CT spotted on professional pilot's forum

Big Les · 8th August 2006, 05:15 AM

I doubt anyone can do much, but FYI as they say:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=237976&page=2

I lurk there occasionally and saw this. Luckily the posters there (and apparently the mods) seem to be well aware of cretins coming in looking for tidbits for their pet CT. But still, worth making you folks aware of, I thought.

Mongrel · 8th August 2006, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Big Les

I doubt anyone can do much, but FYI as they say:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=237976&page=2

I lurk there occasionally and saw this. Luckily the posters there (and apparently the mods) seem to be well aware of cretins coming in looking for tidbits for their pet CT. But still, worth making you folks aware of, I thought.

Heh - I like the way he's comparing their moderation policy to "sensorship[sic] in China" by post six

Darth Rotor · 8th August 2006, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Mongrel

Heh - I like the way he's comparing their moderation policy to "sensorship[sic] in China" by post six

The best part of those posts was how very detailed the pros at that forum were in their technical descriptions.

What was missing (or deleted) was the answer to "could a 757 descend from 7000 feet to ground in 2.5 minutes." The simple answer is "Yes."

7000/2.5 = 2800 fpm rate of descent.

Depending on configuration, (clean, dirty, flaps at what??) that rate of descent would whould be easy to attain, particularly if a bank angle of 30-50 degrees were chosen with a nose low attitude (lose more lift).

I'd have to check with a 757 pilot to back this up, but I suspect that if one pulled the throttles back to idle, and used nose attitude to accelerate, a rate of descent considerably in excess of 2800 could be achieved. For a novice pilot in type, controlling the direction of the aircraft at that point might become dicey, per the Pentagon crash scenario.

If the pilot firewalled the throttles and dove, the question that arises is "does the 757 retain structural integrity or exceed Vmax and start to shake apart before ground impact?" In the minute or two that it takes to reach the ground, it may not achieve enough A/S to exceed structural integrity.

The Flight 93 crash poses that last question, given that parts of that aircraft were found some distance (I have heard upwards of 5 miles) from the crash site. Of course, CT's think that means an F-16 shot them down . . . blah blah blah.

DR

roger · 8th August 2006, 08:10 AM

I'm struck by the ignorance of the questions. I mean, the guy doesn't know what a transponder is or it's role in the aircraft, and he's trying to make a case for some conspiracy. I guess that study about stupid people not realizing that they are stupid has been proven out in this case.

CurtC · 8th August 2006, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

What was missing (or deleted) was the answer to "could a 757 descend from 7000 feet to ground in 2.5 minutes." The simple answer is "Yes."

Several of the CTs have commented that this move had to be a diving spiral, pulling out at 2000 feet AGL before heading into the Pentagon. But this is just nuts - it was reported to be a turn with a descent, and descending turns are simple pilot things. A standard two-minute turn, which I calculated to have a bank angle of around 45 degrees (steeper than most two-minute turns because of the high speed), while descending maybe 3000 feet.

Why not 5000 or 7000? The plane was reported at 7000 feet when it was 35 miles out. Then it was reported at 2000 feet at the end of the descending turn. What happened in-between we don't know. It seems likely to me that Hanjour would have descended some for those 30-odd miles before he even started the descending turn. If he was at 5000 when he started, and 2000 when he finished, that's 1500 fpm descent.

Quote:

The Flight 93 crash poses that last question, given that parts of that aircraft were found some distance (I have heard upwards of 5 miles) from the crash site.

No, all parts of the plane were within a very short distance of the crash site; the farthest was a turbine fan that reportedly was 300 yards away. The blast carried some papers from inside the plan up high, where they drifted downwind. Some were reportedly found around Indian Lake, within two miles of the crater, and there was a report I saw once of something 8 miles away, but I don't know how credible that was. But all this "debris" was just a few sheets of paper, not airplane parts.

gumboot · 8th August 2006, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by CurtC

Why not 5000 or 7000? The plane was reported at 7000 feet when it was 35 miles out. Then it was reported at 2000 feet at the end of the descending turn. What happened in-between we don't know. It seems likely to me that Hanjour would have descended some for those 30-odd miles before he even started the descending turn. If he was at 5000 when he started, and 2000 when he finished, that's 1500 fpm descent.

Given that the most likely theory for the turn is he over-shot his target, that would suggest he was far lower when he began the turn - at "approach to crash" altitude... whatever that is... anyone got an Al Qaeda suicide pilot training manual?

-Andrew

Big Les · 11th August 2006, 01:35 AM

A single bump, as this guy is in full flow now over on PPRUNE. He even managed to illicit a response from John Farley, main test pilot for the Harrier family of "jump jets".

