Dr.Curtiss runs out of his medicine

Hi folx,

Here we go again... now it's ostensibly one of "us" selling his soul
to the boulevard press devil for a few greenbacks...

"How Hard Is It to Fly a 757 or 767?"
http://airsafe.com/journal/v1num16.htm

It's an exciting reading... the guy is in "unique position to answer
that question", after 100hrs in C172 and 5-6 hrs in a 757 sim...

100-hr pilots, rejoice, flying big iron has never been easier... to
quote:
"In short, I believe that any person who has earned a private pilot's
license and who has access to the same kind of ground school and
simulator training that I received could fly a 757 or 767 well enough
to hit a large building."
Dr.Curtiss is surely doing fine... we'll keep you posted of his
progress...

And, the dramatic conclusion: "Given the wide availability of this
kind of training, it would appear that the kind of terrorist actions
that took place in New York and Washington could easily be repeated in
the future."

I guess as soon Dr.Curtiss picks up his 757 at Wal-Mart...

I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
-Toly.

Toly wrote:

Hi folx,

Here we go again... now it's ostensibly one of "us" selling his soul
to the boulevard press devil for a few greenbacks...

"How Hard Is It to Fly a 757 or 767?"
http://airsafe.com/journal/v1num16.htm

It's an exciting reading... the guy is in "unique position to answer
that question", after 100hrs in C172 and 5-6 hrs in a 757 sim...

100-hr pilots, rejoice, flying big iron has never been easier... to
quote:
"In short, I believe that any person who has earned a private pilot's
license and who has access to the same kind of ground school and
simulator training that I received could fly a 757 or 767 well enough
to hit a large building."
Dr.Curtiss is surely doing fine... we'll keep you posted of his
progress...

And, the dramatic conclusion: "Given the wide availability of this
kind of training, it would appear that the kind of terrorist actions
that took place in New York and Washington could easily be repeated in
the future."

I guess as soon Dr.Curtiss picks up his 757 at Wal-Mart...

I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
-Toly.


What makes you think he's wrong? Just after 9/11 I asked a Navy fighter
pilot friend who also flew for Continental if he thought I could have flown
the planes into the building. He was well aware of my flying skills at that
time as we had flown together prior to 9/11 (he's also a CFI). At that time
I didn't even have a PPL.

His reply was that I would have no trouble and in fact would have done a
better job than the terrorists (because I wouldn't have boresighted the
targets like the terrorists did, but would have accounted for the wind
during the approach - which the terrorists did not).

Gregg

I'd be inclined to agree with him...once the airplane is airborne and
cleaned up, the skills to steer it and adjust altitude are pretty much what
you learn in a 152.....and you don't have to worry about the rudders.

Bob Gardner

"Toly" wrote in message
m...
Hi folx,

Here we go again... now it's ostensibly one of "us" selling his soul
to the boulevard press devil for a few greenbacks...

"How Hard Is It to Fly a 757 or 767?"
http://airsafe.com/journal/v1num16.htm

It's an exciting reading... the guy is in "unique position to answer
that question", after 100hrs in C172 and 5-6 hrs in a 757 sim...

100-hr pilots, rejoice, flying big iron has never been easier... to
quote:
"In short, I believe that any person who has earned a private pilot's
license and who has access to the same kind of ground school and
simulator training that I received could fly a 757 or 767 well enough
to hit a large building."
Dr.Curtiss is surely doing fine... we'll keep you posted of his
progress...

And, the dramatic conclusion: "Given the wide availability of this
kind of training, it would appear that the kind of terrorist actions
that took place in New York and Washington could easily be repeated in
the future."

I guess as soon Dr.Curtiss picks up his 757 at Wal-Mart...

I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
-Toly.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:10:03 -0700, "Bob Gardner"
wrote:

I have to agree with Bob. (My apologies Bob)

I'd be inclined to agree with him...once the airplane is airborne and
cleaned up, the skills to steer it and adjust altitude are pretty much what
you learn in a 152.....and you don't have to worry about the rudders.


Nor are you worried about holding altitude or course. So what if you
exceed some limitations. Are they going to use the airplane again?
You aren't worried about the 100 MPH mind in a 500 MPH airplane
either.

There is a big difference between piloting an airplane and just
hitting a target with it. The second one darn near missed.

I could fly the Deb straight and level the first time I got in it, but
it took me a few hours to learn the momentum difference and it took
several hundred hours to really know the airplane.

I find 8 to 10 year old kids who have been "flying" on sims can take
over the controls on the Deb. With only a little coaching they can do
straight and level as well as coordinated turns. That is a lot better
than most Cessna 150 and 172 pilots, or Cherokee pilots do,
particularly if they have a few hundred hours. The pilots typically
have it in a 2G PIO in less than a minute. Of course covering the VSI
helps :-))

The point is: If you are not afraid of stalling, not afraid of holding
altitude, not afraid of breaking the airplane, or getting hurt, no
intention of getting out alive, and your only goal is going from some
point A to B and crashing into B after some one else had done the
take off and climb, it's not that difficult a goal. Hopefully it's
more difficult now days, but not because the plane is difficult to
fly. Probably less difficult than learning to safely solo in a 172.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Bob Gardner

"gregg" wrote in message
news:lqtVc.197568$eM2.11576@attbi_s51...
Toly wrote:

Hi folx,

Here we go again... now it's ostensibly one of "us" selling his soul
to the boulevard press devil for a few greenbacks...

"How Hard Is It to Fly a 757 or 767?"
http://airsafe.com/journal/v1num16.htm

It's an exciting reading... the guy is in "unique position to answer
that question", after 100hrs in C172 and 5-6 hrs in a 757 sim...

