New "Altitude" on a Cliche Question

[V2-OMG!]

I recently viewed the director/writer commentary on "United 93," a semi-fictionalized film about that ill-fated 9/11 flight which crashed in Pennsylvania.

During the making of the film, the director and writer were privy to the flight/cabin crew expertise of those who had flown the Boeing 757.

In the commentary, the director mentioned that one of the passengers on United 93 had his private pilot's licence on something like a Cessna 180.
He asked one of the 757 captains the age-old question,
had the passengers successfully wrestled the cockpit control away from the terrorists, could the Cessna pilot land the Boeing 757?

The reply went something like this: Depends on the altitude. Over 10,000 feet, the Cessna pilot could have landed the Boeing. Under that, he would have had a lot more trouble - it may have been impossible.

Could anyone expound upon that reply a bit more?

Thanking you in advance,
V2.

[Flight Detent]

...Sounds to me like he was referring to the altitude required for recovery from the high rate of descent initiated by that fool terrorist!

Cheers...FD...:)

[V2-OMG!]

Flight Detent, I was thinking somewhere along those lines too. In the movie, the terrorist at the controls purposefully put it into a dive just as the passengers were trying to crash into the cockpit.

This is all speculation, of course. The film-makers had to resort to much "creative licence" to say the least. I'm not even sure if the CVR/blackbox was ever recovered.

I was depressed throughout the entire film - although the film makers tried to deal with the subject in a sensitive manner.

The final fade-out was quite profound.

Thanks for your reply.