JohnDoeX: "I'm a real boy!"

[chipmunk stew]

FYI

JDX has updated his "core members" page: http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

He lists himself at the top:
Robert Balsamo
4000TT Commercial, Instrument, Multi, CFI II MEI
Corporate Chief Pilot
135 Capt
121 FO Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines
King Air C-90/200, Dornier 328JET

[WildCat]

This must mean he has some air-tight evidence for the "inside job" now!

[DanKirby]

"Core members"? He's not working with Christophera now, is he?

[Bell]

One born every minute...

[beachnut]

FYI

JDX has updated his "core members" page: http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

He lists himself at the top:

you can go to FAA https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/default.asp

and search for his stuff, I looked up his stuff last time and he was there, forgot it he used the same name

[beachnut]

ask questions

would you fly with this guy who thinks the terrorist should have pushed the plane into a 23 degree descent to hit the Pentagon, instead of a gentle turn (Charlie Sheen calls aerobatics) to line up and hit it at 4 to 6 degrees, steep but closer to real 2.5 to 3 degrees pilots use to land!!!

do you feel lucky?

[beachnut]

FYI

JDX has updated his "core members" page: http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

He lists himself at the top:


I feel safe I will never fly with these idiots! Sorry for the idiot statement but I have seen this guys work and as a fellow pilot I apologize that some pilots are insane and let their political or religious beliefs suspend reality.

Only 14 pilots! The Air Force produced 2000 pilots a year during Vietnam. There must be millions of pilots. This is good news for those who fly, only 14 out of millions of pilots are into fiction and let political or just plan mental illness issues interfere with their rational thinking.

[Bell]

I feel safe I will never fly with these idiots! Sorry for the idiot statement but I have seen this guys work and as a fellow pilot I apologize that some pilots are insane and let their political or religious beliefs suspend reality.

Only 14 pilots! The Air Force produced 2000 pilots a year during Vietnam. There must be millions of pilots. This is good news for those who fly, only 14 out of millions of pilots are into fiction and let political or just plan mental illness issues interfere with their rational thinking.


"This is your captain. We've got stable weather, clear view, and I am very pissed at the government. We'll be making a slight detour to DC." :tinfoil

[W6102LA]

We are currently in the planning stages for a film/documentary based on the above analysis. The title of the film is called "Pandora's Black Box - The Flight of American 77". Those interested in donating in the making of this film are encouraged to contact us at pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org. We would like to put together a professional documentary based on the Flight Data Recorder (Black Box) for release and to possibly get answers from our Govt. Presentation will depend on finances.

Anyone going to donate ?

[Bell]

Anyone going to donate ?

I'd swear that said 'detonate'

[apathoid]

you can go to FAA https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/default.asp

and search for his stuff, I looked up his stuff last time and he was there, forgot it he used the same name

I thought he lived in NYC?
Where is the type rating for the DO328 ??
Why was his commercial rating only issued in '04 if he's been flying professionally for 10 years?

I'm just asking questions.

[Gravy]

"This is your captain. We've got stable weather, clear view, and I am very pissed at the government. We'll be making a slight detour to DC." :tinfoil:eye-poppi

[Obviousman]

If what was posted was correct, then it would seem DOH! is telling porkies:

Name : BALSAMO, ROBERT NICHOLAS
Airman's Address : 4711 WHEELER RD APT B
LOUISVILLE, TN, 37777-5453
FAA Region : Southern
Date of Medical : May, 2004
Class of Medical : 1
Expiration of Class 1 : Nov, 2004
Airman Certificates : Commercial Pilot
Airplane Single and Multi Engine Land
Instrument Airplane

Expired medical (expired 2004), no ATPL. He does have a flight instructor rating (expired 2001). What does 'DOI' refer to?
Please check me on this to see if it is correct:

https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/AirmenIndivDetail.asp?uniqid=A2614627

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Anyone want to guess how angry Mr. Balsamo will be when he discovers JDX has hijacked his identity?

