United Flight 93, What actually happened ? [somewhat edited by JT]
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the ATC normally ask you for transponder signals before landing, especially for emergency landing?
It is possible to use the transponder to ask the pilot questions eg "do you read this transmission,,,if so squawk ident" The questions are, by the nature of the replies likely to be recieved ,generally answered by YES or NO. It is used in a situstion such as a transmitter failure.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by eastern wiseguy
As I have said in a previous reply the transponder ,in normal circumstances ,remains ON throughout the flight.ATC do not NORMALLY ask anything about squawks(Transponder codes) before landing.
It is possible to use the transponder to ask the pilot questions eg "do you read this transmission,,,if so squawk ident" The questions are, by the nature of the replies likely to be recieved ,generally answered by YES or NO. It is used in a situstion such as a transmitter failure.
It is possible to use the transponder to ask the pilot questions eg "do you read this transmission,,,if so squawk ident" The questions are, by the nature of the replies likely to be recieved ,generally answered by YES or NO. It is used in a situstion such as a transmitter failure.
Flight 93 was high jacked:
(9:25 a.m.) The Flight 93 pilots check in with Cleveland flight control, uttering "good morning." [Newsweek, 11/25/01]
9:27 am The plane was hijacked by 4 terrorists.
(9:30 a.m.) The transponder signal from Flight 93 ceases and radar contact is lost. [9:30, MSNBC, 9/3/02, 9:40, CNN, 9/17/01] However, the plane can still be tracked, and is tracked at least at United headquarters until shortly before the final crash (the exact time is not mentioned). However, altitude can no longer be determined. The plane's speed begins to vary wildly, moving between 600 and 400 mph before eventually settling around 400 mph. [Among the Heroes, by Jere Longman, 8/02, p. 77, 214]
At 10.00 the controller observes the plane is flying at 7,500 feet. Six minutes later the controller says the flight is down
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/s...575518,00.html
Cleveland air control received two tansponder signals (no time stamp), one was at 6400 ft, the orther 5800 ft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So far no one has proved to me that the two transponder signals were not the pilot action. If it was not the pilot action, what's the possible "accident" which could turned the transponder back on.
However what I have found are:
1. There is a airport 6 miles away, in airport controled airspace, it is illegal to turn off transponder.
2. Flight 93's flight path (before crashing) was in the direction to land on the runway of this airport.
Only our pilot would want to give out the plane's identification in a hijacked situation.
I can't take someting like "who knows, accident can happen", that's exactly the reason for wild offwall speculations.
A simple question should be, yes or no, if the transponder was switched on by the pilot, if not, why? (Forflight 93 sent out two signals before crashing, 6400 ft and 4800 ft)
However what I have found are:
1. There is a airport 6 miles away, in airport controled airspace, it is illegal to turn off transponder.
2. Flight 93's flight path (before crashing) was in the direction to land on the runway of this airport.
Only our pilot would want to give out the plane's identification in a hijacked situation.
I can't take someting like "who knows, accident can happen", that's exactly the reason for wild offwall speculations.
A simple question should be, yes or no, if the transponder was switched on by the pilot, if not, why? (Forflight 93 sent out two signals before crashing, 6400 ft and 4800 ft)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN
So far no one has proved to me that the two transponder signals were not the pilot action. If it was not the pilot action, what's the possible "accident" which could turned the transponder back on.
However what I have found are:
1. There is a airport 6 miles away, in airport controled airspace, it is illegal to turn off transponder.
2. Flight 93's flight path (before crashing) was in the direction to land on the runway of this airport.
Only our pilot would want to give out the plane's identification in a hijacked situation.
I can't take someting like "who knows, accident can happen", that's exactly the reason for wild offwall speculations.
A simple question should be, yes or no, if the transponder was switched on by the pilot, if not, why? (Forflight 93 sent out two signals before crashing, 6400 ft and 4800 ft)
However what I have found are:
1. There is a airport 6 miles away, in airport controled airspace, it is illegal to turn off transponder.
2. Flight 93's flight path (before crashing) was in the direction to land on the runway of this airport.
Only our pilot would want to give out the plane's identification in a hijacked situation.
