Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Young Middle Eastern man,Arabic Hat, flight lessons

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
TurboS7 said:
If you look at the second aircraft that hit the WTC you will see that he was turning, at the last minute he corrected for the change and went right into the building. That can't be done with the autopilot it does not react fast enough. He was hand flying the airplane, that was my initial observation and the 911 book agrees with me.
The "911 book"? Just what pray tell is that?

So what, of course he was hand flying the airplane. It has a yoke up front for that very purpose.

To handfly with that kind of expertise means he had a lot of experience with low altitude high speed operations, not just a computer geek pilot.
These guys had training time in the simulators for these airplanes, they were not "computer geek pilots", as you call them.

But what they did was really not that hard either. To be sure, the second plane was probably pulling a few Gs as he made that last turn, but then he didn't really care about pax comfort or damage to the airplane, now did he?

Roll the yoke left, pull back, and a 767 will turn pretty quickly, just like any other jet.
 
Whirlwind said:
And you need some grammer lessons...


Well, for one thing, they were not doing 380 knots when they hit the buildings... Actually, I'd be surprised if Vmo is that high at 1,000ft.

Swept-wing jets do have some unique handling that needs to be learned, but at speeds below 250kts and below 10,000ft, they don't handle all THAT different, and certainly not once you've had sim training (which these guys had).

As the man said, he could talk his 9 year old daughter through what those clowns did, it isn't rocket science.
I'm pretty sure UAL 175 was flying over Vmo.

But the rest I agree with.
 
The Final Report from the Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States - or 911 Commission report (otherwise referred to as the 911 book :) ) makes it clear that the airplanes were at max thrust and accelerating in the dive - speeds well above Vmo. It's a very interesting read - a lot of stuff which will never be reported by the news media in this country. They are more interested in doing Scott Peterson's trial.
 
Whirlwind said:
Well, for one thing, they were not doing 380 knots when they hit the buildings... Actually, I'd be surprised if Vmo is that high at 1,000ft.

Swept-wing jets do have some unique handling that needs to be learned, but at speeds below 250kts and below 10,000ft, they don't handle all THAT different, and certainly not once you've had sim training (which these guys had).
Do you think Vmo or the FARs are limiting for terrorists?

American #11 was actually flying at an estimated 410 knots when it hit the WTC after flying down the length of Manhattan Island at full power.

United #175 was going much faster- about 500 knots- after a nearly continuous dive from 18,000'. I believe that's well over both Vmo and Mmo at that altitude. Those are estimated speeds from radar and videotape evidence, since both FDRs were destroyed.

Both aircraft were probably lined up on the target from 30 miles out, since it was a clear VFR day. How much piloting skill is required for that?
 
BD King said:
Mad Mike Hoare says that's funny. (my guess is nobody else knows who Hoare is)
Hahaha...or what a "rugby" team was doing with golf bags on a little vacation to the Seychelles.
 
rumpletumbler said:
of course not.....surely you jest if you think Timothy McVeigh and Middle Eastern sponsored terrorism occur with equal frequency.......
if anything terrorism on American soil has been perpetrated more by american citizens than anyone else.
 
FN FAL said:
Hahaha...or what a "rugby" team was doing with golf bags on a little vacation to the Seychelles.
Like I said, nobody else knows who Mad Mike was. Most of the guys have NO idea who your avatar represents.
 
rumpletumbler said:
really? care to back that up with statistics?

I can really only think of two instances where middle eastern people were the perpetrators. Both involved the WTC.

On the American side you have McVeigh, the Unabomber, various other package bombers, the recent sniper attacks, the news network fishing for a story, etc. etc. It's probably just because it's a lot easier to do since you're already living in the system.

My only real point was that people seem too eager to scapegoat the middle east.
 
rumpletumbler said:
What kind of moron would do that? Do you think the FBI are dumbasses? I can assure you they are not.
But... don't they strip search 9-yr-olds at the airports?


:rolleyes:


FBI, TSA. whatever... :)
 
TonyC said:
But... don't they strip search 9-yr-olds at the airports?


:rolleyes:


FBI, TSA. whatever... :)
hahah bull**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**! they would stripsearch a 9 year old before they would profile an actual suspect............where is your sense of political correctness?
 
