Civilian Airliners in Tight Turns

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I ran across an interesting article recently in "Air & Space" magazine (http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2006/october-november/landing_in_baghdad.php) about the hazardous approach to Baghdad Airport.

Due to recent pot-shots taken with RPGs and the like at civilian airliners landing at Baghdad, they've begun using a corkscrew approach to minimize their exposure to ground fire.

Hundreds of civilian aircraft take off and land at Baghdad International every week. These aren’t the friendliest of skies, however. Outside the heavily defended airfield perimeter are bands of insurgents who occasionally target civilian and military aircraft with surface-to-air missiles. To avoid being knocked out of the sky, pilots employ an old, trusted tactic: the spiral, or corkscrew, landing approach. Once the plane arrives at about 18,000 feet—still safely beyond the range of weapons like the SA-7 shoulder-fired missile—the pilot banks sharply and descends toward the runway in a slow, tight circle, like someone walking down a spiral staircase. During the spiral the crew keeps an eye out for other air traffic, and for anything coming at them from the ground. After several turns, the pilot pulls out of the rotation with careful timing, straightens out, and lands. The whole thing takes seven to 10 minutes, roughly the same as a regular approach, but it all takes place directly overhead, instead of beginning 20 miles from the runway.

Though it sounds like something from a flying circus, the corkscrew is actually a straightforward tactic that uses fairly standard piloting skills. Airline pilots sometimes use a similar maneuver, descending quickly through clouds to get under bad weather. With a little on-the-job training, spiraling down to the runway becomes second nature, says Kurt Neuenschwander, international chief pilot for Air Serv International, a nonprofit organization that flies relief workers and supplies into Iraq. Landing in Baghdad, he has flown Embraer 120s, which can handle a maximum bank angle of 60 degrees. Neuenschwander keeps it under 55 to be safe.

Could ZENSMACK, Swing Dangler or Redibis please explain why all of the above is impossible and only F-15s and tomahawk missiles can turn more than 90 degrees at a time and commercial liscence holding Hani Hanjour couldn't have performed a maneuver that requires "fairly standard piloting skills"?

[A-Train]

Could ZENSMACK, Swing Dangler or Redibis please explain why all of the above is impossible and only F-15s and tomahawk missiles can turn more than 90 degrees at a time and commercial liscence holding Hani Hanjour couldn't have performed a maneuver that requires "fairly standard piloting skills"?

Because Hani did not have "fairly standard piloting skills." He had never been in a jet cockpit in his life, and could barely fly a Cessna. That is not "fairly standard piloting skills"; that is zero to negligible piloting skills.

Furthermore, you are addressing only the turn, not the maneuver in its entirety. The plane descended rapidly while executing the turn. Then flew along the ground at no more than 50 feet, compensating for "ground effect," before hitting the first floor of the Pentagon in nearly level flight, while not touching the Pentagon lawn-- and it did all this at speeds close to 500 MPH.

[BenBurch]

Because Hani did not have "fairly standard piloting skills." He had never been in a jet cockpit in his life, and could barely fly a Cessna. That is not "fairly standard piloting skills"; that is zero to negligible piloting skills.

Furthermore, you are addressing only the turn, not the maneuver in its entirety. The plane descended rapidly while executing the turn. Then flew along the ground at no more than 50 feet, compensating for "ground effect," before hitting the first floor of the Pentagon in nearly level flight, while not touching the Pentagon lawn-- and it did all this at speeds close to 500 MPH.

I think this is substantially wrong. Hani DID solo if I recall correctly. Which means he was a pilot.

[TjW]

It's completely wrong. He held an FAA commercial certificate, and had time in 737 full-motion simulators.

[HyJinX]

For A-train

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Hani_Hanjour

[BenBurch]

It's completely wrong. He held an FAA commercial certificate, and had time in 737 full-motion simulators.

Thanks. Thought so, but wasn't going to overstate the case.

[T.A.M.]

The reviews on Hanjour are mixed. The 911myths site has most of the arguments for and against his skills listed.

The fact is that any pilot will tell you the hardest part of flying is getting in the air, and getting out of the air. Hanjour did not have to worry about either.

TAM:)

[BenBurch]

If he had a commercial rating, he proved to somebody that he could take off and land under unremarkable circumstances without destroying the aircraft. I believe we have a President who is about as good a pilot as Hanjour would have been by all accounts.

[Corsair 115]

He had never been in a jet cockpit in his life... Not terribly relevant, since all aircraft basically perform in the same manner. It's not that different from switching from your compact car to an 18-wheel truck — while the requirements of the vehicle are different, the act of driving is the same.

