|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
I submit that yourself and your ATP should turn on the news. They have determined that the pilots were trained on these aircraft at at least two schools in Florida. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Owen DeLong wrote: > Apologies to the list, this is way off topic, and if you're looking for > operational content, just hit delete now. However, the number of people > posting bad specualtion about aviation is bothering me and I feel > compelled > to reply. > > I hold a Private Pilot rating for Airplane Single Engine Land. I also > hold > an Instrument Airplane rating. I have about 800 hours of total flight > time, > including various single engine a small amount of multi-engine, some > glider, > some free balloon time. I have spent some time in the cockpit of an > Airbus A-319 in flight, including an approach into San Jose > International. > I was in the jumpseat, but I received substantial education from the > pilots > while I was there. If anyone feels that my answers are not adequate, > please let me know off-list and I'll get you an answer from an ATP I > know > who is rated in the 757 and 767 types. > > John Fraizer wrote: > > > > On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, David Howe wrote: > > > > > > > > >Also, it's worth remembering that airplanes aren't all that easy to > > > > fly. This means that the perpetrators needed to find five adequate > > > > pilots, > > > Hmm. not actually sure about this - not having ever flown anything at > > > all, but how much skill exactly does it take to keep something already > > > pointed in more or less the right direction on target for two-three > > > minutes until impact? ok, you couldn't expect a clean landing or even a > > > > It takes quite a bit more than you would expect. Something that you > > neglect to remember is that the plane that struck the Pentagon was > > initially headed directly towards the Whitehouse, then executed a > > high-speed, high-bank turn around DC, lined up on the Pentagon and managed > > to nose into it at mid-level. > > > > It is VERY difficult to control an aircraft in a high-speed nose-down > > attitude. ESPECIALLY those that are less than "sporty" in flight > > characteristics. > > > It is not difficult to control these types of aircraft in a 200-300 > knott > (knautical mile per hour, about 1.1 statute miles per hour) nose-down > attitude. It can be done on autopilot in most cases. > > As I understand the reports, the plane that struck the Pentagon was on > the > standard noise-abatement approach path into National along the Potomac, > and made a ~30 degree bank turn nose down into the side of the > pentagon. This may have required overriding the autopilot for the > final portion of the descent, but otherwise, the entire process could > have been conducted using a small subset of the autopilot capabilities > that could easily be figured out by a student pilot. If you're not > worried about keeping your airspeed under control (not going too fast), > it's relatively easy to point a plane at the ground and keep it going > that way. > > > > halfway-smooth flight path from someone who has played a MS-Windows > > > flight sim for a few months, but - if he was going from switching off > > > autopilot to keeping the plane pointed at something the size of the > > > WTC....... I would imagine it would all be on the yoke too, no throttles > > > or concerns about airspeed given you are not really going to care that > > > much what speed or acceleration you have on impact... > > > > Again. Think about it. The WTC is not actually that large of a > > target. Granted, it's was easy to pick out from the air but, lining up on > > it and maintaining a flight attitude that will keep you in the air until > > impact is a different story. If you've seen footage of the second plane > > impacting, look at the last second attitude correction. Had the > > individual who was flying the aircraft not made that correction, it would > > not have struck the building. (At least THAT building.) Also, airspeed is > > very important if you want to keep an aircraft aloft. ESPECIALLY when you > > are pulling turns. If you're just above stall and try to turn the > > aircraft, you don't turn -- you fall. > > > The WTC is a huge traget that is visible from a very long distance away > under > the weather conditions that existed. The second plane made a very small > correction a few seconds before impact. Nothing I saw in the footage > leads > me to believe that the airplane was not operating on autopilot in > altitude > hold mode. The correction could have been accomplished by a small twist > of > the heading select knob. The world trade center impacts occured at a > high > enough altitude that it is not unlikely that the autopilot would not > have > overriden the altitude selection for terrain. > > > > ... or train for the two/three more common types, then pick a flight *on > > > the day* that actually is flying that type of plane. book seats at the > > > last minute (not a problem for domestic flights) or pre-book three or > > > four different seats per attacker, and each picks a flight with the > > > right sort of plane from the "pool" of available flights. > > > > There are mechanisms in place that would detect this type of > > behavior. (Prebooking multiple flights for the same individual.) > > > I agree that this would be more difficult. All that was really > required, > though, was some time in one of the popular simulator programs and a > little > bit of knowledge about any flight management system and some > understanding > of Altitude, Heading, Waypoints, and general autopilot operations. All > of this could probably be obtained in a relatively small amount of > training > time with any flight instructor at your local FBO. Most of it could > probably > be learned on a PC with readily available software. The autopilot > operation > of the large jets in Fly!2 and Micro$oft FS2000 is realistic enough to > probably provide adequate autopilot training. > > This having been said, I don't put it past the various organizations to > have trained type rated pilots for this purpose. > > > Owen > > > --- > > John Fraizer > > EnterZone, Inc > > -- > *********************************************************************** > "Every time you turn on your new car, you're turning on 20 > microprocessors. Every time you use an ATM, you're using a computer. > Every time I use a settop box or game machine, I'm using a computer. > The only computer you don't know how to work is your Microsoft > computer, right?" > - Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, Inc., > from an April 1997 interview in Upside Magazine > > *********************************************************************** > Microsoft CEO Bill Gates is optimistic about Contraceptive99's > potential. > He recently said, "Our contraceptive products will help users do to > each other what we've been doing to our customers for years." > > The mail above is sent from my personal account and represents my own > views. It may or may not reflect the opinions of Exodus Communications, > Jin Ho, Mo Sabourian, Tony Massing, Morris Taradalsky, or any other > employee, officer, subsidiary, acquisition, member, partner, aff >
|