Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
A cogent analysis of this morning's events...
From: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap@eros-os.org> Subject: Thoughts on this morning's events Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:07:24 -0400
I hope and trust that all of those concerned for their loved ones will find them healthy and whole. If you are stuck at work, consider waiting a few hours to go home. Right now the roads are far more risk than staying put.
As someone who passed through the WTC 45 minutes before the bomb went off years ago, and watched live as the second WTC tower was penetrated at 9:03, I wanted to inject some analysis into the current situation.
This act goes well beyond terrorism as we have previously understood it. It's been repeatedly demonstrated to us that a single plane can be hijacked by a small, well-prepared group backed up by the right logistics support. Hijacking *five* planes, on a tight timetable, from multiple locations, to hit multiple targets within 90 minutes of each other is simply a completely different scale of organization. This act required logistic support and coordination involving hundreds of people, with major-league funding.
Also, it's worth remembering that airplanes aren't all that easy to fly, and it's unlikely that a commercial pilot could be persuaded to fly into a building -- even at gunpoint. This means that the perpetrators needed to find five adequate pilots, which in turn means that they needed to know *in advance* which kinds of planes they would be hijacking. While a lot of the pilot training could be done using Flight Simulator, you still need to know what to train for.
Further, this is a very difficult attack to defend against. Suppose you *did* have a SAM (surface to air missile) handy in New York, and you saw the plane coming in time to use it. Do you shoot down a plane over a major metropolitan area, or do you let it crash? Which will cause greater destruction? While you figure it out the opportunity passes.
The attackers picked planes that were scheduled for cross-country flights, and would therefore be loaded with JP (airplane fuel). JP burns very hot, and is relatively easy to set on fire. Because these planes were loaded with fuel, they could be relied on to spread the fuel through the buildings on impact, maximizing damage and hampering rescue efforts.
The planes were hijacked from major U.S. airports. Security at these airports may not be the tightest in the world, but neither is it sloppy. In this case, it was systematically beaten in several locations at once. This required time, money, thought, and preparation.
What we have here is an attacker who has said not just "I can attack anything I want", but "I can attack lots of things, all at once, and not only can't you stop me but you can't even detect a very large organization that is doing the preparations -- even when we tip you off three weeks in advance!"
On the whole, it seems fair to say that this entire action was carefully thought out, planned in careful detail, and (at least from the attacker's perspective) well executed. It required access to significant information resources.
Obviously, the targets were picked for maximum symbolic value, but the Pentagon is a military target. That means that this *isn't* an act of terrorism; it is an act of war. If indeed it proves that the attacker was bin-Laden, and if Taliban has been harboring him, it would not surprise me to see the United States take the view that Taliban has committed an undeclared act of war, and react accordingly.
Finally, an observation on people's reactions. People here at Hopkins showed a range of initial reactions from dismay to tears to shock. But this quickly changed. The second reaction was universally anger. The sense of things -- and we are talking here about basically pacifist academics, mind you -- is that if we can figure out who launched this thing we should take them out decisively, and it's just too damned bad if some country decides to get on the wrong side.
If the goal of this attack was fear it has failed. Possibly, it has altered the American perception of terrorism in a basic way and convinced us that decisive action is the only response to terrorism. This lesson comes at too high a cost, and with personal tragic impact on too many people, and at a price that we should never have been forced to pay, to be sure. Still, if this incident teaches America to respond decisively to terrorism then perhaps those losses will mean something, and *some* small good may yet be recovered from this.
Meanwhile, let us hope that the death toll is smaller than all our fears, and do what we can to help the victims and their loved ones come to terms as they can.
Jonathan S. Shapiro
Also, it's worth remembering that airplanes aren't all that easy to fly. This means that the perpetrators needed to find five adequate pilots, Hmm. not actually sure about this - not having ever flown anything at all, but how much skill exactly does it take to keep something already
which in turn means that they needed to know *in advance* which kinds of planes they would be hijacking. While a lot of the pilot training could be done using Flight Simulator, you still need to know what to train for. ... or train for the two/three more common types, then pick a flight *on
pointed in more or less the right direction on target for two-three minutes until impact? ok, you couldn't expect a clean landing or even a halfway-smooth flight path from someone who has played a MS-Windows flight sim for a few months, but - if he was going from switching off autopilot to keeping the plane pointed at something the size of the WTC....... I would imagine it would all be on the yoke too, no throttles or concerns about airspeed given you are not really going to care that much what speed or acceleration you have on impact... the day* that actually is flying that type of plane. book seats at the last minute (not a problem for domestic flights) or pre-book three or four different seats per attacker, and each picks a flight with the right sort of plane from the "pool" of available flights.
: Delivered-To: nanog-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu : Delivered-To: nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu : Delivered-To: nanog@merit.edu : From: "David Howe" <DaveHowe@gmx.co.uk> : References: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10109111159140.5292-100000@mailnew> : Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 00:22:42 +0100 : MIME-Version: 1.0 : Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit : X-Priority: 3 : X-MSMail-Priority: Normal : X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 : X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 : Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu : Precedence: bulk : Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu : X-Loop: nanog : Content-Type: text/plain; : charset="iso-8859-1" : Content-Length: 1408 : : : >Also, it's worth remembering that airplanes aren't all that easy to : > fly. This means that the perpetrators needed to find five adequate : > pilots, : Hmm. not actually sure about this - not having ever flown anything at : all, but how much skill exactly does it take to keep something already : pointed in more or less the right direction on target for two-three : minutes until impact? ok, you couldn't expect a clean landing or even a : halfway-smooth flight path from someone who has played a MS-Windows : flight sim for a few months, but - if he was going from switching off : autopilot to keeping the plane pointed at something the size of the : WTC....... I would imagine it would all be on the yoke too, no throttles : or concerns about airspeed given you are not really going to care that : much what speed or acceleration you have on impact... The planes were hijacked with knives and re-routed over large distances: which leads me to believe the original pilots were long dead. The two towers were struck with great precision: it's not as easy as it sounds. The pentagon was *landed* on... in a most precise manner: It takes a hell of a flyer to put a plane down like that. There were no fly-bys and/or go-rounds. There were no near misses. There is no doubt in my mind that those in control of the planes were skilled pilots. Peace, Petr -- Systems, Networks and Gadgets, done with Artful Intelligence -<>-<_>-<__>-<_>-<>- Policy: ASCII/text attchmnts alway read. PDF maybe read. Others, by necessity, may be ignored. Don't take it personally, it's a time issue.