The plane descended rapidly while executing the turn. Losing altitude while turning is easy — just bank the wings to a fairly steep angle and you will turn while losing altitude. You have neglected to tell use how hard a turn was executed — this makes all the difference in terms of how difficult a manuever it was to perform.

Then flew along the ground at no more than 50 feet, compensating for "ground effect," before hitting the first floor of the Pentagon in nearly level flight, while not touching the Pentagon lawn-- and it did all this at speeds close to 500 MPH.I find it both sad and amazing that you think this is indicative of outstanding piloting skill. It illustrates your unfamiliarity with how aircraft operate and how they are controlled.

That style of maneuver is little different from a WWII glide bombing attack — a shallow angle approach to a target. This was a lesser-skilled pilot's preferred style of attack.

Had the jetliner flown over the Pentagon at 10,000 feet, rolled onto its back, and then dove into the building at a dive angle of 50º or more, that would have been indicative of some excellent flying skills.

[dudalb]

The reviews on Hanjour are mixed. The 911myths site has most of the arguments for and against his skills listed.

The fact is that any pilot will tell you the hardest part of flying is getting in the air, and getting out of the air. Hanjour did not have to worry about either.

TAM:)

Which is why the vast majority of crashes occur while either taking off or landing.
Once again, the Twoofers display a total ignorance of facts that ten minutes spend talking to any airline pilot would educate one on.

[BenBurch]

Don't forget that a lot of the kids who flew in the Battle of Britain had less flying time than Hanjour.

EDIT: When they started of course.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

A-Train: You completely @#$%ed up answering the 2nd part of my question while ignoring the first part, let's see if you preserve at least some of your dignity here.

Why is it that you believe that only fighter jets and cruise missiles can execute 360 degree descending turns?

How do you as a troofer reconcile this belief with what civilian airliners are doing every day over Baghdad?

BenBurch:

I believe we have a President who is about as good a pilot as Hanjour would have been by all accounts.

President Bush's piloting skills are far beyond what Hanjours would have been. He was qualified as a fighter pilot by the US Air Force and has made at least one supervised/assisted carrier landing in a multi-engine aircraft.

Detest Bush if you must, but don't insult those who train Americas fighter pilots.

[BenBurch]

Hahaha.

You drank the Kool Aide on that carrier story. He never had his hands on the controls!

And his flying with the TANG (when he bothered to show up) was described in various uncomplimentary ways back when I last looked for information about that.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

From Aerospaceweb.org:
(http://aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml)

After being accepted into the ANG, Airman Basic Bush was selected to attend pilot training even though his test scores were the lowest acceptable for that position. His six weeks of basic training was completed at Lackland AFB in Texas during July and August of 1968. Upon its completion, Bush was promoted to the officer's rank of second lieutenant required for pilot candidates. He spent the next year in flight school at Moody AFB in Georgia from November 1968 to November 1969. The aircraft Lt. Bush trained aboard were the T-41 Mescelero propeller-driven basic trainer, T-37 Tweet primary jet trainer, and possibly the T-38 Talon advanced jet trainer. Bush ranked 22 out of 53 students in his flight school class with a grade of 88 on total airmanship. His scores included 100 for flying without navigational instruments, 89 in flight planning, and 98 in aviation physiology. Bush also completed two weeks of survival training during this period.

Bush then returned to Ellington in Texas to complete seven months of combat crew training on the F-102 from December 1969 to June 1970. This period included five weeks of training on the T-33 Shooting Star and 16 weeks aboard the TF-102 Delta Dagger two-seat trainer and finally the single-seat F-102A. Bush graduated from the training program in June 1970. When interviewed by the Associated Press in February 2004, flight instructor Maj. Udell recalled that Lt. Bush was one of his best students saying that, "I'd rank him in the top five percent."

...Lt. Bush remained in the Texas ANG as a certified F-102 pilot who participated in frequent drills and alerts through April of 1972. It appears that he remained on air defense alert since he did not meet the minimum of 1,000 flying hours needed to become an F-102 pilot instructor. Bush had over 600 flight hours when he left the Guard, and 278 of these were aboard the F-102 and TF-102.

I'm a mormon, Kool-Aid™ is about all I'm allowed to drink. You're the one who appears to be tossing back the hard stuff.

[BenBurch]

Other people there at the time tell a different story. And again, he never did that carrier landing at all.

[BenBurch]

Other people there at the time tell a different story. And again, he never did that carrier landing at all.

