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 ??

TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

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 ??

It applies to all major airline operations.

If you want the details see the FAA regs.

Graham

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

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.

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

You might want to consider the fact that people have been flying planes
at 30,000+ feet for several decades now, and many of them didn't have
anything lie that we'd consider IFR equipment.

WWII bomber pilots routinely flew at 30-33,000 feet, navigating by
landmarks.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:44:10 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

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.

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

You might want to consider the fact that people have been flying planes
at 30,000+ feet for several decades now, and many of them didn't have
anything lie that we'd consider IFR equipment.

WWII bomber pilots routinely flew at 30-33,000 feet, navigating by
landmarks.

Or in the worst case, compass headings and time of travel adjusted by wind
speed. The weather in Germany isn't always good enough for seeing the ground
from 30k feet.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:44:10 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote in
:

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.

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

You might want to consider the fact that people have been flying planes
at 30,000+ feet for several decades now, and many of them didn't have
anything lie that we'd consider IFR equipment.

WWII bomber pilots routinely flew at 30-33,000 feet, navigating by
landmarks.

Or in the worst case, compass headings and time of travel adjusted by wind
speed. The weather in Germany isn't always good enough for seeing the ground
from 30k feet.

Or indeed in the dark ! It's barely believable today that RAF navigators used
star sightings on early raids.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:44:10 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
WWII bomber pilots routinely flew at 30-33,000 feet, navigating by
landmarks.

Or in the worst case, compass headings and time of travel adjusted
by wind
speed. The weather in Germany isn't always good enough for seeing
the ground from 30k feet.

Or indeed in the dark ! It's barely believable today that RAF
navigators used star sightings on early raids.

Even prior to WWII, WWI Zeppelins flew to London in night raids using dead
reckoning and an extremely crude radio navigation system. The radio system
required German ground stations determine the direction the Zeppelin's
radio transmissions were coming from and had to radio back that information
to the airships who then did the triangulation. It was not only relatively
inaccurate, it clued the British in to the airship raids.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:40:47 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Or in the worst case, compass headings and time of travel adjusted by wind
speed. The weather in Germany isn't always good enough for seeing the ground
from 30k feet.

Or indeed in the dark ! It's barely believable today that RAF navigators used
star sightings on early raids.

The RAF nighttime bombing campaign was a bit different, for one thing they
didn't pick a precision target, they just dropped on a whole city. Easy enough
to do in the dark that they got it right a whole lot more often than they got it
wrong.