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: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

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?


The ground crew that loaded the plane, the ground crew mechanics, the pilots doing the walkaround inspection, etc.




posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The ground crew that loaded the plane, the ground crew mechanics, the pilots doing the walkaround inspection, etc.


First of all, we are making a lot of assumptions.

IF you are going to do it to a fully loaded plane, it would need to be well hidden. Probably not in the pilots seat or in the cargo hold where it would be instantly found. It is WIDLEY speculated/reported that all modern large commercial jets have anti-hijack/"Home Run" interfaces built in for remote control purposes. If it was there all along, who would notice?

The Mechanics: Assuming someone installed a system, it would be likely that these people would have been the team of substitute flight mechanics so they are moot.

The Pilots: They do a walk around and a pre-flight check, but you will not find them removing instrumentation panels or fuselage to check for adulteration of the vessel.

Loaders: Luggage handlers would only see the cargo holds, food service would not see much except for the galley and the cabin interior.

OF COURSE, this all assumes that there was not simply an in-flight substitution via radar and transponder trickery. In this case the substituted planes would not have been subject to ANY checks or inspections.

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



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
You would HAVE to have SOME components where they could be seen. You would have to have cameras located on the fuselage to see your target as you were remote flying the planes. You have to have at least one extra antenna on the plane to transmit/receive data to and from the plane to the guy flying it. Those mechanics and pilots know every antenna on the plane, and if they see something that wasn't there yesterday they're gonna notice it and start digging.

That whole Home Run business is all speculation, and the worst idea I've ever heard. There isn't a single shred of proof that it exists, and if it did, it would be the highest form of idiocy. Letting someone on the ground suddenly take control of a plane could cause major accidents. What happens when the guy in control comes in, and he just split up with his wife and is really depressed? Or he snaps one day from the stress and goes postal. Not only can he kill his coworkers, but now he can kill 400 or 500 people too.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You would HAVE to have SOME components where they could be seen. You would have to have cameras located on the fuselage to see your target as you were remote flying the planes. You have to have at least one extra antenna on the plane to transmit/receive data to and from the plane to the guy flying it. Those mechanics and pilots know every antenna on the plane, and if they see something that wasn't there yesterday they're gonna notice it and start digging.


Antennas can be hidden. So can a small camera. As far as I know, when I pilot walks around the plane pre-flight, they do not check the existing antenna(s) for an extra internal element. Who is to say you could not use the existiing ones?


Originally posted by Zaphod58
That whole Home Run business is all speculation... There isn't a single shred of proof that it exists...


The country of Germany disagrees with you.



Originally posted by Zaphod58 What happens when the guy in control comes in, and he just split up with his wife and is really depressed? Or he snaps one day from the stress and goes postal. Not only can he kill his coworkers, but now he can kill 400 or 500 people too.


What happens when a pilot does the same? What happens when a nuke plant employee goes nuts? What about th guys controlling all of our non-nuclear aresnal? This is a circular argument. MANY people have the ability to KILL, KILL, KILL en mass. There would be SAFEGUARDS like our nuclear aresenal is said to have... "the football"... codes... executive orders. Do you really think more than 3-4 Air Force personelle would have the ability to actually do it and even then without being given access/codes via. superiors?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
ONE PERSON in the country of Germany has made comments about it. Just like any other country you have people in the gov't that don't know what they're talking about that make comments. I said it before, and I'll keep saying it. Boeing only used FBW with the 777. Non-FBW flight control systems DON'T REQUIRE flight computers that can have "override software" installed on them. They have some computers, but they aren't computer controlled like a FBW system is.

Those antennas that are already on the plane are dedicated for certain things. You can't use a UHF antenna to transmit datalinks. Voice antennas and data antennas are different. As far as the pilots, no they're not checking the antennas, but they SEE them, and they know where they're located.

Home Run is still a fallacy of the highest order. Aside from comments of one person in a foreign gov't, there's no proof that it even exists. So what if they flew other planes by remote. It doesn't mean that they're going to put a fully loaded commercial plane under remote control, for any reason.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
If there's that Home Run thingie, why wasn't it employed say to get safely down that Greek Airbus? Eh?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
ONE PERSON in the country of Germany has made comments about it.


One German Secretary of Defense


Originally posted by Zaphod58
Just like any other country you have people in the gov't that don't know what they're talking about that make comments. I said it before, and I'll keep saying it. Boeing only used FBW with the 777. Non-FBW flight control systems DON'T REQUIRE flight computers that can have "override software" installed on them. They have some computers, but they aren't computer controlled like a FBW system is.


How do you achieve auto-pilot without FBW? Are you saying a 757/767 has no auto pilot? You are making a poor argument that a plane REQUIRES FBW to be remote controlled whilst above you admit NASA and the USAF did it LONG ago.


Originally posted by Zaphod58
Those antennas that are already on the plane are dedicated for certain things. You can't use a UHF antenna to transmit datalinks. Voice antennas and data antennas are different. As far as the pilots, no they're not checking the antennas, but they SEE them, and they know where they're located.