I can't take someting like "who knows, accident can happen", that's exactly the reason for wild offwall speculations.
A simple question should be, yes or no, if the transponder was switched on by the pilot, if not, why? (Forflight 93 sent out two signals before crashing, 6400 ft and 4800 ft)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somerset, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN
A simple question should be, yes or no, if the transponder was switched on by the pilot, if not, why? (Forflight 93 sent out two signals before crashing, 6400 ft and 4800 ft)
The implication that the calculations are simple "high school" physics to back calculate when an item must have been detached from an aircraft to have ended up at a certain point on the ground is plain wrong. At an accurately known height, with accurately known winds and in full possesion of the characteristics of the dropped object there is enormous room for error ("dumb" bombs dropped during the second war were often hundreds of yards and even miles from the aiming point).
If (and that is a big IF) an engine became detached, an object as complex in shape as an engine (with potentially some residual thrust) falling from an aircraft flying at uncertain speed, at uncertain height in an unknown attitude would make any "calculation" no more valid than a guess.
I appreciate that you are trying to discover the most likely sequence of events on that terrible day and I am sure that those who know will answer your aviation questions as honestly as they can, but I fear that you are on a futile mission because of the lack of good data. (Either because it is not available to anyone, or only available to a restricted few).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack
While flying with transponder left turned off is illegal, it is probably not that big deal, compared to the safety of airframe in respect to things like overspeeding, upsets and structural integrity of the plane. "Aviate, navigate, communicate"... one guesses that a pilot regaining control of cockpit would not think of switching on the transponder until after dealing with a lot of other urgent business!
On reverse thinking, what did possiblly turn on the tranponder if it was not a human being? Any possible reason which had happened before or possiblly could happen.
If the tranponder gave the correct reading and id, could the switch mulfunction due to the violent movement of the plane? Or some kind of fight, someone or something fall on the control panel. As an accident investigation, one can not ignore such details. Every solid evidence has to be explained with plausible reason (even remotely plausible).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Unfortunately the "truth" is not binary (even in physics - think of quantum mechanics) , it is not true or false, on or off - there are all shades from white to black, one man's truth is another man's fairytale - nobody will ever know why the transponder was turned on again, we can speculate, assume and try to estimate a probability but we will never know."
Sorry sir, this is classical mechanics, areodynamics, thermodynamics which can be analytically, acurately calculated, with given condition, to the great accuracy, it is not quantum mechanics. For an investigation like this, the most possible, educated speculation is what we are searching for, we can get close, closer to the truth by scientific analysis, calculations and even hyposises. No one can be convince with any criminal investigation by "one man's truth is another man's fairytale".
"The implication that the calculations are simple "high school" physics to back calculate when an item must have been detached from an aircraft to have ended up at a certain point on the ground is plain wrong."
An engine piece droped from an airplane can be calculated acurately, without considering wind, air resistance, high school physics will give you the acuracy in the meters, not miles, with educated guess on initial conditions: velocity and altitude. All experts in airline disarster investigations, space programs use these physics principles, in fact, all aviation is based on classical physics.
At an accurately known height, with accurately known winds and in full possesion of the characteristics of the dropped object there is enormous room for error ("dumb" bombs dropped during the second war were often hundreds of yards and even miles from the aiming point).
We don't need a great accuracy, the engine parts can be in the acuracy of hundred of yards (since the distance from the engine to the crater reported as 300 yards.) Rib bone can be calculated in the accuracy of the lake (half mile radius). If our calculation is sound within these type of margin of error, matching the found facts, then the hyposis is getting somewhere.
"If (and that is a big IF) an engine became detached, an object as complex in shape as an engine (with potentially some residual thrust) falling from an aircraft flying at uncertain speed, at uncertain height in an unknown attitude would make any "calculation" no more valid than a guess."
Correct, if we don't have any information about anything. A single piece of metal piece found on the ground doesn't tell you anything. But with educated assumptions based on the information collected, reported altitude by control center, eye witness's account, reasonable speed in this altitute for 757, you defitnely can calculate, with great uncertainty of cause, but the result can be cross checked with other observations. The calculated result is much betterh than wild guess. It called "ball park" calculation. If such an calculation makes sense, then one can dive in with models, computer simulations....
