Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

I wouldn't say "it can't be done". After all the video of the 707 controlled crash did require it to be rigged. And the 707 was a conventional aircraft(non fly by wire).

Assuming that the PTB science is way ahead of what is generally acknowledged, anything is possible. If indeed the aircraft were rigged to be commandeered remotely, then those airplanes involved would have to be on the ground for sometime. It would be helpful if we could find out whether the airplanes involved were in the hanger prior to the event. If the airplanes were in the hanger, then it's maintenance log would have to record why, for how long and who were the people that worked on it, assuming that the records are still available.

Yeah right, this is the log entry:

"2001, August 17th, 5:21pm EST: A bunch of government agents suddenly came out of nowhere today and installed a remote-control system into the 757 in the course of about 8 hours. The reason was classified. But then they all got drunk and joked about remote-piloting them into the world trade center towers, and I gotta tell ya, those government types have some deranged sense of humor that's for sure. -Steve, the log keeper"

"2001, August 18th, 9:12am EST: The government types returned and ordered us to wipe out all the logs for those date due to national emergency as ordered by the president. -Steve, the log keeper"

"2001, August 19th, 9:07am EST: Again they returned because they realised that we logged the fact that they ordered us to wipe everything out from the logs, and told us to delete that info from the logs as well. -Steve, the log keeper"

"2001, September 11th, 7:02am EST: The group is really excited today, we get to be part of a secret government testing of the remote-control system that has been inst... oh wait we cannot talk about this, but suffice it to say, it is a great honor and privilege to be part of top-secret remote tests! -Steve, the log keeper"

"2001, September 12th, 11:11am EST: Steve the log keeper has tragically fallen out of the window of his Boston residence. He had survived the fall but even more tragically, he was instantly run over by a bus. Twice. RIP Steve."

(the new guy who replaces Steve sees the above logs and for no apparent reason changes them to...)

"2001, August 17th, 5:21pm EST: As a token of our appreciation to the company, the team and I spent 8 hours watching an "I Love Lucy" marathon. God I love the classics. -Stephen, the guy who keeps the logs."
....
....
....
....

 

[Charles]

"2001, September 12th, 11:11am EST: Steve the log keeper has tragically fallen out of the window of his Boston residence. He had survived the fall but even more tragically, he was instantly run over by a bus. Twice. RIP Steve."

(the new guy who replaces Steve sees the above logs and for no apparent reason changes them to...)

"2001, August 17th, 5:21pm EST: As a token of our appreciation to the company, the team and I spent 8 hours watching an "I Love Lucy" marathon. God I love the classics. -Stephen, the guy who keeps the logs."
....
....
....
....

Hihihi

"2001, September 12th, 10:01pm EST: Stephen has taken the opportunity to make a huge promotion. Tired from the farewell party, we cleaned up all remains of fruit juices and cola - all sorts - while I make my first entry. Ted, the guy who keeps the logs."

....

....

 

[Charles]

Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

Christophera quoted:

A Dissenting View:

I am a retired Airline Captain, currently flying Business Jets. I have an Airline Transport Pilot Rating qualifying me to fly Captain on Boeing 707/720/727/747-400/757/767/777, Lockheed 382 and L-1011, and Dassault 20 and 2000 Aircraft.
...

Is he retired or is he flying business Jets ? Whatever the answer, this seems to qualify him to fly 757’s and 767’s ? Perhaps his view is not really dissenting but just a bit misinformed as in outdated. (Another possibility is that Von Bulow was lying or misinformed himself.)

From:
http://www(dot)boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_05/textonly/ps02txt.html

Many newer airplanes, such as the Boeing 737-600/-700/-800/-900, 747-400, 767, and 777, feature loadable systems whose functionality may be changed or updated using onboard loadable software. Modifying system functionality with new software instead of with modified or new hardware can help operators reduce the total number of hardware line replaceable units (LRU) in inventory, increase hardware commonality, and reduce airplane modification time.
Airplane systems that can be modified with loadable software are standard on several later-model Boeing airplanes (see table 1). This feature allows operators to change the configuration of loadable systems without physically modifying or replacing hardware components. Benefits include the ability to meet new requirements, incorporate design improvements, and correct errors. In addition, software often can be loaded just in the time required to turn an airplane around for the next flight. A major advantage of changing system functionality without changing hardware is the reduced number of line replaceable unit (LRU) spares both operators and Boeing must keep in stock.

