Cyprus-Forum.com

[cyprusgrump]

I did not say anything of the sort! That is where you always go wrong, you extrapolate anything to create something else without actually bothering with fact! But .... to respond to that I would say ....... are you absolutely sure the US (or certain factions within/without the US Govt.) were not? Do you honestly believe that a plan like this was all carried out by a handful of Muslims ..... and nobody noticed?

What I actually posed to counter Cyprusgrump's stupidity, is a scenario based on pure irrefutable evidence!

First step ....... WHAT happened? To work that out look at the proven evidence, and those two video's are just that that, raw evidence. They actually tell you something very obvious if you are smart enough to understand what you see. The answer is also irrefutable ....... it actually PROVES WTC1 was not brought down by either fire of structural damage. If it applies to WTC1 then the probability is that the same happened to WTC2 as, from other videos, the scenarios were practically identical. So somebody is telling lies!

Without having substantial reasons to prove this argument is the higher probability than the official explanation, it is pointless to try and apportion blame. The videos do that and although I DID work it out for myself, as the recent video shows, I am not alone, in fact it is quite well known among those that have followed events over the years.

The events of 9/11 have never actually been through an open investigation! The official Investigations by NIST and FEMA, were implemented with very limited and restrictive briefs. BOTH investigations were carried out by Govt. selected investigators, dictated and controlled by the US Administration and a huge amount of the 'evidence' that they used to reach their conclusions, has never been released. NIST has actually admitted that WTC7 came down at free-fall acceleration!

I have no proof of who was behind it, only those that were, know the whole truth. A free and public, impartial investigation of events is all those who support the truth movement have ever asked for. Not ONE of those 'Truth' sites has ever pointed the finger because, like me, they understand that unless you can show what happened ...... anything else is speculation.

That is the first sensible thing you have posted on this forum...

You have no proof but believe "they" planted explosives in the building from 1993...?

...and "they" connected everything up with wireless and nobody noticed any of this...?

...and then "they" flew two aircraft into the buildings so accurately that the impact and resulting fire didn't affect any of the explosives or programmable controller,s Thermate, dual highways, smart wireless fire systems etc.?

And yet, nobody has squeaked a word about it...? All the people that must have been involved, hundreds or perhaps thousands of them not one person has had a bout of concience, even on their death bed and spilled the story... Really??

You admit you have no evidence but everybody that disagrees with your fantasy conspiracy theories is stupid... Do you realise how ridiculous that makes you sound...?

Do you believe they didn't land on the moon too...?

Sometimes it just comes down to Occam's Razor...

[Robin Hood]

I did not say anything of the sort! That is where you always go wrong, you extrapolate anything to create something else without actually bothering with fact! But .... to respond to that I would say ....... are you absolutely sure the US (or certain factions within/without the US Govt.) were not? Do you honestly believe that a plan like this was all carried out by a handful of Muslims ..... and nobody noticed?

What I actually posed to counter Cyprusgrump's stupidity, is a scenario based on pure irrefutable evidence!

First step ....... WHAT happened? To work that out look at the proven evidence, and those two video's are just that that, raw evidence. They actually tell you something very obvious if you are smart enough to understand what you see. The answer is also irrefutable ....... it actually PROVES WTC1 was not brought down by either fire of structural damage. If it applies to WTC1 then the probability is that the same happened to WTC2 as, from other videos, the scenarios were practically identical. So somebody is telling lies!

Without having substantial reasons to prove this argument is the higher probability than the official explanation, it is pointless to try and apportion blame. The videos do that and although I DID work it out for myself, as the recent video shows, I am not alone, in fact it is quite well known among those that have followed events over the years.

The events of 9/11 have never actually been through an open investigation! The official Investigations by NIST and FEMA, were implemented with very limited and restrictive briefs. BOTH investigations were carried out by Govt. selected investigators, dictated and controlled by the US Administration and a huge amount of the 'evidence' that they used to reach their conclusions, has never been released. NIST has actually admitted that WTC7 came down at free-fall acceleration!

I have no proof of who was behind it, only those that were, know the whole truth. A free and public, impartial investigation of events is all those who support the truth movement have ever asked for. Not ONE of those 'Truth' sites has ever pointed the finger because, like me, they understand that unless you can show what happened ...... anything else is speculation.

