9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by defcon5
The point is that aircraft CAN exceed their maximums, and CAN survive the experience.

Captain Ho had passed his last two simulator proficiency checks on February 2 and November 5, 1984, and he passed his last route check on April 14, 1984. The captain had flown 15,494 hours, 3748 of which were in Boeing 747 airplanes. During the last 90 days, 30 days, and 24 hours before the accident he had flown 254 hours, 82 hours, and zero hours, respectively.

Originally posted by defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
We'll get to the rest of your post when you find "exceeding the speed of sound" in the above NTSB report.

Want to argue the point with Wikipedia?
en.wikipedia.org...

Although Concorde and the Tu-144 were the first aircraft to carry commercial passengers at supersonic speeds, they were not the first or only commercial airliners to break the sound barrier. On 21 August 1961, a Douglas DC-8 broke the sound barrier at Mach 1.012 or 1,240 km/h (776.2 mph) while in a controlled dive through 41,088 feet (12,510 m). The purpose of the flight was to collect data on a new leading-edge design for the wing.[15] A China Airlines 747 almost certainly broke the sound barrier in an unplanned descent from 41,000 ft (12,500 m) to 9,500 ft (2,900 m) after an in-flight upset on 19 February 1985. It also reached over 5g.[16]

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Originally posted by defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
"The purpose of the flight was to collect data on a new leading-edge design for the wing"

Wait you are reading about the previous incident, let me narrow this down to the pertinent part:
en.wikipedia.org...

A China Airlines 747 almost certainly broke the sound barrier in an unplanned descent from 41,000 ft (12,500 m) to 9,500 ft (2,900 m) after an in-flight upset on 19 February 1985. It also reached over 5g.[16]

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

The flight from Taipei to about 300 nmi northwest of San Francisco was uneventful and the airplane was flying at about 41,000 feet mean sea level when the No. 4 engine lost power. During the attempt to recover and restore normal power on the No. 4 engine, the airplane rolled to the right, nosed over, and entered an uncontrollable descent. The captain was unable to restore the airplane to stable flight until it had descended to 9,500 feet. After the captain stabilized the airplane, he elected to divert to San Francisco International Airport, where a safe landing was made. Although the airplane suffered major structural damage during the upset, descent, and subsequent recovery, only two persons among the 274 passengers and crew on board were injured seriously.
The maximum vertical acceleration forces recorded during the descent were 4.8Gs and 5.1Gs as the airplane descended through 30,552 feet and 19,083 feet, respectively.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The captain’s preoccupation with an inflight malfunction and his failure to monitor properly the airplane’s flight instruments which resulted in his losing control of the airplane. Contributing to the accident was the captain’s over-reliance on the autopilot after the loss of thrust on the no. 4 engine."

- The captain, first officer, and flight engineer said that they did not hear the overspeed aural warning and that the stall warning stickshaker did not activate at any time during the descent.

- As the airplane emerged from the clouds at about 11,000 feet it was, according to the captain, accelerating through 180 KIAS

- The first sustained data loss occurred at 1015:23 as the airplane was descending through 30,132 feet at 296 KIAS


- . At 1017:13, when the Group 1 synchros began displaying correct data, the airplane was at 9,577 feet and climbing and the airspeed was 221 KIAS

- During that 8-second period, the airplane descended from 14,541 feet to 13,950 feet and the airspeed increased from 87 KIAS to 110 KIAS

- the Safety Board believes that it was highly unlikely that the airplane ever achieved the necessary 250 KIAS to permit a successful airstart on engines Nos. 1, 2, and 3...

Originally posted by defcon5
The numbers you stated above are from when the flame out occurred and the aircraft was decreasing in speed.

- The captain, first officer, and flight engineer said that they did not hear the overspeed aural warning and that the stall warning stickshaker did not activate at any time during the descent.

- As the airplane emerged from the clouds at about 11,000 feet it was, according to the captain, accelerating through 180 KIAS

- The first sustained data loss occurred at 1015:23 as the airplane was descending through 30,132 feet at 296 KIAS


- . At 1017:13, when the Group 1 synchros began displaying correct data, the airplane was at 9,577 feet and climbing and the airspeed was 221 KIAS

- During that 8-second period, the airplane descended from 14,541 feet to 13,950 feet and the airspeed increased from 87 KIAS to 110 KIAS

- the Safety Board believes that it was highly unlikely that the airplane ever achieved the necessary 250 KIAS to permit a successful airstart on engines Nos. 1, 2, and 3...

The actual speed attained by the aircraft in the descent was not recorded because it exceeded the instruments ability to record it:
NTSB Report

Recorder Data Losses.--The examination of the DFDR readout disclosed a number of periods where data were lost. These data losses were the result of the vibration and the sustained vertical acceleration forces (Gs) exerted on the recorder during the descent. Some of these data were retrieved through the use of recovery techniques, but the accuracy of these recovered data is suspect. In addition, anomalies in the recorded altitude and airspeed values appeared early in the descent because the descent rate of the airplane had exceeded the maximum tracking capability of the airplane's digital air data computer (DADC). Specific details are discussed below.

Then from here:
airliners that have gone supersonic and survived

After about 30 seconds the aircraft made a wing-over and rolled completely, descending rapidly at up to 60° down-angle and losing about 30,000 feet in less than two minutes. Speeds exceeded the airframe's maximum mach number of 0.92 (92% of the speed of sound) on two occasions, and strong gee forces were felt for several minutes, up to a maximum of about five gees.

The first sustained data loss occurred at 1015:23 as the airplane was descending through 30,132 feet at 296 KIAS 7/ and the vertical acceleration values approached 5 Gs..

Which matches what the pilot stated:

The captain said that the airplane exceeded Vmo twice and also decelerated below 100 KIAS during the dive.

So enough obfuscating already, even if the aircraft didn’t exceed its VMO, which is unlikely as even the pilot admits he did, it at the very least exceeded its G rating and staying in flyable condition.

I also find it amusing that all of the sudden the NTSB is the only source that you will accept information from.

Originally posted by defcon5

The captain said that the airplane exceeded Vmo twice and also decelerated below 100 KIAS during the dive.

Although the captain said that the airplane exceeded Vmo twice and also decelerated below 100 KIAS during the dive, all three crew members said that they did not hear the overspeed warning and that the stall warning stickshaker did not activate.

Originally posted by defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Everyone outside the truth movement, including the pilot at the controls himself, seems to agree that the plane exceeded its design spec maximums.