9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by HLR53K HLR, your point has been made, very well, I might add!!

reply to post by weedwhacker Well, thank you! I still hold nothing compared to the likes of you guys. I can see why you get paid the big bucks! These machines are really touchy at times. A whole new perspective from a design engineer's side. It was just a quick joy-flight in the simulator, no real training. But if I was given 100 hours of training and I looked over the material outside of the training, I'm sure I'd be confident enough to take over the controls of a helicopter in-flight. But what exactly are these "maneuvers" that some say were so hard to pull off? It's not like they did acrobatics with the 757/767 before crashing. [edit on 10-6-2008 by HLR53K]

Originally posted by weedwhacker No, ULTIMA.....no. A turn is a turn....doesn't matter how many hours you have....well, actually, if you had 10 hours, you could do it!! 100 hours, well....even better!!!!!

Then why leave it out of a video of a sim thats trying to show what happened at the Pentagon? Strange how other pilots feel different about it.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA, we should examine these claims of the 'precision' turn more deeply. What I mean is, on a nice clear day, you see your target. You fly past it, begin a descending turn, line up on the highway you've pre-determined you will follow to target. Is the bank angle exactly the same through-out the turn? Or, did it vary greatly, as the inexperienced pilot continually corrected, during the turn? How steep was the bank, and what was the pitch? Airspeed? All of these factors need to be determined. Rate of descent too.... I don't have that, I have the DFDR Navigational info....the MCP inputs, and NAV radio tuning info. If you have other DFDR data, I'd love to see it. Thanks.

Originally posted by weedwhacker I don't have that, I have the DFDR Navigational info....the MCP inputs, and NAV radio tuning info. If you have other DFDR data, I'd love to see it. Thanks.

I have the CDs with the DFDR data from a FOIA request to the NTSB. Its easy to get to go the NTSB page and fill out the FOIA request, you should get the CDs in a couple days.

reply to post by weedwhacker Here's a quick chart I just created from the csv file showing the final 4 minutes of the recording. I only placed the magnetic heading, pitch, roll and engine %RPM on it at this stage. To me, it doesn't appear to be very smooth with 'porpoising' evident in the pitch and the roll angle all over the place between 15 and 41 degrees. The horizontal scale is in seconds. Note that it took 3 minutes or more to complete that turn. [edit on 12/6/2008 by Pilgrum]

Here's the roll and pitch enlarged along with aileron and elevator positions over the same timeframe:

Thanks, Pilgrum. I hope all you come by to look at those graphs appreciate the implications. Those were expremely crappy (can I say 'crappy'?) pilots. It is evident, as well, in the traces I have from NTSB. It is obvious when the professionals lost control of the cockpits.

Originally posted by weedwhacker It is evident, as well, in the traces I have from NTSB. It is obvious when the professionals lost control of the cockpits.

The animation from the NTSB shows very little correction during the turn. So is it normal protocol for the pilots to trun the plane over the hijackers? According to the report of the call from flight attendent that pilots were taken to the back of the plane with the passnegers, which means they did not fight back and or get killed.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA....the "Common Strategy" used to be, firstly, keep them out of the cockpit at all costs. I think I can talk about this now, even though it used to be an industry secret....but it is no longer a valid strategy, in today's world environment. The FBI hostage negotiators, the ATC, the pilots and the Flight Attendants were all trained on the same 'strategy'. The linchpin was that the hijacker (hijackers) were either out for money, or a political agenda....but they would be universally afraid to die. Thus they would 'need' the pilots. What would you do, if you were a pilot, and there were innocents with something sharp at their throats, and you had something sharp at your throat too? My personal feeling, the pilots were killed outright....some of the claims of them being meekly herded to the rear of the airplane, sounds unlikely, ans seems to be hearsay. Or, a misunderstanding....but since all witnesses onboard are all dead now, we shall likely never know for sure. I invite you to look into the incident on a FedEx DC10, from some years ago....a disgruntled FedEx employ was attacking the three Fl;ight Deck crewmembers....it was one, against three....and they KNEW the guy was onboard, as a 'trusted' employee, and fellow pilot!!!!!!!! This guy had a death wish, and a vendetta against FedEx, since he was about to be fired. His twisted mind wished to suicide a DC10 into the fuel facility at the Memphis Airport. Going out in a 'blaze' of glory! Imagine if we had, just once, in the years later, to be aware of potential Muslim suicide terrorists. NEVER was any of this disseminated down to pilots who fly the line. We kept being fed the 'Common Strategy'....delay, delay, delay, distract, (fake a mechanical problem, to play on their fears), get on the ground, and escape, let the FBI handle it. Just to put it into a nutshell. Seems like a plan.....in theory.... Now, the cockpits are impenetrable. Doors re-inforced, even grenade and bullet-proof. To coin a phrase.....the needs of the many now outweigh the needs of the few.... As long as the pilots are secure in the cockpit, nothing can be done to violate that space. Period!!! Failing that, NO!! Yo do not willingly give up 'control'

