B767 Aircraft Flight Manual

[Obviousman]

Anyone have access to a B767 flight manual? Trying to prove to the incredibly obstinate that the claim of a B767 breaking up at speeds of over 220mph at low altitude is complete and utter.... horse hockey. I've posted Qantas flap limitations, discussions from 767 pilots, etc, but this person (the infamous Jack White) wouldn't admit that the sun was in the sky at midday if a "untruther" (as he calls debunkers) said it was so.

See here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13144&view=findpost&p=151029

[hxstamper]

Anyone have access to a B767 flight manual? Trying to prove to the incredibly obstinate that the claim of a B767 breaking up at speeds of over 220mph at low altitude is complete and utter.... horse hockey.


I completely agree, and you can tell Jack White a representative of P4T said so.. along with our numerous 75/76 drivers.. :D

(then again we were already "untruthers" according to "debunkers").

Here is some information you may find helpful,

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=21


With that said, we are researching the events in NYC, 590 mph as reported for UA175 based on radar is excessive for a 767.

[bje]

With that said, we are researching the events in NYC, 590 mph as reported for UA175 based on radar is excessive for a 767.

No need to bother, Rob. The earth was proven round centuries ago.

P.S. How are those letters of apology coming?

[Wolrab]

Good Gravy! This is so like the Apollo Hoaxers:
Hoaxer: The flag is waving!
Debunker: Only when the astronaut is implanting it.
H: There are no stars in the photos!
D: Exposures/apertures etc.. try it yourself.
H: Multiple light sources!
D: Uneven ground.
H: The flag is waving!
D: Doh!


I am sure this was all covered about two years ago. It boiled down to safe operating speeds that the terrorists didn't really mind being fined for exceeding, videos of high speed passes, and the short durations of the final approaches. Can't they find something even I don't know the ins and outs of?

[bje]

Can't they find something even I don't know the ins and outs of?

No.

It's the nature of denial.

[~enigma~]

I completely agree, and you can tell Jack White a representative of P4T said so.. along with our numerous 75/76 drivers.. :D

But according to your very own forum a pilot is simply a guide and we can all be guides so who care what Guides Who Lie say since they are proven liars? Gonna threaten to sue me like you threatened JREF?

[R.Mackey]

The actual suspected speed of UA175, based on video analysis, is not 590 MPH. It's only 542 MPH.

We've been over this multiple times (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2647854#post2647854). Again, EgyptAir 990 proves that a Boeing 767 can exceed 700 MPH at sea level without breaking up.

[hxstamper]

Again, EgyptAir 990 proves that a Boeing 767 can exceed 700 MPH at sea level without breaking up.

I dont have time to go through an entire debate on this topic now and expose the numerous flaws in the logic being presented by Mackey (but i will), however, this short reply will once again expose the intellectual dishonesty of R Mackey. bolding above mine to emphasize point.

From your link to Egypt Air 990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990).

The engines operated normally for the entire flight until they shut down and the left engine was torn from the wing from the stress of the maneuvers.

And since you will attempt to be intellectually dishonest with your reply, speed is a major factor in any maneuver.

Do you know the major difference in Egypt Air 990 and UA175 and why you cannot possibly set precedent with 990 or make a statement such as "EgyptAir 990 proves that a Boeing 767 can exceed 700 MPH at sea level without breaking up"? Apparently not, but im glad your name is on that statement. :D

Edit to add (sorry, hit reply too fast): I'll give you a hint, UA175 was reported to have been in controlled flight with amatures at the stick who couldnt control a 172 at 65 knots. 990 was in uncontrolled flight with certified professionals and a split elevator.

We'll go over more at a later time. Break out your L/D max charts for 767 if you have them. If not, try not to continue your speculation.

[johnny karate]

hxstamper, why have only you and a handful of "pilots" relegated to an isolated corner of the Internet been able to perceive the inconsistencies in the flight pattern of UA175? Why has every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the entire planet failed to discern and/or reveal this startling and obvious information?

[R.Mackey]

I dont have time to go through an entire debate on this topic now and expose the numerous flaws in the logic being presented by Mackey (but i will), however, this short reply will once again expose the intellectual dishonesty of R Mackey. bolding above mine to emphasize point.


Uh huh.

The point is, Egypt Air 990 exceeded the speeds you're requiring, and executed a severe emergency pull-up maneuver, and still remained intact. Had it broken up, it would have immediately slowed down through sheer friction drag.

Your claim that you will, somehow, refute this in the future is not impressive. Either put up, or shut up.

[LashL]

Either put up, or shut up.


Unfortunately, history suggests that he will do neither.

