A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9  
Old February 24th 06, 07:30 AM posted to rec.travel.air,alt.disasters.aviation,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

Pooh Bear wrote in
:



TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:


TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

TRUTH wrote:

"Matt Wright" wrote in
oups.com:

Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed
Atta was both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a
"clueless non-pilot". Flight instructors maybe had poor
overall opinions of the pilots, but you don't know how long
they trained away from the flight school. You don't know how
much "book time" they had studying avionics. The attack had
years of planning behind it. I guess they could have spent
that time playing pinball... but maybe instead they were
studying. That something is hard does not make it impossible.

Matt.

I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was
instrument trained does not explain the others

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that
there was no need for any of them to be instrument trained ?
Flying in clear skies does not require an instrument rating.

Graham



At 30,000 feet it does

INCORRECT !

FAA regulations require the licensed crew to use instrument flying
techniques ( for obvious reasons ).

That doesn't mean that it's impossible to fly VFR ( visual flight
rules ) - it just means you're breaking the law. Do you think the
hijackers even cared about that ?

If you can see the horizon / ground ( at any height ) you don't
need to fly instruments ( other than to obey regulations ).

Graham


Okay, I'll admit you "might" know about this stuff,


Thank you ! Trust me I do !

although I would give
an Aeronautical Engineer's opinion a little more weight. I am not an
expert in every aspect of 9/11. And I admit it. Stange how others do
not do the same


The issue of whether or not the hijackers were instrument rated is of
zero consequence in the context of 9/11 since the weather was VFR (
visual flight rules ).

Commercial pilots often have to fly in rather poorer weather where you
may not be able to see the ground, horizon, or even much in front of
your nose. That's why they have instrument ratings. The idea behind
flying 'on instruments' is about when you can't see where you're
going. The reaon for the FAA rules about mandatory use of 'IFR' (
instrument flight rules ) flight is essentially precautionary.

Graham






Do you know that this, in fact, is applicable for 757/767s ??
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible Miss L. Toe Piloting 11 February 23rd 06 02:25 PM
Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible Jim Macklin Piloting 12 February 22nd 06 10:09 PM
Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible Bob Gardner Piloting 18 February 22nd 06 08:25 PM
Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible Scott M. Kozel Piloting 1 February 22nd 06 03:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.