When did Flight 175 lift off?

[Woody Box]

The official departure data for flight 175 are:

7:58 actual gate departure time
8:14 wheels-off time

The BTS database confirms the gate departure time, but shows a differing wheels-off time: 8:23.

Thanks to mn9driver, I know now that these two departure data are submitted from the plane to the airline center automatically with the help of a system named ACARS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=7618&mesg_id=7662&page=

So usually no human action is necessary to submit the data .

So how is the discrepancy to explain?

Possibilities:

1) ACARS software bug oder failure during transmission from plane to airline computer; UA 175 took off at 8:14, the wrong 8:23 is submitted.

2) Failure during transmission from the airline to the BTS, either human or software or hardware; UA 175 took off at 8:14, ACARS transmitted 8:14, but the BTS received 8:23.

3) Failure within the BTS; it received 8:14, but published 8:23 for some reason.

But don't let us exclude a fourth possibility:

4) UA 175 took off at 8:23, ACARS is right, United Airlines is right, the BTS is right. The 8:14 is wrong. Who is responsible in this case?

[mn9driver]

1. Acars can only generate one "off" event.

A second "off" time on the same segment would cause a logical error, so if there is a second "off" event recorded, it came from a different source. Airport control towers keep their own logs of liftoff and landing times, so maybe it came from that.

[TrogL]

2. Simple

Computers are crappy at keeping time.

I maintain computers that run databases recording time-based events.

I have to constantly have to keep an eye on them because the clocks drift. One of mine loses four minutes a day if it let it.

[mn9driver]

4. ACARS clocks do drift.

We synch them up several times a day by doing a "link test" at the gate. Parking brake needs to be set and a door open in order to change the clock. The test is a manual procedure, so if it doesn't get done (or if its' done with the brakes off or the door closed) the clock could drift by a few minutes.

[Woody Box]

5. A lame clock? C'me on

The actual gate departure time of UA 175 was 7:58. All agree on that. And ACARS's clock was on time, too.

But when the plane took off at 8:14, ACARS reported 8:23. That's a bit more than "a few minutes per day".

No, gentlemen. The "lame computer clock" theory doesn't work. Try another one.

[mn9driver]

7. I was replying to #2. If you want my answer, try #1.

Or make up your own "theory". That's what most folks here seem to do. :tinfoilhat:

[Woody Box]

8. Theories for everything

/// Or make up your own "theory". That's what most folks here seem to do. ///

You're right, but making up theories is normal behaviour of homo sapiens.

You're making up theories too ( your post #1):

/// Acars can only generate one "off" event.
A second "off" time on the same segment would cause a logical error, so if there is a second "off" event recorded, it came from a different source. Airport control towers keep their own logs of liftoff and landing times, so maybe it came from that. ///

Your theory implies that ACARS was working properly at 7:58, recording and transmitting the gate departure (agreed); that it recorded and transmitted the take-off at 8:14 (what I doubt, because BTS says other); and that the wrong take-off info 8:23 came from a controller (what I strongly refute, because we know the 8:14 data from the controllers): (scroll down a bit)

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/16/national/16TEXT-FLIGHT11.html?ex=1071378000&en=4b6d66a63bf99b3a&ei=5070

My theory is more simple: There was a plane taking off at 8:14, and another plane taking off at 8:23. We know this pattern already from the gate issue of AA 11.

[DulceDecorum]

9. And speaking of gates,

QA-Departure Report
United flight 1586 departed New York-La Guardia (LGA) at 1419 UTC. This message is initiated automatically when all doors are closed and the parking brake is released, which indicates a departure from the gate.
ACARS mode: 2 Aircraft reg: .N413UA
Message label: QA Block id: 2 Msg. no: M99A
Flight id: UA1586
Message content:-
LGA1419
-------<21/11/1997 14:38>

QD-Arrival Report
United 1586 has arrived Washington Dulles International (IAD) at 1436 UTC. The message is sent automatically once the aircraft has arrived at the gate, the parking brake is set, and at least one of the doors have been opened.
ACARS mode: 2 Aircraft reg: .N413UA
Message label: QD Block id: 1 Msg. no: M98A
Flight id: UA1586
Message content:-
///1436
-------21/11/1997 14:38]

RA-Command Response Uplink
The RA message is sent to the aircraft as a command to perform certain functions using the ACARS system as a gateway to other onboard systems. If for example, the company dispatch wanted to update the flight plan stored in the Flight Management System, it could do so via this message type.
Here's a United Airlines 757 receiving gate information for Chicago-O'Hare:
ACARS mode: 2 Aircraft reg: .N506UA
Message label: RA Block id: B Msg. no: QUHD
Flight id: QWDUA~
Message content:-
1GATE ASSIGN
UA881 IADORD
GATE C21 FREQ 130.15
EON 1602 APU OFF
http://www.acarsonline.co.uk/aclink/almsg.htm

As you can see,
ACARS knows exactly when the plane makes any move.
It is really odd, that the geniuses who came up with this system are supposedly unable to program accurate time-keeping functions into their mainframe. Especially when the BTS has an entire database concerning the arrival times of aircraft.
http://www.dollyon-line.com/archives/lyrics/runthatbyme.shtml

[mn9driver]

11. Yes. Mystery ghost airplanes is a much simpler explanation.

Why didn't I think of that? I see 'em all the time when I'm out earning my living doing this job that some people here seem to know so much more about than lil' ol' me.