That is the first sensible thing you have posted on this forum...

You have no proof but believe "they" planted explosives in the building from 1993...?

Who said anything about explosives ..... YOU! I just said it wasn't fire or structural damage!

...and "they" connected everything up with wireless and nobody noticed any of this...?

As explained, the buildings underwent extensive works between 1993 and 2001. Most of it was done in the central core, out of site of the tenants. Do you have any concept of why prewired controlled demolition, was a probability and a plausible reason after 1993?

...and then "they" flew two aircraft into the buildings so accurately that the impact and resulting fire didn't affect any of the explosives or programmable controller's Thermate, dual highways, smart wireless fire systems etc.?

Once again - who says they didn't ..... we all saw it ..... it is proven. BUT the impact did not bring the towers down, one reason being they were designed to survive a direct impact by a jet airliner! But do you have any idea how to install such a system ..... I do, as I have designed and installed several fire detection and deluge control systems over the years as well as total plant integrated control systems, safety and shutdown systems, load shedding systems etc.

And yet, nobody has squeaked a word about it...? All the people that must have been involved, hundreds or perhaps thousands of them not one person has had a bout of concience, even on their death bed and spilled the story... Really??

Oh dear! But 19 Muslims with box cutters arranged and carried it out with a sick old man on dialysis in a cave complex in the mountains of Afghanistan, with no communications, thousands of miles from the event ..........but managed to do it and not a single person in the Worlds biggest and most comprehensive security services noticed anything strange. Really???

You admit you have no evidence but everybody that disagrees with your fantasy conspiracy theories is stupid... Do you realise how ridiculous that makes you sound...?

I have given you the evidence ..... do you want me to spoon feed you? You think you are so smart ....... you do it ...... assuming you can!

Do you believe they didn't land on the moon too...?

Another true believer response! You forgot holograms, little green men and death rays ...... and special Israeli Atomic weapon!

Sometimes it just comes down to Occam's Razor...

Exactly ...... the simplest solution ..... but that that only valid if the result in this case complies with the Laws of Physics, especially Newton's Laws of Motion. When applied to 9/11 the version you believe so passionately in, doesn't! Unfortunately for you and all the true believers, the official story is a deception!

You just demonstrate how little you know or comprehend. I gave you PROOF, undeniable proof! I even gave you a hint which virtually gave the answer away ......... and you still missed it! You were too dumb to actually work it out even when you are all but given the answer and it's ALL there.

You parrot the same old 'reasons' that the believers of the official conspiracy theory always resort to, but they don't have a clue about it because they have never bothered to work it out for themselves using just raw evidence. It is a waste of time even trying to explain anything to you ..... your brain is preloaded with rubbish. The difference between my approach and yours is that I can actually explain down to the detail why those videos provide absolute proof that fire/damage could not possibly have brought down WTC1 and most probably any one of the three buildings. Your 'proof' it did fails when Physics is applied so you can't prove it did, because any argument you put forward can be destroyed by a reasonable command of secondary school physics. But obviously with you lacking in that sort of intellect, all you can do is make stupid remarks out of pure ignorance!

Alaska University will be releasing the peer reviewed final version of their research into WTC7. Professor Huxley and some other scientists after a four year study again prove the Official story is an impossibility .......but people like you, with no qualifications or knowledge of the subject, except what you have been told, think you are smarter!

[cyprusgrump]

I did not say anything of the sort! That is where you always go wrong, you extrapolate anything to create something else without actually bothering with fact! But .... to respond to that I would say ....... are you absolutely sure the US (or certain factions within/without the US Govt.) were not? Do you honestly believe that a plan like this was all carried out by a handful of Muslims ..... and nobody noticed?

What I actually posed to counter Cyprusgrump's stupidity, is a scenario based on pure irrefutable evidence!

First step ....... WHAT happened? To work that out look at the proven evidence, and those two video's are just that that, raw evidence. They actually tell you something very obvious if you are smart enough to understand what you see. The answer is also irrefutable ....... it actually PROVES WTC1 was not brought down by either fire of structural damage. If it applies to WTC1 then the probability is that the same happened to WTC2 as, from other videos, the scenarios were practically identical. So somebody is telling lies!