BD King said:
Like I said, nobody else knows who Mad Mike was. Most of the guys have NO idea who your avatar represents.
Isn't he the guy that led the group that seized an airport in SA many, many years ago? I think they hijacked a plane, too. Am I even close?

As for FN's avatar....well...at first, I thought it was David Hasselhoff(though, I've never seen him in any movie with a SMG)....and I was really worried about the fact that maybe he has an infatuation with the guy...not that there's anything wrong with that! ;) :D
 
FracCapt said:
Having worked with them in the past.....do you REALLY want me to answer that?

Yes please! I was just going to give an opinion but if you've got real life experience, please go right ahead.

Grammer/Grammar is indeed deliciously ironik/ironic!
 
My eleven year old daughter flew the Challenger sim off-motion while the maintenance tech was working on it one night. I ran the flaps and gear, she did the rest, "little nose up, right bank, correct it...." I talked her through a takeoff from SFO, circled around the Bay, and a landing at OAK. Could she have flown a 757 into a building? Probably not, but give her ten more years and a few lessons it would be easy. Of course, then I'd have to ground her....
 
My 3-year old just loves to take a bugsmasher for a joyride on the Sim. I'll line her up for t/o and she does the rest, even intitating a positive climb/gears-up scenario. And then she has even more fun actually turning back and aiming for the tower which she hits almost every time.
Having flown with Daddy many times over, she likes to scare real passengers on real flights when we're thundering down the runway and she starts imitating a perfect "Pull Up" aural advisory.
Just thought I'd share with everyone what a 3-year old is capable of doing.
LOL
 
BD King said:
Like I said, nobody else knows who Mad Mike was. Most of the guys have NO idea who your avatar represents.
Ehemmm...Roger Moore's character in the Wild Geese. Forgot the name of the character. About a botched mercinary mission in Africa with a bunch of rusty veterans, or something like that. Good flick, but been a while.

Ok, what's my prize?
 
rumpletumbler said:
So yesterday I have this guy come in wearing his hat with Arabic lettering and wearing fatigues....he wants to know "how much to make the fly?" Anyhow.....his questions answered he goes out and climbs in his brand new BMW and heads out. I'm like "WTF is this guy thinking?" Post 9-11 he goes out in fatigues with his Arabic hat on and driving his BMW (many of the 9-11 guys drove BMW's) and inquires about flight lessons. I wanted to say "Could you be any less tactful?" "Are you really this stupid?" Anyhow.... I was amazed.......
Getting back to the original question, maybe what is needed here is a good old fashioned campaign to promote new legislature.

I would say write the media and get letters published on the opinion section of newspapers or aired during newscasts. Possibly, you could make allies with some of the special interest groups that would like to see new state and federal laws enacted in the interest of keeping the public safe from General Aviation.

Thirdly, I would start a letter writing campaign to alert your congressman or senator regarding your fears concerning the lack of security in General Aviation. You may find you have more allies there then you think.
This month, U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., called general aviation a ``ticking time bomb,'' saying security is minimal or nonexistent at some small airports. ``Until we have a handle on general aviation security, we cannot assure the public that [it's] under control,'' Kohl testified at a Senate hearing.
Our legislators are only interested in the public's best interests, so would it be too much to ask of them to provide some common sense law making regarding the security threat of general aviation. With the decline of violent crimes in this country over the past 12 years, many police departments are actually facing layoffs.

Could it be possible that we could use the resulting excess in law enforcement capacity in assigning these police to airport security functions? Creating an Airport Liaison Officer Program could help keep our skies safe and police officers in jobs.

Officers in the Airport Liaison Officer Program, or ALOP, would help keep our smaller and currently unprotected airports and our skies safe, by providing passenger and pilot background checks and aircraft screening, every time a General Aviation aircraft is intending to depart an airport. These officers would be on call and required to report to the airport no later than two hours after being summoned to the airport to render public services.

In the interest of General Aviation safety, luggage as well as aircraft would be searched as would the passengers and pilot. Biometric identification technology would be used to speed up the process of identifying persons boarding aircraft and would be cross referenced to the National Crime Information Center's computers.