[medienanalyse]

12. dear Mr mn9driver - may I interpret what you say?

There is a simple statement of dulce:
a) the official times are not clear
b) but it must be easy to verify a lot - even without fdr and voice recorders and tapes from the atccs - so the times

Dulce proves that allegation. And I can add: the juggling with i.e. the time of the crash in Shanksville (10:10, 10:06, 10:03) or the time of the scrambling in Otis are also very fragile.

Why? Why don`t we find a official statement in the internet with all times and evidence linked to them, i.e.? A timeline which smashes the one of Paul Thompson off the table?

mn9driver: are you trying to clear things or the opposite?

[DulceDecorum]

13. Ghost airplanes

do NOT have valid registrations with the FAA.
Ghost airplanes were not destroyed on 1/14/2002.

Ghost airplanes do not have unqualified
or under-qualified FAA certified pilots flying them.
But you are correct about the mystery.

Planes whose air-to-ground telephone links had been ordered removed
managed to complete record numbers of telephone calls.
Prohibited cell phones do not seem to able to work in said aircraft.
HOW did the all people on Flight 93
and Barbara Olson on Flight 77
EVER MANAGE TO CALL THE GROUND?
That is a mystery.

[mn9driver]

14. Sigh. So MUCH information available to you

and so little interest in actually understanding it. Toodle-loo.

[Abe Linkman]

15. Why so little interest in replying to such a reasonable post?

You seem to have plenty of time to post here, so would you kindly post a substantive response to #13 of DD's?

Thank you.

[mn9driver]

16. Hmmmmm. Where to start.

You're right-I do have a lot of time on my hands right now since I am laid up with a busted knee (passengers HATE it when a pilot comes on board using crutches).

I have 25 years of military and commercial aviation experience, about 14000 hours of flight time in aircraft ranging from WWII warbirds to 747's. I have extensive postgraduate education (and thankfully only limited experience)in Aircraft Mishap Investigation, courtesy of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA.

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade in this out-of-the-way corner of DU, but when I see information or an interpretation that is obviously misinformed, I will correct it.

If someone asks an aviation related question that I can answer, I will do so, as fully and truthfully as possible.

What I will not do is repeat myself endlessly to posters who appear to be more invested in their hypotheses than in the little window of reality that I can open here.

If you have a specific question, Mr. Linkman, I will be happy to answer it to the best of my ability.

[Abe Linkman]

17. It's the same one I asked you to respond to, but just so it's clear...

"Planes whose air-to-ground telephone links had been ordered removed
managed to complete record numbers of telephone calls.
Prohibited cell phones do not seem to able to work in said aircraft.
HOW did the all people on Flight 93
and Barbara Olson on Flight 77
EVER MANAGE TO CALL THE GROUND?
That is a mystery."

As you know, the alleged calls by the woman who is identified variously as being the wife of the Solicitor General of the United States, Mrs. Barbara Olson, are critically important to the Official Story Conspiracy. Yet, now we learn (thanks, DD), that the air-to-ground telephone links had been ordered removed. Doesn't that undermine the fragile integrity of one Theodore ("Ted") Olson - who is the quoted source for the story about the calls having been made?

What say you to the above? (DD's points and mine)

[mn9driver]

18. This is bogus in several ways:

DD, while crawling the web, apparently found a reference to this AD issued by the FAA on 14 August 2001. Remember that date.

The AD is specifically related to B757-200 series aircraft modified by authority of a Supplemental Type Certificate, numbered SA1727GL. This STC is for the installation of a telephone system by the "In Flight Phone Corporation". They are the "Holder" of this STC.

Not all 757-200's were modified under this STC. Most major airlines went with ATT, GTE, Verizon, Claircom, Mitsubishi or other makers, who all hold their own STC's. This AD does not apply to them. Their systems are installed differently and may or may not have presented the same hazards.

Now, I don't know whether or not American and United's 757's had this specific vendor's system installed on their airplanes. I doubt it,since I've never heard of these guys. The FAA admits that they don't know either, because the company is out of business and they were the STC holder with the records. Funny system, but that...is...reality.

But, it doesn't matter anyway. Remember that date?

Except in the case of "emergency" AD's, aircraft owners have a generous amount of time to comply. In this case, it was 18 months from the "issue date".

The 9/11 aircraft had phones. It was legal.

