|
Post by nomuse on Mar 7, 2007 6:43:37 GMT -4
And there's a limit to available taxiways. Now, sure, they wouldn't be trying to find them terminal space right away: but there's a limit to how much you can stack up these llarge and somewhat ungainly machines. They gotta go somewhere, and they have to leave room for everyone else to get by, and there's a limited amount of total tarmac. Every day sees a new near-miss due to the existing congestion of the modern airport. Try shoving two or three times the normal load on to an airport and see how bogged down it gets then...
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 7, 2007 13:59:09 GMT -4
2 minutes is about the average time between landings at O'Hare and Hartsfield the busiest airports in the world*. The average time at the #3 airport is 3 minutes.* It is unreasonable to expect 2 minutes to be average minimum clearance time at all airports in America even if peak minimum time is less than average time and no planes were talking off. From what I understand a) landing a plane is more complicated than getting it airborne and b)planes normally takeoff and land against the wind so canceling takes offs would not double capacity. Presumably most airports and control towers were already operating at close to capacity for the number of ATC’s on duty and their infrastructure. None of us really have any idea how much excess capacity they had to handle additional landings** nor how much time it would take to put every plane on the ground esp. small planes like a Falcon 20 in an area which had several closed airports. Unless Feelfree or another CT can come up with numbers backed by references further discussing this question is pointless. * abcnews.go.com/Business/BusinessTravel/wireStory?id=2150421** Except perhaps for the members with aviation experience
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 8, 2007 0:02:15 GMT -4
There is a minimum safe landing interval between aircraft, depending on the size and type involved, in order to avoid wake turbulence. A large aircraft can land fairly quickly after a small one, but a smaller aircraft needs to wait longer to follow a larger one down. Smaller airplanes have done what they usually do...they were taken in charge by smaller airports.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 8, 2007 0:42:13 GMT -4
Where in LA, for example, are there small airports that don't take large planes?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 8, 2007 1:09:04 GMT -4
I think Van Nuys only takes smaller aircraft but I could be wrong... and it might not technically be considered in LA, I'm not that familiar with the area.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 8, 2007 1:33:30 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 8, 2007 2:31:47 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 8, 2007 2:45:13 GMT -4
Yes it was hard .... however www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-cs-air-traffic.htmAlmost 75% of those planes landed within just 60 minutes of the 9:45 order.On a normal day, about 20 aircraft each hour are rerouted to new destinations because of emergencies or bad weather. On Sept. 11, controllers rerouted more than 1,100 flights in the first 15 minutes after the order to land the fleet was issued at 9:45 a.m. — more than one every second. In all, about 3,300 commercial and 1,200 private planes were ordered to land by U.S. and Canadian authorities that day. Almost 75% of those planes landed within just 60 minutes of the 9:45 order. Canadian controllers and airport managers cleared space in small airports north of the U.S. border for 252 jets arriving from Europe and Asia.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 8, 2007 3:30:05 GMT -4
In fact, no. In what I consider the Los Angeles area (and remember I grew up there), there's LAX, which is obviously right out. The Bob Hope Burbank International Airport. That's where I fly in when I visit my mother. Ontario's the one my second grade class took a field trip to, and they definitely had big planes. I think the one by Riverside is the AFB across the road from the cemetery where my dad's buried. Santa Ana's the John Wayne International Airport, so that's out, too. The one by San Bernadino's the only one I don't know for a fact is capable of handling airliners; I'm not 100% sure the one in Riverside does, but I know it can. ETA: Okay, so I don't know 100% about Long Beach, either, but I do know that's another place with a former military base, because my mother shops there.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 8, 2007 3:39:57 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 8, 2007 5:34:13 GMT -4
In fact, looking over the information posted, I'm not sure how much I trust that site; the airport is most assuredly not located in Pasadena. It's in Burbank. You can tell, because until about five years ago, it was officially called "The Burbank International Airport." It is international, too; your site doesn't list it as such, though.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 8, 2007 8:02:39 GMT -4
