Autonomous Flight, High-G Turns, Hijackers Alive, and Blank Recorders

Yeah, I know. I was just saying that it wouldn't matter if it was classified or not, because there was nothing they could do even if they knew about it. The Flight Control Computer test stand is pretty big, so it's not like they could carry it on the plane. And you have to remove it to test it, so they'd crash immediately if they wanted to alter the code.


(You have a U2U btw)

Got it, thanks for that

On another note... pertaining to the hijackers that were debated in the article.. I remember during the times of 9/11 that the official government word was that the hijackers had trained themselves in piloting, via home software (beleive it or not). I also stated earlier in the thread that hitting the WTC would require a very high degree of precision, would it not? Airliners are not exactly the most manueverable of planes. Do you beleive they could of pulled that precision flying off? For me, it just adds weight to the idea of RC.

It wouldn't really require THAT much precision. The hardest part would be navigating to NYC. Once you were over the city you could use visual navigation to head towards the buildings. Actually the way the planes hit one of the towers, to me, shows that they WEREN'T under RC. IIRC it was the second tower, it almost missed the building, and hit it at an angle way over to one side. If it was RC then you'd expect them both to have hit the towers dead center, not angled the way they were.

zaphod 58: I have even said that it COULD have been done, but it would require extensive mods to the plane. ...


how extensive you ask?????

can the " AUTOPILOT " , fly the plane??

can it fly it WITHOUT THE HELP of a real pilot after takeoff????

is the AUTOPILOT a computer...??

does this computer have communications???
can ground control's computer talk to the airplanes??

if a hacker can hack the pentagon, and norad, and the best systems in the world.........

then (i dont know algebra too well but) A = ( the above)
+
B = (good antenna/satelite)
----------------
C = ( remote control airplane )
ever hear how a hacker/theif,
can drive by your house with a DEVICE that SCANS FREQUENCIES,
WHILE you use your REMOTE GARAGE DOOR OPENER,, he picks up that frequency
replicates it and then uses it for himself

there are NO HARDWIRES from ground to airplanes,, JUST AIR RADIO WAVES


so which frequencies are the airplanes using for their communications ????????

then his buddy/computer programmer,, makes a FLIGHT SIMULATOR,,,
or just hacks an already made one to talk to the AUTOPILOT
hook up a joystick of your choice,, or yoke stick....

and youre done

and i imagine that with the technology they used to TEST the 757's movable parts,
and engines and rudders
was computer controlled,
what year was it that they started using COMPUTERS,
to stabilize the airplanes ..

isnt the space shuttle BOTH MANNED AND UNMANNED piloted

they have been around since when.......1980's

how about ICBM'S they've been around how long 1950 -60's
as far as i know a there is no room for a PILOT in one of those

gps would not be as much fun though....
then all you haveto do is tell the autopilot the gps coords'
and hit enter
and tell it to LOCK ALL CONTROLS.........done!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It wouldn't really require THAT much precision. The hardest part would be navigating to NYC. Once you were over the city you could use visual navigation to head towards the buildings. Actually the way the planes hit one of the towers, to me, shows that they WEREN'T under RC. IIRC it was the second tower, it almost missed the building, and hit it at an angle way over to one side. If it was RC then you'd expect them both to have hit the towers dead center, not angled the way they were.

RC systems are designed to land at a destination. There is nothing that says they can hit a target perfectly. The co-ordinates may not even be very accurate.. there are many opinions to debate this either way.

Here's a question - why didn't they go after the White House? I'd expect Terrorists to do that, and government conspirators to not. Anyway we are getting sidetracked.

I'll check out your links, and get back to you..

Yeah right

NO an autopilot system DOES NOT have communications capability to the ground. IT DOESN'T NEED IT. The autopilot keeps the plane level, and is capable of very basic manuvering in flight. As I said in another post in this thread, think of the autopilot as a scientific calculator. It's capable of basic operations, but not complex ones. And it's NOT communications equipped. AT ALL.

Flight control computers DO NOT HAVE communications capability. THEY DON'T NEED THEM. Communications are used to talk to air traffic control. There are very basic computers that will talk to airline ops and tell them where the plane is, but they are TRANSMIT ONLY, and they don't receive anything. And there is a system that will let ops talk to the pilots over a datalink, but it is NOT tied into ANY flight computer.

