You're assuming that the airplane had no thrust at all. I did wrap the word glide with quotes. All I did was take the available data, right or wrong, and extrapolate it to produce a radius around the 2000 ft ASL point. I make no assumptions regarding, or lack there-of, his options.
Remember, the plane still had some thrust. I used the flightaware data of the actual flight and not from a handbook, for better or for worst. If you have better data pls do post it. One suggestion is to try to figure out the error in the radar data pts; filter/process them. Maybe some of the radar data points are from far away radars and some are from close by. Maybe consider radar beam tilt and angular errors in your calcs. Maybe, use data from one radar only.
I'm happy they ditched in the water. Future flights now know that a proper ditching is possible.
It's too bad that the crew didn't mention, to my knowledge, that it was great that the plane didn't break up, and congratulate the A320 plane, it's designers, and government specs.
Apparently the back door was opened by a hysterical female passenger, in front of the stewardess*, which allowed the quick flooding of the tail.
* The "blonde" one that now refuses to wear her uniform to interviews.
see cbs 60 minutes interviews (5 parts)
YouTube - nypdcar1's Channel
misd-agin: .....Airbus supposedly states you can glide 2.5-2.7 n.m. per thousand feet. Boeing gives about 3 n.m. per thousand.
Using that as an example you could go 3.6 n.m.'s, no wind, from the 1200'/194 kts position. Unfortunately the runway's 4.5 nm away.
It's interesting to see if they could have made it, but even if they'd started at the 2000'/202 kts position it's exactly 6 n.m. to RWY 13, which given the glide information provided would be the exact distance required to make the runway......