Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

I have had the opportunity to fly both 737 and 747 simulators at the Boeing
Training Center and at Flight Safety. I have had no training in the
operation of heavy jets...I just applied the knowledge I had gained from
flying cabin twins. In these full-motion sims I have flown patterns to
ILS's. I have no problem with the possibility of the hijackers being able to
do what they obviously did.

Bob Gardner


"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.

In article ,
"Bob Gardner" wrote:

I have had the opportunity to fly both 737 and 747 simulators at the Boeing
Training Center and at Flight Safety. I have had no training in the
operation of heavy jets...I just applied the knowledge I had gained from
flying cabin twins. In these full-motion sims I have flown patterns to
ILS's. I have no problem with the possibility of the hijackers being able to
do what they obviously did.

Aiming a big, stable plane at a building over a thousand feet tall and a
couple of hundred feet wide isn't anything like a hard trick, and they
still almost screwed it up (note the severe bank when the second plane
hits, as the pilot tries to keep from missing).

Another strewer of BS. I have given many rpt many non-flyers rides in
T33s, TF102s, F104Bs up to and including the F4 (50,000 pounds) and
after a little coaching quite a few have done well, includig passable
barrel rolls. Herding one of those big transport beasts around the sky
is like driving a truck in 3 dimensions. Flying into a tall building is
something I estimate (learned guess) at least 3 of any 10 people could
do without much trouble. Mr. Sagadevan is wrong wrong wrong. And he
ignores the telephone calls from the passengers in his tortuous
reasoning Just another attention-seeker.
Walt BJ

An angry Democrat trying to blame it on Bush it seems. I
have no doubt that an few hours of training would allow any
adult to fly well enough to crash into a building. I took
my son up on a delivery flight for a BE %( Baron that was
going to the FAA in OKC. He was about three years old at
the time. He could not see out over the door sill, let
alone the panel, but there was a full set of co-pilot
instruments and he hand flew straight and level very well
from the right seat.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
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.


"WaltBJ" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Another strewer of BS. I have given many rpt many
non-flyers rides in
| T33s, TF102s, F104Bs up to and including the F4 (50,000
pounds) and
| after a little coaching quite a few have done well,
includig passable
| barrel rolls. Herding one of those big transport beasts
around the sky
| is like driving a truck in 3 dimensions. Flying into a
tall building is
| something I estimate (learned guess) at least 3 of any 10
people could
| do without much trouble. Mr. Sagadevan is wrong wrong
wrong. And he
| ignores the telephone calls from the passengers in his
tortuous
| reasoning Just another attention-seeker.
| Walt BJ
|

Got your attention anyway

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
oups.com...
Another strewer of BS. I have given many rpt many non-flyers rides in
T33s, TF102s, F104Bs up to and including the F4 (50,000 pounds) and
after a little coaching quite a few have done well, includig passable
barrel rolls. Herding one of those big transport beasts around the sky
is like driving a truck in 3 dimensions. Flying into a tall building is
something I estimate (learned guess) at least 3 of any 10 people could
do without much trouble. Mr. Sagadevan is wrong wrong wrong. And he
ignores the telephone calls from the passengers in his tortuous
reasoning Just another attention-seeker.
Walt BJ

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
"Bob Gardner" wrote:


I have had the opportunity to fly both 737 and 747 simulators at the Boeing
Training Center and at Flight Safety. I have had no training in the
operation of heavy jets...I just applied the knowledge I had gained from
flying cabin twins. In these full-motion sims I have flown patterns to
ILS's. I have no problem with the possibility of the hijackers being able to
do what they obviously did.


Aiming a big, stable plane at a building over a thousand feet tall and a
couple of hundred feet wide isn't anything like a hard trick, and they
still almost screwed it up (note the severe bank when the second plane
hits, as the pilot tries to keep from missing).

Consider how much worse it might have been if he had just caught the edge of
the building and sprayed a full load of flaming fuel and wreckage all over the
city.

Grim, me thinks.

Jim Macklin wrote:

An angry Democrat trying to blame it on Bush it seems. I
have no doubt that an few hours of training would allow any
adult to fly well enough to crash into a building. I took
my son up on a delivery flight for a BE %( Baron that was
going to the FAA in OKC. He was about three years old at
the time. He could not see out over the door sill, let
alone the panel, but there was a full set of co-pilot
instruments and he hand flew straight and level very well
from the right seat.


Aw Jim, you bring back some sweet memories.
My daughter (3 years old) loved to stand on the seat (in my lap sorta)
and "fly" the 172. Strictly VFR as she could easily see the horizon.

Now my WIFE in the right seat damned near had a cat!


Richard

Just imagine what would have happened if the passengers had
been armed and killed the hijackers as soon as they began
the hijacking?



--
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.


"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
nk.net...
| Chad Irby wrote:
|
| In article
,
| "Bob Gardner" wrote:
|
|
| I have had the opportunity to fly both 737 and 747
simulators at the Boeing
| Training Center and at Flight Safety. I have had no
training in the
| operation of heavy jets...I just applied the knowledge I
had gained from
| flying cabin twins. In these full-motion sims I have
flown patterns to
| ILS's. I have no problem with the possibility of the
hijackers being able to
| do what they obviously did.
|
|
| Aiming a big, stable plane at a building over a thousand
feet tall and a
| couple of hundred feet wide isn't anything like a hard
trick, and they
| still almost screwed it up (note the severe bank when
the second plane
| hits, as the pilot tries to keep from missing).
|
| Consider how much worse it might have been if he had just
caught the edge of
| the building and sprayed a full load of flaming fuel and
wreckage all over the
| city.
|
| Grim, me thinks.
|

BTW, typo... BE 58 Baron

It is easy to fly, doesn't take much strength, takes more
brains. Kids love to fly, it is like a giant roller-coaster
twenty miles long and a mile high that they can control,
they just have to "see" the rails.



"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
nk.net...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| An angry Democrat trying to blame it on Bush it seems.
I
| have no doubt that an few hours of training would allow
any
| adult to fly well enough to crash into a building. I
took
| my son up on a delivery flight for a BE %( Baron that
was
| going to the FAA in OKC. He was about three years old
at
| the time. He could not see out over the door sill, let
| alone the panel, but there was a full set of co-pilot
| instruments and he hand flew straight and level very
well
| from the right seat.
|
|
| Aw Jim, you bring back some sweet memories.
| My daughter (3 years old) loved to stand on the seat (in
my lap sorta)
| and "fly" the 172. Strictly VFR as she could easily see
the horizon.
|
| Now my WIFE in the right seat damned near had a cat!
|
|
| Richard

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message news:R7PKf.103200$4l5.4044@dukeread05...
Just imagine what would have happened if the passengers had
been armed and killed the hijackers as soon as they began
the hijacking?



--
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.



Exactly! And they still don't allow many to carry on board. Can't even bring on my pocket knife. No leadership...