[edit on 7/10/2006 by Zaphod58]

Quick OT answer to your question, Flight 93.

and the
FLIGHT CONTROL COMPUTER TEST STAND

is just that

for TESTING PURPOSES
who knows what all they test for
a hacker could care less about their TESTS

plus they PUBLISH MOST OF THE RESULTS

maybe only a spy would be interested in TEST RESULTS

And to TEST a flight control computer, you REMOVE IT from the plane and ATTACH IT to the test stand. The test stand reads the code, and sends signals THROUGH A CABLE into the computer to make sure that it responds correctly. Guess what happens when you remove an FCS.

but why oh why can you not get out of your heads that this was an act perpetrated by dedicated terrorists ?

Have any of you ever - aside from second hand reports experienced a terrorist attack ?

I truly feel sorry for those of you who consistantly deny what actually happened. In the face of all you saw that morning - and the world saw - eyewitness testimony - the evidence on the ground - and you still cannot see what happened.

Your troops are fighting a war overseas - we accept with a tentative reason - but the act of an agressor was placed upon you. Argue the semantics alll you wish.

Your nation buried its head between the two world wars - it was called an Isolationist policy - then Pearl Harbour happened - ohh i hear you cry its a conspiracy. But think on this - how many people must die for your conspiracy to be proved wrong and you pull your heads out of the sand?

who owns the white house??
who would get the insurance money...

its not PRIVATELY OWNED

do some research into the current administration
and the ones linked to them.....

i see a pattern.

buy low.... sell high...see bottom fallout.,,and then scandals and insider stuff

wtc is pretty much same pattern

and the deeper your reserch the worse it gets

and i'm very much a sceptic,, if i cannot see it i dont believe it
and i've seen enough already

the main characters involved, the events that take place,,
and the awesome timing of it all ,, and the plans they wanted

all fits together a little too neatly if you know what i'm saying

with money and brains it's very possible indeed

That contributes nothing to the thread, unfortunately. We're trying (with some difficulty) to deal with facts.

[edit on 10/7/06 by SteveR]

Thanks, SteveR, for the (tentative) return to topic.

I read last year a mention of the autopilots used in the 757/777 series planes. They are working to be able to use them for an entire flight; once takeoff is completed, and all the way to the begining of final approach. However, even with all the technology we have, it is far from perfect, and worked as expected only 15% of the time.

Note that this still requires pilots and navigation personel to be onboard.

Silk:

"Your troops are fighting a war overseas - we accept with a tentative reason - but the act of an agressor was placed upon you.

REPLY: This deserves a reply for the (trolling and the) outright falacy it is, and it has been refuted in other threads, but I refuse to change the topic. It happens too much on ATS, and I've been guilty of it too often myself.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by zappafan1]

ok here i found this

The FCS-700A is a fully digital, fail operational autopilot flight director system. The system, part of the Boeing 747-400 flight control system, performs tasks associated with flight director commands, speed selection, altitude selection, heading selection, autopilot, autoland, and system fault isolation. Utilizing the new FCC-703, system upgrades are much easier and less expensive due to the incorporation of dataload capability via either front connector or rear connector. The FCC-703 replaces the FCC-702, Collins part number 622-8787-106.

The FCS-700A has been selected as the standard autopilot flight director system for the Boeing 747-400.

The FCS-700A is a development of the FCS-700 autopilot flight director system (currently provided as standard equipment on all versions of the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft) and shares many LRUs in common with the FCS-700. This feature promotes cost effective fleet support for 757, 767, and 747-400 fleet operator

www.rockwellcollins.com...

notice above it says

"due to the incorporation of dataload capability via either front connector or rear connector."

ok, someone with a satelite phone with a connector to fit the flight director system
installed under a panel, ( nice they decided to upgrade like that )

with the computer/hacker/modded flight sim/sat link/..
on the other end

.........now do you think it could work???????

anyone with access to the cockpit and a connector and a communication device

could be hidden for a long time as a sleeper too
as long as the cell battery lasts (or tap into onboard electric)

should i keep digging??

and like i said

why would WE need to TEST it

it WORKS,

or it wouldnt be in the air now would it

all the links i provided

WHERE's yours

i've presented FACTS

YOU're in DENIAL

Originally posted by yeah right
should i keep digging??

The more you dig, the more information we have to work with. Keep it up my friend

Thanks

Originally posted by Silk
but why oh why can you not get out of your heads that this was an act perpetrated by dedicated terrorists ?