At 10:26 PM 9/11/2001, Petr Swedock wrote:
The planes were hijacked with knives and re-routed over large distances: which leads me to believe the original pilots were long dead.
The two towers were struck with great precision: it's not as easy as it sounds.
The pentagon was *landed* on... in a most precise manner: It takes a hell of a flyer to put a plane down like that.
There were no fly-bys and/or go-rounds.
There were no near misses.
There is no doubt in my mind that those in control of the planes were skilled pilots.
Keep in mind as well that airspeed would be critical for maximum effect. Moving too fast, the plane flies right through the building, certainly causing massive damage and almost certainly starting a fire. However, that's not optimal. Fly too slowly, and you're on the edge of a stall - no laughing matter in any aircraft, but especially critical in these cases, due to the maneuvers every aircraft performed. Also, fly too slowly, you might not completely penetrate the building. From the beginning, there's been no doubt that the pilots were type-rated on the Boeing 757/767, nor has there ever been any doubt, at least in my mind, that these were not American or United pilots... with the possible exception of the United flight that crashed in PA.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, David Howe wrote:
Also, it's worth remembering that airplanes aren't all that easy to fly. This means that the perpetrators needed to find five adequate pilots, Hmm. not actually sure about this - not having ever flown anything at all, but how much skill exactly does it take to keep something already pointed in more or less the right direction on target for two-three minutes until impact? ok, you couldn't expect a clean landing or even a
It takes quite a bit more than you would expect. Something that you neglect to remember is that the plane that struck the Pentagon was initially headed directly towards the Whitehouse, then executed a high-speed, high-bank turn around DC, lined up on the Pentagon and managed to nose into it at mid-level. It is VERY difficult to control an aircraft in a high-speed nose-down attitude. ESPECIALLY those that are less than "sporty" in flight characteristics.
halfway-smooth flight path from someone who has played a MS-Windows flight sim for a few months, but - if he was going from switching off autopilot to keeping the plane pointed at something the size of the WTC....... I would imagine it would all be on the yoke too, no throttles or concerns about airspeed given you are not really going to care that much what speed or acceleration you have on impact...
Again. Think about it. The WTC is not actually that large of a target. Granted, it's was easy to pick out from the air but, lining up on it and maintaining a flight attitude that will keep you in the air until impact is a different story. If you've seen footage of the second plane impacting, look at the last second attitude correction. Had the individual who was flying the aircraft not made that correction, it would not have struck the building. (At least THAT building.) Also, airspeed is very important if you want to keep an aircraft aloft. ESPECIALLY when you are pulling turns. If you're just above stall and try to turn the aircraft, you don't turn -- you fall.
... or train for the two/three more common types, then pick a flight *on the day* that actually is flying that type of plane. book seats at the last minute (not a problem for domestic flights) or pre-book three or four different seats per attacker, and each picks a flight with the right sort of plane from the "pool" of available flights.
There are mechanisms in place that would detect this type of behavior. (Prebooking multiple flights for the same individual.) --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
Locked bulletproof door to the cockpit. Survelliance cameras in the passenger compartments. That all which was needed to foil the attack. Now I think it's time to ask why this isn't the standard procedure? --vadim
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:
Locked bulletproof door to the cockpit. Survelliance cameras in the passenger compartments. That all which was needed to foil the attack. Now I think it's time to ask why this isn't the standard procedure?
Or they could just fly plainclothes armed marshals on US flights. Apparently they tried this years ago, but stopped because it was "uneconomical". I guess the airlines have figured out how to put a dollar amount on human lives. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:
Locked bulletproof door to the cockpit. Survelliance cameras in the passenger compartments. That all which was needed to foil the attack. Now I think it's time to ask why this isn't the standard procedure?
Or they could just fly plainclothes armed marshals on US flights.
Apparently they tried this years ago, but stopped because it was "uneconomical". I guess the airlines have figured out how to put a dollar amount on human lives.
Nope, people put a price on human lives. You put a price on your life, in the form of how much extra you're willing to pay for extra safety devices. For example, due to what people are willing to pay for automotive safety devices, the DoT estimates that the average human values their life at a few million dollars. ``"For the interim, those agencies that use a dollar value of life in economic analyses should use $1.5 million." '' -- http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t75702.htm That URL covers the current cost estimate of a human life. Currently though, it is now at 2.6 million dollars. So yes, there is a price on human life, set by every human in the united states. Scott [don't have nanog posting privledges]
Bullet proof bulkhead separating the pilot's compartment from the cabin that is locked/unlocked externally by the ground crew. Everyone knows the pilot *can't* open the door even if he wanted to... JMH Vadim Antonov wrote:
Locked bulletproof door to the cockpit. Survelliance cameras in the passenger compartments. That all which was needed to foil the attack. Now I think it's time to ask why this isn't the standard procedure?
