QUOTE(Sunofone @ Aug 28 2005, 09:31 AM)
QUOTE(frenat @ Aug 28 2005, 07:27 AM)
No they couldn't have been 100% positive that the radar returns they were receiving were the plane that turned off it's transponder.
thank you
QUOTE(frenat @ Aug 28 2005, 07:27 AM)
But how many others would they have without a correlated IFF return? Not many. How many of those would have been traveling over 350 knots? None.
[right][snapback]814194[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]814194[/snapback][/right]
doubtful conjecture
QUOTE(frenat @ Aug 28 2005, 07:27 AM)
Fairly easy to ID then.
ludicrous without visual confirmation it would only be a guess--is it standard operating procedure to assume? all the witness testimony,evidence of demo cutting charges in plain sight and an un-natural collapse within its own footprint(110 stories bud) and the deviation from SOP and your not worried?
[right][snapback]814246[/snapback][/right]
The computer would have been tracking it and had symbology assigned before the IFF was turned off. It would have continued to track by radar long after it was turned off. The only planes without IFF transponders are small private planes as you must have one to enter Class B airspace. Thus the only radar only returns travelling over 350 knots would be the airliner that had its transponder turned off.
However you are missing the point. The pilot said "If you listened to her carefully only an experienced pilot probably would have known that what she was saying was scripted,” but any student pilot would know what he is saying is false. It is required for the FAA written test to know something as basic as only altitude is encoded in Mode C of the transponder. For him to be wrong about so basic a thing lends doubt to him being a pilot at all.