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Second.....the NTSB animation would not show excessive 'gyrations'.... If you watch a few YouTube videos, of 'hairy' landings, for instance....meaning, gusty winds, strong crosswinds, etc, just look them up. When you see the video from people recording form the ground, with their Cams, you won't see much obvious 'gyrations' either. But, I guarantee you, the pilots are using their flight controls a heck of a lot, in gusty, unpredictable crosswinds. AND, if you wewre onboard, you'd feel the roughness. Anyone who flies a lot knows this. September 11, 2001....was almost dead calm.....I have to look up the METAR from KDCA, but I think it was a steady 7 knots, at most. At the surface, of course. Could be higher at 2000 feet (usually is) but not always. Point is, it was not gusty. An experienced pilot would be able to 'eyeball' his turn, and plan and fly it quite smoothly. A sweaty Arab with little experience would jerk the airplane all around, as he contnually corrected, since he didn't care about flying smoothly!!! edit....but, those control corrections, while recorded on the DFDR, would not necessarily show up in the final NTSB computer track animation. See? This is where communication breaks down, between pilots and non-pilots. I'm not even sure, unless someone spent a lotof money to re-create it, that the actual DFDR data could be programmed, properly, into a Simulator. Reason I say that is....it is assumed that, when you achieve the level of profeciency where you actually get to fly a Sim, you have some skills as a pilot. It is, after all, a simulation....a computer. A very good simulation, the Level D Sims are 'Landing Certified'.....meaning, they are good enough so that the FAA will annoint you with a Type Rating....and you never actually have to go do three landings in the real airplane. (This assumes, of course, that you are already an Airline Transport Pilot to begin with.....and you've demonstrated your abilities long, long before...) It is a lot to explain, and sometimes it is impossible to explain in a Forum such as this.....sorry if I failed.... [edit on 6/12/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker ULTIMA....the "Common Strategy" used to be, firstly, keep them out of the cockpit at all costs.

I asked a simple question. Is it normal hijack protocol for the pilots to just give up control of thier plane to the hijackers, YES or NO ? And yes i know what happened on the FED-EX flight. [edit on 13-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1 DUDE!!! ULTIMA!!!! Look, I wrote a very long response to your first question. I have tried to give you the benfit of the doubt. BUT, what do YOU do?? You 'snip' a sentence out of my very long, involved response!!! THEN you ask a question again, which HAS ALREADY BEEN answered!!!!!! I think your tactics are becoming clear. I tried to be polite, and provide what I had to offer. You seem to have your own agenda. I tried, you plied. You are now being 'alerted'. Sorry I have to do this, but I seriously tried to play fairly. Sorry you could not.

reply to post by weedwhacker Thanks weedwhacker Even to a non-pilot such as myself the data shows anything but an expert precision (and any other superlative I've seen) example of flying skill and yet I still see all the claims of it only being accomplished by a seasoned professional. Surely the people who cling to those claims have looked at the actual data. Are there any other aspects of the DFDR data we should be examining? The claims of wrong flight path, altitude and aspects of that turn appear to not be as factual as some would have us believe.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker ULTIMA....the "Common Strategy" used to be, firstly, keep them out of the cockpit at all costs.

I asked a simple question. Is it normal hijack protocol for the pilots to just give up control of thier plane to the hijackers, YES or NO ?

Another senseless "question." It is normal to resist attempts at hijacking. NO one can predict if resistance is successful or not. You need to focus on answering the question of WHAT plane hit the Pentagon now that you have finally admitted a plane hit the Pentagon. What plane hit the Pentagon, Ultima1?

I'm going to agree with jthomas. That "hijack protocol" question is just plain senseless to the point where it's slightly funny. "Protocol"... Anyway, weedwhacker can answer this question for me (and us). Would that autopilot have been on during the cruise portion of the flight? If it was on, it doesn't matter what's going on inside the airplane, since it's the computer controlling it. It's not like an older airplane where letting go of the controls means that the airplane starts to go out of control. Knowing that, I think more reasonable questions to ask is what's the protocol for the autopilot function if the pilot and co-pilot knew there was a hijacking in progress? Do the pilots just lock themselves in the cockpit and leave it on? Do they lock the door and then turn it off and start heading to a new location? I would assume that you wouldn't want to tip the hijackers off too much, so you'd try to make small heading adjustments to the nearest airport. Seriously? "Is it hijack protocol to turn over the controls to the hijackers"? Wow...

reply to post by HLR53K Yes, HLR....the autopilot is on for most of the flight. From my airline's Operating Handbook for the B757, in the Limitations Section, minimum altitude for engaging the A/P after Take-off is 1000 feet. Not mandatory to engage the A/P, but highly recommended in bad weather/low visibility because of the reduced workload. The A/P is normally remained engaged during descent too. Disengagement was at pilot's discretion, when VFR, but no lower than 50 feet, per the Limitations (exception: AutoLandings) The A/P has many different operation modes, and it is important to know how to properly operate them. From what I've seen in the NTSB reports re: AAL77 and UAL93, the hijackers knew basics.....HDG SEL and FL CHNG, for instance. They knew how to dis-connect, and re-connect as well (just a matter of pushing a button, as long as you don't have a lot of pressure on the control wheel. In fact, when engaged, a sufficiently hard enough push on the control column will dis-connect the A/P) The point, today, is different when it comes to the potential for a new hijacking. Ain't gonna happen!!! See, that's why they did four at once, in 2001, 'cause they knew there would never be another chance at the lax security that used to exist. And that's all I'm gonna say about that!

It's important to remember that previous to this event, most hijackings ended relatively peacefully on the 'tarmac' (I used that word just to get WW's goat). Demands and a series of negotiations were the normal result and resolution of a hijacking. Most of them ended (relatively) peacefully. So to the "How could a small group of guys with box cutters hold off the entire crew and passengers?" question we see so often, remember that the general idea to that point was to just wait it out and the odds were no one would be hurt. Obviously now that perspective has changed. I don't think a flight crew would "willingly" give up the flight deck to hijackers under any circumstance, however. That is such nonsense; I can't believe it was mentioned.

reply to post by _Del_ I used to have a goat, but now you've got it!! Darn, guess I''ll switch to llamas....do they eat the grass?

I personally think that Ultima asking that question was insulting to all the pilots and co-pilots out there. Carry on.