Seat back phones have sort of disappeared in the last couple of years, but the reason is economic, not safety or regulatory.

As an aside, older analog cell telephones are often capable of transmitting from an airborne plane, depending on altitude and location (although the FAA does prohibit their use in flight). The newer digital ones cut out a lot quicker, but will still work under some circumstances. Don't ask me how I know.

Too much information without the knowledge or will to interpret it properly is not a good thing. Good night.

[medienanalyse]

19. maybe it helps you, mn9driver

like an additional critch,
when I state that I do NOT agree to dulce hypothesis of ghost flights. He mixes "they explain2 with "they could explain", but they can not explain a lot of other facts which are obvious. I do not want to point it out.

No, I stick to a simple matter like what you want, mn9driver. I do not discuss the whole picture. And so:

a) the official times are not clear
b) but it must be easy to verify a lot of facts - even without fdr and voice recorders and tapes from the atccs - so the times

And ACARS IS evidence for b) I see dulces links as proof. If they are not, maybe I have not seen a posting by you which is helpfull.

My interpretation is: ACARS gives times of lift-off and more. Different other sources give a correct time too. So there are correct times and errors. But if an official institution gives different times without telling us, that the former information was an error caused in this or that, than I suspect

- there are times in reality
- and there are lies aboutr these times (i.e. to better explain the nonexistent interceptors).

[mn9driver]

20. Sorry. I can't figure out what you're asking. (edit)

I've explained how Acars works.
I've explained how it generates times.
I've explained that the times can be altered.

Perhaps I haven't made it clear that it is very common for them to be altered for various reasons. It happens to me 1 or 2 times nearly every trip I fly. Examples:

-The door is closed, but the brakes aren't set because I haven't gotten that far in my preflight yet. An "out" time is generated, but it's wrong-we haven't left yet. It needs to be corrected. Notice also that in this case, the Acars clock has not been reset, and so may be off by a few minutes depending on how bad this particular unit is at keeping time and when it was last reset.

-On taxi out with 1 generator not working (perfectly OK and safe) a special check is performed to be sure the backups are functioning. Electrical power is interrupted to the ACARS and the clock resets to 00:00. Oops. We can't reset it because we are getting ready to take off and I'm not opening the door and setting the brake for just that, so we go and then try to give close to the right times via voice. Flight dispatch sees that the ATC "off" time and our "voice off" times don't match, and decides to help out by inserting the ATC "off" into the record, overriding our ACARS, which is out to lunch, and our voice report, which was a few minutes different.

This stuff happens all the time. Why there would be two different "off" times for an aircraft that day is easy.

The times were altered.

There are lots of reasons why this might have happened. A conspiracy is only one reason, and not the likliest one.

[medienanalyse]

21. What I am asking is

a) the official times are not clear
b) but it must be easy to verify a lot of facts - even without fdr and voice recorders and tapes from the atccs - so especially the times

And ACARS IS evidence for b) I see dulces links as proof.

Do you deny that ACARS is able to provide the corrext times and will with aproximately 100% certainty have provided the times on 9/11?

Alternative question: why - what is your opinion- do we have these time gaps everywhere?

[mn9driver]

22. I will try again.

Timekeeping in the US ATC system is not universally synchronized. ACARS clocks differ from Gate clocks, which differ from ATC clocks.

So many clocks, so few of them talking with each other.

An aircraft takes off. It's clock says "A"

The Control tower observes. It's clock says "B"

Departure control observes it. It's clock says "C"

The airline notes it. It's clock says "D".

Four planes crash. It's a crime. The FBI collects all of the times from everyone and they're all different. A1, A2, A3 A4, B1, B2, B3, B4, etc.

Conspiracy? Perhaps. Reality? More likely.

There will be an "official" timeline. It has not been released yet because it belongs to the FBI and the investigation is not yet complete. It will reconcile the time discrepancies.

Right now there is no "official" timeline, which is why you see different times for everything. This happens in all crash investigations, before the investigation is complete.

[medienanalyse]

23. good answer, but not sufficient

>>>Four planes crash. It's a crime. The FBI collects all of the times from everyone and they're all different. A1, A2, A3 A4, B1, B2, B3, B4, etc. Conspiracy? Perhaps. Reality? More likely.<<<

I agree. The explanation is comprehensive.

>>>There will be an "official" timeline.<<<

Yes. It is necessary to understand different facts. But the important point is not only the "official" but as well the TRUE time. It is not a question of discussions and definitions, it is TRUE or false. Take the crashs i.e.: each of them is hammered in seismic printers which are linked to atomic clocks. Same with the clock in the towers. It is easy to get out: are they right or wrong, are they dependend on radio, are they mastered once a week or are they subjugated to a central FAA clock or whatever. But do not tell me that a clock on an airport which has starts and landings once per minute is not a question of safety and accuracy. And so all other clocks and times can be measured by a real time.

