FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Planes - Remote Control

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7872

PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:43 pm    Post subject: Planes - Remote Control Reply with quote

Reply to this topic with general evidence and discussion about
the possible remote control of the 9/11 planes.


-------------------
S U M M A R Y
-------------------

A summary of the thread will be updated here as evidence
is presented in this topic.


Last edited by Fintan on Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7872

PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:51 pm    Post subject: The Theory Reply with quote

Ok, Here's one aspect of remote control theory:

Quote:
Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits

by Jim Heikkila, Viewzone.com

Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11.

The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.

[Google "Raytheon Global Hawk system"]

Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it.

http://www.viewzone.com/911revisited.html

I have to mention that if you go to ViewZone.com now,
you can't miss the flying saucer on the top right. Thought I'd mention it.
They have Charlie Sheen on the homepage too.


Last edited by Fintan on Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7872

PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:41 pm    Post subject: The Case Against & For Reply with quote

Now some arguments for and against.

Against: quite flatly, Boeing aircraft have NO such software
limits. See, this artcle from early 2000:

Quote:


Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology

Monday, March 20, 2000

By JAMES WALLACE - SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

....The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits.

"It's not a lack of trust in technology," said John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations for Boeing. "We certainly don't have the feeling that we do not want to rely on technology. But the pilot in control of the aircraft should have the ultimate authority."

On all Airbus planes other than the older A300 and A310, computers prevent the pilot from putting the plane into a climb of more than 30 degrees where it might lose lift and stall. The maximum bank or roll allowed is 67 degrees. The plane's nose-down pitch is limited to 15 degrees. There are protections against overspeed.

And the computer won't allow the plane to make any extreme maneuvers that would exceed 2.5 times the force of gravity.

(As a plane maneuvers, for example turning from side to side or up and down, the forces against it can be measured in units of gravity called "g" forces. One "g" is equal to the force of gravity on earth.)

Consider the near-miss incident in the Miami flight simulator.

When the pilot yanked back hard on the control stick to avoid the simulated regional jet, one of the computers on the A320 applied full thrust to the plane's two engines. At the same time, the computer retracted the speed brakes on the wings, which had been deployed to slow the plane for landing. But the computer did not retract the plane's wing flaps, which had also been extended for landing. The flaps provided added lift during the steep climb.

Most important of all, the computer limited the angle of the plane's climb to 30 degrees to keep it from stalling and falling out of the sky.

"If we had been in a conventional plane, we probably would have stalled and crashed," Canto said.

But Cashman said such limits keep a plane from performing at its absolute capability.

"When you fully automate and protect the system, you have to take away some of the capability," he said.

"It makes no sense to us to limit the pull up capability, say to miss another airplane or the ground. . . . We feel the pilot should have that capability and should be able to achieve it by use of normal controls, providing cues that he is getting close to those limits but letting him exceed them if necessary."

These so-called "cues" tell the pilot the plane is approaching certain speed, load or attitude limits. As the jet nears its stall speed, for example, much more force is needed to pull back on the control column. The same is true as the "g" forces on the plane increase.

Planes are generally designed structurally to have more capability than what the book says, Cashman noted.

If the pilot can pull an extra "g" during the initial part of an upset (loss of control) when the airspeed is low, Cashman said, the pilot may avoid getting into a more serious high-speed recovery.

"By limiting the amount of 'g' you pull, you may prolong the recovery," Cashman said.

He recalled the case of a China Air 747 that tumbled out of control over the Pacific in 1985. The pilots were able to recover by subjecting the jumbo jet to upward of four times the force of gravity.

John Lauber, former board member of the National Transportation Safety Board and now vice president of safety and technical affairs for Airbus, said good arguments can be made for either the Airbus or Boeing cockpit philosophy on soft or hard limits.

"But hard protections are a better way to address loss of control," he said.

Though fly-by-wire was used on jet fighters and on the supersonic Concorde, the first Airbus plane with the technology was the A320, which entered service in 1988. The same system is also used on the Airbus A330 and A340 widebody jets.

Fly by wire simply means that computers on the plane transmit the pilot inputs into electrical signals that are sent through wires to actuators that move the control surfaces.

On conventional planes, the flight-control surfaces are moved by hydraulic devices controlled by cables that run through the airplane.

Airbus also eliminated the wheel-and-control column, or yoke, that is used on all Boeing jets. Instead, Airbus pilots control the plane by moving a small, hand-held joystick off to the side.

"The benefits are numerous," Canto said of the Airbus system. The computers, for example, automatically trim the plane even when it is being flown by the pilot. The trim system on other planes must be operated by the pilots when the plane is not on autopilot.

"It's like having power windows in your car," said Larry Rockliff, vice president of the Airbus training center in Miami who has served as an instructor for every model of Airbus plane. "It reduces the pilot workload."

The only Boeing plane with fly-by-wire technology is the 777......

P-I reporter James Wallace can be reached at 206-448-8040 or jameswallace@seattle-pi.com

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/boe202.shtml


So, it seems safe to say that no STANDARD 757/767 has limiting
software, but they do have some pretty impressive automatic
flight controls:

Quote:
757-200 Flight Deck

The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crew member operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays. Those offer increased reliability and advanced features compared to older electro-mechanical instruments.

