Why DIDN'T the military take over the hijacked planes remotely?

reply to post by timiathan


What a shame, the ignorance that abounds!!!

timi....here's how to disconnect the A/P....

Push on the control wheel, to counter-act the A/P. It will disconnect. BUT, now there is an annoying alorm sound, will be different in each airplane.

There is an A/P disconnect button, on each control wheel. (Bet your Wndows Flight doesn't mention that!!)

OH, here's another hint...click the button once, you disconnect. You have to hit it again, to cancel the warning....but, some airplanes have a warning anyway.....ever been on an a B737 or an Airbus A-320???

See, on the B737....you disconnect the A/P, and there is an audible alarm....it will continue, if you don't hit the button again. Same with the A-320.

On the B757-767 you can disconnect, with a double click, and avoid the sound.....

Too bad you think I'm an idiot....seems I tend to know a LOT more on the subject, than you.

Here's some more detail....on the B737, with a dual engine failure, and loss of electrical and hydraulics, we still have flight controls becuase of something called 'manual reversion. These are tabs, on the ailerons and elevators, that are still connected via cables.

The B757 and B767 are different....all the flight controls are hydraulic, with no direct cable connections. SO, there is something called the HDG, it pops out under the right wing, when it senses a total loss of engine power... a dual engine failure. What it does is powers the hydraulic system, for flight controls....until we start the APU....which is certified to start all the way up to 35,000 feet.

Wanna know more??

I'll gladly compare what I know, and what you know, any time!!!

Both the B-757 and B-767 are NOT fly-by-wire flight control systems. Remote Control of these aircraft ARE NOT POSSIBLE without millions of $$ in modification to each and ever aircraft and EVERYONE WOULD KNOW.

It is a lunatic idea spread by ignorant lunatics.

These aircraft also DO NOT HAVE GPS systems. They use Inertial Navigation Systems which is only accurate to ~ 2000-4000 ft.

Here's an article on Remote Control by a current aircraft technician...

www.911myths.com...

reply to post by Reheat


Reheat....this is why ATS is so great! Your're right, but wrong at the smae time.

My airline actually had GPS updating, to the IRS's

We also had SAT COMM....which was so cool, because we could get a SELCAL in the middle of the Pacific, from Dispatch. Well, it was placed FROM Dispatch Thru ATC to us....but still, was cool.

Then, of course, the opportunity to get ATC clearances, on the EFIS...and we were briefed about the protocol, how to acknowledge properly, after an ATC request, sent through the ACARS....

See, this was available for YEARS to private jets, operating Part 135. Getting it under Part 121....totaly fracked!!!! But eventually, it came about

EDIT....realy sorry, for talking tech. Needed to clarify...we DO have GPS, and I mean every major airline nowadays has GPS updating to the INS.

Of course, this does NOT MEAN the military can now remotely take cobntrol of a jet!!! That is still silly, as I've explained.

What this DOES point out is something on other threads, about so-called 'chemtrails'

WHY do jets fly in patterns that are so close? Well....firstly, they have GPS updating. Secondly, there have been updated pitot-static and altimeter standards, which means that vertical separation standards, above FL 290, could be reduced from 2000 feet to 1000 feet.

Used to be, above FL290, there were different standards of vertical separation. It was 2000 feet. NOW, it's 1000 feet...in the US, and Europe.

ALSO, in Europe, there are extra frequencies, for communications.....but that's another subject.......

Hope this info helps.....

[edit on 8/10/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Reheat
Remote Control of these aircraft ARE NOT POSSIBLE without millions of $$ in modification to each and ever aircraft and EVERYONE WOULD KNOW.

Gee, you might want to tell that to the British, who have a system on one of their Tornado fighters that can take remote control of an airliner.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by timiathan

 

What a shame, the ignorance that abounds!!!

timi....here's how to disconnect the A/P....

Sorry I called you an idiot before, Weedwhacker. Your first post was completely off-topic, and accused me of getting facts wrong that I got write. And then you admitted that you didn't even read it. So you could see how that would annoy me.

Your subsequent posts do provide a lot of interesting information. I'm not pilot, and know nothing about aviation. My skillset would be described as critical thinking, if anything. I know about baseball, literature, and molecular biology.

Your comments about how easy autopilot is to switch of doesn't really mean anything. If you have to flick a switch, that switch could just be turned off, and so on.

But the details about the hydraulic controls are great -- that would certainly make remote control very difficult, and those were the exact kinds of things I was hoping to hear about when I posted this.

I'll try to bring this up again with that friend of mine next time I see him. He still seems like a very credible witness to me, and I know his background for a fact. Maybe he has an explanation about the mechanical nature of flight controls, maybe not. But if the cockpit controls are mostly mechanical and not electronic, as you and Redhat (or whatever his name is) suggests, then the RC theory doesn't work at all, and this story is bunk.

reply to post by timiathan


There was never a time when the planes were not under remote control,
and that is the "inextricably horrific conclusion" that you and your "business acquaintance" should have been led to.
The posts that I have been reading in this particular thread seem to imply that an Al Queda hijacking actually took place. There was no Al Queda hijacking. The planes were under the control of the Neo-Con perpetrators from the very beginning!!! The US government 'hijacked' the planes on the runway prior to takeoff. Remote technology was and is very sophisticated indeed and was very well in place long before 2001. .......PD

2,525 days of research.

[edit on 11-8-2008 by de_Genova]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Reheat
Remote Control of these aircraft ARE NOT POSSIBLE without millions of $$ in modification to each and ever aircraft and EVERYONE WOULD KNOW.