And let us not forget: ot is a common practise not only under soldiers to make a comparison before something starts: a clock check.

That is why I do understand one minte in difference. But not 7 or ten or twenty.

>>>It has no been released yet<<<

So the NORAD timeline is not official? So the stories they tell in front of the commission are due to be interpreted?

>>>because it belongs to the FBI and the investigation is not yet complete.<<<<

Is it a secret? Does it change the history? Must we expect more attacks by AlQaida when they know that we know when UAL93 crashed? Stay on the groun, mn8driver.

>>>>>Right now there is no "official" timeline,<<<<

And no evidence for anything. Yes I see the picture. They hide and distroy evidence wherever possible

>>>which is why you see different times for everything.

poor explanation. The wording is wrong: I see this or that time because they release this or that time. The contradictions are not in my head - they are made by those who are the owners of the truth and in the same time the owners of facilities to spread the lies.

>>>This happens in all crash investigations, before the investigation is complete.<<<

Maybe. Except that here we do not have normal crashs and so no normal investigations. The "investigations" were good enough to invede at least two countries and to kill some tenthousand innocent people.

It is like killing the alleged murderer on an electric chair and telling his family "we still check the fingerprints, and the timeline is not yet official, you know there can be defferences".

No. No. And no again. No judge would take that. And we as the public we do not take that too.

If the "independent" commission takes all the contradictions, i.e. the contradictions of times, it only shows who they are. Puppys.

[medienanalyse]

29. no answer by mn9driver is an answer too

In my previous post I demonstrated

- different approach than dulce has
- different way of arguing than Dulce does
- direct logic involvement with the arguments of mn9driver

He declares Dulces arguments as "bullshit" and ignores what I write.
Fine. Non sequitur. I hoped I could learn a bit.

[mn9driver]

30. Refer to #16

Especially this part:

If someone asks an aviation related question that I can answer, I will do so, as fully and truthfully as possible.
What I will not do is repeat myself endlessly to posters who appear to be more invested in their hypotheses than in the little window of reality that I can open here.

Enjoy your theories. Don't expect me to buy into them or debate you about them. I provide accurate information about how the airline industry works.

Take it or leave it.

[medienanalyse]

31. Refer to #23

and asking:
where is my "theory", where is the hypothesis?

That is your promise:
"I provide accurate information about how the airline industry works."

and my logic arguments in #23 ask:
- is it true or not that there is a official AND true time on every airport?

-is it true or false that the time of the crashs and the time of the lift-offs of the interceptors were told to the public OFFICIALLY but differently?

And this happens on the background that everything is said to be clear enough to launch a war, but not clear enough to be ceremoniously opened to the public in the one and only and final end of the FBI investigations?

It is a simple task to answer the simple questions about the times, or do you not agree?

I do NOT want you to repeat and repeat and repeat that things are not ready at the FBI. If you want to believe that that is okay and normal, our discussion is really finished. But if you lack explanations and if you can share part informations let us work together to puzzle the pieces together.

Just the simple thing about the "official time" of an airport: where is it originated? Where and when are time-checks? with whom?

These are questions which I guess you are able to answer -according to yur promise:I provide accurate information about how the airline industry works.

[mn9driver]

32. OK

"where is my "theory", where is the hypothesis?"

Beats me.

"- is it true or not that there is a official AND true time on every airport?:

A: yes. Tower tapes have a time hack. B: I don't know. Unlikely.

"-is it true or false that the time of the crashs and the time of the lift-offs of the interceptors were told to the public OFFICIALLY but differently?"

Maybe. I don't have this information.

"And this happens on the background that everything is said to be clear enough to launch a war, but not clear enough to be ceremoniously opened to the public in the one and only and final end of the FBI investigations?"

Is this a question?

"It is a simple task to answer the simple questions about the times, or do you not agree?"

Yes. This is easy!

"Just the simple thing about the "official time" of an airport: where is it originated? Where and when are time-checks? with whom?"

A: I don't know. This is internal ATC stuff. Perhaps you could google it or find an ATC specialist to ask.
B: See 6a.
C: See 6a.

[medienanalyse]

34. okay. Thank you.

tower tapes have a time hack. It was my gues, you confirm it.

One more guess: if you are an ATC you do not only interfere with the flights (which is important enough) but also with the control centers in the neighbourhood to hand them over the flights or to take them. Additionally my guess is that there is a preplanning: i.e. AAL11 leaves Boston every day at a certain time, so the responsibility for i.e. Cleveland ATCC begings every time moer or less in the same time. To plan the amoint of ATCs needed at the screen my logical guess is: they must coordinate the times, especially when changing time zones.

Untill here: Am I right?

Then my guess is there is a central atomic clock radioing the time to important institutions including the towers. It makes sense. In Germany it is managed that way. Okay - this you do not know as you say.

>>>Maybe. I don't have this information.<<<

Especially the UAL93 differs from 10:10 to 10:03. Just google it out. It is as I tell you. And they do not explain it. Similar with AAL77: from 09:44 to 09:38 (but here I am not sure if these times were "officially" stated, and it is not so much difference and not important)

>>>Yes. This is easy<<<
And you drive us crazy by telling us that times can differ untill the FBI reveals the very end of their "investigations"? Why? Even if you do not see it as relevantly (because you do not see the relevance for the investigations in 911) - it would have been polite to acknoledge that dulce and I judge it as relevant. It is - in every criminal case. Not only minutes. Seconds.

Now the question: is Dulce right or wrong when he states that ACARS (besides all errors and failures and so on) NORMALLY exchanges relevant data with the towers? If "yes" I do not understand why the time data are not exchanged. Even when the clock on board is different - but an exchange module must comprise time data.

Is that right or wrong?

And I am sorry that I do not understand your "6a" answer. What is 6a?

[mn9driver]

36. Answers.

"...must coordinate the times, especially when changing time zones.
Untill here: Am I right?..."

Yes, ATC coordinates between tower, departure, etc. How specific this coordination is--how far in advance, etc. is for an ATC specialist to answer. Time zones don't matter. Everything is done referencing Greewich Mean Time (also called UTC or Zulu time).

We get our clearances from ATC between 30 minutes to one hour before departure. At that time they usually tell us if there is an ATC delay, so they must coordinate at least that far ahead.

"...ACARS (besides all errors and failures and so on) NORMALLY exchanges relevant data with the towers?..."

We recieve our initial ATC clearances via ACARS, but only when we initiate the request. It is an automated message-if we have questions, we have to use voice radio. We never recieve messages directly from ATC on ACARS. Using ACARS, the communication is always indirect--through our company dispatchers and/or the ARINC computer network. ATC could certainly get access to our times via ARINC or the airline, but I have never seen any evidence that this happens.

The times go to the airline, because the airline is the customer who is paying for it. Once we are in motion, ATC uses other means to track us (radio, radar etc.)

[medienanalyse]

37. more Q&A while evaluating your answers

So I understand that ACARS is MAINLY good for communication between airline and flight, but also there is communication to the towers, even when radio and other prevails.

1) airlines which are interested in good records of their material, correct data of the working times and in minimizing any delays -especially when on short distances several flights per day - will be interested in a time check with the towers. Without any notice to the pilots - it is like my clock on my pc which depends on the browser (the system time was always wrong). This is a statement, not a question.

2) Right or wrong: after talking the main data of the flight - weather conditions, machine data, loads - do you sign a flight plan and get a cd to introduce the plan, transponder flight numvers, radio frequencies and so on into your system? Or is it submitted by acars?
Here in Europe we still are dependend on the radio points, so the flights fly straight from point to point, but in fact zigzag.
Europeans plan to make it satellite-based, but my gues is they wait for Galileo before making it GPS-dependend.
Are you in the U.S.A. already on GPS or still flying point to point?

3) When starting, in the first minutes of lift off - are you already on Autopilot (based on the above mentioned data of the flight plan)? Or is it just opposite: lift off by hand and autopilot when the 30.000 feet are reached? Is the procedure obligatory (by FAA or i.e. by the airline to save fuel?)

Enough for today.

[mn9driver]

38. Again answers.

"...do you sign a flight plan and get a cd to introduce the plan, transponder flight numvers, radio frequencies and so on into your system? Or is it submitted by acars?..."

The Captain signs a "release", which summarizes the flight plan and the conditions under which the flight is to be conducted (fuel load, passengers and cargo, weather conditions, aircraft condition, etc.). The flight dispatcher also signs this.

All data is entered into the aircraft computers by hand--this assumes that the aircraft even has navigation computers. There are plenty that do not. Acars does not EVER modify any data on the aircraft. All changes must be entered by the pilots.

"...Are you in the U.S.A. already on GPS or still flying point to point?.."

It depends on the aircraft and the airspace. GPS and RNAV navigation is permitted, but the aircraft must be capable. Not all are. Also, the airspace must be OK. On the east coast, congestion problems often make it impossible to use "direct" routings and everyone must stay on the published routes. ("Glass" aircraft will navigate using Inertial or GPS, even when cleared along published radio navaid routes).

"...When starting, in the first minutes of lift off - are you already on Autopilot (based on the above mentioned data of the flight plan)? Or is it just opposite: lift off by hand and autopilot when the 30.000 feet are reached?..."

There is no FAA requirement to use the autopilot except during some low visibility approaches. Most "Glass" aircraft will use autopilot soon after takeoff, because they are designed to be operated and navigated that way. On older, non-"Glass" airplanes, it is common to hand-fly longer. Most airlines encourage, but do not require autopilot use at any given time.

