![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |