There were many comments under the last post questioning the difficulty of piloting large aircraft. I certainly don't have any specific knowledge in this area, but my impression is that it would be extremely difficult - in the case of American Airlines flight 77 - for a non-pilot to start from a point he is not certain of, locate a particular building, accomplish two radical turns, drop to an altitude just above ground level for the last mile and successfully crash into the first floor of the Pentagon.
Nila Sagadevan, a retired aeronautical engineer and pilot does know how difficult this would be, and the remainder of this post represents his comments on the matter.
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
By Nila Sagadevan (Retired aeronautical engineer and 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.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 17
Wow!
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
"Highly motivated." Would that refer to a motivation to find out the truth or a "committment" to a position regardless of the facts? I don't actually believe that the "government" piloted those planes, either, but the comment above is hardly responsive to the article. I am, or was, a pilot, though never of aircraft that size. To the extent I can comment from my own experience, the basic thrust of the argument is accurate., Learning, or almost learning to fly a single engined Cessna, followed by flight simulators would not be likely to produce pilots competent to perform the maneuvers needed for the attacks. OK, that does not prove that the "government" did it, but it poses a question that is hardly addressed by a smug, sarcastic, rhetorical--and irrelevant, question (absent a question mark so I guess it's a comment.) Do you have an answer that is responsive to the implied question? I don't. I would like to hear your incisive response. I actually would, I think there are unanswered questions that have been raised and it would be reasonable to address them. They are not quite that easily dismissed.
Whew!
Best regards, Howard
Author, "Loving, a Psychological Approach" and..., ..., etc.
You apparently did not read David's article "A Conundrum Wrapped in a Paradox". It is obvious to me that this article is a follow-on to that one.
What do you think?
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Once again you have nothing to contribute about the article's content, but do feel obligated to attack David on behalf of your draft dodging hero.
Nowhere in David's article does he say a government agent flew the planes.
He asks, "Were we told the truth about the pilots?"
A man with your background, as i see it, is unlikely to suggest a solution to such an important problem like 'How did the planes get guided so accurately to both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon?" without something deep inside you. If you are suggesting that David is hinting that the 'government' flew the aircraft into the sites mentioned, I am having a difficult time thinking that you are serious. He never said that and you seem to be putting words in his mouth. Are you being unfair? Sarcastic?
Perhaps though there is an idea that you are suggesting precisely because David's surmise is a powerful and IMPORTANT one (I think that his case is certainly worth further investigation if it has not already been looked at ). The competence of the terrorists to pull off the complex 'stunts' is critically important in order to determine IF there were still unknown other factors and perpetrators at work. Wouldn't you agree?
It would be incredible if were true that the non-competence of the terrorists to pull off such a complex set of events 'successfully' held as a possible technical criticism of the official position (if there is one) about the likelihood that there may have been other causative factors at work on 9/11/01. I hope you agree to that logical position. What would be the TRUTH if it was extremely unlikely that those 19 terrorists were not able to bring off the complex tasks: (1) other unknowns aboard the four planes, (2) GOD?
Assume that the argument supporting (with evidence) such non-competence holds. THEN, where do you stand and how do YOU explain the FACTS without the pre-conception that there were and still are unknown causative factors to be identified? A conundrum? A paradox? Just as David suggested? I hope nobody believes that our government, or any government (your point, NOT David's) would have perpetrated -- in hidden ways -- such an horrendous act of devestation. But if incompetence holds, where does logic take us? MYSTERY? Further INVESTIGATION? Bury the Question? I read both of David's original articles and the present addendum and I am baffled, and I won't deny it.
In the post WWII period while I was in graduate school I was an (inexperienced) young (I was a Junior Grade Lieutenant)) personnel officer in the USNR Air Force. I flew with a lot of experienced pilots throughout our continuing training and observed a new world for me then. I flew with my colleagues in fighter planes and torpedo launching planes. The guidance and maneuvering activities demanded careful and profound skills. I was trained as a fleet engineering officer, and had no such skills. I have nothing but admiration for those dedicated colleagues of mine in both branches (fleet and air) and I cherish still what they taught me. SKILL in 'operating' complex aircraft and on ships is a sine qua non,and takes time to develop in self and in coordinative efforts with others.
