Whistleblower Reveals

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


"9/11 myths" has an 'agenda'??


That website you reference also has an agenda.


And...let's see if I understand this..."conspiracy" sites don't have an agenda?

Is that correct?

Well, if you're gonna talk 'agenda'....OK. Looks to me like "9/11 myths"s agenda is simple....facts.

The others? Eh....not so much.....




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
mikelee, the 911myths piece on remote takeover was written by me. 911myths invited me to write it after I offered some suggestions on the "remote control claims" page. I'm also an aircraft mechanic who specializes in avionics. I work for a major airline in the US, and I've been to over six weeks worth of 757 and 767 ASA schools(airframe/systems/avionics), I have autopilot/autoland sign-off authority, as well as ETOPS sign-off authority on both types.

I thought it was a fairly brief, concise, easy to understand paper which explains how a 757/767 is controlled under both manual flight controls and autopilot regimes. It's also explained how flying the airplane in abnormal electrical power configurations, including no AC power(which power nearly all non-emergency appliances), up to and including no power at all...can thwart a rogue autopilot, or autopilot takeover. I explained how there are circuit breakers which are hard-wired to every appliance(like an autopilot computer) in the airplane. Once that breaker is pulled, that particular system is rendered completely dead; the best software code ever written would be useless. These circuit breakers are required by the FAA to be in the cockpit, and for all intents and purposes, they basically act as "kill switches". As the manual flight controls are purely hydromechanical, you don't have to be an avioincs specialist to figure out that a dead autopilot system destroys any chance for 'remote takeover'. Aside from pulling circuit breakers, there are indeed many other ways to deactivate the autopilot system, or any system. I'll go over them if you wish.

The reason why there is no such thing as "Homerun" or"Robolander", or any other such theoretical system is because it can be defeated by someone who knows what they are doing. To be effective, such a system would have to an integral part of the design of an aircraft. Even so, I can still think of ways to defeat it, even in a fully fly by wire aircraft.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


All excellent points, and summarized well.

A little more, from the "pilot's" perspective as well, regarding the complexities of any "remote takeover", and its applications, to include a full Auto Landing sequence. I'll try to 'walk' you through it....

This concept would be considered as a possible 'practical' solution to the nearly inconceivable circumstance of BOTH (or sometimes, ALL THREE - rarely FOUR) pilots becoming incapacitated, and as a last-ditch method to save the airplane and occupants.

(However...the odds of such a need are so astronomical...the cost and complexity of a system, not only installation by CONTINUED maintenance of it? Costly beyond any real need....)


In order to effecuate a FULL descent, arrival to the terminal area of an airport, and all the way to include final approach on the ILS....yes, it CAN be programmed into the FMS and FMC. ALSO, the AutoPilot and AutoThrottles have to be engaged.

Here is an image showing a typical MCP (A Boeing 777, in this case):


Variables exist, i.e., the 777 has TWO A/T switches, etc. BUT, the differences are minor, between airplane types.

However, in reality, it isn't normally pre-programmed in its entirety...in day-to-day operations, it is far more complicated, to the ever-changing demands of the complex ATC environment.

BUT, let's say the capability to remotely program the FMC was in place, to insert all of the waypoints, the landing runway at the selected airport, etc, into the computer memory, and execute the program. AND, engage an autopilot in proper modes (LNAV and VNAV).

THEN, other buttons have to be selected, to change the functions...the ILS has to be 'armed' (so that the system will 'capture', and track the signals). The ILS receivers -- BOTH -- of them have to be tuned to the proper frequency. (ILS won't even 'arm' unless they are tuned, first).

All along, speed will be changing (decelerating) and slats/flaps will have to be selected to extend, on schedule with the airspeeds. Eventually (about 5-7 miles from touchdown) the landing gear will have to somehow be triggered to extend (this is, like slats/flaps, normally accomplished by physically moving levers).

The airspeeds can be pre-programmed into the FMS, at selected points within the programmed route. We actualy use that sometimes, for reference in the VNAV mode. BUT, again...we program manually, as needed. AND, often change them, as needs arise.