Without having substantial reasons to prove this argument is the higher probability than the official explanation, it is pointless to try and apportion blame. The videos do that and although I DID work it out for myself, as the recent video shows, I am not alone, in fact it is quite well known among those that have followed events over the years.

The events of 9/11 have never actually been through an open investigation! The official Investigations by NIST and FEMA, were implemented with very limited and restrictive briefs. BOTH investigations were carried out by Govt. selected investigators, dictated and controlled by the US Administration and a huge amount of the 'evidence' that they used to reach their conclusions, has never been released. NIST has actually admitted that WTC7 came down at free-fall acceleration!

I have no proof of who was behind it, only those that were, know the whole truth. A free and public, impartial investigation of events is all those who support the truth movement have ever asked for. Not ONE of those 'Truth' sites has ever pointed the finger because, like me, they understand that unless you can show what happened ...... anything else is speculation.

That is the first sensible thing you have posted on this forum...

You have no proof but believe "they" planted explosives in the building from 1993...?

Who said anything about explosives ..... YOU! I just said it wasn't fire or structural damage!

...and "they" connected everything up with wireless and nobody noticed any of this...?

As explained, the buildings underwent extensive works between 1993 and 2001. Most of it was done in the central core, out of site of the tenants. Do you have any concept of why prewired controlled demolition, was a probability and a plausible reason after 1993?

...and then "they" flew two aircraft into the buildings so accurately that the impact and resulting fire didn't affect any of the explosives or programmable controller's Thermate, dual highways, smart wireless fire systems etc.?

Once again - who says they didn't ..... we all saw it ..... it is proven. BUT the impact did not bring the towers down, one reason being they were designed to survive a direct impact by a jet airliner! But do you have any idea how to install such a system ..... I do, as I have designed and installed several fire detection and deluge control systems over the years as well as total plant integrated control systems, safety and shutdown systems, load shedding systems etc.

And yet, nobody has squeaked a word about it...? All the people that must have been involved, hundreds or perhaps thousands of them not one person has had a bout of concience, even on their death bed and spilled the story... Really??

Oh dear! But 19 Muslims with box cutters arranged and carried it out with a sick old man on dialysis in a cave complex in the mountains of Afghanistan, with no communications, thousands of miles from the event ..........but managed to do it and not a single person in the Worlds biggest and most comprehensive security services noticed anything strange. Really???

You admit you have no evidence but everybody that disagrees with your fantasy conspiracy theories is stupid... Do you realise how ridiculous that makes you sound...?

I have given you the evidence ..... do you want me to spoon feed you? You think you are so smart ....... you do it ...... assuming you can!

Do you believe they didn't land on the moon too...?

Another true believer response! You forgot holograms, little green men and death rays ...... and special Israeli Atomic weapon!

Sometimes it just comes down to Occam's Razor...

Exactly ...... the simplest solution ..... but that that only valid if the result in this case complies with the Laws of Physics, especially Newton's Laws of Motion. When applied to 9/11 the version you believe so passionately in, doesn't! Unfortunately for you and all the true believers, the official story is a deception!

You just demonstrate how little you know or comprehend. I gave you PROOF, undeniable proof! I even gave you a hint which virtually gave the answer away ......... and you still missed it! You were too dumb to actually work it out even when you are all but given the answer and it's ALL there.

You parrot the same old 'reasons' that the believers of the official conspiracy theory always resort to, but they don't have a clue about it because they have never bothered to work it out for themselves using just raw evidence. It is a waste of time even trying to explain anything to you ..... your brain is preloaded with rubbish. The difference between my approach and yours is that I can actually explain down to the detail why those videos provide absolute proof that fire/damage could not possibly have brought down WTC1 and most probably any one of the three buildings. Your 'proof' it did fails when Physics is applied so you can't prove it did, because any argument you put forward can be destroyed by a reasonable command of secondary school physics. But obviously with you lacking in that sort of intellect, all you can do is make stupid remarks out of pure ignorance!

Alaska University will be releasing the peer reviewed final version of their research into WTC7. Professor Huxley and some other scientists after a four year study again prove the Official story is an impossibility .......but people like you, with no qualifications or knowledge of the subject, except what you have been told, think you are smarter!

As expected, your usual old bollocks and Straw Man arguments!

...and you claim my brain is pre-loaded with rubbish!

