to post by mikesingh


Thanks, Mike....

NO, I actually don't have MicroSoft Simulator....never played it. Don't want to start getting wrapped up in all the paraphenalia (SP?)

What's more fun, to me, is the R/C simulation programs...that way I can practice flying my models, and don't lose money if I crash...

Cheers!

I think all this is a marvellous idea - Mike, I've not tried MS Flight Sim for a long time, I suspect the version I used a few years back is well out of date. All the same, I reckon I've done enough flying on that and on packages like IL-2 to have a decent understanding of the likelihood of being able to recreate the WTC attack on a simulater.

For what it's worth, though I wouldn't describe it as a sinch (I'm sure your flying skills are better than mine, mind you ) I agree that it ought to be possible for anyone who was relatively familiar with flight simulator controls to be able to do it at least 6 times out of 10.

What I'm less clear on is how that translates to doing it for real in an actual plane. For that matter, I'm not sure to what extent flying Cessnas or Grobs - not for a moment to detract from the skill needed to do so - or even fighter jets - translates to the realities of flying a commercial airliner, aiming, at high speed into a relatively small target like the WTC.

What I would say is this. John Lear, though an eminent pilot, is not the only pilot in the world, and I have heard many others call what he calls impossible quite the opposite.

If you study the tape and the way he tells the story, I got the impression he was less keen on rubbishing the "accepted" truth of 9/11 than in promoting his own story. In other words, he wasn't so interested in analyzing why the terrorist act version might not be plausible, as in why his hologram theory might be plausible.

You might call this nit-picky - but having watched the way JL uses story telling techniques with regard to ATS, I'd say it's quite an important aspect of his campaign to focus on - not what he says, but how he says it...

LW

I don't question the simulator itself. I'm just saying the simulator used should be a simulator none of the participants have ever used so none of them have experience with it before going in.

You want it like the conditions of 9-11, right? The hijackers were flying planes they've never flown before. So the simulators should be ones that haven't been used by any of the participants.

I'm not saying it can't be done in a simulator. I have Microsoft Flight simulator 98 and Flight Simulator X. In 98 I managed to hit the tower on my first try. In X I also managed to hit a building on my first try but it wasn't the WTC. The only trouble I had in 98 was finding the towers from where I took off at. Once I spotted them it wasn't hard to hit the tower at the full speed. I could never hit dead center though.

These are video games, but I also know that many actual flight simulators used to train people are based on Microsoft Flight Simulator. Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel just had an episode lately where they were testing the myth of it being possible for someone who has no flying experience to land a plane just by listening to someone in the control tower. The simulator they used was based on Microsoft's simulator.

I'm not saying it can't be done. IMO it can be done in a simulator by anyone who tries it. Like I said, the only problem I had was finding the towers at first.

I just wish my last computer didn't die on me. Flight Simulator X was a nice looking simulator and I can't run it on the system I'm on now.

reply to post by LoneWeasel


LW, I like the way you analyze.

Ya know, I've mentioned this before....hate to alarm anyone.....but an airline pilot, when transitioning to a different piece of equipment....say, from a 737 to a 757...after all of the 'ground school' and the roughly 20-24 hours in the Level D Simulator your final 'Sim' session is the 'rating ride'....the FAA 'blesses' you with a type rating, based ONLY on your experience in the Simulator. It is THAT realistic.

To finalize your 'check-out', per various airlines's Ops Specs, you fly what's called 'IOE'.....Initial Operating Experience....25 hours, with a Check Airman (such as John Lear....) But remember....you haven't flown the real thing yet, just the Simulator....but here you are, going flying!!!

These are live flights....regularly scheduled passenger flights....if it's your first upgrade to Captain, at a Part 121 airline, then at the end an FAA inspector from the local FSDO will be scheduled to observe, from the jumpseat. Then, you are thouroughly 'blessed'!!

But, once you're a Captain, and just switch equipment, no more FAA observations....of course, for the type rating ride, in the Sim, you may have an FAA inspector....or just a 'designee'...the instructors are qualified to act as 'designees'....and they are monitored closely.

Hope this info helps!

WW

ps...JL, or his assigned 'designees' may feel free to fact-check what I just wrote....

edit for pps....that's one reason the Southwest Airlines business model has been so successful. Training costs at most airlines are high, as pilots vie for different equipment (pay varies by weight) and lifestyle (what city the particular airplane you're qualified on is 'hubbed' from....we called it a sub-base). Seniority rules here....your original date of hire is virtually stamped on your forehead, and all else stems from that....it is a number, and your number (seniority) number only goes down when people above you retire or die....and the seniority number goes down, you move up....simple, eh? Oh....wait....wait for the mergers!!! You think a shark feeding frenzy is nasty.....hoo, boy!



