1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    How much lateral displacement did that result in? What would have happened if they did not make those adjustment?

    What would that actually involve, in terms of control inputs from the pilots? How does this indicated remote control?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    And of course a multi-engine rating has very little to do with the aircraft being any different to fly unless they lose an engine - for "everyday flying" it is all about scanning a larger array of instruments and manipulating more engine controls.

    And, as has been repeatedly pointed out already - these guys had multi-engine large jet simulator time (you can link to their individual wiki pages easily from this link) - not MS Flight Simulator - but "real" 727 and 767 commercial simulators where they cold practice all that.

    Continually harping on about this does nothing except show the ignorance of the poster - not only in regard of aviation, but also in terms of basic knowledge of the event!!
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    There is Tony but the overriding reason is not aircraft handling but different flight systems and operating techniques.

    My licence shows that I am rated to fly the 757 and I have never set foot in a 757 flight deck in my life. The 757/767 is a dual type rating even though the aircraft are quite different in size, weight and thrust. That is allowed because of the systems similarities and the operating philosophy,

    I currently fly the A330 but to CCQ (cross crew qualification) on to either the A320 or the A340 is a one week course for me, concentrating mainly on small system differences. If I had to in an emergency, I could land either without problems without doing the CCQ course.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti Active Member

    Some have described trying to manually fly a 767-200 into a 207 foot wide building at 500 mph at sea level as being akin to driving a car at 300 mph across a large area of ice and trying to put it in a soccer goal at the edge of the ice on the other side.

    The offset engines generate offset forces which are not always precisely equal and require adjustment and flying skills which are more sensitive than what is necessary for an aircraft where the engine is aligned with the fuselage.

    We have seen experienced pilots who have said it would be very difficult if not near impossible to simply point the aircraft at the buildings and hit them. I have never heard any say it would be easy for a novice. Do you have any citations for your claim?
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  5. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti Active Member

    Being considered qualified to fly a specific aircraft involves a number of things concerned with overall familiarity and one is the response of the aircraft.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  6. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti Active Member

    flying
    Without those adjustments the aircraft would have missed the building. Any little over or under steer would have also caused a miss of the building.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  7. Melbury's Brick

    Melbury's Brick Active Member

    The road driving comparison by the video creator is flawed. The garage/service station that the driver would be be aiming for would have to be one of only two buildings at that level, and he could choose any path towards the target (there are no roads in the sky). Could I steer a fast, already moving, truck for which I'd undertaken some "simulator" training (and "real" smaller vehicle training) into a building without much concern for my accuracy? Yes. I believe I could.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2014
  8. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    We are not talking being qualified here. We are talking what is it possible. I have flown Mirage 3 Mach 2 fighters from the back seat, a P3 Orion and a Iroquois helicopter all without being "qualified" on any of them or flying them beforehand. I flew the Mirage with less hours than most of the hijackers had. I didn't have to "operate" it. I didn't have to have an in depth knowledge of any if the systems or be worried about what would happen if something went wrong. I simply pointed it where I wanted to go.

    The aircraft I was "qualified" on was a STOL radial powered transport that cruised at 140 knots.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2014
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Balance

    Balance Senior Member

    Saying it don't make it so... just saying :confused:
    Sorry, just want you to know this is going back and forth without progressing

     
  10. xenon

    xenon Active Member

    This is one of the funniest threads I've ever read in 17 years on the net. Simulators are obsolete! Just buy the latest X-plane or Microsoft Flight Sim and you can fly Heavy Jets! I'm saving up for a space sim, I always wanted to go to Mars.

    I've copied this and will be reposting tidbits forever. And these are skeptics that think the Government shouldn't be questioned! It just doesn't get any better. I salute you for your patience.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  11. Tony Szamboti

    Tony Szamboti Active Member

    You are a self purported experienced pilot. That can't be said about the alleged hijackers.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Again though, how much is a little? A ten degree turn of the yoke for one second? A 0.1 degree turn for 0.1 second?

    You are being incredibly vague here. You are just saying "if they turned too much they would have missed". Which is rather obvious.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  13. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

    One more funny post to the thread. ;-)

    Yes, do that and you will be able to "point and go" any heavy jets, but only if you don't need to take off or land and if there's no serious weather condition or something wrong with the plane. If someone give you the control of the heavy jet in a sunny day, you'll fly it wherever you want, but will not be able to land.

    Regarding going to Mars, as Mars actually moves, you wouldn't probably be able to "point and go".

    And regarding agreeing or disagreeing with the government, actually I don't see government anywhere in this thread. :-/
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    X-plane is a simulator, it can be FAA certified.
    http://www.x-plane.com/pro/certified/

     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  15. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    Well I can certainly see theorists claiming as such. A 207 foot wide building is pretty wide. The runway at my local international airport is 200 feet wide, and pilots nail it straight on the centerline everyday while landing, even with gusty crosswinds.
    The only claim you have here is that it's impossible to do it at 500 mph.