I have since 9/11 questioned the nature of the 'skills' that the hijackers had aboard the four aircraft in question but just assumed that the 911 Commission would look extremely closely at THAT issue, but never checked to find out if they did so. Do YOU have any useful information that can illuminate, and not joke with untoward commentary, about this critically important issue? If so why don't you write it out and send it on via GATHER for those of us who are, I presume, far less informed than you contend to be, by suggestion and background? I'd truly be appreciative, as might many others of us who are TRUTH SEEKERS and not persons seeking to make trouble.
Dick
Chief instructor Marcel Bernard later claims, "There's no doubt in my mind that once [Flight 77] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." [Washington Post, 10/15/2001; Capital News, 9/19/2001; Gazette (Greenbelt), 9/21/2001; Newsday, 9/23/2001].
The speculation that Hani Hanjour could not have executed the 270 degree turn is absurd, he did and a plane load of people on cell phones reported how chaotic the flight and the manuever was.
No one reported that the plane was being flown with great skill.
If he had crashed prior to the pentagon, I am sure that David McGill would have found something conspiratorial about that too.
The fact is - and try to grasp this because it is of major significance - the plane executed an amazingly precise maneuver, diving at the rate of 3,500 feet per minute while at the same time turning at the rate of 360 degrees per minute and then suddenly levelling off at an altitude of just a few feet off the ground which it more or less maintained for one mile into the Pentagon.
Of course the passengers reacted. I hate to even think of that. But that's the chaotic part - the passenger cabin, not the cockpit as you would evidently like us to think.
Here again is what an air traffic controller had to say:
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."
Now who can truthfully digest this information without the feeling that something doesn't add up.
I have no conspiracy theory. I am not advocating that the government did it, that the planes were being remote controlled, or whatever.
I'm simply saying that the investigation leaves too many questions unanswered and needs to be reopened.
Multi-engine, commercial certification is a very far cry from the skills required to pull off the maneuver of the plane in question. In fact, that barely qualifies the pilot to begin the training needed for that aircraft. I don't know whether or not any of the hijackers had such training but the general belief appears to be that they did not. So who did?
No comments about Bush hating are even remotely relevant to the issue. I shall avoid once again characterizing the intellectual deficits required to support Bush because they, too, are irrelevant to the questions asked.
Also, as usual, I find myself unable to quite understand whether the Flounder has a coherent point.
" I will add that David is a Bush hater that just want's (sic) to blame government for everything. I wonder if a power chair could do that much damage to a building?"
Perhaps I missed somrthing critical to the understanding of this comment, but what, on earth, does it mean? "...a power chair"?? "Bush hater that just want's (sic) to blame government for everything." Is this responsive in any way?
Bush is inarguably responsible for so many disasters that even dedicated haters (moi) would find it unnecessary to add this to the list. If competence is the criterion required to weave a convincing theory, then Bush is certainly eliminated, probably even by proxy.
Who had the competence to fly that plane? Who DID fly that plane? Those are the questions. Whether these questions are raised by Bush haters or Bush ass lickers doesn't matter. They are still unanswered.
And what about that power chair?? Now there is the real critical question.
The conspiracy crowd wants to convince everyone that all things can be understood by all people and if the people can't understand them THEN SOMETHING IS AMISS and/or THE AUTHORITIES ARE LYING.
But the truth is that the vast majority of us do not have the expertise or experience to decide what's right and wrong. Unfortunately, we also don't have the humility to admit to our own shortcomings and this weakness can be exploited by the conspiracy crowd or the liberals or the conservatives.
Dick Maffei asks of me
"I have since 9/11 questioned the nature of the 'skills' that the hijackers had aboard the four aircraft in question but just assumed that the 911 Commission would look extremely closely at THAT issue, but never checked to find out if they did so. Do YOU have any useful information that can illuminate, and not joke with untoward commentary, about this critically important issue? If so why don't you write it out and send it on via GATHER for those of us who are, I presume, far less informed than you contend to be, by suggestion and background? I'd truly be appreciative, as might many others of us who are TRUTH SEEKERS and not persons seeking to make trouble."
Having been a practical nuclear engineer, taken part in directing the operations of two two-reactor test programs each over 2+ years, and been in charge of New York City's largest electric generating station, I am well accustomed to how very complex systems operate and the skills needed by people to construct, operate and maintain them. I am also a skilled manager of people and am able to detect when things aren't as they seem.
I can almost "smell" problems and am able to detect them well before most. This was not a gift but something which comes from having acquired considerable theoretical and practical knowledge, and having experienced hundreds of different events including many unfortunate accidents/incidents, all somewhat if not completely related to human actions.
