Say, do we happen to know what Flight 93’s altitude and speed were, before whatever happened in the cockpit that caused the crash?
A brief google reveals many accounts of the plane flying at “low altitude”, but no specifics. “Low” for a big Boeing is higher than you might think - 5,000 feet altitude is probably considered low but I’ll defer to the big iron pilots on that one.
When the plane changed course and headed back east I’m not clear if it had stopped climbing or actually descended somewhat. My impression, which I’ll admit is subjective and I’m willing to change upon further facts, is that they were flying VFR, in other words, navigating by eyesight, rather than using the on board navigation equipment. This would account for the relatively low altitude (you need to be close enough to the landmarks you’re using to see them) and the slight meandering of the course.
If I have time later maybe I can dig up something more specific - most of the sites I hit in my limited time this morning were much like Mirror’s - full of speculation but a little short on precise numbers and facts. Or if someone else finds something useful first by all means post a link.
This would indicate that the terrorists were flying for quite a while, wouldn’t it? They were looking for the straightest way to Washington, DC, and eyeing landmarks would help them there. There is no quick descent, so they could have easily crashed into whatever they were headed for. Would this mean that a possible passenger takeover lasted only a few minutes?
OK, I found this account from September 13, 2001 (2 days after the attack) which is so far the only account that mentions an altitude. Some relevant points:
This, to my mind, comes under “dumb question”. Of course there was a danger to Pittsburgh - the whole freakin’ country felt under attack, no one knew what was really going on, and the guys in the hijacked airplane could have really screwed up and crashed into downtown Pittsburgh. You have to ask the FBI to figure that one out?
This is not turning on a dime. This is the same sort of cautious turn any pilot would make in an airplane he hasn’t spent a lot of time in. The fact the airplane is moving several hundred miles per hour accounts for the width of the turn. The faster you go, the greater the turn radius for the same bank.
An experienced jumbo pilot would be able to make a clean 180 in much less space. I’m reasonably sure that when they hung a left at Cleveland the hijackers were in control, not the legitimate pilots.
This is, of course assuming that Flight 93 is even talking to the air traffic controllers.
This illustrates yet again this bizarre assumption that somehow airplanes are incapable of moving without the assistance of ATC. Controllers are traffic cops - it’s pilots that move airplanes. Yes, a jumbo is supposed to talk with ATC and be on an instrument flight plan at all times - but then, non-employees of an airplane are supposed to sit in the back like good little passengers, not hijack the airplane. Fact is, if a pilot wants to deviate from plan, there’s nothing ATC can do to physically stop them. So… were they talking to ATC, or ignoring them? Sure, ATC could be tracking them… or maybe not, there’s so much going on and if they shut down the transponder then they’re just that much harder to see.
Some of this has been dealt with in the thread I linked to earlier in this thread.
So, anyhow, we know they turned back towards Pennsylvania and/or DC.
OK, somebody obviously did have this airplane on their radar scope. They believed it was hijacked, they did not know for sure it was hijacked. Now why would that be? Well, I guess no one announced on the radio “This plane is hijacked”. So either they were getting odd responses from the radio (if any) and/or the plane was flying in a peculiar manner. They were deducing it was hijacked - my guess is that this was based on behavior.
I was going to snipe that the radius of the airspace assigned to PIT is easy enough to look up, but since I can’t find my copy of the Airport and Facilities Directory for that part of the country maybe I shouldn’t. Aw, shucks, guys, you couldn’t call the freakin’ airport and ask them? (Lazy reporting - if I was writing the story I’d get my butt in the car, drive 10 minutes to my local field, and look it up in their reference books. This is not rocket science, just airplane science)
OK - this is the only number for an altitude I’ve found. But there’s a problem with that number - I don’t know if it’s “above ground level”, or “mean sea level”. In Pittsburgh, it’s a 1,200 foot difference. So… they were between 4,800 feet and 6,000 feet above the ground
That is very low for an airliner that isn’t actively taking off or landing.
Let’s see, 500 mph is about 8 miles a minute (I’m rouding a bit)… or roughly 7-8 seconds a mile… well, heck, if the distances are accurate it was about 1 minute 45 seconds to 2 minutes from the report at 6000 feet and impact. Close enough.
Anyhow - pay attention boys and girls - while 4800AGL/6000MSL is very low for an airliner it is typical - or even higher than typical - for the pilot of a single engine piston plane. Which is the sort of plane we know the Bad Boys trained on. The most typical navigational charts used by VFR pilots - “sectionals” - are (I’ve been told) “designed” to be used at 5000 AGL (and this is reasonably true in my experience) as far as marked landmarks are concerned. That altitude would keep you above obstacles short of true mountains, but allow you to match scenery to map fairly easily. It would also be an altitude a single-engine piston pilot would be comfortable flying at, and might revert to when bombarded with multiple stressors like hijacking a plane, executing a suicide mission, and dealing with unruly passengers. In a single-engine, that altitude gives you considerable space to deal with upsets and problems - but not so in a jumbo (or so I’d expect). In other words, this altitude is consistent in my mind with a primarally VFR single-engine piston pilot navigating by eyeballs.