[edit on 5/8/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
I think all this is a marvellous idea - Mike, I've not tried MS Flight Sim for a long time, I suspect the version I used a few years back is well out of date.

Originally posted by nightmare_david
Flight Simulator X is a nice looking simulator and I can't run it on the system I'm on now.

Yep! You'll need a system that'll turn your neighbors green with envy!!

You'll need a min of 2GB RAM, 512 MB video card (I use nVidia and ATI) and a dual core processor. If you don't have these fancy specs on your system, then don't even think about the MS FSX!

Cheers!

[edit on 8-5-2008 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
zysin....am I to infer that 'COOLHAND' is to participate as well???

COOL HAND will not be participating, due to work commitments.

I also think that I am overqualified for what you are looking for.

I do appreciate the offer, and I am looking forward to the video. Has anyone talked to the SIM companies about cutting a deal if we make mention of them and their support?

You would think that they would have tried this themselves in the past to prove the story. I am a little shocked to find out that was not the case.

I'll alway enjoy myself ... its a promise I made after surviving cancer and mkultra.

Based upon my age when a man can't remember to put his wedding ring on
its a subconsious signal he wishes to be single. Having pointed that out
I must disagree with Mr. Lear on the topic of plant X. He must have been out chasing shirts the day CNN aired that live feed from JPL in 1990.

God Bless him, he's still one of my favorites.

Originally posted by weedwhacker.that's one reason the Southwest Airlines business model has been so successful. Training costs at most airlines are high, as pilots vie for different equipment [edit on 5/8/0808 by weedwhacker]

I think SW has gone a bit to far concerning hardware similarity,
they have dumbed down the NG's to Jurassic-standard,
simulated steamgauges, no VNAV and such.

Probably still needs the difference course?

Well i'm not gonna bring this thread completly off topic

reply to post by COOL HAND


COOL....you raised an interesting point.....

I've been focusing on Airlines, and their Training Centers, because I am focusing on just the USA.

The companies that actually BUILD the Sims are mostly in Europe.

The companies that build the Sims, want to sell them...they don't want to maintain them, keep them up and running, it is expensive....they just wish to sell them.
Yes, they probably supply tech support as part of the sale....but a major airline has their own in-house techs eventually.....

COOL....why did you dis-qualify yourself? Because you can fly?

sorry....had a phone call....lost my train of thought....

COOL....you brought up the aspect of appealing to the Sim companies....that was a unique idea, but it fails based on what I wrote up above.

Knowing that ATS is an internationally diverse group of contributors, I hate to unwittingly dis-respect anyone not in the US. BUT, if this Sim experiment happens, it will likely be in the US...hence, I suggested Denver.

COOL also brought up a thought....if it's Denver, then it's UAL. (my idea) I really, really doubt they'd want any publicity...at least, not MSM publicity.

So, this is an in-house (ATS members) event. Not inexpensive, but do-able.

I admit to thinking, for my own personal reasons, it would be like a kid in the candy store, to fly the Sim again....but, even as I write those words, I realize it could leave the wrong impression. This would be seriously taken, this experiment. Any time left over, would then be available for fun.

For instance, we could use any extra time to let people, who MAYBE have a few hundred hours, land the 767. You'd be surprised (or maybe not) how a little bit of instruction and coaching from the right seat will result in a fairly good landing (no crosswinds!!).

Cheers!

WW

reply to post by Freaky_Animal


Freaky.....you are correct, up to a point....SWA had to bite the bullet, so to speak, when they started buying the NGs.

SO....they had to 'back-train' (is that a term?) the pilots.....to understand the LNAV/VNAV, and how to interact with the FMC (which were never installed on the original fleet of B737-300s). [had to add....for the audience....SWA started, originally, with B737-200s. Boeing enhanced the B737 model, with new engines, and other slight differnces ...hydraulics, electrics, etc....but also introduced a more advanced Flight Guidance System. Well, SWA passed on the FGS enhancements....for cost reasons...but eventually had to catch up to the 21st Century!!!!)

You'd think that SWA would have realized, years ago, the cost advantages of upgrading the tech....with GPS, FMC and trhe ability to use those tools to be more efficient.

Guess it took the retirement of the CEO 'Herb' to change the mind-culture....just a thought or two...