[cyprusgrump]

Lets face it Robin, you can't prove jack shit... You can just post links to fellow conspiracy twonks...

If you could the world would be beating a path to your door, but they aren't. You're posting your ridiculous loony conspiracy shite on an obscure Cyprus forum that only half a dozen people read...

That is all the proof I need mate...

[CBBB]

Lets face it Robin, you can't prove jack shit... You can just post links to fellow conspiracy twonks...

If you could the world would be beating a path to your door, but they aren't. You're posting your ridiculous loony conspiracy shite on an obscure Cyprus forum that only half a dozen people read...

That is all the proof I need mate...

I hope it hasn't taken you this long to come to that conclusion!

[cyprusgrump]

Lets face it Robin, you can't prove jack shit... You can just post links to fellow conspiracy twonks...

If you could the world would be beating a path to your door, but they aren't. You're posting your ridiculous loony conspiracy shite on an obscure Cyprus forum that only half a dozen people read...

That is all the proof I need mate...

I hope it hasn't taken you this long to come to that conclusion!

[Paphitis]

Kikapu:

I stand by my above comments. There has been many engine fires, engine shutdowns, engine disintegrations, and one or two engines falling off during a flight. You are never going to get the whole aircraft in a complete fireball crashing to earth, especially when the aircraft had just taken of few minutes earlier and was barely at 10,000 ft. Something other than an engine on fire would have to have caused that fireball, like two surface to air missiles for example or on board bomb.

The reason I had a question over what you said, was not the idea that an engine failure/fire would be unlikely to bring an aircraft down. I referenced the Airbus 380 flight because of the INDICATIONS of what such a failure COULD cause that WOULD bring the aircraft down.

All the avionics failed in the 380 incident and modern aeroplanes rely 100% on electronics. An engine blowing up would/could be like raking the aircraft with a machine gun ..... and it’s pot luck what the debris will impact. A lot of the avionics is under the floor toward the front of the aircraft ...... so the engine failure would not bring it down but the resulting damage could.

Remember Concorde in Paris? One relatively small piece of metal on the runway destroyed the whole aircraft because it set of an unpredictable chain of events.

I am NOT saying a failed engine(s) does not bring an aircraft down, because it can and it has. My ONLY disagreement with you is, it will not bring an aircraft down in a complete fireball. I understand what happened to Qantas 380 as far as the avionics goes after the disintegration of the No. 2 engine and after landing, the No. 1 engine would not shut down for almost 2 hours from memory, even after being hosed down with water and foam for the entire time.

Concorde in Paris crash had ruptured fuel tank from blown tyre on takeoff, which then the fuel went into the No. 1&2 engines intake to create the huge fire trail. The pilot may have shut down the wrong engine from memory again. A disaster that should have never happened.

Engine failure should not bring down an airliner. The procedures for engine failure are so well rehearsed, one engine inop flight isn't something that should kill people. Maybe only when other factors are involved such as shutting down the wrong engine (has happened), weather or some other structural issue or failure. An aircraft to achieve certification needs to perform with an engine failure at Decision Speed (V1) where there is not enough runway remaining to abort the take and MUST proceed with the take off and achieve a climb gradient sufficient to clear all obstacles and get to the minimum safe altitude for obstacle clearance. All jet and turboprop aircraft can easily achieve that. And once the aircraft is trimmed for asymmetric flight, you can even get to your destination. Back in the day we use to regularly shut down engines to increase endurance and range when on patrol thousands of kilometers out over the oceans with no place to go. In fact we had to shut down engines to get the range to come back home.

More chance of winning the lotto than an airliner crashing from an engine failure.