Data can be transmitted via UHF and could easily use the same antenna on different frequencies. An antenna is nothing more than a specially shaped piece of metal in a shroud. Putting a split on the outputs would be cake.


Originally posted by Zaphod58
Home Run is still a fallacy of the highest order. Aside from comments of one person in a foreign gov't, there's no proof that it even exists. So what if they flew other planes by remote. It doesn't mean that they're going to put a fully loaded commercial plane under remote control, for any reason.


Again, he had the devices REMOVED from all Lufthansa planes. It is not a "fallacy of the highest order". We put remote controlled nuclear weapons with MIRVs in silos... Why not remote controls on jetliners?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   
No, I'm not saying that it CAN'T be done on non-FBW systems. I'm saying that they don't have the massive computer systems that FBW systems have that would make it easier to do. Have you ever been inside a plane when it's torn apart? There's NOT a lot of room to go in behind panels and bulkheads to install more computer systems.

Autopilot isn't really a computer system though. Not in the sense that an FBW system is. To compare them to the computers we use, autopilot is a scientific calculator where FBW systems are desktop systems.

So why does his being the Minister of Defense mean he knows what he's talking about with civilian planes? How many US politicians have opened their mouths on national tv and had total bs come out? Look at the Reagan shooting. I can't remember his name, but he kept saying on the news that he was in charge while Reagan was out of action, but he was like 5th down the list. Just because someone is a high ranking person in the government doesn't impart some high intelligence rating, or mean that everytime they say something they know what they're talking about automatically. If he had them "removed" then why didn't he provide proof? Why wasn't it blasted all over everywhere, instead of one or two places? Where's the evidence of it?

Again, a MIRV is an UNMANNED vehicle that you want to MAKE SURE gets where it's going, although they're not really remote controlled. They're GPS controlled.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Great debate going here... I'd like to add a couple of things.

In the article it mentions that in case of emergency, "NORAD can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote." Interestingly, NORAD stood down during the events of 9/11, that point isn't included in the article but it is a valid point discussed on these boards.. maybe there's a link there? Kind of suspicious.

I'm not giving my verdict on all this until I've managed to verify, or disprove, the statements made in the article. I think it's important to check those out and be sure, rather than give opinions on whether we think they might be true or false.

Secondly, I always thought it was odd how they (hijackers) were able to control the plane with such accuracy to hit the towers straight on. This is another point to support the remote control or pre-planned route theory..

[edit on 10/7/06 by SteveR]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No, I'm not saying that it CAN'T be done on non-FBW systems. I'm saying that they don't have the massive computer systems that FBW systems have that would make it easier to do. Have you ever been inside a plane when it's torn apart? There's NOT a lot of room to go in behind panels and bulkheads to install more computer systems.


Again, the assumption that some large system is necessary is beyond my skillset to argue. I would ASSUME that since the plane has autopilot that it could be remote pilot "integrated fairly easily.


Originally posted by Zaphod58
So why does his being the Minister of Defense mean he knows what he's talking about with civilian planes?


Why would he just make it up?


Originally posted by Zaphod58 If he had them "removed" then why didn't he provide proof?


What is he going to do? Decomplile the source code and print all of it out in a newspaper?


Originally posted by Zaphod58
Why wasn't it blasted all over everywhere, instead of one or two places? Where's the evidence of it?


Media is controlled very well in America.


Originally posted by Zaphod58
Again, a MIRV is an UNMANNED vehicle that you want to MAKE SURE gets where it's going, although they're not really remote controlled. They're GPS controlled.


You missed the point. The are REMOTELY LAUNCHED. By your theory this would be the dumbest thing ever because someoen could go nutso and launch a global nuclear war...



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
On the contrary. I've seen the safeguards for nuclear weapons, so please don't put words in my mouth. But what are you going to do, put the same safeguards in for your remote control system? By the time you could get control of the plane, it's already crashed somewhere or is landing already.

I'm not saying he made it up. But he could have heard rumors, and bought into it. As far as proof, there would be SOME way for them to show that it was there.

As far as putting in more systems, you dont' seem to understand that were talking CENTIMETERS of space behind bulkheads and instrument panels. The A380 is almost a year behind production schedules, because the wiring is too tight and they're having to add 5cm of wiring to it. THAT'S how tight it is in a plane.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
On the contrary. I've seen the safeguards for nuclear weapons, so please don't put words in my mouth. But what are you going to do, put the same safeguards in for your remote control system? By the time you could get control of the plane, it's already crashed somewhere or is landing already.


Somewhere between "the ultimate in safeguards" and "some wacko haveing a bad day can take over" is where I believe the answer lies. The ICBM reference was to make a point.


Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'm not saying he made it up. But he could have heard rumors, and bought into it. As far as proof, there would be SOME way for them to show that it was there.


