Whack-a-Mole, I agree that that’s the most logical assumption in that situation. I’m just saying it still might be tought to risk a plan load of lives, if there’s even the tiniest possibility of a non-suicide hijack.
While i think that the AF didn’t shoot the plane down, i just love conspiracy theories, so i would have no problem with it. however, i can think of one reason why the AF WOULD deny it. just thinking of the number of lawsuits would be enough to clamp the ol’ lid on it pronto! if one doubts that there would be lawsuits, just remember the one filed by that one jewel who sued the builder of the WTC (or the architect) for making a building that couldn’t resist the pressure of an airliner crashing into it…
on another point, couldn’t an unarmed f-16 do something by positioning itself in front of an airliner which could foul up the engine or the air currents (i’m talking WAYYYYYYYYYYY above myself on the physics of the thing)? or, have i just been watching too much clutch cargo or fireball xl-5???
The only aircraft in the world that is equipped to fire the AIM-54 Phoenix is the Navy’s F-14 Tomcat. The longest range missile the F-16 can carry is the AIM-120 AMRAAM (that’s an acronym for Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile), and its range is a little over 20 miles, a distance an aircraft moving at 600 mph would cover in 20 seconds. Definitely not a BVR weapon, and not one that could be fired while the attacking aircraft was several minutes away from the impact point. Cite.
Let’s not give the conspiracy folks more straws to grasp at, hmmm?
Um…that is to say, it couldn’t be fired at a target that far away unless the attacker and the target are closing, which the F-16’s and the airliner were not.
LOL. You bet! AND we never landed on the moon!
If the F-16 is on afterburner it is much faster than an airliner, is it not?
If a missile hits the airliner, will it have an engine blown of and come don it one piece, or loose a wing and come down it many pieces?
Which airliners are equipped to be landed by auto pilot or remote control?
Thanks.
Missiles typically explode in proximity and cause damage over a wider area of the plane, but a missile strike on a large pressurized aircraft would probably cause a breakup, not a full body.
When the Vicennes shot down Iran Air 655 (mistaking it for an Iranian F-14, in all irony). A quote from a description of the accident from the Washington Post:
Many airliners are capable of being landed by autopilot, but I don’t have a list. The thing is, that the pilot has to “program” the autopilot to do it – which he can’t do if he’s dead. Airliners are not equipped to fly by remote control for obvious reasons.
Following up on what **Broomstick[/b[ said earlier, it is possible to recover an aircraft from an unusual attitude (e.g, pointed toward the ground) if it has not already exceeded V[sub]ne[/sub] and parts have not started coming off, and if you have the altitude and time to do it, and if the pilot (or de facto pilot) knows what he or she is doing. There is a sequence of maneuvers that need to be done in order, and it does take altitude. Broomstick or one of the other fixed-wing pilots can give you the correct answer, but IIRC this is how it goes: Reduce the throttle to idle. Level the wings. Gently and gradually pull the nose up to the horizon. If you’re in a dive and you just pull back on the yoke, you’re liable to snap the wings off.
Kunilou’s correct. The military has admitted that it had a couple of fighters on the way to intercept the 747. Unfortunately the two fighters that had the best chance of reaching it were on a training mission and unarmed. The military made it clear that their intention was to shoot the hijacked plane down or otherwise take it out of the air. They were unapologetic about their intentions. If they had pulled it off they would have been heroes.
Why wouldn’t they tell us? Let’s do a little critical thinking here. What is the advantage to the government of trying to pull off such a lie? What are the chances of actually getting away with the lie? Compare that to the downside of getting caught in the lie. There’s just no benefit to it.
600 miles per hour is equivalent to 10 miles per minute. 20 miles will take 2 minutes.
I just wanted to point out that with reference to the Air Force getting planes to intercept the airliners; between the time the Cold War ended and September, 2001, the Air Force didn’t really have airplanes just sitting on the tarmac fully armed and fueled with pilots waiting just for the word “go.” (Maybe they do now, I don’t know)
I imagine that a major part of the problem of intercepting the airliners isn’t the amount of time it takes for a supersonic fighter to reach Pennsylvania or the amount of time it takes the missile from the fighter to reach the plane, but the time it takes to get the fighter plane in the air in the first place.
Teeny nitpick: the towers DID resist the full impact of airliners crashing into them. If there had been no fire those buildings might still be standing.
A little too much cartoon physics, here - but that’s OK by me.
