Wheels-off time for UA 175, 8:13 or 8:23? Options

[woody]

According to the official story (and confirmed by the ATC transcript) UA 175 took off at 8:13.

http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/foru...ewtopic.php?283

But according to the BTS database UA 175=N612UA took off at 8:23!

http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatis...ryDepatures.xml

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, the wheels-off data are triggered automatically by a mechanical sensor when the plane looses contact to the ground. This means that N612UA, the actual Flight 175, is not the "Flight 175" in the ATC transcript!

The same discrepancy we have for UA 93. Official version: 8:42. BTS version: 8:28.

Computer bug or different planes?

[rob balsamo]

This is very interesting woody. We need to find out of the BTS uses something called ACARS and if United has ACARS installed in their aircraft. If they do, then BTS is more accurate.

[woody]

United 93 definitely had ACARS installed - this is laid down in the 9/11 CR.

The United dispatcher, Ed Ballinger, sent ACARS messages to UA 93 (one was from Melody Homer, the wife of Leroy Homer, the co-pilot).

The 9/11 CR also lists as a source in the footnotes: UAL record, Flight 175 ACARS report, Sept. 11, 2001

[rob balsamo]

Did BTS get direct wheels off time from the ACARS from UAL93 and UAL175?

If so.. that is the most accurate time.

[woody]

Here is a technical directive from the BTS:

PROCEDURAL STATEMENT

Some carriers use ACARS to track flight times, other carriers have their pilots record the required times.

Carriers have the option of tracking all causes of delays from the moment the delay occurs or only those causes that persist for 6 minutes or longer.  Whichever method the carrier elects to use, the carrier must consistently apply the method in its monthly report.

Carriers have the option of reporting multiple causes of departure delays or the predominant cause of departure delays with two exceptions (1) Causal delay minutes assigned to late arriving aircraft can be equal to or less than but never more than the delay time of the previous flight operated with the same aircraft (2) Carriers can not use minutes assigned to NAS (because arrival delay was greater than departure delay) to disguise another delay cause. For example, a carrier had an 8-minute weather delay at departure, and the flight arrived 23 minutes late. The correct reporting would be 8 minutes for weather and 15 minutes for NAS. Whichever method the carrier elects to use, the carrier must consistently apply the method in its monthly report.

Before submitting the first causal report, carriers must submit a dated Procedural Statement for On-Time Reporting advising BTS whether it: (1) uses ACARS to track times; (2) tracks causes of delay beginning with the first minute of delay or only delay causes of 6 minutes or longer; (3) reports all causes of delays or only the predominant cause of delay. Carrier must email the Procedural Statement to ontime.support@bts.gov.  If a carrier elects to change a reporting method, it must submit a revised Procedural Statement for On-Time Reporting before submitting the monthly 234 report.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_inform..._directive.html

I'm not the biggest expert in this area, but if United 175 had ACARS installed, it in all probability used it to report the departure/arrival data to the BTS.
At least this looks far more probable than the pilot "manually" recording the wheels-off time and reporting it to the BTS.

[GroundControl]

The BTS information is gathered from what the airline submits. There are no, from what I understand, automatic ACARS to BTS tranfers. Daily info goes to the airlines dispatch or flight OPS, and then gets submitted as a whole,either monthly or weekly.

This post has been edited by GroundControl: Nov 20 2006, 12:42 AM

[timzan9]

ACARS is driven as soon as an aircrafts brakes are released. The question should be is this the "out" time ( brakes released and out of the blocks) or the "off" time (where the aircraft is off the ground)? This might have caused some confusion.

[woody]

ACARS is driven as soon as an aircrafts brakes are released. The question should be is this the "out" time ( brakes released and out of the blocks) or the "off" time (where the aircraft is off the ground)? This might have caused some confusion.

Clear answer: Flight 175 pushed back from the gate at 8:01, according to the official story AND the BTS.

