|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 28, 2007 15:44:02 GMT -4
Which return the discussion to. tinyurl.com/2b3j7qAugust 25, 2001 - Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force successfully auto lands a pilot-less FedEx Boeing 727 six times at Holloman AFB, NM using a military GPS landing system that will enable ground control to take control of a hijacked airplane and force land it. I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the plane was capable of being flown and landed without a pilot. If there had been a pilot on board he would have been able to control the plane regardless of whether or not the auto-pilot was enabled. Ok i think i have badly translated or interpreted the hijacked part of the text. So, they mean the system can be usefull in a convetional hijacking ie when the terrorist is not himself a pilot. That clarified the point.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 28, 2007 16:15:33 GMT -4
meant planes were kept at a separation of 1,000ftIn attitude. All planes are kept at 1,000' differences in attitude to avoid collisions, so one might be given 41,000', another 40,000' and so on. That is what I said the safety distance betwen two planes is 1,000ft. so one might be given 41,000', another 40,000' and so on. They can also flying right above each other one at 41,000', another 40,000' in attitude and still in a safety flight. The flight paths of these two particular planes meant they wouldn't have come closer than 2 and a half miles. Yes based on the flight path of both airplanes assuming no error [strayed] have happened during the flight. The spokesman is very rassuring here when he claim " The spokesman said there was no question that either aircraft had strayed from its proper path, which should mean there was a distance of some two and a half miles between them. As long that the claims are backed by the newspapers source.Given your reading of the article I linked to, I wouldn't be so sure that the articles actually are backing up what is said. I admit i have done a fast reading i was looking for the 2 and a half mile writing in number rather than: The spokesman said there was no question that either aircraft had strayed from its proper path, which should mean there was a distance of some two and a half miles between them.edited for spelling and precision
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 28, 2007 19:06:41 GMT -4
They can also flying right above each other one at 41,000', another 40,000' in attitude and still in a safety flight.
Yes they could, but in this case they weren't. I was pointing out that the 1000 ft speration is a general rule, not specific to this case, and that's what was being intended in the comment in the article.
The spokesman is very rassuring here when he claim
They had the radar tracking and ATC systems that told them where the planes were throughout the flight. The thing they don't know is exactly when the photo was taken. From the tracking, they know they didn't deviate from their flight path, from the flghtpaths they no that the closest they came is around two and a half miles, the rest of it is caused by the telescopic lens in the camera forshortening the distance between them. It's an example of why you can't always beleive what you appear to be seeing. The adage that the "Camera never lies" is very, very false because it converts a 3D world into a 2D one, and so so things we usually rely on to interpret what we are seeing vanish.
eta: I can expand on what the article says because I remember the wide coverage of the incident on the TV news at the time it occured. That's one of the reasons I hunted out this particular picture, because there was a lot of coverage of it at the time explaining it, even plots of the flight paths over London.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 28, 2007 21:40:37 GMT -4
Well to be honest I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a "Viking" climb, but I was assuming it was something like this or this oneI guess I should have clarified where to look on the linked page--it's a takeoff procedure used by F-15s departing from busy airports in order to avoid normal traffic patterns. The aircraft takes off and immediately climbs vertically out of the congested airspace. [edit: quoting]
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 29, 2007 1:10:59 GMT -4
The spokesman is very rassuring here when he claimThey had the radar tracking and ATC systems that told them where the planes were throughout the flight. The thing they don't know is exactly when the photo was taken. From the tracking, they know they didn't deviate from their flight path, from the flghtpaths they no that the closest they came is around two and a half miles, eta: I can expand on what the article says because I remember the wide coverage of the incident on the TV news at the time it occured. That's one of the reasons I hunted out this particular picture, because there was a lot of coverage of it at the time explaining it, even plots of the flight paths over London. If as you say they have showed the radar tracking and ATC systems that told them where the planes were throughout the flight. on the TV news at the time it occured.....that is good I am ok with the conclusion that the closest they came is around two and a half miles and that the rest of it is caused by the telescopic lens in the camera forshortening the distance between them. But I still think the spokesman was very rassuring ....that is his job.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Mar 30, 2007 10:12:39 GMT -4
Just catching up on the thread,,, New York approach controls some of the busiest airspace in the nation. You have three makor airports crammed in the NYC area, and you act suspicious that a plane is captured in flight in the same frame as the second impact. The airpace system was still operating normally at that time, many planes in the airspace making their planned arrivals for JFK, La Guardia, and Newark. The photo is using a telephoto lens, the plane was operating routinely for arrival, and is a great distance away from the towers. ...and the thing about "white" airplanes...that's kind of the "fashion" in airliner livery these days...cheap and easy to paint...and frankly pretty dull from a airliner spotter's perspective.
Incidently, the 1000 foot ATC separation criteria...east even, west odd...so two planes travelling in generally the same direction will be 10 miles apart horizontally, or at least 2000 feet apart vertically. It's a real simple separation scheme. On 9/11 if I'm not mistaken, the separation was another thousand feet above FL180
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Mar 30, 2007 10:53:14 GMT -4
The Viking departure was "invented" because the USAF finally had a plane (F-15) that could climb, and accellerate, vertically. Mind you, at full gross takeoff weight, this was not possible, though the climb rate still easily outmatched earlier fighters.
Airliners can conceivably do a "zoom climb", where they build up tremendous speed, them go into a steep climb, trading airspeed for altitude, as the 757 video shows. But an airliner cannot hold this great climb rate for long.
Even scrambling fighters, full of fuel and a decent load of weaponry, don't by practice do the Viking departures, it spend's way too much time in 'burner, sucking many gallons of fuel per second...not the most efficient way to get to altitude at those heavier weights.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 30, 2007 17:05:06 GMT -4
...and the thing about "white" airplanes...that's kind of the "fashion" in airliner livery these days...cheap and easy to paint...and frankly pretty dull from a airliner spotter's perspective.
White reflects heat, which means less mechanical cooling of the cabin is required, which in turn saves fuel.
Incidently, the 1000 foot ATC separation criteria...east even, west odd...so two planes travelling in generally the same direction will be 10 miles apart horizontally, or at least 2000 feet apart vertically. It's a real simple separation scheme.
Good point.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 30, 2007 17:08:57 GMT -4
Even scrambling fighters, full of fuel and a decent load of weaponry, don't by practice do the Viking departures, it spend's way too much time in 'burner, sucking many gallons of fuel per second...not the most efficient way to get to altitude at those heavier weights.
When I first read about the this in the early '80s, it was being used to avoid interfering with normal airport traffic at McD-D's facility in St. Louis. Later I actually saw an F-15 do one at an air show. Very impressive in person.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Mar 30, 2007 17:42:19 GMT -4
Yeah, saw a lot of them at Luke in the 70s, the F-15 training squardon was there...all part of the "aircraft familiarization" program (plus good for a rousing "Holy S#$% from the onlookers)...
|
|