8th August 2006, 05:15 AM	#1
Big Les Not so much a medium as a large Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 5,004	CT spotted on professional pilot's forum I doubt anyone can do much, but FYI as they say: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=237976&page=2 I lurk there occasionally and saw this. Luckily the posters there (and apparently the mods) seem to be well aware of cretins coming in looking for tidbits for their pet CT. But still, worth making you folks aware of, I thought.

8th August 2006, 07:33 AM	#2
Mongrel Begging for Scraps Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: 20 minutes in the future Posts: 1,640	Originally Posted by Big Les I doubt anyone can do much, but FYI as they say: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=237976&page=2 I lurk there occasionally and saw this. Luckily the posters there (and apparently the mods) seem to be well aware of cretins coming in looking for tidbits for their pet CT. But still, worth making you folks aware of, I thought. Heh - I like the way he's comparing their moderation policy to "sensorship[sic] in China" by post six
	__________________ “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” - Charles Darwin ...like so many contemporary philosophers he especially enjoyed giving helpful advice to people who were happier than he was. - Tom Lehrer

8th August 2006, 09:26 AM	#6
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,127	Originally Posted by CurtC Why not 5000 or 7000? The plane was reported at 7000 feet when it was 35 miles out. Then it was reported at 2000 feet at the end of the descending turn. What happened in-between we don't know. It seems likely to me that Hanjour would have descended some for those 30-odd miles before he even started the descending turn. If he was at 5000 when he started, and 2000 when he finished, that's 1500 fpm descent. Given that the most likely theory for the turn is he over-shot his target, that would suggest he was far lower when he began the turn - at "approach to crash" altitude... whatever that is... anyone got an Al Qaeda suicide pilot training manual? -Andrew
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

8th August 2006, 07:58 AM	#3
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by Mongrel Heh - I like the way he's comparing their moderation policy to "sensorship[sic] in China" by post six The best part of those posts was how very detailed the pros at that forum were in their technical descriptions. What was missing (or deleted) was the answer to "could a 757 descend from 7000 feet to ground in 2.5 minutes." The simple answer is "Yes." 7000/2.5 = 2800 fpm rate of descent. Depending on configuration, (clean, dirty, flaps at what??) that rate of descent would whould be easy to attain, particularly if a bank angle of 30-50 degrees were chosen with a nose low attitude (lose more lift). I'd have to check with a 757 pilot to back this up, but I suspect that if one pulled the throttles back to idle, and used nose attitude to accelerate, a rate of descent considerably in excess of 2800 could be achieved. For a novice pilot in type, controlling the direction of the aircraft at that point might become dicey, per the Pentagon crash scenario. If the pilot firewalled the throttles and dove, the question that arises is "does the 757 retain structural integrity or exceed Vmax and start to shake apart before ground impact?" In the minute or two that it takes to reach the ground, it may not achieve enough A/S to exceed structural integrity. The Flight 93 crash poses that last question, given that parts of that aircraft were found some distance (I have heard upwards of 5 miles) from the crash site. Of course, CT's think that means an F-16 shot them down . . . blah blah blah. DR

8th August 2006, 08:10 AM	#4
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,021	I'm struck by the ignorance of the questions. I mean, the guy doesn't know what a transponder is or it's role in the aircraft, and he's trying to make a case for some conspiracy. I guess that study about stupid people not realizing that they are stupid has been proven out in this case.

8th August 2006, 08:16 AM	#5
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor What was missing (or deleted) was the answer to "could a 757 descend from 7000 feet to ground in 2.5 minutes." The simple answer is "Yes." Several of the CTs have commented that this move had to be a diving spiral, pulling out at 2000 feet AGL before heading into the Pentagon. But this is just nuts - it was reported to be a turn with a descent, and descending turns are simple pilot things. A standard two-minute turn, which I calculated to have a bank angle of around 45 degrees (steeper than most two-minute turns because of the high speed), while descending maybe 3000 feet. Why not 5000 or 7000? The plane was reported at 7000 feet when it was 35 miles out. Then it was reported at 2000 feet at the end of the descending turn. What happened in-between we don't know. It seems likely to me that Hanjour would have descended some for those 30-odd miles before he even started the descending turn. If he was at 5000 when he started, and 2000 when he finished, that's 1500 fpm descent. Quote: The Flight 93 crash poses that last question, given that parts of that aircraft were found some distance (I have heard upwards of 5 miles) from the crash site. No, all parts of the plane were within a very short distance of the crash site; the farthest was a turbine fan that reportedly was 300 yards away. The blast carried some papers from inside the plan up high, where they drifted downwind. Some were reportedly found around Indian Lake, within two miles of the crater, and there was a report I saw once of something 8 miles away, but I don't know how credible that was. But all this "debris" was just a few sheets of paper, not airplane parts.

11th August 2006, 01:35 AM	#7
Big Les Not so much a medium as a large Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 5,004	A single bump, as this guy is in full flow now over on PPRUNE. He even managed to illicit a response from John Farley, main test pilot for the Harrier family of "jump jets".