[The_Fire]

And isn't highjacking an identity a federal offence? (in the US it that is).

[apathoid]

Expired medical (expired 2004), no ATPL. He does have a flight instructor rating (expired 2001). What does 'DOI' refer to?
Please check me on this to see if it is correct:


DOI refers to Date Of Issue.

I still cant fathom why Johnny would do this. If you are going to assume someones identity for proof that you are who you say you are - why choose a pilot who doesnt even come close to having the qualifications you've claimed? Perhaps 'Skeptic4sure' will pop in and set us straight on this matter...

[CurtC]

How is it that you figured out that JDX is Robert Balsamo? Simply because he's at the top of the PfT web page?

[beachnut]

If what was posted was correct, then it would seem DOH! is telling porkies:

Expired medical (expired 2004), no ATPL. He does have a flight instructor rating (expired 2001). What does 'DOI' refer to?
Please check me on this to see if it is correct:

https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/AirmenIndivDetail.asp?uniqid=A2614627

maybe his medical is expired while he is in the funny farm, they pull your med if you have heart problems or mental problems

[chipmunk stew]

How is it that you figured out that JDX is Robert Balsamo? Simply because he's at the top of the PfT web page?
He's said his name is Rob. He's listed "Commercial, Instrument, Multi, CFI II MEI" among his credentials. And he's said he flew for Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines.

[Crungy]

Wasn't there a theory that J'Doh had a close friend/relative who was feeding him official pilot material? If so, I wonder if that pilot is aware of the scam his mate is pulling.

[Calcas]

If what was posted was correct, then it would seem DOH! is telling porkies:

Name : BALSAMO, ROBERT NICHOLAS
Airman's Address : 4711 WHEELER RD APT B
LOUISVILLE, TN, 37777-5453
FAA Region : Southern
Date of Medical : May, 2004
Class of Medical : 1
Expiration of Class 1 : Nov, 2004
Airman Certificates : Commercial Pilot
Airplane Single and Multi Engine Land
Instrument Airplane

Expired medical (expired 2004), no ATPL. He does have a flight instructor rating (expired 2001). What does 'DOI' refer to?
Please check me on this to see if it is correct:

https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/AirmenIndivDetail.asp?uniqid=A2614627

Cool site. I didn't even know it existed.

I searched myself and found I still have my certificate as an ATC, even though it's been years.

[beachnut]

Cool site. I didn't even know it existed.

I searched myself and found I still have my certificate as an ATC, even though it's been years.

You are an official expert!

[qarnos]

Didn't JDX mention that he flew one of the last Independence Air flights? I tried looking for the dispatch release he posted but he has "pulled" the image.

In any case, Independence Air ceased operations in January 2006. JDX had his last first class medical examination in May, 2004. The first class medical is only valid for 6 months at which point it reverts to a second class for another 6 months.

The first-class medical is required to fly under ATPL and the second class for CPL. This means that as of May 2005, JDX would not have been allowed to fly as a CPL.

Did anybody save a copy of the dispatch release?

[chipmunk stew]

....i'll address some issues while im here...

My Commercial was issued May 96.

Multiengine - July 96

CFI - 10/96

CFII - 3/97

MEI - 6/97

Flight Instructor certificates expire every 2 years. I renewed it twice (which is basically a quick check ride with an examiner.. they call it the 100 dollar Hamburger Ride because its a piece of cake... or you can take a written.. or if you are a Capt at an airline an FAA examiner will just renew it with the stroke of a pen.. you dont have to go through the whole training course again).

I got hired at ACA in July of 2000. I had 3 upgrade classes that cancelled. 1 due to Sept 11, the second due to United Bankruptcy (due to Sept 11), and the 3 due to FLYI start-up and subsequent furloughs. I took a voluntary furlough for a year due to my health problems and to save the job of a junior pilot. I was planning on going back to FLYI March 2006. But the company closed doors Jan 06.