"I appreciate that you are trying to discover the most likely sequence of events on that terrible day and I am sure that those who know will answer your aviation questions as honestly as they can, but I fear that you are on a futile mission because of the lack of good data. (Either because it is not available to anyone, or only available to a restricted few)."
Yes, I got sucked into this by curiosity, refuse to be fooled by either government experts nor consipiracy theories. The result will not be futile, because there are plenty of "first order of approximation data" available, which can be used to paint a rough picture of what happened.
As educated people, we need educated sound explainations of such kind of disasters, not fairytales nor imaginations. This was not a starwar movie. No one, no matter if it is the conspiraciors or government should get away with lame stories which doesn't match the known facts.
Sorry sir, this is classical mechanics, areodynamics, thermodynamics which can be analytically, acurately calculated, with given condition, to the great accuracy, it is not quantum mechanics. For an investigation like this, the most possible, educated speculation is what we are searching for, we can get close, closer to the truth by scientific analysis, calculations and even hyposises. No one can be convince with any criminal investigation by "one man's truth is another man's fairytale".
"The implication that the calculations are simple "high school" physics to back calculate when an item must have been detached from an aircraft to have ended up at a certain point on the ground is plain wrong."
An engine piece droped from an airplane can be calculated acurately, without considering wind, air resistance, high school physics will give you the acuracy in the meters, not miles, with educated guess on initial conditions: velocity and altitude. All experts in airline disarster investigations, space programs use these physics principles, in fact, all aviation is based on classical physics.
At an accurately known height, with accurately known winds and in full possesion of the characteristics of the dropped object there is enormous room for error ("dumb" bombs dropped during the second war were often hundreds of yards and even miles from the aiming point).
We don't need a great accuracy, the engine parts can be in the acuracy of hundred of yards (since the distance from the engine to the crater reported as 300 yards.) Rib bone can be calculated in the accuracy of the lake (half mile radius). If our calculation is sound within these type of margin of error, matching the found facts, then the hyposis is getting somewhere.
"If (and that is a big IF) an engine became detached, an object as complex in shape as an engine (with potentially some residual thrust) falling from an aircraft flying at uncertain speed, at uncertain height in an unknown attitude would make any "calculation" no more valid than a guess."
Correct, if we don't have any information about anything. A single piece of metal piece found on the ground doesn't tell you anything. But with educated assumptions based on the information collected, reported altitude by control center, eye witness's account, reasonable speed in this altitute for 757, you defitnely can calculate, with great uncertainty of cause, but the result can be cross checked with other observations. The calculated result is much betterh than wild guess. It called "ball park" calculation. If such an calculation makes sense, then one can dive in with models, computer simulations....
"I appreciate that you are trying to discover the most likely sequence of events on that terrible day and I am sure that those who know will answer your aviation questions as honestly as they can, but I fear that you are on a futile mission because of the lack of good data. (Either because it is not available to anyone, or only available to a restricted few)."
Yes, I got sucked into this by curiosity, refuse to be fooled by either government experts nor consipiracy theories. The result will not be futile, because there are plenty of "first order of approximation data" available, which can be used to paint a rough picture of what happened.
As educated people, we need educated sound explainations of such kind of disasters, not fairytales nor imaginations. This was not a starwar movie. No one, no matter if it is the conspiraciors or government should get away with lame stories which doesn't match the known facts.
Last edited by SUPERMNNN; 10th Aug 2006 at 14:16.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somerset, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK then - little double check, these are the actual data about an object dropped from an aircraft, I will give you the EXACT and real starting conditions:-
Height - 60 feet stable +- 3 feet
Wind - still air
Attitude - horizontal stable flight, straight ahead
Speed - 390 kilometres per hour +- 5 kph
Air temperature - 15 deg celsius +- 1 deg c
Surface - calm water
Dropped object :-
Cylinder 60 inches long, 50 inches diameter, steel construction
Weight - 9250 lbs
Long axis of the cylinder across the line of flight
Rotational speed of the cylinder 500 rpm. +- 40 rpm (rotating "backwards" with respect to the direction of flight)
How far from the drop point did the object come to rest?
