A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #7  
Old February 22nd 06, 01:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.student,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.