My medical is still valid as a Class 3. ...a Class 1 switches to a Class 2 and then to Class 3 if not renewed. Medical is valid till May of 2007 as Class 3 privileges. I can get a Class 1 today if i want to.. along with renewing my CFI... all it takes is 200-300 dollars and a scheduled appointment. I have grounded myself due to health problems. ....
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=36331#36331

[apathoid]

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=36331#36331

Well, that explains it........oh... except:

- No ATP(a requirement for all airlines)
- No type rating for the DO328 or 727(D'oh claims to have flown both)
- A Knoxville area address(D'oh claims to be a New Yorker)

Maybe beachnut or someone else can correct me, but I thought that FAA certificates didn't expire(mine don't). I looked up a pilot I know and his CFI/CFII ratings are dated 1988. In other words they dont list the recurrent date, they list the original issue date. I could be wrong.

The FAA says:

Commercial - 12/02
CFI/CFII - 6/99

....but D'oh says:

Commercial - 5/96
Multiengine - 7/96
CFI - 10/96
CFII - 3/97
MEI - 6/97

(implying that whats listed are the renew dates.)

I'm just asking questions

[beachnut]

Well, that explains it........oh... except:

- No ATP(a requirement for all airlines)
- No type rating for the DO328 or 727(D'oh claims to have flown both)
- A Knoxville area address(D'oh claims to be a New Yorker)

Maybe beachnut or someone else can correct me, but I thought that FAA certificates didn't expire(mine don't). I looked up a pilot I know and his CFI/CFII ratings are dated 1988. In other words they dont list the recurrent date, they list the original issue date. I could be wrong.

The FAA says:

Commercial - 12/02
CFI/CFII - 6/99

....but D'oh says:

Commercial - 5/96
Multiengine - 7/96
CFI - 10/96
CFII - 3/97
MEI - 6/97

(implying that whats listed are the renew dates.)

I'm just asking questions

no expiration, need current medical, first class you are hooked up to OKC and they see your heart stuff as you are in doc office

did you look at all the pages, it has tabs

the first time I checked out JDX or the pilotstruth guy, I thought I saw an ATP and type ratings, I noticed his CFI was not current

[apathoid]

no expiration, need current medical, first class you are hooked up to OKC and they see your heart stuff as you are in doc office

did you look at all the pages, it has tabs

the first time I checked out JDX or the pilotstruth guy, I thought I saw an ATP and type ratings, I noticed his CFI was not current

Glen Stanish, who registered the domain for pilotsfortruth, does indeed have everything he says he has including a B737 type rating. But, Robert Balsamo only had what I listed above.

[beachnut]

Glen Stanish, who registered the domain for pilotsfortruth, does indeed have everything he says he has including a B737 type rating. But, Robert Balsamo only had what I listed above.

I bet I looked up Glen. I think I did go to whoisit or the ip place. Did Glen's stuff match the JDX junk? That name sound familiar.

Actually there are a few pilots who are have too much ego to believe anyone can fly the new jets. But they are easy to fly once underway. The things your Captain does to land and takeoff in the WX are the hard things that take some of years to master! If JFK junior had take IFR training he would still be flying. The hard part of flying was not demonstrated by the terrorist, simple winds and weather could have foiled them.

It was funny looking at the FDR video with smart remarks by a so called pilot. The so called pilot tells us the terrorist should have done a 25 degree dive into the pentagon instead of the simple turn and line up he did. I really do not ever want to fly with who ever made the comments.

A handful of pilots are in the truth movement. I am worried their poor judgment could be reflected in their flying.

[apathoid]

It was funny looking at the FDR video with smart remarks by a so called pilot. The so called pilot tells us the terrorist should have done a 25 degree dive into the pentagon instead of the simple turn and line up he did. I really do not ever want to fly with who ever made the comments.

A handful of pilots are in the truth movement. I am worried their poor judgment could be reflected in their flying.



