Re: Re: Insteon now or wait?

["BruceR" <br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> "BruceR" <br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:5rOzg.6175$Ta6.5025@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> I'd have that van swept for bugs. ;-)
>>
>> BTW, once the plane is airborne flying it into a building wouldn't
>> take a lot of skill. These guys had taken flying lessons. I have a
>> Private Pilot license and some years ago had the opportunity to fly
>> the Flying Tigers (now FedEx) 747 simulator, a 9 million dollar rig
>> that is so realistic it actually had a tail number and was
>> considered actual time in my logbook. With only the skills of a
>> single engine Cessna pilot, I was able to perform all the basic
>> flight operations, i.e. take-off, pattern work and landing with no
>> more than a one hour pre-flight briefing. Admittedly, my landings
>> weren't "greasers" (but I didn't blow any tires either according to
>> the computer) but the WTC terrorists weren't particularly interested
>> in that phase of flight.
>
> Now we could talk for days. :-D
>
> On my pre-solo checkride, the chief instructor took me up, did a
> bunch of under-hood manuvers, followed by some turns around a point
> and finally a good number of simulated emergency landings. When we
> were done, he flipped off the nav radio and said, "Take us home."
>
> I was lost in my own backyard, 5,000' agl.  I can not imagine
> navigating a plane from 20k' agl based on dead reckoning, and I can't
> bring myself to believe that the terrorists knew how to program the
> autopilot or set a VOR or GPS course.
>
> I believe they could have handled the planes. I got a 707 trimmed up
> for hands-off inverted flight in MSFlightsim just now, because I got
> to wondering if I could. Took full thrust, but hey. :)  I just don't
> think they could have found their targets.
>
> The last time I heard an official story from the airlines, part of it
> included the fact that the pilots were killed as soon as the cockpit
> was entered. I don't know how anyone would be sure of that, but that
> seems to be the story that they're sticking to.
>
> Seems more likely to me the real pilots got them close, then the
> hijackers finished the job.
>
> The one other thing that makes me a touch sceptical about novice
> pilots flying large jets is the energy management and delay in
> control response compared to a C152 or whatever they trained in.
>
> Microsoft should use some of their famouse phone-home code to find
> out how many times flightsim airplanes get flown into NYC buildings.
>
> 747 time in your logbook. That is awesome. I bet your instrutor at
> home gave you an odd look when your next bianual came around!

It IS pretty awesome having that B-747 entry tucked in with all those
C-172 entries.  Having flown over the Big Apple and Washington DC as a
passenger at FL360 on many occassions, I can tell you that the WTC, the
Empire State Building and the Pentagon are quite identifiable on a clear
day such as 9/11 was.  I don't think it would be impossible to do it
although your theory that the pilots were forced to at least bring the
planes to altitude makes sense.
 When I flew the 747 sim, I did two TO's and landings at LAX, once
around at SFO and then again at KaiTak Hong Kong.  It was all night
flying and for the run into KaiTak and just to make my last landing more
interesting, the Chief Pilot turned off the navaids and cleared me for a
VFR approach.   If you ever had the pleasure of landing at KaiTak you
know it is, shall we say, a unique approach. Even then I was able to
locate the airport at night without navaids.  So, with some training, I
do believe the hijackers _could_ have done it themselves.

 Approach to KaiTak:  Fly base and ignore the admonitions from the radar
altimeter to Pull Up as you cross over Stonecutter's Island, then make a
90 degree right turn and dirty up the plane real quick with flaps and
gear to get down to the runway. Don't forget to smile and wave at the
people in their apartments as you fly by at eye level along the curved
approach to the runway.