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.

 

757/767 remote control flight...terrorists didnt do it

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So you do know that you can disconnect the autopilot by simply pushing a button, or pulling a circuit breaker don't you? Or that you can reprogram it in flight, don't you?


On a Boeing there's no need to pull any CB's to disconnect the autopilot.
If the Autopilot Main Switch on the Mode Control Panel, or the button on the yoke fails there's a Autopilot Disconnect Bar located in the middle of the Mode Control Panel that will cut off current from all the electrical buses to the autopilot.
In all the years i've flown Boeings i have never heard of any case where the autopilot wouln't disconnect.
The problem with the autopilot is usally that it disconnects, and wont reconnect.

On a sidenote: the cockpit door on the 757/67 pre 9/11 wasn't much of a door, a kick on the right place would often release the locking mechanism.
Both UAL and AA used doors with keypads, no keys.
There was a new code for every flight, and the Chief Attendent had the code.

Today both the doors and the procedures have changed.




posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I've heard of one case in all my years on the ground where the autopilot wouldn't disconnect completely. The pilots had directional control, but it didn't entirely disconnect. They simply walked back to the circuit breaker panel and pulled the breaker, and problem solved.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by Kamikaze905
Both UAL and AA used doors with keypads, no keys.
There was a new code for every flight, and the Chief Attendent had the code.


From page 454 of the 9/11 commission report.

United flight attendants, unlike those at American, did not carry cockpit keys. Instead, such keys were stowed in the cabin--on Flight 175,
in the overhead bin above seats 1A and 1B in first class. See Don Dillman briefing (Nov. 18, 2003); Bob Jordanbriefing (Nov. 20, 2003).


Mary Schiavo of the NTSB also commented about the cockpit keys in her testimony to the commission. What do you make of it?



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
NOBODY in the US used keypads/electronic locks prior to 9/11. The requirement was that the door would open in the case of depressurization, and that it could be kicked open to rescue pilots in case of a crash landing. The only airline that had any kind of reinforced door was El Al.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by AMTMAN
In order to select a code the pilot has to turn and reach to the side and then make four seperate motions.



So your stating that none of the 8 pilots had about 4 seconds to set the codes?

It takes less then 4 seconds to set the code. Are you saying it took the hijackers less the 4 seconds to get in to the cockpit? Do you have evidence of this?

Also it only takes 1 second to key the mike and call for help.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Could you please tell me how do you know how long it takes to dial in 7500 on an ATC control panel. How long have you been around commercial airliners? Do you even know what an ATC control panel looks like?

Someone bargages into your cockpit what would you do? Some mainac with an object in his hand advances at you. My guess is there's going to be the initial shock of it. Wonder how long that took to register in the pilots brains? Now lets say that one of them tried to enter 7500. Once that doors open it takes about two seconds to get to the pilots. You seem to belive in this perfect world where the flight crews have menatlly prepared themselves for a violent hijacking and fly around with their hands on the ATC control panel.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Animal
If you knew anything about commercial aricraft you would know the whole idea of a remote takeover of a 757 or 767 is nothing more than a parnoid fantasy.



So you do know the autopilot on a 757 or 767 can be preprogrammed?

Do you also know there are sytems that can remote control a plane?

Why don't you explain to me how this works.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
They didn't all have commercial ratings...wromg. Mosyt could not rent a Cessna so please..Ultima! makes a salient point: Even IF ALL FOUR sets of highjackers had keys allegedly kept by certain crew members, they would SURELY have had time to push the button on the yoke that activates the mike. Forget the transponder and 4 seconds..try less than a second to press the button and alert the ATC that something was wromng. But no.

No calls from any plane: Some possibility that a mike was keyed on ONE flight only and that could well have been a part of the plan also. But we should have FOUR sets of tapes of pilots yelling their heads off as ' attackers ' slashed and fought and supposedly with 100% sucess in all FOUR cases but all there is, is silence. When you listen to the tape of Flt. 93 talking to Cleveland tower, there are only a few seconds at most between the last transmission and total dead air. No mike keyed and a yell..nothing.

Remote taking is the ONLY rational way to explain that.


You keep repeating this lie that none of the flights transmitted. What about UAL 92?

Remote takeover is the most IRRATIONAL thing I have ever heard.

And could you please tell us how this remote takeover occured. That way I have something to rip to shreds.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by AMTMAN]

[edit on 27-11-2007 by AMTMAN]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
So you do know the autopilot on a 757 or 767 can be preprogrammed?

Do you also know there are sytems that can remote control a plane?


Yes there are a few systems that can remote control a plane. Like the ones used to fly UAVs.

Also the British have a newer sysytem in 1 of their Tornado fighters that can take over control of a hijacked plane.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   


This is why i don't make threads about things i'm sure people have discussed beforehand, it's always a nice surprise when someone comes along and revives them.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by AMTMAN
So you do know the autopilot on a 757 or 767 can be preprogrammed?

Do you also know there are sytems that can remote control a plane?


Yes there are a few systems that can remote control a plane. Like the ones used to fly UAVs.

Also the British have a newer sysytem in 1 of their Tornado fighters that can take over control of a hijacked plane.


Please give me some more information other than "there are a few systems that can remote control a plane". Give some details on how it would work in a remote "hijacking".



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Please give me some more information other than "there are a few systems that can remote control a plane". Give some details on how it would work in a remote "hijacking".


So you have done no research on this subject at all? Because some basic research can show remote control systems.

