Hijacking history in the US and "Home Run" remote control = hijacking impossible.

[Edx]

In a argument with a truther on the Conspiracy Science forums:
http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/zarathustra-peterjoseph-speaks/page/3

A guy called Plautus Satire is trying to claim:

1. There have been zero successful hijackings in the US.

2. Only two or three were attempted, both were foiled.

3. Reagan developed a system called ""Home Run" that can remote control planes from the ground making hijacking impossible.

Its also silly to say that that arabs couldn't possibly have hijacked a plane. Actually in the twenty years preceding the World Trade Center demolition there were exactly zero successful hijackings in the United States. I checked the statistics, there were two or three attempts, all foiled. Ronald Reagan declared a "war on terror", if you're old enough to remember that. Under his reign, a system called "Home Run" was implemented so that all civilian passenger jets could be commandeered from the ground by remote control, making hijacking from the cockpit a literal impossibility.


I have my own issues and potential criticisms such as previous hijackings wanted something rather than to just use the plane to fly into buildings... but I would be interested in what others can say about this.

I'm going to call ************ on Home Run, if that were true someone somewhere would have mentioned it by now that actually 911 should have been impossible because of it.

[TK0001]

If this is true, then the Payne Stewart incident should be re-investigated as a murder.

[DavidJames]

In a argument with a truther on the Conspiracy Science forums:
http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/zarathustra-peterjoseph-speaks/page/3

A guy called Plautus Satire is trying to claim:

1. There have been zero successful hijackings in the US.

2. Only two or three were attempted, both were foiled.

3. Reagan developed a system called ""Home Run" that can remote control planes from the ground making hijacking impossible.




I have my own issues and potential criticisms such as previous hijackings wanted something rather than to just use the plane to fly into buildings... but I would be interested in what others can say about this.

I'm going to call ************ on Home Run, if that were true someone somewhere would have mentioned it by now that actually 911 should have been impossible because of it.Took 30 seconds to find this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings)March 17, 1970: Eastern Air Lines Shuttle Flight 1320, carrying passengers from Newark to Boston was hijacked around 7:30 P.M. but that's really irrelevant since "it never happened before" is the argument of a 6 year old.

As for "home run", that's easy as well, just tell him to prove his claim.

[MikeW]

I'm going to call ************ on Home Run, if that were true someone somewhere would have mentioned it by now that actually 911 should have been impossible because of it.
They have, just a very long time ago. Google for "Joe Vialls" "Home Run"

[Piscivore]

In a argument with a truther on the Conspiracy Science forums:
http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/zarathustra-peterjoseph-speaks/page/3

A guy called Plautus Satire is trying to claim:

1. There have been zero successful hijackings in the US.

2. Only two or three were attempted, both were foiled.

3. Reagan developed a system called ""Home Run" that can remote control planes from the ground making hijacking impossible.



1. That depends on the definition of "successful". If it means "seizing control of an aircraft", there have been many examples of that happening. If it means the incidents ending with the hijackers getting what they wanted and not being killed or arrested, that leaves just the 9/11 guys (for whom dying = accomplishing their goals) and maybe DB Cooper.

2. There were a lot more than two or three attempted.

3. I call BS on that.

[DGM]

Well, I'm most certainly old enough to remember Regan's presidency and I call his idea bat crap crazy. He didn't offer any proof of this "home run" did he.

[Edx]

Thanks for the replies so far:

I just googled some more thanks to Mikes search term suggestions and found this lovelly hit:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/homerun.html

and

http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm

Truthers debunking truthers.

I do love it when that happens.

[BigAl]

In a argument with a truther on the Conspiracy Science forums:
http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/zarathustra-peterjoseph-speaks/page/3

A guy called Plautus Satire is trying to claim:

1. There have been zero successful hijackings in the US.

2. Only two or three were attempted, both were foiled.

3. Reagan developed a system called ""Home Run" that can remote control planes from the ground making hijacking impossible.



What is the status of hands-off landing with the aid of equipment located at the airport? I recall reading reports of projects and I've seen Twoofers confuse landing on a pre-programmed runway with the general case of flying on remote control.

[MikeW]

Anyone pushing Home Run is placing a great deal of credibility in Joe Vialls, and really he doesn't deserve it. A UK example - he was the person who pushed the theory that Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman weren't killed by Ian Huntley, and there were far more likely suspects in nearby American airbases (here (http://web.archive.org/web/20041208021926/www.bigwig.net/softwaredesign/hollyjessica/who_really_murdered_holly_wells_.htm)). What a *********** idiot.

If you're not in the UK that won't mean a lot, but take a look at the Web Archive of his site (http://web.archive.org/web/20050102022951/http://www.vialls.com/), there's plenty more lunacy available.

[sheeplesnshills]

What is the status of hands-off landing with the aid of equipment located at the airport? I recall reading reports of projects and I've seen Twoofers confuse landing on a pre-programmed runway with the general case of flying on remote control.

Well I have no doubt thats its technically possible given that they can fly a tv missile through a door and with todays fly by wire aircraft (don't think a 767 is fly by wire) it would much easier as the controls are no longer mechanically linked to the control surfaces etc. So, yes, it is possible but since we know from Jammos "proof" that there were no planes.......... :D

it would however be a lot easier to simply board a plane with a few guys with box cutters and fake bombs...............

[Debaser]

Based on the modus operandi of pretty much every pre-9/11 hijacking*, i.e.,

Use weapons/threat of violence to take control of passengers and thereby aircraft;
Land at airport of choice;
Use threat of violence against passengers to gain concessions from authorities.

Where does the ability to remotely control an aircraft provide a benefit?




* This is based on middle-eastern type hijackings. The 'fly me to Havana' type is something else.

[Edx]

He has written back saying the following:

"Whether or not people think it's (Home Run) absurd, it's a fact. All civilian passenger jets in the United States are equipped with this system, it was integrated into their designs on the drawing board, and it was a sensible move, to be honest. You don't want passengers to have the capacity to take over and fly the plane. Not to put this system in place would have been negligence of the highest order. Remote control technology existed in the forties, it's not magical, it's not mystical, it's not science fiction, it't science fact. I, myself, owned a remotely controlled airplane in the seventies. This technology was mature enough then to operate in miniature inside a toy plane so clearly it would have been possible and desirable to install such systems in passenger jets. As I stated, it would be supremely negligent NOT to do so. Is your government supremely negligent? This is the other side of the coincidence theorists' coins, they'd have you believe everything is due to coincidence and incompetence, that nineteen "terrorists" are able to outwit the entire United States military and state department. It's absurd on its face, and quite frankly I'm amazed you would put yourself in such a position of intellectual weakness by arguing in favor of it."

[Pardalis]

His only proof is that he owned a miniature remote controlled plane in the '70s?

[Pardalis]

possible and desirable to install such systems in passenger jets. As I stated, it would be supremely negligent NOT to do so.


I don't think so. It could easily interfere with the plane's electronics, and it is very possible that this system could be tampered with. As much as this guy wants remote controlled airplanes to be a possibility, he should also consider the possibility of remote controlled hijackings, which is reason enough not to implement the system in the first place.

[TK0001]

He has written back saying the following:

I, myself, owned a remotely controlled airplane in the seventies.


Wow.

[sheeplesnshills]

"Not to put this system in place would have been negligence of the highest order."

Strange that no-one from Boeing/Airbus/BAC etc etc etc has ever come forward and said they designed, built or installed such a system.

[DavidJames]

He has written back saying the following:Here is how I would respond. Either provide evidence or STFU. Period, end of sentence, end of dialog.

This is really simple and I'm not sure why (actually I have a guess) people don't keep it simple. They make claim, they provide evidence. Really simple.

[TK0001]

It's absurd on its face, and quite frankly I'm amazed you would put yourself in such a position of intellectual weakness by arguing in favor of it.

The more I read this, the more my blood boils. What a horse's ass.

[rwguinn]

He has written back saying the following:
so?
I myself own several remote controlled airplanes, ranging from a J-3 cub to a P-51 mustang to an A-4 Skyhawk. There is a whole organization in the US (http://www.modelaircraft.org) dedicated to them. Worldwide, there are even more--google "FAI Model Aircraft"

[dudalb]

His only proof is that he owned a miniature remote controlled plane in the '70s?

And I thought the Twoofers who cited their skills on the Microsoft Flight Simulator as evidence were bad....

This guy needs to be stundied.

[dudalb]

so?
I myself own several remote controlled airplanes, ranging from a J-3 cub to a P-51 mustang to an A-4 Skyhawk. There is a whole organization in the US (http://www.modelaircraft.org) dedicated to them. Worldwide, there are even more--google "FAI Model Aircraft"

Used to own a couple myself. I also have been a fan of the Microsoft Flight Simualtor from the FS95 through the most recent. but no way will I claim this gives me status as a Aviation expert.

[Reheat]

There is no such system in place. It's all a bunch of horse hockey!

The auto-land feature works through the auto pilot. It is only available to be used where there is an ILS.

What is being discussed by these frauds would only be possible in a fly-by-wire system, which the 757/767 are NOT. A system could be installed in a non-fly-by-wire aircraft, but it would be so bulky and intrusive that no one would tolerate it, pilots and mechanics included.

I find it amusing that this Vialls character offers little technical details on this "system", the most important of which is a reliable means of communication for control... I guess everyone is suppose to believe the control is from our moon base.

A system such as this (if installed) would not be a secret for very long. More than a British hack and an obscure German politician would have intimate knowledge of it.

[funk de fino]

The guys a lying sack of crap.

[Edx]

Its okay he has gone off the deep end click to see what he is saying now :D

Quoting that one guy that provides no sources.

[ktesibios]

Oh for Pete's sake! This was been chewed over until the flavor was all gone years ago.

If "Plautus Satire" weren't one of the most aggressively ignorant trolls on the 'net (he's got a history of this kind of crapola) he might just want to take a look at this paper (http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf).

In it, JREF forum member apathoid, who works on the avionics systems of 767s and 757s for a living puts on his black hat and brainstorms ideas for how one might take over control of one of these airplanes and fly it against the will of the pilots. He ultimately concludes that he can't come up with a method that can't easily be defeated, and that trying to hit a target the size of the WTC towers using the autopilot and navigation systems provided is impractical due to the magnitude of the errors inherent in these systems.

It's illustrated with material direct from Boeing's technical manuals and, for people interested in technology, chock-full of geeky goodness.

Something else that occurs to me about the prospect of keeping such a system secret:

A system which has as its purpose depriving the pilots of control over their airplane is by definition a system whose failure could be expected to cause a total loss of plane, crew and passengers. In the regulatory climate in which airlines operate, such a system would be subject to mandatory scheduled testing and maintenance. That means:

*Specialized test equipment would have to be designed, approved, manufactured and distributed.
*Prescribed test and maintenance procedures would have to be developed, approved, published and distributed to the airlines tech staffs.
*Technicians would have to be trained and certified to carry out testing, maintenance and repair of the system.

Fat chance of keeping all that quiet- and when the desk jockeys who specialize in regulatory compliance at the airlines have to deal with the paperwork involved- even fatter chance.

Vialls, who was absolutely guanophrenic (and a truly vile anti-Semite as well- just look for some of his other writings), seems to have been a victim of the most popular delusion of the Nineties and Oughties- that reality is something that happens inside a computer and that anything can be achieved by a "hacker" tippy-tapping away at a keyboard.

[sheeplesnshills]

What is being discussed by these frauds would only be possible in a fly-by-wire system, which the 757/767 are NOT. A system could be installed in a non-fly-by-wire aircraft, but it would be so bulky and intrusive that no one would tolerate it, pilots and mechanics included.

not wanting to be picky here but on a fly by wire aircraft(ie not a 767 or a 757) it could be a small device or possibly no device at all as essentially all it has to do is run a different program in the on board computers. the onboard data buss would supply all the info the computer would need to fly the plane anywhere it was programed to go and I doubt there would anything the pilots could do about it.

[Edx]

Thanks for the link!

Turns out Plautus Satire is also a halocaust denier. Surprised?

[defaultdotxbe]

several patents exist for anti-hijack systems like this "home run"

all of them file after (and as a direct result of) 9/11

[Reheat]

the onboard data buss would supply all the info the computer would need to fly the plane anywhere it was programed to go and I doubt there would anything the pilots could do about it.

Nope! The actual activation of the flight controls would need to be done through the auto pilot, which is easily over ridden by the pilot. Plus, no pilot in the world would tolerate a system that could not be over ridden.

[Reheat]

several patents exist for anti-hijack systems like this "home run"

all of them file after (and as a direct result of) 9/11

I have serious doubts anything similar will ever be installed. The reason is that hijacking is not a significant enough threat today that would justify the expense. The Airlines and both the Pilot's and Mechanic's Unions would resist it to the bitter end.

[MIKILLINI]

Plautus Satire? Last name is interesting, but that's about it.

[Edx]

He is claiming now that no remote control systems are being developed in the US because they already have it :rolleyes:

[R.Mackey]

This story has been around for a long, long time -- although it's usually told from the opposite Truther perspective.

Normally, it goes like this: Because there "must be" a way to override aircraft controls, there was no need for highjackers. Instead, Dick Cheney or whomever, sneering evilly, simply cut in his override and guided the aircraft to their targets, while the pilots and passengers looked on helplessly. (There is also a very, very old variant of this story where the remote control station was hidden in WTC 7 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=31187), and that's why WTC 7 also had to be destroyed. :boggled:)

This is the first time I've seen this "obviously installed" technology imply that there couldn't be any highjackers -- because if there were, the Governmint would have used this system to thwart them. Yes, the same Governmint that planned and executed the whole thing. Gotcha.

That's Truthers for you.

I have serious doubts anything similar will ever be installed. The reason is that hijacking is not a significant enough threat today that would justify the expense. The Airlines and both the Pilot's and Mechanic's Unions would resist it to the bitter end.

In addition to apathoid's excellent writeup, we also discussed this subject here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107252). Even on fly-by-wire aircraft, there is a legal issue that interferes with any highjacker-proofing remote override approach, a problem that I will not disclose on an open channel, in case there are any highjacker types reading. But it's fairly simple.

Bottom line, whomever is now again choosing to promote this idea, is a fool.

[Carll68]

.....But I think the answer to all of this lies somewhere withing the DHARMA initiative.

It has to.

It makes about as much sense.

Don't these lunatics know that if you hear hoofbeats in the distance, not to assume it is a herd of zebras?

I had a Remote controlled 1/16 scale Ferrari 512BB when I was growing up...loved that toy...however, does this now conclude that all passenger Ferrari 512BB's were remote controlled, and for Enzo to not do so would be grossly negligent?

[Macgyver1968]

.....But I think the answer to all of this lies somewhere withing the DHARMA initiative.

It has to.

It makes about as much sense.

Don't these lunatics know that if you hear hoofbeats in the distance, not to assume it is a herd of zebras?

I had a Remote controlled 1/16 scale Ferrari 512BB when I was growing up...loved that toy...however, does this now conclude that all passenger Ferrari 512BB's were remote controlled, and for Enzo to not do so would be grossly negligent?

One of my friends from high school's dad owned a "double B 512". When he was out of town, we fired that sucker up....the most kick ass sounding engine I have ever heard!

[George152]

Good thing the truthers don't know that air crew know a whole lot about the systems on their aircraft and obviously circuit breakers don't feature in the kook universe

[gumboot]

not wanting to be picky here but on a fly by wire aircraft(ie not a 767 or a 757) it could be a small device or possibly no device at all as essentially all it has to do is run a different program in the on board computers. the onboard data buss would supply all the info the computer would need to fly the plane anywhere it was programed to go and I doubt there would anything the pilots could do about it.

They could turn the power off...

My basic understanding is the problem with the concept of remote planes isn't installing remote take-over equipment - I don't think anyone disputes the theoretical possibility of doing this.

The issue is implementing it in such a way that the pilots would be unable to do anything about it. Not only would you need to be able to prevent them from defeating the remote system, you'd also need to be able to prevent them from contacting anyone outside the aircraft to notify them.

[sheeplesnshills]

They could turn the power off...

My basic understanding is the problem with the concept of remote planes isn't installing remote take-over equipment - I don't think anyone disputes the theoretical possibility of doing this.