Just to put things into perspective. I just got back home from the sim. The exercise (torment) Iwas put through was as follows. Take-off from Canberra Runway 35, engine failure at V1, continue the take off roll, execute the Canberra 9 Radar Standard Instrument departure, get to acceleration altitude, accelerate and get the flaps up, at acceleration altitude, execute all engine failure memory items, shutdown the inoperative engine, continue to climb out to 10000FT, then go through the engine failure checklists (3 in total), make a pan pan call, get radar vectored back to Canberra to enter the holding pattern over the NDB (beacon), then execute the NDB Instrument approach, not get visual (at night btw) and execute the missed approach, climb to 6000FT, then get vectored for the Canberra 13 DME Arc onto the ILS for another Instrument approach, not get visual, execute another missed approach, climb to 5000Ft, then have an Instrument failure meaning we are on limited panel and standby Artificial Horizon, get diverted to Melbourne because there was a terrorist attack in Canberra, introduce a glide-slope failure resulting in us needing to do a Localizer Approach into Melbourne, not get visual there either, conduct a missed approach, come round for the VOR approach and get visual from that and land. Then do V1 cuts which are engine failures on the runway, steep turns, unusual attitudes, and 3 night circuits to cover off my night recency. All with one engine out. I'm still alive, didn't kill anyone either even though it was in a sim. Now there is more chance of a major asteroid hitting earth than all of that occurring in the 1 flight.

Even the Lion Air and Ethiopian Max disasters occurred as a result of other factors. MCAS was NOT the reason for these airliners crashing. It was a factor and it was only a factor because both crews didn't know what to do. DELTA has had many MCAS malfunctions and the issue is easily resolved by disengaging it. Even a bird strike on the MCAS sensor can cause a failure.

And by other factors I mean - deficiency in training, systems knowledge, having inexperienced crews and so on.

You can get a job with many airlines around the world with 180 hours total time on a Cessna 150. A practice that also holds true for some of the blue ribbon operators like Emirates and QATAR even.

[Kikapu]

Kikapu:

I stand by my above comments. There has been many engine fires, engine shutdowns, engine disintegrations, and one or two engines falling off during a flight. You are never going to get the whole aircraft in a complete fireball crashing to earth, especially when the aircraft had just taken of few minutes earlier and was barely at 10,000 ft. Something other than an engine on fire would have to have caused that fireball, like two surface to air missiles for example or on board bomb.

The reason I had a question over what you said, was not the idea that an engine failure/fire would be unlikely to bring an aircraft down. I referenced the Airbus 380 flight because of the INDICATIONS of what such a failure COULD cause that WOULD bring the aircraft down.

All the avionics failed in the 380 incident and modern aeroplanes rely 100% on electronics. An engine blowing up would/could be like raking the aircraft with a machine gun ..... and it’s pot luck what the debris will impact. A lot of the avionics is under the floor toward the front of the aircraft ...... so the engine failure would not bring it down but the resulting damage could.

Remember Concorde in Paris? One relatively small piece of metal on the runway destroyed the whole aircraft because it set of an unpredictable chain of events.

I am NOT saying a failed engine(s) does not bring an aircraft down, because it can and it has. My ONLY disagreement with you is, it will not bring an aircraft down in a complete fireball. I understand what happened to Qantas 380 as far as the avionics goes after the disintegration of the No. 2 engine and after landing, the No. 1 engine would not shut down for almost 2 hours from memory, even after being hosed down with water and foam for the entire time.

Concorde in Paris crash had ruptured fuel tank from blown tyre on takeoff, which then the fuel went into the No. 1&2 engines intake to create the huge fire trail. The pilot may have shut down the wrong engine from memory again. A disaster that should have never happened.

Engine failure should not bring down an airliner. The procedures for engine failure are so well rehearsed, one engine inop flight isn't something that should kill people. Maybe only when other factors are involved such as shutting down the wrong engine (has happened), weather or some other structural issue or failure. An aircraft to achieve certification needs to perform with an engine failure at Decision Speed (V1) where there is not enough runway remaining to abort the take and MUST proceed with the take off and achieve a climb gradient sufficient to clear all obstacles and get to the minimum safe altitude for obstacle clearance. All jet and turboprop aircraft can easily achieve that. And once the aircraft is trimmed for asymmetric flight, you can even get to your destination. Back in the day we use to regularly shut down engines to increase endurance and range when on patrol thousands of kilometers out over the oceans with no place to go. In fact we had to shut down engines to get the range to come back home.

More chance of winning the lotto than an airliner crashing from an engine failure.

