Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System
They also demonstrate that:
1) It is not so difficult to make those planes remote controlled. They have a fully integrated flight management computer system. Who doesn’t have wireless these days with which to control his home computer. Almost every home computer has a DECT system.
2) They have already an automated guidance as Christophera has pointed out. More precisely, it is ALREADY possible to fly these planes from one spot, say an airport to another spot, without the need of ANY human or pilot : from take off, the entire flight path can be programmed up to landing. All it takes to do this is to download the right soft ware program, and hook up with a GPS or other positioning system. Maybe in this case the flight path had some well foreseen obstacles on its way. So in this case it was take off, the programmed flight path and … crash. … and at least in one case, with a programmed but miraculously looking banking manoeuvre right before it was about to encounter the obstacle. Such did give the impression that there must be some human suicidal pilot pulling the steering wheel, did it not.
The 5 G’s that were calculated to result from that banking manoeuvre do give away something else. If there is indeed a limiter on possible G forces, than it means that the planes were tampered with (maybe only software wise), or that we see the manoeuvres of altogether different planes.
More importantly and no matter what the answer stated in the above , this DISproves a classic hijacking scenario. Think about that.
There is also one big BUT.
From what I have learned those Boeings are not completely fly-by-wire. The first entirely fly-by-wire seems to be the 777. This means that a pilot would be able to overcome the automatic flight control, by using his hands and muscular force.
So for both scenarios it implies that the crew (and as a side effect, maybe also the passengers) should be incapacitated to put it mildly.
How much G does it take before one becomes unconscious ?
Actually, no. The reason I have cited these technical specificities is quite simply because they are in conflict with what was stated by Christophera and used as an argument that remote control is very difficult to near impossible.anart said: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.Christophera said: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.Charles said:So how do you handle all these conflicting data ?
The technicalities prove otherwise.Christophera said:"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.
They also demonstrate that:
1) It is not so difficult to make those planes remote controlled. They have a fully integrated flight management computer system. Who doesn’t have wireless these days with which to control his home computer. Almost every home computer has a DECT system.
2) They have already an automated guidance as Christophera has pointed out. More precisely, it is ALREADY possible to fly these planes from one spot, say an airport to another spot, without the need of ANY human or pilot : from take off, the entire flight path can be programmed up to landing. All it takes to do this is to download the right soft ware program, and hook up with a GPS or other positioning system. Maybe in this case the flight path had some well foreseen obstacles on its way. So in this case it was take off, the programmed flight path and … crash. … and at least in one case, with a programmed but miraculously looking banking manoeuvre right before it was about to encounter the obstacle. Such did give the impression that there must be some human suicidal pilot pulling the steering wheel, did it not.
The 5 G’s that were calculated to result from that banking manoeuvre do give away something else. If there is indeed a limiter on possible G forces, than it means that the planes were tampered with (maybe only software wise), or that we see the manoeuvres of altogether different planes.
More importantly and no matter what the answer stated in the above , this DISproves a classic hijacking scenario. Think about that.
There is also one big BUT.
From what I have learned those Boeings are not completely fly-by-wire. The first entirely fly-by-wire seems to be the 777. This means that a pilot would be able to overcome the automatic flight control, by using his hands and muscular force.
So for both scenarios it implies that the crew (and as a side effect, maybe also the passengers) should be incapacitated to put it mildly.
How much G does it take before one becomes unconscious ?