The issue is implementing it in such a way that the pilots would be unable to do anything about it. Not only would you need to be able to prevent them from defeating the remote system, you'd also need to be able to prevent them from contacting anyone outside the aircraft to notify them.

devils advocate again :)
Not only would you need to be able to prevent them from defeating the remote system

In a fly by wire aircraft you can't switch off the computer as it that what flies the plane....the pilots merely give it instructions about what they WANT it to do....the plane does the actual moving of the flight surfaces. It was rumoured that a problem of the plane not doing what it was told caused the crash of the first fly by wire airbus and a 777 crash landed in London when the engines just decided to shut down short off the runway. I have not seen the report on that one yet. If you kill the computer in a fly by wire plane you crash.

" you'd also need to be able to prevent them from [I]contacting anyone outside the aircraft to notify them"

Yes thats a bigger problem but again with my CT hat on all you have to do is cut power to the planes radios and install a cell phone jammer......


anyone want the movie rights? trouble is I can't think how the good guys could win..........

[CORed]

.....But I think the answer to all of this lies somewhere withing the DHARMA initiative.

It has to.

It makes about as much sense.

Don't these lunatics know that if you hear hoofbeats in the distance, not to assume it is a herd of zebras?

Most of these lunatics assume it's a herd of unicorns when they hear hoofbeats. Anybody who suggests horses or zebras is "in on it".


I had a Remote controlled 1/16 scale Ferrari 512BB when I was growing up...loved that toy...however, does this now conclude that all passenger Ferrari 512BB's were remote controlled, and for Enzo to not do so would be grossly negligent?

[Macgyver1968]

How effective would a system like that actually be? Assume terrorists take over a plane. The "home run" system is activated, and the terrorists no longer have control of the aircraft. What's to prevent the terrorists from just getting on the radio and proclaiming they will kill one passenger a minute until control is restored?

[Carll68]

One of my friends from high school's dad owned a "double B 512". When he was out of town, we fired that sucker up....the most kick ass sounding engine I have ever heard!

I myself have never had the fortune to hear the sweet whirl of one of these machines in action....On a side note, in my late 20's (9/9/1999) I did purchase a "Dreamcast" and played "Ferrari F355 challenge"..if the real engine sound is anything like the simulated engine sound..my god, what a sound.

I could control that Ferrari with a joypad..does this mean that if the engineers do not make REAL F355's joypad compatible, they are grossly negligent?

[ktesibios]

It occurs to me that "hijacking history" is a remarkably apt description of exactly what troofers are attempting to do.

[bynmdsue]

how often before 9/11 did the hijackers actually take over the controls of the plane versus just telling the pilots what to do (under threat of violence)?

[AJM8125]

how often before 9/11 did the hijackers actually take over the controls of the plane versus just telling the pilots what to do (under threat of violence)?

One that I know of. PSA Flight 1771, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_1771) which ended in the hijacker deliberately crashing the plane.

[gumboot]

devils advocate again :)


In a fly by wire aircraft you can't switch off the computer as it that what flies the plane....the pilots merely give it instructions about what they WANT it to do....the plane does the actual moving of the flight surfaces.


True, but if you want the Flight Control Computer to be controlled by ground inputs you need some sort of transmitter-receiver relationship. If you kill the receiver the Autopilot can't receive those directives.

Also, you could physically remove the autopilot processors from the computer. And in some instances the autopilot is a separate computer linked to the flight control computer.

Finally, the B767 and B757 are not fly-by-wire.



Yes thats a bigger problem but again with my CT hat on all you have to do is cut power to the planes radios and install a cell phone jammer......

Which is fine until the crew restore power to the radios and cut power to the jammer...

[sheeplesnshills]

[QUOTE=gumboot;5807931]True, but if you want the Flight Control Computer to be controlled by ground inputs you need some sort of transmitter-receiver relationship. If you kill the receiver the Autopilot can't receive those directives.

still Devils advocate :)

Why bother controlling from the ground? The "fly to" directions could all be stored in a few lines of code in the computer.

Also, you could physically remove the autopilot processors from the computer. And in some instances the autopilot is a separate computer linked to the flight control computer.

Then the plane crashes. remember there is no way for the pilots to fly the plane unless the computer wants them to.

Finally, the B767 and B757 are not fly-by-wire.

Agreed this was not remotely possible on 911. My point is that it would be much easier to do now on the latest generation of jets than it was in the last. It could likely all be done in software....good news is that its likely very hard to mess with that software.....bad news is that with memory so cheap code no longer needs to be very neat and precise so there would be lots of places where one could hide the code required.

Its not a plausible theory for hijackers of the 911 kind as its so much easier to get a few nutcases looking for their 72 virgins than it is to get an expert software person working in exactly the right place to modify the code and for it not to be discovered....
but its plausible enough for a movie :) bags I play the grizzled old pilot and I want Kate Winslett as copilot (and love interest/mandatory sex scene), Tom Cruise as crazy bad guy (with the scientologist stuff he fits right in here) and we would need a genius school kid to hack his Ipad to the central computer and land the plane using MS flight simulator :rolleyes:





Which is fine until the crew restore power to the radios and cut power to the jammer...

uh remember the flight crew are Balsamos......would you trust him to rewire anything? oh and the power to the jammer is the same line to the computer.........I thought of everything Mr Bond...... Muha ha ha!

[Reheat]

still Devils advocate :)

Why bother controlling from the ground? The "fly to" directions could all be stored in a few lines of code in the computer.

You have an oversimplified view. Flying is not static. Adjustments must be made for environmental conditions and changes can not be programmed, particularly throttle or the power function. A computer or software alone could not do this unless there were multiple sensors resulting in an horrendously impractical setup. After all, this idiotic setup must be capable of landing safely in order to even be remotely plausible. Until there is some sort of intelligent software capable of human like thought and learning, it is not possible. It will be a long time before software advances to this stage. In the meantime, gumboot is correct, there needs to be some sort of command link to the ground or space with a human in the loop.

Drones still have a human controlling them. Systems that don't have a human in control are known as weapons and they CRASH!


Then the plane crashes. remember there is no way for the pilots to fly the plane unless the computer wants them to.

Woah! Why would anyone install a system that was not fail safe under all circumstances?

This whole idea is silly and there is simply no way to justify it currently. Other methods of hijack prevention are much more plausible, and certainly more practical.

[grandmastershek]

All this proves is that someone watched Die Hard 2 way too many times. What's next? 2 part compound explosives in the WTC for CD disguised as Coke machines?

"Yes they deserve to die...and I hope the burn in hell!"

[beachnut]

...

Why bother controlling from the ground? The "fly to" directions could all be stored in a few lines of code in the computer.



Then the plane crashes. remember there is no way for the pilots to fly the plane unless the computer wants them to.



Agreed this was not remotely possible on 911. My point is that it would be much easier to do now on the latest generation of jets than it was in the last. It could likely all be done in software....good news is that its likely very hard to mess with that software.....bad news is that with memory so cheap code no longer needs to be very neat and precise so there would be lots of places where one could hide the code required.

...

uh remember the flight crew are Balsamos......would you trust him to rewire anything? oh and the power to the jammer is the same line to the computer.........I thought of everything Mr Bond...... Muha ha ha![/quote]

You have to disable all the circuit breakers.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/9/0/0/0722009.jpg
http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/at/courses/aeml/airframeimages/727overheadbreakers.jpg

You have to disable the fire switches.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/attachments/shifting-gears/146511d1244634861-air-france-plane-goes-missing-228-feared-dead-707-cockpit.jpg

Do you know where the fire switches are? The fire switches turn off the engine and isolate various things going to the engine. Plane will glide to ground as engines wind down, stopping the attack.

You have to disable fuel system controls.
You have to disable the throttle cutoff.
You have to take a stock plane and make modifications that a pilot will not figure out during preflight.

As a pilot I can refuse the plane due to unauthorized modifications of any kind or nature. You have to make a plane which looks stock and acts like a stock aircraft.

How will you disable the fire switches?

[George152]

...


Somewhat snipped


As a pilot I can refuse the plane due to unauthorized modifications of any kind or nature. You have to make a plane which looks stock and acts like a stock aircraft.

How will you disable the fire switches?
And
Igniters, fuel cut off, all the various communication systems..
The one good thing about aviation is that the kooks are not privy to any of those details.
Even bob over at pile-its4strewth seems to have forgotten (if he ever knew) the basics that even student pilots follow..

[bynmdsue]

One that I know of. PSA Flight 1771, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_1771) which ended in the hijacker deliberately crashing the plane.

the photos of that crash look kinda familiar.even described as disintegrated.

[sheeplesnshills]

[QUOTE=Reheat;5808155]You have an oversimplified view. Flying is not static. Adjustments must be made for environmental conditions and changes can not be programmed, particularly throttle or the power function. A computer or software alone could not do this unless there were multiple sensors resulting in an horrendously impractical setup.

Sorry but all those sensors are already in the aircraft and the computer constantly monitors them to make sure the pilots don't do something stupid. The sensors are also required for the crew even in a non fly by wire so that they can safely fly in total darkness or cloud etc. The plane just has to keep itself stable (something a computer can do better than any pilot), know where it is and where it wants to go to. I recall a TV programme a few years back talking about the latest version of the 747 that could (in theory at least) fly the itself all the way from a few seconds after after takeoff all the way to Sydney Australia land and stop at the end of the runway all by itself.


After all, this idiotic setup must be capable of landing safely in order to even be remotely plausible. Until there is some sort of intelligent software capable of human like thought and learning, it is not possible. It will be a long time before software advances to this stage. In the meantime, gumboot is correct, there needs to be some sort of command link to the ground or space with a human in the loop.

You must be out of the loop on this, its not only possible its now relatively simple. Its even possible with hobby RC aircraft now

Drones still have a human controlling them. Systems that don't have a human in control are known as weapons and they CRASH!

You show a charming faith in the abilities of man over machine but sorry but that is no longer the case.




[QUOTE]Woah! Why would anyone install a system that was not fail safe under all circumstances?

The existing fly by wire is not failsafe under all circumstance but it is more reliable than a human pilot is so whilst it is true that failure of the computer(s) would mean that the plane will crash they are so reliable that that is a very very remote possibility and way lower than the probability of a human pilot screwing up. So its not inconceivable that one could install a system that would allow and automatic or RC controlled takeover from the pilots and that this would be considered acceptable.

This whole idea is silly and there is simply no way to justify it currently. Other methods of hijack prevention are much more plausible, and certainly more practical.

Why? It wasn't possible on the 767s and 757s on 911 but it certainly is now. Surely a way of stopping the suicidal use of commercial aircraft if nothing else would be an idea to consider.

[defaultdotxbe]

I have serious doubts anything similar will ever be installed. The reason is that hijacking is not a significant enough threat today that would justify the expense. The Airlines and both the Pilot's and Mechanic's Unions would resist it to the bitter end.
oh definitely, im just saying that while patents do exist, they were only filed for after 9/11

[AJM8125]

the photos of that crash look kinda familiar.even described as disintegrated.

As does the video and first responder interviews.

QrT6joi4gco

[Reheat]

Sorry but all those sensors are already in the aircraft and the computer constantly monitors them to make sure the pilots don't do something stupid. The sensors are also required for the crew even in a non fly by wire so that they can safely fly in total darkness or cloud etc. The plane just has to keep itself stable (something a computer can do better than any pilot), know where it is and where it wants to go to. I recall a TV programme a few years back talking about the latest version of the 747 that could (in theory at least) fly the itself all the way from a few seconds after after takeoff all the way to Sydney Australia land and stop at the end of the runway all by itself.

I think you are a bit confused about what sensors are installed and what they do. There is nothing in a fly-by-wire aircraft that prevents ALL stupid inputs to keep one from crashing. The Airbus systems come closest.

There are no sensors that enable FBW aircraft to fly in darkness or weather, it's done just like it's been done for in the vicinity of 50 plus years. The instrumentation is mostly glass, but it's the same concept as was used 50 + years ago. Of course, auto pilot systems are better, but other than that please specify what "sensors" enable this "blind flying" that are not incorporated into an auto pilot.


You must be out of the loop on this, its not only possible its now relatively simple. Its even possible with hobby RC aircraft now

I don't think I'm out of the loop, you've been watching too many movies and TV. RC aircraft are remotely controlled by a human. They are in no way automatic with the type of sensors that would perform in the manner to which you're eluding.

Drones still have a human controlling them. Systems that don't have a human in control are known as weapons and they CRASH!


You show a charming faith in the abilities of man over machine but sorry but that is no longer the case.

Pray tell me what a statement of fact has to do with faith?


The existing fly by wire is not failsafe under all circumstance but it is more reliable than a human pilot is so whilst it is true that failure of the computer(s) would mean that the plane will crash they are so reliable that that is a very very remote possibility and way lower than the probability of a human pilot screwing up. So its not inconceivable that one could install a system that would allow and automatic or RC controlled takeover from the pilots and that this would be considered acceptable.

Speaking of out of touch....... Earlier you were arguing that a ground/space based controlled system was not required in favor of automation, but now you're back to RC control with a human in the interface. Maybe you should decide your position before you get further confused.

There are an enormous number of problems that can occur with an aircraft. Flying is not all in keeping blue sky up and brown earth down, there may be system problems to deal with and currently there is no freaking way to automate this. There needs to be a human interface to make decisions. Some problems certainly could be resolved remotely, which means there is a human interface.


Why? It wasn't possible on the 767s and 757s on 911 but it certainly is now. Surely a way of stopping the suicidal use of commercial aircraft if nothing else would be an idea to consider.

The it to which you refer is remote control, not total automation. I've considered the idea and believe the $$ are better spent on other methods of hijack prevention.

Added: I failed to comment on your magic 747, which flew to Sydney and stopped at the end of the runway. Would you please provide more detail such as who/how changed radio frequencies (these are not static). How did the aircraft take-off/stop? How was the auto-pilot engaged? How did the aircraft respond to controller vectors to avoid traffic or weather?

[beachnut]

Sorry but all those sensors are already in the aircraft and the computer constantly monitors them to make sure the pilots don't do something stupid. Which sensors make sure the pilots don't do something stupid? LOL, there is nothing in a 757/767 to stop me from flying the aircraft upside down and into the ground at MACH 1. What sensor would stop me?

The sensors are also required for the crew even in a non fly by wire so that they can safely fly in total darkness or cloud etc. I can fly a small Cesnna with the old fashion instruments (IFR certified) and fly in the darkest night and cloudies clouds without seeing by hand better than the autopiglet.



The plane just has to keep itself stable (something a computer can do better than any pilot), know where it is and where it wants to go to. When did the 757/767 become unstable to need a computer to do the flight controls?? I don't know of any airliner that needs a flight computer like the F-16 does to keep it stable. You would be right for an F-16 and some jets with neutral or divergent stability. I think hand flying can beat the autopilot. I could beat the autopilot and navigation systems unless they have had some major breakthrough in engineering yesterday. I thought it was funny when an Old Navigator said the autopilot coupled to the INS could beat me. I beat the autopilot coupled INS so bad during a flight; it was funny watching him eat his words.

I am sure some systems could be or may be as good as pilots are one day, but the 767/757 did not have special super computer systems better than pilots.

I recall a TV programme a few years back talking about the latest version of the 747 that could (in theory at least) fly the itself all the way from a few seconds after after takeoff all the way to Sydney Australia land and stop at the end of the runway all by itself. So?
I recall in many of my recent commercial "sit in the back torture flying" as a passenger across the country where the IDIOT autopilot pushes over to level-off which is 10 times less comfortable than my hand flown power reduction no pushover level-off. I beat the autopilot by a factor of millions in comfort; I hate the idiot pushover junk!!! Must be the AirBus junk.


You show a charming faith in the abilities of man over machine but sorry but that is no longer the case. We are talking about humans being passengers in flight; a pilot has all the skills to be better than most systems unless you have some examples of systems which beat pilots, I have not felt a flight system better than hand flight. But go ahead and list the systems you know have beat pilots at comfort; so far I have flown not a single commercial airline where the aircraft flies better than a human pilot. Enlighten me.

If certain high performance aircraft and things like the B-2 were set up with actual control surfaces a pilot could move, yes it would be impossible to fly due to instability. Please notify me if any airliners are flying planes that have neutral stability or worse; I think I would rather walk, and I am an engineer with experience in flight control systems.

