AUTOPILOT




--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"TRUTH" wrote in message
...
| http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm
|
|
|
| The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without
Training
| by Nila Sagadevan
|
| Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified
pilot of heavy
| aircraft.
|
| There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11
hijackers, although
| proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172,
had acquired the
| impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by
training in
| flight simulators.
|
| What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for
all, because
| I've heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad
nauseam, on the
| Internet and the TV networks-invariably by people who know
nothing
| substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even
airplanes.
|
| A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is
how "easy" it
| is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to
operate if the
| objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in
the "open sky".
| But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver
with even the
| least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite
daunting. And
| if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic
location hundreds of
| miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above
the ground the
| challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained
pilot.
|
| And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who
could not fly a
| Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished
in multi-ton,
| high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.
|
| For a person not conversant with the practical
complexities of pilotage,
| a modern flight simulator could present a terribly
confusing and
| disorienting experience. These complex training devices
are not even
| remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement
arcades, or
| even the software versions available for home computers.
|
| In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any
level of skill,
| one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but
also a skilled
| instrument-rated one to boot - and be thoroughly familiar
with the actual
| aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit
layouts vary
| between aircraft.
|
| The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would
even begin to
| approach the degree of visual realism of a modern
professional flight
| simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases.
During these
| phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway
lights stretched
| out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings,
etc. moving
| past. Take-offs-even landings, to a certain degree-are
relatively "easy",
| because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist
"outside" the
| cockpit.
|
| But once you've rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising
altitude in a
| simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route
to some distant
| destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation
techniques), the
| situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually
all external
| visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy
of an array of
| complex flight and navigation instruments to provide
situational cues
| (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)
|
| In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be
faced with an EFIS
| (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised
of six large
| multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted
"hard"
| instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft
system and flight
| data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation,
position and
| progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions,
but also with
| regard to time and speed as well. When flying "blind",
I.e., with no
| ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to
interpret, and
| then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot
translate this
| information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it
takes an
| instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO
SITUATIONAL
| AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where s/he
was in
| relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is
referred to as
| "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules.
|
| And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your
instruments, because
| that's all you have!
|
| The corollary to Rule #1: If you can't read the
instruments in a quick,
| smooth, disciplined, scan, you're as good as dead.
Accident records from
| around the world are replete with reports of any number of
good pilots -
| I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots - who 'bought
the farm'
| because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.
|
| Let me place this in the context of the 9/11
hijacker-pilots. These men
| were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple
Cessna-172 - an
| elementary exercise that involves flying this little
trainer once around
| the patch on a sunny day. A student's first solo flight
involves a simple
| circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns
ending with a
| landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can
possibly get.
|
| Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this
most elementary
| exercise by himself.
|
| In fact, here's what their flight instructors had to say
about the
| aptitude of these budding aviators:
|
| Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."
|
| Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't
live up to our
| standards."
|
| Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited
English and
| incompetence at the controls."
|
| Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two
lessons."
|
| 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."
|
| Now let's take a look at American Airlines Flight 77.
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.
|
| Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight
deck crew,
| removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in
the captain's
| seat. Although weather reports state this was not the
case, let's say
| Hanjour was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day
(Ceiling And
| Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead
through the
| windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he
would see,
| 35,000 feet -- 7 miles -- below him, a murky
brownish-grey-green
| landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the
aircraft he was
| now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in
eerie silence,
| at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).
|
| In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather
conditions that
| day), he would likely have seen clouds below him
completely obscuring the
| ground he was traversing. With this kind of "situational
non-awareness",
| Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina,
Russia, or
| Japan-he wouldn't have had a clue as to where, precisely,
he was.
|
| After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure
out there's
| little point in looking outside-there's nothing there to
give him any
| real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled
with little
| Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and
always in the
| comforting presence of an instructor), this would have
been a strange,
| eerily unsettling environment indeed.