The less than precise manuvering, and eyewitness reports of erratic flight, would also be consistent with inexperienced 757 pilots and/or a battle between hijackers and passengers.
Clearly, if they flew from Cleveland to Pittsburgh they has some control of the airplane. I don’t think they lost control through total incompetence - I think something had to intervene to prevent them from completely their mission. So we’re back to either a passenger rebellion or an outside agency acting upon the airplane. I don’t have a problem with the idea of a battle for control inside the airplane, and I feel the evidence comes down in favor of that scenario. Judging by the number of conspiracy sites, others feel differently. I do wish, however, the folks writing those sites had a better understanding of how aviation works. It would make them much more believable.
Thanks for all the great information, Broomstick. I feel that my question has been answered to my satisfaction. Until now I hadn’t understood how easily a plane could be thrown out of control — this hadn’t been adequately explained in the news. But now knowing how small the pilot’s space is, how easily the controls can be thrown off by a fight of several desperate people in a small space, how hard it is to regain control quickly once lost, especially at a low altitude as Flight 93 seems to have been, and how short a time it takes to hit the ground, it becomes pretty clear that the fight is what must have done it.
Beemer and the rest could hardly have intended to crash the plane as they did, and what exactly they expected to accomplish isn’t known, if they even knew it at the time, but the ease of crashing the plane when you start a fight in that small area at low altitude is clear.
Anyway, let’s face it, I like a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone, but as conspiracy theories go, this one was pretty lame and pointless to begin with.
<Clue>It was the hijacker – in the cockpit – with the joystick.</Clue>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3136285.stm
**Passengers ‘did not crash 9/11 plane’
No-one knows for certain the hijackers’ intended destination
Hijackers on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania during the 11 September 2001 attacks may have flown the aircraft into the ground to crush a passenger uprising, US investigators now believe. **
Even thought the hijackers crashed it, the passengers still kept them from hitting their intended target, whatever it was. At least the passengers did that much.
It seems to me this theory should be mentionned, since despite the obvious lack of evidences, it’s not a crackpot conspiracy theory in the sense that it would have been a sensible thing to do. I mean, had the plane not crashed, wouldn’t have they ordered to shot it down? I do no doubt for an instant they would, rather than having it crash on some building (with an identical result for the passengers but much more deaths). I would most certainly have, and I suspect most other people too.
So, it doesn’t require a twisted mind to imagine such an outcome. Though unproven, this theory makes much sense.
OK…Once again, I hit the “reply” button first and read the rest f the thread latter.
I didn’t realize the thread was so old and so long, and had not read the facts and infos it included. My “common sense” bows to superior knowledge, and I withdraw my comment.
Now, Jomo Mojo, it doesn’t say definitely what happened, just proposed a theory with some supporting evidence - not too different than what we’ve done here on the Dope a few times.
MAY have flown - note that this is not proven.
Also - define “US investigators”. The FBI? And their expertise with plane crashes is —? The NTSB? (Those are the usual plane crash investigation people) Is this a joint effort? A final report? I’d consider the source but they’re a bit vague on it.
Unless the BBC got ahold of actual copies of the CVR tapes - which I doubt - this is second hand at best. Again, what are their sources? “US investigators” again? Some of the family members who got to listen to the tapes? Who?
Although this is certianly intriguing, what was said and what actually happened are two different things. There could have still be a struggle for control. Consider some of the eyewitness reports of erratic flying - side to side, up and down… if a hijacker was intending to delibrately crash all it would take would be a nose-over, just a firm push forward and the nose would drop. There would be no side-to-side rocking involved. Yet there were reports of that very motion.
And why do we never hear about what the flight data recorder indicates? The exact motion of the plane during the final minutes could be quite informative.
Yeah, well, the FBI is pretty mum about a lot of things.
This is very true.
Remember that statement - it’s very true. I think it very unlikely we will ever know for sure what happened.
Don’t you just love that - the only one known to have a pilot’s license. What are they saying? Maybe the others did, maybe they didn’t? Maybe those with licenses were doing a little clandestine instruction on the side? It’s so easy to wander off into speculation.
Why does it matter whether they had licences? This should be a moot point. All they needed was the flying lessons.
The voice recording suggests that the passengers had indeed removed the hijackers from the controls of the airplane. From MSNBC:
Actually, that was a quote from the BBC - what I actually said was an attempt to be snarky:
The only statement a license (or “certificate”, to be prissy-correct) says about the owner is that he or she passed a number of test sand can be presumed to have a minimum level of competance. The only advantage is that having one makes it easier to obtain/rent an airplane for practicing. There’s really no reason flight licensed terrorists couldn’t teach other terrorists how to fly.