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.

 

Planes can be Electronically Hijacked, This is fact.

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Reheat
 



Otherwise, you'll continue to make a fool of yourself just as this poster has in confusing WAAS with remote control.


I believe lycopersicum has showed that he understands what’s he is talking about.


No, he hasn't and neither do you. Since you believe that, it's mot at all surprising that you make a weak attempt to defend the indefensible - nonsense.




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



No, he hasn't and neither do you. Since you believe that, it's mot at all surprising that you make a weak attempt to defend the indefensible - nonsense.



No reheat, you are the one who dribbles in nonsense, and you parrot what weedy says because, you do not understand anything in aviation, and that my friend is a fact. That is why we are all laughing because it is all entertainment right? You take your own nonsense to serious, you need to chill out.


[edit on 10-10-2009 by impressme]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
One more time, I'll attempt to correct false information regarding the posted bunkum regarding WAAS and remote control.

The US system is known as WAAS, the European portion is EGNOS, and the Asian segment is MSAS. Each system is controled by it's respective region.

So much for Clinton's control of all of the world's aircraft.


www.kowoma.de...



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


I find this to be the BEST, and simplest explanation....despite ALL of my efforts....


For the record, I'll state it again, WAAS was developed by adding additional satellites and ground stations to provide increased accuracy for navigation purposes. It is not related to remote control that is not controllable by the pilot in all respects at all times. Even a jihadist could override the autopilot simply by moving the controls.


Last night, I was trying to say the same damn thing...BUT I tend to use too many words....

While trying to cut and discuss impressme's post, and the links he brought, I ran up against too many characters...as IN...the 10,000 character limit imposed on each post, by ATS.

I ran out of time, and characters....but reheat got it right, with clarity!!!

BTW...when I mentioned that I KNEW who were the pilots, and who weren't??? REHEAT is obviously a pilot!. There are others. Like I said, we can tell.

Back to me.....!!!!

Lot of what I wrote was lost, so here's a repeat....

I started flying early, for reasons that are personal. Suffice to say, by the time I was 21 years old, I had about every Airman's Certificate possible, (of course, ALL were fixed-wing ratings...don't try to fault me for not getting lighter-than-air or rotor-craft or glider ratings...didn't have the resources for all of those...)... AND I had already satisfied the ATP requirements...meaning, I had already passed the written and the oral and the practical flight test....for an ATP, and met all the OTHER requirements....EXCEPT for one...the minimum age, which was, and still IS...23.

At the time, I was 21....and AT THE TIME, there was a waiver built in to the regulations, that allowed for someone who met ALL the OTHER requirements, but NOT the age yet...to qualify, and WHEN meeting the ag requirement (that is, havig the birthday) would then be fully qualified to excercise the privilges of the Certificate.

UNTIL reaching the age of 23, NO PERSON MAY excercise those privileges....of an ATP. I was "grandfathered in" for two years....because I has ALREADY passed all tests, except for being of age....I could NOT be considered an 'ATP', nor could I use that Certificate in that capacity, yet....

During my first employment job that involved flying passengers...well after I HAD already spent time Flight Instructing, I was hired at Scenic Airlines, in Las Vegas...we did Grand Canyon tours, by air...in, at that time, Cessna 402s and 404s. This was under FAR PArt 135, single-pilot VFR rules.

ANY IFR operations, under those rules, required TWO pilots....and on certain Charter flights, I was also assigned such trips....


ANY QUESTIONS????

because, I'm just getting started....as to my history, and experience...this, that I just gave you, is back in the 1980s.....I can fill in the rest, just ask.













[edit on 10 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


See????


You read something on the Web, and since you are NOT a pilot, you just don't comprehend....NOR so you understand.

I will try to explain....




No need to interview anyone LOL. It is called WAAS. DOD/DOT/FAA's global remote control system.


RIGHT THERE!!!! You have linked from some website telling you lies....or at worst, THEY have misinterpreted somethig, and THEN made it into an incredibly fantastic FANTASY of technology that only THEY think exists.

The key phrase there, put in by the Web site author...is "global remote control system".

IF YOU PAY ATTENTION to the actual sources, you will find that the "WAAS, DOD/DOT/FAA's" concept has nothing to do with "remote control"...not in the way that is implied by this WebSite!!!

People who know better just laugh at this concept.



Seamless Aviation: FAA's Wide Area Augmentation System.It was built for Boeing 727, 737, 757, an Aerocommander 680E and others easy retro with existing equipment on the air crafts at the time.completed in 2000.And it said it was easy to hack LOL.