Can we conclude that for the time being the dissenting view is more like a misinformed view. What is a dissenting view anyway?

"They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury."
was not even a phrase concieved of when the 757 and 767 were built. The limiters on g forces are eletromechanical analog devices and have nothing to do with software. They are very diffificult to interface to digital control with the precission required. This is why the 747 was created.

Evidently this was not (even) a phrase, as in part of the PR – system when these Boeings were launched on the market. But I don’t see how, even if the limiters on the G-forces were electromechanical analog devices, those devices could not be short circuited when the entire delivery package was FORESEEN to be provided with a fully flight management computer system.
http://911research(dot)wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/b757_background.html

The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crewmember operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays. Those offer increased reliability and advanced features compared to older electro-mechanical instruments.
A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.
The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer.

And one more …

http://911research(dot)wtc7.net/planes/analysis/control.html
Boeing 757s and 767s apparently use hydraulic systems to drive the control surfaces, like the elevators, ailerons, and rudder. Thus they are not 'fly-by-wire' in the same sense as the more recent 777s. However, 757s and 767s can be flown entirely under the control of their flight management computer systems (FMCS), according to Boeing.

For some reason I assume that you must have read those things before ?

So how do you handle all these conflicting data ?

 

[Pierre]

Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

I am a retired Airline Captain, currently flying Business Jets. I have an Airline Transport Pilot Rating qualifying me to fly Captain on Boeing 707/720/727/747-400/757/767/777, Lockheed 382 and L-1011, and Dassault 20 and 2000 Aircraft. I have over 28,000 hours, several thousand of which were in command of 757/767's.

What is the legitimacy of an airplane pilot to assess the technical specificities/capabilities of a plane ?

It sounds like "I have been using computers for 10 years and I can tell you a microprocessor can't be clocked over 1 GHz - period".

The user side (even if the user is an expert user) is not the conception side.

There is no provision for a 757/767 to be flown remotely. It can't be done. Period. Nothing disables the Flight or Voice Recorders, etc., except for the pulling of circuit breakers in the cockpit.

The 1.5 G limit built into the flight control system isn't there. The 757/767 does not have electronic flight controls- "fly by wire" and I don't know of any way to design these limits into the system without fly by wire.

Why isn't it possible to fly remotely a 757 ? Apparently the reason given by A Dissenting View would be that a 757 uses analogic systems. Actually any plane model uses analogic devices (metal strings for flaps, rotating thrust,...) and is remotedly controlled.

The remote controller can even be a computer (generating numeric signals). N/A (Numeric/Analogic) and A/N (Analogic/Numeric) converters have been allowing communications between numeric equipments and analogic equipments for years.

 

[Vulcan59]

Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

SAO, I like those tech log entries

As far as the FMCS are concerned, yes they are programmed on the ground and modified accordingly when necessary during flight. But if all else fails and the autopilot is not flying according to what is expected, the pilot can always disconnect the autopilot and "hand fly" the airplane. One does not even need any computers to fly the 757 or 767 or for that matter any Boeing airplane. Therefore the airplanes must have been rigged such that no matter what the pilots did, they couldn't get manual control of the airplane, assuming that there were pilots still in the cockpit. Or, make sure that the pilots were not in the cockpit, so that who ever was remote controlling the airplanes would be unhampered by pilots in the cockpit taking over the controls manually and disconnecting all automation.

 

[Christophera]

Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

So how do you handle all these conflicting data ?

The data you've posted does not conflict with the substancial statements showing that remote control with 757/767's is VERY difficult to execute. What you have posted relates to "automated guidence" not remote control and there is a big difference.

 

[Christophera]

Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

I wouldn't say "it can't be done". After all the video of the 707 controlled crash did require it to be rigged. And the 707 was a conventional aircraft(non fly by wire).