--vadim
Actually there should be an external entrance for the cockpit crew. The cockpit crew should be escorted to the cockpit by armed security officers. The door between the cockpit and the passenger cabin should be totally removed. This would prevent the luring of the flight crew to the passenger cabin and prevent passenger access to the cockpit all together. By doing this, you would have no more suicide bombings by hijackers. This does not prevent a crazy flight crewmember wanting to suicide killing the other crewmembers. However, nothing will protect against that. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hall" <j.hall@f5.com>
Bullet proof bulkhead separating the pilot's compartment from the cabin that is locked/unlocked externally by the ground crew. Everyone knows the pilot *can't* open the door even if he wanted to...
JMH
Vadim Antonov wrote:
Locked bulletproof door to the cockpit. Survelliance cameras in the passenger compartments. That all which was needed to foil the attack.
Now
I think it's time to ask why this isn't the standard procedure?
--vadim
This would be a mistake. There are a number of possible mechanical scenarios in which the pilot needs physical access to the cabin in order to inspect various systems of the airplane to make a determination about the proper procedures. Mechanical problems are still significantly more likely than this form of terrorist attack. Owen Bill Larson wrote:
Actually there should be an external entrance for the cockpit crew. The cockpit crew should be escorted to the cockpit by armed security officers. The door between the cockpit and the passenger cabin should be totally removed. This would prevent the luring of the flight crew to the passenger cabin and prevent passenger access to the cockpit all together. By doing this, you would have no more suicide bombings by hijackers. This does not prevent a crazy flight crewmember wanting to suicide killing the other crewmembers. However, nothing will protect against that.
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hall" <j.hall@f5.com>
Bullet proof bulkhead separating the pilot's compartment from the cabin that is locked/unlocked externally by the ground crew. Everyone knows the pilot *can't* open the door even if he wanted to...
JMH
Vadim Antonov wrote:
Locked bulletproof door to the cockpit. Survelliance cameras in the passenger compartments. That all which was needed to foil the attack.
Now
I think it's time to ask why this isn't the standard procedure?
--vadim
-- *********************************************************************** "Every time you turn on your new car, you're turning on 20 microprocessors. Every time you use an ATM, you're using a computer. Every time I use a settop box or game machine, I'm using a computer. The only computer you don't know how to work is your Microsoft computer, right?" - Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, Inc., from an April 1997 interview in Upside Magazine *********************************************************************** Microsoft CEO Bill Gates is optimistic about Contraceptive99's potential. He recently said, "Our contraceptive products will help users do to each other what we've been doing to our customers for years." The mail above is sent from my personal account and represents my own views. It may or may not reflect the opinions of Exodus Communications, Jin Ho, Mo Sabourian, Tony Massing, Morris Taradalsky, or any other employee, officer, subsidiary, acquisition, member, partner, aff
I believe the problems requiring flight crew access to the passenger cabin can be resolved by other means. A lot can be done and I am sure you will be hearing more ideas from other people on the list and from talking heads on the news. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.sj.ca.us> To: "Bill Larson" <blarson@compu.net> Cc: "John Hall" <j.hall@f5.com>; <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 6:20 PM Subject: Re: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
This would be a mistake.
There are a number of possible mechanical scenarios in which the pilot needs physical access to the cabin in order to inspect various systems of the airplane to make a determination about the proper procedures. Mechanical problems are still significantly more likely than this form of terrorist attack.
Owen
Bill Larson wrote:
Actually there should be an external entrance for the cockpit crew. The cockpit crew should be escorted to the cockpit by armed security
The door between the cockpit and the passenger cabin should be totally removed. This would prevent the luring of the flight crew to the
officers. passenger
cabin and prevent passenger access to the cockpit all together. By doing this, you would have no more suicide bombings by hijackers. This does not prevent a crazy flight crewmember wanting to suicide killing the other crewmembers. However, nothing will protect against that.
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Hall" <j.hall@f5.com>
Bullet proof bulkhead separating the pilot's compartment from the
cabin
that is locked/unlocked externally by the ground crew. Everyone knows the pilot *can't* open the door even if he wanted to...
JMH
Vadim Antonov wrote:
Locked bulletproof door to the cockpit. Survelliance cameras in the passenger compartments. That all which was needed to foil the
attack. Now
I think it's time to ask why this isn't the standard procedure?
--vadim
-- *********************************************************************** "Every time you turn on your new car, you're turning on 20 microprocessors. Every time you use an ATM, you're using a computer. Every time I use a settop box or game machine, I'm using a computer. The only computer you don't know how to work is your Microsoft computer, right?" - Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, Inc., from an April 1997 interview in Upside Magazine
*********************************************************************** Microsoft CEO Bill Gates is optimistic about Contraceptive99's potential. He recently said, "Our contraceptive products will help users do to each other what we've been doing to our customers for years."
The mail above is sent from my personal account and represents my own views. It may or may not reflect the opinions of Exodus Communications, Jin Ho, Mo Sabourian, Tony Massing, Morris Taradalsky, or any other employee, officer, subsidiary, acquisition, member, partner, aff
| Bullet proof bulkhead separating the pilot's compartment from the cabin | that is locked/unlocked externally by the ground crew. Everyone knows | the pilot *can't* open the door even if he wanted to... That will require some additional emergency exit for the pilots directly from the cockpit, which I believe not many planes have these days... Also restroom facilities, food-storage etc for them in the secure area..
new york from the iss... http://www.space.com/images/exp3_nyc_010912c_02.jpg http://www.space.com/images/exp3_nyc_010912a_02,0.jpg http://www.space.com/images/exp3_nyc_010912b_02,0.jpg On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Mathias Körber wrote:
| Bullet proof bulkhead separating the pilot's compartment from the cabin | that is locked/unlocked externally by the ground crew. Everyone knows | the pilot *can't* open the door even if he wanted to...