I'm 50/50 on D'oh actually being a pilot. I've known a few dumber-than-a-box-of-rocks pilots(but most are really quite sharp as you know), but D'oh has had so many foot-in-mouth dead giveaway moments(didnt know if UA used ACARS) that I'm pretty sure that if he is(was) a pilot - he's never commanded anything more than a Cessna 310.

Glen flies for Continental, so you might wanna avoid them. D'oh claims alot of the Independance Air pilots "had questions". But, don't worry, they went belly-up earlier this year.

[beachnut]

Looks like the leaders in the truth movement self destruct in their everyday jobs. JaneDoe not picked up, Jones retired, etc.

Funny the first amendment comes up, I will have to remember that when my kids try to commit me!

Maybe one of our expert pilots single handedly brought down Independence air!

[qarnos]

A handful of pilots are in the truth movement. I am worried their poor judgment could be reflected in their flying.

People like JDX need to realise that being a pilot does not mean you can't be wrong.

Someone quite a while ago mentioned the analogy of someone with a drivers license automatically qualified as a road crash expert. I thought that was quite succinct.

[CurtC]

[COLOR=black]Actually there are a few pilots who are have too much ego to believe anyone can fly the new jets. But they are easy to fly once underway.
A couple of weeks ago, I was on a father-son campout, and one of the other dads in our group is a 757 pilot for Northwest. I asked him if he ever got a wierd feeling thinking it was his kind of plane that was hijacked on 9/11. He said no, and then added that the reason the terrorists made sure to hijack either 757s or 767s was that those are the ones that are automated enough that they could actually fly them successfully.

[TjW]

I bet I looked up Glen. I think I did go to whoisit or the ip place. Did Glen's stuff match the JDX junk? That name sound familiar.

Actually there are a few pilots who are have too much ego to believe anyone can fly the new jets. But they are easy to fly once underway. The things your Captain does to land and takeoff in the WX are the hard things that take some of years to master! If JFK junior had take IFR training he would still be flying. The hard part of flying was not demonstrated by the terrorist, simple winds and weather could have foiled them.

(snippage by TjW)


Really? I would be surprised if the new jets weren't the easiest to fly, in terms of the actual "monkey skills" of manipulating the controls.
They still have lots of complex systems to learn, I'm sure. But it would seem to me that safety considerations, if nothing else, would tend toward designing for a lower workload for the pilots.

[beachnut]

Really? I would be surprised if the new jets weren't the easiest to fly, in terms of the actual "monkey skills" of manipulating the controls.
They still have lots of complex systems to learn, I'm sure. But it would seem to me that safety considerations, if nothing else, would tend toward designing for a lower workload for the pilots.

I agree with your assessment of new jets.

[gumboot]

Really? I would be surprised if the new jets weren't the easiest to fly, in terms of the actual "monkey skills" of manipulating the controls.
They still have lots of complex systems to learn, I'm sure. But it would seem to me that safety considerations, if nothing else, would tend toward designing for a lower workload for the pilots.


Modern airliners require two crew-members: a dog and a man. The man is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to bite the man if he touches anything.

-Gumboot

[rikzilla]

Cool site. I didn't even know it existed.

I searched myself and found I still have my certificate as an ATC, even though it's been years.

I knew about the site but I don't think they've always had a search function for pilot certificate holders. Very cool! I looked myself up too.
Edwin Richard Robinson
No address listed for me but my little Private Pilot Certificate shows up! :D

-z

[The_Fire]

Modern airliners require two crew-members: a dog and a man. The man is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to bite the man if he touches anything.

-Gumboot

That would explain why the darned plane was bumping like a kangaroo on drugs during my last trip to Canada: It wasn't airpockets! It was the dog and the man fighting over the controls!

;).

[jaydeehess]

People like JDX need to realise that being a pilot does not mean you can't be wrong.

Someone quite a while ago mentioned the analogy of someone with a drivers license automatically qualified as a road crash expert. I thought that was quite succinct.


