![]() |
| 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 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Complete an utter BS.
"Immanuel Goldstein" wrote in message ... | The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training | | Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006 | | Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft. | | [...] | | What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I've | heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseum, 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. | | Complete text: | http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm | | | -- | Closely Monitored, | | Immanuel Goldstein | | "The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated injuries | and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute | Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world." | - Declaration of Independence | | The Pentagon Strike | http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm | | The Demolition of WTC Building 7 | http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7 | | "It's just a god-damned piece of paper!" | - Bush on the U.S. Constitution, http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html | | "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." | - Orwell | | "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same | Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their | right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards | for their future security." | - Declaration of Independence |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 03:26 PM |
| GAO: Electronic Warfa Comprehensive Strategy Needed for Suppressing Enemy | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 27th 05 07:23 PM |
| Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 01:56 AM |
| Sport Pilot pilots not insurable? | Blueskies | Piloting | 14 | July 12th 05 06:45 AM |
| USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 04:17 PM |