That will require some additional emergency exit for the pilots directly from the cockpit, which I believe not many planes have these days... Also restroom facilities, food-storage etc for them in the secure area..
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu Academic User Services consult@gladstone.uoregon.edu PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of arms. Karl Marx -- Introduction to the critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the right, 1843.
This was the result of careless or incoherent use of a paste buffer I appologize. On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
new york from the iss...
http://www.space.com/images/exp3_nyc_010912c_02.jpg
http://www.space.com/images/exp3_nyc_010912a_02,0.jpg
http://www.space.com/images/exp3_nyc_010912b_02,0.jpg
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Mathias Körber wrote:
| Bullet proof bulkhead separating the pilot's compartment from the cabin | that is locked/unlocked externally by the ground crew. Everyone knows | the pilot *can't* open the door even if he wanted to...
That will require some additional emergency exit for the pilots directly from the cockpit, which I believe not many planes have these days... Also restroom facilities, food-storage etc for them in the secure area..
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu Academic User Services consult@gladstone.uoregon.edu PGP Key Fingerprint: 1DE9 8FCA 51FB 4195 B42A 9C32 A30D 121E -------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of arms. Karl Marx -- Introduction to the critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the right, 1843.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, John Hall wrote:
Bullet proof bulkhead separating the pilot's compartment from the cabin that is locked/unlocked externally by the ground crew. Everyone knows the pilot *can't* open the door even if he wanted to...
JMH
Vadim Antonov wrote:
Locked bulletproof door to the cockpit. Survelliance cameras in the passenger compartments. That all which was needed to foil the attack. Now I think it's time to ask why this isn't the standard procedure?
--vadim
It's gonna suck to be a coffee/tea drinking pilot on a trans-continental flight. (Restrooms generally are NOT located in the flight deck area.) <g> --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
Apologies to the list, this is way off topic, and if you're looking for operational content, just hit delete now. However, the number of people posting bad specualtion about aviation is bothering me and I feel compelled to reply. I hold a Private Pilot rating for Airplane Single Engine Land. I also hold an Instrument Airplane rating. I have about 800 hours of total flight time, including various single engine a small amount of multi-engine, some glider, some free balloon time. I have spent some time in the cockpit of an Airbus A-319 in flight, including an approach into San Jose International. I was in the jumpseat, but I received substantial education from the pilots while I was there. If anyone feels that my answers are not adequate, please let me know off-list and I'll get you an answer from an ATP I know who is rated in the 757 and 767 types. John Fraizer wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, David Howe wrote:
Also, it's worth remembering that airplanes aren't all that easy to fly. This means that the perpetrators needed to find five adequate pilots, Hmm. not actually sure about this - not having ever flown anything at all, but how much skill exactly does it take to keep something already pointed in more or less the right direction on target for two-three minutes until impact? ok, you couldn't expect a clean landing or even a
It takes quite a bit more than you would expect. Something that you neglect to remember is that the plane that struck the Pentagon was initially headed directly towards the Whitehouse, then executed a high-speed, high-bank turn around DC, lined up on the Pentagon and managed to nose into it at mid-level.
It is VERY difficult to control an aircraft in a high-speed nose-down attitude. ESPECIALLY those that are less than "sporty" in flight characteristics.
It is not difficult to control these types of aircraft in a 200-300 knott (knautical mile per hour, about 1.1 statute miles per hour) nose-down attitude. It can be done on autopilot in most cases. As I understand the reports, the plane that struck the Pentagon was on the standard noise-abatement approach path into National along the Potomac, and made a ~30 degree bank turn nose down into the side of the pentagon. This may have required overriding the autopilot for the final portion of the descent, but otherwise, the entire process could have been conducted using a small subset of the autopilot capabilities that could easily be figured out by a student pilot. If you're not worried about keeping your airspeed under control (not going too fast), it's relatively easy to point a plane at the ground and keep it going that way.
halfway-smooth flight path from someone who has played a MS-Windows flight sim for a few months, but - if he was going from switching off autopilot to keeping the plane pointed at something the size of the WTC....... I would imagine it would all be on the yoke too, no throttles or concerns about airspeed given you are not really going to care that much what speed or acceleration you have on impact...
Again. Think about it. The WTC is not actually that large of a target. Granted, it's was easy to pick out from the air but, lining up on it and maintaining a flight attitude that will keep you in the air until impact is a different story. If you've seen footage of the second plane impacting, look at the last second attitude correction. Had the individual who was flying the aircraft not made that correction, it would not have struck the building. (At least THAT building.) Also, airspeed is very important if you want to keep an aircraft aloft. ESPECIALLY when you are pulling turns. If you're just above stall and try to turn the aircraft, you don't turn -- you fall.
The WTC is a huge traget that is visible from a very long distance away under the weather conditions that existed. The second plane made a very small correction a few seconds before impact. Nothing I saw in the footage leads me to believe that the airplane was not operating on autopilot in altitude hold mode. The correction could have been accomplished by a small twist of the heading select knob. The world trade center impacts occured at a high enough altitude that it is not unlikely that the autopilot would not have overriden the altitude selection for terrain.
... or train for the two/three more common types, then pick a flight *on the day* that actually is flying that type of plane. book seats at the last minute (not a problem for domestic flights) or pre-book three or four different seats per attacker, and each picks a flight with the right sort of plane from the "pool" of available flights.
There are mechanisms in place that would detect this type of behavior. (Prebooking multiple flights for the same individual.)