I had a guy who claimed to be a pilot(granted he only claims Cessna 172) who told me that Flight 77 could not have made the manouver because it dropped 7000 ft in 2.5 minutes and that is 2800 feet per second!!!

He had divided 7000 by 2.5 to get 2800. When I pointed out that there are 150 seconds in 2.5 minutes and that makes it 47 feet per second he changed the subject.

He also could not calulate the g forces claiming that flight 77 would have experienced 5 g in the turn it made. I calculated less than 1 g lateral and less than 1 g over normal gravity vertical force and asked him to check my figures. He couldn't.


I am also told that a 757 cannot exceed VMO, that the computer will not allow it. Anyone know if the computer will counter pilot commands and reduce power as Vmo is exceeded?

[beachnut]

I had a guy who claimed to be a pilot(granted he only claims Cessna 172) who told me that Flight 77 could not have made the manouver because it dropped 7000 ft in 2.5 minutes and that is 2800 feet per second!!!

He had divided 7000 by 2.5 to get 2800. When I pointed out that there are 150 seconds in 2.5 minutes and that makes it 47 feet per second he changed the subject.

He also could not calulate the g forces claiming that flight 77 would have experienced 5 g in the turn it made. I calculated less than 1 g lateral and less than 1 g over normal gravity vertical force and asked him to check my figures. He couldn't.


I am also told that a 757 cannot exceed VMO, that the computer will not allow it. Anyone know if the computer will counter pilot commands and reduce power as Vmo is exceeded?

The proof is seen on 9/11, a pilot can exceed speed limits by pushing up the power or lowering the nose. You could shut down the engines and still go faster by pointing the nose down.

You are right. Flight 77 was simple pilot stuff, lazy sloppy turn, a 2500 feet per minute descent. Too simple. these guys kept it simple until they had their targets made, then they pushed up the throttles and crashed. Most pilots will tell you it is simple to do what the terrorist did.

[Anti-sophist]

If anyone cares, the G forces are recorded in the FDR data, and none of it is even remotely abnormal. I can look it up later but I think the vertical G never gets about about 1.7 or 1.8. The latteral is even less interesting.

[apathoid]

I am also told that a 757 cannot exceed VMO, that the computer will not allow it. Anyone know if the computer will counter pilot commands and reduce power as Vmo is exceeded?

Welcome jaydeehess:)

You were misinformed. The 757/767 isn't fly-by-wire; there are no hard or soft limits for bank angle/AoA/VS/speed/etc... Even with the airplane on autopilot, if the crew decides to conduct a fast descent past Vmo, using autothrottle - the airplane won't correct it. Autopilot or none, if a pilot exceeds Vmo - all that will happen is a red "OVERSPEED" warning message will appear on the upper engine display, an aural warning will sound(the typical Boeing EICAS "beep-beep-beep-beep")and the overspeed clacker will sound. Its entirely up to the crew to correct the overspeed.

[jaydeehess]

Welcome jaydeehess:)

You were misinformed. The 757/767 isn't fly-by-wire; there are no hard or soft limits for bank angle/AoA/VS/speed/etc... Even with the airplane on autopilot, if the crew decides to conduct a fast descent past Vmo, using autothrottle - the airplane won't correct it. Autopilot or none, if a pilot exceeds Vmo - all that will happen is a red "OVERSPEED" warning message will appear on the upper engine display, an aural warning will sound(the typical Boeing EICAS "beep-beep-beep-beep")and the overspeed clacker will sound. Its entirely up to the crew to correct the overspeed.



