The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

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

Immanuel,

Complete text:
http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm


Hilarious site. "Scientific panel", my a**. You guys need to get in
touch with the chemtrail people.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

Immanuel Goldstein wrote:

snip
For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage,

If a person is conversant with the practical complexities of dead
reckoning, does that count?


--
Peter

In article Q_YKf.103373$4l5.77233@dukeread05, Jim Macklin"
says...

Complete an utter BS.



"Immanuel Goldstein" wrote in
message ...
| The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without
Training
|
| Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006

Major snip

My feelings exactly,so I guess this guy thinks he proved 9/11 didn't happen...
He's delusional....

Chuck S

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
...
In article Q_YKf.103373$4l5.77233@dukeread05, Jim Macklin"
says...

Complete an utter BS.



"Immanuel Goldstein" wrote in
message ...
| The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without
Training
|
| Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006

Major snip

My feelings exactly,so I guess this guy thinks he proved 9/11 didn't
happen...
He's delusional....
He trolled to alt.building.construction group saying that airliners crashing
into a building could not bring it down, that it was really a controlled
demolition.

The Construction Engineering types tried to put him right, but as you say;
he's COMPLETELY delusional.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

I'm sure he voted for Kerry.


"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...
|
| "ChuckSlusarczyk"
wrote in message
| ...
| In article Q_YKf.103373$4l5.77233@dukeread05, Jim
Macklin"
| says...
|
| Complete an utter BS.
|
|
|
| "Immanuel Goldstein" wrote
in
| message ...
| | The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without
| Training
| |
| | Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006
|
| Major snip
|
| My feelings exactly,so I guess this guy thinks he proved
9/11 didn't
| happen...
| He's delusional....
| He trolled to alt.building.construction group saying that
airliners crashing
| into a building could not bring it down, that it was
really a controlled
| demolition.
|
| The Construction Engineering types tried to put him right,
but as you say;
| he's COMPLETELY delusional.
| --
| Matt
| ---------------------
| Matthew W. Barrow
| Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
| Montrose, CO
|
|

Sorry, dosen't wash with me. I know some of the people personally who
investigated the airborne phase of 9/11 and I have complete faith in their
findings on this issue.
Aside from that, your "theory" is so full of holes if it was a ship it would
be named the TROLL MARU it would sink in ten seconds.
Dudley Henriques



"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

Loon.

[babbling snipped]

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:ur_Kf.103380$4l5.101519@dukeread05...
I'm sure he voted for Kerry.



You would think someone named Goldstein would be all for Muslim terrorists
attacking US landmarks to start a war.

-------------------------------------------
DW