I agree that this would be more difficult. All that was really required, though, was some time in one of the popular simulator programs and a little bit of knowledge about any flight management system and some understanding of Altitude, Heading, Waypoints, and general autopilot operations. All of this could probably be obtained in a relatively small amount of training time with any flight instructor at your local FBO. Most of it could probably be learned on a PC with readily available software. The autopilot operation of the large jets in Fly!2 and Micro$oft FS2000 is realistic enough to probably provide adequate autopilot training. This having been said, I don't put it past the various organizations to have trained type rated pilots for this purpose. Owen
--- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
-- *********************************************************************** "Every time you turn on your new car, you're turning on 20 microprocessors. Every time you use an ATM, you're using a computer. Every time I use a settop box or game machine, I'm using a computer. The only computer you don't know how to work is your Microsoft computer, right?" - Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, Inc., from an April 1997 interview in Upside Magazine *********************************************************************** Microsoft CEO Bill Gates is optimistic about Contraceptive99's potential. He recently said, "Our contraceptive products will help users do to each other what we've been doing to our customers for years." The mail above is sent from my personal account and represents my own views. It may or may not reflect the opinions of Exodus Communications, Jin Ho, Mo Sabourian, Tony Massing, Morris Taradalsky, or any other employee, officer, subsidiary, acquisition, member, partner, aff
I submit that yourself and your ATP should turn on the news. They have determined that the pilots were trained on these aircraft at at least two schools in Florida. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Owen DeLong wrote:
Apologies to the list, this is way off topic, and if you're looking for operational content, just hit delete now. However, the number of people posting bad specualtion about aviation is bothering me and I feel compelled to reply.
I hold a Private Pilot rating for Airplane Single Engine Land. I also hold an Instrument Airplane rating. I have about 800 hours of total flight time, including various single engine a small amount of multi-engine, some glider, some free balloon time. I have spent some time in the cockpit of an Airbus A-319 in flight, including an approach into San Jose International. I was in the jumpseat, but I received substantial education from the pilots while I was there. If anyone feels that my answers are not adequate, please let me know off-list and I'll get you an answer from an ATP I know who is rated in the 757 and 767 types.
John Fraizer wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, David Howe wrote:
Also, it's worth remembering that airplanes aren't all that easy to fly. This means that the perpetrators needed to find five adequate pilots, Hmm. not actually sure about this - not having ever flown anything at all, but how much skill exactly does it take to keep something already pointed in more or less the right direction on target for two-three minutes until impact? ok, you couldn't expect a clean landing or even a
It takes quite a bit more than you would expect. Something that you neglect to remember is that the plane that struck the Pentagon was initially headed directly towards the Whitehouse, then executed a high-speed, high-bank turn around DC, lined up on the Pentagon and managed to nose into it at mid-level.
It is VERY difficult to control an aircraft in a high-speed nose-down attitude. ESPECIALLY those that are less than "sporty" in flight characteristics.
It is not difficult to control these types of aircraft in a 200-300 knott (knautical mile per hour, about 1.1 statute miles per hour) nose-down attitude. It can be done on autopilot in most cases.
As I understand the reports, the plane that struck the Pentagon was on the standard noise-abatement approach path into National along the Potomac, and made a ~30 degree bank turn nose down into the side of the pentagon. This may have required overriding the autopilot for the final portion of the descent, but otherwise, the entire process could have been conducted using a small subset of the autopilot capabilities that could easily be figured out by a student pilot. If you're not worried about keeping your airspeed under control (not going too fast), it's relatively easy to point a plane at the ground and keep it going that way.
halfway-smooth flight path from someone who has played a MS-Windows flight sim for a few months, but - if he was going from switching off autopilot to keeping the plane pointed at something the size of the WTC....... I would imagine it would all be on the yoke too, no throttles or concerns about airspeed given you are not really going to care that much what speed or acceleration you have on impact...
Again. Think about it. The WTC is not actually that large of a target. Granted, it's was easy to pick out from the air but, lining up on it and maintaining a flight attitude that will keep you in the air until impact is a different story. If you've seen footage of the second plane impacting, look at the last second attitude correction. Had the individual who was flying the aircraft not made that correction, it would not have struck the building. (At least THAT building.) Also, airspeed is very important if you want to keep an aircraft aloft. ESPECIALLY when you are pulling turns. If you're just above stall and try to turn the aircraft, you don't turn -- you fall.
The WTC is a huge traget that is visible from a very long distance away under the weather conditions that existed. The second plane made a very small correction a few seconds before impact. Nothing I saw in the footage leads me to believe that the airplane was not operating on autopilot in altitude hold mode. The correction could have been accomplished by a small twist of the heading select knob. The world trade center impacts occured at a high enough altitude that it is not unlikely that the autopilot would not have overriden the altitude selection for terrain.
... or train for the two/three more common types, then pick a flight *on the day* that actually is flying that type of plane. book seats at the last minute (not a problem for domestic flights) or pre-book three or four different seats per attacker, and each picks a flight with the right sort of plane from the "pool" of available flights.
There are mechanisms in place that would detect this type of behavior. (Prebooking multiple flights for the same individual.)
I agree that this would be more difficult. All that was really required, though, was some time in one of the popular simulator programs and a little bit of knowledge about any flight management system and some understanding of Altitude, Heading, Waypoints, and general autopilot operations. All of this could probably be obtained in a relatively small amount of training time with any flight instructor at your local FBO. Most of it could probably be learned on a PC with readily available software. The autopilot operation of the large jets in Fly!2 and Micro$oft FS2000 is realistic enough to probably provide adequate autopilot training.