When the aircraft stalls, will the autopilot make the recover? If the plane is upset and ends up upside down, will the autopilot right the aircraft? Show me.

[sheeplesnshills]

I think you are a bit confused about what sensors are installed and what they do. There is nothing in a fly-by-wire aircraft that prevents ALL stupid inputs to keep one from crashing. The Airbus systems come closest.

There are no sensors that enable FBW aircraft to fly in darkness or weather, it's done just like it's been done for in the vicinity of 50 plus years. The instrumentation is mostly glass, but it's the same concept as was used 50 + years ago. Of course, auto pilot systems are better, but other than that please specify what "sensors" enable this "blind flying" that are not incorporated into an auto pilot.

we are talking at cross purposes......I never said the sensors were separate from the autopilot. The aircraft can sense its pitch, role,climb and descent rates, they have gyros and GPS....ie all that needed for the plane to fly itself, as indeed they do for long periods of almost all flights.



I don't think I'm out of the loop, you've been watching too many movies and TV. RC aircraft are remotely controlled by a human. They are in no way automatic with the type of sensors that would perform in the manner to which you're eluding.

Strange but a friend at a local robotics club has a RC aircraft that he fitted with one of the new small hobby gyros, gps units, microprocessor and will fly itself quite happily to where its programmed to go. Go have a look at the likes of servo magazine on how to build such a system yourself for a ground vehicle (more my line) You might be amazed at how cheap and good the latest gen of this stuff is. If its this good for hobbyists then its no problem at a professional level


Pray tell me what a statement of fact has to do with faith?
Its just an expression:rolleyes: I mean you are insufficiently educated in the field to fully appreciate how it has advanced in even the last few years so underestimate the power of the new technologies relative to that of a human.



Speaking of out of touch....... Earlier you were arguing that a ground/space based controlled system was not required in favor of automation, but now you're back to RC control with a human in the interface. Maybe you should decide your position before you get further confused.

I meant RC as in hobby model aircraft not literally as in radio controlled.

There are an enormous number of problems that can occur with an aircraft. Flying is not all in keeping blue sky up and brown earth down, there may be system problems to deal with and currently there is no freaking way to automate this. There needs to be a human interface to make decisions. Some problems certainly could be resolved remotely, which means there is a human interface.

Like what? A pilot can't fix anything on a plane, the technology is way beyond an pilots ability to cope with. Yes Pilots still make decisions that save their planes like the "miracle on the Hudson" but the truth is that pilots crash their planes due to human error far more often than teach problem do.



The it to which you refer is remote control, not total automation. I've considered the idea and believe the $$ are better spent on other methods of hijack prevention.

Like what? the TSA has already show to be less than efficient at keeping things off aircraft but in any case 911 changed hijacking forever....crews and passengers are not lightly going to give up control of a plane ever again

Added: I failed to comment on your magic 747, which flew to Sydney and stopped at the end of the runway. Would you please provide more detail such as who/how changed radio frequencies (these are not static). How did the aircraft take-off/stop? How was the auto-pilot engaged? How did the aircraft respond to controller vectors to avoid traffic or weather?

again you misunderstand me. The autopilot supposedly can fly the plane not any RC device. My point is that any autopilot that can do that can be programmed to fly the plane anywhere one likes, the plane is already capable of that so its a minor software and hardware change to make a plane like that fly where its electronics tell it to go and utterly ignore anything the pilots tell it to do. You may not like technology like that but it exists today and will increasingly take more and more command away from humans and we will be the safer for it.

[sheeplesnshills]

[QUOTE=beachnut;5810676]Which sensors make sure the pilots don't do something stupid? LOL, there is nothing in a 757/767 to stop me from flying the aircraft upside down and into the ground at MACH 1. What sensor would stop me?

Nothing. Neither are exactly cutting edge aircraft. The discussion wason the latest gen of fly by wire aircraft where the pilots controls have no mechanical linkage to the flight surfaces.

I can fly a small Cesnna with the old fashion instruments (IFR certified) and fly in the darkest night and cloudies clouds without seeing by hand better than the autopiglet.

How old is your autopliot :)



When did the 757/767 become unstable to need a computer to do the flight controls?? I don't know of any airliner that needs a flight computer like the F-16 does to keep it stable. You would be right for an F-16 and some jets with neutral or divergent stability. I think hand flying can beat the autopilot. I could beat the autopilot and navigation systems unless they have had some major breakthrough in engineering yesterday. I thought it was funny when an Old Navigator said the autopilot coupled to the INS could beat me. I beat the autopilot coupled INS so bad during a flight; it was funny watching him eat his words.


It didn't, we are talking about neither aircraft. Try flying a F117, F22, Typhoon or B2 without the computer :) There is no mech linkage on the next aircraft....the plane its senses what you want it to do through the flight controls and then does it in a programmed approved manner.

I am sure some systems could be or may be as good as pilots are one day, but the 767/757 did not have special super computer systems better than pilots.

Again we are not taliking about 767 or 757...................the 787 or the A380 is a different world.


I recall in many of my recent commercial "sit in the back torture flying" as a passenger across the country where the IDIOT autopilot pushes over to level-off which is 10 times less comfortable than my hand flown power reduction no pushover level-off. I beat the autopilot by a factor of millions in comfort; I hate the idiot pushover junk!!! Must be the AirBus junk.

Dinosaur :)


We are talking about humans being passengers in flight; a pilot has all the skills to be better than most systems unless you have some examples of systems which beat pilots, I have not felt a flight system better than hand flight. But go ahead and list the systems you know have beat pilots at comfort; so far I have flown not a single commercial airline where the aircraft flies better than a human pilot. Enlighten me.

You don't think technology improves over time? The massive increases in computing power and data storage make things that seemed impossible five year ago seem easy now. Go look at the movie "Avatar" for a glimpse of how far that computing power has changed the movie industry.

If certain high performance aircraft and things like the B-2 were set up with actual control surfaces a pilot could move, yes it would be impossible to fly due to instability. Please notify me if any airliners are flying planes that have neutral stability or worse; I think I would rather walk, and I am an engineer with experience in flight control systems.

There is no point in making an airliner unstable but thats utterly irrelevant. If the computer can fly a B2 or a cruise missile its not going to have the slightest problem with a airliner.

When the aircraft stalls, will the autopilot make the recover? If the plane is upset and ends up upside down, will the autopilot right the aircraft? Show me.


Think about it, if a computer can fly an F22 or B2 and a human pilot cannot then why or earth do you imagine that one cannot equally handle far simpler task of a commercial airliner. Indeed in a 787 or an A380 if the computer fails the plane crashes no matter what the pilot does, just as in a 767 if the pilot makes a bad mistake the plane also crashes........its perhaps sad but true that humans err much more often than the technology does and cost much more lives. Thats a trend that will likely continue to the point that any pilot on board is almost purely decorative and no one will be the slightest bit perturbed.

[R.Mackey]

I think you are a bit confused about what sensors are installed and what they do. There is nothing in a fly-by-wire aircraft that prevents ALL stupid inputs to keep one from crashing. The Airbus systems come closest.

Absolutely correct. For instance, the A330 (http://www.airsafe.com/plane-crash/air-france-flight-447-airbus-a330-atlantic-ocean.htm) that went into the Atlantic recently, almost surely due to one faulty sensor... or the 747 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Computer+glitch+may+have+caused+Qantas+plunge:+inv estigator-a01611664695) that had a combined sensor anomaly and latent software defect.

There are an enormous number of problems that can occur with an aircraft. Flying is not all in keeping blue sky up and brown earth down, there may be system problems to deal with and currently there is no freaking way to automate this. There needs to be a human interface to make decisions. Some problems certainly could be resolved remotely, which means there is a human interface.

Also absolutely true. The remotely piloted air fleet has an accident rate about three times that of normal aviation. There's lots of work to be done.

Strange but a friend at a local robotics club has a RC aircraft that he fitted with one of the new small hobby gyros, gps units, microprocessor and will fly itself quite happily to where its programmed to go. Go have a look at the likes of servo magazine on how to build such a system yourself for a ground vehicle (more my line) You might be amazed at how cheap and good the latest gen of this stuff is. If its this good for hobbyists then its no problem at a professional level

It's gotten much better, but it's not really the same thing. Scale plays a big part in it. In small scale, aircraft have an embarassment of lift, control authority, and structural capacity. At large scale, you have slower actuators, sloshing fuel, compressibility, vastly more complicated system in general.

We also don't tend to fly hobby aircraft in thunderstorms or what have you.

Don't let your "common sense" trump actual expert advice. There are significant differences between the systems.

My point is that any autopilot that can do that can be programmed to fly the plane anywhere one likes, the plane is already capable of that so its a minor software and hardware change to make a plane like that fly where its electronics tell it to go and utterly ignore anything the pilots tell it to do. You may not like technology like that but it exists today and will increasingly take more and more command away from humans and we will be the safer for it.

It can be done in theory, if you're willing to violate every FAA requirement there is. It's very difficult to do without leaving signs that a pilot will pick up. It's extremely difficult, maybe impossible, to do without leaving the pilot some kind of last-ditch workaround.

You might want to study the famous Airbus whose control system wouldn't let it land, for instance. There are workarounds, even in a system designed to override pilot behavior. Lots of them.

[Reheat]

again you misunderstand me. The autopilot supposedly can fly the plane not any RC device. My point is that any autopilot that can do that can be programmed to fly the plane anywhere one likes, the plane is already capable of that so its a minor software and hardware change to make a plane like that fly where its electronics tell it to go and utterly ignore anything the pilots tell it to do. You may not like technology like that but it exists today and will increasingly take more and more command away from humans and we will be the safer for it.

Hogwash! You're speaking of distant futuristic systems, not current technology. Of course, RC can fly an aircraft wherever it's programmed to do so. It's the intervening issues that are an obstacle. Without remote control, issues not programmed would be it's undoing.

What keeps flying safe today is the combined efforts of both pilots and controllers working together to avoid problems. Automated systems do not and would not have that ability even in the future to adapt to current circumstances. We're not talking about a train on fixed tracks, we're dealing with an ever changing dynamic 3D world. I, for one of many will not be the guinea pig to develop those type of systems. Your idea of safe and mine have a totally different definition.

Added: The remainder of your dream far removed from reality would not quote. You are way out of your league, so I suggest you quit while you are ahead.

You are in truther land with this BS and you're pissing me off with the veiled insults, so expect appropriate responses if you continue in the same vein.

[Macgyver1968]

Now that's just a damn shame...we are so low on quality troofers...that one of us has to pretend to be one of them..just to discuss a topic. :)

[Edx]

Getting this thread back to the OP a little more specifically...

He also claimed this is the "european version":
http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=NEW_PROJ_TM&ACTION=D&DOC=2&CAT=PROJ&QUERY=1192420148778&RCN=81479

I assume this is nothing like what he is claiming exists? IE. a remote control anti-hijacking device that can be controlled from the ground.

Of course even if this does do that, it was only recently created he still claims this technology already existed in the US for over 30 years lol

[DGM]

Getting this thread back to the OP a little more specifically...

He also claimed this is the "european version":
http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=NEW_PROJ_TM&ACTION=D&DOC=2&CAT=PROJ&QUERY=1192420148778&RCN=81479

I assume this is nothing like what he is claiming exists? IE. a remote control anti-hijacking device that can be controlled from the ground.

Of course even if this does do that, it was only recently created he still claims this technology already existed in the US for over 30 years lol
A question you might ask him is, why is this technology not widely known to the general public? Think about it for a moment. If you were going to implement something like this why keep it a secret? Making its implementation well known would deter most hijackings just from the fact they would know their plan was doomed from the onset.

[sheeplesnshills]

Hogwash! You're speaking of distant futuristic systems, not current technology. Of course, RC can fly an aircraft wherever it's programmed to do so. It's the intervening issues that are an obstacle. Without remote control, issues not programmed would be it's undoing.

What keeps flying safe today is the combined efforts of both pilots and controllers working together to avoid problems. Automated systems do not and would not have that ability even in the future to adapt to current circumstances. We're not talking about a train on fixed tracks, we're dealing with an ever changing dynamic 3D world. I, for one of many will not be the guinea pig to develop those type of systems. Your idea of safe and mine have a totally different definition.

Added: The remainder of your dream far removed from reality would not quote. You are way out of your league, so I suggest you quit while you are ahead.

You are in truther land with this BS and you're pissing me off with the veiled insults, so expect appropriate responses if you continue in the same vein.


Ok enough. the technology to fly an aircraft from a to b without a pilot has existed for 20 plus years, its called a cruise missile. You might want to believe that there has been no improvement in tech since then if you wish.
All I'm saying is that a anti hijack system as proposed by the truthers would not be possible on a Commercial 767 or 757 in 2001 but it would be a simple thing to do today. Should we have pilotless aircraft? should we have such an anti hijack system....I don't know but I think the former will be a reality in my lifetime ie the next 30 years and the block will not be the technology but the publics attitude.

[beachnut]

Ok enough. the technology to fly an aircraft from a to b without a pilot has existed for 20 plus years, ...
The technology to fly an aircraft from a to b without a pilot has existed for more than 70 years.

[apathoid]

Ok enough. the technology to fly an aircraft from a to b without a pilot has existed for 20 plus years, its called a cruise missile. You might want to believe that there has been no improvement in tech since then if you wish.
All I'm saying is that a anti hijack system as proposed by the truthers would not be possible on a Commercial 767 or 757 in 2001 but it would be a simple thing to do today. Should we have pilotless aircraft? should we have such an anti hijack system....I don't know but I think the former will be a reality in my lifetime ie the next 30 years and the block will not be the technology but the publics attitude.


I have to side with the others as well, sheelplesnshills. Pilots always have, and always will have the ultimate control authority, even on the very newest Airbus and Boeing products.

Here is a short description of the various flight control laws of the Airbus. Any sort of remote takeover attempt(or primary control system failures) can be thwarted by flying the aircraft in Direct Law, which bypasses the computers(basically, the control input LVDT signal is sent directly the the control surface acuators).

Airbus Control Laws (http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm)

No one here has argued against the possibility of converting a FBW aircraft into a remote control aircraft. However, doing so in a manner in which the pilots can't intervene is what is extremely difficult. Modern airliners are very redundant machines; it takes more than just installing a rogue program in a flight control computer to jeopardize an aircraft's safety. There are control laws which don't even need AC power, let alone computers. USAir 1549 was completely controllable after both engines flamed out(both sources of AC power) and before the APU was started.

If you wanted 911 Truth-style remote control airliners, the best way to do it, without a massive coverup, is to build your own remote control jets from the ground up...but then how will you get the passengers on?

again you misunderstand me. The autopilot supposedly can fly the plane not any RC device. My point is that any autopilot that can do that can be programmed to fly the plane anywhere one likes, the plane is already capable of that so its a minor software and hardware change to make a plane like that fly where its electronics tell it to go and utterly ignore anything the pilots tell it to do. You may not like technology like that but it exists today and will increasingly take more and more command away from humans and we will be the safer for it.

How will your software react to opened circuit breakers?

[sheeplesnshills]

I have to side with the others as well, sheelplesnshills. Pilots always have, and always will have the ultimate control authority, even on the very newest Airbus and Boeing products.

Here is a short description of the various flight control laws of the Airbus. Any sort of remote takeover attempt(or primary control system failures) can be thwarted by flying the aircraft in Direct Law, which bypasses the computers(basically, the control input LVDT signal is sent directly the the control surface acuators).

Airbus Control Laws (http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm)

Interesting document. I wonder how the Direct law switchover is implemented. Anyone want to be onboard in "Mechanical backup mode"?
Interesting to note that neither the rudder nor the elevator trim are true fly by wire but the control they would offer would be a big step up from the engines only control of the DC10 at Sioux city.
I concede that it would be very difficult if not impossible for just someone with access to the flight control software to take over an aircraft.



If you wanted 911 Truth-style remote control airliners, the best way to do it, without a massive coverup, is to build your own remote control jets from the ground up...but then how will you get the passengers on?