    A large heavy jet flying at 500 mph is nothing like a car slipping through ice. It is a big chunk of metal hurled through the air in a line by thrust and inertia. It is quite unlike steering a car. In a car, you turn the wheel, and the car turns right away. In a plane, you can roll it, but it requires a certain attitude before it will alter it's trajectory. One can roll an airplane, nose down a touch, and it won't turn (just as an example).

    As to your claim of offset engines requiring more flying skills, it's pretty negligible on an aircraft with turbofan engines. I haven't flown a 767 myself, but I do have a multi-engine endorsement on my license. Flying a twin propeller engine where the props turn in the same direction would create a bit more adverse yaw I think, but at airspeed, it isn't much different than flying a single engine aircraft and is quite easy. Turbofan engines don't have much in the way of P-factor/asymmetrical thrust unless performance is that substantial that requires significant offsetting of the throttle levers to keep the thrust equal. That said, the 767/757, to my knowledge, has digital displays showing how much N1 each engine is making, and it only takes common sense to figure out how to make them equal.

    The basics for flying in general are the same between different aircraft. Flying a big plane and a small plane all encompasses the same basic controls: pitch, roll, yaw, trim, and throttle. That's pretty much all a pilot needs to steer the plane, and is all a hijacker would have needed. They don't have to know the systems in depth. All they needed was basic attitude flying and know where the yoke is, where the trim is, where the throttle is, and possibly the rudder, but that's it.

    One thing to keep in mind also with regards to the aircraft on 9/11 is that they didn't start out fast. They started out slow, aimed, and accelerated. They would not have required much control other than a bit of trim, which they, as licensed pilots, would have known how to do on the first days of their training. They were also not breaking the sound barrier. Sensitivity of the controls, as has been claimed before, is a very small factor that would alter the outcome. It would require small adjustments at altitude, but when it comes to flying an aircraft, it's not about how much you turn the wheel so much as where the nose is pointing.

    The NTSB animation for AA77 that hit the pentagon shows quite believably the control inputs required for that particular aircraft to hit, which isn't much more than what a pilot would use for take-off and landing. There is little reason to believe that UA175 and AA11 were that much different.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    Sorry Tony, your approach is to avoid many direct questions about your actual experience and knowledge of the 767 and handwave the opinions and testimony of others with far more experience than you. It's just not good enough.

    If you had some professional experience with 767 systems, test programs etc your opinion would have some more value, but as it stands it doesn't.

    The fact is that the hijackers were able to use certified flight simulators, small aircraft and probably even something like Microsoft Flight Simulator.
    The main reason to use MFS would be to practice the route and approach - something it is perfectly suited to do.

    Once again I remind you that Italian Airforce pilot Guilio Bernacchia stated that it was
    I find there is little substance to the claim that the jets would be uncontrollable at those speeds. Not surprising really.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Redwood

    Redwood Active Member

    Questions of controllability at high speed and low altitude, it seems to me, are as much for aeronautical engineers as pilots, as this is rarely done in actual practice.

    Who is the most prominent aeronautical engineer who claims that 757s/767s would be uncontrollable in that situation, and what is that person's claim to expertise?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Another question would be to clarify what is meant by "uncontrollable".
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  20. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Member

    I have never heard of an aircraft becoming uncontrollable due to over-speed (below sonic) in my life. There are examples of fighter pilots breaking the sound barrier in the early days and losing control but that is purely due to the aerofoil/control design and the ignorance in those times of exactly how aerodynamic theory changes near, at, and above the speed of sound. As for subsonic flight, to my knowledge I have never heard of any aircraft losing control from going too fast.

    There is a risk at high speeds of over-controlling, flutter and even control reversal, but systems on airliners work to prevent such occurrences, such as the automatic use of spoilers to control the aircraft at high speeds instead of the ailerons.

    This argument is built on an entirely false assumption; something 'Pilots for Truth' do very well. Aside from the failed argument which Tony decided to regurgitate, there is also the matter of the RADAR history, Air Traffic recordings, phone calls, witnesses, and images, which all show UAL175, hijacked by terrorists, crashed into the South Tower.



    7f590ad2f4ada40d687e9406151fc5d7.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

    @cjnewson88 : talking about crazy coincidences, I found your videos 2h ago, and I was going to ask folks here if they have seen this material in the past. :)

    It's very very informative, tks. I will start another thread on that.
     