Since drunk and drugged pilots operating aircraft has been such a big public safety issue as of late, the ALOP officer would administer breathalyzer testing before the departure of all General Aviation flight as well. In the event that time is not an issue, the ALOP officer could administer field sobriety tests as well. Drug testing would be at the discretion of the ALOP officer and will be administered based on acceptible and certified profile detection methods.

Once the ALOP officer has screened the General Aviation aircraft and passengers, the ALOP officer will assist the pilot in ensuring safety of flight by determining the airworthyness of the aircraft and it's appliances, ensuring that navigation charts and aircraft navigation databases are up to date and reviews the pilot's flight planning and navigation course before endorsing the pilot's flight plan for approval and issuing the required flight release.
 
Last edited:
FN FAL said:
Getting back to the original question, maybe what is needed here is a good old fashioned campaign to promote new legislature.

I would say write the media and get letters published on the opinion section of newspapers or aired during newscasts. Possibly, you could make allies with some of the special interest groups that would like to see new state and federal laws enacted in the interest of keeping the public safe from General Aviation.

Thirdly, I would start a letter writing campaign to alert your congressman or senator regarding your fears concerning the lack of security in General Aviation. You may find you have more allies there then you think.
Our legislators are only interested in the public's best interests, so would it be too much to ask of them to provide some common sense law making regarding the security threat of general aviation. With the decline of violent crimes in this country over the past 12 years, many police departments are actually facing layoffs.

Could it be possible that we could use the resulting excess in law enforcement capacity in assigning these police to airport security functions? Creating an Airport Liaison Officer Program could help keep our skies safe and police officers in jobs.

Officers in the Airport Liaison Officer Program, or ALOP, would help keep our smaller and currently unprotected airports and our skies safe, by providing passenger and pilot background checks and aircraft screening, every time a General Aviation aircraft is intending to depart an airport. These officers would be on call and required to report to the airport no later than two hours after being summoned to the airport to render public services.

In the interest of General Aviation safety, luggage as well as aircraft would be searched as would the passengers and pilot. Biometric identification technology would be used to speed up the process of identifying persons boarding aircraft and would be cross referenced to the National Crime Information Center's computers.

Since drunk and drugged pilots operating aircraft has been such a big public safety issue as of late, the ALOP officer would administer breathalyzer testing before the departure of all General Aviation flight as well. In the event that time is not an issue, the ALOP officer could administer field sobriety tests as well. Drug testing would be at the discretion of the ALOP officer and will be administered based on acceptible and certified profile detection methods.

Once the ALOP officer has screened the General Aviation aircraft and passengers, the ALOP officer will assist the pilot in ensuring safety of flight by determining the airworthyness of the aircraft and it's appliances, ensuring that navigation charts and aircraft navigation databases are up to date and reviews the pilot's flight planning and navigation course before endorsing the pilot's flight plan for approval and issuing the required flight release.
Do I detect some sarcasm here? :) George Orwell would be proud of you FN FAL. On a serious note, I'll bet there are some clowns out here that took your post seriously. I can hear those keyboards clicking to the representatives now...
 
Last edited:
By using poor grammar and names like the "911 book" I am able to communicate to the lowest pilot common denominator-since we are teaching 3 year olds how to fly.
 
V-1 said:
So everytime we see a white male driving a Ryder truck, we should panick and run as fast as possible in the opposite direction?
This one argument that keeps popping up is misguided.

First, we have not seen multiple examples of people fitting the Oklahoma City example attacking us all over the world. In fact, we have only this one example. I don't know if we have any "eco-terrorists" that fir the description.

Second, when was the last time you saw a "Ryder" truck, other than a semi? (hint: you won't)

Turbo may be right, in that this demonstrated a level of skill that many do not possess. We do not know, however, whether others with large aircraft experience in the organization could have helped in the terrorist's training to make up for the shortcomings of sim and light aircraft responses.

After all, it DID happen.

In the end, it is still a good idea to be vigilant. The hijackers did not care if they left a legacy of those like themselves being questioned and kept under scrutiny. It wasn't a concern for them, but it is a concern for us.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom