80ktsClamp

What's even funnier is that you copied content from DeltaNet to put that on here.

gloopy

Not to mention what if it were a single green FO with a 64.9 year old Captain doing 2 pilot ops after a magical ATA-fantasy "domicile reset", 10 hour block, 3 hour ETOPS and this happened at the ETP and the old guy checked out. I guess that's why they sell insurance.

727C47

the vertical fin from that A300 serves as the gate guard at the DHL sort facility in Leipzig, EDDP.

Boomer

After watching that video, I'm certain I didn't see any passenger windows. Also, the aircraft is entirely gray, more like a military plane than an airliner. And there were funny shadows under the wings, the kind of shadows that could only be made by gas tanks or rockets.

It's rather obvious that this is a military tanker, maybe a KC-135 based on the size, and the real mission was to close the Warsaw airport because that's where they keep the records that prove George Bush hates New Orleans and he ordered the levees to be blown up.

Or maybe it was a cruise missile, which would explain why there was no landing gear. Which of course means that the photos showing a 767 landing in a shower of sparks are forgeries, planted by Fox News.

crewdawg52

Not to change the subject, but............

Anyone based in DTW use Dr Dana Bush (Waterford, MI) as their FAA medical examiner?

Xray678

I have about 2300 hours PIC of a four engine heavy jet. I am very familiar with the handling characteristics with one or two engines out. And I didn't say I would fly accross the ocean. I did say I would have no problem flying from LAX to NYC and landing there rather than dump 250K of gas.

forgot to bid

You have me convinced Boom!!!!

And you didn't mention it but a 767 fuselage is wider than a runway and that video that airplane is not wider. And it is obvious that it was traveling at a speed that exceeded it's maximum operating limits that should have caused in-flight structural failure. If you look at EgyptAir EA990, it was a 767 that entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. I have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. It's obvious this LOT 767 was exceeding that speed coming into land. Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie. Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves.

Where can I join Pilots for LOT 767 Truth!!!! ?

forgot to bid

I know!!!


But it was on the outside of Deltanet, that's a free for all.

scambo1

While we are debunking theories, I have to jump on the boomer bandwagon: In the video, there were no propellers which is clear evidence that this was a top secret propeller plane that was able to shed its props in flight for higher speed. It probably did this at high altitude and high speed indicating a further advance in scramjet technology.

There was no gear indicating that it was the naval version intended to land in the water.

There is a halo around the lights, this was due to the fact that in production this plane was built from alien technology and has been frequently filmed and mistaken for a ufo due to these halos.

The only real question remaining is why does LOT fly the naval version of the aurora?

Green Giant

Those are some great questions. I still wonder why they were not still "cloked" for landing. It would have been great to land "cloked" then un-cloke for the media. Maybe some of the Star Trek people can chime in........