Anyway...in order to select the 'AutoLand' mode, the airplane has to be down to within the Radar Altimeter's indication range, which is below 2,500 AGL. Then the procedure is to press the AutoLand button on the MCP, and all THREE A/Ps engage. The A/L only engages in that mode when other criteria are met, as well.

Finally, the speed brakes have to be armed to the 'AUTO' ground spoiler position (another handle to physically move, to a detent) AND the AutoBrake selector switch is rotated to an autobrake setting...usually '3' for A/L. (We use the mnemonic...CAT III approach, brakes '3', CAT II, brakes '2'...or '3', if the runway is wet, etc....)


An autoland is NOT a 'simple' procedure. So much would have to be designed, and tested, and then installed and maintained...in addition to the REGULAR scheduled checks of the normal A/L components, to remain 'CAT III' authorized....

It is so cost-prohibitive, as to be impractical in reality.



[edit on 11 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   


I found this interesting and thought many of you would as well. Especially the remote plane crowd.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


Whats your thoughts on the system that in the event of a crisis onboard returns the plane automatically, with no way to take control of the plane outside of this system once it's been activated, back to the original or closest airport?



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
Whats your thoughts on the system that in the event of a crisis onboard returns the plane automatically, with no way to take control of the plane outside of this system once it's been activated, back to the original or closest airport?


OK. First off, "the system" you describe doesn't exist. I thought I made my point pretty clear in my very last post...but I'll reiterate. Theoretically, such an automatic "oh sh!t" system would be nearly worthless, and would only work against complete moron hijackers. I also doubt such a system would get FAA approval, for obvious reasons.



[edit on 12-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


We had a similar discussion over at JREF, which eventually devolved into a debate on the future of commercial aviation, with regard to automation.

Sure it's technically feasible to install some kind of built in "land me" feature which would takeover and land if the pilots are incapacitated. Getting updated FMS flight plan data remotely would be a snap(some planes already have this feature, believe it or not). Automatically getting the flaps and gear out on schedule would actually be pretty easy too. Already we have flap load relief, which works as a function of airspeed and autoslats which works off of AoA. You could install a pilot valve in the gear sequencing or an actuator in the handle mechanism to drop the gear automatically.

But, as you and I both know, it wouldn't be effective as an anti-hijacking measure for the reasons already stated. This is what truthers just can't manage to wrap their heads around; they picture some techno-geek with a Mac typing a flurry of commands to which the airplane responds, as the pilots watch helplessly as the airplane defies all of their corrective responses. It's pure fantasy. But back to complete automation(minus the Mac wielding techno-geek, sorry truthers), I think it will never happen, and I don't think such a "land me" system would ever be approved by the feds, or the pilot unions.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


No, your wrong. I read all of your reply & posts. But THAT reply was what I was looking for.


[edit on 6/12/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by 767doctor
 


No, your wrong. I read all of your reply & posts. But THAT rely was what I was looking for.


Glad to help.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


Yeah...agree, except for the load relief and autoslat aspect...

Load relief (you know) is only for the TE flaps, and only beyond about 15 - 20 degrees (depends on the airplane type, of course). BUT, I see where you are going with that...merely "triggering" (signalling) full extend to 30 degrees, and letting the relief circuitry 'modulate' the extension amount as the aispeed bled off...

Autoslats, though...yeah, AoA will trigger them, but only if sensing an impending stall. And only (in case of 757/767) if they are ALREADY extended, and in midrange position, will Autoslats extend them fully...and they retract to midrange after AoA indicates no impending stall condition.


Ya know...more I think about it...even less and less likely for such an "automated" system. Lots of things to go wrong.

The cheapest and simplest (in the unlikely event of the "Oh, Heck!" all pilots are dead scenario) is to just have a Flight Attendant do it, whilst being talked down on the radio. All he/she would need to know is, first, be able to communicate...and there are hand mics, and speakers aplenty already.

Step-by-step interactive instructions would work far better than some fantasy 'autonomous' system....