The wake left by a passing figher jet could totally rip apart a small plane such as I fly - 4 seats or fewer. Over the past couple of decades there have, in fact, been a few tragic accidents involving fighter wakes and small airplane disassembly. But an airliner is much more massive than the fighter pursuing it. More likely the jet’s wake would cause a loss of control for the fighter pilot than vice-versa. Particularly a 757, which is infamous for the nasty wake it can leave, even posing a risk to other jumbo jets. You’d probably notice a fighter jet screaming by, but I would think it unlikely to cause the airliner much trouble beyond a bump or a rumble of air over part of a wing. Remember our spy plane and the Chinese fighter that collided a couple years ago? No damage occured until the two actually touched, and the spy plane, although damaged, landed safely. An airliner is much more massive still. Short of ramming, I don’t see a way for an unarmed fighter to pull one down. I could be wrong on this, of course, since I’m hardly a trained military pilot or an expert on large Boeings, much less schooled on how to cause airborne mayhem, I’m just going by what I know of airplanes.
Yep, it sure is. An F-16 can easily exceed the speed of sound in level flight where an airliner is capable of “only” about .8 or .9 Mach. But how great a distance can that high speed be sustained? The faster you go the more fuel you burn. Gotta have enough to get to the intercept, with enough left over for any necessary manuvers and the landing and/or refueling procedure after things settle down. How much fuel does an F-16 hold?
We covered this recently in another thread. Basically, it depends on how direct a hit you get. If you just “blow off an engine” but there is enough airplane intact that the pilot still has control over the flight path you might well have a landing the people will survive or even walk away from. However, the few instances where civilian jets have been fired on and hit have resulted in fireballs, much destruction, many small pieces, and no survivors. Basically, if the fuel on board is ignited the whole thing turns into a bomb and goes >BOOM!<
None are equipped to be landed by remote.
Automated landing is not a standard feature. So far as I know, you can order a jet with that on board, but it’s not a feature common to, say, all 747’s. (If there’s a Boeing pilot around here who knows otherwise please correct me.) It not only requires the equipment to be on board the jet, properly calibrated, and properly used, but there is also a ground-based component. So it matters which airports you go to as well.
If, hypothetically, the passengers had regained control and yelled “HELP!” over the radio, and IF the airplane had autolanding capability, it MIGHT be possible to program the autoland and have it land the airplane. It might, in fact, be your best bet if there are no trained jumbo jet rated pilots on board. Needless to say, no one is going to try this before they really have to use it.
Interesting question - keep in mind, if the passengers had regained control and were able to keep the airplane flying level they would have easily had 4 hours, and likely significantly more than that, in which to consult with people on the ground, figure out a gameplan, and even rehearse parts of the landing procedures prior to actually having a go at the real thing.
Good memory, Johnny
If you find yourself in an “unusual attitude” recovery techniques may vary somewhat depending on what, exactly, is happening, but considering the “uncontrolled dive” scenario, here’s what you need to do:
1) Throttle(s) to idle. Gravity is already accelerating you at this point and it does not need assistance. Jumbo jets can easily exceed Mach 1 in a steep dive, do you really want to be heading towards the ground that fast?
2) Eliminate any roll or yaw. This means get the wings level with the ground and eliminate any tail waggles. Otherwise, when you pull out of the dive you will not be going straight up but off at some sideways angle, not to mention imposing all sorts of extra stress on your airframe. Since, at this point, you and the airframe are already into the red-zone on stress you don’t need any more.
3) Gently but smoothly pull back on the yoke. The idea is to pull back so you get the maximum up force without breaking the wings off the airplane. You may, in fact, reach or even exceed Vne at this point. You will certainly pulling some g’s, which will make it harder and harder to hold the yoke steady. If you let go at this point, if you’re lucky, all that will happen is the dive will resume - at a much lower altitude with much less time/distance in which to recover. More likely, you’ll lose control of the airplane and all sorts of hell could break loose. Meanwhile, if your vision starts to gray-out there’s this nifty technique (used by fighter jocks, in fact) which basically is like straining to get a turd out while consitpated that will raise your blood pressure in your upper body, head, and neck. It could buy you a few more seconds of useful conciousness.
Remember - do NOT jerk back on that yoke, even with the ground coming up at several hundred miles per hour. If you do yes, you really can break the wings off an airplane. If you hit Vne or start to go over it you MUST release some of the backpull if you want to retain control over the airplane. At first, when you pull back, there will be some period of time when you will continue in the dive - the recovery will not be immediate.
4) When you have established a postive rate of climb, release the backpull on the yoke. “Positve rate of climb” means you’re actually going up as opposed to down or level. Technically, at this point you’re out of the dive. But you’re not quite home free because the plane will go up and up for a bit. If you don’t put the yoke back in the “straight and level” position you might stall, or re-enter a descent… anyhow, the typical situation is to “porpoise”, go up-and-down for a bit until level flight is resumed. Get those barf bags ready!