PS: Mormon? Talk about woo. Sheesh.

[JimBenArm]

I'm quite certain President Bush didn't do a carrier landing since TANG doesn't have any carriers that I'm aware of.
However, irrelevent of whether he was the best or worst pilot, he was a fighter pilot. That takes some level of skill and intellect to do. Again, doesn't matter if you love or despise the man, at least have the honesty to recognize that he isn't a complete idiot. That not only does a disservice to him, but to all other fighter pilots.
Okay, so stupid politically motivated comments to follow in 5, 4, 3, ...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Other people there at the time tell a different story. And again, he never did that carrier landing at all.

Better tell Dan Rather then. He looked for nearly three years and ended up having to rely on obviously forged documents.

You can have the carrier landing though, I've never been certain exactly how supervised or assisted he was on that.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Okay, so stupid politically motivated comments to follow in 5, 4, 3, ...

You mean even more stupid and politically motivated than 9/11 conspiracy gibberish?

[BenBurch]

Better tell Dan Rather then. He looked for nearly three years and ended up having to rely on obviously forged documents.

You can have the carrier landing though, I've never been certain exactly how supervised or assisted he was on that.

The White House said he never touched the controls AT ALL.

[Garrette]

Because Hani did not have "fairly standard piloting skills." He had never been in a jet cockpit in his life, and could barely fly a Cessna. That is not "fairly standard piloting skills"; that is zero to negligible piloting skills.

Furthermore, you are addressing only the turn, not the maneuver in its entirety. The plane descended rapidly while executing the turn. Then flew along the ground at no more than 50 feet, compensating for "ground effect," before hitting the first floor of the Pentagon in nearly level flight, while not touching the Pentagon lawn-- and it did all this at speeds close to 500 MPH.Am I to understand that your contention is that the Government Conspirators could pull off this complex act of bringing down the WTC (including WTC7), destroying the key part of the Pentagon with something that wasn't an airliner but convinced a lot of people it was, and vanishing an airliner in Pennsylvania but could not manage to frame someone with real piloting skills?

Next time, I want better conspirators.

[JimBenArm]

You mean even more stupid and politically motivated than 9/11 conspiracy gibberish?
Hey, I won't go that far!

[qarnos]

Don't forget that a lot of the kids who flew in the Battle of Britain had less flying time than Hanjour.

EDIT: When they started of course.

I think they received 9 hours training in the Spitfire before going operational.

[CurtC]

I think they received 9 hours training in the Spitfire before going operational.
Wow, I got about nine hours of training (flight time w/ instructor) before I soloed in the Piper Traumahawk, a small two-seat plane that lands at about 90 mph. Also, I was 18 at the time (1979), so about the same age as those Spitfire pilots I reckon. My mind reels at the thought of being handed over a machine like the Spitfire with only that much practice.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Unlike Hani Hanjour, they were able to hit something more than just the broad side of the pentagon.

[jaydeehess]

Why is it that you believe that only fighter jets and cruise missiles can execute 360 degree descending turns

At one time I had to be flown into remote communities by DeHaviland Beaver float planes. These are about as far from a fighter aircraft as anything. On several occassions the pilot would circle the area in a tight bank in order to wait until the landing area was clear of boats and to let everyone know that he was about to land. Sometimes he did so many circles that I was getting dizzy. He would do this while maintaining a steady altitude. I asked him about the tight bank and he said that the trick was to make sure that you were not desending at the same time unless you wanted to. The hard part was NOT descending.

Once the area was clear he would desend while turning so that he could maintain a visual of where he wanted to land because he did not trust that everyone would stay out of his way. He would straighten out just before landing.

[mailman]

Because Hani did not have "fairly standard piloting skills." He had never been in a jet cockpit in his life, and could barely fly a Cessna. That is not "fairly standard piloting skills"; that is zero to negligible piloting skills.

This means nothing. Before I started my flight training a friend (who was working at AirNZ) and I flew up in his cessna 172 to Auckland to have a ride in AirNZ's 747-400 full motion simulator.

I can tell you that as a person with absolutely zero hours experience at the controls of a plane not only did I taxi that sucker around various airports around the world but I also took off, flew around and then landed that puppy a number of times! Alright, so a couple of those landings would have resulted in the plane being taken out of service for repairs! :D

So dont give me this **** about these guys being crap pilots. Crickey if I can fly a plane and then perform the hardest manouver of them all (landing, in zero vis with all sorts of failures) then you can bet your bottom dollar these guys are going to be able to hit static buildings!