(I'll give you the web address of the data after you give me an answer).
Height - 60 feet stable +- 3 feet
Wind - still air
Attitude - horizontal stable flight, straight ahead
Speed - 390 kilometres per hour +- 5 kph
Air temperature - 15 deg celsius +- 1 deg c
Surface - calm water
Dropped object :-
Cylinder 60 inches long, 50 inches diameter, steel construction
Weight - 9250 lbs
Long axis of the cylinder across the line of flight
Rotational speed of the cylinder 500 rpm. +- 40 rpm (rotating "backwards" with respect to the direction of flight)
How far from the drop point did the object come to rest?
(I'll give you the web address of the data after you give me an answer).
SUPERMNNN,
The transponder is located on the aft center pedestal. I fly 757's and have to make a conscious effort not to use that area as a brace while getting in and out of the seat. Even after 10 years in the plane, it's easy to put your hand down there and possibly change the transponder or switch it off. The rotating switch doesn't take much to move. It wouldn't suprise me that those untrained savages flailed about during the struggle and manuevering and somehow change several switch settings. Who knows, maybe they even cycled the generators on and off on the overhead panel while punching buttons.
later
The transponder is located on the aft center pedestal. I fly 757's and have to make a conscious effort not to use that area as a brace while getting in and out of the seat. Even after 10 years in the plane, it's easy to put your hand down there and possibly change the transponder or switch it off. The rotating switch doesn't take much to move. It wouldn't suprise me that those untrained savages flailed about during the struggle and manuevering and somehow change several switch settings. Who knows, maybe they even cycled the generators on and off on the overhead panel while punching buttons.
later
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: north
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An engine piece droped from an airplane can be calculated acurately, without considering wind, air resistance, high school physics will give you the acuracy in the meters, not miles, with educated guess on initial conditions: velocity and altitude.
Nonsense. Like I tried to tell you earlier and like the voice recorder confirms
is that whoever was in control of the aircraft the last couple of minutes,
was pulling and pushing the yoke. It is likely to assume that the aircraft was pitching significantly up/down in that stage. A likely cause for
loosing the engine could have been that too many G's were pulled
(the 757 does not have FBW control laws)
So, here is your highschool physics test.
Assume the aircraft is at 7000 feet. Lets say one engine falls
off. Calculate how far the engine will move before it hits the ground
in the two scenarios below;
a) 500mph, pitch +10 deg in one moment,
b) 300mph, pitch - 20 deg in the next
How close will a) and b) be to eachother? I'm afraid you your
answer will be in KILOMETERS apart.
Unless you have the FDR file, like the NTSB probably has - forget it!
M
Nonsense. Like I tried to tell you earlier and like the voice recorder confirms
is that whoever was in control of the aircraft the last couple of minutes,
was pulling and pushing the yoke. It is likely to assume that the aircraft was pitching significantly up/down in that stage. A likely cause for
loosing the engine could have been that too many G's were pulled
(the 757 does not have FBW control laws)
So, here is your highschool physics test.
Assume the aircraft is at 7000 feet. Lets say one engine falls
off. Calculate how far the engine will move before it hits the ground
in the two scenarios below;
a) 500mph, pitch +10 deg in one moment,
b) 300mph, pitch - 20 deg in the next
How close will a) and b) be to eachother? I'm afraid you your
answer will be in KILOMETERS apart.
Unless you have the FDR file, like the NTSB probably has - forget it!
M
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somerset, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one can be convince with any criminal investigation by "one man's truth is another man's fairytale".
So nobody has ever been mistakenly convicted then - that's a relief to know.
An engine piece droped from an airplane can be calculated acurately, without considering wind, air resistance, high school physics will give you the acuracy in the meters, not miles, with educated guess on initial conditions: velocity and altitude. All experts in airline disarster investigations, space programs use these physics principles, in fact, all aviation is based on classical physics.