But the "wheels-off time", i.e. when it lifted off the runway is different.

The official story says it was 8:14, backed by the ATC transcript.

The BTS says 8:23, which makes a huge 9 minutes difference.


This is no confusion. This is a contradiction.

[Guest_Ningen_*]

FAA's report has Flight 175 at 19,000 feet at 8:23, and being visually identified by the Flight 11 pilot at 8:35.

The 9/11 Commission Report states that "United 175 pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14. By 8:33, it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet."

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

This document states that Flight 175 "departed" at 8:14:

FAA report, Executive Summary, Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis, September 11, 2001, Sept. 17, 2001 [Referenced Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes," footnotes 40, 41] (page 1 of 3)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa5.pdf

The below more detailed FAA document states that Flight 175 began its takeoff roll at 8:14, and that at 8:23, "Flight 175 established radio contact with Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center (ZBW). 'Boston, morning, United one-seventy-five out of one-nine (nineteen thousand feet) for two-three-zero (twenty-three thousand feet).'" The document continues that sometime after 8:23, Flight 175 was instructed to climb to 31,000 feet, and that at 8:40, Flight 175 radioed that it was at 31,000 feet.

FAA report, Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events: September 11, 2001, Sept. 17, 2001 [Referenced Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes," footnote 44]

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

(page 12 of 59)

Another reason this time is important has become apparent to me from reading this FAA Report on Aircraft Accident about Flight 11:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa6.pdf

At page 3 of 4, the report states that Flight 175 made visual contact with Flight 11 and verified Flight 11's altitude at 8:38 a.m. (1238 universal time). This would not have been possible if Flight 175 left the ground at 8:23 as BTS says, rather than at 8:14, as the FAA and the 9/11 Commission say, because Flight 175 would have been 50 miles or more east of Flight 11's reported flight path.

I'm not a pilot so I hope this last part makes sense.

[rob balsamo]

I'm not a pilot so I hope this last part makes sense.

It certaily does.... especially this part...

At page 3 of 4, the report states that Flight 175 made visual contact with Flight 11 and verified Flight 11's altitude at 8:38 a.m. (1238 universal time). This would not have been possible if Flight 175 left the ground at 8:23 as BTS says, rather than at 8:14, as the FAA and the 9/11 Commission say, because Flight 175 would have been 50 miles or more east of Flight 11's reported flight path.

Welcome to the forums... great catch! Im sure i speak for others when i say... I look forward to more of your posts..

[amazed!]

Ningen

Welcome to the forums!

You are right that there is alot of conflicting info in the government reports. So much conflicting info that it's not funny. I had not caught that little blurb that 175 visually identified 11. Sounds like a crock to me.

There is conflicting info about which gates the 2 flights departed Boston, times departed, and other little details.

My speculation is that the passengers listed never boarded, but that might not be the case. Maybe they were boarded and then deplaned in Cleveland? Who knows?

The official story has more holes than 100 pounds of Swiss Cheese. B)

[Guest_Ningen_*]

Thanks, Amazed!

This is really hard to sort out. Does this mean that Flight 175 did not identify Flight 11? Does this change the tracking of Flight 11? Is this what FAA really thinks happened? Does it mean they were tracking other planes (or inputs) and receiving false radio contacts? Did they change the report? Is BTS wrong? Ahhh!!! (brain explodes)

[Sanders]

... Ahhh!!! (brain explodes)

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

It's alot easier if you assume that they are probably lying about all sorts of stuff.

BTW, 'Ningen' tte, nihongo da yo ne. Nihon no kata desu ka?

[Guest_Ningen_*]

Yeah, that's the problem, Sander.

Amerika-jin desu. "Ningen" ha Daily Kos ni touroku shita toki ni fukaku kangaezu ni eranda namae desu. Daily Kos de 9/11 no hanashi ga dekinai node, kougi no imi mo fukumete, sono ato zutto tsukatteimasu.

