In the wake of the attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it is clear that one of the key factors in the success of those attacks is that at least one member of each of the four teams of hijackers was a trained pilot. While there is some question as to the amount of flying expertise possessed these hijackers, there is no indication that any of them had the level of experience or qualifications of an airline pilot. Whatever their level of expertise, it was sufficient to guide three of the four hijacked planes to their targets, causing the deaths of thousands.

Many people have wondered how it could be possible for relatively unskilled pilots to do this. This writer is in a unique position to answer that question. I am a licensed pilot of very limited experience, with just under 100 hours in small, single-engine training aircraft such as the Cessna 172. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to take a short course on the 757 that included classroom training, individual computer based training, and about five hours in a full-motion simulator. This high fidelity simulator was the same kind of that airline pilots use in their initial training or to simulate a wide range of emergency procedures.

After about a week of training, I was familiar with the layout of the flight deck and with the operation of the flight controls, autopilot, and navigation systems. As a result, flying the simulator was much less difficult than I had imagined at the beginning of the course. The most difficult part of the simulator training was takeoffs and landings. On the other hand, flying the aircraft in other phases of flight was relatively easy, even compared to flying a Cessna 172. Changing the aircraft's course, speed, or altitude was not very difficult when using either the autopilot system or when flying the aircraft manually. The flight control system made the aircraft rather responsive and made it easy to perform normal flying manuvers.

Given my experiences in the simulator, I feel that if I were to be put into a 757's cockpit in the middle of a flight on a relatively clear and sunny day, I would be able to change direction and altitude without any trouble. Given a basic knowledge of a region's geography and of available navigational aids, I would also be able to navigate well enough that I could find a major city and fly the aircraft to any major landmark in that city. Because the basic cockpit layout and many of the procedures used in the 757 are almost identical to those of the 767, I feel that the same would be true for a 767.

In short, I believe that any person who has earned a private pilot's license and who has access to the same kind of ground school and simulator training that I received could fly a 757 or 767 well enough to hit a large building. Given the wide availability of this kind of training, it would appear that the kind of terrorist actions that took place in New York and Washington could easily be repeated in the future.

The three pilots in Florida continued with their training. Atta and Shehhifinished up at Huffman and earned their instrument certificates from the FAA
in November. In mid-December 2000, they passed their commercial pilot tests and received their licenses.They then began training to fly large jets on a flight simulator. At about the same time, Jarrah began simulator training, also in Florida but at a different center. By the end of 2000, less than six months after their arrival, the three pilots on the East Coast were simulating flights on large jets.

In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001.

As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.

This may or may not be right for the WTC planes but most people question the ability of an untrained/unskilled person to fly the plane as it was said to have been flown towards the Pentagon. Also bare in mind that the occasion was one which would have been highly charged emotionally and mentally and that it took place in a real airborne plane not a try out in an easy relaxing simulator.

I am a licensed pilot of very limited experience, with just under 100 hours in small, single-engine training aircraft such as the Cessna 172. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to take a short course on the 757 that included classroom training, individual computer based training, and about five hours in a full-motion simulator. This high fidelity simulator was the same kind of that airline pilots use in their initial training or to simulate a wide range of emergency procedures.

The most difficult part of the simulator training was takeoffs and landings. On the other hand, flying the aircraft in other phases of flight was relatively easy, even compared to flying a Cessna 172. Changing the aircraft's course, speed, or altitude was not very difficult when using either the autopilot system or when flying the aircraft manually.
[…]
I would also be able to navigate well enough that I could find a major city and fly the aircraft to any major landmark in that city.
[…]
Given the wide availability of this kind of training, it would appear that the kind of terrorist actions that took place in New York and Washington could easily be repeated in the future.

Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers and is indeed alive.
This is a bs non sequitur.

Jack

Citing Dr. Curtis, likely a highly intelligent man, is a non sequitur...comparing HIM to
any of the 19 young muslims.

Dr. Curtis didn't indicate that he though someone would have to be especially intelligent to hit the targets. Atta was a graduate student at the prestigious Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg, according to his advisor he was “smart” and got a “very very good” grade on his written thesis and the highest possible grade on his oral thesis. Jarrah studied aeronautical engineering at the University of Applied Sciences in Hamburg and “his grades were above average”. I’ve seen no indication the other two pilots were unintelligent. Nor do I see the relevance of their religion. Does Jack believe Muslims are less intelligent than members of other religions?

Atta - http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/interviews/machule.htm
Jarrah - http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/thepilot/story.html

The author was less qualified than Hanjour, seems to believe he could have hit the Pentagon.

Yes Jack, they did spend time in a 737 simulator which is not unlike the 757 and 767. They also had cockpit diagrammes for the 757 and 767, flight manuals or handling notes for the aircraft, plus PC-based flight simulator programmes for those aircraft.


737 Cockpit


757 Cockpit


767 Cockpit

As Mr. Brazil might say, provide references for the arabs "spending time in a simulator";
I have studied this since 2001 and have never seen such a reference; I guess I missed it.

Jack

A very important point to note is that they were not being asked to fly precision approaches in bad weather, or deal with inflight emergencies; they simply had to guide the aircraft to a target.