DO YOU EVEN KNOW what an "Aerocommander 680" actually is???? No, didn't think so... OH, and btw....the inclusion of the B727 is a dead giveaway to the fallacy of these "reports" that seem to convince the laypeople so well...really, it is hilarious.

BUT, you are easily fooled by these sorts of garbage claims????



The rest of it? Again....garbage.

Do you REALLY think that this sort of "technology", so "easily" (cough, cough) found by a few idiots on the Internet who have NO IDEA about real-world aviation, nor anything about how airplanes are actually operated....THESE idiots who write this nonsense should be taken serioulsy???

When you have hundreds or thousands of REAL pilots who tear this crap apart, in very short time???

OK...stay with your fantasies....I prefer reality.






[edit on 10 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Here's the rest, of my reply to what impressme brought, but didn't understand:

THIS is ridiculous, yet it was granted a 'patent'....you should look into how patents are granted....(Note the date...in the article)....



On October 9, 2001, Cubic Defense Systems, Inc. applied for a U.S. patent for a system that removes control of an aircraft from its pilot and utilizes an aircraft's auto-pilot system to implement an uninterruptable pre-programmed auto-pilot flight plan in order to navigate an aircraft to a given destination during an emergency.


OK, need to jump out here from this idiocy...and stop laughing....

IF ANYONE BELIEVES that a real pilot could not take control from any automation, then that person is just living in "La-La Land".

OH....and IF you won't consider that maybe a person who has control of the cockpit, AKA the terrorists of 9/11....and can't figure out how to over-power or otherwise thwart the AutoPilot....

...let me make it simple for you.

EVEN AN IDIOT TERRORIST can simply hold the control wheel, and overpower ANY autopilot inputs...easily!!! There is NO AUTOPILOT that is stronger than a Human arm!!!!

PERIOD!!!!!




This would be accomplished through the use of electronic or mechanical relays, that become activated by pilot operation of an aircraft hijack notification system.



Again, this "patent" idea assumes that some pilot (pilots) who were somehow out of direct control of the airplane, STILL manage to activate this alleged "hijack notification system"?????

Oh, but the funniest part, is the comment above...."through the use of electronic or mechanical relays"....!!!! LOL!!

That, right there, tears apart any credibility, and should show anyone with any knowledge about how real airplanes work....just how stupid this concept is....






[edit on 10 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


OK....NOW I will try to address some more of the post from impressme...

Using what I know from REAL-WORLD knowledge and many thousands of hours of experience actually flying the REAL airplanes...NOT, as asserted, by impressme, just from some desk-top simulator program you can buy at Best Buy, or someplace....(perhaps that's where HE gets his information?)...

First, we see this:



757-300 Background

The Flight Deck



OK....the B757-300....this is nothing more than a stretched version of the B757-200....AND the cockpit technology is not any different.

The main things we were trained on, when we were introduced to the -300????

It has a higher max Taxi weight, and Max Takeoff weight...and Max landing Weight. Oh, and there is a higher concern for tail strikes, because of the longer fuselage....

Most unintentional tail strikes occur during landings....IF the pilot flying just forgets about, or is seemingly unaware of the airplane behind him....

BUT, by following established procedures, set forth by the operaters (airlines) in their training and Operations manuals, these sorts of embarrassing events are minimized.

EVERY Flight Manual, or Operating Handbook for a specific airplane is full of good information....in the case of, say....the B757, whether it's the -200 or -300....ALL the "differences" are specified. To preclude a tailstrike, usually what happens is Airline procedures are dictated so that the chances of tailstrikes, wheter in the takoff or landing phase are minimized...this is part of EVERY operator's SOP.

NOW....the link about the 'Pegasus' software upgrades to the FMC.....




Several flight deck improvements have been made on both the 757-300 and the 757-200. 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.



Great!!! What does all that mean??? Well, to a pilot who is trained on it, it mean a lot. To laypeople??? They make up stuff, it seems....and imagine capabiliies that just aren't there.

Read that above paragrah again, and let's see if it stays in context.

ALL it says is that the 'pegasus' software upgrade to the FMCs on Boeing 757s and 767s added certain capabilities, for FUTURE enhancements!!!!!!

Oh, and these 'pegasus' enhancements???? THEY DID NOT EXIST IN 2001!!!!!!!

Of course, laypeople who read this "information' are conveniently denied that minor fact.....






It's absurd to accept this kind of claim without some strong evidence.



The evidence is here! The research has been done for you just read it. It took me one search on Google to find this, why couldn’t you have done the same, instead of a kneejerk response of negativity.