Now thats just not true.nonsense.....you just showed yourself that its just three "connections" at need to be severed, the Direct law switchover, the rudder mech linkage and the rudder mech linkage.(make that 6 to allow for any built in redundancy. These could be severed by timed devices in places that the crew had no access to repair them even if the they had the ability and in places where a small device would not be likely to be spotted.
Just doubled at least the size of the conspiracy as unless the software geek also services commercial jets its up to at least 2 people probably three as the guy that services the mech linkages is likely not the same guy that does electrical work....

Sure the pilots could shut down all power but that would simply crash the plane as they could have no control. Sure this would require a level of sophistication way beyond current terrorists but its not impossible and well within the plausibility required for a Hollywood movie which is all I suggested was possible.

As regards pilotless aircraft, that already happening and with human causing more crashes than technology failures, then the increase in automation will continue until the point where the pilot is just along for the ride even on commercial airliners..........then one bored pilot, messing around, will crash a plane and that will be the spur to completely pilot free airliners. That tech exist today, its the humans that need to catch up with that reality as many post here seem to prove.

but I guess we need to agree to disagree on that point. Time will tell which of us is right :)

[Reheat]

As regards pilotless aircraft, that already happening and with human causing more crashes than technology failures, then the increase in automation will continue until the point where the pilot is just along for the ride even on commercial airliners..........then one bored pilot, messing around, will crash a plane and that will be the spur to completely pilot free airliners. That tech exist today, its the humans that need to catch up with that reality as many post here seem to prove.

Is this your "expert" opinion or do you have support for such declarations? You have proven absolutely nothing....zilch.....nada. All I've seen are references to either TV programs, movies or perhaps your imagination.

[apathoid]

Interesting document. I wonder how the Direct law switchover is implemented. Anyone want to be onboard in "Mechanical backup mode"?

Interesting to note that neither the rudder nor the elevator trim are true fly by wire but the control they would offer would be a big step up from the engines only control of the DC10 at Sioux city.

I concede that it would be very difficult if not impossible for just someone with access to the flight control software to take over an aircraft.

Good, that's an improvement in your understanding, but I still think you have a misunderstanding about the general idea of a fly-by-wire system, as well as the role of software in the system. You need to have a good idea about how the control surfaces actually move in different modes(autopilot, normal law, alternate law, direct law, mechanical backup) and what each mode needs to operate(hydraulics, AC power, computer conditioning, autopilot MCP inputs, FMC data, direct sidestick LVDT signals, flightdeck switchology); as well as how all the modes systematically degrade with loss of LRU redundancy, electrical power or hydraulic power.

You also need a good understanding of of peripheral systems like IRS, ADIRU's(air data/IRS), FMS, EICAS/ECAM and how those systems all crosstalk and interface with autopilot and flight control computers and how they ultimately affect primary or backup flight control capability. You should also be aware of how the autopilot or primary flight control is affected by loss of AC power and what will and wont run with DC Standby Power of the systems I mentioned above. Ditto for loss of Hydraulic Power. I think that unless you have actual experience flying or working on these jets or been to in-depth type specific schools, one cannot fully appreciate a modern airliner FBW system by using google.



I'll show how the FBW 777 is controlled in Normal Law, Autopilot, and Direct Law.

Normal Law(Autopilot Off): Control Inputs -> Primary Flight Computers(*which add protections and condition the inputs) -> Acuator Control Electronics(which convert those inputs into error signals for the hydraulic actuators) -> Hydraulic PCA's -> Mechanical Linkage -> Control Surface

* it should be said that the control software in this mode is only working to keep the aircraft within its flight envelope. The software is not generating steering commands.

This mode needs AC Power.

Normal Law(Autopilot On) Autopilot MCP inputs/FMC flight plan data -> Primary Flight Computers(which add protections and condition the inputs) ->*Autopilot Computers(FCCs) -> Autopilot Servos -> Mechanical Linkage -> Control Surface

* Autoflight Computers do generate steering commands, but the command path to the control surface is completely different than with Autopilot disengaged, using independent servos and separate linkage than the PCAs and their associated linkage. This is for redundancy.

This mode needs AC power.

Direct Law: Control Inputs -> *Acuator Control Electronics(which convert those inputs into error signals for the hydraulic actuators) -> Hydraulic PCA's -> Mechanical Linkage -> Control Surface

*ACEs aren't software driven LRU's. They simply take the LVDT signal and amplify it for the PCAs.

This mode will run off Standby DC power.




You've been saying that a simple line of code and small hardware change can takeover an airliner and make the pilots spectators. What did you say you are using to control the airplane? The FBW computers(Primary Flight Computers) don't have the capbility to generate steering commands, so you are using the autopilot. Have you any idea how easily the pilots can disconnect it and/or manipulate it?



Now thats just not true.nonsense.....you just showed yourself that its just three "connections" at(sic) need to be severed, the Direct law switchover, the rudder mech linkage and the rudder mech linkage. (make that 6 to allow for any built in redundancy. These could be severed by timed devices in places that the crew had no access to repair them even if the they had the ability and in places where a small device would not be likely to be spotted.

Connections? Boy, you sure did make that sound easy!

Just doubled at least the size of the conspiracy as unless the software geek also services commercial jets its up to at least 2 people probably three as the guy that services the mech linkages is likely not the same guy that does electrical work....

First off, what makes you think that you you can disable the mechanical linkage without consequences? And what makes you think you just take out the Direct Law control option? As if its a line a code or a box? What exactly are you taking out? The sidestick/control column? Wiring? The actuator? Direct Law uses the same LRUs and wiring that Normal Law does, with the exception of the Primary Flight Computer.

Sure the pilots could shut down all power but that would simply crash the plane as they could have no control. Sure this would require a level of sophistication way beyond current terrorists but its not impossible and well within the plausibility required for a Hollywood movie which is all I suggested was possible.

What makes you think you can't fly a FBW airplane without electrical power? I'll draw your attention to US Air 1549 and Air Transat 236, both of which glided to a safe outcome. A Battery(a source of emergency power for essential instruments and appliances) and a Ram Air Turbine(an emergency source of hydraulics) can work wonders in such situations.

However, all I need to do to defeat your system is pull the autopilot FCC power circuit breakers as well as the FBW PFC breakers. Then, I'm in Direct Law(which you cant just take out of the loop without serious consequences to other control regimes or without faulting the Central Warning System/EICAS/ECAM) and I have complete control of the airplane.

Again, your ideas are fantasy and they are based on a flawed understanding of what Fly-By-Wire is, what it does, and how it works. Any intrusive system you dream up can be deafeted easily from the cockpit. The worst case scenario is a crash due to total loss of control. Might as well just plant a bomb if that's your goal.

[tsig]

Now thats just not true.nonsense.....you just showed yourself that its just three "connections" at need to be severed, the Direct law switchover, the rudder mech linkage and the rudder mech linkage.(make that 6 to allow for any built in redundancy. These could be severed by timed devices in places that the crew had no access to repair them even if the they had the ability and in places where a small device would not be likely to be spotted.
Just doubled at least the size of the conspiracy as unless the software geek also services commercial jets its up to at least 2 people probably three as the guy that services the mech linkages is likely not the same guy that does electrical work....

Sure the pilots could shut down all power but that would simply crash the plane as they could have no control. Sure this would require a level of sophistication way beyond current terrorists but its not impossible and well within the plausibility required for a Hollywood movie which is all I suggested was possible.

As regards pilotless aircraft, that already happening and with human causing more crashes than technology failures, then the increase in automation will continue until the point where the pilot is just along for the ride even on commercial airliners..........then one bored pilot, messing around, will crash a plane and that will be the spur to completely pilot free airliners. That tech exist today, its the humans that need to catch up with that reality as many post here seem to prove.

but I guess we need to agree to disagree on that point. Time will tell which of us is right :)

Did you notice this:

"In case of a complete loss of electrical flight control signals, the aircraft can be temporarily controlled by mechanical mode.


* Pitch control is achieved through the horizontal stabilizer by using the manual trim wheel.
* Lateral control is accomplished using the rudder pedals.
* Both controls require hydraulic power.
* A red MAN PITCH TRIM ONLY warning appears on the PFD."

So no you can't intercept the signals and take over the aircraft.

[Edx]

A question you might ask him is, why is this technology not widely known to the general public? Think about it for a moment. If you were going to implement something like this why keep it a secret? Making its implementation well known would deter most hijackings just from the fact they would know their plan was doomed from the onset.

Oh I don't care what he thinks.

He says its not a secret and that its wildly known but when asked for evidence of this he says he and his friends know its true. lol

But really he provided that one link (http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=NEW_PROJ_TM&ACTION=D&DOC=2&CAT=PROJ&QUERY=1192420148778&RCN=81479) so wondered what that was about.

[funk de fino]

These could be severed by timed devices in places that the crew had no access to repair them even if the they had the ability and in places where a small device would not be likely to be spotted.
Just doubled at least the size of the conspiracy as unless the software geek also services commercial jets its up to at least 2 people probably three as the guy that services the mech linkages is likely not the same guy that does electrical work....

You really did not post that did you?

As an ex aircraft tech I can tell you you are wasting time on this one. The day pilots give up all control to software or PC will be the day hell freezes over. Their egos will never allow it.............

[beachnut]

You don't think technology improves over time? ... LOL, I am sitting on one of three computers I built in the last year. Silent, very quiet computers with over 10 terabytes of disk storage between the three, what do you mean implying I don't think technology improves?

Auto-land systems now use advanced techniques pilots use to land in crosswinds, when will the systems beat pilots? NEVER, why because the limiting factor is the control surfaces. Can a computer flight system fly as good as some pilots, yes. Can flight systems fly airliner based maneuvers better than pilots can? No, I can't think of any maneuvers a computer autopilot does that a pilot can't do; can you? What am I missing?

Will pilots be replaced with computers? Will I fly on a plane with no pilot? Maybe pilots will be replaced, I will not fly on them in the near future since I am a pilot and an engineer. I have a skeptical understanding why a system without a pilot can fail and fail big time. I see no computer replacing pilots in the near future while I am alive that I would want to fly as a passenger. Have you watched your professor derived the equations of motion for flight? Have you had the classes where it is done? I have had the class; have you?

I like drive I on the downstairs computer.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1DrivesLRmAV.jpg
Upstairs.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1DrivesBedRmAV.jpg
I have over 10 active computers in my house, over 5 were built by me from scratch, over 5 were modified and upgrade by me to be quiet, store more data, and run faster. Do I think tech improves!!!! They lost to GA!!!!

Do I think tech improves? I can recored 8 TV shows on 4 computers at the same time (4,2,1,1) and watch so many college football games on Saturday, I run out of beer. Tech? Got Beer, I got tech!

You don't think technology improves over time? ... Guess not, I worked at AFWAL on advanced cockpit concepts and helped in other projects, but did technology improve??? lol

How many planes have you flown? How many autopilots have you worked with, flown, or designed? I find myself qualified to comment on the poor quality of level-off found in some of todays top of the line commercial aircraft, and have the experience in being trained in flight control systems, using flight control systems, and flying flight control systems in different aircraft. What is your experience?

Avatar? How many years did it take to render Avatar? I expect full resolution Bogart (computer model of Bogart in real time making new movies) Movie in real time; is that far out enough to join your computers can do everything better club?



On 911 it would take billions of dollars to make four 757/767 aircraft that were remote controlled and looked like stock 757/767 airliners.
It would be hard to switch the stock 757/767 airliner with the modified airliner. Even harder to block the pilots from talking to the ground about the plane that flies where they don't want it to go. (OMG, the dolts of 911 truth will say the cell phones are blocked by jammers; wait cell phones don't work for truthers but did for me in flight; pilots can fly and talk at the same time)
How do the dolt truthers explain all the idiotic remote control junk? What a bunch of idiots, 911 truth.

Those who spew the remote control aircraft in the 911 scenario are some of the dumbest truthers alive.

What was the topic?

[gumboot]

still Devils advocate :)

Why bother controlling from the ground? The "fly to" directions could all be stored in a few lines of code in the computer.


Because hijackings aren't going to occur within a restricted set of parameters. Just determining which particular airfield to divert to is going to be based on a vast array of parameters - most of which the autopilot is not going to have access to.

In short, ultimately a human on the ground has to decide where the plane should be piloted to. And the ground have to have some way of telling the autopilot where that is.



Then the plane crashes. remember there is no way for the pilots to fly the plane unless the computer wants them to.

Disabling the autopilot would not affect the flight control computer. It would not crash.



Agreed this was not remotely possible on 911. My point is that it would be much easier to do now on the latest generation of jets than it was in the last. It could likely all be done in software....good news is that its likely very hard to mess with that software.....bad news is that with memory so cheap code no longer needs to be very neat and precise so there would be lots of places where one could hide the code required.


Computers are still ultimately physical machines, and physical machines can be interfered with.


Its not a plausible theory for hijackers of the 911 kind as its so much easier to get a few nutcases looking for their 72 virgins than it is to get an expert software person working in exactly the right place to modify the code and for it not to be discovered....
but its plausible enough for a movie :)

Tidal waves breaking over the Himalayas are apparently plausible enough for a movie...:rolleyes:


uh remember the flight crew are Balsamos......would you trust him to rewire anything? oh and the power to the jammer is the same line to the computer.........I thought of everything Mr Bond...... Muha ha ha!

Except pilots aren't, of course. They're smart. You've also got a plane load of passengers who can help you out. The odds of someone knowing something about computers? Pretty good.

Worst case scenario, the pilots will just blow everything and let the plane crash - it's still better than letting the aircraft be flown into a building full of people.

[Poison Oak]

1. There have been zero successful hijackings in the US.


I've always understood that the Dan Cooper skyjacking back in '71 is the only unsolved skykjack in the US.

[sheeplesnshills]

Is this your "expert" opinion or do you have support for such declarations? You have proven absolutely nothing....zilch.....nada. All I've seen are references to either TV programs, movies or perhaps your imagination.

Why so combative?.....I'm not trying to prove anything. I work for the biggest computer corp in the world, designing the things and I'm into hobby electronics and robotics. I've seem automonous HOBBY ground vehicles and aircraft do things that were impossible only a few years back. Tasks that make flying a plane look easy. If hobbyists can do it for only a few hundred bucks then the avionics business is hardly going to have a problem.

You may choose to think that the tech is not ready to do pilotless aircraft but I think you are mistaken.

[sheeplesnshills]

Again, your ideas are fantasy and they are based on a flawed understanding of what Fly-By-Wire is, what it does, and how it works. Any intrusive system you dream up can be deafeted easily from the cockpit. The worst case scenario is a crash due to total loss of control. Might as well just plant a bomb if that's your goal.

OK I give up! I said that the idea was plausible enough for a movie thats all!

You still seem to miss the point that modern electronics can already fly an aircraft from take of to landing without a pilot and are likely to increasingly do so in the future, first in the military (where the ability to make higher G turns than a pilot can handle is an obviously useful ability, plus you don't lose a pilot when the plane gets shot down) and then in commercial aircraft where they will be, sooner or later, be simply safer than letting a human do the job.

[Reheat]

Why so combative?.....I'm not trying to prove anything. I work for the biggest computer corp in the world, designing the things and I'm into hobby electronics and robotics. I've seem automonous HOBBY ground vehicles and aircraft do things that were impossible only a few years back. Tasks that make flying a plane look easy. If hobbyists can do it for only a few hundred bucks then the avionics business is hardly going to have a problem.

You may choose to think that the tech is not ready to do pilotless aircraft but I think you are mistaken.

That's just what I thought. You know virtually nothing at all about flying and it shows. As I said earlier, you have an over simplistic view and are simply stating conclusions without proof.....the same as typical twoofers.

I thought for awhile that you were simply being a devil's advocate for arguments sake, but it soon became obvious that you really believe your declarations and assertions.

This is a skeptics forum and you need to support your arguments especially when you argue with long time credible members here, many of whom, are experts in their field .......... real airplanes and avionics

You have provided no proof of the many conclusions you've made. You have avoided legitimate questions and even when shown to be wrong you've asserted that others are "out of the loop". That is typical twoofer behavior personified. ......and you ask why I'm being combative. :rolleyes:

[funk de fino]

This is not Robot Wars..............

[Edx]

Getting this thread back to the OP a little more specifically...