  22. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Member

    Thanks BPD, I'm actually surprised I've never signed up an account here before.. it wasn't until today when I was bought here to read about people trying to burn ice with bic lighters (*facepalm) that I even knew there was an active forum here. Will be interesting to see what kind of information is bought up here. Nice to meet you btw :)
     
  23. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

    I don't want to get too out of topic, but nice too meet you too. :)
     
  24. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member


    Sorry to seem blunt, but the first "mistake" is citing "Pilots For 9/11 Truth".

    I can expand on this point, that I am making here...with specifics. Please feel free to ask, specific questions. It's much easier to reply that way.

    Noting that I am a retired airline pilot (one of 2 on this site, that I know of so far!)...well, the other airline pilot is NOT retired, is still actively flying. But, I do have a few thousand hours on the Boeing 757 and 767. So, again, I'm happy to answer any questions. As I said previously, I prefer the questions to be specific, and hopefully not "layperson"...but if you are a layperson, i.e. not a pilot, then I will ensure that we clarify terms, as we discuss.

    Hope this is satisfactory?
     
    • Like Like x 3
  25. JonM

    JonM New Member

    The supposed difficulty with high-speed sea-level maouvering seems to gyrate between 1. the pressures are so high it would be physically difficult to do (but systems overcome this problem) and 2. the systems would be too sensitive and cause oversteering/whatever. But we've already heard that the feel of the controls is artificially made heavier to compensate for that.

    So just what IS the supposed problem?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Cobra, I was out of town for this discussion, but I just read through it, and can't tell you how valuable your real-world,
    current experience (and clear expression of it) helped me make sense of this issue. I'm buying' a bomber jacket today.
    Tony, you reminded me not to predicate most of an argument on an unverifiable anecdote about mystery men struggling with a simulator.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  27. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member


    In answer....there actually is no "high-speed sea-level maneuvering" problem!! This is a red herring, completely made-up.

    There is no "oversteering" problem, nor any issue, etc, etc, etc. Again, completely imaginary, and....dare I say? Concocted by not a "consensus" of a particular web-board, who call themselves "Pilots for 9/11 Truth".

    I made a vow, at the beginning, not to engage in "board wars". However, in this instance, I must speak forth to say that, in the case of so-called "P for 9/11 T"??

    There are a great many aspects to claims, made from that site, and particularly from its main founder, that require proper examination, and debunking!

    Going back a few years....one legendary member of the "P4 9/11T" (an abbreviation) was John Lear. He is the son of legendary William (Bill) Lear, of LearJet fame. This is a fact, not in dispute. What is in dispute, though, are some claims made by John Lear, especially later in his life.

    I will speak here specifically to ONE claim (of many) made by John Lear, about the Boeing 767...both types that impacted the World Trade Center Towers on 11 September, 2001. He (John Lear) once testified, under oath, about a phenomenon called "aileron reversal". This is an actual 'problem' for SOME airplanes, at very high airspeeds...BUT, it is limited to those designs that have ailerons AT OR NEAR the wingtips. On the B767, there ARE ailerons outboard, near the wingtips....except, these outboard ailerons DO NOT ACTIVATE unless the trailing edge flaps are deployed beyond a certain range, and/or, the airspeed is below a certain range.

    The B767 has a dual set of INBOARD ailerons which act in conjunction with the spoiler panels on the top of the wings, for roll control in the high speed environment.

    So, long story short (too late!! Sorry, small joke...)....John Lear's "testimony" about "aileron reversal" at high airspeeds is irrelevant, as it relates to the Boeing 767.

    And this is but ONE of the problems with John Lear's "testimony", re: 9/11.....

    EDIT....a picture is worth a thousand words, so they say:

    http://www.smartcockpit.com/aircraft-ressources/B767-300GE-Flight_Controls.html

    (yes, I know...it is keying to a "download"...and the graphic shows a Continental B767-400, though the program is for a B767-300 (and Continental NEVER operated the B767-300)...the systems will be similar, regardless).
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2014
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  28. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member


    I also want to add...I hate to "quote" my entire previous post (Mods, please feel free to edit if needed), but to expand my explanation...the Boeing 757. It does NOT have inboard ailerons. Only the two, one each wing, so therefore "outboard" (but, not all the way out). However, as with ALL airliners, at high speeds, the spoiler panels (those on top of the wings designated as "Flight Spoilers", not to be confused with the "Ground Spoilers", which will only activate fully when the airplane "Ground Sensing" determines that the airplane is actually on, or VERY near the ground).

    POINT is, for roll control, the spoiler panels tend to provide the majority of roll input, WELL before the ailerons are needed...at higher airspeeds. There is an inter-mix factor built into the flight control software....even though these controls are ALL hydraulically actuated, they ARE still "computed" through the various actuators, with feed-back to the pilots for "control feel". NOT to imply that the B757/767 are "Fly-By-Wire"...because, they are NOT! However, there are hydraulic "feel" systems incorporated, to give pilots the same control "feed back" feeling. Hard to describe to the layperson....
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  29. SpaceCowboy

    SpaceCowboy Rob Balsamo of P4T Banned

    "Weedwacker" and others here are correct. The outboard ailerons get locked at higher speeds based on limitations set by the manufacturer, to prevent control reversal due to wing twist at high speed.