Now ya see, after some research concerning 757's I came to that conclusion and told the CT in question that and my resaoning for saying so including citing Boeing pages to back it up. He would not believe it AND stated that had flight 77 (what we were discussing at the time) had exceeded Vmo it would have suffered airframe damage. That ellicited a loud guffaw from me after which I pointed out that the plane did not exceed Vmo until it was only a few seconds from impact(30 or so IIRC). I then asked , over and over again, how long it would take for a 757 to start breaking up if Vmo was exceeded, imediatly, 30 seconds, 1 minute etc. Never did get an answer but one thing is for sure as far as I am concerned, it would suffer no damage in the few seconds it was over Vmo that would even be discernable by the pilot and that would be far outshadowed by the damage that would occur as a result of hitting a big friggin concrete wall at the end of that short time period.:)

But thanks for confirming what this non-pilot had concluded.

[gumboot]

but one thing is for sure as far as I am concerned, it would suffer no damage in the few seconds it was over Vmo that would even be discernable by the pilot and that would be far outshadowed by the damage that would occur as a result of hitting a big friggin concrete wall at the end of that short time period.:)

But thanks for confirming what this non-pilot had concluded.



Perhaps he thinks when an aircraft suffers structural damage it immediately and spontaneously explodes in all directions with violent force.

-Gumboot

[apathoid]

But thanks for confirming what this non-pilot had concluded.

No problem.

About Vmo, and I'm no expert at all on this BTW(I'm not a pilot), its not a "magic" number, like stall speed, for airframe stress. I'd think you could fly all the way across the Pacific at 1-2% above Vmo and not have any problems(other than an annoying clacker). The speed at which the airframe starts to buffet or flutter is a good deal higher than max operating speed. How much higher? I'd have to research, but I'd say 5% higher or more than Vmo.

Where is Billzilla when you need him?:)

[jaydeehess]

If anyone cares, the G forces are recorded in the FDR data, and none of it is even remotely abnormal. I can look it up later but I think the vertical G never gets about about 1.7 or 1.8. The latteral is even less interesting.

I had calculated averages given the radius of the turn, max speed, elapsed time in the turn, height through which it desended. Come pretty close to what you state above, I think I had 1.9 g vert. I don't post at that forum anymore. It had one or two 9/11 threads and I had been pointed to it because a poster in another forum had used it as a reference.

CT's discount the DFDR data stating that it could easily have been faked but they do agree that the aircraft did a 270 to 330 degree turn through 7000 feet vert in 2.5 minutes and that the max speed of the a/c was 400 -500 MPH.

One can then calc the radius of the turn for 400 MPH and for 500 MPH and thus calc the centrepetal force on the plane.
One can also calc the average desent rate of 47 fps and calculate the vert g's involved if one pulls out of that desent over a time of 2 seconds, 5 seconds etc.

One calc'd in this way the CT has to find a way by which the parameters could have been in error but these numbers are used by CT sites all over the place so that gets difficult for them.

[gumboot]

CT's discount the DFDR data stating that it could easily have been faked but they do agree that the aircraft did a 270 to 330 degree turn through 7000 feet vert in 2.5 minutes and that the max speed of the a/c was 400 -500 MPH.


One of the most odd things about the AA77 CTs...

In the early days it was all about the "270 degree turn". OR 300 or whatever they were currently claiming it was. As if being able to turn 270 degrees was a phenomenal achievement only a fighter jet could achieve.

One of the most ridiculous things I had ever heard.

What use would a vehicle of ANY sort be if it was incapable of turning around?

What would you do? Have giant rotating runways, line the plane up on its destination, and let her rip?

What happens if you miss ur approach for whatever reason?

"Sorry folks, we missed the runway, we'll have to continue on to the next airfield we're lined up on, which is the Number Three at Cairo International. ETA is 10 hours"

:confused:

-Gumboot

[jaydeehess]

Having been told that Flight 77 had pulled a 5 g turn I responded with:



530 mph =240 meters/sec

Centrepital force
F=(1/r)mv^2

if the g force on this plane was 5gs then
(1/r)v^2 = 49meter/sec^2
r = (1/49)(240)^2
r=1175 meters or a radius of about 3/4 of a mile.

In order to do a 330 degree turn in a radius of 3/4 miles it would do so in 30 seconds.