He also claimed this is the "european version":
http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=NEW_PROJ_TM&ACTION=D&DOC=2&CAT=PROJ&QUERY=1192420148778&RCN=81479

I assume this is nothing like what he is claiming exists? IE. a remote control anti-hijacking device that can be controlled from the ground.

Of course even if this does do that, it was only recently created he still claims this technology already existed in the US for over 30 years lol


BUMP.

To those saying its impossible, what sort of system is this one?

[Seymour Butz]

......and watch so many college football games on Saturday, I run out of beer. Tech? Got Beer, I got tech!



I want to be your bestest friend.......

[tsig]

OK I give up! I said that the idea was plausible enough for a movie thats all!

You still seem to miss the point that modern electronics can already fly an aircraft from take of to landing without a pilot and are likely to increasingly do so in the future, first in the military (where the ability to make higher G turns than a pilot can handle is an obviously useful ability, plus you don't lose a pilot when the plane gets shot down) and then in commercial aircraft where they will be, sooner or later, be simply safer than letting a human do the job.

You've mentioned pilot error causing crashes several times. Do you have any reason to think that a fully automated system would not have any failures?

[DGM]

BUMP.

To those saying its impossible, what sort of system is this one?
This link only addresses one part of a system.

As a continuation of the SAFEE works on FRF, SOFIA will design architectures for integrating the FRF system into several typologies of avionics for civil transport aircraft; develop one of this architectures; validate the FRF concept and the means to integrate it in the current ATM; assess the safety of FRF at aircraft and operational (ATC) levels. Therefore FRF will take the control of the aircraft and will manage to safely return it to ground upon a security emergency (e.g. hijacking), disabling the control and command of the aircraft from the cockpit. It will also execute a new flight plan towards a secure airport and land the aircraft at it. The flight plan can be generated in ground or in a military airplane and transmitted to the aircraft, or created autonomously at the own FRF system.

So, according to his link, part of the system (a possible way to integrate technologies) was completed in 2009. There is no mention of actual implementation into aircraft. This technology is years away (from even possible flight test) if this is as far as they have got.

[tsig]

BUMP.

To those saying its impossible, what sort of system is this one?

This kind:

"Security of Aircraft in the Future European Environment

[Reheat]

I recall a news article from some months ago about a Tornado remotely controlling an airliner type aircraft, both in flight. Few details were provided and I can not find the article now.

With extensive modifications I have no doubt it is feasible to remotely control an aircraft. The USAF was doing it in 1968 with a modified Beechcraft Debonaire known as the QU-22B.
Here's a discussion......

http://www.aero-web.org/specs/beechcrf/qu-22b.htm

I have considerable doubt regarding automated control with no human in the loop for anything other than limited periods in some phases of flight. I have considerable doubt regarding the safe operation of such a system. I have even more doubts regarding the pilot's inability to disable such a system be those pilot's a regular crew of a terrorists hijackers No evidence that this is possible has been provided in this thread, just bold assertions.

[apathoid]

OK I give up! I said that the idea was plausible enough for a movie thats all!

You still seem to miss the point that modern electronics can already fly an aircraft from take of to landing without a pilot and are likely to increasingly do so in the future, first in the military (where the ability to make higher G turns than a pilot can handle is an obviously useful ability, plus you don't lose a pilot when the plane gets shot down) and then in commercial aircraft where they will be, sooner or later, be simply safer than letting a human do the job.

As to the bolded, what modern airliner can perform an automated take-off? And where did I say I wasn't aware of what autopilot does? All I've been trying to do is to get you to understand that things aren't as simple as you are making them out. Pilots have ultimate control in every type of commercial airliner flying today. I've tried to help you understand that a few lines of software code won't accomplish a damn thing on an aircraft that can fly just fine without that computer running in the first place; a point you have not seemed to grasp yet.

I'm not a huge fan of the appeal to authority, but this is something you should just trust us on. Speaking for myself, as someone who has been in the avionics industry for 11 years, I'm perfectly aware of what's out there - and I'm aware of what the flight control and autopilot capabilities are currently on every aircraft that has rolled out of Toulouse, Everett, and Renton. I know this from experience, as my employer operates nearly every current Boeing and Airbus aircraft. No commercial airliner can be successfully remotely controlled in a such a way that the pilots can not retake the aircraft. I could probably list 50 ways to defeat anything you posit, none of which can be overridden with software.

As to the highlighted part, maybe that will happen one day, maybe it won't, but if it does - that'll be the day I stop flying commercially....even for free like I do now. ;)

[apathoid]

BUMP.

To those saying its impossible, what sort of system is this one?

I searched and I haven't seen a description of how this system is going to accomplish what it says it can. Very simply, this system has zero chance to be effective against someone who knows what they are doing in the cockpit. Any such system would be way too intrusive and most importantly, too expensive for a total redesign of the autopilot and flight control systems on every aircraft flying today, which differ greatly from aircraft to aircraft. That just won't happen in the current economic climate. The proposed undertaking would be the biggest and most expensive Airworthiness Directive in the history of aviation, and such a system would seem to create more problems than it fixes. In terms of job security, I hope it happens in the US. It will create hundreds to thousands of jobs and will also be a steady source of overtime $$ ! But it wouldn't make me feel any safer.

In theory, the goal of system is accomplished very easily. The most likely way this system will work is use existing radio capability for data transfer(ACARS via SATCOM or VHF radio) and aircraft reconfiguration commands, new ARINC hi-speed busses to interface the system with existing systems( ie SOFIA Processor to Autoflight Computer), existing autopilot computers to actually fly the predetermined path to the airport, all the way to autoland( which planes already do every day, as sheeplesandshills has pointed out). The flaps and landing gear would need to deploy as necessary(this is something autopilot doesn't perform currently); not a huge undertaking since flaps already automatically retract for load alleviation. The FMC would store and update the flight plan as it does now.

So, the only thing left is to safeguard the system somehow from cockpit intervention. That's the hard part, and I can't stress how difficult that would be, especially with mechanical jets(like the 757/767) - and that will be the issue that kills this proposal. Its simply not feasible, unless you have all cockpit switches, circuit breakers, and existing components controlled via software. That simply won't happen, as it would take a complete avionic redesign for most aircraft currently flying.

But even if there's an "EASY" button that this threads aviation experts have overlooked, this proposal will certainly die at the hands of the pilot unions.

[Reheat]

As to the bolded, what modern airliner can perform an automated take-off?

It has been done via remote control, but I doubt it has ever been even attempted automatically without a human in the loop. The take-off is a major obstacle, as each airport would need some type of guidance system. The back course localizer is not accurate enough to be safe. V-Speeds could be programmed, but decisions involve judgment and until artificial intelligence is well developed there will need to be a well trained/experienced human in the loop. I haven't seen a computer yet that could exercise judgment equal to a qualified pilot. I doubt that it's possible to program all of the variables into current computer systems for the foreseeable future, maybe never.

Our ace geek addressed automated military combat aircraft, but only mentioned one or two issues. Not addressed was the shoot/no shoot concept and the ability to recall an automated vehicle. How is a freakin' computer going to recognize the good guy versus the bad guy? It's exceedingly difficult no matter how it's done and mistakes are made even with the best qualified people available today. I can not conceive of a system that would even be worthy of consideration.

Back to Airline travel......

The current system is based on an air/ground cooperative interface to deal with some of the variables present in keeping the operation as safe as humanly possible. This would have to change dramatically and would be enormously expensive. I certainly won't ever trust a freakin' computer program operating autonomously to keep me from impacting mother earth and I know the flying public won't either. Neither will I ever trust a nerd with a joystick in his hand sitting in his air conditioned facility making decisions that affect the life of me and mine. Perhaps it's just me, but I certainly will never trust someone who is not milliseconds in front of me to make decisions that might take my life. I suspect most others feel the same way.....

[sheeplesnshills]

You've mentioned pilot error causing crashes several times. Do you have any reason to think that a fully automated system would not have any failures?

Any failure? No. less failures? absolutely.

http://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/HumanErrorVsTerrorism.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Pilot_error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_error)

Of course these figures do not take into account times where having a pilot on board prevented a mechanical or electrical failure from resulting in a crash (Sioux City for example) but since we have not installed autopilots capable of that yet its a moot point. We have no way of telling whether a pilot would perform better than an autopilot in anything other than a almost complete systems failure. We do know however that its the computers make planes like the F117 and B2 flyable at all so there is no reason to assume that they could not perhaps even out perform a human pilot even in cases like Sioux City where only engine power was available for control.

[sheeplesnshills]

=apathoid;5815821]As to the bolded, what modern airliner can perform an automated take-off?

No airliner that I know of but I did not say airliner, I said aircraft.
Are you saying that not possible???? If you really believe that you are completely out of the loop of modern electronics as this is easy to implement even for a hobby aircraft.

And where did I say I wasn't aware of what autopilot does? All I've been trying to do is to get you to understand that things aren't as simple as you are making them out. Pilots have ultimate control in every type of commercial airliner flying today. I've tried to help you understand that a few lines of software code won't accomplish a damn thing on an aircraft that can fly just fine without that computer running in the first place; a point you have not seemed to grasp yet.

I've already conceded that point for existing aircraft.

I'm not a huge fan of the appeal to authority, but this is something you should just trust us on. Speaking for myself, as someone who has been in the avionics industry for 11 years, I'm perfectly aware of what's out there - and I'm aware of what the flight control and autopilot capabilities are currently on every aircraft that has rolled out of Toulouse, Everett, and Renton. I know this from experience, as my employer operates nearly every current Boeing and Airbus aircraft. No commercial airliner can be successfully remotely controlled in a such a way that the pilots can not retake the aircraft. I could probably list 50 ways to defeat anything you posit, none of which can be overridden with software.

Thats because they are design to have a pilot and public confidence is such that pilotless aircraft is a non starter for now. However do you deny that for the vast majority of any flight the pilot is not in any meaningful way flying the plane? At the moment its take off and landings that need a pilot and even landing has been semi automated for years to with "autoland"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

As to the highlighted part, maybe that will happen one day, maybe it won't, but if it does - that'll be the day I stop flying commercially....even for free like I do now. ;)

That explains a lot about your comments. You have a psychological block to the concept of pilotless aircraft based on emotion not facts. When I fly I like to go with the data that gives me the best chance to get to where I want to go. When the data says thats pilotless aircraft, then I'll be quite happy to get on it. There are thousands and thousands of parts on a plane that we rely on every time we fly, a pilotless control system would just be one more part.

[I Ratant]

The brother of my brother's roommate in college was a Navy flier who routinely guided drone targets on anti-aircraft missions while flying his own plane at Wallops Island, Va.
The "NOLO" targets the US Navy uses from Point Mugu have a telemetry link to other airplanes which direct the flights.
Many of these planes recover to Point Mugu if they are not destroyed in the testing.
I believe the largest such were B-47s used to develop the missiles the Lockheed YF-12 was to carry, which became the Phoenix missile on the F-14.
The 14 such survived for some period, but the inevitable hits and crashes took out 12 of them.

[I Ratant]

Other than engine start and shut down, some of our operational planes fly a completely hands-free flight, the pilot serving as a systems monitor.
They hate that ! :)
The flight procedure box is plugged into the airplane at startup, and removed after flight.
Everything from taxiing from the start up position to the runway to the mission itself and return is pre-programmed.
One of the first such flights was done with a Lockheed Tristar, with the autopilot set to take the plane from Palmdale to Dulles, hands off, other than the pilot selecting the first autopilot mode, vertical speed hold, to get the plane off at Palmdale.
The 3-D Nav system was developed from this early start.
ATC appreciated the system, as it would put the airplane exactly where scheduled, when scheduled, easing their controlling requirements.

[Reheat]

Any failure? No. less failures? absolutely.

That's an assumption and merely your opinion.


http://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/HumanErrorVsTerrorism.htm

Just as I thought..... What type of aviation accidents do those numbers include? Everything under FAA jurisdiction NOT including military aviation. The vast majority of all accidents occur in GENERAL AVIATION! This includes Joe Smoe flying his family or friends cross country and running out of fuel. They include M.D. flown Bonanzas flying in Weather for which the part-time Dr. pilot is not qualified. They are not exclusively Commercial aviation with an ATP rated pilot. In fact, if you'll do a little more research you'll find that accidents in Commercial aviation are quite rare. Sure, they get headline publicity, but do not occur often at all, particularly considering the numbers and miles flown.


Of course these figures do not take into account times where having a pilot on board prevented a mechanical or electrical failure from resulting in a crash (Sioux City for example) but since we have not installed autopilots capable of that yet its a moot point.

It would be interesting how you're going to program an auto pilot to find and land on the Hudson River after total engine failure! :p

No airliner that I know of but I did not say airliner, I said aircraft.
Are you saying that not possible???? If you really believe that you are completely out of the loop of modern electronics as this is easy to implement even for a hobby aircraft.

:D Hobby Aircraft? :D


You have a psychological block to the concept of pilotless aircraft based on emotion not facts. When I fly I like to go with the data that gives me the best chance to get to where I want to go. When the data says thats pilotless aircraft, then I'll be quite happy to get on it. There are thousands and thousands of parts on a plane that we rely on every time we fly, a pilotless control system would just be one more part.

Let us know when you have 50 years of data to prove it's as safe as Commercial Aviation is today! Um....K

[apathoid]

sheeplesnshills, I'm not in as much disagreement with you as you may be getting from posts. My comments have been limited to current transport category aircraft and current capability in said aircraft; not my opinions of what's technologically feasible or what to expect in a theoretical future world of aviation. I'm talking about how today's airliners would fare, should a 9/11 Truther-style E-hijacking be attempted. My answer is they are impervious from such an attempt. Future aircraft ? I can't comment because they aren't around yet.

No airliner that I know of but I did not say airliner, I said aircraft.


Fair enough.

Are you saying that not possible???? If you really believe that you are completely out of the loop of modern electronics as this is easy to implement even for a hobby aircraft.First off, lets stick with full scale aircraft! Of course it can be done; the ability has been there for the last three decades or more. But how many transport category aircraft(either military or civilian) are certified to do it today? Is there one? I have to admit I can't think of a really good reason that this is the case, but it's probably the things I can't think of that are keeping this potential feature from being used.



Thats because they are design to have a pilot and public confidence is such that pilotless aircraft is a non starter for now. However do you deny that for the vast majority of any flight the pilot is not in any meaningful way flying the plane? At the moment its take off and landings that need a pilot and even landing has been semi automated for years to with "autoland"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutolandI wouldn't go that far. When the plane is in cruise, its pretty quiet, but below 10,000 ft in busy airspace, the pilots are damn busy. I've been in the jumpseat for a number of maintenance flights and it can get scary hectic.

As to how much your average airline flight is on autopilot...well I'd say it depends on airline procedure and the individual pilots preferences. Sure the airplane can fly itself for 99% of the flight, but I'd bet that most airline pilots handfly below 10,000 ft. I can always tell when the plane is doing an automatic approach(cablecar effect, relatively contsant engine settings) and when its handflown(rollercoaster ride and engines alternating between whining and quiet) and 95% of the time, it's the latter.

From my maintenance experience, aircraft are required to autoland once a month to remain certified. And unless the weather is 0/0 at some time during the month, thats usually the only time an autoland is done. I've seen countless OMI's(Outstanding Maintenance Items) to re-certify an aircraft for autoland status because no autolands were done that particular month.

Today's airliners have autoland capability, not because we don't trust pilots to land, or because it's safer, but because ithe aircraft is now able to land in zero visibility. That's the only reason.

That explains a lot about your comments. You have a psychological block to the concept of pilotless aircraft based on emotion not facts. When I fly I like to go with the data that gives me the best chance to get to where I want to go. When the data says thats pilotless aircraft, then I'll be quite happy to get on it. There are thousands and thousands of parts on a plane that we rely on every time we fly, a pilotless control system would just be one more part.No, it's because I've seen some scary things in my years in the industry when good electronics turn bad. I've seen what some really questionable maintenance practices with EMI seperation and lack of proper sheilding in wire bundles can do. I've seen what was left when a dog got loose in the cargo hold and proceeded to chew on aircraft wiring. I've seen what a small electrical fire could take out(I still don't know why Boeing puts all the IRUs and Autopilot Computers right next to each other, I digress).