[Sanders]

Well, you speak pretty damn good Japanese for an American is all I can say.

Tonikaku, bikkuri shita (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[dMz]

FWIW, USAF 84 RADES has UA175 at 9000 ft Height at 8:16:04 EDT [RIV, reinforced]

At 8:16:16, UA175 is listed at Height 7600, Mode C 6000 feet [RIV, reinforced]

The first position given is 42.3646 N, -70.8364 W, again at 8:16:04 [RIV, reinforced]

Strangely, this has the plane "taking off" over the Atlantic Ocean (although there is ~12 second radar "sweep" interval).

See:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10076950

BTW, Ffg seems to have disappeared since then, kind of like the J. Farmer RADES forum... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

9 miles in 12 seconds is awfully quick for a B767-222... Approx. 2700 mph by my quick calculation...(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

This post has been edited by dMole: May 31 2008, 06:46 AM

[dMz]

I'm still quite puzzled about the initial "takeoff" location first reported by the USAF 84 RADES data and by the NTSB report for UA175. Long ago, I took page 3 of the following and imported it for CAD analysis:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf

This is what I found after importing the NTSB[s?] diagram and some CAD analysis:

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id3103279830.html

Compare and contrast with page 3 of the following for AA11, allegedly also taking off earlier from Boston Logan:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

Does anyone care to explain this to me? If someone can provide me with the latitude and longitude coordinates of the BOS runway that UA175 allegedly took off from, I can probably get a more accurate distance using the first and second RADES radar returns reported for UA175 ( at 6000 feet aMSL Mode C at 12:16:15.945 GMT (Zulu time), 8:16:16 EDT).

I remember hearing something about a helipad and UA175 too- what's up with that?

[woody]

Does anyone care to explain this to me? If someone can provide me with the latitude and longitude coordinates of the BOS runway that UA175 allegedly took off from, I can probably get a more accurate distance using the first and second RADES radar returns reported for UA175 ( at 6000 feet aMSL Mode C at 12:16:15.945 GMT (Zulu time), 8:16:16 EDT).

I remember hearing something about a helipad and UA175 too- what's up with that?

No problem - here's a nice diagram of Logan Airport:

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/runway-...axi-diagram.pdf

According to the ATC transcript

http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/foru...ewtopic.php?283

UA 175 lifted off from runway 9 somewhere between 8:13:34 and 8:14:36.

[dMz]

Thanks woody,

That is an excellent diagram- thank you. From that I estimated BOS Runway 9 "wheels up" at roughly:
N 42d 21' 24" W71d 00' (30 to 36)"
N 42.3566666667 W71.0091666666667
-----
Using the RADES 1st RIV UA175 return at:
42.3646 N 70.8364 W at 8:16:04 EDT

And the calculator at:
http://williams.best.vwh.net/gccalc.htm

I get:
7.699782523801446 nm at bearing 86.39878588 degrees
or
8.860751482641547 statute miles or 46784.767828347365 feet [on the same bearing]
-----
The 2nd RADES UA175 return was at:
N 42.3540 W 70.8211 at 8:16:16 EDT

I get:
8.367877128302315 nm at bearing 91.03185789672703 degrees
or
9.629581022836563 statute miles (5280 feet) or 50844.187800577056 feet [on same bearing]
--------------------
Now if I divide by the ~ 11.960 second radar "sweep" interval, I get the 1st return needing a velocity of ~2667.1158308954 mph to cover 8.86 miles in 11.96 seconds, and get from BOS Runway 9 to out there over the Atlantic Ocean without the USAF national defense radar grid picking up UA175.

The more logical explanation is that there is missing RADES and FBI/NTSB data for the time frame before 42.3646 N 70.8364 W at 8:16:04 EDT. The question to ask is now why is this data missing?

Of course, there has been NO PUBLIC disclosure of ANY FAA data at all regarding 9/11/2001. Again, why is this data missing?