Gee, you might want to tell that to the British, who have a system on one of their Tornado fighters that can take remote control of an airliner.

Because you say so, huh?

Where are the details?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Reheat

 

Reheat....this is why ATS is so great! Your're right, but wrong at the smae time.

My airline actually had GPS updating, to the IRS's

I was addressing the aircraft used on 9/11 and no others. They did not have GPS.

reply to post by timiathan


who said they weren't remote controlled? who said there were even people on board the planes when they crashed?

If planes can land while on autopilot,that means those in the flight tower have control.


Also.

As "glass cockpits," as EFIS instrument panels are referred to, gained acceptance, engineers concurrently designed flight management system (FMS) hardware and software that utilized faster and faster onboard computers to manage more and more onboard tasks.

FMS hardware is essentially a highly evolved autopilot, for all intents and purposes. However, where the autopilot was, in earlier times, a self-contained system, in todayís modern cockpits the autopilot is a sub-system that interpolates and executes commands generated by the FMS automatically or by the pilot, manually.

In every day airline use, a flight plan is loaded into an FMS via either keystrokes on an alphanumeric pad, or via disc. This flight plan, pre-approved by, and filed with, the FAA will contain course, altitude and speed data which the aircraft will maintain at all points of its flight.

The format of the flight plan can be thought of as ìpoint in space data. In other words, the pilot flies the aircraft off of a runway and initially aims at a point in space that is a certain distance from, and at a certain altitude above the end of the runway he departed from. Upon reaching that point in space, which in most cases is an ìintersection, a point at which two major aircraft routes known as airways meet, the FMS will execute a turn, a climb, or combination of the two to the next point in space, and so on as the flight plan progresses.

How did the terrorists over-ride the computerized flight plan?

reply to post by Reheat

Because you say so, huh?

Where are the details?

The pilot of a modified Tornado fighter plane assumed remote control of a BAC 1-11 airliner carrying members of the press, including New Scientist, and flying at an altitude of 4500 metres (15000 feet). See a video of the flight (2.5MB .mov). The Tornado pilot was also in control of three simulated Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs).

technology.newscientist.com...






[edit on 11-8-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by Reheat

Both the B-757 and B-767 are NOT fly-by-wire flight control systems. Remote Control of these aircraft ARE NOT POSSIBLE without millions of $$ in modification to each and ever aircraft and EVERYONE WOULD KNOW.

Terrorists have financial backing so money would be no problem.

And,assuming that there was no one on board these planes,then very few people would know.

Originally posted by jakyll
If planes can land while on autopilot,that means those in the flight tower have control.

No, the pilots have control at any time.

Most Boeings can do autoland, however not without input from the pilots!

How did the terrorists over-ride the computerized flight plan?

The same way that the pilots changes waypoints and altitudes several times during a flight.

reply to post by Freaky_Animal

No, the pilots have control at any time.

I know.
My point is,while on autopilot the tower has control.

The same way that the pilots changes waypoints and altitudes several times during a flight.

Changing altitude etc is not the same as deviating from the flight plan.The planes on 9/11 changed their flight plans dramatically.

www.public-action.com...

reply to post by jakyll


Jakyll, you stated 'While on autopilot the Tower has control".

You could NOT be more wrong!

I don't know about the BAC 1-11 experiment. I DO know the BAC 1-11 is an extremely out-dated airplane. Similar to a DC-9, but smaller.

Ya know what happens in the Tower?? There is 'Ground Control' and 'Local Control'....but don't be confused by the word 'control'....the way ATC 'controls' is by issuing instructions. 'Clearances', mostly verbally, but everything must be ackowledged, and agreed to.

NO PILOT would allow his airplane to be 'taken over' against his will, in this fantasy electronic way you think can happen. Ain't gonna happen.





[edit on 8/11/0808 by weedwhacker]

I remember watching a program on TV where they were talking about fitting planes with something like this to prevent another 911. I could have sworn they said it was not available or in place in September 2001.

reply to post by SailorinAZ


Sailor....what they fitted the airplanes with is a more secure cockpit door....bullet proof, grenade proof. Reinforced frame, and better awareness whenever the door MUST be opened in flight. Which, is as little as possible.

You will see newly designed airplanes with TWO doors, in the future. My prediction. Two doors, with a small vestibule between. Seems a logical precaution.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes, I know they did that, but I remember the show talking about installing something so they could take control of the aircraft remotely. They said it was not available or in place in 2001. Maybe I was dreaming.

Originally posted by SailorinAZ
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Yes, I know they did that, but I remember the show talking about installing something so they could take control of the aircraft remotely. They said it was not available or in place in 2001. Maybe I was dreaming.

In 2005 (i think) Boeing, Nasa and Honeywell? started some research on a
Fly Home Device or i might say Land At The Nearest Airport Device.

I dont remember exactly how it was supposed to work, but the main goal was to let the automatics land the aircraft in case of a hijacking.

Guess they ran into serious problems as there has been total silence about this projeckt since then.

reply to post by Freaky_Animal


Well...Freaky....never heard of these plans. BUT, as you well know, an Autoland can only be performed through human action.

YES, the FMS can be pre-programmed with course and speeds. BUT, human hands are needed to operate the flap levers, and the gear levers.

Someone also has to manually tune the ILS frequency.

AND, someone has to ENGAGE the A/Ps....

Lots of hurdles to jump, there....