Assuming that the PTB science is way ahead of what is generally acknowledged, anything is possible. If indeed the aircraft were rigged to be commandeered remotely, then those airplanes involved would have to be on the ground for sometime. It would be helpful if we could find out whether the airplanes involved were in the hanger prior to the event. If the airplanes were in the hanger, then it's maintenance log would have to record why, for how long and who were the people that worked on it, assuming that the records are still available.

A 757 was retrofitted with remote control in 1984 for by an Israeli. It flew successfully. What was proven was that it was incredibly difficult to calibrate the analog to digital interface and get the hydraulic servo system responding with adequate proportion.

Your point about the discovery that flights 11 and 175 spent a week in the hangars prior to 9-11 is exactly my point. I forgot to properly make it, thank you.

Such evidence indicating modification to the control systems has not been found.

It appears the planes were in normal service and maintenance schedule as no such abnormal activity has been uncovered and I think it is safe to assume that such would have been discoverd by now if that was the case.

 

[anart]

Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

So how do you handle all these conflicting data ?

The data you've posted does not conflict with the substancial statements showing that remote control with 757/767's is VERY difficult to execute. What you have posted relates to "automated guidence" not remote control and there is a big difference.

That's probably an important distinction to make - it's been my impression that automated remote control has been the implication made by Charles, but I could be mistaken.

(Also, Christopher, I sure hope there is an enormous pillow or trampoline at the bottom of that cliff for those poor sheep - I keep wanting to catch them. Yes, my neuroses are showing....)


a

 

[Vulcan59]

Just to be clear, my own conclusion after looking at the evidence and knowing a bit about planes from the cockpit end, those airplanes were remotely controlled. How it was done is not very clear. Perhaps there are ways of doing it which we know nothing about.

Such evidence indicating modification to the control systems has not been found.

It appears the planes were in normal service and maintenance schedule as no such abnormal activity has been uncovered and I think it is safe to assume that such would have been discoverd by now if that was the case.

Are you suggesting that it was manually flown into the buildings?

 

[Ruth]

Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

Now here is another interesting titbit.

From:
http://www(dot)viewzone.com/911revisited.html

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.

( that is if it WAS a Boeing at all)

Jim Heikkila seems to be implying that whatever hit the Pentagon was either not remotely controlled, or... heaven help us - not a Boeing 757 or 767! What are the odds of that being the case?

 

[Ruth]

As far as the FMCS are concerned, yes they are programmed on the ground and modified accordingly when necessary during flight. But if all else fails and the autopilot is not flying according to what is expected, the pilot can always disconnect the autopilot and "hand fly" the airplane.

Accept when he, she or they are dead? How would that work?

 

[Christophera]

Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

http://cryptogon(dot)com/?p=470

This is the technology that made the 9/11 spectacles possible in the first place. But now, Boeing is going to peddle those same black boxes to make aircraft "hijack-proof."

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.

Scientists at aircraft giant Boeing are testing the tamper-proof autopilot system which uses state-of-the-art computer and satellite technology.

So how do you handle all these conflicting data ?

The data you've posted does not conflict with the substancial statements showing that remote control with 757/767's is VERY difficult to execute. What you have posted relates to "automated guidence" not remote control and there is a big difference.

That's probably an important distinction to make - it's been my impression that automated remote control has been the implication made by Charles, but I could be mistaken.

Since what Petey of Lone Tree posted really does not distinguish between the existent 747 system that is either fully remote or automated which could be somewhat improved by satellite reference or global hawk type technology or identify the great difficulty of retrofitting 757/767's, it is fairly safe to say that Charles has simply accepted the "blurring" of the technical specifics of the matter. The link has some quality in that comments are actaully posted which counter the non specifics.

There is a tendency to assume omnipotent technological capacity by government or entities associated with it. Personally, because of friends I have who are scientists, very high level electronics engineers, electrophysicists; as well as my own familiarity with various forms of mechanical/hydraulic technology and rudimentary understandings of electrical interfaces to the technology; I feel as though those entities would like us to believe that they are capable of great feats with technology. In reality they can perhaps pull off some wonderous things just to prove they can be done, but the regular execution of such events is well beyond their grasp.

A classic example of this is the fact that a newspaper can be read from a satellite, and people are properly impressed. What they fail to realize, is that the act of finding the newspaper, if its location is not already known, costs about $200 million and takes a month. That fact nullifies to a large degree, the ability.

Basically it is in the interests of those entities to have us believe they can do these things at will when in reality they cannot. They depend on minimal proofs for perpetual fear and obiedience. If we believe, we are afraid and we obey.

(Also, Christopher, I sure hope there is an enormous pillow or trampoline at the bottom of that cliff for those poor sheep - I keep wanting to catch them. Yes, my neuroses are showing....)


a

The avatar is designed to create awareness of our effect on each other and compassion for the group we are or how easily our fears move us to move others and what that causes. Glad you noticed and said something. The little fluffs actually just disappear at the bottom of the image to run around behind your computer and get back in line for another leap into oblivion.

 

[Christophera]

Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

Just to be clear, my own conclusion after looking at the evidence and knowing a bit about planes from the cockpit end, those airplanes were remotely controlled. How it was done is not very clear. Perhaps there are ways of doing it which we know nothing about.

Such evidence indicating modification to the control systems has not been found.

It appears the planes were in normal service and maintenance schedule as no such abnormal activity has been uncovered and I think it is safe to assume that such would have been discoverd by now if that was the case.

Are you suggesting that it was manually flown into the buildings?

Actually yes. But not for any reason associated with technology. My assumption is based soley in obvious, gross evidence of events at the WTC and the profound significance of human nature.

Specifically I indicate that the first tower hit, hit hardest, burnt worst, is the last to fall.

Couple that with the fact that human nature will compell persons who are conducting a ruse of this magnitude, to make the ruse as perfect as possible, it is almost impossible to consider that remote technology which would have enabled a perfect impact/fall sequence, would NOT be used to do just that IF remote technology were employed.

In order to consider such a scenario my twisted brain has to assume a "Gary Larsen" type cartoon scene where the evil perpetrators are discussing the plot.

One says to the others with a sinister laugh, "Hah, the people are so stupid that we will set timers for tower 2 to detonate first, then fly flight 11 into tower 1 to start the show, hah hah hah."

Then a conspirator continues, "Yes, hah hah hah ........ they are so stupid that our disinformation campaign will depict the impact of flight 175 lower, with a glancing blow and a huge pyrotechnical display as being more damaging to justify number 2 collapsing first."

A third chimes in, "And we can be sure no one will notice that the tops of the towers will fall in the wrong directions according to the damage caused. Our disinfos will paint a picture of devastating fires causing damage whereever we need it to in order to justify the event however we want it to be seen. We've conditioned them for years to accept whatever the boob tube squawks. Social pressures and fears will do the rest. Hah, hah, hah, ......... we cannot fail"




On second thought, maybe I should stick to avatars.

 

[Vulcan59]

As far as the FMCS are concerned, yes they are programmed on the ground and modified accordingly when necessary during flight. But if all else fails and the autopilot is not flying according to what is expected, the pilot can always disconnect the autopilot and "hand fly" the airplane.

Accept when he, she or they are dead? How would that work?

Well in that case, all one has to do is to program the co-ordinates of the building or point where one wishes to go and the autopilot will faithfully fly it to that point or building in this case. Note that the FMCS can be programmed with an altitude and speed as well.

 

[Vulcan59]

Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

Jim Heikkila wrote:

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.

I personally know of a case where the aircraft was in cruise flight and the flight manual stated that maximum amount the rudders could deflect in cruise flight mode was no more than 0.3 units due to design limits. To cut this long story short, the aircraft flipped over on its back, and then nose dive entering a spin from 35000ft. This was a commercial wide bodied aircraft as big as the 757/767. The pilots regain control at about 12000ft and flew the aircraft back and landed. Flight data analysis later showed that the rudder had deflected to 0.93 of an unit, which is what caused the flip and spin in the first place. I never was sure about design limits after this incident.