To install and maintain these alleged systems without public disclosure would require the unwavering complicity of tens-of-thousands of airline



Come on, we are only talking about four Boeing aircraft used on 911.
We are talking about a few men in our military installing and operating the remote- control technologies. We are talking about 757 and 767 used by our military and owned by our military, we are not talking about “all commercial aircraft”.


Oh, and let's not forget the thousands of people who would have had to be in on the engineering design and implementation.



You do not know how many people designed or engineered this technology or how may people it took to install this equipment on those four airplanes, you are only assuming, nothing more.


The story described here CLEARLY comes from folks who have no working knowledge of how even simple systems like an ATC transponder work. This belongs on the rubbish heap.


I have no idea what your motives are on this topic but, it is clear to me for someone who thinks he know everything about aviation and flying airplanes, I find it unusual that you are not aware of these technologies and this is old technology now


757-300 Background

The Flight Deck

Several flight deck improvements have been made on both the 757-300 and the 757-200. 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.


www.boeing.com...





It's absurd to accept this kind of claim without some strong evidence.



The evidence is here! The research has been done for you just read it. It took me one search on Google to find this, why couldn’t you have done the same, instead of a kneejerk response of negativity.


To install and maintain these alleged systems without public disclosure would require the unwavering complicity of tens-of-thousands of airline



Come on, we are only talking about four Boeing aircraft used on 911.
We are talking about a few men in our military installing and operating the remote- control technologies. We are talking about 757 and 767 used by our military and owned by our military, we are not talking about “all commercial aircraft”.


Oh, and let's not forget the thousands of people who would have had to be in on the engineering design and implementation.



You do not know how many people designed or engineered this technology or how may people it took to install this equipment on those four airplanes, you are only assuming, nothing more.


The story described here CLEARLY comes from folks who have no working knowledge of how even simple systems like an ATC transponder work. This belongs on the rubbish heap.


I have no idea what your motives are on this topic but, it is clear to me for someone who thinks he know everything about aviation and flying airplanes, I find it unusual that you are not aware of these technologies and this is old technology now



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




IF ANYONE BELIEVES that a real pilot could not take control from any automation, then that person is just living in "La-La Land".


That is not strictly true, although i imagine the flight control logic has evolved significantly since this crash....





The facts point to both pilot error and flight control law limitations. The Airbus Test Pilot (the senior A320 test pilot) placed the aircraft in a difficult position --low and slow from which the aircraft was physically capable of recovering, but was prevented from doing so by the flight control logic. When the test pilot realized just how low and slow he was relative to the trees on the hill he attempted to recover using maximum lift and maximum power. The test pilot held back pressure on the control stick seeking the highest nose (deck) angle for maximum lift [best angle of climb]. The A320 control logic limited nose up movement to L/Dmax [best rate of climb]. The test pilot pushed and held the throttles to their full forward stops seeking maximum engine capability. The A320 control logic limited engine power to a preprogrammed reduced go-around power setting. At the time of the mishap, there was no way to get around these flight control logic limitations.


And this rather worrying post, how engineers can set the over-ride switch-over...




Just another thought on Airbus... when I worked for MAE, we did a lot of rewiring of the autopilots on A LOT of A310-200's and A300-600's for similiar issues. Although these aircraft were not fly by wire, their flight control computers had some similar logic programming. One modification we had to do was to the pitch override system. The FCC's were actually programmed to fight the pilot input on an approach up to a certain point ( I think it was something like 65lbs of stick pressure, that's a lot!). We modified them to lower that limit significantly. During the pre-mod test, you could set the aircraft up for approach and in certain configs actually be pulling back on the yoke with both hands AND BOTH FEET just to get the A/P to disconnect. After the mod, just slight back pressure would disconnect the autopilot. This was just one of several mods we had to do to return more control to the pilots.

Source

[edit on 10-10-2009 by PrisonerOfSociety]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


For a rabbit hole thinker and a hot air pilot. I say rabbit hole because I know from other threads you believe a man actually walked on the moon. 240,000 miles from here. All space craft get to the moon by remote control.
That was 40 year old technology. If they could do that then you speak through your worn out tailpipe when you say--- with today's developments man can't remote control a jetliner. BA
And so you admit you are a Flight of the Phoenix type.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 


Again....sorry attempt to equate TWO DIFFERENT scenarios, from TWO DIFFERENT manufacturers!!!!!

AIRBUS has, since the introduction of its A320, and subsequent truly FBW airplanes, has used an entirely different approach to control than BOEING!!!!!!!