When things are a-ok, I'm fine with a computer in control. When the (stuff) hits the fan, I want a person making the decisions. ETA: What Re-heat said about "the miracle on the Hudson".

[R.Mackey]

(I still don't know why Boeing puts all the IRUs and Autopilot Computers right next to each other, I digress).

Lighter cable harness, and easier test access. There's no requirement for resistance to common-geometry failure. There is some current research looking into diagnosis and fault containment that works on geometric grounds.

The lone exception to that doctrine I know is the Space Shuttle, which has quad-redundant flight computers, but it also has a fifth, warm-spare flight computer, that is made by a totally different manufacturer. This unique flight computer has to be developed, maintained, and updated in complete isolation from the mains. It's ghastly expensive... and it has never been used in flight, not for a single second.

[I Ratant]

...

Today's airliners have autoland capability, not because we don't trust pilots to land, or because it's safer, but because ithe aircraft is now able to land in zero visibility. That's the only reason.

...
.
During the L-1011 certification program, the planes involved had to accumulate well over a thousand automatic landings. We flew all over the west to try the airfields with Cat 3 systems.
During one of the flights, my boss... I worked in the autopilot group then, said to the PIC Art Peterson, "Ya know, I'd sure like to land this thing."
Art responded somewhat testily...... "So would I!".
The system actually needed to be degraded in capability to be reliable.
The flare at touchdown sometimes resulted in the plane continuing to fly at the noseup attitude if the squat switches in the main landing gear weren't "made". This required a more firm landing to ensure the switches operated.
A good pilot could make a much better landing than the automatic system, just sliding it onto the runway, which always impressed me, as the landing gear was 100 feet behind and 50 below the cockpit in the landing attitude.

[sheeplesnshills]

[QUOTE=Reheat;5819645]That's an assumption and merely your opinion.

Ok its my opinion that technology can be made to be more reliable than humans :)


Just as I thought..... What type of aviation accidents do those numbers include? Everything under FAA jurisdiction NOT including military aviation. The vast majority of all accidents occur in GENERAL AVIATION! This includes Joe Smoe flying his family or friends cross country and running out of fuel. They include M.D. flown Bonanzas flying in Weather for which the part-time Dr. pilot is not qualified. They are not exclusively Commercial aviation with an ATP rated pilot. In fact, if you'll do a little more research you'll find that accidents in Commercial aviation are quite rare. Sure, they get headline publicity, but do not occur often at all, particularly considering the numbers and miles flown.


So you think the current level of accidents in airliners is good enough? How can it be further reduced? Certainly better pilot training and selection would help but humans have a bad habit of being human and doing dumb things. A previous post shows that fully automated flight are already taking place with the poor pilot just along for the ride/emergencies so the tech has been with us for years and is getting better/cheaper at an astonishing rate.
EgyptAir Flight 990 crashed because of a suicidal pilot, Colgan Flight 3407 crashed because an inexperienced pilot overrode the aircrafts anti stall system, American Airlines Flight 587 crashed due to pilot error in the use of the rudder and so the list goes on...........and of course all the aircraft on 911 crashed because they had human pilots albeit not the ones they were supposed to have at the controls at the time but if the plane itself knew that flying into the WTC towers was a bad thing it could have stopped the terrorist doing it just as planes currently try to stop stalls etc but without the option to over-ride that command. Just as B2 interprets what its pilots intentions are and flies the plane where he wants it to go.....the "autopilot" could equally know that flying into downtown NYC at 1000 feet, into the pentagon or the ground at shanksville is not a good idea and simple prevent the pilot from doing so. the plane could be programmed with essentially Asimovs three rules of robotics.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics


It would be interesting how you're going to program an auto pilot to find and land on the Hudson River after total engine failure! :p

Why do you think that would be particularly difficult?.....even a computer can work out that without engines it has to put the plane down somewhere. All that would be required is a good 3D "map" of all the best places to do that from any given point. It could be argued that a computer could make a better job of saving an otherwise doomed aircraft as it would always stay calm and would "know" the best place to put the plane down, wouldn't care if it was day or night. It could be programmed on how to fly the aircraft given the strangest combination of failures. Sullenberger did a fantastic job but was also very lucky, and him saving his passengers should not be used as the exception that proves the rule.

:D Hobby Aircraft? :D
You imagine its easier to do in a hobby aircraft for a few hundred bucks that it is with millions in a commercial airliner? Sure the penulty for getting it wrong is much higher but from a technology point of view the much greater agility of a model aircraft requires much better reaction times from the electronics than would ever be needed in an airliner.
http://vimeo.com/6194911 gives you a little insight into whats possible for a few thousand bucks.....At first he just flys it about in RC mode then he shows the GPS mode. Add an internal (3D) map as per your cars gps and it could go anywhere.

Let us know when you have 50 years of data to prove it's as safe as Commercial Aviation is today! Um....K

History is full of people who said similar things about trains, cars and even planes, technology is moving a lot faster than you think :).

[sheeplesnshills]

A good pilot could make a much better landing than the automatic system, just sliding it onto the runway, which always impressed me, as the landing gear was 100 feet behind and 50 below the cockpit in the landing attitude.

When was this tech first used?

[tsig]

Any failure? No. less failures? absolutely.

http://www.airlinesafety.com/editorials/HumanErrorVsTerrorism.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Pilot_error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_error)

Of course these figures do not take into account times where having a pilot on board prevented a mechanical or electrical failure from resulting in a crash (Sioux City for example) but since we have not installed autopilots capable of that yet its a moot point. We have no way of telling whether a pilot would perform better than an autopilot in anything other than a almost complete systems failure. We do know however that its the computers make planes like the F117 and B2 flyable at all so there is no reason to assume that they could not perhaps even out perform a human pilot even in cases like Sioux City where only engine power was available for control.

You faith in technology is wonderful to behold.

It's impossible to program a computer to allow for all the real world contingencies so for the foreseeable future you're just going to have to rely on fallible human beings.

[Reheat]

You faith in technology is wonderful to behold.

You took the words right out of my mouth! :rolleyes:

I've been telling our ace geek that and the fact that he doesn't have a clue about all of the issues involved therefore oversimplifying the problems, yet I'm the one being accused of faith.

[Reheat]

[QUOTE]

Ok its my opinion that technology can be made to be more reliable than humans :)

Rather than refute your arguments one by one, line by line, I will just ask you one question.

Have you ever been in the cockpit of an Commercial Airliner during flight?

I rest my case!

[tsig]

[QUOTE]

Ok its my opinion that technology can be made to be more reliable than humans :)




So you think the current level of accidents in airliners is good enough? How can it be further reduced? Certainly better pilot training and selection would help but humans have a bad habit of being human and doing dumb things. A previous post shows that fully automated flight are already taking place with the poor pilot just along for the ride/emergencies so the tech has been with us for years and is getting better/cheaper at an astonishing rate.
EgyptAir Flight 990 crashed because of a suicidal pilot, Colgan Flight 3407 crashed because an inexperienced pilot overrode the aircrafts anti stall system, American Airlines Flight 587 crashed due to pilot error in the use of the rudder and so the list goes on...........and of course all the aircraft on 911 crashed because they had human pilots albeit not the ones they were supposed to have at the controls at the time but if the plane itself knew that flying into the WTC towers was a bad thing it could have stopped the terrorist doing it just as planes currently try to stop stalls etc but without the option to over-ride that command. Just as B2 interprets what its pilots intentions are and flies the plane where he wants it to go.....the "autopilot" could equally know that flying into downtown NYC at 1000 feet, into the pentagon or the ground at shanksville is not a good idea and simple prevent the pilot from doing so. the plane could be programmed with essentially Asimovs three rules of robotics.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics




Why do you think that would be particularly difficult?.....even a computer can work out that without engines it has to put the plane down somewhere. All that would be required is a good 3D "map" of all the best places to do that from any given point. It could be argued that a computer could make a better job of saving an otherwise doomed aircraft as it would always stay calm and would "know" the best place to put the plane down, wouldn't care if it was day or night. It could be programmed on how to fly the aircraft given the strangest combination of failures. Sullenberger did a fantastic job but was also very lucky, and him saving his passengers should not be used as the exception that proves the rule.

:D Hobby Aircraft? :D
You imagine its easier to do in a hobby aircraft for a few hundred bucks that it is with millions in a commercial airliner? Sure the penulty for getting it wrong is much higher but from a technology point of view the much greater agility of a model aircraft requires much better reaction times from the electronics than would ever be needed in an airliner.
http://vimeo.com/6194911 gives you a little insight into whats possible for a few thousand bucks.....At first he just flys it about in RC mode then he shows the GPS mode. Add an internal (3D) map as per your cars gps and it could go anywhere.



History is full of people who said similar things about trains, cars and even planes, technology is moving a lot faster than you think :).

Things can break in ways the designer never could have envisioned.

It seems you'd rather fly into a mountain because of a metal whisker shorting out a couple of pins on a computer that because of pilot error.

"The systems in a NASA computer centre failed after new data storage had been installed; at least 18 short circuits occurred in the high-performance computers before technicians found the reason: the replacement of the storage devices dislodged metal whiskers from the base construction and their subsequent distribution via air circulation caused system failure by bridging the electrical circuits of the supercomputers."

http://www.physorg.com/news173450615.html


And this is just one way for it to happen.

[tsig]

[QUOTE]


History is full of people who said similar things about trains, cars and even planes, technology is moving a lot faster than you think :).

Can you point out any fully automated trains or cars?

Last time I looked I still had a steering wheel and brakes in my car and trains still have engineers.

[Rocket_Scientist]

.
A good pilot could make a much better landing than the automatic system, just sliding it onto the runway, which always impressed me, as the landing gear was 100 feet behind and 50 below the cockpit in the landing attitude.

Speaking from past experience with the Navy's version of "auto land" (the ACLS AN/SPN-42A Radar, now upgraded to PALS AN/SPN-46A), that system could out-land any Navy pilot in almost any conditions. If things were to rough for a mode 1 landing, it was a good bet that things were to rough for a safe landing of any kind.

It really all depends on how the auto land system is designed...how many input variables are fed into the control computer that determine how well the system will behave in adverse conditions.

On the carrier, there was no way for the pilots to know how much the ship was moving and in what direction (pitch, roll, yaw, heave) and only had verbal info for wind speed and direction across the deck.

On the issue of safety I will say this. There has never once, in the history of the ACLS/PALS system, been a crash attributed in any way to the auto land system. Plenty of crashes though due to pilot error. Of course if a Navy pilot constantly used this system, he'd never get credit for the landing and thus would lose his cert for carrier landings. I will say I did love watching my system fly and land an F14 right down the centerline and squarely on the 3 wire :D

[sheeplesnshills]

[QUOTE=sheeplesnshills;5821942]

Rather than refute your arguments one by one, line by line, I will just ask you one question.

Have you ever been in the cockpit of an Commercial Airliner during flight?

I rest my case!

Yes, several times before 911. I liked the L10-11 best as it seemed less claustrophobic than did the 747. Best time was on Cathey Pacific over Bangladesh at night, The pilot described air traffic control there as being a do it yourself job. We were following about 25 miles behind a British Airways "Speedbird" 747 and our pilot asked him to speed up a little to keep the gap from closing which the BA pilot did. 911 spoiled that part of flying for me.

And your point was?:)

[sheeplesnshills]

[QUOTE=sheeplesnshills;5821942]

Can you point out any fully automated trains or cars?

Last time I looked I still had a steering wheel and brakes in my car and trains still have engineers.

The Traam at Dallas airport and the equivalent at HK are driverless.
As for cars....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e32yeI1YSI0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_car
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_%282007%29

One could argue that the decision making challanges faced in the DARPA car are much more complex than that required by an aircraft short of a major systems failure.

[sheeplesnshills]

Speaking from past experience with the Navy's version of "auto land" (the ACLS AN/SPN-42A Radar, now upgraded to PALS AN/SPN-46A), that system could out-land any Navy pilot in almost any conditions. If things were to rough for a mode 1 landing, it was a good bet that things were to rough for a safe landing of any kind.

It really all depends on how the auto land system is designed...how many input variables are fed into the control computer that determine how well the system will behave in adverse conditions.

On the carrier, there was no way for the pilots to know how much the ship was moving and in what direction (pitch, roll, yaw, heave) and only had verbal info for wind speed and direction across the deck.

On the issue of safety I will say this. There has never once, in the history of the ACLS/PALS system, been a crash attributed in any way to the auto land system. Plenty of crashes though due to pilot error. Of course if a Navy pilot constantly used this system, he'd never get credit for the landing and thus would lose his cert for carrier landings. I will say I did love watching my system fly and land an F14 right down the centerline and squarely on the 3 wire :D

Wow, this is even better than I expected......if an autoland system can land an F14 on a carrier how can anyone doubt that it could manage a commercial airliner on a runway or even crashland on the best available open space?:eye-poppi

[I Ratant]

When was this tech first used?
.
The basics of the systems used the slope of the glide slope beam, the transmitter for which is located within a 1000 feet or so of the threshold for the runway.
The steering information comes from the localizer beam which is located at the far end of the runway.
The descent rate is based on the angle of the glide slope beam.
With the L-1011, autothrottles held the airspeed, selected for the configuration, to match the descent rate to the glide path, and direct lift control spoilers on the wings maintained the position of the plane on the glide path.
When getting close to the runway, the plane would begin the flare at 50 feet, raising the nose to slow the rate of descent, and this will also displace it from the glide slope beam.
The touchdown point aimed for was usually at or just past the glide slope transmitter.
Radar altitude is used to control when this flare manuver is begun.
The autothrottles will retard to idle to slow the forward motion, letting the plane settle onto the main gear.
But.... That was 30 years ago. I think it's GPS now.
The landing approach at SeaTac in Seattle took the plane over a deep cut at the approach end of the runway, just about the time the plane would be at 50 feet. The abrupt change in radar altitude was thought to have a potential effect on the descent, but testing showed there wasn't any.
At Palmdale, the middle marker transmitter signal would create a disturbance in the localizer beam, causing a wiggle in the flight path as the plane passed through 250 feet.
Another airplane ahead would also cause wiggles in the localizer beam at your airplane as the plane in front passed over the middle marker.
After the first successful Autoland with the Tristar, the developer was ecstatic!
"I don't know whether to **** or go blind!" he screamed.
The UAVs used in the Middle East and Paki-Afghanistan are all remotely controlled; either flying programmed GPS courses or some of them flying from local airfields, but the pilots and systems operators are in Nevada!
I'd say the technology exists to take over a hijacked plane and land it, and incapacitate the passengers and crew.
Somewhat like the "bait cars" used to catch car thieves.
Whether it is or would be used... who's to say.

[sheeplesnshills]

[QUOTE=sheeplesnshills;5821942]

[QUOTE]Things can break in ways the designer never could have envisioned.

It seems you'd rather fly into a mountain because of a metal whisker shorting out a couple of pins on a computer that because of pilot error.

Tin whiskers are nothing new.....just came across them again recently with the change to lead free solders to meet RoHS requirements. they are preventable with appropriate manufacturing processes.

"The systems in a NASA computer centre failed after new data storage had been installed; at least 18 short circuits occurred in the high-performance computers before technicians found the reason: the replacement of the storage devices dislodged metal whiskers from the base construction and their subsequent distribution via air circulation caused system failure by bridging the electrical circuits of the supercomputers."

http://www.physorg.com/news173450615.html


Yep, tin whiskers due to RoHS solder.....

And humans are subject to similar reliability factors.....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5651516.ece

and the funny bit :)
As the rebellion spread, Aeroflot representatives boarded the aircraft to try to calm down the 300 passengers.

One sought to reassure them by announcing that it was "not such a big deal" if the pilot was drunk because the aircraft practically flew itself.

[I Ratant]

You faith in technology is wonderful to behold.

