It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by roboe
Originally posted by MrWendal
I love the people who claim this is all bunk.... seriously, what do you think a predator drone is? Its a remote controlled aircraft.
Designed to act as one.
Passenger jetliners is an entirely different ballgame.
Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Laugh out loud!!!!!
IF you really sink your "faith" into this nonsense...then by all means, go ahead.
I can only laugh at your post, and the person you quote...to say that an autopilot could NOT be counter-acted by Human intervention???
It's...well, only way to describe is...It''s Nonsense!.
How would you know it's nonsense?
Are you an avionics technician with access to classified military technology?
Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
Know what? You can post the original plans on here and the same lot will come in and say it's bunk. The remote tests are documented and all of the shills in the world cannot change that fact!
Weedwhacker : I have told you, you are skewing together your material, and it is causing you some confusion...dig deeper, get the longer-term CSV data from United 93's DFDR, to include the time from gate departure in Newark, and co-ordinate the time references on THAT to the ATC time stamp references from Newark Ground Control and Local Control transmissions.
Weedwhacker : To put it simply....there is NOT a "remote control" system in existence that cold not be over-powered by a human, at the controls, exerting his/her will and dominance and authority.
Weedwhacker : AS POINTED OUT....the B-720 example, from 1984, involved an entirely different concept of R/C. A true unmanned flight, of a commercial jet...that was NOT technologically or electronically advanced.
It was an R/C system purely added on, hydro-mechanical, and was NOT incorporated into the auto-flight system.
Originally posted by LaBTop
See my post about NO discrepancies AFTER the hijack event at 09:31:55, between Captain Clocked timestamps and outside sources timestamps (FAA controllers AND the ACARS) :
Originally posted by LaBToP
I'll explain that for you.
NTSB = ATC transcripts = no captain's clock connection.
CVR = Voice recordings from the cockpit = with captain's clock connection.
Open both links in your browser, one beside the other.
Wheedwacker : THOSE TWO links show exactly what I've been telling you.
The NTSB link (one that, BTW, I have used often) uses the time reference FROM THE ONBOARD FLIGHT DATA RECORDERS! Which, as I have continually pointed out, got their time reference from the Captain's clock.
Those times, in what the NTSB printed as the CVR transcript, come FROM the CVR, and not from the FAA ATC time reference.
Obviously, the other link, labeled 'CVR', is just another transcription, FROM THE SAME SOURCE!! (The CVR). That is why there's only the slight ~two seconds difference. (That second link was prepared for the Moussaoui [sp?] case, by Government prosecuters. THEY may be responsible for those few seconds' differences, since they transcribed FROM a transcription, if you get my drift....)
As I keep trying to point out, you must find independent transmissions, with time references, FROM THE GROUND, and referenced to the GROUND time keeping.
There seems to be a miscomprehension, here, for laypeople.....about how the various time references are sourced, and WHICH sources are used, on which documents.
Originally posted by Dr Expired
Wow remote controlled planes, this is scary no doubt.