Mailman

[BenBurch]

Unlike Hani Hanjour, they were able to hit something more than just the broad side of the pentagon.

And they were heroes, not villains...

[BenBurch]

When in a tight bank, your rudder and elevators BOTH have to be used to keep a nose-up attitude.

[BenBurch]

I think they received 9 hours training in the Spitfire before going operational.

Isn't that amazing!? "Sink or swim."

When I think about the men they were facing; Well trained, battle hardened, the best the Lüftwaffe had.

The only things the kids had going for them were the really small time over target the ME-109 was able to give the Nazis and the amazing flying qualities of the Spitfire.

[cludgie]

Losing altitude while turning is easy — just bank the wings to a fairly steep angle and you will turn while losing altitude. You have neglected to tell use how hard a turn was executed — this makes all the difference in terms of how difficult a manuever it was to perform.

There was this paper on the mechanics of the manouever that was linked from another article on 911myths. Depending on who you believe the final turn was pulling 1.2-1.4G. Hardly 'pushing the edge of the envelope' stuff.

http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/trj-path.html

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And they were heroes, not villains...

One thing you and I agree on.

Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
- Sir Winston Churchill

He was referring to our tabs at the pub.
- unknown RAF Pilot. :D

[TjW]

When in a tight bank, your rudder and elevators BOTH have to be used to keep a nose-up attitude.

Not if you want to stay in coordinated flight. Rudder compensates for adverse yaw when the ailerons are deflected. Once you're established in the turn, ailerons are neutralized, and so is the rudder. On some long-winged airplanes, like sailplanes, you may even need a little opposite aileron to keep the bank from increasing, after a certain amount of bank. You keep the nose up by increasing the lift of the wing. This is done by the elevator (back stick).
You can lift the nose above the horizon by kicking some top rudder, but you'll be flying uncoordinated in a slip, so that will increase your drag. It's not the most efficient way to fly. A slipping turn will let you descend without building up as much airspeed, though.

[beachnut]

Because Hani did not have "fairly standard piloting skills." He had never been in a jet cockpit in his life, and could barely fly a Cessna. That is not "fairly standard piloting skills"; that is zero to negligible piloting skills.

Furthermore, you are addressing only the turn, not the maneuver in its entirety. The plane descended rapidly while executing the turn. Then flew along the ground at no more than 50 feet, compensating for "ground effect," before hitting the first floor of the Pentagon in nearly level flight, while not touching the Pentagon lawn-- and it did all this at speeds close to 500 MPH.
Sorry, wrong again. The flying on 9/11, all of the flying, was at the standard of a non pilot. That means even you could have crashed a jet into the WTC or the Pentagon. Not one thing you said is correct. Your skill at understanding flying and 9/11 is well below Hani's ability to fly. Think about it.

[beachnut]

If he had a commercial rating, he proved to somebody that he could take off and land under unremarkable circumstances without destroying the aircraft. I believe we have a President who is about as good a pilot as Hanjour would have been by all accounts.
Did the president fly the T-38? I find it funny listening to the political bs about the president, but he made it through the same flying training I completed (even the same base), and the student pilots who did not pay attention or had limited abilities to think ahead are dead or washed out.
When in a tight bank, your rudder and elevators BOTH have to be used to keep a nose-up attitude.
BTW, you can make a 5 or 6 g turn in a T-38 with your feet on the floor, no rudder. Just bank and pull. No rudder need in the 38 for a turn, even a 1.5 or 2, or 4 g turn; must be those short stubby wings.

Yes you do insult the instructors who train your USAF pilots, and that tripe may be good for the political forum (but not sure since it is fact less). Are you trying to be like a 9/11 truther and not use facts? It would help if you had some facts to prove the president statement on flying. Other pilots would have spoken up if he was not up to standards, and he would not of survived his solo flights. Flying may be easy, but pilot training in the USAF was a piece of cake, but not easy; except maybe for our naval aviators and reheat. (there was a pilot…)

[BenBurch]

...You can lift the nose above the horizon by kicking some top rudder, but you'll be flying uncoordinated in a slip, so that will increase your drag. It's not the most efficient way to fly. A slipping turn will let you descend without building up as much airspeed, though.

Shows I haven't flown a real aircraft in 38 years, doesn't it? :)

[PhantomWolf]

Not quite as fast as Hani did it, and with a lot more control, but who says 757's can't do tight turns?