    Many aircraft have such "locking" features as speed increases. Some aircraft "lock out" rudder displacement, Some lock-out elevator displacement. The list goes on.

    However, what "Weedwhacker" and others fail to understand, is why manufacturers set ultimate limitations.

    There comes a point when the airspeed becomes so great, no amount of pitch, rudder or aileron authority will control the aircraft. Let alone possible structural failure. These are the very reasons manufacturers set limitations for several different types of control surfaces and lock them out as speed increases. According to people like "weedwhacker", the 767 can be controlled at 600, 700, 800 knots, regardless of Vmo and Vd?

    Anyone who has actually flown any airplane, from Student Pilot to ATP, knows that a change in airspeed requires a change in trim for a given attitude. There comes a point when there is no more "trim" in any axis as speed increases. This is known as "running out" of control authority, and is one of the reasons manufacturers set limitations.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2014
  30. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Please, do elaborate. We are "all eyes". Especially this assertion, and I quote: "According to people like "weedwhacker", the 767 can be controlled at 600, 700, 800 knots, regardless of Vmo and Vd"

    Yes indeed. Please, by all means, cite me in other posts where I personally have asserted this.
     
  31. SpaceCowboy

    SpaceCowboy Rob Balsamo of P4T Banned

    You haven't, but certainly you have implied it.

    Weedwhacker, you claim to be a 767 Pilot. At what speed exactly does the outboard ailerons become locked out and for what reason?

    When the outboard ailerons are locked out, can the inboard ailerons control the 767 at any speed?
     
  32. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    The Outboard ailerons become locked out when the trailing edge flaps are fully retracted. THIS is all that matters in the discussion of "9/11 airplane controllability" discussions, as it relates to the Boeing 767-200.

    AS TO the Inboard Ailerons? Yes, they function at all times....BUT, at higher speeds, the primary source for roll control are the Flight Spoilers. (**) Hope this answers your questions. BTW, there are a few other current (and former) airline pilots on this Forum who you can ask, if my answers seem insufficient.

    EDIT (**) - to add- The Flight Spoilers are programmed through the ADC to activate, as needed, based on ALL of the inputs...i.e., altitude, speed, configuration etc. It is complicated to describe, but for the operator, it is just a matter of "feel" on the controls. The rest just happens, per the original programming parameters.
     
  33. SpaceCowboy

    SpaceCowboy Rob Balsamo of P4T Banned

    That is not what you said above. You have omitted a crucial point... In fact, you said this...

    "and/or, the airspeed is below a certain range", is what I am asking. What is the airspeed range? Can you answer or not?
     
  34. Judgywudgy

    Judgywudgy Member

    ' The pentagon is the largest building in the world.' So where is all the CCCTV footage from the building; and surroundings- hotels etc?
     
  35. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Yes, I can. BUT, as I've already stated....this is not relevant. Because, once the trailing edge flaps are fully retracted (and both the B757 and B767 Limitations specify that NO flaps may be extended above 20,000 feet)...then it is only logical to presume that the hijackers did not extend the flaps, at any time because "they" were focused on maximum speed, for their intended targets.

    EDIT: AND, all of the hijackings occurred during the cruise phase when, of course, all flaps (LE and TE) would have already been fully retracted.
     
  36. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Oh dear. "Judgywudgy", could we focus on one "claim" at a time, please?
     
  37. SpaceCowboy

    SpaceCowboy Rob Balsamo of P4T Banned

    I feel that it is relevant.

    You claim that the outboard ailerons are locked out at certain speeds. Can you please provide that speed range?
     
  38. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Asked. And. Answered.

    May we move on? Can you provide any pertinent information to add to this discussion, instead of focusing on previously discussed (and answered) topics?
     
  39. SpaceCowboy

    SpaceCowboy Rob Balsamo of P4T Banned

    I'm sorry, I must have missed it.

    Did you actually specify a speed range for the outboard aileron lockout feature of the 767? If so, can you please post a link to such a speed range in Knots? KCAS? KIAS?

    Did you actually explain why the manufacturer locks out the outboard ailerons based on a limitation?

    Again, I must have missed it. Although I did read all your replies... can you please provide at least a link... ? Or if you failed to provide an answer, can you please do so?
     
  40. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    As I have already said....this is off-topic.

    The thread is Pilots for 9/11 Truth claim WTC airplanes would be uncontrollable at observed speeds