Sheesh! Any decent amount of research, if you just took some time, and actually KNEW what you were talking about, and you'd understand the point of WHY comparing an A320 to a Boeing is silly.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 



And this rather worrying post, how engineers can set the over-ride switch-over...


Again.....a post from a blog on airliners.net????

Sheesh!!!

Do you not realize that there are OTHER ways to disconnect an autopilot?????

(everyone shoud link to the source, and read the entre exchange...but it might leave many still confused....)



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I was only offering an opinion and more importantly i only have a PPL with 55hours logged, so i bow down to your imperialistic, self-righteous knowledge.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 



I was only offering an opinion and more importantly i only have a PPL with 55hours logged...


OK.....55 hours? You used a term I'm not familiar with, "PPL"...IF you had 55 hours, in the USA...AND you passed the written and practical (flight) tests, you would hold a 'Private Pilot' Certificate.

So, assuming you are not in the US, then I can only guess that "PPL" is the equivalent?

IF so, great!!! You are a pilot, and, as I said, if the equivalent in the US, you can now carry passengers (but not for hire!!!).

Just for clarification....in the USA, the BARE MINIMUM to qualify for a 'Private Pilot' Certificate is 40 hours, unless training was accomplished under certain specific Flight School curricula, then it is 35 hours...but that was LONG ago, and may have changed since I last taught...and, in any event, 35 hours was usually a "marketing" number, anyways.

Having 55 hours is an accomplishment, no doubt. I was there, once.....
__________________________________________________________

OK....just looked it up, made a guess....AUSTRALIA!!!

In Australia, the 'PPL' is the equivalent to the USA's Private Pilot license...."PPL", for 'private pilot license'...down under.

We abbreviate it differently, but the intent is the same.

What I don't see there is the equivalent to what I have, the ATP...we have the 'Commercial', of course...but 'Airline Transport Pilot' is one level above...well, just a harder written test, and then a harder flight test....guess there is a comparable Aussie equivalent????

OH...I see, the Aussies call it the 'CIR', or "Command Instrument Rating".

yes, that would seem to be the same as the ATP...sice it USED to be known as the Airline Transport Rating...or "ATR", back when I first was qualified for it....



[edit on 10 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Actually i'm from UK


I did a years study in America as part of a my university reciprocal exchange program, and got my PPL whilst in US. I couldn't believe they had a flight school on campus and it was the roughly same cost per hour as it was to learn to drive in UK (about $50 per hour), i couldn't resist as i've always wanted to fly. Sadly, it's lapsed since coming back to UK, as i can't afford the fees.

I envy your certification at the age of 21. May i ask how you paid for it. In UK, it costs £60k to get a CPL


Edit: Being nosy, how many hours have you logged?

[edit on 10-10-2009 by PrisonerOfSociety]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Actually i'm from UK


I did a years study in America as part of a my university reciprocal exchange program, and got my PPL whilst in US. I couldn't believe they had a flight school on campus and it was the roughly same cost per hour as it was to learn to drive in UK (about $50 per hour), i couldn't resist as i've always wanted to fly. Sadly, it's lapsed since coming back to UK, as i can't afford the fees.

I envy your certification at the age of 21. May i ask how you paid for it. In UK, it costs £60k to get a CPL


Edit: Being nosy, how many hours have you logged?

[edit on 10-10-2009 by PrisonerOfSociety]


Hey POS
Are your hours in training anything like the hypothetical Arab terrorists of the TRAGEDIES of 911?
Do you think you would qualify to smack a 757 into the Pentagon with pin point accuracy at 500mph? If you think you could ,you could bulster wackers image a little more out of proportion.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

EVEN AN IDIOT TERRORIST can simply hold the control wheel, and overpower ANY autopilot inputs...easily!!! There is NO AUTOPILOT that is stronger than a Human arm!!!!

PERIOD!!!!!
[edit on 10 October 2009 by weedwhacker]


1)There was no al-queda on 9-11!

2)No one was aboard any plane, much less directly flying them, that crashed into NY and Washington!

3)The planes that DID crash into their intended targets were specially modified civilain models

4)They were flown by remote control.

PERIOD!!!!!(to use your own immature posting style)



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 



No worries, about the "nosiness"...in fact, it's a great opportunity to talk more about myself...as if I had any other reasons...