DHmrcCfdZFM

It's even the right airline. ;)

[gumboot]

Furthermore, you are addressing only the turn, not the maneuver in its entirety. The plane descended rapidly while executing the turn. Then flew along the ground at no more than 50 feet, compensating for "ground effect," before hitting the first floor of the Pentagon in nearly level flight, while not touching the Pentagon lawn-- and it did all this at speeds close to 500 MPH.


No it didn't.

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

before hitting the first floor of the Pentagon in nearly level flight, while not touching the Pentagon lawn

It wasn't anywhere near level,

It did hit the ground first, the left wing tip was found buried in the ground just in front of the helipad.

[rwguinn]

Not quite as fast as Hani did it, and with a lot more control, but who says 757's can't do tight turns?

DHmrcCfdZFM

It's even the right airline. ;)
:jaw-dropp
Holy (Rule10)!!!!
What airport is that?
Um... I'd like to know where I'm NOT even going on vacation...

[PhantomWolf]

:jaw-dropp
Holy (Rule10)!!!!
What airport is that?
Um... I'd like to know where I'm NOT even going on vacation...

It's in Honduras apparently. Toncontin airport.

[gumboot]

The difference between expert pilots and terrorist hijackers is that expert pilots have to deal with this:

83b5iBY_eEc

-Gumboot

[Corsair 115]

I think they received 9 hours training in the Spitfire before going operational.For all the talk of the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain, it's the Hurricane which comprised roughly two-thirds of Fighter Command's strength throughout the battle. And it was the one tasked with actually shooting down the bombers (a good pilot in a Hurricane could hold his own against an Me-109, but it wasn't easy).

The only things the kids had going for them were the really small time over target the ME-109 was able to give the Nazis and the amazing flying qualities of the Spitfire.See above; the Hurricane is the overlooked and forgotten workhorse of the battle.

The Luftwaffe fighter pilots were also hampered by orders from higher up restricting them to closely escorting the bombers and not being able to go after the RAF fighters (a mistake the USAAF also made for a time later in the war before unleashing its fighters to chase down and destroy German fighters wherever they could be found, a tactic which proved decisive).

[Kryptos]

Routinely travel in and out of Reagan National Airport, here in DC. Frequent destinations for me are to Minneapolis or Detroit, and connecting on to some other place.

Due to airspace restrictions over the White House, Capitol and other areas of downtown Washington, aircraft will follow along the Potomac River, from either the north or south.

In yellow, is a flight approach (landing) commonly used on my flights. The plane will pass over Arlington County, then down to Alexandria, and around Mount Vernon/Fort Belvoir, it will do a sharp turn as it descends, so it can come back up the Potomac River, passing over the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and Old Town Alexandria, and then in for the landing. - When I'm just out and about here, around the Pentagon, these planes can be seen at higher (but not super high) altitudes, taking this approach.

In blue/purple is another commonly used approach, with the planes coming in over Georgetown, then over the Kennedy Center, along the Potomac, over the 14th Street Bridge, and just over the head of folks in Gravelly Point (park), as they come in for the landing. In pink are other commonly used take-off and landing approaches (including one nearly over the Pentagon and Arlington National Cemetery).

I live under one of these, and hear the planes every few minutes (except for overnight hours - e.g. 2 - 6 a.m.). Hardly paid any attention to them before, but find I'm noticing them much more now. They are like an alarm clock for me - I hear them again and I know it's after 6 a.m. :(

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/0/08/Dcaflightpaths.jpg

Anyway, the path in yellow is very common for my flights from Minneapolis or Detroit, or other points west. It's a steep turn and descent, so the pilots can make the approach from the south. It's done all of the time. Surely, someone with a commercial pilots license, such as Hani Hanjour, could do it.

[Hokulele]

Here is a fun website (currently set for Hawaii).

http://flightaware.com/live/airport/PHOG

If you get lucky enough to see a mainland flight landing at Kahului Maui, they come in from the upper-right towards the yellow marker, then pull a complete 180 degree turn right over the "H" in PHOG, and land at the yellow marker. I can't find a good video of the turn, but may take a camera out to Pu'unene (where you can see the complete maneuver) one of these days. I have been on this landing approach many times, and the bank is very steep when you make the turn. Just for reference, the mountain under the "G" is 10,000 feet tall, and the one just above the "H" is almost 6,000 feet. The venturi effect in this "valley" is rather extreme. 40 kt winds from the NE are very common.

[BenBurch]

National Airport is a safety hazard and should have been closed except to government aircraft long ago.

[beachnut]

National Airport is a safety hazard and should have been closed except to government aircraft long ago.
Then all airports are safety hazards.