[medienanalyse]

39. Thanks again. Only 1 additional ...

question:
>>>All data is entered into the aircraft computers by hand--this assumes that the aircraft even has navigation computers.<<<

All data. All? This sounds strange to me. Because I heard that the captain is handed over a CD (containing what?). And when I see a paper which is signed by two sides as you say (dispatcher and captain) it is hard to believe that in our times this paper is not printed but handwritten. But when it is printed -it is on a computer. So it makes no sense to go handish again: with errors, mix of numbers, time consumption. The word "all" is the word I doubt.

I understand that ACARS does not submit data TO, only OUT OF the airplane. Hard to believe, but I take it.

Assumption: we are talking about heavys with special concern of Boeing 757 and 767.

[mn9driver]

40. More.

"...All data. All? This sounds strange to me. Because I heard that the captain is handed over a CD (containing what?)...

Yes. All flight data is entered by hand. There are no Cd's. There is an option to use pre-programmed routes which can be stored inside the aircraft computer, but few airlines permit this.

The navigation computers have their databases updated every few weeks. This is a "maintenance" function, though. Flight crews do not do this.

"...when it is printed -it is on a computer. So it makes no sense to go handish again: with errors, mix of numbers, time consumption. The word "all" is the word I doubt..."

Airline flight dispatchers work at a central location, not at individual airports. They print a copy and sign it. The captain signs a copy at the Gate and leaves it with the agent. These are legal documents and must be retained for a period of time. The reason for entering data by hand is due to the possibility of error. When airlines used the stored, pre-programmed routes, they found that crews made more navigation errors because they were not checking as closely. As I said, few, if any airlines permit this now. Flight crew have no means of tranferring data "automatically" into the computers.

"...ACARS does not submit data TO, only OUT OF the airplane. Hard to believe, but I take it..."

Of course we receive data from ACARS, but it can go only to the display screen or to the printer. It can't go directly to the navigation computers; there is no interface.

All this being said, I can't guarantee that no airlines anywhere use automatic data transfer, but 757's and 767's as operated by American and United do not have this capability.

[DulceDecorum]

24. Boy, that was quick!!

mn9driver says:
"The AD is specifically related to B757-200 series aircraft modified by authority of a Supplemental Type Certificate, numbered SA1727GL. This STC is for the installation of a telephone system by the "In Flight Phone Corporation". They are the "Holder" of this STC.
........Now, I don't know whether or not American and United's 757's had this specific vendor's system installed on their airplanes. I doubt it,since I've never heard of these guys. The FAA admits that they don't know either, because the company is out of business and they were the STC holder with the records. "

Hmmmm
You have NEVER heard of the man
who CREATED the ENTIRE air-to-ground telephone business?

The son of a Lutheran minister, Goeken grew up with little money as a child, says his daughter Sandra Goeken, president of The Goeken Group. "He was brought up in the school of hard knocks. That made him extremely tenacious," she says, discussing her father's impact on the business world.
<snip>
One of Goeken's innovations was the air-to-ground phone. After observing that most people exiting a plane headed for the pay phones, Goeken thought that phones should be put on planes. But the idea wasn't an easy sell. He had to convince the FCC and the Federal Aviation Administration. Goeken prevailed, a triumph that gave birth to Airfone, an air-to-ground phone company.
Goeken later sold Airfone to GTE, yet the move paved the way for his next project: improving the analog air-to-ground phone technology he created. The result: In-Flight Phone, a digital air-to-ground voice/data service, which he sold to MCI in 1994.
http://www.crn.com/sections/special/HOF/hof00.asp?ArticleID=21440

In-Flight Phone Corporation
Thursday, February 19 2004 12:52 PM
One, Tower Lane
Oak Brook Terrace, IL
USA
60181
North America
Ms. Sandra Goeken Martis
President
1(708) 573 2660
http://www.askinflight.net/Ask/Suppliers.nsf/0/734314719ce547b0852569b40070bd08?OpenDocument

OWNERSHIP INFORMATION FOR MCI AND WORLDCOM
This Section contains information concerning the executive officers, directors and ten percent or greater shareholders of WorldCom, Inc., TC Investments Corp., MCI Communications Corporation, and those MCI subsidiaries which hold FCC licenses and their direct and indirect parent compan(ies).

EXHIBIT X
IN-FLIGHT HOLDINGS, INC.
Phil Bakes President; Director
Michael K. Nissenbaum Secretary
Michael J. Rowny Director
Fred M. Briggs Director
Talat M Othman Director
The address of the officers and directors is: In-Flight Holdings, Inc., 1146 19th Street, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20006.
In-Flight Phone Holdings, Inc. (“IFP”) is controlled by MCI Telecommunications Corporation (“MCIT”). MCIT is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCI Communications Corporation (“MCI”). British Telecommunications plc holds a 20 percent share in MCI.

