It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anyone here ever trained on a flight simulator?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
How does it work? Are you given a detailed timeline to go by, a set of coordinates or what? The reason I am asking is that I have been developing a theory and was wondering if it would work.
Here is the theory and I am not asking if you agree with it just if it is possible. Could you be taking part in an exercise with a flight simulator and actually be flying a real plane by remore control for real and not know it?
The reason I am asking is NORAD is supposed to have had training going on that morning of 911. Years ago someone came up with the remote control thing to be able to take the controls away from the pilot and the hi-jacker. I know it may sound crazy and that is why I am asking. Is it possible that someone could be told their taking part in a training program and be told its just a simulation but the truth is their actually flying a plane? TIA and no ridicule please what some of you flyboys take for granted as being common knowledge is not common knowledge at all.




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I haven't done it myself, so I can't really answer most of your questoins, but when my best friend was about 7 or 8, he had a go in a QANTAS flight simulator as part of this Make-A-Wish thing, I remember him telling me all about it the next day, including the fact that he flew his plane into the Rialto Tower -- which is the tallest building in the Southern Hemisphere I beleive, or will be for another few months until the new Grollo tower or something takes over..



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Thanks I believe the timing of the training sessions were very important not just as a ruse or al-Qaida found out and used it to their advantage, they were important because the planes were actually being flown by experts stittng at a simulator not aware they were flying real planes, there were no reports from the pilots protesting someone taking over the control of the planes during that time due to the fact that a small explosion on board each of the aircraft probably just large enough to depressurize the plane rapidly causing unconsciousness to all aboard.
But I have no idea if this is truly possible, I know from reading that a remote control software was designed so that planes could be brought down and taken out of the hands of hi-jacker, I'm assuming that someone at a simulator would be flying the plane, but having no real knowledge of such things I'm asking.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by goose
Thanks I believe the timing of the training sessions were very important not just as a ruse or al-Qaida found out and used it to their advantage, they were important because the planes were actually being flown by experts stittng at a simulator not aware they were flying real planes, there were no reports from the pilots protesting someone taking over the control of the planes during that time due to the fact that a small explosion on board each of the aircraft probably just large enough to depressurize the plane rapidly causing unconsciousness to all aboard.


So is this your theory? Just curious


If you want to learn more about simulator training, hit your favourite search engine and look at the variety of software programs and training centres; different schools (and even different countries) have different operating procedures, but it appears that the actual operation of an aircraft via simulator would be impossible according to general regulations/protocols.

Here's one school

This site has data relating to flight hours, credit hours, etc

I'm a little confused about your post; you said that there were no reports of pilots protesting someone taking control of the planes? There were indeed reports, from one aircraft at least (in addition to various in-flight staff communications - whether or not these are to believed is a different matter entirely).

(if you want to ensure "no ridicule", you might want to refrain from calling out "flyboys" before anyone has answered...just a thought).



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
It is of course a possibilty, as long as the 757-200 was fly-by-wire. I cant remember if that particular aircraft is or not. If it is it would be a simple matter of modifying the aircraft by installing a reciever onboard that could get information from a satilite, send that signal to a computer that is used for such a purpose, then have that wired into the fly-by-wire system.

Then on the ground you would need to do the same thing but in reverse on the simulator, the only difference would be it would need to transmit.

Just speculation...



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Do we have anything other than pure speculation to support this?

Though the scenario might be plausible in the strictest "yes, theoretically, it could happen" manner, from what I'm seeing (from various sim programs, flight school programs, etc) is that it just wouldn't be plausible.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
Here is the theory and I am not asking if you agree with it just if it is possible. Could you be taking part in an exercise with a flight simulator and actually be flying a real plane by remore control for real and not know it?


Goose;

What you are suggesting isn't possible--that is if you're suggesting that a pilot, while training in a similator, is unwittingly flying a real airplane.