Why is National Airport a hazard, does it have a gun, or a knife?

[LashL]

Ben,

In case you haven't noticed, this isn't DU. You are expected to back up your statements with facts and evidence here.

Just a friendly reminder.

(BTW, I am referring not only to your most recent post above but to your posts generally since your recent arrival. This is just a convenient place to post this before I hit the sheets. Like I said, this isn't DU where most people just blindly accept anything posted by those with whom their political views align. In this sub-forum, it's not about politics but about facts and evidence. That said, you might find the Politics sub-forum very interesting indeed. But please separate the two and realize that here, it's facts and evidence, not politics, that matters.)

[Kryptos]

National Airport is a safety hazard and should have been closed except to government aircraft long ago.

This doesn't seem on topic to me, but just mention that I'm still alive and here replying to you. Have survived using the airport countless times, as do members of congress and other fellow travelers. Despite the disadvantages (noise, and whatever safety risk comes with having an airport nearby), the conveniences of quickly getting to the airport far outweigh anything.

I'm security and safety risks were considered when the decision was made to reopen the airport after 9/11. As we remember, it remained closed longer than any other airport. That sucked! Super happy to have it open again.

Anyway, back to the topic of Civilian Airliners in Tight Turns.

[apathoid]

Anyway, back to the topic of Civilian Airliners in Tight Turns.


Any thread on crazy airliner approaches must have some obligatory Kai Tak examples:

P2DAGwJ1kpM
bKqO6gdJIz8
bKqO6gdJIz8
YGnokcAu0c4
OtnL4KYVtDE
jPNOyXwQFlU

[BenBurch]

Then all airports are safety hazards.

Why is National Airport a hazard, does it have a gun, or a knife?

Simply because it is too close to the Mall.

You know it doesn't take a true terrorist to commit terror with an aircraft, a pilot whose wife just left him might also choose to take a few out when he kills himself, and symbols of power like that are too tempting to such a mind.

[BenBurch]

Ben,

In case you haven't noticed, this isn't DU. You are expected to back up your statements with facts and evidence here.

Just a friendly reminder.

(BTW, I am referring not only to your most recent post above but to your posts generally since your recent arrival. This is just a convenient place to post this before I hit the sheets. Like I said, this isn't DU where most people just blindly accept anything posted by those with whom their political views align. In this sub-forum, it's not about politics but about facts and evidence. That said, you might find the Politics sub-forum very interesting indeed. But please separate the two and realize that here, it's facts and evidence, not politics, that matters.)

So is the standard here to post a link with every statement? I can do that but I find it tedious to both the writer and the reader when google can look most things up.

I'm here to discuss and learn things, and if asked to show why I think something I attempt to do so, and I don't really think politics enters into it at all.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Simply because it is too close to the Mall.

You know it doesn't take a true terrorist to commit terror with an aircraft, a pilot whose wife just left him might also choose to take a few out when he kills himself, and symbols of power like that are too tempting to such a mind.

Putting aside for a moment, your absurd scenario, for a "blunt instrument" that travels at 500 miles per hour, how far away would you consider to be a "safe" distance?

[BenBurch]

Dulles is fine.

[Plantfoam]

A good place to watch the sharp final turn on the approach to National is the Lincoln Memorial.

I like National though...it is an easy connect to the subway, and then you are right where you need to be.

[Big Les]

For all the talk of the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain, it's the Hurricane which comprised roughly two-thirds of Fighter Command's strength throughout the battle. And it was the one tasked with actually shooting down the bombers (a good pilot in a Hurricane could hold his own against an Me-109, but it wasn't easy).

See above; the Hurricane is the overlooked and forgotten workhorse of the battle.

The Luftwaffe fighter pilots were also hampered by orders from higher up restricting them to closely escorting the bombers and not being able to go after the RAF fighters (a mistake the USAAF also made for a time later in the war before unleashing its fighters to chase down and destroy German fighters wherever they could be found, a tactic which proved decisive).

Yeah, it's a toss-up really, and far more down to the pilots involved and the situation (altitude, attitude, airspeed at the merge etc) - many inexperienced pilots must have been saved by the Spits' greater speed, maneouvrability, and cockpit visibility, but still others would have survived thanks to the Hurris tougher construction and perhaps by virtue of taking somewhat fewer risks with their less "hot" machine. No doubt at all that the Spitfire was the better aircraft all around though. There was a reason that the Hurricane pilots were instructed to engage the bombers. And they did great service, and good and/or lucky pilots shot down many enemy fighters as well as bombers (the margin not being that wide. But if Dowding had been able, he'd have had all Spits, and I'd suggest that the pilots themselves would have thought likewise. Those that survived the war certainly say as much in post-war interviews (IIRC).