|
| Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to
divert his
| attention to his instrument panel, where he'd be faced
with a bewildering
| array of instruments. He would then have to very quickly
interpret his
| heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information
on the displays
| before he could even figure out where in the world he was,
much less
| where the Pentagon was located in relation to his
position!
|
| After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to
first find the
| target.
|
| It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter
lack of ground
| reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that
for these
| incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling
with such a
| daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They
wouldn't have
| known where to begin.
|
| But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things
beyond all
| plausibility and say that Hanjour-whose flight instructor
claimed
| "couldn't fly at all"-somehow managed to figure out their
exact position
| on the American landscape in relation to their intended
target as they
| traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they
had ever flown
| by themselves before.
|
| Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need
to figure out
| where the Pentagon was located in relation to his
rapidly-changing
| position. He would then need to plot a course to his
target (one he
| cannot see with his eyes-remember, our ace is flying
solely on
| instruments).
|
| In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he
would have to
| be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps
even knew what
| a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to
plug
| information into flight management computers (FMC) and
engage LNAV
| (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe
the official
| story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw
student pilots
| while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and
practically invisible)
| terrain, using complex methodologies and employing
sophisticated
| instruments.
|
| To get around this little problem, the official storyline
suggests these
| men manually flew their aircraft to their respective
targets (NB: This
| still wouldn't relieve them of the burden of navigation).
But let's
| assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle
and hand-flew
| the aircraft to its intended-and invisible-target on
instruments alone
| until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would
have
| necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and
Virginia to
| Washington DC. (This portion of Flight 77's flight path
cannot be
| corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because
the aircraft is
| said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over
Ohio, but let's
| not mull over that little point.)
|
| According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then
suddenly pops up
| over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise
diving turn at a
| rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500
ft/min, at the end
| of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level.
Oh, I almost
| forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the
transponder in
| the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of
his instructors
| later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the
word if his
| life depended on it).
|
| The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the
air traffic
| controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their
screen was a
| commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air
traffic controllers
| at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said,
"The speed, the
| maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in
the radar
| room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that
that was a
| military plane."
|
| And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour
finds the
| Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.
|
| But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim
kamikaze pilot.
| You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards
one of the most
| densely populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied
by top military
| brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld.
Presumably in order
| to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping
270-degree turn
| and approaches the building from the opposite direction
and aligns
| himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was
virtually uninhabited
| due to extensive renovations that were underway (there
were some 120
| civilians construction workers in that wing who were
killed; their work
| included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).
|
| I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying
a large
| commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400
MPH. A
| discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex
compression, downwash
| sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are
beyond the
| scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would
have blown
| whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
|
| Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to
fly a 200,000-
| lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.
|
| 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.
|
| Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were
several street
| light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon
that were
| snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low,
flat
| trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase.
Further, it is
| known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor.
For purposes
| of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its
engine nacelles
| (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose
would be almost 20
| above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the
ground floor of
| the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in
with the engines
| buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.
|
| At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight
aerodynamically
| impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely
powerful downwash
| sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip
vortices,
| simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the
ground than
| approximately one half the distance of its wingspan-until
speed is
| drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens
during normal
| landings.
|
| 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. (Such a
| maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of
aircraft with
| high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the
B1-B bomber, and
| Cruise missiles-and the Global Hawk.)
|
| The very same navigational challenges mentioned above
would have faced
| the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in
that they, too,
| would have had to have first found their targets. Again,
these chaps,
| too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And
again, their
| "final approach" maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far
too incredible
| to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic
training
| aircraft.
|
| Conclusion
| The writers of the official storyline expect us to
believe, that once the
| flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers
"took control"
| of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly
popped up in
| their windshields as they would have in some arcade game,
and all that
| these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their
airplanes at the
| buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been
exposed only to
| the official storyline have never been on the flight deck
of an airliner
| at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had,
they'd realize
| the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.
|
| In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost
insurmountable
| difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a
200,000-lb airliner into
| a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and
hundreds of miles
| away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while
flying at over
| 500 MPH - and all this under extremely stressful
circumstances.