One of the major advantages to training in simulators is the ability to "freeze" the sim and reposition the "aircraft" to another point in the virtual world to save training time. For example; let's say the pilot(s) is/are practicing multiple instrument approaches. Rather than "flying" the simulator around in real time (each approach could take as long as 20 minutes) the sim operator/instructor simply repositions the aircraft on final approach after each landing. Similator training sessions are rarley ever flown with a full flight profile without some freezing and repositioning to save time.

UAV's (unmanned aerial vehicles) are remotely piloted--in fact they can be controlled by a pilot who is more than 10,000 miles away via satelite links. However, this distance creates a delay problem; so control is often handed back to an operator who is closer to the operation point where the pilot has a direct line of sight link for takeoffs and landings.

The B-777 is the first Boeing aircraft that is fully fly-by-wire. The B-757 & B767 are hydraulically controlled and there is no computer interpretting the pilot's inputs and sending those inputs to the control surfaces.

After 911 there was some discussion about creating a remote-piloting system or a ground based computer system that would take over the aircraft in the event of a hijacking. But such systems would be cost prohibitive relative to the current low-risk of another hijacking.

There is currently no way for fly-by-wire aircraft to be remotely piloted without significant modifications and their associated costs.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Thanks everyone, sorry for the flyboy thing, hear it in the movies all the time thought that was an ok term, apparently not lol. I have a BIL who is a pilot, he was in the air force for 26 yrs., but in 32 years of marriage me and hubby have probably talked to him about 10 times he lives in another state and we very seldom see him and I barely know him so I can't pick his brain.
link below to see the story about Raytheon developing this before 911.
Apparently we have had the technology to do this but its not well known. Also, so far as I know the only reports made were supposed calls made by the stewardess, there were no calls by pilots or co-pilots there is the supposed left on radio where you can hear the hi-jackers talking, all of that could easily be faked. It occured to me that if one was planning such an operation the people involved in training could easily be used without their knowledge.
Anyway it may sound crazy but then again so does the current explanation.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...





[edit on 6-8-2005 by goose]

[edit on 6-8-2005 by goose]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by goose
link below to see the story about Raytheon developing this before 911.
Apparently we have had the technology to do this but its not well known. Also, so far as I know the only reports made were supposed calls made by the stewardess, there were no calls by pilots or co-pilots there is the supposed left on radio where you can hear the hi-jackers talking, all of that could easily be faked. It occured to me that if one was planning such an operation the people involved in training could easily be used without their knowledge.


Goose;

It's not unusual to have several people from the same company on the same flight. They could have been traveling for business meetings or a convention.

Having a pilot hand fly a remotely piloted aircraft introduces several complex problems. The most important of which is the lack of "seat of the pants" and "control feedback" that are apart of operating an aircraft. I submit this link to NASA whereby a B707 was intentionally crashed to test whether a special fuel would ignite/explode upon impact. This aircraft was remotely piloted (without the aid of computers or autopilot). In the video, you'll notice the aircraft making last second corrections because the pilot was attempting to keep the aircraft within the test parameters. It was extremely difficult for this pilot to maneuver this aircraft without the typical "feel feedback" a pilot gets while flying. The pilot used conventional controls while sitting in a trailer and had limited video showing him the pilot's veiw. Here are the videos of this test

Airlines currently use autoland; a system that automatically lands and stops the aircraft without the pilot touching the controls. Autoland is used during circumstances when visibility very poor and has been around for decades. But autoland is controlled by onboard computers which are programed by the pilot. The idea of having someone on the ground manually controlling an aircraft of this size is highly unlikely for the reasons I mention in this and the previous post. So is the notion that pilots flying simulators are unwittingly fly real aircraft. Although, you should write a science fiction and sell it to a movie producer.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Thanks I might just do that.
As for the Raytheon employees on the plane that was the author of the website or someone discussing that but to post the page with the remote control story on it I also had to post that, their on the same link.

