A cogent analysis of this morning's events...
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
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...
which in turn means that they needed to know *in advance* which kinds
of planes they would be hijacking. While a lot of the pilot training
could be done using Flight Simulator, you still need to know what to
train for.
... 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.
: Delivered-To: nanog-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
: Delivered-To: nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu
: Delivered-To: nanog@merit.edu
: From: "David Howe" <DaveHowe@gmx.co.uk>
: References: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10109111159140.5292-100000@mailnew>
: Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 00:22:42 +0100
: MIME-Version: 1.0
: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
: X-Priority: 3
: X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
: Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
: Precedence: bulk
: Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
: X-Loop: nanog
: Content-Type: text/plain;
: charset="iso-8859-1"
: Content-Length: 1408
:
:
: >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
: 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...
The planes were hijacked with knives and re-routed over large
distances: which leads me to believe the original pilots were
long dead.
The two towers were struck with great precision: it's not as
easy as it sounds.
The pentagon was *landed* on... in a most precise manner: It
takes a hell of a flyer to put a plane down like that.
There were no fly-bys and/or go-rounds.
There were no near misses.
There is no doubt in my mind that those in control of the
planes were skilled pilots.
Peace,
Petr
>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.
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.
... 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.)
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...
> which in turn means that they needed to know *in advance* which kinds
> of planes they would be hijacking. While a lot of the pilot training
> could be done using Flight Simulator, you still need to know what to
> train for.
Your assumptions share a common fault: most commercial rated aircraft hava
standardized set of instruments. You can fly one, you can fly any of
em. Poorly maybe, but we're not discussing that here.
... 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.
u
Locked bulletproof door to the cockpit. Survelliance cameras in the
passenger compartments. That all which was needed to foil the attack. Now
I think it's time to ask why this isn't the standard procedure?
--vadim
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
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...
Sorry... I have to respond to this one. I have actually flown a number
of
single engine airplanes, and I have some time in the cockpit of an
Airbus
A-319 (jumpseat, but still a good education).
All they really had to do was put a waypoint into the FMS (maybe they
had
the flight crew do this for them before they killed them), but if they
didn't,
that's not too hard, and I bet half the people on this mailng list could
figure it out. It's more like configuring a router than flying an
airplane 
Once the waypoint was in, the only other thing they
needed to do was dial down the altitude preselect on the autopilot.
Then, sit back and enjoy the ride. If they were slightly more
sophisticated,
they could have switched the autopilot to heading mode and used the
heading
select knob to fine tune the direction of flight. From what I saw of
the
footage for the second airplane into the tower, it flew a very straight
level course directly into the side of the tower. It is not at all
unlikely that this was done by programming the autopilot.
> which in turn means that they needed to know *in advance* which kinds
> of planes they would be hijacking. While a lot of the pilot training
> could be done using Flight Simulator, you still need to know what to
> train for.
... 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.
Sorry... I've never flown any of the types involved, but I bet if you
put me in a realistic simulator and positioned me over the continental
US with adequate fuel, I could carry out the attack successfuly unless
I was shot down. There wasn't really a type specific need, you just
needed a semi-modern (post 1965) set of cockpit avionics. Guess what...
There's probably not a single domestic US airliner that doesn't fit that
bill.
Remeber, these guys didn't have to worry about any of the difficult
parts of flying a plane. Here's a list (in no particular order) of
the factors I think could be a challenge for a non-pilot.
1. Judgement -- None required, they planned to die.
2. Weather -- Clear blue skies with virtually infinite vis.
3. Landing -- Nope... Didn't have to do that.
4. Airspace -- Who cares!
5. Radios -- Nope... Probably didn't bother with those.
6. Navigation -- OK... but pretty basic, and probably
got flight crew assistance getting close. Let's face
it, you can aim for the world trade center from a very
long ways away at an altitude of 2000 feet or more.
7. Takeoff -- Conveniently handled by the flight crew.
8. Clearances -- Who cares!
9. In flight emergencies -- Again, if something goes wrong,
the plane just crashes. Heck, that may explain the one in
PA.
