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: 873
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 39.
#2. To: honway (#0)
An Analysis of the Flight 77 bu a Former Air Force Pilot But being unfamiliar with flying large airplanes at high speeds, the pilot wouldn't have taken into account the large radius required to make the turn. This would explain the circuitous 270 degree turn that was made to the impact point. When he rolled out, he'd simply point the nose of the airplane at the center courtyard of the Pentagon and dive toward his target. What he wouldn't know without experience is that when you dive, you accelerate the airplane and the lift increases. This causes the nose to rise, which would cause him to overshoot the target. In a panic, he would push forward on the controls and overcompensate, which would account for eyewitness descriptions of the airplane striking the ground short of the Pentagon. Of course, this is all speculation, not facts.
Furthermore, as TheStateInc believers say, if Hanjour was a good enough pilot and trained in jet simulators to carry this out, he'd know enough about how to slow a jet, i.e. spoilers, flaps, reduce power, lower the gear...same things a good Private pilot knows and ALL Commercial pilots know. To say he was good enough to carry it out, and then for someone to state what was stated in your post by that author, is to totally destroy the credibility of the entire official 9-11 story. I don't honestly know how any trained pilot could believe these jokers did what they did, nor do I see how any sane individual with a brain could believe that 3 buildings, one of which was not hit by a plane, all collapsed the SAME WAY.
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.
No DNA has ever been matched or linked to said hijackers. One more question. Your stand on 911 is what?
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?
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.
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.
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."
According to the NTSB,the flight path is based on the data recovered from the flight data recorder from Flight 77.
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.
Appendix M to Part 121 - Airplane Flight Recorder Specifications http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part121-M-APPX.shtml Parameter 39- Lattitude and Longitude
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.
#45. To: christine (#39)
http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp? project=911_project Radar data shows Flight 77 crossing the Capitol Beltway and headed toward the Pentagon. However, the plane, flying more than 400 mph, is too high when it nears the Pentagon at 9:35 a.m., crossing the Pentagon at about 7,000 feet up. [CBS News, 9/21/2001; Boston Globe, 11/23/2001] The plane then makes a difficult high-speed descending turn. It makes a “downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn is so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there [is] no fight for control going on.” [CBS News, 9/21/2001] It gets very near the White House during this turn. “Sources say the hijacked jet ... [flies] several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House.” [CBS News, 9/21/2001] Entity Tags: Pentagon Category Tags: All Day of 9/11 Events, Flight AA 77 http://911review.com/cache/error s/pentagon/abcnews1024 01b.html Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed … I had literally a blip and nothing more." O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he saw it too. "I said, 'Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House,'" recalls Howell. "I was yelling … 'We've got a target headed right for the White House!'" At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol. "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," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away, says O'Brien, "and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west … Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started relaying to them the information, [that] we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles west." Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker. White House staff members were told to run away from the building. "And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien. But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver. http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timel ine/2001/abcnews102401 .html At the Dulles tower, Danielle O'Brien also saw the TV pictures from New York and headed back to her post, now to help other planes quickly land. Ms. O'BRIEN: We started moving the planes in as quickly as we could. Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles moving at a very high rate of speed. I had literally a blip and nothing more. I slid over to the controller on my left, Tom Howell, and I asked him, 'Do you see an unidentified plane there southwest of Dulles?' And his response was, 'Yes. Oh, my gosh, yes! Look how fast he is.' Mr. TOM HOWELL: And then I said, 'Oh, my, god. It looks like he's headed to the White House.' I started yelling, 'John! John! We've got a target headed right for the White House.' ROSS: (VO) A representation of the FAA radar scope, based on information obtained by 20/20, shows the plane headed straight for what is known as P-56, Prohibited Air Space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol, at a speed of about 500 miles an hour with no radio contact whatsoever. (OC) Was he on a normal flight approach of any kind? Ms. O'BRIEN: Not at all. ROSS: Full throttle. Ms. O'BRIEN: Full out. ROSS: How far out was that plane? Ms. O'BRIEN: Between 12 and 14 miles. John, our supervisor, relayed verbatim. 'OK, he's 12 miles west, he's moving very fast eastbound http://911research.wtc7.net/plan es/attack/flight77.htm l The NTSB report on Flight 77 describes the plane's maneuvers in detail. It began to turn to the south at 8:55, and by 9:00 it was headed east. Shortly thereafter it began to descend from its altitude of 35,000 feet. The autopilot was engaged and disengaged multiple times. At 9:29 the plane was 35 miles west of the Pentagon flying at 7,000 feet. At 9:34 it was about 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and started a 330-degree descending right turn, bringing it to an altitude of about 2000 feet four miles southwest of the Pentagon. 3 http://911review.com/errors/pentag on/aerobatics.html 'Pentagon Attack Maneuvers Preclude a 757' A fact frequently cited as evidence that the aircraft that attacked the Pentagon on 9/11/01 was not Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is that the aircraft tracked by air traffic controllers made a spectacular spiral dive, loosing 7000 feet and turning 270 degrees in about 2.5 minutes -- a maneuver alleged to be impossible for a 757. A September 12, 2001 CBS News report described the maneuver: Radar shows that Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. Air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien told ABC News that the maneuver was not one expected of a jetliner: 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. 