So let me get this straight if I had access to the autoland software or computer installed on board, I could land that plane at any set of coordinates preinstalled. Is the pilot the only one who can turn this system on or can it be turned on through remote control? Like if the pilot had a heart attack and was incapacitated could it be turned on by someone on the ground, making it not necessary for anyone to fly the plane? Could this program be set to come on automatically if the plane was depressurized? (read the Payne Stewart link I posted previously where it said an alarm could be heard going off on the flight recorder showing that the cabin had indeed become depressurized)
New scenario, cabin becomes depressurized, everyone goes unconsious from this or dies, like had previously happened on board the Payne Stewart flight, auto pilot comes on and also auto land kicks in with the previously set coordinates. Could a planes computer system be set to do this?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   
All good questions Goose and I will attempt to answer each. BTW, just so you know I'm not a know-it-all wannabe, I fly for a major airline and am currently a part-time pilot in the military. So I feel somewhat qualified to answer your questions.


Originally posted by goose
So let me get this straight if I had access to the autoland software or computer installed on board, I could land that plane at any set of coordinates preinstalled.


While in a previous post I used the term "computers" to describe what autoland is, I was trying to keep it simple. Autoland is actually incorporated into the autopilot system, which, while it may have internal chips and some hardwired programming, doesn't have software that can be reprogrammed without actually removing it from the aircraft. The autopilot/autoland system is activated by turning on switches. Once the autopilot system is turned on, it then receives its information from the FMS (flight management system) which encompasses many aspects of the flight--including navigation. There is no possible way for anyone outside of the cockpit to get access to these systems.


Originally posted by goose
Like if the pilot had a heart attack and was incapacitated could it be turned on by someone on the ground, making it not necessary for anyone to fly the plane?


There have actually been several instances where one of the pilots have becom incapacitated. So far, having two pilots onboard has been enough redundancy in each case to get the aircraft safely on the ground--with the one exception of course with Stewart Payne.


Originally posted by goose
Could this program be set to come on automatically if the plane was depressurized? (read the Payne Stewart link I posted previously where it said an alarm could be heard going off on the flight recorder showing that the cabin had indeed become depressurized)


In the event of rapid depressurization the pilots have supplemental oxygen which, as an emergency procedure, they quicky don. After donning their oxygen, the pilot initiates an emergency descent; a procedure that is designed to get the aircraft down to at leat 10,000 feet in the shortest amount of time possible. This requires fairly aggressive maneuvering on the part of the pilot and personally, I wouldn't want a computer to be making these maneuvers. In fact, part of the procedure is to disconnect the autopilot so the pilot can perform this maneuver manually. In the case of Stewart Payne, I'm not sure the crew had supplemental oxygen on board. Without oxygen, the crew can become incapacitated in a matter of seconds. I'll try to find the NTSB link that that shows the investigation in this crash.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Here is the NTSB link on the Payned Stewart accident:

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

Incapacitation of the flight crewmembers as a result of their failure to receive supplemental oxygen following a loss of cabin pressurization, for undetermined reasons.

I don't think they were able to determine whether or not supplemental oxygen was on board.

A final note about depending on computers to safely fly an aircraft vice the pilot:

Cmputers, given the technical marvel they are, are not perfect. Since they are designed/built by humans, they are predisposed to human factors/errors. Which operating system would you want in charge of an aircraft? Microsoft? It could add a whole new dimension to the word "crash"!!


[edit on 8-8-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Thanks for all the info, I guess my theory is only feasilble for a sci-fi book for now. I know nothing about flying, the last time I even got on a plane was in Dec. 1975. And believe me if I ever do fly again I sure would not want Microsoft doing the flying. LOL