Have any of you ever - aside from second hand reports experienced a terrorist attack ?

I truly feel sorry for those of you who consistantly deny what actually happened. In the face of all you saw that morning - and the world saw - eyewitness testimony - the evidence on the ground - and you still cannot see what happened.

Your troops are fighting a war overseas - we accept with a tentative reason - but the act of an agressor was placed upon you. Argue the semantics alll you wish.

Your nation buried its head between the two world wars - it was called an Isolationist policy - then Pearl Harbour happened - ohh i hear you cry its a conspiracy. But think on this - how many people must die for your conspiracy to be proved wrong and you pull your heads out of the sand?

"YOUR" who are you anyways? Strange language and I find the encouragement to accept the official story very creepy. Regarding what is seen, your compatriots Houdini, Copperfield, and Blaine are all masters of deception.

"By way of deception, thou shalt do war". Mossad Motto.

silk.........
silk................

i'm just trying to prove

that it is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE
and can be done

to fly a / scratch that....

to take FULL FLIGHT CONTROL OF a LARGE 757 by REMOTE!!!!

I (me) am NOT SAYING it DID ACTUALLY HAPPEN THAT WAY...

i'm just giving the original poster

a little bakup that it is POSSIBLE

i saw the planes fly into the buildings
BOTH of them LIVE!!!

MY ONLY QUESTION about it all

is

WHAT MADE ME WATCH CNN THAT DAY..... ? ?

i dont even watch tv that much at all

much less CNN

the ONLY REASON I CAN THINK OF

WAS

the ANTHRAXX SCARE MONGERING

state sponsored TERRORISM ::

"Something all terrorist attacks have in common is their perpetration for a political purpose"
en.wikipedia.org...

(threats of) violent action for political purposes:
dictionary.cambridge.org...

"terrorists" are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces, or who don't adhere to their rules
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...

the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends,
www.bartleby.com...

it ALL SMELLS

Yep... the FCS 700 is the system I was referrring to.

The complete sentence was: "....system upgrades are much easier and less expensive due to the incorporation of dataload capability via either front connector or rear connector."

SYSTEM UPGRADES are the operative words, and it does not refer to flight requirement data.

its the DOOR to the WHOLE SYSTEM

"The FCS-700A is a fully digital, fail operational autopilot flight director system. The system, part of the Boeing 747-400 flight control system, performs tasks associated with flight director commands, speed selection, altitude selection, heading selection, autopilot, autoland, and system fault isolation."

( see link somewhere above) its in the 757 also

""Performs tasks associated with FLIGHT DIRECTOR COMMANDS,,""

" " speed selection, altitude, heading, autopilot, autoland , system fault """

OK ,, PRETTY MUCH . ALMOST FULL CONTROL

hack it through that upgrade plug
you know,, just like they do with the (psp) playstation portable
just like the BIOS in YOUR COMPUTER,,

ever hear of virusses and or spyware and HIJACKING

those VERY SAME PEOPLE could VERY EASILY crack into it
and TAKE CONTROL..

have someone in contact (within few days or so) with the airplane to
use their satelite/cell phone
to connect to the system and upgrade it so you take ultimate control
and you communicate with that while somewhere safe
(for real time flight control)

or

use a laptop/portable pda type device
to UPGRADE the SYSTEM
for such and such coordinates and LOCK ALL CONTROLS (set and go)
so that the ONLY WAY to REGAIN CONTROL is to UNPLUG THE SYSTEM
and that would be BAD while in FLIGHT

all systems go UNTIL..........they reach 10000 ft
then
all heck breaks loose... the plane is on a crach course and pilot cant control it
just like a SMART BOMB / jdam ..whatever..

the way i see it is
the PILOT DOES NOT EVER HAVE A DIRECT FORCE LINK STRAIGHT TO THE RUDDERS AND FUEL FUMPS...(except the tiny prop planes maybe...... its all computer controlled
the pilot does NOT touch the actual switch
just a BUTTON or LEVER attached at the other end NEAR HIM (PILOT CONTROLS)
plenty of places in between to take control

hack this system and the buttons wont work for the PILOT

maybe one of the SOFTWARE DESIGNERS are in on it
if paid enoug$ all new planes might be planned to be taken control of remotely
who knows????
built in as a theft/terrorist deterrent

but used for evil purposes


[edit on 10-7-2006 by yeah right]