[lapman]

Edit to add (sorry, hit reply too fast): I'll give you a hint, UA175 was reported to have been in controlled flight with amatures at the stick who couldnt control a 172 at 65 knots. 990 was in uncontrolled flight with certified professionals and a split elevator.Talk about intellectual dishonesty. You call a certified commercial pilot an amateur. Do you have any idea how much total time that requires? Where does it say that he couldn't control a 172 in slow flight?

[Drudgewire]

I dont have time to go through an entire debate on this topic now and expose the numerous flaws in the logic being presented by Mackey...


Is it time for Spongebob already?

[beachnut]

Edit to add (sorry, hit reply too fast): I'll give you a hint, UA175 was reported to have been in controlled flight with amatures at the stick who couldnt control a 172 at 65 knots. 990 was in uncontrolled flight with certified professionals and a split elevator.

We'll go over more at a later time. Break out your L/D max charts for 767 if you have them. If not, try not to continue your speculation.

990, was on purpose. Wrong again sharp pilot. You have no idea that the kind of mechanical error you bring up is fail safe. But then you don't understand how planes are designed by Boeing. Are you a die hard CTer.

In this state, one side of the elevator is up and the other down; on the 767, this condition is only possible through flight control input (e.g., one yoke is pushed forward, the other pulled backward).

The split was caused by one pilot trying to kill everyone, and the other trying to save them. So much for you 990 crap. And you have missed the fact a few airliners have gone close to MACH 1 and landed, albeit bent, but people walked away. Speed issues are a great why to identify crack pot ideas on 9/11, like those of p4t core members.


175 could easily go 590 mph, only p4t have trouble understanding flight dynamics. Like you.

The fact is 757/767 can go almost .9 MACH (for p4t dolts, use .85 to .9 MACH as almost) without much of a problem. The engines start having problems going fast, but when the plane is in a dive past 6 degrees, we need no engines. Engines are extra credit anyway. The false information from pilots for truth is due to their pure ignorance and biased views on the government, military, FBI, NTSB, FAA, and others. Boeing planes on 9/11 were only over the low altitude top speed for seconds.

This makes talking about a momentary speed infraction, another proof p4t are full of junk ideas on 9/11.

If you take the max speed of a dive and look at flight 77, you see 77 was only over speed for a few seconds. I have flown over speed in a Boeing, 4 engine KC-135, on the deck for a few seconds, the plane was extremely stable and I had no problems! Even better there was no damage as a wingman who flew with me one day in his KC-135, he went so fast he stripped off some skin under the wing; yet his plane was flying fine! Looks like the bad stuff happens over .9 MACH.


Here are the limits for a B767, a scholarly goggle search can find the same.
So much for the talk of experience biased by 35 years of flying.
Airspeed Limits: VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VFC = 390 KCAS to 17,600 ft/382 KCAS at 23,000 ft/.87M above 26,000 ft, linear variation
between these points.
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82M


I can't wait for more of your false information. Hurry back.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/15302e51a401f11a8625718b00658962/$FILE/A1NM.pdf

I guess the FAA is in on 9/11, according to CTer nut case ideas, so this paper is junk for p4t, but reality for real people.

[CurtC]

Anyone have access to a B767 flight manual? Trying to prove to the incredibly obstinate that the claim of a B767 breaking up at speeds of over 220mph at low altitude is complete and utter.... horse hockey.
What about that video of a 757 (is that close enough?) making a 400 mph plus pass about 100 feet off the ground? Wouldn't that destroy his idea right then and there?

6bFh2NeD32Y

Just look for "757 speed" on YouTube and there are more.

ETA: How about this one - 430 mph, 15 feet off the ground: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlHpKTq71zE

[B-Man]

Anyone have access to a B767 flight manual?

Done. :)

[pomeroo]

I completely agree, and you can tell Jack White a representative of P4T said so.. along with our numerous 75/76 drivers.. :D

(then again we were already "untruthers" according to "debunkers").

Here is some information you may find helpful,

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=21


With that said, we are researching the events in NYC, 590 mph as reported for UA175 based on radar is excessive for a 767.



Jack White, it can't be repeated too often, is Fetzer's photogrammetry expert who didn't know what photogrammetry was:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#JWHITE

[pomeroo]

I dont have time to go through an entire debate on this topic now and expose the numerous flaws in the logic being presented by Mackey (but i will), however, this short reply will once again expose the intellectual dishonesty of R Mackey. bolding above mine to emphasize point.

From your link to Egypt Air 990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990).



And since you will attempt to be intellectually dishonest with your reply, speed is a major factor in any maneuver.

