FL175 never shut off its transponder, so it was tracked.
The FAA did follow the primary returns on both aircraft, 11 and 175, all the way into the NY areas until below radar detection range. This kept the FAA busy because 11 and 175 both became out of control hazards, so the news source is BS, the controllers were busy de-conflicting traffic for 11 and 175 - the controller knew in real time they had problems. Guess news reporters are not pilots or ATC controllers; you got some hearsay missed in with our think we know. (article wrong, maybe why it is an op ed piece)
AA 77, a special case, Indianapolis Sector monitoring the aircraft had ONLY secondary returns (not primary) available to them.
For FL77, when the transponder went off, Indianapolis ATC Center presumed the aircraft went down, and began their search in the direction it was heading. oops = but gee, the article says two planes headed for NYC, oops, the article got what right? Nothing. What happens when we fail to filter the news to what really happened, and let reporters make up the news.
Flight 93, everyone heard the pilots scream on ATC freq. (everybody on freq) They were murdered and yelled on the radios... Flight 93 never go far, the Passengers on Flight 93 figure out 911 in Minutes, and took action.
I was making a small note, the RADAR data is stored and you can do a study after the fact. For instance, RADAR data on 911 proves all four planes were tracked from takeoff to impact. Making all the claims about substitution, etc, false. No big deal.
The loss of ATC stuff is serious and is a hazard. Wonder how much the news got right?
This article, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/opinion/out-of-control.html?_r=1 Is an op ed piece, make no sense and got very little right about 911, flight procedures and flight.
Was it NATO, or China... or what
= new reply since forum marked as read