My own review of the WTC destruction did not reveal any of the anomalies which the conspiracy group raises as questionable. I took the time to look somewhat closely just in order to satisfy myself that 19 terrorists did what it appears they did.
The material I reviewed was considerable and appeared over the course of a couple of years. Anyone who wants to satisfy themselves, such as Dick Maffei wants to do, is very late to the game.
If you have the skills to interpret what is being said and any facts that are presented, as I believe I do, you can try it. If you don't have a background similar in some way to what I have, I think that you will be wasting your time, but then that is your choice to make. The time required to do a responsible review is considerable.
Can we resolve such an issue on this board?? IMHO, NO WAY!! It is simply too complex and consists of hundreds if not thousands of little details.
Sorry, Dick, but I can't make your job easy.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Nila Sagadevan is yet another in the list of "everything is a fantastic conspiracy crackpots". Here is his webpage NILA SAGADEVAN
My GOD David, can you please cite us an "exoert" who is not into either UFO, Cold Fusion or Jesus appearing in Mexico?
What a bunch of fruitcakes!!
Radar records, flight records, cell phone calls from Flight 77 all confirm that the manuver was not skilled, rather its a chaotic struggle for control.
The fact is - and try to grasp this because it is of major significance - the plane "missed its target". Flight 77 crashed into the lawn of the Pentagon and the debris carried into the building thus saving the building from further damage.
The reason that the pilot hit the ground is that he had no concept of the dimensions of his aircraft. An experienced pilot who had actually landed a plane of that dimension never would have made that mistake.
A skilled pilot familiar with actually landing a commercial aircraft of that type knows where the ground is and when the wheels will touch down. Without landing gear down, Flight 77 was additional 4 feet too low. An experienced pilot would not have approached the ground so low as to strike it.
What Mr. McGill and the conspiracy theorist continue to conveniently ignore is what we all instinctively know: skill is required to safely land and airplane, not to crash one.
Thanks for the pursuit of truth without impugning the intents of others. Seems like I'm now back in the offices of old Think Tanks where there was always some arguing but usually over interpretations and FACTS. At least in my days.
Do you know IF the 911 Commission or some other qualified analytically organized group REALLY looked at the likelihoods of the levels of devestation WITHOUT skills in the aircraft? I'm still amazed at the (very unfortunate ) precision that was brought off in the (well planned?) TRAGIC events. Like the best place to send the two planes (what floor levels in the North and South Towers). What placement (on near ground level) was likely most efficacious? Was it planned to get very close to KEY Pentagon EXECUTIVE offices? This isn't about 'conspiracy' theories, but is about preparations that the Terrorists made in bringing off the ultimate attacks. Were they stupid, lucky or VERY smart. If smart what does that forebode about the future?
If they did all things well (and their success record was amazingly good) , my guess would be that they may have REALLY first rate planners and know how to think and wait and strike at the best times. Think about skill transfers and 'smarts'. This WORLD of ours iis getting more and more potentially dangerous IF they -- the Terrorists -- are the craftsmen that they appear to be, measured by the results, we should be thinking about totally NEW ways to run foreign policy, I think. Analyses of the likelihooods to bring off successes while making TERROR makes them look like significant 'risk minimizers'. Perhaps they do have unstoppable wizards who know when and how to wait patiently. The future will likely then bring out smarter and smarter planners and executors. And Al Qaeda and many other well organized and run groups will get better and better at their 'work'. The nature of WAR is really changing and really getting far more dangerous that WAR that is out in the open.
Is the time NOW to get VERY VERY friendly while we start to know that they have abilities and smarts? It sems to me that the TRUEST STRENGTH is more like FRIENDSHP than UNFRIENDLY OPPOSITION. Its all about significant smarts then against significant smarts and we 'good and bad guys' may end up just as dead and just as wrong if this joint arrogant nonsense doesn't cease.
Don't blow your cool when I say that AFFECTION and UNDERSTANDING and HELP are likely to give us ALL a better approach and more satisfactory solutions than HATE and DISRESPECT and DEVASTATION. AN OK 'MANTRA' MIGHT BE : RESPECTFUL AND HELPFUL AFFECTION is likely to bring more SUCH AFFECTION; while HOSTILE Anger is more likely to bring more such anger. Machoism WILL fail in the Long-Run. IT ALWAYS DISHONORS human egos, and human EGOS can't be ignored in our NOT TOO INTELLIGENT world!