[edit on 8-8-2005 by goose]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
lol ure not saying they hoaxed a lil kid into killing 2500 people are u? lol haha

u could easily take over the controls of a 747, like in "Lone Gunman", if ne1 saw that -- but no way could u hoax sum1 into controlling a real plane

there were switchovers of the 3 planes that hit the buildings, and military passenger-looking planes were flown into the twin towers - but a lot of ppl saw grey planes not whites ones fly into the twin towers, with missiles fired from mounted missile launchers into the twin towers b4 they hit them

the passengers voices were faked for the phone calls by new technology developed about 6 to 8 months previously - u have a 0.006 chance of getting though at 32,000 ft, according to independent studies of mobile calls by www.physics911.net... - and all the calls were apparently being made at 33,000 ft, cruising altitiude

a global hawk, which fired a cruise missile shortly b4 impact, hit the pentagon - and another global hawk (there are i think 4 left of them today) shot down flight 93 - there was no "let's roll" b4 the plane was supposedly taken over and forced into the ground

all i gotta say - thats the official, independent, scientifically-sound, perfectly-reasonable facts, not the bull# "official story"

[edit on 8/8/2005 by Kandid]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I'm another addition to the "I was able to make cellphone calls at high altitudes" pile, I'm afraid.

Both cellphones and airphones (a bit nobody seems to address - some of those calls were made from airphones, not cellphones) work just fine, depending on where you are, and how high you are.

I've made calls from both, mid-flight, during landing, and at the usual cruising altitudes. I'm no tech expert, I'm a person of absolutely no importance whatsoever. Just an average woman who's had to fly far more than she's liked (I hate flying. I really do), and who's had to make phone calls at odd and inconvenient times, using nothing more flash than a regular Sony cellphone.



i gotta say - thats the official, independent, scientifically-sound, perfectly-reasonable facts


No, those aren't all perfectly reasonable facts at all. Some of them are scientifically unsound, and some have been more than adequately debunked. As far as switchovers...want to show us more about how and where this happened? Evidence of some sort?


(Please, check out CatHerder's post on the 757/Pentagon issue - the evidence is overwhelming, even to this cynic)

Believe me, I have many unanswered questions relating to the events of that day. But I've seen absolutely nothing at all which would even loosely support switchovers, missiles and military planes, or flight simulators operated by innocent or "in on it" persons.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Kandid;

As a person who flies for one of the airlines that lost two aircraft and fellow crew members that day I can state with 100% certanty that you and those like you who believe that nonsense are certifiably LOONEY! But, it's a free country and you can believe what you want.

Just one question: Given that ATC and American and United were all tracking these aircraft from takeoff to their impact points; when/where do you believe this "switchover" took place? Do you have an answer for what the gov did with the 4 airliners and their passengers? Maybe the government called upon an alien mothership to beam the aircraft/people aboard to store them along with the Navy Avengers and everyone else who inexplicably disappeared in the bermuda triangle.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Actually my theory makes more sense than the planes were switched and all that but unfortunately the technology does not match up with the theory. I was not thinking they tricked some little kid into flying the planes I was wondering if a trained professional could be duped into doing so thinking it was a training session going on. Freedom_for_sum educated me on the flight that the theory is more science fiction than possible.

As a pilot though Freedom_for-sum you got to admit that Norad's actions were very slow and delayed. As I understand there is a standard operating procedure supposed to take place whenever a plane veers off course and the whole thing was delayed that day.

Sorry you lost friends and fellow crew members, I hope this thread is not causing you anymore grief and I appreciate you answering all my questions.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Possible. We know that UCAVs can be controlled from simulator rooms.

But if it was simulator-flown, answer this:

ref: 911research.wtc7.net...



At 8:21, phone calls from two flight attendants allegedly began. Betty Ong called Vanessa Minter at American Airlines reservations. 8 Flight attendant Madeline Sweeney called American Airlines ground manager Michael Woodward at Logan and spoke calmly to him for 25 minutes until the plane crashed. Supposedly the call was not recorded and Woodward took notes. Her first comment is "Listen, and listen to me very carefully. I'm on Flight 11. The airplane has been hijacked." At 8:45, just before the crash, she said "I see the water. I see the buildings. I see buildings," then after a pregnant pause, a quiet "Oh, my God!"