I did a years study in America as part of a my university reciprocal exchange program, and got my PPL whilst in US. I couldn't believe they had a flight school on campus and it was the roughly same cost per hour as it was to learn to drive in UK (about $50 per hour)


$50 per hour?? That had to be just the rate for the airplane, without the instructor? BECAUSE, that is very cheap, compared to what I've seen in today's prices. (Was that a 'wet', or 'dry' price? if you don't know what that means...well, not a biggie, since very few FBOs rent on a 'dry' basis anymore...still, even at $50, that's VERY cheap 'dry'...better 'wet'...)

Cessna or Piper?



I envy your certification at the age of 21. May i ask how you paid for it. In UK, it costs £60k to get a CPL


OK...I grew up around airplanes. Family business, Mom and Dad thing...owned a Flight School/FBO....SO....I began learning WAY before the age...I soloed ON my birthday, at 16. By then, because I had to WAIT for my BD, I had about 105 hours....

EVERY BD...in the US you have to be 17 for the private (PPL in your term)...so, had to wait, and ON my BD, took the practical (written was done months before, of course).

My Commercial? Well, got the Instrument rating first, but had to be 18 for the Commercial...guess what? ON my BD...yeah, disgusting, isnt' it?

(BTW...I helped to pay for this, after school odd-jobs at the airport...but the folks kicked in a LOT, as you can imagine...)

In between, got my AMEL....

Got the Commercial, then the CFI (Certified Flight Instructor)...then the CFII, and of course was earing more now, teaching others to fly....

By the time I was 21 I had all the basics...23 was the minimum age for the ATP, still is...but back then I could pass the written, and take the flight test and get a 'provisional' certificate, that upon my 23rd birthday would automatically become the ATP....

When I was 22 I got hired flying tours in the Grand Canyon....(flight instructing full time wears you out...)

Cessna 402s and 404s, back then. Operating under FAR Part 135, single-pilot in VFR...we rarely had weather that needed two pilots. (Tours...visual conditions...get it?) Anyway, around that time, the FAA changed the Regs, wanted to require an ATP even for Part 135 single-pilot ops...my company went to bat for me, and helped get me a waiver, based on my experience with them, and my 'provisional' ATP...never will forget them for that.

IF you visit Las Vegas, check out "Scenic Airlines" (if they're still in business).

I had other jobs, with various commuter airlines after Scenic....until the Major Airline, in 1984...until my early retirement in 2006 (medical issues...)

Need more????



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


What an excellent question


Okay, i used a transponder and probably even set it off a few times with heavy landings
I used ADF's and did a 300 nautical mile cross country solo and i got lost...whilst in the air. I had to radio into ATC for them to triangulate my position, it was very embarrassing. When i landed back at base, the guy told me i only had a drop of fuel left, which was a sobering experience.

So in answer to your question, i knew the basics but to fly a 757 over distance and aim for a small target...no. The navigation alone would be a headache. I suppose there's no real need to know flap, radio and speed settings et al, as there's only one purpose to the flight, and making a nice soft landing isn't one of them.

The interesting thing when i was at the US flight school, was that i was the only white guy at the flight school. All the other students were mostly from middle-east and Africa and they're rich mummies and daddies had sent them there to get a commercial license. They were a nice bunch of lads, but once i went up with two of them (the PIC just had an instrument rating if i remember) and they also got lost whilst flying a twin-engined Beachcraft after we did some hypoxia training at a central facility, we flew to as it was quicker than driving.

In fact, he got so lost, we ended up in class 1 airspace at Oklahoma international airport, and the ATC wasn't best pleased; i could see heavy jets taking off with us heading towards the airport. I shat myself and questioned the pilots competence. When we landed, i distinctly remember kissing the ground.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



One more time, I'll attempt to correct false information regarding the posted bunkum regarding WAAS and remote control.


None of us were spreading false information in fact the Truth does not need to be supported by lies so, “STOP” spreading disinformation!



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



1)There was no al-queda on 9-11!


Wrong.


2)No one was aboard any plane, much less directly flying them, that crashed into NY and Washington!


Wrong. Well, since we only have the SSFDR data from the AA 77 and UA 93, which clearly show Human manipulation of various cockpit controls....then we can only INFER that the same existed on AA 11 and UA 175...but it seems to be logical to assume so...


3)The planes that DID crash into their intended targets were specially modified civilain models


Wrong.


4)They were flown by remote control.


Incredibly wrong.

IF you believe that, then you have no idea how difficult flying by "remote control" is.

And, don't think that UAVs somehow "prove" this 'theory'...very, very different situations. You seem to have no idea of the differences. Nor can comprehend the training involved, NOR the way that the UAVs are operated, and HOW complicated it really is...much of it is classified, so you won't know anyway.....



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join