As I see and understand the Long-Term problems at the domestic and foreign levels. How about you? You're dealing with issues at the 'Big-Picure' level too! Right?
Dick
It is well known that impugning the intents of others is how Greg debates an issue. Conveniently, it allows him to avoid dealing with the facts. If I remember correctly, he has accused me of being both unpatriotic and crazy in just the past couple of days.
His last barb - or actually, a double barb - was aimed at two people at once. Here it is:
"My GOD David, can you please cite us an "exoert" who is not into either UFO, Cold Fusion or Jesus appearing in Mexico?
"What a bunch of fruitcakes!!"
The "cold fusion" jab is, of course, aimed at Dr. Jones who, as a college professor conducted some experiments with his class relating to "cold fusion." It doesn't matter to Greg that Jones had nothing to do with the controversial experimants conducted by others. All that matters is that by mentioning the term he implies that Jones was involved. Such distortions are no less than lies, and - collectively - they give us a good inside look at Greg's character (or lack of).
As far as UFO's are concerned, I had a client who was the retired wing commander at the air base in Colorado Springs and, in that capacity, he had access to and read the file on the Air Force investigations, which were stored at the Air Force Academy. He said he couldn't reveal any details but when I asked him if there was anything to it, he said "yes." Since he was pure military and a total straight arrow, I followed up with another question to be sure I understood him. I said "Do you believe that the phenomena was of another world." He said "It was definitely not of this world."
Dick, maybe Greg's the fruitcake, for having a closed mind to anything different that requires real evaluation, and when facing such situations, perhaps the only reaction he can muster is to fashion false atrtacks on people.
As far as I know the Jesus in Mexico thing was an exercise conducted by a teacher who was probably just trying to get his students to understand the basic steps of a scientific analysis and, at the same time, trying to open their minds to the endless possibilities available to them. I really don't know all that was in his mind, but either does Greg. And, again, it was an opportunity to slander him.
I have to to say, though, Greg seems to be on the right side of the political fence. His lies and distortions have possibly only been outdone by our current leaders.
Apparently, over half our population were not convinced by 3,000 deaths. So is the number 30,000 or 300,000 or 3,000,000?
Any opinions?
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
So Ben, how do you feel attacking Iraq is going to be effective in stopping fundamentalists who study under radical clerics in countries that are our allies?
Years ago I taught a course on Statistical Quality Control at the Moore School of Electrical Engineering of the University of Pennsylvania. I taught in a room right next store to where the first big digital computer was doing its many things -- and grunting while it did so. Electron tubes. Cards. Lots of air conditioning. And lots of hope that improvements might come quickly!
The book I used in the course was written by a General in the USA Army and it had aa page after the title page that had a quote that I never forgot: (Circa 1947) "Big Fleas have Little Fleas upon their backs to bite them. And Little Fleas have Lesser fleas and so? Ad Infinitum?"
There are always bothersome events in our lives. The task is to get them to disappear and have the 'fleas' not want to bite. The way? Perhaps courtesy and respect. Perhaps NOT! I was sort of a GREAT FLEA back in my macho days!
When I wrote the note to Greg I had a sense that he wasn;t as angry as he had been in prior commentary. When I was young (and I'm sure I'm older than Greg now), I too had a twill up my .... , usually. I didn't insult people but I had to say what I had to say, and did so almost under any circumstance. Through times and lots of encounters with persons, I came to see the error of my methods of (non) communicating. I hope I learned how to be more caring and more subtle and sometimes my language deceived even me. Lo and behold I was being ironic without knowing it. As a younger man I really knew how to be disrespectful, and ironic, and sarcastic, and off the wall. I tried to overcome ME, and hope I did so! It didn't 'feel' good to me.
In my later days -- like now -- I have come to believe that 'words' are as dangerous a weapon as machine guns. Like 'Axis of Evil' or ' 'I fully understand'., or "There are WMD's no matter what the UN Inspectors say." ETC. My philosophical orientation makes me want NOT to insult anyone, but every once in a while, along with being angry in front of my TV set, I want to be like I used to be and use the words and the logic with which I know I can beat down -- but I simply don't like doing so. So I try to say something 'nice and sometimes innocuous that I partly believe and don't give a full impression of the fuller assessment that I do believe. I wonder always if that makes me dishonest! But then the religious idea of ALL of us being Children of God comes in to muddy my waters again!
Dick