A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system assures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

And the following debunker reveals some interesting
info about other aircraft with such systems:

Quote:
Some of the claims made about the 757, if including the standard airline versions, are absolutely wrong, or have totally inaccurate wording. Including remote-controlled flight, unless there is a special test 757/767 aircraft which NASA operates. The Air Force or NASA did this with some F-4 Phantoms and maybe T-33s, in order to test heat-seeker or radar-guided SAMS (?) etc. Many of us on Pprune flew the 757 or 767. The original author might be confused about the 757 versus the A-320's special protections.Those much-touted protections have not prevented the loss of many lives.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=233975

And, indeed these are remote systems
(other than the much discussed Global Hawk):
Quote:
In 1984 NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) teamed-up in a unique flight experiment called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), to test the impact of a Boeing 720 aircraft using standard fuel
with an additive designed to suppress fire. The additive FM-9, a high molecular-weight long chain polymer, when blended with
Jet-A fuel had demonstrated the capability to inhibit ignition and flame propagation of the released fuel in simulated impact tests.

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled
Vehicle Facility
. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14
flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs,
69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings
on abort runway.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/CID/index.html

And then of course, there is the Future Air Navigation System (pdf):

Moving quickly on , we see this announcement from Raytheon
just a few days before 9/11. (Too subtle maybe? Wink ):

Quote:
MARLBORO, Mass., (Sept. 6, 2001) - Raytheon Company and the U.S. Air Force have successfully completed the initial phase of flight testing of a system that provides accurate and reliable landing guidance for both rotary and fixed wing aircraft during low visibility (Category I and II) approaches.

The system, known as the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System, or JPALS, works with the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite constellation. JPALS is a joint Department of Defense (DoD) development to provide an all weather, all mission, all user capability for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Army and Marine Corps.

The flight testing, which took place at Holloman AFB, N.M., employed a Raytheon- developed JPALS demonstration system based on local area differential GPS technology.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/jpals.html

And there's more confirmation:
Quote:
Civil-Military Interoperability For GPS Assisted Aircraft Landings Demonstrated

Marlborough - Oct. 1, 2001

A government-industry team accomplished the first precision approach by a civil aircraft using a military Global Positioning System (GPS) landing system Aug. 25 at Holloman AFB, N.M., Raytheon Company announced today......

The aircraft was guided by differential GPS corrections, integrity information, and precision approach path points transmitted from the Raytheon developed JPALS ground station. Although the approaches were restricted to Category I, accuracies sufficient to meet Cat II/III requirements were observed.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gps-01k.html

"Precision approach paths", eh?

Anyway, Raytheon wern't the only ones playing with this type of technology:

Quote:
Rockwell Collins Successfully Completes Flight Tests with Industry’s
First Microwave Landing System Receiver in a Multi-Mode Receiver


CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (November 01, 2001) - Rockwell Collins has successfully completed light tests of the industry’s first Microwave Landing System (MLS) receiver fully integrated in a Multi-Mode Receiver (MMR). Technical Standard Order approval for the Rockwell Collins MMR is expected in the first quarter of next year. Initial production deliveries will be made to the United States Air Force to meet their MLS requirements.

In addition to the MLS Cat IIIb demonstration, Rockwell Collins recently demonstrated GPS Landing System (GLS) Cat I capability at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.

Rockwell Collins Multi Mode Receiver is an integrated unit that provides the aircraft’s primary position, velocity and time reference. The Collins MMR is fully interoperable with global navigation and landing system requirements, including ILS, VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR), MLS, GPS, and GLS to meet the operating requirements of the military and commercial air transport community.
http://www.rockwellcollins.com/news/page2855.html


Rockwell being part of Boeing, if you catch my drift.

It's clear that some kind of remote-pilot or guided technology system
could relatively easily be fitted to a plane. The special research could
be based on the existing systems and could be done almost anywhere.

But (depending on which 9/11 scenario you use) it is a different matter to
actually substitute this type of technology in an active, in-service aircraft
--though there are some gaps in that service just prior to 9/11.

Ok, that's as best as I can summarize the material.

Now, what's the real deal?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, great work. There's more here than I thought.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FaxMam



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 139

PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:26 am    Post subject: Plane without windows Reply with quote

Arrow

Last edited by FaxMam on Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the "Plane without Windows" was far too far away.

I think the best circumstantial evidence for remote control is something I posted under Mohammed Atta and someone else posted on remote control.

a) The profiles of the hijackers is opposite that of a suicide bomber.

b) Why rely on human error and on courage/nerve when remote technology goes back to a 1984 NASA experiment in crashing a jet on a runway? (or earlier)

I don't think it would be too difficult to retrofit a commercial Boeing w software, even without the pilot's knowledge. I don't know all the technical details on that, but I'm sure they are hackable by the government.
Back to top
StillDiggin



Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 88
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark Burnback... hmmm... he seems to be getting promoted on a regular basis. In order of release, he's been described as a Fox employee, then a Fox News employee, and now he's a Fox News reporter?

I guess we'll have to ask Dave vonKleist where he found him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.