1 However, the fact that the plane was being flown in a manner not typical for a jetliner does not mean it was not a jetliner. A 757 is capable of rather extreme maneuvers: It is capable of taking off on one engine, and can execute pitch accelerations of over 3.5 Gs (gravities) as demonstrated by the following incident report of an IcelandAir 757-200: REPORT 7/2003 - Date: 22 January 2003 serious incident to icelandair BOEING 757-200 at oslo airport gardermoen norway 22 january 2002 ... 1.1.14.5 At this time the First Officer called out PULL UP! - PULL UP!. The GPWS aural warnings of TERRAIN and then TOO LOW TERRAIN were activated. Both pilots were active at the control columns and a maximum up input was made. A split between left and right elevator was indicated at this time. It appears the split occurred due to both pilots being active at the controls. The pilots did not register the aural warnings. During the dive the airspeed increased to 251 kt and the lowest altitude in the recovery was 321 ft radio altitude with a peaked load factor of +3.59 gs. 2 How does this apply to the 2.5 minute 270- degree spiral turn? The G forces produced by such a turn can be calculated using the following formula. RCF = 0.001118 * r * N^2 where RCF = Relative Centrifugal Force (gravities) r = rotation radius (meters) N = rotation speed (revolutions per minute) If the plane were traveling at 400 miles per hour it would travel 16.666 miles, or 26,821 meters, in 2.5 minutes. Assuming it was traveling in a circular arc, it would trace out 3/4ths of a circle with a 35,761-meter circumference, giving a rotation radius of 5,691 meters and rotation speed of 0.3 rotations per minute. Plugging those values into the above equation, we obtain a centrifugal force of 0.5726 Gs -- hardly a problem for a 757 whose rated G limits are over two. Final Approach Also cited as evidence against 757 involvement in the attack is the shallow descent angle of the aircraft as it made its final approach of the Pentagon. Photographs show no signs of gouging of the lawn by a 757's low-hanging engines, even though direct impact damage was limited to the first and second floors of the building. How could such a large aircraft be flown so close to the ground, and with such precision? Two distinct questions are implicit in the previous one. Were alleged hijackers capable of piloting the airliner through the maneuvers? Could a 757-200 perform the maneuvers? Hani Hanjour may not have been up to the task, but a 757's flight control computer seems sufficient. It's equipped with radar altimeters and accurate GPS monitors for precise altitude and position tracking. It can analyze and respond to conditions hundreds of times per second. Examples of the extreme capabilities of fly-by-wire systems are reverse swept-wing aircraft, which are inherently unstable and require rapid adjustment of the plane's control surfaces. ----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- References 1. Air Traffic Controllers Recall Sept. 11, 10/24/01 [cached] 2. Aircraft Incident Report, Norwegian Accident Investigation Board, 1/22/02 page last modified: 2007-01-21 Copyright 2004 - http://2007,91 >http://1Review.co m The final portion of the flight path of Flight 77 as reported by the NTSB http://debunk911myths.org/topics /images/b/b3/Aa77_dc_f light_path.jpg Conflicting flight paths. http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/small/911- flights.htm More conflicting flight paths.
It is one of the most significant mysteries concerning the entire 9/11 event. It would have been helpful if the NTSB had released a complete transcript from the cockpit voice recorder.Normally a transcript would include the aural warnings recorded by the voice recorder. Consider the precision required to accomplish the maneuver at the same time numerous aural warnings would have been blaring in the ears of the pilot. The speed flown was above the max allowable airspeed. A very loud and distracting warning clacker would have been heard going "CLACK,CLACK,CLACK,CLACK" nonstop. You cannot disable the clacker warning. A very loud steady gear warning horn would have been blaring.The Ground Proximity Warning System would have been blaring out the words, "TOO LOW,PULL UP, TOO LOW PULL UP" nonstop.
********** http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/printer_1253.shtml ... snip ... Ralph Omholt's "skydrifter" website claims: "No pilot will claim to be able to hit such a spot as the Pentagon base — under any conditions — in a 757 doing 300 knots. As to the clearly alleged amateur pilots: IMPOSSIBLE!" "Impossible"? "No pilot will claim...?" Well, we did not have any difficulty finding pilots who disagreed. Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports. George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do." ... snip ... General Partin, an Air Force Command Pilot, sums up the case for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon: "The alternative explanations just get crazier and crazier. In addition to the physical evidence and the photographic evidence supporting the official story, there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses — including many people I know personally — who saw the 757. Besides that, there are the light poles that were knocked down — which I saw personally and which are in the photographic record — that can't be accounted for by a missile or small jet wingspan. Then you have the Flight 77 victim remains and the black boxes. If you reject all of that, then you have to come up with an alternative explanation for what happened to Flight 77. I've seen the alternative explanations and they're absurd!" ****************
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Upon passing the Washington Monument, the plan may have been for the pilot to make a right turn and dive into the building. A right turn at this point would have led the airplane to hit Pentagon on the Potomac River side where the Secretary of Defense has his office.
#3. To: AGAviator, skydrifter, honway, ALL (#2)
(Edited)
#4. To: IndieTX (#3)
#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.
#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,
#14. 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
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
Replies to Comment # 39.
#48. To: christine (#39)
i haven't heard one pilot anywhere claim the skill level supposedly executed by supposed Flight 77 into the pentagon.
#54. To: christine, ALL (#39)
i haven't heard one pilot anywhere claim the skill level supposedly executed by supposed Flight 77 into the pentagon.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 39.