100-hr pilots, rejoice, flying big iron has never been easier... to
quote:
"In short, I believe that any person who has earned a private pilot's
license and who has access to the same kind of ground school and
simulator training that I received could fly a 757 or 767 well enough
to hit a large building."
Dr.Curtiss is surely doing fine... we'll keep you posted of his
progress...

And, the dramatic conclusion: "Given the wide availability of this
kind of training, it would appear that the kind of terrorist actions
that took place in New York and Washington could easily be repeated in
the future."

I guess as soon Dr.Curtiss picks up his 757 at Wal-Mart...

I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
-Toly.


What makes you think he's wrong? Just after 9/11 I asked a Navy fighter
pilot friend who also flew for Continental if he thought I could have
flown
the planes into the building. He was well aware of my flying skills at
that
time as we had flown together prior to 9/11 (he's also a CFI). At that
time
I didn't even have a PPL.

His reply was that I would have no trouble and in fact would have done a
better job than the terrorists (because I wouldn't have boresighted the
targets like the terrorists did, but would have accounted for the wind
during the approach - which the terrorists did not).

Two things I don't know how to do right now: to disengage the autopilot, or
FMS, or whatever they have, and to use the intercom to talk to the pax.

It's assumed they used some navigational assistance and not just pilotage
(they knew the lat/long of the targets) so they probably learned how to
program the avionics. And, apparently, the actual hijackers didn't know how
to use the intercom either.

-- David Brooks

David Brooks wrote:
gregg wrote:

His reply was that I would have no trouble and in fact would have done a
better job than the terrorists (because I wouldn't have boresighted the
targets like the terrorists did, but would have accounted for the wind
during the approach - which the terrorists did not).

It's assumed they used some navigational assistance and not just pilotage
(they knew the lat/long of the targets) so they probably learned how to
program the avionics.

They may have been able to *read* the avionics, but *programming*
them seems a tad unnecessary when your target is one of the most
distinctive buildings for hundreds of miles around.

In article ,
Robert Briggs wrote:

David Brooks wrote:
gregg wrote:

His reply was that I would have no trouble and in fact would have done a
better job than the terrorists (because I wouldn't have boresighted the
targets like the terrorists did, but would have accounted for the wind
during the approach - which the terrorists did not).

It's assumed they used some navigational assistance and not just pilotage
(they knew the lat/long of the targets) so they probably learned how to
program the avionics.

They may have been able to *read* the avionics, but *programming*
them seems a tad unnecessary when your target is one of the most
distinctive buildings for hundreds of miles around.

AND, the visibility was 100+ miles. Who the hell NEEDS avionics to
navigate under those circumstances?

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Robert Briggs wrote:

David Brooks wrote:
gregg wrote:

His reply was that I would have no trouble and in fact would have
done a
better job than the terrorists (because I wouldn't have boresighted
the
targets like the terrorists did, but would have accounted for the
wind
during the approach - which the terrorists did not).

It's assumed they used some navigational assistance and not just
pilotage
(they knew the lat/long of the targets) so they probably learned how
to
program the avionics.

They may have been able to *read* the avionics, but *programming*
them seems a tad unnecessary when your target is one of the most
distinctive buildings for hundreds of miles around.

AND, the visibility was 100+ miles. Who the hell NEEDS avionics to
navigate under those circumstances?

Well, in some of the text that was clipped, I said "Two things I don't know
how to do right now: to disengage the autopilot, or FMS, or whatever they
have...". At least I'd want to be sure I knew how to turn this stuff off
before embarking on the mission - that was uppermost in my mind.

The other part is speculation: we've read the press that they had apparently
committed the heinous crime of purchasing GPS units. That sort-of says that
they were intending to use lat/long data (can you define and then fly to a
custom waypoint using airline avionics?). Remember, they didn't know what
the weather was going to be when they bought the tickets.

-- David Brooks

(Toly) wrote in message om...
Hi folx,

Here we go again... now it's ostensibly one of "us" selling his soul
to the boulevard press devil for a few greenbacks...

"How Hard Is It to Fly a 757 or 767?"
http://airsafe.com/journal/v1num16.htm

It's an exciting reading... the guy is in "unique position to answer
that question", after 100hrs in C172 and 5-6 hrs in a 757 sim...

100-hr pilots, rejoice, flying big iron has never been easier... to
quote:
"In short, I believe that any person who has earned a private pilot's
license and who has access to the same kind of ground school and
simulator training that I received could fly a 757 or 767 well enough
to hit a large building."
Dr.Curtiss is surely doing fine... we'll keep you posted of his
progress...

And, the dramatic conclusion: "Given the wide availability of this
kind of training, it would appear that the kind of terrorist actions
that took place in New York and Washington could easily be repeated in
the future."

I guess as soon Dr.Curtiss picks up his 757 at Wal-Mart...

I don't know whether to laugh or cry...


Remember too that the 9/11 pilots did a crappy job. They overspeed the
planes on several occasions (according to tracking data). The hardest
part is energey management, they didn't have that down. The point is
that if all you want to do is fly into a building, you don't have to
be very good.

-Robert

(Toly) wrote in message om...
Dr.Curtiss is surely doing fine... we'll keep you posted of his
progress...

BTW: There is no evidence that Dr Curtis is a medical doctor. He puts
his name as PhD. That could mean is a very smart Harvard instructor or
he paid $35 to a mail order place for a PhD. It certainly does not
mean he's an MD.

-Robert