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.

 

Autonomous Flight, High-G Turns, Hijackers Alive, and Blank Recorders

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Some of the important and revealing topics touched upon, here.


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.
View the link for the full article.


This appears to be new information, and hasn't been debunked yet, as far as I've seen. Does anyone have any comments or opinions on this?

The only flaw I can see is that there is no 'evidence' provided in the article, but I'm sure the points could be verified if we tried.

[edit on 9/7/06 by SteveR]




posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Yeah, there are a LOT of flaws in this "theory".

The 757/767 don't have huge flight computers that would be required for autonomous flight. Flight computers are used for fly by wire systems. Boeing didn't use fly by wire until the 777 came along, and that was in the mid 90s. Everything before then was hydromechanical, which doesn't require flight computers. It had NAVIGATION computers, but all planes do, since the autopilot uses them. As far as the autonomous flight, NEWER planes have an autopilot that can land, take-off, and be programmed to fly to a certain point using GPS. But here's the thing about them. There are many ways to disrupt and autopilot, and if it disengages in flight, the plane crashes. If the plane banks too far, climbs too steep, hits turbulence and drops too far, etc. All of these conditions will cause an atuopilot to disengage.

A hydromechanical system is NOT limited to 1.5Gs. It's only limited by flight control movement. Pilots will limit the manuvers to gentle turns to keep from hurting people, but there's no limiting software in a mechanical system.

There is no such thing as an "override" system. That would be sheer folly to include in ANY plane. What happens when the guy that's in control of the system gets mad at his boss, or has a really bad day, and decides to take three or four planes with him? Guess what, the pilots are no longer in control, and the planes are about to meet up with a very solid object.

Flight Data Recorder/Voice Recorders only record for 30 minutes or so before they overwrite themselves. If there was no talking going on in the cockpit the voice recorder would be blank.

Hydromechanical flight control systems:

The complexity and weight of a mechanical flight control systems increases considerably with size and performance of the airplane. Hydraulic power overcomes these limitations. With hydraulic flight control systems aircraft size and performance are limited by economics rather than a pilot's strength.

A hydraulic flight control systems has 2 parts:

The mechanical circuit
The hydraulic circuit
The mechanical circuit links the cockpit controls with the hydraulic circuits. Like the mechanical flight control systems, it is made of rods, cables, pulleys, and sometimes chains.

The hydraulic circuit has hydraulic pumps, pipes, valves and actuators. The actuators are powered by the hydraulic pressure generated by the pumps in the hydraulic circuit. The actuators convert hydraulic pressure into control surface movements. The servo valves control the movement of the actuators.

The pilot's movement of a control causes the mechanical circuit to open the matching servo valves in the hydraulic circuit. The hydraulic circuit powers the actuators which then move the control surfaces.

This arrangement is found in older jet transports and high performance aircraft. Examples include the Antonov An-225 and the Lockheed SR-71.

www.answers.com...

Here's an interesting bit about Airbus' fly by wire that already shows this article wrong.


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.


Boeing Fly By Wire:

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

Cashman, who was chief pilot for the 777 program, said Boeing could have designed the 777 with the same hard limits as those in the Airbus planes.

seattlepi.nwsource.com...
(both quotes from same source)

G-Limits:
757:

However, the fact that the plane was being flown in a manner not typical for a jetliner does not mean it was not a jetliner. A 757 is capable of rather extreme maneuvers: It is capable of taking off on one engine, and can execute pitch accelerations of over 3.5 Gs (gravities) as demonstrated by the following incident report of an IcelandAir 757-200:

REPORT 7/2003 - Date: 22 January 2003
serious incident to icelandair BOEING 757-200 at oslo airport gardermoen norway 22 january 2002

...
1.1.14.5 At this time the First Officer called out PULL UP! - PULL UP!. The GPWS aural warnings of TERRAIN and then TOO LOW TERRAIN were activated. Both pilots were active at the control columns and a maximum up input was made. A split between left and right elevator was indicated at this time. It appears the split occurred due to both pilots being active at the controls. The pilots did not register the aural warnings. During the dive the airspeed increased to 251 kt and the lowest altitude in the recovery was 321 ft radio altitude with a peaked load factor of +3.59 gs.

911review.com...



[edit on 7/9/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Thank you very much for that, Zaphod..

I'll get back to you tomorrow...


Until then, what about the alive hijackers?