This having been said, I don't put it past the various organizations to have trained type rated pilots for this purpose.
Owen
--- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
-- *********************************************************************** "Every time you turn on your new car, you're turning on 20 microprocessors. Every time you use an ATM, you're using a computer. Every time I use a settop box or game machine, I'm using a computer. The only computer you don't know how to work is your Microsoft computer, right?" - Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, Inc., from an April 1997 interview in Upside Magazine
*********************************************************************** Microsoft CEO Bill Gates is optimistic about Contraceptive99's potential. He recently said, "Our contraceptive products will help users do to each other what we've been doing to our customers for years."
The mail above is sent from my personal account and represents my own views. It may or may not reflect the opinions of Exodus Communications, Jin Ho, Mo Sabourian, Tony Massing, Morris Taradalsky, or any other employee, officer, subsidiary, acquisition, member, partner, aff
There are mechanisms in place that would detect this type of behavior. (Prebooking multiple flights for the same individual.) Does a domestic flight require a passport or other form of positive ID? if not, they could book as many tickets as needed with a different name per ticket.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, David Howe wrote:
There are mechanisms in place that would detect this type of behavior. (Prebooking multiple flights for the same individual.) Does a domestic flight require a passport or other form of positive ID? if not, they could book as many tickets as needed with a different name per ticket.
Yes. Photo identification to get your tickets, period, the end. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
There are mechanisms in place that would detect this type of behavior. (Prebooking multiple flights for the same individual.) Does a domestic flight require a passport or other form of positive ID? if not, they could book as many tickets as needed with a different name per ticket.
Yes. Photo identification to get your tickets, period, the end.
Huh? You dont need any photo id to get tickets. You need it to get on the plane. Alex
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 alex@yuriev.com wrote:
There are mechanisms in place that would detect this type of behavior. (Prebooking multiple flights for the same individual.) Does a domestic flight require a passport or other form of positive ID? if not, they could book as many tickets as needed with a different name per ticket.
Yes. Photo identification to get your tickets, period, the end.
Huh? You dont need any photo id to get tickets. You need it to get on the plane.
Alex
OK. You need photo-id to get your boarding pass. Since I always use e-tickets, the boarding pass is the only "paper" involved. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
Photo ID isnt "required" per-se. Ive boarded 3 Delta flights without showing any form of photo ID, only a credit card. I've also been able to have my younger brother board a plane with NO id whatsoever, not even showing proof of name. -troy On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, John Fraizer wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 alex@yuriev.com wrote:
There are mechanisms in place that would detect this type of behavior. (Prebooking multiple flights for the same individual.) Does a domestic flight require a passport or other form of positive ID? if not, they could book as many tickets as needed with a different name per ticket.
Yes. Photo identification to get your tickets, period, the end.
Huh? You dont need any photo id to get tickets. You need it to get on the plane.
Alex
OK. You need photo-id to get your boarding pass. Since I always use e-tickets, the boarding pass is the only "paper" involved.
--- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, David Howe wrote:
There are mechanisms in place that would detect this type of behavior. (Prebooking multiple flights for the same individual.) Does a domestic flight require a passport or other form of positive ID? if not, they could book as many tickets as needed with a different name per ticket.
Yes. Photo identification to get your tickets, period, the end.
Not necessarily. I've boarded planes several times without showing a piece of ID. With the new automated check-in kiosks in several airports, if you have no luggage to check-in, you don't see a person at all.. (You still do need a credit card in your name though) Both times I left Houston-Bush International, I had my tickets printed and checked in by only telling the attendant my name. (I thought it was very strange, but didn't question it) Many really small regional airports allow you to board without going through metal detectors/bag x-rays. Once you get off the plane at the destination(larger airport) you're behind the "secure" zone, and can also board another flight without going through one. I'm not saying that these kinds of things are what caused yesterday's events, or that whoever did this didn't use fake ID's, so I'm not sure that strictly enforcing this sort of thing would have mattered anyway. -- Kevin
Many really small regional airports allow you to board without going through metal detectors/bag x-rays. Once you get off the plane at the destination(larger airport) you're behind the "secure" zone, and can also board another flight without going through one.
In 1996, NBC's Dateline ran a story on the lack of security at major airports (Boston and Newark). During yesterday's news coverage, they referred back to this story and mentioned that procedures have not changed much since then. According to that Dateline article: - A Dateline staffer was hired to drive a cart around the airport, and was "promoted" to X-ray monitor after two days. They never performed a background check, nor did they contact any of his references. - Their people were able to walk through secure areas, onto the tarmac, into baggage compartments, into wheel wells, and into passenger compartments without incident. Their person was not wearing any airport badge. He walked past numerout airline employees and was never stopped or questioned. They were successfully able to plant a package under a seat, and retrieve it at the plane's destination. NBC's article from yesterday (which cites the 1996 Dateline article) is http://www.msnbc.com/news/627379.asp No amount of questioning people at the ticket counter will do any good when the hiring system can let people with no references and no background check have unrestricted access to the airplanes. With security holes like these, the hijackers don't even need tickets. -- David
| Many really small regional airports allow you to board without | going through | metal detectors/bag x-rays. Once you get off the plane at the | destination(larger airport) you're behind the "secure" zone, and can also | board another flight without going through one. Which is why many international Airports (Narita, HKG) make you go through security again when switching planes. I don't think Changi (Singapore, where I live) does though.. They have shared de-planing/boarding areas. I guess that will change...
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 04:50:49AM +0800, Mathias Körber wrote:
| Many really small regional airports allow you to board without | going through | metal detectors/bag x-rays. Once you get off the plane at the | destination(larger airport) you're behind the "secure" zone, and can also | board another flight without going through one.