Just to put things into perspective. I just got back home from the sim. The exercise (torment) Iwas put through was as follows. Take-off from Canberra Runway 35, engine failure at V1, continue the take off roll, execute the Canberra 9 Radar Standard Instrument departure, get to acceleration altitude, accelerate and get the flaps up, at acceleration altitude, execute all engine failure memory items, shutdown the inoperative engine, continue to climb out to 10000FT, then go through the engine failure checklists (3 in total), make a pan pan call, get radar vectored back to Canberra to enter the holding pattern over the NDB (beacon), then execute the NDB Instrument approach, not get visual (at night btw) and execute the missed approach, climb to 6000FT, then get vectored for the Canberra 13 DME Arc onto the ILS for another Instrument approach, not get visual, execute another missed approach, climb to 5000Ft, then have an Instrument failure meaning we are on limited panel and standby Artificial Horizon, get diverted to Melbourne because there was a terrorist attack in Canberra, introduce a glide-slope failure resulting in us needing to do a Localizer Approach into Melbourne, not get visual there either, conduct a missed approach, come round for the VOR approach and get visual from that and land. Then do V1 cuts which are engine failures on the runway, steep turns, unusual attitudes, and 3 night circuits to cover off my night recency. All with one engine out. I'm still alive, didn't kill anyone either even though it was in a sim. Now there is more chance of a major asteroid hitting earth than all of that occurring in the 1 flight.

Even the Lion Air and Ethiopian Max disasters occurred as a result of other factors. MCAS was NOT the reason for these airliners crashing. It was a factor and it was only a factor because both crews didn't know what to do. DELTA has had many MCAS malfunctions and the issue is easily resolved by disengaging it. Even a bird strike on the MCAS sensor can cause a failure.

And by other factors I mean - deficiency in training, systems knowledge, having inexperienced crews and so on.

You can get a job with many airlines around the world with 180 hours total time on a Cessna 150. A practice that also holds true for some of the blue ribbon operators like Emirates and QATAR even.

Good clear explanation on the engine related incidents during flight.

It use to be one needed to have at least 1500 flight hours to be able to obtain ATP (Air Transport Pilot) license.

What happened?

[Paphitis]

Kikapu:

I stand by my above comments. There has been many engine fires, engine shutdowns, engine disintegrations, and one or two engines falling off during a flight. You are never going to get the whole aircraft in a complete fireball crashing to earth, especially when the aircraft had just taken of few minutes earlier and was barely at 10,000 ft. Something other than an engine on fire would have to have caused that fireball, like two surface to air missiles for example or on board bomb.

The reason I had a question over what you said, was not the idea that an engine failure/fire would be unlikely to bring an aircraft down. I referenced the Airbus 380 flight because of the INDICATIONS of what such a failure COULD cause that WOULD bring the aircraft down.

All the avionics failed in the 380 incident and modern aeroplanes rely 100% on electronics. An engine blowing up would/could be like raking the aircraft with a machine gun ..... and it’s pot luck what the debris will impact. A lot of the avionics is under the floor toward the front of the aircraft ...... so the engine failure would not bring it down but the resulting damage could.

Remember Concorde in Paris? One relatively small piece of metal on the runway destroyed the whole aircraft because it set of an unpredictable chain of events.

I am NOT saying a failed engine(s) does not bring an aircraft down, because it can and it has. My ONLY disagreement with you is, it will not bring an aircraft down in a complete fireball. I understand what happened to Qantas 380 as far as the avionics goes after the disintegration of the No. 2 engine and after landing, the No. 1 engine would not shut down for almost 2 hours from memory, even after being hosed down with water and foam for the entire time.

Concorde in Paris crash had ruptured fuel tank from blown tyre on takeoff, which then the fuel went into the No. 1&2 engines intake to create the huge fire trail. The pilot may have shut down the wrong engine from memory again. A disaster that should have never happened.

Engine failure should not bring down an airliner. The procedures for engine failure are so well rehearsed, one engine inop flight isn't something that should kill people. Maybe only when other factors are involved such as shutting down the wrong engine (has happened), weather or some other structural issue or failure. An aircraft to achieve certification needs to perform with an engine failure at Decision Speed (V1) where there is not enough runway remaining to abort the take and MUST proceed with the take off and achieve a climb gradient sufficient to clear all obstacles and get to the minimum safe altitude for obstacle clearance. All jet and turboprop aircraft can easily achieve that. And once the aircraft is trimmed for asymmetric flight, you can even get to your destination. Back in the day we use to regularly shut down engines to increase endurance and range when on patrol thousands of kilometers out over the oceans with no place to go. In fact we had to shut down engines to get the range to come back home.