Do you know the major difference in Egypt Air 990 and UA175 and why you cannot possibly set precedent with 990 or make a statement such as "EgyptAir 990 proves that a Boeing 767 can exceed 700 MPH at sea level without breaking up"? Apparently not, but im glad your name is on that statement. :D

Edit to add (sorry, hit reply too fast): I'll give you a hint, UA175 was reported to have been in controlled flight with amatures at the stick who couldnt control a 172 at 65 knots. 990 was in uncontrolled flight with certified professionals and a split elevator.

We'll go over more at a later time. Break out your L/D max charts for 767 if you have them. If not, try not to continue your speculation.


I watched a replay of the Discovery Channel documentary about Flight 175 the other night. Veteran air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia described the reactions of the controllers as the plane began began its dive toward the South Tower. It occurred to me that conspiracy liars must pretend that the these people are also part of the imaginary conspiracy.

Do you ever feel that your head is about to explode from cramming it with so much wildly implausible crap? Seriously?

[Pinch]

Anyone have access to a B767 flight manual? Trying to prove to the incredibly obstinate that the claim of a B767 breaking up at speeds of over 220mph at low altitude is complete and utter.... horse hockey.

No access to any 767 flight manuals on my end, but this came from another board:

Well............Let me make a few statements that will qualify what I am about to say. As you are probably well aware, commercial aircraft don't have the forward throttle stops that military tactical aircraft have...........meaning, jamming a throttle full forward, to the stops, on a fighter aircraft is common practice and is routinely done. For example, on takeoff, climb-out, and especially
during a dogfight those throttles are bent forward to 100% RPM (or slightly under). The fuel control unit (military) will not allow that engine to overspeed and self distruct, if properly rigged. ( a guy's got to have means to get home after wrenching a kill on the enemy)

On commercial aircraft, the throttle must be set for takeoff and continually monitored and adjusted during climb by the pilot(s) or auto-throttles, if one's lucky enough to have them. The only time a throttle is bent forward on a commercial a/c is if ground contact appears imminent and it ain't a runway of intended contact. ie, the "escape" maneuver when an a/c is about to hit a mountain. It's firewall power, pull the nose up into buffet, and climb to the moon to clear any obstacle. Should a guy get himself safely on the ground somewhere thereafter, it is mandatory engine inspection and probably all engine removal and replacement. The engines will have been oversped and overtemped with possible other mechanical damage.

So.............of the arecraft of which I am familiar, the redline speed of an MD-10 at 10,000' is 375 KIAS. At sea level, it is 350 KIAS. ( the MD-11 is less than these speeds for a number of reasons that would only get boring) I'm quite sure the 757 and the 767 have very similar max speeds give or take 20-30 knots.

Interestingly, if a pilot didn't pull the throttles back to "cruise" settings (on a commercial a/c) when he leveled off at altitude, the aircraft would accelerate right thru redline on it's way to possible self destruction...........the engines are that powerful.

You know that the safety factors built into aircraft are 1.5 for structural components (wings, fuselage,etc.) and 2.5 safety factor for engines and landing gear, and control surfaces. Don't quote me on these exact components..........this is from memory from years ago. But it means that the design limits imposed by the manufacturer are what are safe to fly with, ie the speeds listed above and the "g" loadings. In reality, the aircraft has to be able to withstand 1.5 times the "g" loading design limits in order to be certified. I'm not sure if the same is true of the speeds, but I feel reasonably sure it is true as well. What this means is........ an aircraft will not show signs of destruction until it reaches the 1.5 times the design speed limit or its "g" limit. At least that is what the manufacturer guarantees, as required by the FAA. So..........

If I were to level off at 5000' (or 1000') and leave the throttles set at climb power, this aircraft would exceed the 350 KIAS (knots, indicated air speed) design limit. But it probably wouldn't come apart............yet. I don't know how fast it would ultimately go because I've never done that in a commercial airplane. We are not allowed to do that. But I do know that if a pilot then pushed the throttles up to the physical limits (stops), exceeding all the engine redline limits and warnings, the engines would accelerate and eventually self destruct as would the airframe itself..........say around 1.5 times 350 knots or 525 KIAS. Reasonably, I would guess the aircraft would start shedding pieces as it approached 500 KIAS.

In answer to your question...............a 757, or a 767, or an MD-11 can easily do 450 KIAS at low altitude at least once and maybe many times before it would show signs of damage and could do well beyond that if it were meant to be total destruction.

This came from a high-time MD-11 pilot who has been flyting with FED-EX for 25+ years.

This jibes with my own thoughts on this. An aircraft of this size would have no problem getting to to a pony-spanking speed at low altitude if the pilot had no concerns whatsoever about structural damage or red-lines or anything.

