It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 27 2003 @ 10:27 PM
Here is an interesting article about the limits of some of these planes:

by Jim Heikkila
Saturday August 17, 2002

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.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

posted on Oct, 27 2003 @ 11:06 PM

posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 05:11 AM
I read the first link and have decided that the person is not correct. Almost every argument he poses is based on flawed assumptions. It would be my opinion that if there was a monitoring system that would not allow the planes to be flown in such a was simply turned off or disconnected. I am not convinced that was such a system because it could cause a hazard to the pilots and passengers in an emergency. I am a pilot and I can think of many situations when it would be necessary to make extreme control inputs.

posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 05:36 AM
This is a big load of BS.

There are no Commercial Aircraft in the United States (and I don't even know of any else where) that are fly-by-wire. Fully autonomous is auto-pilot...period.

And, yes, it is true that while auto-pilot is on, the control software cannot be exceed by human manipulation.

But it's about as easy as this - Find the AutoPilot OFF button and push it! Now you are completely under manual flight control.

Repeat, NO Commercial Aircraft are fly-by-wire and NO Commercial Aircraft have control software that cannot be overridden via turning the autopilot software off by the pilot...PERIOD.

This article is so lame it stinks from here...and I'm quite a bit away.

posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 01:01 PM
background info....

[Edited on 28-10-2003 by dexxy]

posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 01:14 PM
it seemed plausible at first (except the cellphone part...even I know 5 watts is completely wrong), but reading the comments seems to pretty throughly blow the theory out of the water. interesting idea, though.

posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 01:16 PM

What's your point???

Neither of the documents you have posted here refute my statements.

Do you have further statements to include with them, or are your plans to post a nauseating line of threads with every aviation link you can find?

Doesn't matter if Lambregt invented fly-by-wire, doesn't matter that he now works for Boeing...that does not contradict the fact that there are no commercial aircraft that are fly-by-wire.

I will repeat myself - AUTOPILOT IS NOT FLY-BY-WIRE.

posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 01:23 PM

Here you go. This write up claims the Airbus as the first fly-by-wire and then goes to describe the conflict between the first-pass software and human controls...

and then follows up with: this software was corrected.

Which means: it is no longer fly-by-wire.

You need to get your nomenclature straight. Autonomous flight control software is NOT fly-by-wire. Fly-by-wire is a phrase reserved for aircraft that CANNOT be safely flown by humans.

There are usually two reasons for fly-by-wire systems:

1. The maneuverability capabilities of the aircraft preclude the slow response time of a human pilot from maitaining control during extreme maneuvers (i.e. fighters)

2. Either the controls surface areas are large enough, or the flight regime includes flight conditions that cause the forces required to manual operate the control surfaces that are outside the maintainable, or even initially achievable forces for a human pilot.

THEREFORE, a fly-by-wire aircraft is UNFLYABLE by a human pilot.

There are no US commercial aircraft that are fly-by-wire.

They may have autonomous flight control software, but it is Aalways overridable by the pilot, and the aircraft are always flyable by a human pilot.

posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 01:24 PM
Isn't the 777 fly by wire?

posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 01:25 PM

and the link with it.

posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 01:33 PM
The planes were remote controlled from ground somewhere for approach maneouvering because the arab conscripts were crappy pilots.

Why were the Israeli 'Art Students' dancing on nearby roof tops when the planes hit?

ask yourselves?

posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 01:35 PM
Thats a new one for me. If they were remote controlled, then what happened to the plane that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania ?

posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 01:48 PM
Just spoke with a man at Boeing Commercial Aircraft Public Relations:

Here is what I was told.

The 777 is considered a fly-by-wire system because there are no hydraulic controls within the system. For this reason, the system cannot be deactivated as the control surfaces are being controlled via electronics.

The stick is not a joy stick and the pilot is flying, but the forces are converted to voltage and thus electronic impulses for control surface deflections.

I asked if there were limtis and stops in the 777 control software that would prevent the pilot from performing certain maneuvers. This is where there was some double talk. He said that the software would yield to the pilot but if it sensed that he was attempting to do something that would destroy the craft it would push back.

I then ask him to explain what this meant by taking the Hawaii 737 incident in which the fuselage was peeled back and the resultant forces on the aircraft could only be overcome by the pilot performing maneuvers that the autonomous flight control software would not have allowed (i.e. it would have sensed that this was a destructive maneuver). I asked could this be done with the 777. And this is where the talk got a bit more doubled.

In light of the statement made above of the push back he stated a company line as follows: The advantage that ALL our crafts have over our competitors (NOTE: Im assuming this is a foreign fly-by-wire commercial aircraft) is that the pilots ALWAYS have the discretion to operate the plane.

He then went on to state that heres the important part to the original post of this thread ALL OTHER BOEING MODELS ARE HYDRAULICALLY OPERATED (including the 757 and 767) and no other Boeing aircrafts have anything other than autonomous autopilot software.

And, there are no remote control capabilities for any Boeing commercial aircraft on the market.

You may verify these statements by contacting Boeing and requesting the Commercial aircraft public relations office.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes
P. O. Box 3707
Seattle, Washington 98124

posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 01:57 PM
I still believe the Pennsylvania "crash" was really shot down based on the debris field and the nF0 faked

posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 02:00 PM

I don't know what happened with the Pennsylvania aircraft. And what I mean by that is your theory is as plausible as any other.

Maybe someday we'll know. I do know this. If it WAS shot down, I have no problem with that.

posted on Oct, 28 2003 @ 06:59 PM
Fair enough,

Due to lack of firm evidence, I'll desist on this one. Here are a few answers for you though;

>>>There are no US commercial aircraft that are fly-by-wire.

Well, the 777 is for sure. I'm still looking into the system called 'Home Run'. This is an anti-hijacking system supposedly develped in the 80's to allow ground operators to take control of a flight. Does it exist??? who the hell knows.

>>>THEREFORE, a fly-by-wire aircraft is UNFLYABLE by a human pilot.

Fly by wire simply means that computers on the plane transmit the pilot inputs into electrical signals that are sent through wires to actuators that move the control surfaces; ie pilots still fly the plane...

since you like links so much, here is another one

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 03:22 PM
This system can always be turned off, and it was the first thing the terrorists did turn off on board those planes. I saw the manouvers of that guy inti the South tower from the front video, the only one showing how he did it. It was fascinating, he did use that steering like a kid learning to ride a bike. If a machine would have done it, it would be far more precise, I think.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Valhall
I will repeat myself - AUTOPILOT IS NOT FLY-BY-WIRE.

The other point that is missing here is that unlike Airbus, Boeing planes while they give warnings at the limits of structural loads, the pilot can exceed them. Airbus and the MD-11 on the other hands have not to exceed limits and the controll software does not allow you to exceed them. All four planes on 911 were Boeing.

posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 06:49 PM
Well we need to remember that the planes we saw may not be the planes we think we saw.
Has anyone here read the operation northwoods document?
Did you catch the part in there that says....
"An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aricraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aricraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone "
It goes on to say they would broadcast fake mayday signals and then BLOW UP THE DRONE (which LOOKS LIKE a comercial flight), and blame it on the cubans so we can invade them.
So reguardless of the semantics of 'fly-by-wire', the fact IS that in 1961 the D.O.D. had plans like this drawn up, which means they had the technology to pull it off......forty years ago.......and you can bet your bottom dollar the tech improved 100fold in that time.

I urge everyone to read the northwoods document if you havnt, you would be shocked at the similarities between it and what happened on 9/11.look into it

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in