See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Flight 77 Maneuver/Hanjour Flying Skills
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_C ... Forum/index.php?showtopic=3550
Published: Feb 8, 2007
Author: NK-44
Post Date: 2007-02-08 18:49:35 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 888
Comments: 68
Part One Hanjour's flying skills However, when Hanjour went on three test runs in the second week of August He had trouble controlling and landing a single engine Cessna 172. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3550 The best compilation of evidence concerning Hani Hanjour's flying skills I have read.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-3) not displayed.
.
.
.
#4. To: IndieTX (#3)
The point of the link, which is written by a real airman who was in the FAA database with a commercial license when I checked, is the flight path of Flight 77 is consistent with a relatively inexperienced pilot putting the aircraft into situations he could not fully control. I myself am a licensed pilot and find his explanations quite plausible. A novice pilot puts the plane into a dive, but doesn't remember to compensate for the increased lift which is caused by the increased speed. So he overshoots the target, and then has to go into a tight 270 degree turn to avoid losing the target completely. I have been in extended arguments with other people on other sites who seem to have a lot invested in their own beliefs about this, and I am not going to repeat that here. That is just my 2 cents, and I will leave it at that.
Point taken, and of course, you're right. However, TheStateInc claims these guys were not really novices, and if they were [and did what this pilot suggested any novice would do], this pilot forgets they were in a large turbine aircraft and being such novices, would have lost the aircraft. Not to mention no ATP is going to give up his airplane to a few CLOWNS with boxcutters and half-inch blades, regardless of their verbal threats. So it can't be both ways. They either had to be PROS, or, if they were so inexperienced to be surprised by the increased lift and speed produced by a descent, they would have never have made it. TheState and their propaganda mouthpieces keep wanting to have it both ways, depending on what point they're trying to discredit.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell No DNA has ever been matched or linked to said hijackers. One more question. Your stand on 911 is what? Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
The aircraft hit exactly where it was planned to hit, where it would cause minimum damage and loss of life. Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
The Pentagon is almost at sea level, and the aircraft was over 5,000 feet when it started its descent. That is a dive for an aircraft that large and generating that much lift. From the link:
That isn't what was reported by the actual FAA controllers, and according to your link, the flight path isn't even lined up with the Pentagon. The path of the airliner is exactly what was intended. So then an inexperienced pilot "overshot" the Pentagon, then took the aircraft, made a 270 degree circle, and flew it 40-60ft above the ground, and smack the empty side of the Pentagon? Like you said, its pure speculation. Again, your stand on 911 is what? Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Please post a source which states exactly what the FAA controllers did report, then. How would you know what was intended? (1) Are you a pilot? (2) Do you know how lift, drag, thrust, and "ground effect" work? And alleging "The path of the airliner is exactly what was intended" isn't? (2) There are 2 sides that want war in the Middle East, not 1, and (3) Certain small elements of individuals on the side associated with the US and Israeli governments had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen, wanted it to happen, and did nothing to prevent it from happening.
FYI This person is a 911 truth denier...exposed himself as a shill on LF in/around Nov 2005. Slunk away with his tail between his legs. Now he's posting at LP as well.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Hoo boy. My 1st Bozo.
We'll see.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA77.pdf Your depiction of the flight path is not even close to the flight path reported by the NTSB Flight 77 Flight Path Study. You can find it at the link above on page 5. Consider the NTSB report. Hanjour rolls out on the final attack approach flying less than 50 feet above irregular terrain knocking down 5 light poles flying at over 450 knots.
BTW, according to the NTSB, Hanjour disconnects the autopilot 35 miles west of the Pentagon and hand flies the entire attack profile from 35 miles out to impact.
The aircraft was headed in the general direction of Reagan International Airport and the Pentagon, which are only a few miles apart. Plus, they had their transponders off, which begs the question of how exactly the NTSB could come up with a precise flight path of any sort. Also, it's not me who's been making such a big deal of an alleged "270 degree turn."
Bozo List: (1) Angle
That would support a contention of a somewhat erratic flight path as he meanders around looking for his target - which was a building complex low to the ground and away from major landmarks.
Bozo List: (1) Angle
POSSIBLY, the FAA radar could have picked up an aircraft as a "primary return" - no transponder. Since the FAA insists that it saw the altitude, the transponder would need to be on. Lacking any TCAS warnings, there could have been no transponder - Flight 77 is a total fake, as to the crash. BUT - where did it end up? There's the 64,000 dollar question.
Depending on how close exactly the radar actually was, possibly. However I'd expect a lot of clutter and background noise if the transponder was off.