It's impossible to program a computer to allow for all the real world contingencies so for the foreseeable future you're just going to have to rely on fallible human beings.
.
The L-1011 system had three separate autopilot computers. Using the same inputs, from the airplane systems, the outputs of each was compared to the others, and an invalid signal disregarded.
It had four separate hydraulic systems also, any one of which could power a sufficient combination of control systems should 3 of them fail... which happened!
A wing motor threw a fan blade into the leading edge at the fuselage, hitting the slat drive motor, which caused that hydraulic system to fail.
The hydraulic system being driven by the wing motor failed as the engine failed.
Another fan blade went through the fuselage and hit the hydraulic pump on the other wing motor, causing loss of that system. (Who woulda thunk it possble? :) )
The tail motor has -two- hydraulic system pumps!
One system was shut down, but the remaining system permitted control of the airplane.

[sheeplesnshills]

You took the words right out of my mouth! :rolleyes:

I've been telling our ace geek that and the fact that he doesn't have a clue about all of the issues involved therefore oversimplifying the problems, yet I'm the one being accused of faith.

Made a good living out of designing technology for 27 years now.......and if a autoland can land a F14 on a carrier........perhaps its you that does not have a clue about what technology can do yesterday let alone today.

[Reheat]

Yes, several times before 911. I liked the L10-11 best as it seemed less claustrophobic than did the 747. Best time was on Cathey Pacific over Bangladesh at night, The pilot described air traffic control there as being a do it yourself job. We were following about 25 miles behind a British Airways "Speedbird" 747 and our pilot asked him to speed up a little to keep the gap from closing which the BA pilot did. 911 spoiled that part of flying for me.

I'm impressed. :rolleyes:

[I Ratant]

During wake turbulence testing with NASA our chief test pilot Bill Weaver managed to wrestle an L-1011 to within a couple miles directly behind a C-5.
He was the only guy that could get that close.
We did some testing with NASA with a Tristar equipped with Frank Sanders' smoke generators, typically seen at airshows.
Eight of them across the wing span.
We'd put the plane in typical landing configuration, and NASA pilot Bill Dana would fly into the smoke wake in a T-38. He was tossed out of the wake at 5 miles behind the Tristar.
The NASA pilot flying the Tristar, Fitz-fulton would exercise the control wheel laterally to fully open and close the spoilers on each wing in turn.
This reduced the clearance needed to a couple of miles, but the manuver would be unacceptable in a passenger transport.

[Travis]

I fail to see how this would even accomplish it's goals. Even if it is possible to preclude cockpit intervention all the hijackers need to do is get on the radio and demand the system be turned off by ATC or people start dying. The only way to prevent that is to make the system so that not even ATC can override once it's implemented and I have no idea how that would be possible without making the entire system an irreversible process which, in my mind, is much more likely to be a problem than a lifesaver.

"Sorry folks the pilot accidentally hit the hijack panic button and Home Run is now taking us to the nearest airport. We can do nothing to stop it. We will be surrounded by a SWAT team on landing and it will probably be several hours more until Dave deactivates the central logic core and HAL-9000...er....I mean Home Run will allow us to take off again. Sorry for ruining your travel plans completely and condemning the girl that was going to get that heart transplant to death."

[I Ratant]

The people on any hijacked airplane expect to be killed after 9-11.
That's one reason they now don't sit quietly.

[sheeplesnshills]

I'm impressed. :rolleyes:

Well you asked the question :rolleyes:

[sheeplesnshills]

The people on any hijacked airplane expect to be killed after 9-11.
That's one reason they now don't sit quietly.

Thats only true to a point. If enough passengers who resist are quickly and brutally killed the rest will let themselves be led to the slaughter.....the Nazis found this to their advantage in WW2.:(

[I Ratant]

Different circumstances.
The death camps weren't known of beforehand.
As the facts became known, it was too late in those countries already taken over and controlled by both the Nazis and the locals supporting them.
Even the singing nun would whack a jacker with her guitar now.

[sheeplesnshills]

[QUOTE=Travis;5823061]I fail to see how this would even accomplish it's goals. Even if it is possible to preclude cockpit intervention all the hijackers need to do is get on the radio and demand the system be turned off by ATC or people start dying. The only way to prevent that is to make the system so that not even ATC can override once it's implemented and I have no idea how that would be possible without making the entire system an irreversible process which, in my mind, is much more likely to be a problem than a lifesaver.

After 911, the survival of the passengers is way down the list of problems if a hijack occurs. Do you doubt that the last two airliners would not have been shot down on 911 if fighters were in place and the plane positively identified? As to the hijackers threatening passengers, if the same system also shuts off all communication what would the point be of them threatening anyone.....The planes going to land whatever they say/do. Hijackings were common until countries stopped negotiating and started storming the planes and killing the hijackers. If they cannot take aircraft over and use them as weapons they would stop trying to do that too.

[George152]

During wake turbulence testing with NASA our chief test pilot Bill Weaver managed to wrestle an L-1011 to within a couple miles directly behind a C-5.
He was the only guy that could get that close.
We did some testing with NASA with a Tristar equipped with Frank Sanders' smoke generators, typically seen at airshows.
Eight of them across the wing span.
We'd put the plane in typical landing configuration, and NASA pilot Bill Dana would fly into the smoke wake in a T-38. He was tossed out of the wake at 5 miles behind the Tristar.
The NASA pilot flying the Tristar, Fitz-fulton would exercise the control wheel laterally to fully open and close the spoilers on each wing in turn.
This reduced the clearance needed to a couple of miles, but the manuver would be unacceptable in a passenger transport.

Small problem with your claim.
How then, if your claim is correct, does inflight refueling work ?
Or indeed formation flying

[I Ratant]

It's not a "claim".... I vas dere, Chollie!
These were attempts to fly -into- the wake, not below it, above it or beside it.
I saw a photo of a Cessna with a seriously bent wing that passed behind a 737 in the San Fernando Valley.... 737 going to Burbank, Cessna to Van Nuys.
It's fortunate the wing didn't fall off.
They sometimes do.
There's a serious up-down-down-up series of impulses when flying across such a wake.

[Travis]

After 911, the survival of the passengers is way down the list of problems if a hijack occurs. Do you doubt that the last two airliners would not have been shot down on 911 if fighters were in place and the plane positively identified? As to the hijackers threatening passengers, if the same system also shuts off all communication what would the point be of them threatening anyone.....The planes going to land whatever they say/do. Hijackings were common until countries stopped negotiating and started storming the planes and killing the hijackers. If they cannot take aircraft over and use them as weapons they would stop trying to do that too.

Except we're talking about a system supposedly in place on 9/11 when hijacking demands would have presumably been treated differently.

[Rocket_Scientist]

I fail to see how this would even accomplish it's goals. Even if it is possible to preclude cockpit intervention all the hijackers need to do is get on the radio and demand the system be turned off by ATC or people start dying. The only way to prevent that is to make the system so that not even ATC can override once it's implemented and I have no idea how that would be possible without making the entire system an irreversible process which, in my mind, is much more likely to be a problem than a lifesaver.

"Sorry folks the pilot accidentally hit the hijack panic button and Home Run is now taking us to the nearest airport. We can do nothing to stop it. We will be surrounded by a SWAT team on landing and it will probably be several hours more until Dave deactivates the central logic core and HAL-9000...er....I mean Home Run will allow us to take off again. Sorry for ruining your travel plans completely and condemning the girl that was going to get that heart transplant to death."

Personally, I don't see how anyone could make this home run feature fool proof. In my previous post about the Naval ACLS, such a system REQUIRES some type of feedbacki n order for the system to work. When the ACLS would send pitch/bank commands to the aircraft, the radar system would have to "see" some type of response from the aircraft. If it failed to respond or responded incorrectly, the system would automatically disengage returning control to the pilot.

We had a duplicate of the instumentation that the pilot had sitting right on top of the ATC console where we could actually monitor the commands and discretes being sent out by the radar as well as the "error" information (the pilots' "needles"). If something didn't match up....BOOM....mode 1 landing aborted.

What would happen to an aircraft with this "home run" feature if it were to lose its' point of reference? A computer can't fly if it doesn't know where it is. Pull the breaker on the GPS or the NAV system and the plane is blind. Or as in my system with the reference on the ground and commands being sent by UHF data link, pull the breaker on the receiver. If the plane can't receive pitch/bank/throttle commands, it isn't going anywhere.

I'm pretty sure anyone with a little technical knowledge could easily defeat such a system in flight.

[apathoid]

Wow, this is even better than I expected......if an autoland system can land an F14 on a carrier how can anyone doubt that it could manage a commercial airliner on a runway or even crashland on the best available open space?:eye-poppi


I imagine your computer program can pick out ferries and sailboats too in the "available open space" and make decisions based on a number of crummy options and with constantly changing variables? You seem to be getting awfully close to flirting with the notion of AI.

I can't speak for the Navy's carrier autoland system, but I'm sure its fairly similar to ILS. The aircraft needs to see an active transmitter(ILS/LAAS) on the runway for autoland to even arm itself. The ILS receiver in the airplane determines localizer error(lateral error) and glideslope error(altitude error), which gets sent as error signals to the autopilot computers for correction commands. I don't know of any autoland certified aircraft that are are capable of working without the aid of a local transmitter on the runway, ie purely via GPS or inertial navigation. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but the idea alone is many years away.

[TSR]

The Traam at Dallas airport and the equivalent at HK are driverless.

.
Of course, the Traam runs on dedicated rails with no other traffic and only needs to start and stop at pre-determined places which never ever change, no matter what the weather including prevailing wind conditions and never have to then taxi to an arbitrary gate.

Seriously -- give it up.
.

[Rocket_Scientist]

I imagine your computer program can pick out ferries and sailboats too in the "available open space" and make decisions based on a number of crummy options and with constantly changing variables? You seem to be getting awfully close to flirting with the notion of AI.

I can't speak for the Navy's carrier autoland system, but I'm sure its fairly similar to ILS. The aircraft needs to see an active transmitter(ILS/LAAS) on the runway for autoland to even arm itself. The ILS receiver in the airplane determines localizer error(lateral error) and glideslope error(altitude error), which gets sent as error signals to the autopilot computers for correction commands. I don't know of any autoland certified aircraft that are are capable of working without the aid of a local transmitter on the runway, ie purely via GPS or inertial navigation. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but the idea alone is many years away.

Apathoid, for the naval ACLS, the aircraft doesn't have to "see" anything. All the postional data is generated by the radar system itself. The ACLS is pretty much like a fire control radar. The horizontal distance is calculated from the radar "slant range" in the radar set itself. The azimuth and elevation data is generated by rotary digital encoders mounted on the AZ/EL antenna gimbals.

Three things were required for the system to fly fully automatic. The aircaft has to have a good beacon transponder. The radar sends out its' main pulse in the Ka band. The "main bang" radar pulse would be received by the aircraft transponder and send out an X band reply that would be received by an X band antenna mounted piggy back on the main radar dish. The radar would then track on the X band reply instead of the Ka band radar reflection. Since the computer program knows EXACTLY where the transponder is located on each aircraft type, the computer could calculate the distance with an accuracy better than +/- 2 feet at 6 miles.

By the way, all of this is also compensated for ships motion via the stable element. The old version was a mechanical stable platform but since upgraded to ring laser gyros.

The aircraft also had to have a good UHF data link to receive the pitch bank commands (this also worked with the NTDS or Naval Tactical Data System.....have to make sure were're sending signals to the right aircraft !:))

lastly, the aircrafts automatic power compensation unit must be funtioning.....have to maintain the right speed for a good landing!

I'll put money down that we are pretty close in software/computing power to handle a wide range of changing variables...think fuzzy logic :D My son's majoring in computer sciences at R.I.T. and one of the big courses he's been taking in that field is AI. Maybe i'll see what he has to say about such a software system

[gumboot]

Small problem with your claim.
How then, if your claim is correct, does inflight refueling work ?
Or indeed formation flying


Wake turbulence from an aircraft is just like wake turbulence from a boat, except where you're only seeing the wake on the (sort-of) 2D plane of the water, in the case of an aircraft it's 3D space so occurs above and below as well as either side.

The wake extends outwards, widening as distance increases, like a V. When you're in nice and close you can avoid the wake just by being offset a little either to one side or above or below.

If you've ever seen aircraft lining up for a formation join or mid-air refuelling they come in from above or below the aircraft, and often from the side also, so they can avoid the wake. They don't line up right behind and come steaming straight in.

In the same way if you want to come alongside a boat and avoid their wake you come in from behind at an angle, starting well wide of them and closing as you get further forward and the wake area decreases.

[TSR]

They don't line up right behind and come steaming straight in.

.
You say that as if right behind and straight in was a bad thing.




Oops what that out loud?
.

[gumboot]

You say that as if right behind and straight in was a bad thing.


It's prohibited in the Air Force. Navy, not so much. :boxedin:

[apathoid]

Hi Rocket_Scientist. Welcome to the forum, by the way, and thanks for the informative posts!


Apathoid, for the naval ACLS, the aircraft doesn't have to "see" anything. All the postional data is generated by the radar system itself. The ACLS is pretty much like a fire control radar. The horizontal distance is calculated from the radar "slant range" in the radar set itself. The azimuth and elevation data is generated by rotary digital encoders mounted on the AZ/EL antenna gimbals.

Three things were required for the system to fly fully automatic. The aircaft has to have a good beacon transponder. The radar sends out its' main pulse in the Ka band. The "main bang" radar pulse would be received by the aircraft transponder and send out an X band reply that would be received by an X band antenna mounted piggy back on the main radar dish. The radar would then track on the X band reply instead of the Ka band radar reflection. Since the computer program knows EXACTLY where the transponder is located on each aircraft type, the computer could calculate the distance with an accuracy better than +/- 2 feet at 6 miles.

By the way, all of this is also compensated for ships motion via the stable element. The old version was a mechanical stable platform but since upgraded to ring laser gyros.

The aircraft also had to have a good UHF data link to receive the pitch bank commands (this also worked with the NTDS or Naval Tactical Data System.....have to make sure were're sending signals to the right aircraft !:))

lastly, the aircrafts automatic power compensation unit must be funtioning.....have to maintain the right speed for a good landing!


I need to read up on ACLS I guess, but the radar you are talking about is the ships ILS radar, right? And would it still work if the radar didn't receive an X-band transponder reply? I mean, could it successfully land the airplane just off the radar echo alone? If so, I have to say that's pretty awesome!

But all I meant by "seeing a transmitter" is that the aircraft needs outside "help" signals, be they ILS, ACLS radar, JPALS or LAAS. The Hudson River wouldn't be transmiting any Ku-Band pulses. :p

I'll put money down that we are pretty close in software/computing power to handle a wide range of changing variables...think fuzzy logic :D My son's majoring in computer sciences at R.I.T. and one of the big courses he's been taking in that field is AI. Maybe i'll see what he has to say about such a software systemI don't doubt that we are on the verge of a major computer breakthrough with "intelligent" software, but call me a skeptic. I'll believe it when I see it. :D

[Rocket_Scientist]

Hi Rocket_Scientist. Welcome to the forum, by the way, and thanks for the informative posts!





I need to read up on ACLS I guess, but the radar you are talking about is the ships ILS radar, right? And would it still work if the radar didn't receive an X-band transponder reply? I mean, could it successfully land the airplane just off the radar echo alone? If so, I have to say that's pretty awesome!

But all I meant by "seeing a transmitter" is that the aircraft needs outside "help" signals, be they ILS, ACLS radar, JPALS or LAAS. The Hudson River wouldn't be transmiting any Ku-Band pulses. :p

I don't doubt that we are on the verge of a major computer breakthrough with "intelligent" software, but call me a skeptic. I'll believe it when I see it. :D

Actually the ILS is a seperate radar system, the SPN-44 which was a back-up for the ACLS at night, and also used for daytime approaches when the ACLS isn't needed. The only thing the ILS could do was generate a 2nd set of "needles" for the aircraft to fly on...Pure manual control for the pilot and absolutely no input to the ATC operators in CATCC (Carrier Air Traffic Control Center).

It was purely a pilot aid only, whereas the ACLS was THE final approach radar. All that positional data that could be sent to the aircraft was displayed on the SPN-42A ATC console and comprised three basic modes of operation...mode 3 which meant no "needles" and was purely a talk down to the pilot.......calls for correction by the ATC operator to the pilot....left 2, above glide slope, that sort of thing. Mode 2 was flying the needles being sent by the radar and all info available for a mode 1 landing was being sent to the aircraft without actually being "coupled", and just routine calls by the ATC operator for distance,course, and glidepath errors. Mode 1 was purely automatic all the way to the deck.