WW

[edit on 5/8/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhackerSO....they had to 'back-train' (is that a term?) the pilots.....to understand the LNAV/VNAV, and how to interact with the FMC (which were never installed on the original fleet of B737-300s). [had to add....for the audience....SWA started, originally, with B737-200s. Boeing enhanced the B737 model, with new engines, and other slight differnces ...hydraulics, electrics, etc....but also introduced a more advanced Flight Guidance System. Well, SWA passed on the FGS enhancements....for cost reasons...but eventually had to catch up to the 21st Century!!!!)[edit on 5/8/0808 by weedwhacker]

Ok, that explains a lot.
I didn't know that their classics were non FMC, would take time and lots of bucks to train crews for FMC.

reply to post by mikesingh


Don't believe it.

In real life in a chopper or plane or Sim you do not see much on the ground.

That is already lower than the towers and must be flying on edge to
see that much out the side window.



[edit on 5/8/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Tesla......are you trying to make a joke, here???

Honestly.....

WW

reply to post by Sparky63


Last of the moon talk.
To the sun the faces of moon are exposed.
This is actually a translation of position (of a non rotational body).

The reason why a moon eventually stops rotation should be
evident to gravitation effects.

The energy to rotate is gradually taken away by the larger planet.
The sun is perhaps slowing down the earth.
Its all part of the winding down process.

Although electrical universe proponents would like otherwise,
gravity still has is effects.

The Sim topic must have been in one of the posted PC's Lear videos.
I'll have to see what he said.

ED: From NASA, the Moon rotates, I still say NOT.
www.nasa.gov...
Unless the is last rudiments of rotation.
I heard this 29 1/2 days in high School.
It rotates in its monthly translation... so we see the same side.
We see the same side because it does not rotate on its own.
To space cadets it might rotate be we ain't in ET territory yet.
Perhaps NASA is being led by UFO fliers that go to the Moon.


[edit on 5/8/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

reply to post by COOL HAND

Has anyone contacted him directly to see if he would come along for it? I think it would be worth contributing to it just to see the look on his face when someone pulls it off.

Just Yesterday you where jumping at the chance to be a part of this Cool Hand. I took the time to send you a U2, aswell as John taking the time to say that yes he would be taking a small part in this.
I thought this is what you wanted?

COOL HAND will not be participating, due to work commitments.

Okay then why go threw all the trouble of asking John to contact someone like me if you already knew about work?
I understand WE all have to work and do our own thing.. But you asked, and you got it.. Now you are backing out?

I also think that I am overqualified for what you are looking for.

Please if you dont mind, what makes you overquailified for this? I dont know who you are in real life, nor am I asking for anything to personal.
But when you say you are overquailified for what we are looking for, just what do you mean by that?

Why are you backing out now, when John said he would be part of this.
He never said he was going to fly as if he did and missed, anyone could turn around and say, well he missed on purpose.

IF you are a highly skilled in the air, and with aircraft, Then why wouldnt you want to disprove John Lear?
In your post you said you would love to see the look on his face when someone hit the target dead center?

Agin, JL has posted his credentials on ATS many times, and its public record of his actions, and credentials.
However with you guys all I hear is words, and how you are overskilled to do this..
IF I may, can I ask to see something in writting.. Or some type of proof that you are honestly overskilled for a such a thing.

All in due respect sir.. I only ask becasue I went out of my way yesterday to see that things are going in the direction that people asked..

Prehaps we need a thread dedicated to this Sim.

Mike, would you be willing to start a new thread? Out of all us here you would be the best choice to start a thread.. We love ya man! And you do great work.. And if they see Mikes name at the top of that thread, then I know its going to get the attention it needs!

Thanks.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Tesla.....not to call you out on a fake fact....well, actually, I AM calling you out on a fake fact!!!

The Moon rotates, about its axis. The Earth also rotates about its axis...wanna debate that fact???

Humans have been on this planet for just a fraction of second, in the larger scheme of life.....

So, in the few thousand years of observation, we see the Moon, in its orbit.

A few thousand years, compared to Billions of years???? Most Humans can't comprehend those time scales.....that's why we need to educate people.

Billions of years ago, the Moon was much closer to the Earth.....we were, for much of the formative history of life on this planet, a 'dual system'

Our Moon helped, after its formation by an impact 4 Billiion years ago, to stabilize the Earth.....and allow life to flourish.

Back to today....one aspect of the Apollo legacy is, they positioned reflectors, on the Moon, so that lasers from Earth could accurately guage the orbit of the Moon.

Seems, from three decades of precise measurements.....the Moon is spiralling away, in it's orbit. Only a centimeter or so, per year.....but you can infer backwards, AND forwards....to determine how the Moon has affected our planet, and how its eventual disappearance (long after we are dead)

Science is paramount.....Deny Ignorance!!!!!!

WW