Whoever said he was one of the hijackers? He was presented as an expert's opinion. Seriously Jack, do you even read what is presented before you comment?

Your comprehension skills are inadequate.

I SAID: "Giulio Bernacchia was not listed as one of the hijackers"....THEREFORE
HIS OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT.

From that you infer that I said he was one of the hijackers.

Get a grip.

Jack

Landing/crashing a plane into a 'particular' building is precision flying in my book. The side of a building is not so big in the whole citiscape. More like a needle in a haystack. If they wanted they could have just flown into any old building and just as much damage could have been done. But they flew into apparently specially chosen land mark buildings. Also why the big turn around for the Pentagon? Hanjour could have just flown at it from the direction he was coming but there was this big turn around.

Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

Maggie,

With due respect, to my knowledge you are not a pilot. I am. You don't need enormous skill, and these guys were licenced commercial pilots. They had practiced in simulators. The big turn around the Pentagon was to lose altitude.

He could have dropped altitude any time on the flight from when they took over the plane. Why can't he point the plane down? Its going to crash anyway.

With due respect, if it is so easy then why do they pay pilots so much? Can't have it both ways.

Maggie wrote:

QUOTE(Maggie Hansen @ Aug 7 2008, 06:18 PM)

Why should I believe this guys opinion? Others have the opinion that he was a hopeless flyer, qualified or not. He was not able to rent a plane from one airport because they were not confident enough in his flying ability. One of Hanjour's teachers said he could not believe it was him that flew the plane into the pentagon as he just couldn't fly at all. Am I supposed to discount what his teacher said in favour of this guy? (bold added)

Evan replied by providing a link and a comment:

QUOTE(Evan Burton @ Aug 7 2008, 06:33 PM)

Maggie,

Some of the quotes have been distorted by some people. See what was really said about the hijacker's flying abilities:

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

A very important point to note is that they were not being asked to fly precision approaches in bad weather, or deal with inflight emergencies; they simply had to guide the aircraft to a target.

From the link Evan provided: "Some of the quote about Hanjour is correct (“I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all”)."

Pretty much just as Maggie stated.

The 911myths website offers this as their reference: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?...hanjourwarnings

A quick reading will show that Maggie's concerns were understated. And that her question remains unanswered.

FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license.

That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/...ain508656.shtml

170. FBI report, "Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 52¬57. Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview (Apr.9, 2004)

"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

When she heard about the Sept. 11 hijackings, "I already knew in my heart that Hani was a part of it," Chevrette said. She recalled driving to work when she learned that a plane had hit the Pentagon after two planes had already struck the World Trade Center in New York.

"I think that's the thing that just snapped," she said, recalling her realization that it was a terrorist attack. "I remember crying all the way to work, knowing that our company helped do this."

http://www.theairlinehub.com/2006/03/emoti...at_moussao.html

So Maggie's question has been reletively (sic) well replied to and has been previously discusseed (sic) here.

Michael,

I did respond. The turn was necessary to lose height, because it is more difficult to make a vertical approach than a more horizontal approach to a target.

Hanjour and others had the necessary skills to guide the aircraft into their targets. Would it help if I asked a 747 captain with training experience, who has stated that he could train someone to fly the approach with nothing more than about 30 mins simulator time, to come here and state that for himself? Would you actually believe him? I think not, but am willing to ask them to do it if required.

How many pilots would it take to convince people that this claim of "could not fly the approach", etc, is wrong?

Michael,

I did respond. The turn was necessary to lose height, because it is more difficult to make a vertical approach than a more horizontal approach to a target.

Hanjour and others had the necessary skills to guide the aircraft into their targets. Would it help if I asked a 747 captain with training experience, who has stated that he could train someone to fly the approach with nothing more than about 30 mins simulator time, to come here and state that for himself? Would you actually believe him? I think not, but am willing to ask them to do it if required.

How many pilots would it take to convince people that this claim of "could not fly the approach", etc, is wrong?

Michael,

I'm confused. What question was asked that I didn't respond to? I'll do my best to answer it.

Thanks,

If you wish Evan but I wouldn't on my account. I have pilots here that I can ask.

What is not understandable to me is why Hanjour needed to turn. I understand what you are saying about descent and turning on approach but why turn why not just descend and approach? The turn is superfluous. Just descend and aim. Much easier.

Evan, please save the thanks for Jack White. All you have to do is go back and read Maggie's post and mine.

There are lots of comments. If you point out what I have not answered, I'll try to answer.

Another non sequitur from Mr. Brazil. The question was whether any of the
19 muslim arab hijackers had ever spent a week learning to fly a 757/767
on a simulator.

Michael's comment is nonesense.

You really should stop using words you can't spell.

You should really stop playing spelling cop to Lens's posts. It makes you look quite childish and petty. Unless that is your intention, in which case carry on.

I'll let other members decide who looks childish and petty. What you think doesn't concern me.

You really should stop using words you can't spell.

Egads, not another typo! How can I ever live down the shame? Your post was nonsense whether I spelt it correctly or not which is why you didn’t reply to its contents. Odd that your Pavlovian urge to point out spelling/grammar errors seems limited to one member of the forum.

EDIT - Typo fixed LOL