[Sword_Of_Truth]

For all the talk of the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain, it's the Hurricane which comprised roughly two-thirds of Fighter Command's strength throughout the battle. And it was the one tasked with actually shooting down the bombers (a good pilot in a Hurricane could hold his own against an Me-109, but it wasn't easy).

See above; the Hurricane is the overlooked and forgotten workhorse of the battle.

The Luftwaffe fighter pilots were also hampered by orders from higher up restricting them to closely escorting the bombers and not being able to go after the RAF fighters (a mistake the USAAF also made for a time later in the war before unleashing its fighters to chase down and destroy German fighters wherever they could be found, a tactic which proved decisive).

If I recall correctly, Sir Douglas Bader flew a Hurricane (with some slight modifications to the cockpit due to his lack of legs).

[Kryptos]

Dulles is fine.

Sure, was fine for Hani Hanjour.

[BenBurch]

Sure, was fine for Hani Hanjour.

Would you rather DC's air defense had 4 minutes warning or none at all is the question?

[Reheat]

Would you rather DC's air defense had 4 minutes warning or none at all is the question?

What air defenses?

[BenBurch]

What air defenses?

The ones that ought to be there. :)

[Reheat]

The ones that ought to be there. :)

OH, you mean these.

http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Qatar/217639

[BenBurch]

Heh. That missile has been a boondoggle from day one. I'd be happy if we just kept two fighters orbiting the city 24/7. We did for a while.

[CurtC]

It did hit the ground first, the left wing tip was found buried in the ground just in front of the helipad.
I don't think the wings tilted enough for the left wingtip to hit the ground before impact. If it was found buried, I would think that being propelled there from the impact/explosion would be a more likely event.

And we know pretty sure that at impact, the left wing was several feet above the ground, above the window line on the first floor.

[Kryptos]

Would you rather DC's air defense had 4 minutes warning or none at all is the question?

In March 2003, anti-aircraft missile batteries were placed around the mall and important landmarks:
http://www.viewimages.com/Search.aspx?mid=1856844

Those are long gone. Who wants to live in a place with these things all around? No thanks.

Four minutes would not make a difference. Harden the cockpit doors, and that goes a long way to take care of terrorist hijacking risks. And, how many times have commercial airline pilots committed suicide in the manner you suggest? And, we do have a 15 mile perimeter, which is off-limits to general aviation.

There are only so many freedoms and conveniences worth taking away. The risks need to be weighed against the costs of taking those away. In this case, the risk is minimal of a commercial airline suicide pilot versus the slim possibility that the government can do something four minutes.

[Terry]

Any thread on crazy airliner approaches must have some obligatory Kai Tak examples:


The one time I flew into there, the pilot announced on the PA something to the effect of "We will be making a tight turn very late in the landing. Please do not be alarmed, I assure you this is the standard approach path for this airport."

Those houses look amazingly close as you make that turn.

[Reheat]

The one time I flew into there, the pilot announced on the PA something to the effect of "We will be making a tight turn very late in the landing. Please do not be alarmed, I assure you this is the standard approach path for this airport."

Those houses look amazingly close as you make that turn.

Kai Tak was undoubtedly the worst MAJOR airport in the world for an approach to that runway. The departure was hazardous, as well with only NDB's for guidance around the island/mountains. It's good that it's no longer in major use.

There are other airports that are as bad or worse, but fortunately they are not small and generally not used by Commercial Airlines.

[Reheat]

I'd be happy if we just kept two fighters orbiting the city 24/7. We did for a while.

And the reason that we don't now keep fighters in the air is the COST. There are other more reasonable ways to keep the Capitol reasonably safe as have already been suggested.

Suicide Airlines pilots are not of major concern. We just keep to keep the cockpits secure and control borders better. Nothing is % 100 in a free society.

[beachnut]

Simply because it is too close to the Mall.

You know it doesn't take a true terrorist to commit terror with an aircraft, a pilot whose wife just left him might also choose to take a few out when he kills himself, and symbols of power like that are too tempting to such a mind.
What? Then all airports are hazards. lol, this is funny

I hope you stay away from the roads. That is your biggest risk. And tight turns are not, what about these tight turns, there is no real bad stuff going on at that airport due to tight turns.

