NILA SAGADEVAN: 9/11-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without
Training
August 13, 2010 posted by Gordon Duff · 16
Comments
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without
Training
by Nila Sagadevan
Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a pilot.
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 by themselves 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, and 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 ‘lost it’ 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.”
http://www.willthomas.net/911/911_Commission_Hearing.htm
Khalid Al-Mihdhar: “We didn’t kick him out, but he didn’t live up to our
standards.”
http://100777.com/node/237
Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and
incompetence at the controls.”
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers_still_alive.htm
Salem Al-Hazmi: “We advised him to quit after two lessons.”
http://www.willthomas.net/Books_Videos/911_Investigations_Stand_Down.htm
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.”
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html
Now let’s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77.
Passenger/hijacker Hani Hanjour presumably 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 chap 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.
Imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them
from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain’s seat. The
weather reports say it was fairly clear, so let’s say Hanjour
experienced 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 any
significant 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, 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—nothing like he had seen in a Cessna
172. 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 fellows 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.)
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.”
(http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=4084)
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, vortex compression, downwash
reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of
this article. Indeed, the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown
entire semi-trucks off the roads this massive aircraft is alleged to
have flown over at extremely low altitude. The DVD, “Loose Change – 1st
Edition” (http://www.loosechange911.com) contains an excellent clip of trucks
being swept off the end of a runway when a jetliner powers up for take-off.
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 about
fifteen feet 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 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 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.
The author recently received a letter from a senior 757 captain
currently flying with one of the airlines involved in 9/11. It contains
the following statement:
“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my
colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach
maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried
repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast
rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those
who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who
couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”
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.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/13/nila-sagadevan-911-the-impossibility-of-flying-heavy-aircraft-without-training/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