My experience with unusual attitude recovery is the standard stall-and-recovery techniques all (fixed-wing) pilots learn as part of primary training, and some limited spin-and-recovery lessons. I did this training in a Cessna150, considered a reliable and docile trainer. We’d typically take one up to around 6000 feet above the ground and kick it into a spin, then perform a recovery. Keep in mind, this is a controlled training manuver, done under (one would hope) ideal conditions with an experienced instructor on board in an airplane with known spin characteristics and a 40 year track record for how the model behaves in “unusual attitudes”.
C150’s are a lot less aerodynamic than a jumbo jet and fall much slower due to drag - peak vertical speed (meaning how fast you fall) in a spinning C150 can exceed 270 mph in the first second or two. That’s 0 to 270+ in two seconds - nice acceleration, ay? From our starting point a little over a mile above the ground, if we had let the spin continue unrecovered we’d have a theorectical 10-12 seconds to impact (for some complicated reasons I won’t explain unless asked to, the vertical speed in a spin slows down after the first several seconds/rotations). An airliner, in a dive, can accelerate much faster.
Anyhow, a spin recovery leaves you in a fairly steep dive. The truth is, spins seldom kill (unless you hit the ground while in one), it’s the dive recovery where people tend to screw up. You’ve taken care of the spin’s rotation, the airplane is flying again, you can hear the rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRR just like in the movies from the air going by the cabin and the ground is coming at you really really fast. Your instincts are screaming haul back on that yoke or WE’RE GONNA DIE!. YOU have to retain control over your stone-age impulses. Pull back on the yoke while watching the airspeed indicator near Vne but before you actually reach it, STOP increasing the backpull. Just hold it. Just hold it while the ground is still coming up at you very very fast. You see, at this point you have to trust the machine and aerodynamics, not what your eyes see and your gut tells you. You WILL start going up again, you will (as I stated) easily pull 2 or 3 g’s, and at that point you can gently return the yoke to the normal flying position.
That’s the controlled training manuver in a nice, cooperative airplane. In a jumbo jet everything will happen a LOT faster and be a LOT worse. There have been a few jumbos recovered from steep dives - achieving 6 g’s is fairly common, it can take more than one person to handle the controls, and major airframe components are twisted, warped, cracked, and even broken because they almost always exceed their Vne once they start diving. We’re talking about wings twisted to the extent that even non-aviators can see there is something seriously wrong from a quarter mile away. A very very few trained jumbo pilots have managed to land after such an experience, but the airplanes do not fly again. The odds of someone NOT trained in an airliner making such a recovery are extremely low.
Nonetheless, should you find yourself in such a situation, have a go at it. I mean, at that point you have nothing to lose, right?
I’m no Boeing pilot or any kind of pilot for that matter but this link leads me to believe that 747’s (probably only certain models) at least do have autopilot landing capabilities. As mentioned it looks like there is still a fair amount of work that goes into setting up the landing anyway but it can still do it. I can only presume had such a feature been on the hijacked plane and th eplane was left with no trained pilots that ATC could talk someone through flipping the appropriate switches.
[qupte] (From Link provided above)
The aircraft was operating a scheduled return flight from Miami to London Heathrow Airport. The weather conditions on arrival at Heathrow were dry with light winds and good visibility. The crew were carrying out an automatic landing on Runway 27L for practice purposes. The aircraft was configured during the approach for an automatic landing with all three autopilots engaged.
[/quote]
There is little reason for a news-crew to be in rural Pennslyvania. According to my Dad (who is a Pennsylvania native), it is a very boring place, where nothing happens, usually. Amish barn raisings are about the peak of things, until recently.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, has war, Soviet invasions, tribal feuds, religious purges, & revenge killings. It is the opposite of boring, & that’s a big part of its problem. Anyplace CNN keeps permanently stationed newscrews is not a happy place.
Hm. Maybe I should get back into fixed-wings? They’re a helluvalot cheaper than helis!
:eek: There’s a CNN crew truck parked outside the office building I work in almost every day!
maybe they’re just picking up Starbuck’s coffee, yeah, that’s it…
Funny, I keep thinking that if I ever win the lottery I can finally get those rotorcraft lessons…
quote:
Originally posted by Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor
Anyplace CNN keeps permanently stationed newscrews is not a happy place.
They know you’re there,** Broomstick ** . 
quote:
The Standard missiles homed in on the heat of the quarry’s engines and at least one of them exploded when it pulled abreast of the Airbus. Such a missile hit usually slices an aircraft apart and turns it into a fireball of burning fuel.
FWIW, Standard missiles are radar-guided only, not heat-seeking.
About that nose-dive; (IANAP)
If you just push the “stick” forward, won’t the plane continue through 180 deg and over onto it’s back?
To dive, you have to push forward until you’re going straight down, then pull back to maintain that angle. Right? I understand the plane hit pretty much vertical.
Would the passengers have been skilled enough to do that?
Peace,
mangeorge
I think the airframe of a large plane fails when you do that.