I do not think they would retrofit the fleet based on a rumor. Alos, they are our ALLIES, just because they did not want the system does not mean the would go to the world presses and SELL US OUT placing our fleets in grave danger.


Originally posted by Zaphod58
As far as putting in more systems, you dont' seem to understand that were talking CENTIMETERS of space behind bulkheads and instrument panels. The A380 is almost a year behind production schedules, because the wiring is too tight and they're having to add 5cm of wiring to it. THAT'S how tight it is in a plane.


It all depends on where the input, feedback and monitioring equipment needed to be. My "behind the instruments" statement was a simple example. There is a TON of unsurvieled open space in a plane to house the "major logic procesor(s)" and the rest would probably be distributed through wires.

Finally, the new ultra high tech A380 should not be compared to a 767/757 whne it comes to space utilization maximization. Apples and oranges.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
A "ton of space"? You're kidding right? I've been involved in some pretty detailed stripping down of planes, and there was anything BUT a ton of space. Pretty much every inch of space in that plane is either wiring, or other systems, or has wiring running through it.

So wait a second, in the 757/767, which are far OLDER than the A380, they somehow found a way to have all this extra space management, that they didn't in the newer plane?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
A "ton of space"? You're kidding right? I've been involved in some pretty detailed stripping down of planes, and there was anything BUT a ton of space. Pretty much every inch of space in that plane is either wiring, or other systems, or has wiring running through it.


Yes. No. A ton of space for a laptop, some relays, wires and servos... sure. For a cow... no. Heck put it in the crapper storage tank. Bet no one looks there.
(joke)


Originally posted by Zaphod58
So wait a second, in the 757/767, which are far OLDER than the A380, they somehow found a way to have all this extra space management, that they didn't in the newer plane?


I believe that they use the space MORE efficently in the A380... that is they pack things in MORE tightly. How do I know this? Your "5mm wire" would be a non-issue in a 757/767. It certainly would not delay production for a year. Simply put... more "dead air space" especially after the OLD LARGE controls/instrumentation were retrofitted with newer equipment.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Pretty sure most planes don't have a home run ability as the perfect situation to use it in was the greek airliner which lost cabin presure a few years ago and flew for a few hours after the event. A remote landing system could have saved the 200 odd people onboard.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kipman725
Pretty sure most planes don't have a home run ability as the perfect situation to use it in was the greek airliner which lost cabin presure a few years ago and flew for a few hours after the event. A remote landing system could have saved the 200 odd people onboard.


Commercial autolanding has been in use since the 1980s, militarily since the 50's. Happens all the time. The only thing Home Run adds is EVERYTHING that needs to happen between autopilot at cruising altitude and final approach. (Descent, runway selection, gear deployment...).

This technology is being improved daily. A global Hawk for example can WITH NO HUMAN INTERVENTION...

1. File it's own flight plans. (just tell it the destination)
2. Take off.
3. Fly in the standard commercial lanes safely with other aircraft.
4. Land.
5. Pull off the run way.

ALL AUTOMATICALLY. So, to anyone who thinks remote controlling "in flight" is a difficult task is nuts.

www.public-action.com...

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



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Now YOU'RE comparing apples and oranges. A Global Hawk was designed FROM THE GROUND UP to do those things. A UAV does all those things because they were designed to do all those things. A 757/767 doesn't do all those things because they weren't.


loq

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
good debate going on...
i think the idea of the planes being remote controlled seems a bit plausible.
i don't think we will ever find out what really hapened that day tho..



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
zaphod58,
please
do some researchin''

you said
"Boeing didn't use fly by wire until the 777 came along, and that was in the mid 90s"

boeing says

"The Boeing 757-300, member of the popular 757/767 family of medium-sized airplanes, was launched Sept. 2, 1996,"

. The Pegasus flight management computer (FMC) and an enhanced engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) are now standard on both 757 models. With the Pegasus FMC, operators can choose optional software that enables elements of the future air navigation system (FANS). FANS functions provide operators with the ability to use advanced systems, such as global positioning system (GPS) sensors and satellite communications (SATCOM), to take full advantage of new communication, navigation and air traffic management systems for more efficient routing and decreased trans-oceanic traffic separation.

The EICAS upgrade replaces existing computers with enhanced devices that are software loadable. The new EICAS has improved built-in test equipment (BITE) functions that allow for improved self-diagnosis of faults in a more readable format. On-board software loading allows operators to use the same EICAS computer as a replacement on any 757 or 767

www.boeing.com...

if its digital, and can be flown( landed ) by remote..
then its HACKABLE or most likely someone on the inside (control tower, ect...)
could easily (not me of course) set the autopilot for the co ordinates
of the W.T.C. i'm sure the gps measurements are out there somewhere too..

i would believe this scenario,
before,
the hi-jakked version....

the auto pilot, wouldnt say much, they're kindof quiet.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Great work - thanks for digging that up.

I'll look into it a bit deeper...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join