Bozo List: (1) Angle
I think this pretty much says it all: Part two: Didn't realize it was a 2 parter.
We'll never convince the 9-11 truth deniers [StateInc believers] no matter what you show them. This was an impossible feat for an untrained expert and the evidence doesn't add up to a 757 hitting the building. Plain and simple. But the deniers refuse to look at evidence.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell Did you ever watch that video? I see youtube is having trouble serving up the embedded video at the moment, but if you go to youtube, watch it. It is interesting stuff.
I've seen it 3 times. And so have my kids.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell oh, ok cool. :)
According to the NTSB,the flight path is based on the data recovered from the flight data recorder from Flight 77.
See vid above about the NTSB altimeter [MSL altimeter setting and actual AGL altitude] goof in their animation. :) These government guys must not be very smart.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell I did find it interesting that the NTSB claimed they were releasing the recovered data from the FDR, but neglected to release the radio altimeter data which is a parameter that the FAR's require the equipment to record. The radio altimeter gives the height of the bottom of the aircraft to the ground in feet.
Funny you should mention that. I was just going to ask you a question about that since you seem to know your chit. OK, they adjusted the altimeter on the way up through 18,000, by they I mean the flight crew, yes? So now some dimbulb hijacker is supposed to have taken over and flown the plane to DC and he is going to vaporize himself by flying into the pentagon... Is he going to remember to reset the altimeter on the way back down past 18,000ft? Is he going to remember to do that under the stress involved in knowing he's going to be vaporizing himself. And how would he know the correct barometric pressure to adjust the altimeter? Would he call Dulles on the radio? Or is that something that is just broadcast from an airport continuously?
While I don't purport to be an expert on flight data recorders, to my knowledge they don't deal with measurements of the aircraft's location - only of various operating factors.
Bozo List: (1) Angle
If one wants to take the data seriously, it must be assumed that the altimiter setting would be immaterial to the events ahead, during the descent. Normally, the crew would tune into an automated broadcast (ATIS), to get the local altimeter setting. The flight data should indicate the GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) warnings, based on the radar altimeter. Funny, there is no mention of that! (Get the picture, huh???)
Thats for the heads up. He is done here.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Appendix M to Part 121 - Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-M-APPX.shtml Parameter 39- Lattitude and Longitude
Sky, I know you are familiar with the information in my comments below,I am adding them to expand on your point that the setting is immaterial. The FDR records pressure altitude,Parameter 2.The altimeter setting is unrelated to the measurement of pressure altitude. To use the recorded pressure altitude to determine height above mean sea level (MSL), a correction is applied based on the local altimeter setting. As far as the pressure altitude parameter recorded by the FDR,it simply does not matter what altimeter setting is set on the altimeter.
Yes.
Correct; I was addressing the pilots procedures. The FDR is a very sophisticated recording device. It should be added that the navigation units have an emergency cache of position data, also. That can be accessed independently - if it survives.
And how would he know the correct barometric pressure to adjust the altimeter? Would he call Dulles on the radio? Or is that something that is just broadcast from an airport continuously? Dumb dumb hijacker about to vaporize himself and not used to flying above FL180, would probably not KNOW to reset altimeter from 29.92 back to current barometric pressure when crossing 18,000 feet, if he did he would have had to listen to an automated ATIS broadcast to get the reading [or just monitor ATC]...and furthermore he would NOT be the least bit concerned with doing so. Obeying regulations when your about to die??? In the vid, the missile...ahh I mean the hijacker did NOT bother resetting the altimeter which means the alledged NTSB info about altitude is a lie and the aircraft was really a few hundred feet higher AGL [above the ground], which is what I believe the video exposes. [Crossing from higher pressure to lower pressure without resetting your altimeter will cause the altimeter to read higher than you really are above the ground [AGL] and vice versa. So if one descends from 29.92 to an area of higher pressure without resetting, the altimeter will read lower than you really are which means you will really be higher AGL. In others words as the pressure increases, if you do not reset the altimeter, you will have been steadily getting higher above the ground.] For example, if one were making an non-precision instrument approach in poor conditions, and the decision height is posted as 5000 MSL [200 AGL..so the airport runway is at 4800 ft] from 29.92 to the correct LOWER actual pressure of say 28.99, the aircaraft altimeter reading will be higher than you really are..decision height will NOT really be at 200ft above the ground but your airplane will be much LOWER...and then much likely resulting in obstacle or ground contact short of the runway. You just got your first free ground school lesson :) As per pilots for 911 truth, and testimony from instructors, these dummies would have been able to look at an altimter and know to set it to whatever ATC tells them to, but they didn't have any earthly idea as to WHY. The above info must be explained, depending on which question the examiner decides to ask, on the verbal exam before the Instrument Rating checkride, and also on the Commercial. It depends on the examiner. It's also on the written exam for BOTH.