Which is why many international Airports (Narita, HKG) make you go through security again when switching planes. I don't think Changi (Singapore, where I live) does though.. They have shared de-planing/boarding areas. I guess that will change...
At MSP international layovers are secured in a sealed area that is swept before unloading, and swept again after reloading, although the security in the rest of the airport is rather lax at best (from my experience at least, where after a few metal detector sweeps we couldn't determine what caused it to go off, they looked at me, and let me go through anyway) Then of course, there's always the people who are loading/unloading the baggage (the same ones who have stolen electronic equipment, small amounts of money, and a norelco razor from my locked baggage by ripping the zipper open) who are obviously not monitored enough. I don't see things getting better anytime soon. Matthew S. Hallacy
At 02:43 PM 9/12/2001, you wrote:
Many really small regional airports allow you to board without going through metal detectors/bag x-rays. Once you get off the plane at the destination(larger airport) you're behind the "secure" zone, and can also board another flight without going through one.
Even larger airports have lax security. I had a warranty contract to repair on a case-by-case some 'Net access kiosks at Norfolk International (VA) near the gates and never had to produce a work order or any other proof of who I was or what I was doing there. Just told the security folks, "I'm supposed to work on those" and pointed down the hall. And there I went, large black bag and all... Dean Robb www.PC-Easy-va.com On-site computer services Member, ICANN At Large
It takes quite a bit more than you would expect. Something that you neglect to remember is that the plane that struck the Pentagon was initially headed directly towards the Whitehouse, then executed a high-speed, high-bank turn around DC, lined up on the Pentagon and managed to nose into it at mid-level. I hadn't seen *any* footage at that point - I am in the UK and my normal working day doesn't include TV sets (and of course streaming video reached saturation and vanished long before we even knew anything was happening over here) - and come to think of it, I *still* haven't seen any footage of the
pentagon attack. UK coverage seems limited to the second plane strike, collapse, talking heads, rinse & repeat.....
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, David Howe wrote:
WTC....... I would imagine it would all be on the yoke too, no throttles or concerns about airspeed given you are not really going to care that much what speed or acceleration you have on impact...
which in turn means that they needed to know *in advance* which kinds of planes they would be hijacking. While a lot of the pilot training could be done using Flight Simulator, you still need to know what to train for.
Your assumptions share a common fault: most commercial rated aircraft hava standardized set of instruments. You can fly one, you can fly any of em. Poorly maybe, but we're not discussing that here.
... or train for the two/three more common types, then pick a flight *on the day* that actually is flying that type of plane. book seats at the last minute (not a problem for domestic flights) or pre-book three or four different seats per attacker, and each picks a flight with the right sort of plane from the "pool" of available flights.
u -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
David Howe wrote:
Also, it's worth remembering that airplanes aren't all that easy to fly. This means that the perpetrators needed to find five adequate pilots, Hmm. not actually sure about this - not having ever flown anything at all, but how much skill exactly does it take to keep something already pointed in more or less the right direction on target for two-three minutes until impact? ok, you couldn't expect a clean landing or even a halfway-smooth flight path from someone who has played a MS-Windows flight sim for a few months, but - if he was going from switching off autopilot to keeping the plane pointed at something the size of the WTC....... I would imagine it would all be on the yoke too, no throttles or concerns about airspeed given you are not really going to care that much what speed or acceleration you have on impact...
Sorry... I have to respond to this one. I have actually flown a number of single engine airplanes, and I have some time in the cockpit of an Airbus A-319 (jumpseat, but still a good education). All they really had to do was put a waypoint into the FMS (maybe they had the flight crew do this for them before they killed them), but if they didn't, that's not too hard, and I bet half the people on this mailng list could figure it out. It's more like configuring a router than flying an airplane :-) Once the waypoint was in, the only other thing they needed to do was dial down the altitude preselect on the autopilot. Then, sit back and enjoy the ride. If they were slightly more sophisticated, they could have switched the autopilot to heading mode and used the heading select knob to fine tune the direction of flight. From what I saw of the footage for the second airplane into the tower, it flew a very straight level course directly into the side of the tower. It is not at all unlikely that this was done by programming the autopilot.
which in turn means that they needed to know *in advance* which kinds of planes they would be hijacking. While a lot of the pilot training could be done using Flight Simulator, you still need to know what to train for. ... or train for the two/three more common types, then pick a flight *on the day* that actually is flying that type of plane. book seats at the last minute (not a problem for domestic flights) or pre-book three or four different seats per attacker, and each picks a flight with the right sort of plane from the "pool" of available flights.