All your physics will only be correct if the starting conditions are accuratley know at the millisecond that the object was dropped and this is not and never will be the case for this event. So it is still just a guess. A SMALL change in aircraft attiutde will make a massive difference to the trajectory. An educated guess is just not good enough you need hard data.
Yes, I got sucked into this by curiosity, refuse to be fooled by either government experts nor consipiracy theories. The result will not be futile, because there are plenty of "first order of approximation data" available, which can be used to paint a rough picture of what happened.
A rough but wholly innacurate picture methinks.
So nobody has ever been mistakenly convicted then - that's a relief to know.
An engine piece droped from an airplane can be calculated acurately, without considering wind, air resistance, high school physics will give you the acuracy in the meters, not miles, with educated guess on initial conditions: velocity and altitude. All experts in airline disarster investigations, space programs use these physics principles, in fact, all aviation is based on classical physics.
All your physics will only be correct if the starting conditions are accuratley know at the millisecond that the object was dropped and this is not and never will be the case for this event. So it is still just a guess. A SMALL change in aircraft attiutde will make a massive difference to the trajectory. An educated guess is just not good enough you need hard data.
Yes, I got sucked into this by curiosity, refuse to be fooled by either government experts nor consipiracy theories. The result will not be futile, because there are plenty of "first order of approximation data" available, which can be used to paint a rough picture of what happened.
A rough but wholly innacurate picture methinks.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack
While flying with transponder left turned off is illegal, it is probably not that big deal, compared to the safety of airframe in respect to things like overspeeding, upsets and structural integrity of the plane. "Aviate, navigate, communicate"... one guesses that a pilot regaining control of cockpit would not think of switching on the transponder until after dealing with a lot of other urgent business!
What I am getting from everyone is that it was possible but not likely?
What was the probability for the tranponder to be turned on by accident and the probability by an intellegent human? 50%/50% or 90%/10% or simplly 100%/0%?
Last edited by SUPERMNNN; 10th Aug 2006 at 18:19.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Choxolate
No clues !!!
I'll rely on the honesty of supermmm to do the calcs.
I'll rely on the honesty of supermmm to do the calcs.
All I asked for the simple minded calculation is that:
1. Three isolated debris fields,
300 yard from the crater (where the engine was found),
2.3 miles from the crater (Indian Lake)
8 miles from the crater (New Baltimore)
were contributed to three independent events in space on the flight path.
2. The rough time seperation calculated,
5.5 seconds from crash
33 seconds from crash
115 seconds from the crash
Given that the 250 mph horizontal velocity assumed correct, the time seperation between events shows that the three events were independent in time.
As the result, there were three seperate events happened in the sky before the plane crashed, which contributed to the three isolated debris fields.
Please present arguements directly related to the assumptions, calculations above, to disaprove the conclusion.
Last edited by SUPERMNNN; 10th Aug 2006 at 18:46.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, a straight, honest answer for (#48)
Assuming that you don't know anything about Flight 93, assuming you want to land on that airport with a 757, how do you approach the run way? What is your flight path? Given that you are at 7000 ft altitude above New Baltimore? (see #48)
Additional question:
1. For a normal landing, where 6400 ft and 5800 ft should be in altitude, assuming the ground is leveled?
2. What's the time difference between these two points?
We don't need anything very accurate, ball park figures, please.
Assuming that you don't know anything about Flight 93, assuming you want to land on that airport with a 757, how do you approach the run way? What is your flight path? Given that you are at 7000 ft altitude above New Baltimore? (see #48)
Additional question:
1. For a normal landing, where 6400 ft and 5800 ft should be in altitude, assuming the ground is leveled?
2. What's the time difference between these two points?
We don't need anything very accurate, ball park figures, please.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a latecomer to this thread, but I have read the available posts and will attempt to answer your questions, bearing in mind what I think you are trying to prove/disprove.
It is quite possible for the transponder to be switched on again during a struggle in the cockpit. I am not familiar with the 757 cockpit, but the the controller for the transponder could be on the centre console where it could be bumped.