Adequate training for #6 can be gleaned from a copy of any of the
following
packages:
Flight Unlimited (1 or 2)
Fly (or Fly2K or Fly-2)
Any of the SubLogic Flight Simulators
Any PC based Flight Training Device
Micro$oft Flight Simulator (any version)
many others.
Also, you could learn enough to do this from about 10 hours of flight
instruction at your local FBO. Total cost: ~$1,500.
Just my opinion about the matter, but at least I know a little about the
cockpits involved. (757 and 767 are so similar that they share a common
FAA type rating, so any pilot rated for one can fly either, and they
both
have "glass" advanced cockpits with very capable and easy to program
autopilot and FMS systems.)
Owen DeLong
KB6MER
Private Pilot, Airplane Single Engine Land, Instrument Airplane
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:
>
> >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 aIt 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
Keep in mind as well that airspeed would be critical for maximum effect.
Moving too fast, the plane flies right through the building, certainly causing massive damage and almost certainly starting a fire. However, that's not optimal.
Fly too slowly, and you're on the edge of a stall - no laughing matter in any aircraft, but especially critical in these cases, due to the maneuvers every aircraft performed. Also, fly too slowly, you might not completely penetrate the building.
From the beginning, there's been no doubt that the pilots were type-rated on the Boeing 757/767, nor has there ever been any doubt, at least in my mind, that these were not American or United pilots... with the possible exception of the United flight that crashed in PA.
>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
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...
Actually, according to the pretty pictures on ABC the flight path for one
of the planes at least required a 45 degree turn, and involved a lot of
accelleration/slowing, the slow replays also show some not-so-good flying
skills, or perhaps a goodbye roll..
> which in turn means that they needed to know *in advance* which kinds
> of planes they would be hijacking. While a lot of the pilot training
> could be done using Flight Simulator, you still need to know what to
> train for.
... 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.
Just about every airline with a website displays the kind of plane you'll
be in, months in advance.
Matthew S. Hallacy
Or they could just fly plainclothes armed marshals on US flights.
Apparently they tried this years ago, but stopped because it was
"uneconomical". I guess the airlines have figured out how to put a dollar
amount on human lives.
-Dan
Nope, people put a price on human lives. You put a price on your life, in
the form of how much extra you're willing to pay for extra safety devices.
For example, due to what people are willing to pay for automotive
safety devices, the DoT estimates that the average human values their life
at a few million dollars.
``"For the interim, those agencies that use a dollar value of life in
economic analyses should use $1.5 million." ''
-- http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t75702.htm
That URL covers the current cost estimate of a human life. Currently
though, it is now at 2.6 million dollars.
So yes, there is a price on human life, set by every human in the united
states.
Scott
[don't have nanog posting privledges]
There are mechanisms in place that would detect this type of
behavior. (Prebooking multiple flights for the same individual.)
Does a domestic flight require a passport or other form of positive ID?
if not, they could book as many tickets as needed with a different name per
ticket.
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.
I hadn't seen *any* footage at that point - I am in the UK and my normal
working day doesn't include TV sets (and of course streaming video reached
saturation and vanished long before we even knew anything was happening over
here) - and come to think of it, I *still* haven't seen any footage of the
pentagon attack. UK coverage seems limited to the second plane strike,
collapse, talking heads, rinse & repeat.....
Yes. Photo identification to get your tickets, period, the end.
>
> > There are mechanisms in place that would detect this type of
> > behavior. (Prebooking multiple flights for the same individual.)
> Does a domestic flight require a passport or other form of positive ID?
> if not, they could book as many tickets as needed with a different name per
> ticket.Yes. Photo identification to get your tickets, period, the end.
Huh? You dont need any photo id to get tickets.
You need it to get on the plane.
Alex
OK. You need photo-id to get your boarding pass. Since I always use
e-tickets, the boarding pass is the only "paper" involved.
Photo ID isnt "required" per-se. Ive boarded 3 Delta flights without
showing any form of photo ID, only a credit card. I've also been able to
have my younger brother board a plane with NO id whatsoever, not even
showing proof of name.
-troy
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.
Bullet proof bulkhead separating the pilot's compartment from the cabin
that is locked/unlocked externally by the ground crew. Everyone knows
the pilot *can't* open the door even if he wanted to...
JMH
Vadim Antonov wrote: