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

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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....

Yeah, and i guess that's the kind of problems they ran into, and the beancounters of course as the costs must have been enormous.

There used to be a discussion about this on pprune.org some time ago.

Will see if i can find it.

reply to post by SailorinAZ

Post-September 11 air travel security concerns have spurred Boeing to develop and test a tamper-proof, remote-controlled autopilot system. They've already patented the project, which sounds similar to a European effort announced last year.

www.engadget.com...

A hijack-proof piloting system for airliners is being developed to prevent terrorists repeating the 9/11 outrages.The mechanism is designed to make it impossible to crash the aircraft into air or land targets - and enable the plane to be flown by remote control from the ground in the event of an emergency.

www.thisislondon.co.uk...

reply to post by jakyll


Again, very interesting, but hardly practical.

Older Boeings, of the 737/757/767 variety still have very direct linkages, through manual controls, of things like the Flap/Slat handle, and the Gear handle.

PERHAPS some sort of electronic switching could be invented....but the possiblity of failure and interference with normal Ops would be immense.

Flap/Slat handles move cables, which actuate valves and relays, to select hydraulic fluid. Gear handles, in the B737, are similar....the B737 has three positions, Down, Up and Off. 'Off' removes hydraulic pressure from the systems lines.

The B757/767 has an electrically controlled, but still hydraulically actuated system, the gear lever stays in the Up position, and the system senses when the retraction cycle is complete, and then removes hydraulic pressure. Thereafter, gear is held 'UP' by mechanical 'uplocks'.

The uplocks require hydraulics to 'release' the gear....actually, on the B757/767 the gear doors are locked, and the gear rests on them, in flight.

There are provisions for emergency Gear extension, in case all hydraulic pressure is lost. It is an electrical solenoid, to relieve the hydraulics that hold the gear in the 'uplocks' gear will then 'freefall', and hopefull 'lock' in the DOWN position.

See, there is a lot to know, and understand, about commercial jets. To assume it can ALL be done automatically is to assume that the human brain is just four pounds of meat in our skulls........

reply to post by timiathan

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

They did
Didnt they?

Originally posted by Reheat
Because you say so, huh?

Where are the details?

technology.newscientist.com...

During the demonstration flight, the pilot of a modified Tornado fighter plane assumed remote control of a BAC 1-11 airliner (Image: Craig Hoyle / Flight International)

reply to post by ULTIMA1



It looks like the remote piloting can be easily turned off though. This quote is from the pilot of the BAC-1-11:

During the demonstration flight, as the Tornado assumed control of the BAC 1-11 via a UHF radio link, the airliner's pilot was unperturbed. "If I don't like what Autonomy is doing I just switch off the autopilot and take control again," he said.

So, a hijacker would just need to turn off the auto pilot and voila! Control again!

Originally posted by gavron
So, a hijacker would just need to turn off the auto pilot and voila! Control again!

Well this is just a system in testing. Its main use was to remote UAVs.

But the point is that it can be used to take remote control of an airliner.

This is also not the only system out there.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well this is just a system in testing. Its main use was to remote UAVs.

But the point is that it can be used to take remote control of an airliner.

This is also not the only system out there.

Correct, it can take over remote control of a plane flying on autopilot. It cannot take control of a plane flying manually. Plus if the hijackers lost control while ti was on autopilot, they only needed to turn it off to resume control.

Thats all I'm saying.

Originally posted by gavron
they only needed to turn it off to resume control.
Thats all I'm saying.

But that is something that the system could be later modified so that the system would not be shut out by turning off the autopilot.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA, are you purposely obtuse???

How is the Gear going to be extended? How will the Flaps/Slats be controlled???


Do even know what a BAC 1-11 is??? It is ancient technology, doubt any of them are even flying today, except maybe in Third World!

NOW, of course....noise standards in most countries would prohibit them....just as B-727s are prohibited, unless modified.

But, head over to Africa....might see one or two there!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Do even know what a BAC 1-11 is??? It is ancient technology, doubt any of them are even flying today, except maybe in Third World!

Yes i do know what a BAC1-11 is. But as stated many times it was just a test.

Also as stated the main use for the system is for remote control of UAVs so i am sure they could have things worked out for the flaps and landing gear.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


A UAV is very, very different from a B757 or B767.

Exactly HOW will the landing gear and flaps/slats be operated, by 'remote control', based on what YOU know about modern commercial airplanes??

WHO will 'push' the buttons to engage the A/Ps? WHO will tune the ILS frequencies?

WHO will program the FMS, or set the altitude, or change the speed, all on the MCP????

Magic?

Sorry, it is too far-fetched. I'll grant you, the concept of an 'autolanding' was far-fetched just a few decades ago...but the actual operation of the controls of a modern jet REQUIRE human intervention.

Maybe, in the future, a NEW jet will be designed that needs no human hands (Lord help us if this ever happens!!!)

There is an old joke about the cockpit of the 22nd century. It includes two pilots, surrounded by glass....and one dog. "Why the dog?" you ask?

Simple....it's to bite the hand of the pilots if they break out of the glass.

Take the human, and the meat between our ears, out of the equation....and you're asking for trouble.

(Of course, nowadays one pilot could shoot the dog....sorry, PETA!)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry, it is too far-fetched. I'll grant you, the concept of an 'autolanding' was far-fetched just a few decades ago...but the actual operation of the controls of a modern jet REQUIRE human intervention.

Well you do know a F-18 can be launched from a carrier without a pilot doing anything correct?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


So what???? An F-18 being launched has NOTHING in any way to compare to the alleged story of the military taking over a B757/767.

Oh, and guess if something goes wrong in this 'automatic' launch....then the pilots won't eject????

AND, show me an F-18 that can now autoland on a Carrier. Good luck!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So what???? An F-18 being launched has NOTHING in any way to compare to the alleged story of the military taking over a B757/767.

But i am showing that the computers have advanced enough to do some of the thigns that a pilot would do.

This means that the militry couild have or make a system that could take over the computer and do most of the things a pilot does.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


NO!! Only if, and a big IF, the equipment is first, installed, and second, tested extensively before being implemented.

Try to use your incredible skills at deductive reasoning to figure this out....and please stop typing nonsense.

EDIT....prove that it exists, or doesn't exist. YOU like to play the game of semantics....as if you were in a Court of Law.

But, that game gets old. Prove your point, or move on! Don't constantly bring up red herrings, then flip and expect others to refute your nonsense!!!



[edit on 8/11/0808 by weedwhacker]

Oh and since you brought up AUTOLAND here is some information i found.

www.aopa.org...

Some aircraft have Category III autoland capability just like their civilian counterparts. The pilot never sees the deck of the ship until just prior to impact. The system is consistent, emotionless, and every approach is wired, but there is much less satisfaction than in doing it yourself. However, when the weather is really low, and there is no alternate nearby, there is comfort in knowing that "George" has an outstanding track record. Considering the complications of automatic shore landings, it's truly amazing when the airport is working to windward at 30 knots or so.

[edit on 11-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by JPhish
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?

Not I. This question was purely hypothetical. If the planes could have been controlled remotely, there's little doubt that's what actually happened. Only one conclusion to draw.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA, you actually used a source from the AOPA?!?


They write articles to entertain....sometimes to educate....but they have to have stuff to write every month!!!

Guess what else....the AOPA sends out mass mailings to everyone with a Pilot's License, requesting them to join their 'membership'

They put out a pretty good magazine....if you're just a neophyte, or aviation enthusiast.

No, I'm being too harsh. There ARE good articles. In fact, a Captain from my airline writes for the magazine, so I'm told.

As to AutoLandings on a carrier deck?

Let's see....from what I know, landings on a Carrier are all done visually.

If they HAD an ILS, it would work ONLY in very calm seas. Can you imagine the signal, as the ship moved, in rough waters???

ALSO, as you should know, a carrier will be underway, into the relative wind, as much as possible, during Flight Deck Ops.

Guess you get most of your information from stuff you read on the web, rather than from practical experience??

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Guess you get most of your information from stuff you read on the web, rather than from practical experience??

No actually i use both. Experiance and lots of resources, some of which others cannot get.

I normally use government or professional sources as you have seen me post before. So if you would like more information i am sure i can get you more.