EXHIBIT XI
IN-FLIGHT PHONE CORPORATION
Phil Bakes Chairman, Board of Directors; President; Chief Executive Officer
Neal F. Meehan Executive Vice President
George E. Sutton, Jr. Executive Vice President
Michael K. Nissenbaum Chief Financial Officer; Secretary and Treasurer
Anand B. Malani Vice President
Ted Semon Vice President
Edward J. Paquette Vice President
William J. Gordon Vice President
Robert L. Harris Vice President
Michael J. Rowny Director
Fred M. Briggs Director
Talat M. Othman Director
Michael B. Rohlfs Director
The address of the officers and directors is: In-Flight Phone Corporation, 1146 19th Street, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20036.
The parent of In-Flight Phone Corporation is In-Flight Holdings, Inc. In-Flight Holdings, Inc. is controlled by MCI Telecommunications Corporation. MCI Telecommunications Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCI Communications Corporation (“MCI”). British Telecommunications plc holds a 20 percent share in MCI.
www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/ Comments/worldcom/vol3-k.wp

DAILY DIGESTVol. 14, No. 106 June 5, 1995
ADDENDA: The following items, released June 2, 1995, did
not appear on Digest No. 105.
IN-FLIGHT PHONE CORPORATION. Granted application
for transfer of Control to MCI Telecommunications
Corporation of in-flights 800 MHz air-to-ground (ATG)
license. (By DR&O adopted June 2 by the
Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau)
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/1995/dd060595.txt

The last time I checked (about two minutes ago)
MCI
which is the de facto holder
of the air-to-ground telephone system in question,
was STILL IN BUSINESS.

You are correct about one thing mn9driver,
there are indeed parts of this information that DulceDecorum does not understand.

Cost Impact
Because the STC holder is no longer in business, the FAA is unable to determine how many U.S.-registered Boeing Model 757-200 series airplanes modified by STC SA1727GL will be affected by this AD.
For an airplane subject to this AD, it will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $35 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD is estimated to be $215 per affected airplane.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/3E9922B857B9597586256A8600542A67?OpenDocument

If $215 and three hours
could save me the loss of my entire Boeing 757
not to mention the lives of all on board,
well then,
consider that ATG telephone system GONE.

[mn9driver]

25. Non sequitor. Ignored. Keep surfing, DD.

[DulceDecorum]

26. Surf's up

1962
On July 25th, the Bell System's "Skyphone" air-to-ground public telephone service opened for commercial airline use for the first time when TWA introduces the service on an experimental basis.
http://www.webbconsult.com/1960.html

Goeken’s challenge with the air to ground service was that IT HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. That did not stop Jack Goeken, rather he rose to the challenge. His response to this, "Well, no one had ever gone to the moon before, and it was done." And Jack did just that; he found technology to make it work.
Shortly after the World Trade Center crisis on September 11, 2001, the New York Times contacted Goeken, and asked him how he felt about saving so many lives. Jack’s response was, "What do you mean?" The reporter commented that The Airphone saved thousands of lives. It was Jack’s phone that passengers had used on United Airlines Flight 93, which if it wasn’t for the telephone, the airplane that crashed in Pennsylvania may have crashed into some other building killing many more people.
http://www.cba1.siu.edu/directions/

E.T. could never phone home if he were flying on America West.
<snip>
Ralph Blasey, the airline's attorney in Washington, D.C., said THE AIR-TO-GROUND TELEPHONE SYSTEM developed and installed by an MCI subsidiary, Inflight Phone Corp., DOESN'T WORK.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/1998/10/12/story2.html

THE dramatic, surreptitious CALLS MADE by passengers aboard Tuesday's hijacked commercial planes WERE illegal and under "normal circumstances" TECHNICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE.
However, because the planes were close to the ground and the calls were kept brief, the calls went through, a major cell phone carrier said.
<snip>
Verizon Wireless, which lost up to 10 cellular antenna sites in New York, added temporary cell sites at the Pentagon and at the site of the plane crash outside of Pittsburgh.
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,46595,00.html

The following statement was issued by Allen Salmasi, CEO of NextWave Telecom, regarding the tragic death of Barbara K. Olson, partner at Balch and Bingham, consultant to NextWave Telecom and valued member of the NextWave Telecom team:
"There are no words adequate to convey the profound sadness we feel concerning the loss of our friend, Barbara Olson.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m4PRN/2001_Sept_12/78173114/p1/article.jhtml

Salmasi, 47, the central figure at NextWave, is an Iranian emigre and a former NASA engineer who with his family once owned nearly half of Qualcomm. Hailed by his Wall Street backers as a visionary and pilloried by rivals and regulators as a reckless speculator, he has come to embody both the promises and perils of entrepreneurship in one of the economy's hottest sectors.
After helping Qualcomm develop a powerful code for cell phone transmissions, Salmasi started NextWave in 1995 to fulfill his vision of a nationwide network that would sell airwave space to wireless carriers.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/bizfocus/archives/2001/07/19/94845

Perhaps Barbara had one of these:
http://www.qualcomm.com/govsys/securehandsets.html
Surely the gal was entitled to a few perks.