More chance of winning the lotto than an airliner crashing from an engine failure.

Just to put things into perspective. I just got back home from the sim. The exercise (torment) Iwas put through was as follows. Take-off from Canberra Runway 35, engine failure at V1, continue the take off roll, execute the Canberra 9 Radar Standard Instrument departure, get to acceleration altitude, accelerate and get the flaps up, at acceleration altitude, execute all engine failure memory items, shutdown the inoperative engine, continue to climb out to 10000FT, then go through the engine failure checklists (3 in total), make a pan pan call, get radar vectored back to Canberra to enter the holding pattern over the NDB (beacon), then execute the NDB Instrument approach, not get visual (at night btw) and execute the missed approach, climb to 6000FT, then get vectored for the Canberra 13 DME Arc onto the ILS for another Instrument approach, not get visual, execute another missed approach, climb to 5000Ft, then have an Instrument failure meaning we are on limited panel and standby Artificial Horizon, get diverted to Melbourne because there was a terrorist attack in Canberra, introduce a glide-slope failure resulting in us needing to do a Localizer Approach into Melbourne, not get visual there either, conduct a missed approach, come round for the VOR approach and get visual from that and land. Then do V1 cuts which are engine failures on the runway, steep turns, unusual attitudes, and 3 night circuits to cover off my night recency. All with one engine out. I'm still alive, didn't kill anyone either even though it was in a sim. Now there is more chance of a major asteroid hitting earth than all of that occurring in the 1 flight.

Even the Lion Air and Ethiopian Max disasters occurred as a result of other factors. MCAS was NOT the reason for these airliners crashing. It was a factor and it was only a factor because both crews didn't know what to do. DELTA has had many MCAS malfunctions and the issue is easily resolved by disengaging it. Even a bird strike on the MCAS sensor can cause a failure.

And by other factors I mean - deficiency in training, systems knowledge, having inexperienced crews and so on.

You can get a job with many airlines around the world with 180 hours total time on a Cessna 150. A practice that also holds true for some of the blue ribbon operators like Emirates and QATAR even.

Good clear explanation on the engine related incidents during flight.

It use to be one needed to have at least 1500 flight hours to be able to obtain ATP (Air Transport Pilot) license.

What happened?

Use to be, but not anymore. Worldwide pilot shortage.

And the sad thing is this - people will be killed. Lion Air and Ethiopian are 2 clear examples of airlines that are deficient in their training establishment and procedures. But they are not the only ones. Emirates also employ very inexperienced pilots but their training is top notch. When you employ low time pilots, it's necessary to mitigate against the risks by ensuring the right amount of training and procedures are in place. So I would still fly with Emirates and QATAR but can't for the life of me understand why anyone would put their family on Lion Air. Not even for the sake of a cheaper fare. i would rather pay more and get a ticket on the likes of QANTAS, Emirates, QATAR, United, Cathay and such like. Many great airlines around the world, but Ethiopian and Lion Air are not my cup of tea.

Things like MCAS and engine failures will occur. Should they result in a catastrophe and total loss of life? No it shouldn't. MCAS can fail anytime as can an engine. There are procedures yo deal with these things.

Cathay Pacific also employ low time pilots. In fact they give scholarships to high school graduates, send them to Australia to get an Australian CPL and then into the sim in Hong Kong and 4 weeks later, into a B777.

[Kikapu]

Surely the pilot in command, the captain has more than 1500 hours and is well certified to fly the equipment he/she is assigned to do so. The lack of first officers flight time and experience not being adequate but still allowed to occupy the right seat adds credibility that we have already unofficially moved to one pilot flights. The inexperienced second pilot is just a “window dressing” for the flying public.

On another related story that was in the news very recently where an Airbus 350 had a successful fully automated take off, however, there were still two pilots in the cockpit but were completely hands off once they had taxied the aircraft and aligned it to the center line on the runway. From then on, the aircraft did what it needed to do to airborne by automation only.

Single piloting will become official sooner rather than later, because of pilot shortages, as well as being cheaper for the airlines. This will become the precursor to the eventual of no pilot, but a very skilled technical person on board just to monitor the flight’s computers in about 20-30 years.