It is also possible that a pilot who has regained control would switch it on, but that would probably not be his first action. It is much more important to first fly the aircraft and then later establish communications with the outside world - again probably by radio first.
That is very difficult to answer, but again, unless the pilot is rated on type, he would be better off to first get away from the ground, learn to control the aircraft, make contact with people on the ground and then attempt to land.
Those altitudes are pretty low. I don't know how far the ATC centre receiving the signals was from the aircraft, but it is conceivable that the transponder was on during the times mentioned and those were the only two reads that the receiving equipment got. Transponder signals are line of sight because of the high frequencies used and the signal is easily lost if the aircraft is low and far away.
The transponder would normally always be on in flight. ATC will not ask you to squawk a different code before landing or in an emergency, because their equipment will already tell them who you are. If you are in contact with ATC and your transponder is off, they will probably give you a code and ask you to switch it on.
It is possible, but unlikely. Using the radio would be far more probable. Both an ATC and a commercial pilot would know the guard frequency which they could use if they had no contact on other frequencies.
Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN
2. The transponder signals were more likely accidental, not related to the airplane landing into an airport. It was most likely not pilot related, i.e. indicating that if our pilot was in control or not.
It is also possible that a pilot who has regained control would switch it on, but that would probably not be his first action. It is much more important to first fly the aircraft and then later establish communications with the outside world - again probably by radio first.
Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN
3. No professional pilot and air traffic controller would plan ahead, thinking of landing a 757 into this small airport.
Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN
Considering that at 10:00, the plane was at an altitude of 7500, the plane crashed (to the altitude of 0) at 10:03:11, then if the two signals were between 10:00 and 10:03, 6400 ft and 5800 ft,most likely the tansponder gave the correct altitude reading, obviously it did give the correct flight number, therefore we can assume that the transponder was functioning but most likely switched on by none human activities, "unless specifically asked to do so by ATC, or if you want to squawk the emergency code."
Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN
Does the ATC normally ask you for transponder signals before landing, especially for emergency landing?
Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN
Is it possible for our pilot to use the tansponder to inform the ground that "we are in control"? It seems to me, from Tom Brokaw's interview, that it was a pretty loud signal to the controller. It might not be a big deal for a regular flight or emergency.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN
As the result, there were three seperate events happened in the sky before the plane crashed, which contributed to the three isolated debris fields.
High sideslip loads on the aircraft could easily make engine pod attachments fail. In the A300 crash in New York a few months later, both engines had departed from the wings with the sideloads on the aircraft after the vertical tail had failed.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SUPERMNNN
Assuming that you don't know anything about Flight 93, assuming you want to land on that airport with a 757, how do you approach the run way? What is your flight path? Given that you are at 7000 ft altitude above New Baltimore? (see #48)
Additional question:
1. For a normal landing, where 6400 ft and 5800 ft should be in altitude, assuming the ground is leveled?
2. What's the time difference between these two points?
Additional question:
1. For a normal landing, where 6400 ft and 5800 ft should be in altitude, assuming the ground is leveled?
2. What's the time difference between these two points?
Now to your questions. An average glidepath angle would be 3 degrees. You can compute the rest of your answers from that.
An airliner configured for landing, should be doing in the region of 120-140 kts, which would be just more than 2 nautical miles per minute at a rate of descent of approximately 700-800 feet/min. So your 600 foot difference would be just under a minute and approximately 2 miles apart, but this supposes a fully configured aircraft flown at normal approach speeds. There are way to many assumptions here for my liking.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nugpot
Or one event/manoevering sequence which lasted 2 minutes. Looking at the CVR transcript, the terrorists were making serious control inputs during this time.
This three spills resulted for: New Baltimore debris field, Indian Lake debris field and 300 yard away from the crater (the engine part).
They are isolated on the ground, there were no strong trails of debris from one field to the other. This signature indicates that the plane actually passed by above each location. Therefore we know the flight path before crashing was from New Baltimore, passing Indian Lake, then crashed down to Shanksville strip mine.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/a...brisfields.png
Last edited by SUPERMNNN; 10th Aug 2006 at 23:27.