[edit on 9/7/06 by SteveR]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Several of them have been victims of Identity Theft, and several of them have had very SIMILAR names to the hijackers on 9/11. It's like 25 people in the same city named John Smith. Only the middile name is different.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Good thread so far... the point being it is possible with minor modifications and with sufficient intent and access to fly the planes remotely. But we already know this. I fail to see what denying this is accomplishing? If the perps that are alleged to do 911 did it then ability to fly the Boeings remotely would not have been an issue at all. It is the question of capability of this aircraft to do so and that has been answered in the affirmative.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
To modify a 757/767 to fly by remote would actually take extensive modification. You'd have to have a two way link, add flight computers, cameras, and several other systems to do it. It COULD be done, but it would take some pretty extensive modifications.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   
The 1.5G limit is rather strange concerning the plane may get into critical situations. Only in case they were designed in fact by Microsoft


Imagine that there is a danger of a crash and the plane sends a warning to pilot: "Critical error: This maneuver would cause more than 1.5g. Abort Retry Fail"



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Okay, let us say for a moment that it were possible to fly the planes remotely.
If thousands are going to die as a result of the planes hitting their targets, what is the point of saving the few on the planes themselves? Would it not just be simpler to manually fly into the targets?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Nah, that is dangerously close to the gub'mint story, and opens up a possibility that it was, in fact, manually flown by those nineteen Arabs



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It COULD be done, but it would take some pretty extensive modifications.


Extensive? By who's definition?

Lufthansa had the interfaces for remote control of their planes REMOVED for safety concerns.


The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.

How very clever (and discreet) of Von Buelow to sort of "drop the information" into the middle of an interview about the 9/11 attacks


So, the German Sec. of Def. was so concerned his flag ship carriers planes could be remote controlled EASILY that he oversaw a project to have the systems removed...

BUT, you claim it is some sort of MAMMOTH undertaking to remote control a jet liner?

Simple stuff. The software interfaces were already there, all they needed was to be fed the commands.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Would it not just be simpler to manually fly into the targets?


Finding suicide pilots is not easy.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The servo valves control the movement of the actuators.


So, all you have to do is control the servos? Just like a model airplane?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Finding suicide pilots is not easy.


IDK Japan had no problems finding them 60 years ago and many extremists volunteer to strap on a bomb...maybe there is a core group that are good at folding paper airplanes but are too sissy for the backpacks



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
First off, Hydromechanically controlled planes don't have the massive flight control computers that fly by wire controlled planes have. So no, it WOULDN'T be "easy" to install a remote system to fly a plane. Hydromechanical systems don't NEED a flight control computer to keep the planes flying. Fly by wire does. To make a plane able to be remote controlled, they would have to install computers, interface the flight controls, install a two way interface, etc.

As far as the servos, there are many links between the controlls and the servo you're trying to move, and it's not "like an RC plane" but the flight control eventually leads to a servo that moves the flight control surface.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
The USAF and NASA have been remote controlling basically EVERYTHING with wings for decades. It is NOT that hard, very possible and very plausible. You admit yourself it could be done. What position are you supporting? It would be too hard but not impossible, implausible or done in the past?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I'd hardly say they've been controlling everything with wings, but I'm well aware that it's been done. I've seen videos of them crashing several of them during tests of non-explosive fuel.

To make a plane remote control possible would add some things that would be very obvious to people on the ground that know the plane. The ground grew would notice it, the pilots would notice it, etc. And there certainly would be things in the plane they'd notice. It would be a lot easier to simply hijack the plane than to mod it to remote control and pray no one noticed.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'd hardly say they've been controlling everything with wings, but I'm well aware that it's been done. I've seen videos of them crashing several of them during tests of non-explosive fuel.

To make a plane remote control possible would add some things that would be very obvious to people on the ground that know the plane. The ground grew would notice it, the pilots would notice it, etc. And there certainly would be things in the plane they'd notice. It would be a lot easier to simply hijack the plane than to mod it to remote control and pray no one noticed.


I think quite the opposite.

I think rigging it and "protecting" it from prying eyes would be easier than finding suicide pilots. Just a little sleight of hand or substitution David Copperfield style.

We will have to disagree I guess.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
How would you hide the RC circuits from the ground crew?
Or are they part of the conspiracy as well?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
How would you hide the RC circuits from the ground crew?
Or are they part of the conspiracy as well?


Like I said... Simple substitution, sleight of hand style tactics have workd for magicians for many years.

I do not know how they would do it. I DO know it is very possible and quite plausible that it could be done with a small team.

What ground crew members are you specifically referring to?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
The 1.5G limit is rather strange concerning the plane may get into critical situations. Only in case they were designed in fact by Microsoft


Imagine that there is a danger of a crash and the plane sends a warning to pilot: "Critical error: This maneuver would cause more than 1.5g. Abort Retry Fail"

I also don't buy this for this very reason. We iced the wings on a C-130 while in flight, and lost about 2000 feet in altitude in a few seconds. The pilot approached 3 g's pulling us out of that near-disaster. Anything at 3g's or greater sends the C-130 to the boneyard.

Obviously a 130 has no constraints as detailed above. However, I have to cast serious doubts on a system that would prevent a pilot from performing evasive and emergency manuvers. I do not buy this 1.5 g theory.




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join