Yes it was hard .... however www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-cs-air-traffic.htmAlmost 75% of those planes landed within just 60 minutes of the 9:45 order.On a normal day, about 20 aircraft each hour are rerouted to new destinations because of emergencies or bad weather. On Sept. 11, controllers rerouted more than 1,100 flights in the first 15 minutes after the order to land the fleet was issued at 9:45 a.m. — more than one every second. In all, about 3,300 commercial and 1,200 private planes were ordered to land by U.S. and Canadian authorities that day. Almost 75% of those planes landed within just 60 minutes of the 9:45 order. Canadian controllers and airport managers cleared space in small airports north of the U.S. border for 252 jets arriving from Europe and Asia. So your case is pretty much dead according to the article 4500 planes were in the air. With in 15 minutes of the order 9:45 order or by 10:00 1100 of them landed thus 3400 (just over 75%) were still in the air 3 – 6 minutes before the crash. As late as an hour after the order or about 10:45 (39 – 42 minutes after the crash) about 75% (3375) had landed and 25 % or about 1125 were still in the air. Thus about 2275 planes landed between 10:00 and 10:45 which comes to about 50 planes a minute by 10:03 about 150 additional planes had landed (1250 total about 28%) 10:06 about additional 300 or so planes landed or about 1400 (31 % of the total) so the odds the Falcon 20 would still be in the air were about 70%. Actually greater than 70%, presumably the passenger planes were given priority over private ones and at least 2 airports in the area were closed.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 8, 2007 8:14:35 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 8, 2007 9:44:27 GMT -4
Yes it was hard .... however www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-cs-air-traffic.htmAlmost 75% of those planes landed within just 60 minutes of the 9:45 order.On a normal day, about 20 aircraft each hour are rerouted to new destinations because of emergencies or bad weather. On Sept. 11, controllers rerouted more than 1,100 flights in the first 15 minutes after the order to land the fleet was issued at 9:45 a.m. — more than one every second. In all, about 3,300 commercial and 1,200 private planes were ordered to land by U.S. and Canadian authorities that day. Almost 75% of those planes landed within just 60 minutes of the 9:45 order. Canadian controllers and airport managers cleared space in small airports north of the U.S. border for 252 jets arriving from Europe and Asia. So your case is pretty much dead according to the article 4500 planes were in the air. With in 15 minutes of the order 9:45 order or by 10:00 1100 of them landed thus 3400 (just over 75%) were still in the air 3 – 6 minutes before the crash. First all these planes were not flying exclusively over Pensylvania.As for the Pensylvania Airports capacity to handle air traffic even if some of them were closed that day.... There are 139 airports in Pennsylvania that the public can use. The airports in Pennsylvania have world-class standards. The airports in Pennsylvania provide one of the best experiences in flying. www.mapsofworld.com/usa/states/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-airports.htmlSecondly I was replying to Nomuse who said It must take many hours to land all these planes across the US territory. Thirdly Wright was flying over Youngwood, Westmoreland County , and was getting ready to land in Latrobe under order from air traffic control.Then, an air-traffic controller asked him and his passenger to look out the window. Wright was flying a Piper Arrow when he spotted a jet crossing behind him -- about three miles away. It was close enough for him and his photographer to see the United Airlines colors.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 8, 2007 13:42:27 GMT -4
The point you seemed to be trying to make was that it was suspicious that the Falcon 20 would still have been airborne at the time 93 crashed. That has been shown to be false since about 70% of the planes that were in the air when the order was given still were so at the time. Yes Pennsylvania like every other state in the US has many small airports but with 2 airports closed there is no reason to expect them to have been able to land planes more than 3X faster than in the rest of the country. Nomuse might not have been correct but he was closer to the truth than you who expected all the planes to have been on the ground in minutes, after an hour many planes were still in the air. Youngwood is 50 miles by road from Shanksville or presumablly about 40 miles in a straight line. maps.yahoo.com/index.php#mvt=m&q2=shanksville,%20PA&q1=youngwood,%20PA&trf=0&lon=-79.240952&lat=40.128491&mag=8 At 580 mph the 757 would have been about 4 minutes from crashing he was getting ready to land but had not landed yet
|
|