Here is a little about the British system.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Basically they would take over control of the autopilot.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Please give me some more information other than "there are a few systems that can remote control a plane". Give some details on how it would work in a remote "hijacking".


So you have done no research on this subject at all? Because some basic research can show remote control systems.

Here is a little about the British system.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Basically they would take over control of the autopilot.



Yet another case of information cheery picking. And yes I know about remote operation of UAV and modified aircraft like the 707 used as test bed by teh FAA. So don't talk like you know what you are talking about and I don't.

Takeover the planes autopilot you say? How would they do that? Would it be with software, added equipment or both? The problem with you little theory is that the pilot can disconnect the autopilot rather easily.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Takeover the planes autopilot you say? How would they do that? Would it be with software, added equipment or both? The problem with you little theory is that the pilot can disconnect the autopilot rather easily.


If you know about the stuff why are you asking me?

Sounds like you already know and have proven the remote control sytems exist.



[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Takeover the planes autopilot you say? How would they do that? Would it be with software, added equipment or both? The problem with you little theory is that the pilot can disconnect the autopilot rather easily.


If you know about the stuff why are you asking me?

Sounds like you already know and have proven the remote control sytems exist.



[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


I wanted to prove a point. The point being is that you heard a theory about remote takeover. You wanted to believe it so badly you did not bother to do some basic research beyond looking up a BBC article.

If you had you would have realized that while remote operation is possible it's only possible when the aircraft has been heavily modified. This sort of modification would not escape notice by those who work on commerical airliners. On a 757 or 767 the pilot has ultimate control over that aircraft. If something is going on that he does not like he can hand fly the aircraft himself. If you think you can prove me wrong with some real information and not what you have said so far then go right ahead.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
I wanted to prove a point. The point being is that you heard a theory about remote takeover. You wanted to believe it so badly you did not bother to do some basic research beyond looking up a BBC article.


Thats so funny. Its not the point that i want to beleive it. Its fact that there are remote control systems out there. Also i did not research the BBC article. I heard about the British system in a goverment report, since i work for the government. You are so wrong in so many ways its funny.

I guess you know about Isreal being accused of crashing a plane using a remote control system?

[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by AMTMAN
I wanted to prove a point. The point being is that you heard a theory about remote takeover. You wanted to believe it so badly you did not bother to do some basic research beyond looking up a BBC article.


Thats so funny. Its not the point that i want to beleive it. Its fact that there are remote control systems out there. Also i did not research the BBC article. I heard about the British system in a goverment report, since i work for the government. You are so wrong in so many ways its funny.

I guess you know about Isreal being accused of crashing a plane using a remote control system?

[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]


Oh, so it's the fact that the systems exist proves that's what happeend on 9-11. That's a stretch of logic if there ever was one.

Why don't you tell me the scenario that occured on 9-11 regarding remote takeover. I'm dying to know. If your going to parrot theories you had better be able to back them up.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Why don't you tell me the scenario that occured on 9-11 regarding remote takeover.


When you show me where i stated it was a remote control takover on 9/11.

Are you going to answer the question about Isreal, YES or NO ?



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   
As explained earlier in the thread, it is only logical to think that this remote control is done through the autopilot system.... but even if it was remote controlled, it's impossible that the remote control flew it into the towers.

The navigation in the 767 will NOT be abled to hit WTC unless there was ILS. Honeywell Pegasus, is a newer, better Flight Management Computer which started being retrofitted to 767s beginning in 1998. It most likely was on the aircraft involved, and if it wasn't, we're greatly overestimating the accuracy of the navigation performance, original FMS were NOT GPS.

Here is a table, from Boeing, representing the Required Navigation Performance (Nautical miles). A single nautical mile is 6076 feet, assuming you could hit any part of the towers which were 208 feet wide, 104 feet left or right from the fix, means you have to have a ANP (Actual Navigation Performance) of 0.017115 nautical miles or lower to even hit WTC.


Notice how as RNP gets halved, the precision goes down more and more dramatically as RNP goes down. Imagine a RNP of 0.017115 nautical miles to even get the fuselage to hit the WTC... both planes hit dead on.

The likelyhood of two aircraft hitting the towers with those odds if flown on autopilot is impossible.

Source: www.boeing.com...

Even if it where possible for the navigation system to be accurate enough, you then need to tell me why exactly the autopilot (That's how its remote controlled), is going to be banking so steeply LESS than ONE mile from the fix... In real life the autopilot is designed to be smooth and comfortable, and is NOT designed to be chasing waypoints so it goes PRECISELY above them.

Could you imagine Airliners, in real life, banking steeply, less than a mile from the fix, so they can get within 104 feet of a waypoint?


LOL

And take a look at this report:
www.ntsb.gov...
The autopilot(s) where OFF.

No, they where not remote controlled into WTC. They could only be holograms (
), or handflown into the buildings.



[edit on 30/11/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
[I've been flying the 767 for a few years now. I will say this, you are incorrect. You cannot program any aircraft to do what you are saying. You need pilot interaction with the flight management system. The aircraft with let you exceed any of its limits. The aircraft is not fly by wire. You can exceed 1.5 g's manually. Witness the Eygpt Air 767 where the two pilots were able to provide enough force that the elevator system was split and the aircraft eventually crashed in the ocean. To sum it up, you don't know what your talking about.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATSGUY
I got this from a yahoo answers post, is it true that no one can over-ride the cockpit because of the software. So if this is true then how did the planes crash when it was taken over my a remote control.



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.

answers.yahoo.com...


Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]



Your Yahoo.com link doesn't work, can you or somebody else please post one that does work?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join