Is this the right place for such a question?

I plotted these graphs based on data taken from the black box of a crashed plane:

ht t p://w ww .planetmobile.it/jumpjack/immagini/volo93-grafici.GIF

I can't fully understand these data: looks like while the plane was falling down, it was slowing down. Is this interpreataion correct? How could it be explained?

Power failure from the engines no longer driving it downwards, so that it achieves terminal velocity?
An aircraft in a dive (under power) will go faster than one that merely falls.
(Haven't seen the graph, but tha's one explanation).

Power failure from the engines no longer driving it downwards, so that it achieves terminal velocity?
An aircraft in a dive (under power) will go faster than one that merely falls.
(Haven't seen the graph, but tha's one explanation).
That's what I supposed: engine failure.
Other ideas?

That's what I supposed: engine failure.
Other ideas?

That's the best one by far. And if you DO have the data from the FDR it should clearly show when the engines lost power. No need to just suppose.

There are several reasons drag could increase (flaps/gear/spoilers deployed, spin, structural breakup) and as already mentioned, thrust could decrease. We pilots do try to decelerate the airplane in most emergencies if any control is available. One exception is after a loss of cabin pressure, in which case an expeditious descent to lower altitude (terrain permitting) is often warranted. After such an emergency descent, the high vertical speed would normally be arrested. I couldn't get your link to work, and with no further details I can't say much about the accident in question.

Sorry, my mistake: that was the GROUND speed. AIR speed graph shows spead INcreases.
I guess while going down almost vertical, the ground speed results minor than actual speed.

Sorry, my mistake: that was the GROUND speed. AIR speed graph shows spead INcreases.
I guess while going down almost vertical, the ground speed results minor than actual speed.

Certainly! If going straight down, for example, the ground speed will indicate zero! The angle of descent is very important and should be available to you from the data. You will also have a record of engine RPMs as well. I'm not at all certain why you are making so much guesswork of all this. Do you actually have the FDR data or not???????????????

jumpjack: "AIR speed graph shows spead INcreases.
I guess while going down almost vertical, the ground speed results minor than actual speed."

There you have it: In that case, you can model that relationship and reach a good understanding by tossing a rock.

Certainly! If going straight down, for example, the ground speed will indicate zero! The angle of descent is very important and should be available to you from the data. You will also have a record of engine RPMs as well. I'm not at all certain why you are making so much guesswork of all this. Do you actually have the FDR data or not???????????????
Sure, but I just started studying them, trying to forget which is the "currently agreed" interpretation.
h tt p://ww w.crono911.net/doc0/FOIA/UA93tab.zip

Are this data compatible with intentional plane crash?

P.S.
Tha FDR also "says" that no voice were recorded in the cockpit since 30 seconds before the crash, but "air noise" was recorded.

Looks like the plane is in a banking dive. The ground speed can go to near 0 knots in such cases because relative position on the ground can remain constant.

OK, now I see that jumpjack was asking about UAL 93 (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93shanksvillesummaryofevidence,man), the 9-11 hijack that crashed in Shanksville, PA. I never got your links to work, jumpjack. You might have mentioned the significance of this particular crash.

Flight 93 impacted in a mostly inverted attitude, at about 40 degrees flight-path angle to the ground, and over 500 knots, ending 44 lives, and of course the groundspeed decreased as the flight path turned downward in the final plunge.

OK, now I see that jumpjack was asking about UAL 93, the 9-11 hijack that crashed in Shanksville, PA. I never got your links to work, jumpjack. You might have mentioned the significance of this particular crash.

Flight 93 impacted in a mostly inverted attitude, at about 40 degrees flight-path angle to the ground, and over 500 knots, ending 44 lives, and of course the groundspeed decreased as the flight path turned downward in the final plunge.
Yes, indeed I then plotted the AIRspeed rather than GROUNDspeed, and it actually increases... :o

I intentionally left out any detail about the plane, to avoid "external influences" about just a physic question. :D

How close are we to technology that would allow a pilot on the ground to override the cockpit and land a large aircraft by remote control? It doesn't seem far-fetched.

How close are we to technology that would allow a pilot on the ground to override the cockpit and land a large aircraft by remote control? It doesn't seem far-fetched.
I think such a technology already exists: just think to the precision of non-military GPS and how Virtual Reality could be evolved since 80's, when it was publicy available and then suddenly disappeared from wide market...

I know they can fly drones, obviously, and I've heard that they can do takeoffs and landings of small craft. I just wonder if they could land a jetliner full of people, especially if they had to do it really soon, on the nearest interstate highway instead of an airport with a control tower.

How close are we to technology that would allow a pilot on the ground to override the cockpit and land a large aircraft by remote control? It doesn't seem far-fetched.
IIRC they landed an aircraft a short time after WW2 solely by radar and other electronic methods. Basically we could probably have done it a decade or three ago, and it wouldn't surprise me if some people had plans to do it.

Strange plane behavior????? What never happens!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3657287616286567098&q=flying+lawnmower%21&total=162&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Or tanks!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2780666342424650592&q=flying+tank%21&total=330&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0