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-M-APPX.shtml Parameter 39- Lattitude and Longitude OK, then if you want to accept the NTSB report there is really nothing that would require any high-level flying skills. Some of the stories out there allege the aircraft made a "270 degree precision turn" requiring the skills of a "crack fighter pilot." However, according to the NTSB, the maneuver was a 330 degree descending turn that started at 7,000 feet @ 9:34 and ended at 2,000 feet @ 9:37. So the pilot had 3 minutes to lose 5,000 feet and line up for the Pentagon, which was only 3.5 miles from the beginning, and 4 miles from the end, of the turn. The flight path shows that Reagan Airport was always straight ahead of the plane before the final maneuvers started. So the NTSB report makes it appear the pilot used the autopilot to navigate straight towards Reagan Airport, disconnected the autopilot when he acquired his target visually, went down to 7,000 feet until he was within 5 miles, then took 3 minutes to lose 5,000 feet and line up for the final impact. I don't see anything terribly complicated in any of that. Safe landings are the most complicated part of flying any aircraft. BTW, I used to subscribe to a number of aviation safety publications including Aviation Safety and the NTSB Reporter. There were several articles about how sometimes experienced airline pilots do poorly on flight tests with smaller aircraft, because the smaller planes are not as automated and more susceptible to various environmental factors such as wind and turbulence. So the stories about Hanjour not being able to pilot a Cessna 172 too well, may not be any indication of how well he could have done taking over a larger passenger aircraft through the air without attempting any landing.
I regularly fly Boeing jets into some of the most challenging airports in the world.I've been flying for over 20 years. Flying consistently at less than 50 feet AGL over irregular terrain avoiding numerous obstacles at over 400 knots for over a half of a mile is beyond my skill level.
i haven't heard one pilot anywhere claim the skill level supposedly executed by supposed Flight 77 into the pentagon.
BUT - where did it end up? I believe that all four are somewhere at the bottom of the Atlantic.
Why not try it on a simulator sometime? I'm sure you'd have a substantial ground effect working to keep you airborne. And at 460 knots, you'd cover that half mile in under 4 seconds.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
I'm sure you'd have a substantial ground effect working to keep you airborne. And at 460 knots, you'd cover that half mile in under 4 seconds. Loading the FDR data from Flight 77 into a 757 simulator and replaying the profile would be a worthwhile endeavor. Hopefully it will be done one day. And at 460 knots, you'd cover that half mile in under 4 seconds. On a Category III approach flown to minimums, the time from the point you can see the runway until touchdown is about four seconds.It seems like a very short time period but precise control inputs are required to accomplish a safe landing at about 150 knots.In my view, very precise control inputs would have been required to compensate for the effects of striking five light poles and not hitting the ground or climbing above the height of the 50 ft light poles.
That's where, in my opinion, ground effect comes in. When you're landing, you have your gear and flaps down and lots of drag from them. The Flight 77 aircraft was coming in clean there wasn't much drag to interfere with ground effect. I'd think you'd have to really push hard on the controls to make it go down any further.
Comments (45 - 68) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: AGAviator, HONWAY (#4)
(Edited)
I myself am a licensed pilot and find his explanations quite plausible. A novice pilot puts the plane into a dive, but doesn't remember to compensate for the increased lift which is caused by the increased speed. So he overshoots the target, and then has to go into a tight 270 degree turn to avoid losing the target completely.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#6. To: AGAviator, Skydrifter (#4)
From what I can recall about the path of desent, there wasn't a "dive" into or toward the Pentagon. The controllers reported a smooth 270-330 degree circle desent that took the aircraft right above the ground and smack into the empty side of the Pentagon.
#7. To: AGAviator, Skydrifter (#2)
The airliner didn't strike short, and there are no accounts of a high speed "dive" that then resulted in a "overshooting" and then a sweeping 270 degree loop.
#8. To: Kamala (#6)
From what I can recall about the path of desent, there wasn't a "dive" into or toward the Pentagon.
The controllers reported a smooth 270-330 degree circle desent that took the aircraft right above the ground and smack into the empty side of the Pentagon.