She was on that plane, she saw it hijacked. She probably also saw the pilots killed. Also, the plane made two sudden, high-degree turns that if the Air Force was piloting from the ground, wouldn't have been made. I play FS2004, and making those turns is impossible unless you are determined to do it. And why would the Air Force need to prove the incompetency of the hijackers? They wouldn't!! it wouldn't have affected their mission in any way.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
As I understand there is a standard operating procedure supposed to take place whenever a plane veers off course and the whole thing was delayed that day.


You would be surprised at the number of time aircraft lose communication for brief periods of time or who stray a short distance off course. There are a number of benign reason that these occur and before 911, never associated with a terroist attack.

Before 911 NORADS's role was primarily a military function; monitoring North American airspace from incoming threats (missliles, aircraft) from overseas. There was very little expectation by NORAD that there would be a need do defend ourselves from domestic commercial airliners.

It wasn't until after the second plane hit the towers that they assumed a terrorists attack was taking place. I can excuse the personell of NORAD for for not immediately acting on a commercial jet coliding with a building. As for the FAA, they had to pull of the shelf and dust of the procedure book for the first time ever used SCATANA (Secure Control of Air Traffic and Navigation Aids)--an emergency procedure that had only ever been practiced in theory, and never with a real aircraft. These are the procedures ATC controllers used to get all aircraft on the ground in the even of a national emergency.

The attacks were unprecedented. I believe the criticisms should be directed at our nation's intelligence breakdowns, rather than at those who work at NORAD or the FAA.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Mudja,
Not sure whom you are referring this to, but in my theory and thats all it is of course no scientific data or proof to back it up and Freedom_for_sum has explained its a good theory just not possible at this time. I'm not saying that the Air Force would be tryng to point out anyones competence or incompetency. My theory was that of course the government is responsible for 911 (and I do believe this they either knew about it and allowed it to happen or they actually orchestrated it).
Lets start off with the telephone calls, that one is fairly easy, in my theory all the people are unconscious or dead from a small explosion causing rapid depressurization, if one planned this things they would know there has to be calls to prove the official story, so you know ahead of time what planes are going to be used, passengers list, some people book way ahead of time, get a few recordings from some of their cell phone conversations in the weeks before, blend them together to say what you want them to say and the people receiving those calls are not going to question any cracks in the voice after all the person on the hi-jacked plane is under a lot of stress. My SIL and his friends as a teenagers once took a lot of recording from movies and put together a scary threatening tape and would use it to call up friends and family as a joke, everyone thought it was funny. They left some silence in the tape to give the person time to respond.

Now onto the simulators or whatever new technology they have, one of the problems of course would be finding someone of the skill level to do this, and I am speaking of my theory and the simulator being used to fly the planes; most qualified pilots would refuse to do this and if asked would refuse and talk about being asked to others, so how do you get someone to do this? You do it by not letting them know their doing it. Norad actually was having training going on that morning of 9/11/01, there were 32 pretend hi-jackings being carried out that morning and so that is where my theory comes from. Am I the only one that thinks that if 911 actually happened the way the government says an incredible set of circumstances had to occurr, no one was doing their jobs on 911, they had done their jobs very well every day before that but all of a sudden everyone screws up except the hi-jackers, but wait even they do, they leave detailed evidence in their car pointing out the fact their responsible, so that there is no question they did it. Bin Laden is shown or heard laughing about it on tape, he denies doing it, why if the plan was to take credit for it nd thats why they detailed info in the car, why deny it? We can track the terrorist to his dinner table and record him but we can't capture him, give me a break.

Freedom_for_sum
Its not that I believe the terrorists are that good I just believe that those people at Norad and all the other people that prevent these kinds of things everyday just can't all be waking up on one particular day and being total slackers on that one day, and for 911 to have happened the way the government says; that had to happen. I just can't believe that our people could go from so good and go to being so bad on that one day and that the terrorists picked that one day that we were so bad to attack.

[edit on 14-8-2005 by goose]

[edit on 14-8-2005 by goose]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join