[CurtC]

Another factor about the speed limits is that if you're flying fast, then make large movements of the controls, the forces can rip those control surfaces off. So even if an airframe can handle flying straight and level at 500 mph, the danger is what happens when the pilot has to suddenly pull up, it can rip the horizontal part of the tail off.

I used to fly small planes (almost 30 years ago), and there is a speed rating for an aircraft called "maneuvering speed" which is the fastest you can go and still move the controls radically. That's separate and lower than the "never exceed" speed, Vne.

[Obviousman]

I found some instructor notes instead (thanks Bill!).

[gumboot]

amatures at the stick who couldnt control a 172 at 65 knots


This is incorrect...

The most often cited reason for the 9/11 pilots being poor was because they had poor language skills. Hani Hanjour, for example, was declined hireage of a light aircraft because he couldn't safely land the aircraft due to poor language skills - landing obviously requires direct and clear communication with the airfield, as well as familiarity with proper landing procedure.

As far as I am aware no one who had anything to do with training any of the pilots has claimed they could not have hit their targets flying the aircraft in question.

Incidentally, safe flying, non-damage to airframe, communication with ATC, landing, and take off are all essential skill sets that must be demonstrated by competent pilots. None of these are things the 9/11 pilots needed to be concerned with to achieve their goals.

[ElMondoHummus]

... UA175 was reported to have been in controlled flight with amatures at the stick who couldnt control a 172 at 65 knots.

Guess that doesn't say much about the FAA, then, given that Shehhi got his pilots license in the year 2000. Are you trying to say that the FAA licenses people "who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots"?

This is incorrect...

The most often cited reason for the 9/11 pilots being poor was because they had poor language skills. Hani Hanjour, for example, was declined hireage of a light aircraft because he couldn't safely land the aircraft due to poor language skills - landing obviously requires direct and clear communication with the airfield, as well as familiarity with proper landing procedure.

As far as I am aware no one who had anything to do with training any of the pilots has claimed they could not have hit their targets flying the aircraft in question.

Incidentally, safe flying, non-damage to airframe, communication with ATC, landing, and take off are all essential skill sets that must be demonstrated by competent pilots. None of these are things the 9/11 pilots needed to be concerned with to achieve their goals.

That's all true. And folks must remember that Atta, Shehhi, and Hanjour all had their licenses, and Jarrah had at least a private pilot certifiate. None of them were standout pilots by any stretch, but at the same time, none of them were so incompetent that they couldn't do what was necessary to carry out 9/11.

[Magenta]

ElMondo, I just noticed the Dark Star reference in your sig. A cult classic! :)

[beachnut]

We'll go over more at a later time. Break out your L/D max charts for 767 if you have them. If not, try not to continue your speculation.
No, it will not be happening.
Darn. He was such a good example of bad physics, truth movement apologist, and p4t loyalist, a super cult member p4t, a clone of jdx, a Balsamo twin; farewell to the HX man.

Bye bye…
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3929587#post3929587

What was he going to post? I guess Rob is finished visiting the guy in Canada too. Hx was just as bad as Rob on 9/11 issues, no facts or evidence, just stupid conclusions, I mean doltish non-conclusions.

[Alex Libman]

Thank you, Obviousman - I love seeing stupid theories debunked. Just don't use it to make any points about the fly-by-wire argument. The electronics and control relay systems could have been modified so much the original manual no longer applies.

[beachnut]

Thank you, Obviousman - I love seeing stupid theories debunked. Just don't use it to make any points about the fly-by-wire argument. The electronics and control relay systems could have been modified so much the original manual no longer applies.
No, that is not true. You left out the details of how and what components you would change.

[ElMondoHummus]

ElMondo, I just noticed the Dark Star reference in your sig. A cult classic! :)

Daaaaamn toot'in!! One of the worst movies I ever saw (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3846745#post3846745), yet one of the most enjoyable experiences I've ever had watching them. :D

[Alex Libman]

You left out the details of how and what components you would change.

How could I know those details?

[beachnut]

How could I know those details?
It is your fantasy idea!

Without details, your ideas are pure fantasy.

[Jonnyclueless]

Thank you, Obviousman - I love seeing stupid theories debunked. Just don't use it to make any points about the fly-by-wire argument. The electronics and control relay systems could have been modified so much the original manual no longer applies.


Are you high???? Who tells you this nonsense???

[Magenta]

Daaaaamn toot'in!! One of the worst movies I ever saw (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3846745#post3846745), yet one of the most enjoyable experiences I've ever had watching them. :D


Missed that thread. I'll post over there.