"I based the turn radius on a 275 knot airspeed, since I doubt the airplane would have sufficient power and structural integrity to fly at 500 knots at low altitude. And unless the pilot had a lot of experience flying large airplanes at high speeds low to the ground, he would have avoided making a steep bank, so I based my turn radius on a 30 degree bank angle."
#9. To: AGAviator (#8)
...That is a dive for an aircraft that large and generating that much lift....
#10. To: Kamala (#9)
That isn't what was reported by the actual FAA controllers, and according to your link, the flight path isn't even lined up with the Pentagon.
The path of the airliner is exactly what was intended.
So then an inexperienced pilot "overshot" the Pentagon, then took the aircraft, made a 270 degree circle, and flew it 40-60ft above the ground, and smack the empty side of the Pentagon?
Like you said, its pure speculation.
Again, your stand on 911 is what?
(1) There are many people who believe their passsionate and opinionated views on 911 can compensate for their lack of knowledge about technical details of various subjects pertaining to the details of 911,
#11. To: Kamala (#9)
#12. To: angle (#11)
FYI This person is a 911 truth denier
#13. To: AGAviator (#12)
My 1st Bozo.
#14. To: AGAviator (#10)
#15. To: AGAviator (#10)
#16. To: honway (#14)
(Edited)
Your depiction of the flight path is not even close to the flight path reported by the NTSB Flight 77 Flight Path Study
#17. To: honway (#15)
(Edited)
BTW, according to the NTSB, Hanjour disconnects the autopilot 35 miles west of the Pentagon and hand flies the entire attack profile from 35 miles out to impact
#18. To: AGAviator, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#16)
#19. To: SKYDRIFTER (#18)
(Edited)
POSSIBLY, the FAA radar could have picked up an aircraft as a "primary return" - no transponder
#20. To: AGAviator (#19)
(Edited)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#21. To: Critter, skydrifter (#20)
77 never hit the Pentagram....
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#22. To: IndieTX (#21)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#23. To: Critter, REDPANTHER (#22)
(Edited)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#24. To: IndieTX (#23)
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#25. To: AGAviator (#16)
Plus, they had their transponders off, which begs the question of how exactly the NTSB could come up with a precise flight path of any sort.
#26. To: honway, critter, skydrifter (#25)
According to the NTSB,the flight path is based on the data recovered from the flight data recorder from Flight 77.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#27. To: IndieTX (#26)
(Edited)
#28. To: IndieTX, skydrifter, honway (#26)
See vid above about the NTSB altimeter
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#29. To: honway (#25)
According to the NTSB,the flight path is based on the data recovered from the flight data recorder from Flight 77.
#30. To: Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#28)
#31. To: angle (#11)
#32. To: AGAviator (#29)
While I don't purport to be an expert on flight data recorders, to my knowledge they don't deal with measurements of the aircraft's location - only of various operating factors.
#33. To: SKYDRIFTER (#30)
If one wants to take the data seriously, it must be assumed that the altimiter setting would be immaterial to the events ahead, during the descent. Normally, the crew would tune into an automated broadcast (ATIS), to get the local altimeter setting.
#34. To: Critter (#28)
Or is that something that is just broadcast from an airport continuously?
#35. To: honway (#33)
#36. To: Critter (#28)
(Edited)
Is he going to remember to reset the altimeter on the way back down past 18,000ft? Is he going to remember to do that under the stress involved in knowing he's going to be vaporizing himself.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#37. To: honway (#32)
Appendix M to Part 121 - Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications
#38. To: AGAviator (#37)
So the stories about Hanjour not being able to pilot a Cessna 172 too well, may not be any indication of how well he could have done taking over a larger passenger aircraft through the air without attempting any landing.
#39. To: honway (#38)
Flying consistently at less than 50 feet AGL over irregular terrain avoiding numerous obstacles at over 400 knots for over a half of a mile is beyond my skill level.
#40. To: SKYDRIFTER (#18)
Flight 77 is a total fake, as to the crash.
#41. To: honway (#38)
Flying consistently at less than 50 feet AGL over irregular terrain avoiding numerous obstacles at over 400 knots for over a half of a mile is beyond my skill level.
#42. To: lodwick (#40)
The entire Pentagon event is a trap. There are so many conflicting accounts from air speed, flight path, impact times, body counts, were there hijackers on board, was there an aircraft, etc....It is not worth "debating".
#43. To: AGAviator (#41)
Why not try it on a simulator sometime?
#44. To: honway (#43)
It seems like a very short time period but precise control inputs are required to accomplish a safe landing at about 150 knots. In my view, very precise control inputs would have been required to compensate for the effects of striking five light poles and not hitting the ground or climbing
.
.
.