Of course this is the first I have heard of it turning 330 degrees. Instead all the sites I have seen have it turning 270 degrees. 270 at 5g's would take 25 seconds.

Did it take that short a time??

Not according to billstclair.com/911timeline/main/flight77.html
Quote:
(9:33 - 9:38 a.m.) Radar data shows Flight 77 crossing the Capitol Beltway and headed toward the Pentagon. But the plane, flying more than 400 mph, is too high when it nears the Pentagon at 9:35, crossing the Pentagon at about 7,000 feet up. [CBS News, 9/21/01, Boston Globe, 11/23/01] 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.


2 1/2 minutes!!! That's 150 seconds
What's more here we have the plane at 400mph not 530.


Giving your source the benefit of the doubt on the velocity and heading change, let's say it still is 530 mph though and let's say it still is 330 degrees of heading change.

530 mph for 150 seconds means it travels 22 miles.

(360/330)22 = circumference = 24 miles
r=3.8 miles = 6000 meters
(v^2)/r = (240^2)/6000
9.6 meters/sec^2
That's 0.98 g


Very uncomfortable, very scary for the normal passenger but less than one fifth your 5 g accelleration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Make it slower(400mph) and/or less change of heading(270 degrees) and that g force drops even more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


At 500 MPH that drops to 0.86 g
At 400 MPH its only 0.43 g

[gumboot]

Just out of curiosity, and as comparison, how many Gs would an airliner pull on a typical steep departure?

-Gumboot

[apathoid]

One of the most odd things about the AA77 CTs...

In the early days it was all about the "270 degree turn". OR 300 or whatever they were currently claiming it was. As if being able to turn 270 degrees was a phenomenal achievement only a fighter jet could achieve.

One of the most ridiculous things I had ever heard.

What use would a vehicle of ANY sort be if it was incapable of turning around?

What would you do? Have giant rotating runways, line the plane up on its destination, and let her rip?

What happens if you miss ur approach for whatever reason?

"Sorry folks, we missed the runway, we'll have to continue on to the next airfield we're lined up on, which is the Number Three at Cairo International. ETA is 10 hours"

:confused:

-Gumboot

I dont think our CT friends were amazed by the airplanes ability to turn around as much as they were amazed that an amateur commerically-rated pilot was able to peform the turn........equally braindead IMO.

[jaydeehess]

In the early days it was all about the "270 degree turn". OR 300 or whatever they were currently claiming it was. As if being able to turn 270 degrees was a phenomenal achievement only a fighter jet could achieve

This was one of the first things that glared out at me when CT's started talking about AA77 so I did the calcs and could not believe that CT's were not bothering to do the math and still make the claims.

I assumed they knew one could turn a plane and keep turning it forever ( fuel constrained of course) if you wished to.
What they really wanted was big numbers to scare the illterate who would see 270 degrees and go "whoa, that's a big number".

[CurtC]

Just out of curiosity, and as comparison, how many Gs would an airliner pull on a typical steep departure?Well, you could do a vertical departure, like an F16, and hardly pull more than 1G. At a constant rate of ascent, no matter how steep, it's just that 1G due to gravity. The G forces come when the rate of descent/ascent changes.

[Anti-sophist]

I belive that a 2G vert-acc during a turn or take-off is about the upper limit of what commercial planes do. In practice, that is. Not by design, etc.

[TjW]

Perhaps someone should point out that the "standard rate turn" used for IFR approaches is two minutes: that is, two minutes to do a 360 degree turn.
So doing a 270, or even a 330 degree turn in two and a half minutes is not a particularly quick turn.
Admittedly, you'd generally be making the approach at less than 400 kts.

[TjW]

I belive that a 2G vert-acc during a turn or take-off is about the upper limit of what commercial planes do. In practice, that is. Not by design, etc.

