Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

AUTOPILOT




--
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.


"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.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
newsQLKf.102992$4l5.29962@dukeread05...
AUTOPILOT

Not. Autopilot is great for basic straight and level. Maneuvering for a
building collision would require hand flying the jet.

R / John

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
newsQLKf.102992$4l5.29962@dukeread05...
AUTOPILOT

Not. Autopilot is great for basic straight and level. Maneuvering for a
building collision would require hand flying the jet.

R / John


Not if they were able to put lat. and long. of the WTC into the GPS and have
the autopilot fly to that location.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:18:15 GMT, Dave Stadt wrote:

"John Carrier" wrote in message
...

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
newsQLKf.102992$4l5.29962@dukeread05...
AUTOPILOT

Not. Autopilot is great for basic straight and level. Maneuvering for a
building collision would require hand flying the jet.

Not if they were able to put lat. and long. of the WTC into the GPS and have
the autopilot fly to that location.

The Boeing 767s that hit the WTC used an inertial navigation system, not
GPS. INS systems in 1980s-vintage airliners are accurate to within about
1/10th of a nautical mile, or approximately 600 feet. The INS would not be
accurate enough to guarantee that the autopilot could steer the aircraft
into a target about 200 feet wide like one of the WTC towers.

Hand-flying an airliner into a building you can see from 30 miles away
or more (I personally have seen the WTC towers on a clear day from a small
plane flying over northeast Philadelphia) wouldn't be that difficult, though,
so there's no reason to assume that the 9/11 hijackers didn't hand-fly the
planes into their targets.


ljd

Let's see, they hijacked the planes at Boston and crashed at
NYC, looks like they hand flew just the last mile, judging
from the video that I have seen.

Autopilots have command steering, will do nice 25 bank
degree turns or you use the bug on the HSI to steer to a
precise heading. Altitude is also fully controlled by the
autopilot, dial in the desired altitude, arm the altitude
and start a descent with the CWS or whatever that model has.

The bigger the airplane, the easier I have always found it
to fly, as long as everything is working. Perhaps the FAA
could require partially defective airplanes so iltrained
hijackers couldn't fly them as a safety measure?



--
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.


"John Carrier" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| newsQLKf.102992$4l5.29962@dukeread05...
| AUTOPILOT
|
| Not. Autopilot is great for basic straight and level.
Maneuvering for a
| building collision would require hand flying the jet.
|
| R / John
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:EeNKf.103018$4l5.62797@dukeread05...
Let's see, they hijacked the planes at Boston and crashed at
NYC, looks like they hand flew just the last mile, judging
from the video that I have seen.

Autopilots have command steering, will do nice 25 bank
degree turns or you use the bug on the HSI to steer to a
precise heading. Altitude is also fully controlled by the
autopilot, dial in the desired altitude, arm the altitude
and start a descent with the CWS or whatever that model has.

The bigger the airplane, the easier I have always found it
to fly, as long as everything is working. Perhaps the FAA
could require partially defective airplanes so iltrained
hijackers couldn't fly them as a safety measure?

Aren't those called Airbus?

--
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.

LOL
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:EeNKf.103018$4l5.62797@dukeread05...
| Let's see, they hijacked the planes at Boston and
crashed at
| NYC, looks like they hand flew just the last mile,
judging
| from the video that I have seen.
|
| Autopilots have command steering, will do nice 25 bank
| degree turns or you use the bug on the HSI to steer to a
| precise heading. Altitude is also fully controlled by
the
| autopilot, dial in the desired altitude, arm the
altitude
| and start a descent with the CWS or whatever that model
has.
|
| The bigger the airplane, the easier I have always found
it
| to fly, as long as everything is working. Perhaps the
FAA
| could require partially defective airplanes so iltrained
| hijackers couldn't fly them as a safety measure?
|
| Aren't those called Airbus?
|
| --
| 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.
|
|
|

"John Carrier" wrote in message

Not. Autopilot is great for basic straight and level. Maneuvering for a
building collision would require hand flying the jet.

Not so, John.

John Carrier wrote:

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
newsQLKf.102992$4l5.29962@dukeread05...

AUTOPILOT


Not. Autopilot is great for basic straight and level. Maneuvering for a
building collision would require hand flying the jet.


Are you suggesting that AutoPilot can't steer the plane and make
altitude adjustments?

I said that an autopilot can and probably was used. In
fact, most Boeings are flown by the crew using the autopilot
controls, for 99.5% of the flight.



--
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.


"mrtravel" wrote in message
. com...
| John Carrier wrote:
|
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote in message
| newsQLKf.102992$4l5.29962@dukeread05...
|
| AUTOPILOT
|
|
| Not. Autopilot is great for basic straight and level.
Maneuvering for a
| building collision would require hand flying the jet.
|
|
| Are you suggesting that AutoPilot can't steer the plane
and make
| altitude adjustments?