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Well I just mentioned autoslat and flap load relief to show that they can be controlled electronically from ADC inputs, etc. You wouldn't use these systems with the "Oh crap!" system, but the idea would be similar. Agree there is still plenty of room for error and failures.




Ya know...more I think about it...even less and less likely for such an "automated" system. Lots of things to go wrong.

Pretty much what I said in the JREF thread I mentioned. Even though it may be technically feasible, there's just too much that can go wrong and there's always a scenario the software would be unprepared to deal with, such as engine failures or autopilot system failures.





[edit on 12-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by 767doctor
 


Yeah...agree, except for the load relief and autoslat aspect...


I take it that you're talking about autoslat deployment which is a part of the stall recovery system?

Dunno about the 57 and 67, but i guess they have just about the same flap load flap load relief as their smaller relatives.

We fly a mixed fleet of B737 Classics and NG's.
On the classics flap load relief works on flaps 40, then retracts to 30 if you're flying a tad to fast.

On the NG 1999-2003 it will retract the flaps from 30 ->25.

From february 2003 and later it will retract all the way to 15 if you're going fast enaugh, witch means a go arround.

Just wondering as i have no experience on the 57-67.
T7 is another story, and another bird.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 


Ahhh....737 pilot, I see!!

Yes...my point was....the systems vary, depending on type. Even WITHIN type, as each variation (757-200 versus 757-300, or....767-200, -300, -400...etc, for example) comes up, the 'procedures', for man operating standpoint, will vary. Only slightly, which is WHY a 'common type rating' can be maintained, in the 'eyes' of FAA jurisdiction.

A 'type-rating' involves the basic airplane...."differences training" apply when. within a certain airplane design, changes occur as the design is modified. A great example is the B-737....the 'classic' 737, versus the 'NG' versions.

Anyone who knows, will comprehend.....



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 
A great example is the B-737....the 'classic' 737, versus the 'NG' versions.


Yup, can fly them all (except the B737-100) on a common rating, just diff-course needed.

Started out on the NG with difference course to the classic.

Before that i flew MD80 and T7.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 


OK...I admit, I am stumped.....


Before that i flew MD80 and T7.


I am typed on the DC-9/MD80, as well as the B-737 and B-757 B-767, of course.

I do NOT know the 'T7'? I admit, that one stumps me!

(although a google search might solve it...I haven't gone there, yet...)

Guessing, now....you (based on your choice of username, on ATS) aren't in the USA, am I correct??

Just syin'....there is a ( hard for some 'americuns' to believe(!) ) A WHOLE, big world outside the 48 States....I know, I know....incredible, innit????



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen
 
I do NOT know the 'T7'? I admit, that one stumps me!


The triple seven (B777-200)

Btw, i'm Norwegian, but educated in Florida and flew in the US for some years.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Hope this is not too late for everyone.

Relevant: www.youtube.com...

Laser guidance on 9/11?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen

Dunno about the 57 and 67, but i guess they have just about the same flap load flap load relief as their smaller relatives.

We fly a mixed fleet of B737 Classics and NG's.
On the classics flap load relief works on flaps 40, then retracts to 30 if you're flying a tad to fast.

On the NG 1999-2003 it will retract the flaps from 30 ->25.

From february 2003 and later it will retract all the way to 15 if you're going fast enaugh, witch means a go arround.

Just wondering as i have no experience on the 57-67.
T7 is another story, and another bird.


I think it depends on the line number of the airframe. I believe most older 57/67s only retract to 25, but newer ones will retract to 20 or 15. Could be wrong though, but I think that's as far as they'll go on the 767. I'll have dig it up in the manual to be sure though. I have no idea how far they retract on the 777.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


POINT is....the entire notion of "remote control" as perpetuated/proposed by this thread's OP is nonsense.

It is a non-starter.

Done.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
"I do NOT know the 'T7'? I admit, that one stumps me!"

Our resident expert pilot does not know that "T7" stands for a Boeing 777-200? Why am I not surprised?




top topics
 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join