[beachnut]

The ones that ought to be there. :)
I can see you think the airport is a hazard, you missed the tight turn stuff, but now you want to launch missiles into the air to shoot down a terrorist and have forgot Newton and the apple. What do you tell the parents of the kids in the Kindergarten building with a missile ripping through the kids. Yes, let us turn Washington into Saddam's Baghdad Anti Aircraft zone. No, let us keep the military far from our cities until the threat is more likely to kill you than the solution.

[Big Les]

If I recall correctly, Sir Douglas Bader flew a Hurricane (with some slight modifications to the cockpit due to his lack of legs).

In the Battle of Britain when they were more numerous and the Spitfire relatively unproven, yes. By the following year, like the majority of Commonwealth pilots in the war overall, he flew Spits. He was shot down in one later in 1941. The Hurricanes were already mostly becoming second-line aircraft; night, desert and ground-attack fighters.

[cludgie]

In March 2003, anti-aircraft missile batteries were placed around the mall and important landmarks:
http://www.viewimages.com/Search.aspx?mid=1856844

Those are long gone. Who wants to live in a place with these things all around? No thanks.


The other thing with air defences is once the target is over a populated area then what good does it do? Chances are the death toll would be as high or not higher had the plane been shot down over a populated DC rather than flown into the Pentagon. Just look at the carnage from the Queens crash post-9/11 to see what a plane breaking up in mid-air can do. Planes that are hit by missiles don't magically vapourise into mid-air. Short of covering the perimeter of the city with SAM batteries and intercepting over more sparsely populated terrain then you're frankly on a bit of a hiding to nothing.

[PhantomWolf]

I don't think the wings tilted enough for the left wingtip to hit the ground before impact. If it was found buried, I would think that being propelled there from the impact/explosion would be a more likely event.

And we know pretty sure that at impact, the left wing was several feet above the ground, above the window line on the first floor.

This was actually the issue the brought me here in the first place, the report of it came from the programme Seconds From Disaster. They showed that the plane hit the generator with enough force to tilt it so that the wing tip hit the ground fractions of a second prior to the nose impacting the building. According to them, the tip of the wing was found buried in the ground where it had snapped off. I have seen no-one provide any evidence to show that their reporting was incorrect, in fact no-one even seemed interested when I brought it to the table.

[gumboot]

If I recall correctly, Sir Douglas Bader flew a Hurricane (with some slight modifications to the cockpit due to his lack of legs).


He flew in a Spit with 19 and 222 Squadrons, shifted to the Hurricane when he became CO of 242 Sqn, and returned to the Spitfire when he became a Wing Commander - at which rank he got the perk of adding personalised identifiers to his aircraft (D-B) earning him the nickname "dogsbody".

His wing upgraded to the Spitfire MkVb (2x20mm + 4x.303) but Bader chose to remain flying a MkVa (8x.303) as he claimed this armament was better against enemy fighters. He was in a MkVa when he was shot down.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Heh. That missile has been a boondoggle from day one. I'd be happy if we just kept two fighters orbiting the city 24/7. We did for a while.


I believe NORAD still maintains a roaming CAP which changes city from day to day, in addition to the many more alert sites.

-Gumboot

[BenBurch]

...and have forgot Newton and the apple...

I know what would likely happen.

To my mind it is better to shoot down an attack and take the random damage that entails than to allow the attack to succeed just because I can't see giving way like that.

"Never give in."

[rwguinn]

It's in Honduras apparently. Toncontin airport.
Turns out one of my contractors has flown into that airport, via that approach.
He said the film doesn't even show the really scary part...

I am NOT going there. Period.

[westprog]

His wing upgraded to the Spitfire MkVb (2x20mm + 4x.303) but Bader chose to remain flying a MkVa (8x.303) as he claimed this armament was better against enemy fighters. He was in a MkVa when he was shot down.

-Gumboot

IIRC Bader was opposed to arming fighters with the 20mm cannon. He and Tuck were both consulted about it. The USAAF were originally better armed with .50 machine guns, but stuck with them too long, while the British and Germans jumped straight from small calibre machine guns to cannon.

[Swing Dangler]

It wasn't anywhere near level,

It did hit the ground first, the left wing tip was found buried in the ground just in front of the helipad.

Source?

[Corsair 115]

The USAAF were originally better armed with .50 machine guns, but stuck with them too long, while the British and Germans jumped straight from small calibre machine guns to cannon. It depends also on what you expect to be shooting down. The .50 cal was quite sufficient for knocking down fighters, dive bombers and the like; when it comes to knocking down big, four-engined heavy bombers then cannons would be preferrable.

[DGM]

Source?
Read post # 73