Sorry... I've never flown any of the types involved, but I bet if you put me in a realistic simulator and positioned me over the continental US with adequate fuel, I could carry out the attack successfuly unless I was shot down. There wasn't really a type specific need, you just needed a semi-modern (post 1965) set of cockpit avionics. Guess what... There's probably not a single domestic US airliner that doesn't fit that bill. Remeber, these guys didn't have to worry about any of the difficult parts of flying a plane. Here's a list (in no particular order) of the factors I think could be a challenge for a non-pilot. 1. Judgement -- None required, they planned to die. 2. Weather -- Clear blue skies with virtually infinite vis. 3. Landing -- Nope... Didn't have to do that. 4. Airspace -- Who cares! 5. Radios -- Nope... Probably didn't bother with those. 6. Navigation -- OK... but pretty basic, and probably got flight crew assistance getting close. Let's face it, you can aim for the world trade center from a very long ways away at an altitude of 2000 feet or more. 7. Takeoff -- Conveniently handled by the flight crew. 8. Clearances -- Who cares! 9. In flight emergencies -- Again, if something goes wrong, the plane just crashes. Heck, that may explain the one in PA. Adequate training for #6 can be gleaned from a copy of any of the following packages: Flight Unlimited (1 or 2) Fly (or Fly2K or Fly-2) Any of the SubLogic Flight Simulators Any PC based Flight Training Device Micro$oft Flight Simulator (any version) many others. Also, you could learn enough to do this from about 10 hours of flight instruction at your local FBO. Total cost: ~$1,500. Just my opinion about the matter, but at least I know a little about the cockpits involved. (757 and 767 are so similar that they share a common FAA type rating, so any pilot rated for one can fly either, and they both have "glass" advanced cockpits with very capable and easy to program autopilot and FMS systems.) Owen DeLong KB6MER Private Pilot, Airplane Single Engine Land, Instrument Airplane -- *********************************************************************** "Every time you turn on your new car, you're turning on 20 microprocessors. Every time you use an ATM, you're using a computer. Every time I use a settop box or game machine, I'm using a computer. The only computer you don't know how to work is your Microsoft computer, right?" - Scott McNealy, CEO of Sun Microsystems, Inc., from an April 1997 interview in Upside Magazine *********************************************************************** Microsoft CEO Bill Gates is optimistic about Contraceptive99's potential. He recently said, "Our contraceptive products will help users do to each other what we've been doing to our customers for years." The mail above is sent from my personal account and represents my own views. It may or may not reflect the opinions of Exodus Communications, Jin Ho, Mo Sabourian, Tony Massing, Morris Taradalsky, or any other employee, officer, subsidiary, acquisition, member, partner, aff
: Delivered-To: nanog-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu : Delivered-To: nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu : Delivered-To: nanog@merit.edu : : David Howe wrote: : > : > >Also, it's worth remembering that airplanes aren't all that easy to : > > fly. This means that the perpetrators needed to find five adequate : > > pilots, : > Hmm. not actually sure about this - not having ever flown anything at : > all, but how much skill exactly does it take to keep something already : > pointed in more or less the right direction on target for two-three : > minutes until impact? ok, you couldn't expect a clean landing or even a : > halfway-smooth flight path from someone who has played a MS-Windows : > flight sim for a few months, but - if he was going from switching off : > autopilot to keeping the plane pointed at something the size of the : > WTC....... I would imagine it would all be on the yoke too, no throttles : > or concerns about airspeed given you are not really going to care that : > much what speed or acceleration you have on impact... : : Sorry... I have to respond to this one. I have actually flown a number : of : single engine airplanes, and I have some time in the cockpit of an : Airbus : A-319 (jumpseat, but still a good education). : : All they really had to do was put a waypoint into the FMS (maybe they : had : the flight crew do this for them before they killed them), but if they : didn't, : that's not too hard, and I bet half the people on this mailng list could : figure it out. It's more like configuring a router than flying an : airplane :-) Once the waypoint was in, the only other thing they : needed to do was dial down the altitude preselect on the autopilot. : Then, sit back and enjoy the ride. If they were slightly more : sophisticated, : they could have switched the autopilot to heading mode and used the : heading : select knob to fine tune the direction of flight. From what I saw of : the : footage for the second airplane into the tower, it flew a very straight : level course directly into the side of the tower. It is not at all : unlikely that this was done by programming the autopilot. I disagree. CNN.com had some video that showed the second plane in a shallow dive with just an edge of bank. It's clear to me that the pilot of the plane was making minor adjustments and corrections right up until the impact. Peace, Petr -- Systems, Networks and Gadgets, done with Artful Intelligence -<>-<_>-<__>-<_>-<>- Policy: ASCII/text attchmnts alway read. PDF maybe read. Others, by necessity, may be ignored. Don't take it personally, it's a time issue.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 12:22:42AM +0100, David Howe wrote:
Also, it's worth remembering that airplanes aren't all that easy to fly. This means that the perpetrators needed to find five adequate pilots, Hmm. not actually sure about this - not having ever flown anything at all, but how much skill exactly does it take to keep something already pointed in more or less the right direction on target for two-three minutes until impact? ok, you couldn't expect a clean landing or even a halfway-smooth flight path from someone who has played a MS-Windows flight sim for a few months, but - if he was going from switching off autopilot to keeping the plane pointed at something the size of the WTC....... I would imagine it would all be on the yoke too, no throttles or concerns about airspeed given you are not really going to care that much what speed or acceleration you have on impact...
Actually, according to the pretty pictures on ABC the flight path for one of the planes at least required a 45 degree turn, and involved a lot of accelleration/slowing, the slow replays also show some not-so-good flying skills, or perhaps a goodbye roll..
which in turn means that they needed to know *in advance* which kinds of planes they would be hijacking. While a lot of the pilot training could be done using Flight Simulator, you still need to know what to train for. ... or train for the two/three more common types, then pick a flight *on the day* that actually is flying that type of plane. book seats at the last minute (not a problem for domestic flights) or pre-book three or four different seats per attacker, and each picks a flight with the right sort of plane from the "pool" of available flights.
Just about every airline with a website displays the kind of plane you'll be in, months in advance. Matthew S. Hallacy
participants (21)
-
alex＠yuriev.com -
Bill Larson -
Dan Hollis -
Dave Stewart -
David Charlap -
David Howe -
Dean Robb -
Joel Jaeggli -
John Fraizer -
John Hall -
Kevin Day -
Lloyd Taylor -
M. David Leonard -
Mathias K�rber -
Matthew S. Hallacy -
measl＠mfn.org -
Owen DeLong -
Petr Swedock -
Scott A Crosby -
Troy Corbin -
Vadim Antonov