Of Lawyers and Lobbyists
Campaign contribution records show that NextWave was a politically well-connected company even in bankruptcy. Between 1999 and 2000, its CEO, Salmasi, and his wife, Nicole Salmasi, contributed more than $40,000 to candidates and political action committees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
According to the center, Salmasi also gave $10,000 to a legal defense fund for Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey. Torricelli later went on to file a legal brief in support of NextWave, which was at the time defending itself before the federal appeals court in Washington.
The company also spent liberally on lobbyists. In addition to hiring the well-known Washington lobbying firm Dewey Ballantine as a principal lobbyist, it enlisted Norm Brownstein of Denver's Brownstein Hyatt & Farber and the late Barbara Olson, a lobbyist with strong ties to the Republican Party.
<snip>
To help its case, NextWave employed the legal talents of Theodore Olson, who is currently the Bush administration's solicitor general and was at the time best known for arguing the president's case before the Supreme Court in the Florida election controversy.
In arguing NextWave's case, Olson focused on the principle that a federal agency should not be exempt from laws that apply to other creditors.
NextWave's investment in the appeal paid off. In June, the appeals court published a ruling in favor of the bankrupt wireless firm. The court concluded that the FCC violated federal bankruptcy laws when it took back NextWave's licenses while the company was still in Chapter 11.
Two months later, the FCC returned the disputed licenses to NextWave. The company lined up $2.5 billion in financing from the investment bank UBS Warburg, which it said would fund the construction of a third-generation, or 3G wireless data network.
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,50883,00.html

[medienanalyse]

27. lingua latina auxilia generit, sed tamquam

explicandum est quod non fuit clarissime in verbis tuis.

dona informantes portans dulce et decorum - non mortem ageret - flux conversationem diligenter subsequens prodest. hic et nunc dice, tu invalidus temporans, quod est causa rupti conversationis?

Non tenes argumentes? Habere et non habere semper ...

Et cum granis salis "sequitUr" cum u major subsequit quod dices.

[mn9driver]

28. Well, then try this spelling.

Irrelevant bullshit. Happy now?

[DulceDecorum]

10. The Real Deal With Airline On-Time Statistics

The on-time race can get competitive, especially if a company memo is sent to the troops. Aircraft doors can be opened a little early, or cockpit circuit breakers can be re-set to fool with the system, thus saving precious minutes in the quest to be on-time king.
http://www.anitavacation.com/articles/air/ontimestats.shtml

I see you got the memo.

[DulceDecorum]

3. ACARS

In fulfilling DOT’s data reporting requirements, the reporting air carriers use automated and/or manual systems for collecting flight data. Those using an automated system rely on the Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS).
Based on the latest information available to DOT, of the 11 reporting air carriers,
4 (AMERICAN, Northwest, UNITED and US Airways) use ACARS exclusively;
3 (Alaska, Aloha, America West and Southwest) rely solely on their pilots, gate agents and/or ground crews to record arrival times manually; and
3 (Continental, Delta and TWA) use a combination of ACARS and manual reporting systems.
http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/reports/delay.htm

Excellent diagram at:
http://www.cnssys.com/ATC-Data-Comm.html#Applications

[Woody Box]

6. Good introduction to ACARS, Dulce, thanx (nT)

[k-robjoe]

33. about fl 93

A bit off topic, but have you all seen this?

Does seem very suspicious...(?)

"Someone pointed out to me the large number of people who were only on the flights 'by chance'. There are numerous stories about people who originally planned to take another flight but decided to take the opportunity to get home early and so on. I originally dismissed this as being coincidence since there didn't appear to be enough of them to be significant.

However, on further examination of the stories of the flight 93 passengers I found something quite startling. The following table details all the passengers and crew that were on this flight by chance - mostly moving from other flights. There are some, like Alan Beaven who were reluctantly called out to last minute meetings.(...)This means that a number of people (...) were removed from Flight 91 and put on Flight 93. If this is the case - just how many people were actually booked onto Flight 93 in the first place? Was it an exclusive flight just for the hijackers?"

http://www.the-movement.com/Flight%2093/something_strange_about_flight_9.htm

[Woody Box]

35. Suspicious, indeed

In the book "Among the heroes" from Jere Longman you'll find many passengers who booked the flight just one day before, too (partly coinciding with the people of the-movement).

I really think it was a last-minute flight. Show me one person (non-hijacker) who has purchased a ticket for flite 93 a couple of days or even weeks before. I didn't find one.

One reason maybe: the fire on Newark Airport the day before, causing a lot of delays.

And don't forget that flite 93 has two different wheels-off times too, like flite 175:

Official FAA Version since 9/11: 8:42
ACARS/BTS-Version: 8:28

How come?