A two-G turn would be a 60 degree bank angle. That bank angle would probably scare the bejeezus out of the passengers. I've had power pilots up for rides in the glider that were noticeably uncomfortable with a 45 degree bank. (Which you just have to do sometimes, to stay in some of the small thermal cores.)

If jaydeehess' calculations are right, then the flight 77 turn would have been made at about a 45 degree bank angle, and in coordinated flight, that would be about 1.4 G, which is consistent with his 1 G horizontal acceleration. 1G horizontal and 1G vertical adds to 1.4G along the diagonal. Having done about a bajillion 360 degree turns at 45 to 60 degrees in thermals, I can tell you that it's not hard, it's not uncomfortable, and if you don't have a suicidal idiot at the controls, it's not dangerous.

[gumboot]

I belive that a 2G vert-acc during a turn or take-off is about the upper limit of what commercial planes do. In practice, that is. Not by design, etc.


Thanks. So at most the G's experienced in the turn are comparable to the experience of a rapid departure in an airliner (all be it in a different direction).

Hardly throw-about-plane stuff.

My best friend was in an Air NZ 737 that hit wind shear across the Southern Alps and dropped many thousand feet in a very very small space of time. That threw people into the air and broke bones. A rather more severe aircraft movement than AA77 experienced prior to impact. And of course the 737 didn't disintegrate into pieces.. ;)

-Gumboot

[Anti-sophist]

I looked up the FDR data and here's what I got:

Max Vertical G: 1.753
Max Lateral G: 0.094
Max Long. G: 0.363

Max/Min Roll : -19, 41.8 (degrees)

The "turn" was spent mostly between 25 and 35 degrees, and between 1.1 and 1.4 Gs. Only for brief moments (on the order of a second or two) does the G force poke above 1.4G.

This doesn't seem to me to be all that scary.

It starts around 9:34:03 and ends around 9:36:52. That's from scrolling through the data waiting for the roll to back to "normal".

--
ETA

I think the reason for the G forces to come out lower than back-of-the-envelope calculation is because the plane was losing altitude. This relaxes the need for lateral g forces altogether.

[CurtC]

I think the reason for the G forces to come out lower than back-of-the-envelope calculation is because the plane was losing altitude. This relaxes the need for lateral g forces altogether.Why? A plane in a constant descent would have the same forces as a plane flying straight and level.

My back-of-the-bar-napkin figures, with a 169-second turn and a speed of 600 ft/s (this is around 400 mph - is that about right?) yield a horizontal acceleration of around 22.5 ft/s2, or 0.7 g. Combined with the downward force of gravity, this would be an average of 1.22 g during that turn.

Oh- are you trying to explain why the FDR's lateral g number is only 0.094, and not the 0.7 number I get? It's because lateral g's in the plane are not the same as horizontal g's, because the plane banks in turns. You'd expect the lateral g number to stay pretty close to zero, and would be exactly zero in a perfectly coordinated turn.

[realitybites]

I apologize if this has already been posted, but everytime I see the new Flight Simulater X commercial, I can't help but think of JDX.

For those that haven't seen it, go here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W03GDSbfjj8).

[chipmunk stew]

I apologize if this has already been posted, but everytime I see the new Flight Simulater X commercial, I can't help but think of JDX.

For those that haven't seen it, go here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W03GDSbfjj8).
"...if these feelings persist, step back and regain control of yourself..."

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/5122455dcf1a31357.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2647)

[realitybites]

"...if these feelings persist, step back and regain control of yourself..."

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/5122455dcf1a31357.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2647)
That's my favorite part. :)

[DanKirby]

I apologize if this has already been posted, but everytime I see the new Flight Simulater X commercial, I can't help but think of JDX.

For those that haven't seen it, go here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W03GDSbfjj8).

Heh. I've been meaning to post this for a while.

[uk_dave]

I wish I could find online the sketch from 'the fast show' where geeky office worker Colin Hunt has a date with a co-worker which consists of him using ms flight simulator to simulate an entire transatlantic flight.

She falls asleep.

:D