And yes for the most part, the aircraft had to have a good beacon for the ACLS to work with th exception of the F4 which had a radar reflector mounted right on the nose gear. Problem with that and the reason they went to a beacon was you never really could tell exactly where the radar was "painting" the aircraft. It MIGHT be locked onto the reflector or it might have locked on to a wing surface. The beacon transponder removed that uncertainty.

There are several planes that aren't mode one capable due to their flight response characteristics. The S3 viking only rated for Mode 1A...automatic down to 1/2 mile, the E2C and COD aircraft mode 3 only...standard talk down from the ATC controllers. The old A7 Corsair II, A6 intruder, EA6B prowler, KA6D tanker, F14, and F18 are all mode 1 capable.

"Fuzzy Logic" has been around for quite a while now. I'll bet an advanced version wouldn't have too much difficulty handling an adverse situation...I just wouldn't want to be on that first plane to find out though:D

[Rocket_Scientist]

I normally don't like to get into it with truthers in general and no-planers in particular, but when some duffus brings up the remote control theory, they really have no idea what's involved in automating an aircraft. The advent of very accurate GPS and precision computerised flight control may have simplified the process, but you'll never convince a truther there's more to it than just slapping a secret, mystical, magical black box inside the aircraft and plugging it into the cigarette lighter.

I was involved in a "discussion" about this a while back on one of the Ebay boards witha truther (along with several other sane posters) and no matter what expertise anyone, including myself, offered about such a theory, he just couldn't be convinced along with a few other truthers spamming the boards. To them, if they read it on the internet then it MUST be true...lol

[sheeplesnshills]

Small problem with your claim.
How then, if your claim is correct, does inflight refueling work ?
Or indeed formation flying


I have wondered about that before but I think its because they are never directly behind the other aircraft but rather below so avoid the other aircrafts wake.

Likewise in formation flying I think they don't fly one behind the other even if it looks like that from the ground.

[twinstead]

To them, if they read it on the internet then it MUST be true...lol

Yea. And they call US the sheep :rolleyes:

[beachnut]

Small problem with your claim.
How then, if your claim is correct, does inflight refueling work ?
Or indeed formation flying
The wake in landing configuration or periods of producing lots of lift is very powerful.

In-flight refueling only works because pilots know where the wake turbulence is and avoid it.

Formation flying works the same way, we avoid the wake, it can do bad things.

[newton3376]

There are several planes that aren't mode one capable due to their flight response characteristics. The S3 viking only rated for Mode 1A...automatic down to 1/2 mile, the E2C and COD aircraft mode 3 only...standard talk down from the ATC controllers. The old A7 Corsair II, A6 intruder, EA6B prowler, KA6D tanker, F14, and F18 are all mode 1 capable.

Ah....the good ole EA6B....

Nice, reliable EW platform...

[Reheat]

The wake in landing configuration or periods of producing lots of lift is very powerful.

In-flight refueling only works because pilots know where the wake turbulence is and avoid it.

Formation flying works the same way, we avoid the wake, it can do bad things.

Correct! Refueling receivers approach the tanker usually (at least) 1000' below his altitude and rejoin to the side.

In the correct refueling position the wake vortices are about 2-3' above the vertical stabilizer in a typical fighter. Get a little high and they can be felt on the tail. Get too high and they will have your puteau. That's true in both the KC-135 and the KC-10.

All formation positions are below or to the side of the wake vortices of the aircraft ahead, even the diamond formation flow by the Blue Angles and the Thunderbirds. Can't fly in the turbulence with any degree of precise control.

[I Ratant]

It's prohibited in the Air Force. Navy, not so much. :boxedin:
.
And the Navy can smoke after.

[I Ratant]

Correct! Refueling receivers approach the tanker usually (at least) 1000' below his altitude and rejoin to the side.

In the correct refueling position the wake vortices are about 2-3' above the vertical stabilizer in a typical fighter. Get a little high and they can be felt on the tail. Get too high and they will have your puteau. That's true in both the KC-135 and the KC-10.

All formation positions are below or to the side of the wake vortices of the aircraft ahead, even the diamond formation flow by the Blue Angles and the Thunderbirds. Can't fly in the turbulence with any degree of precise control.
.
Geese, ducks, seagulls... all formate in vees. Riding on the bow wake of the bird in the front. The point of the vee changes with fatigue.
It's like surfing.
Racing bicyclist use the same principle, with a group in trail being able to move faster than a single rider. The rider at the front of the group will take the point for awhile, then move over and let the next rider take his pull, while drifting back to the rear of the group to move forward to the front again in turn.
Standing at the finish line of a bike race is interesting to an aerodynamicist.
The amount of air moving -with- the pack is remarkable when they speed by.

[sheeplesnshills]

Except we're talking about a system supposedly in place on 9/11 when hijacking demands would have presumably been treated differently.

No argument there.....thread has gone a bit off topic into whether such a system is possible today rather than was a reality before 911.

[sheeplesnshills]

What would happen to an aircraft with this "home run" feature if it were to lose its' point of reference? A computer can't fly if it doesn't know where it is. Pull the breaker on the GPS or the NAV system and the plane is blind. Or as in my system with the reference on the ground and commands being sent by UHF data link, pull the breaker on the receiver. If the plane can't receive pitch/bank/throttle commands, it isn't going anywhere.

I'm pretty sure anyone with a little technical knowledge could easily defeat such a system in flight.

Why would such a system be dumb enough that you could disable it simply by pulling a breaker? There are a lots of ways one could protect that breaker from unauthorized use. If the system was designed to foil a hostile take over as per 911 then that would be a design requirement and one of the easier parts to do.:rolleyes:

[R.Mackey]

Geese, ducks, seagulls... all formate in vees. Riding on the bow wake of the bird in the front. The point of the vee changes with fatigue.
It's like surfing.

Correct. It's technically not a bow wave, though, it's the wingtip vortices off the bird immediately ahead. In the right formation, the flock acts just like one great big pair of wings.

This is because air, like everything else, conserves angular momentum -- i.e. vorticity. And vorticity is required to generate lift. It takes energy to get the air rotating. The following birds recycle as much of this as they can, and thus fly more efficiently.

Racing bicyclist use the same principle, with a group in trail being able to move faster than a single rider. The rider at the front of the group will take the point for awhile, then move over and let the next rider take his pull, while drifting back to the rear of the group to move forward to the front again in turn.
Standing at the finish line of a bike race is interesting to an aerodynamicist.
The amount of air moving -with- the pack is remarkable when they speed by.

Also correct, though this effect is a little bit different. This isn't lift but instead drag, or so-called bluff body flow. Air passing over a bluff body creates a different kind of vortex, described by the Karman vortex street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_vortex_street). But you'll note it has a characteristic length, dependent on the other lengths in the problem and the speed.

With two or more bluff bodies you can minimize drag by either combining, to make one large bluff body from the flow's perspective (effectively increasing your ballistic coefficient), or you can tune the separation so that it "fits" the vortex spacing. But get that wrong, and drag actually increases.

If you've ever drafted behind an eighteen wheeler, you know how effective this can be. It's quite substantial. Mythbusters demonstrated this once, if you haven't seen it in action.

[I Ratant]

...
If you've ever drafted behind an eighteen wheeler, you know how effective this can be. It's quite substantial. Mythbusters demonstrated this once, if you haven't seen it in action.
.
Behind, no, but beside... the bow wave of the 18-wheeler will push a car (or a motorcycle) at the speed of the 18-wheeler, so the car/cycle guy can back off on the throttle.
Dumb to do, but it does happen.
On my scooter, I've been pulled alongside from the rear to the front of the truck.
Really dumb to do! :)
Leaves the trucker no way out if something occurs.

[sheeplesnshills]

[QUOTE=apathoid;5824964]I imagine your computer program can pick out ferries and sailboats too in the "available open space" and make decisions based on a number of crummy options and with constantly changing variables? You seem to be getting awfully close to flirting with the notion of AI.

So you are not familiar with the latest advances in optical recognition as well?
How hard do you think it would be for a computer to work out that an object on a relatively flat surface is a boat? The computer has the huge advantage that it does not have to rely on visible light either, but could use infrared, radar, laser etc for scanning for obstacles in its path.
It does not take "intelligence" to land a plane, it takes data and flying skills both areas that a computer can far excel the ability of a human. A computer can be programmed to choose between "crummy" options. In the case of a plane with no engines those options are few and the computer would do what Sully did and chose the best of the bad options he had.

[sheeplesnshills]

[QUOTE=TSR;5825027].
Of course, the Traam runs on dedicated rails with no other traffic and only needs to start and stop at pre-determined places which never ever change, no matter what the weather including prevailing wind conditions and never have to then taxi to an arbitrary gate.

Gee you ask for an example of a driverless train, I give you one and then you complain. The Traam was working more than 20 tears ago and tech has improved immeasurably in that time.

If DARPA can autodrive a car in a city traffic situation guiding a plane along very restricted taxiways to one of a restricted number of gates is hardly taxing. Sure a plane is a lot bigger but the variables are far lower and the environment much more controlled.

Seriously -- give it up.

I was thinking of asking you to do just that.:)

[sheeplesnshills]

[

"Fuzzy Logic" has been around for quite a while now. I'll bet an advanced version wouldn't have too much difficulty handling an adverse situation...I just wouldn't want to be on that first plane to find out though:D

I don't want to be on a plane where a pilot needs to do it either!

[beachnut]

So you are not familiar with the latest advances in optical recognition as well?
How hard do you think it would be for a computer to work out that an object on a relatively flat surface is a boat? The computer has the huge advantage that it does not have to rely on visible light either, but could use infrared, radar, laser etc for scanning for obstacles in its path.
It does not take "intelligence" to land a plane, it takes data and flying skills both areas that a computer can far excel the ability of a human. A computer can be programmed to choose between "crummy" options. In the case of a plane with no engines those options are few and the computer would do what Sully did and chose the best of the bad options he had.

lol, you are really pushing computers. Computers have no skills.

When will a computer be able to do what Sully did? Does the computer lower the landing gear to land in the water? lol

... explain this to an engineer who has 4,000 hours flying heavy jets.

When will computer systems be able to land on the water with no notice engine failure? I did not know they had made a break through to model human skills in flying. When did that happen, who programed a computer to be as skilled as a human in the management of flying? Anyone can push stick forward make earth bigger, pull stick back make earth smaller, when did computers make a break through.

Go ahead explain how the plane will land on water. Will the computer program be able to figure out it can't line up with the wind onetime and settle for a less than optimal landing without full benefit of landing into the wind? How will it decide, who will program it? LOL

OMG, hold tight passengers, the optical sensors are fogged over, we are not only flying blind, we are crashing... further news, the engines flamed out and the RAT failed to power the flight control computes and the main computer sensor to signal replacement of the back up batteries failed, our batteries are dead; please bend over and ....

To err is human, to mess up really bad takes a computer. (BTW, I build compters, have programed compupters, worked with hunman factor people on cockpit issues using computers; my degree reads Electrical and Computer Engineer and I studied under one of the Co-invetors of the IC; SO?).

I built three new computers in the past 2 years, 2 of them from these parts...2 Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale 3.16GHz LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor Model BX80570E8500
2 CORSAIR CMPSU-650TX 650W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS Certified
2 Kingston 2GB 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Desktop Memory Model KVR800D2N5/2G
3 Western Digital Caviar Blue WD6400AAKS 640GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard
2 ASUS P5Q-E LGA 775 Intel P45 ATX Intel Motherboard
2 Antec P182 Gun Metal Black 0.8mm cold rolled steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
2 Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-2250 Dual TV Tuner / Encoder 1229 PCI-Express x1 Interface - OEM
2 ASUS EN9600GT silent/HTDI/512M GeForce 9600 GT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 I love computers almost as much as my driveway. DATA?

Computers have their uses, but to worship them like you do is taking it too far. Yes computers will do lots of things when programmed properly by humans, or other computers programed by humans; what is your point? When will we have computers that can dead stick aircraft without loss of life to unprepared landing sites? When? Who is paying?

[I Ratant]

The Global Hawk is currently the most sophisticated unmanned aircraft.
.
In March 1999, a Global Hawk inadvertently responded to a termination signal emanating from Nellis Air Force Base after the aircraft lost the Edwards AFB signal.
.
Another system was activated on a frequency the GH mission had been thought to not be using.

On December 30, 2001 a Global Hawk crashed in Afghanistan.
.
The GPS data for the site it was approaching failed to include a mountain in the flight path.

On July 10, 2002 a Global Hawk crashed in Pakistan due to an apparent engine failure.
.
No handy river to land in? :)
.
Complete autonomous control is still in the future.

[George152]

Wake turbulence from an aircraft is just like wake turbulence from a boat, except where you're only seeing the wake on the (sort-of) 2D plane of the water, in the case of an aircraft it's 3D space so occurs above and below as well as either side.

The wake extends outwards, widening as distance increases, like a V. When you're in nice and close you can avoid the wake just by being offset a little either to one side or above or below.

If you've ever seen aircraft lining up for a formation join or mid-air refuelling they come in from above or below the aircraft, and often from the side also, so they can avoid the wake. They don't line up right behind and come steaming straight in.

In the same way if you want to come alongside a boat and avoid their wake you come in from behind at an angle, starting well wide of them and closing as you get further forward and the wake area decreases.

I've flown sailplanes on aerotow.
I've been in the 'wake' and the 'wake' does not extend directly behind the towing aircraft.
Which is why I asked the question

[George152]

It's prohibited in the Air Force. Navy, not so much. :boxedin:

They have women onboard nowadays.
Who may not be approached any way

[Reheat]

I've flown sailplanes on aerotow.
I've been in the 'wake' and the 'wake' does not extend directly behind the towing aircraft.
Which is why I asked the question

You are correct. The wake moves down and then is blown by the prevailing wind. It is directly behind when you're in close as in air refueling or close trail formation.

[sheeplesnshills]

The Global Hawk is currently the most sophisticated unmanned aircraft.
.
In March 1999, a Global Hawk inadvertently responded to a termination signal emanating from Nellis Air Force Base after the aircraft lost the Edwards AFB signal.
.
Another system was activated on a frequency the GH mission had been thought to not be using.

On December 30, 2001 a Global Hawk crashed in Afghanistan.
.
The GPS data for the site it was approaching failed to include a mountain in the flight path.

On July 10, 2002 a Global Hawk crashed in Pakistan due to an apparent engine failure.
.
No handy river to land in? :)
.
Complete autonomous control is still in the future.

None since 2002? seems like they have ironed out the bugs then......as to crash landing one there would be very good reasons for it to be programmed to do exactly the opposite over enemy territory. You want as high a KE vertical impact as possible to reduce chance of anything secret surviving.

The future starts NOW.:D

[funk de fino]

Why would such a system be dumb enough that you could disable it simply by pulling a breaker? There are a lots of ways one could protect that breaker from unauthorized use. If the system was designed to foil a hostile take over as per 911 then that would be a design requirement and one of the easier parts to do.:rolleyes:

Seriously. This is comedy gold. You are clueless.

[beachnut]

None since 2002? seems like they have ironed out the bugs then......as to crash landing one there would be very good reasons for it to be programmed to do exactly the opposite over enemy territory. You want as high a KE vertical impact as possible to reduce chance of anything secret surviving.

The future starts NOW.:D
GH is a system that I bet flies classified missions; please explain how you would know all the mishaps (neat, they are mishaps). Do you have a top secret clearance? You can't tell us if it did crash; BTW

But keep pushing computers, I need more work.

The future started with the big bang, you must of missed it.

[Reheat]

Seriously. This is comedy gold. You are clueless.

And to make it worse, arrogant about it. Keep it going, there's a Stundie in here somewhere.....

[beachnut]

Seriously. This is comedy gold. You are clueless.

I see I will need an O2 source and a crash axe to fly the new automated airlines.

I can see it now, a rapid decompression and the computer forgets to do an emergency decent and everyone is dead upon arrival due to a malfunctioned 12,000 foot cabin pressure sensor while cruising at 35,000 feet.

[I Ratant]

GH is a system that I bet flies classified missions; please explain how you would know all the mishaps (neat, they are mishaps). Do you have a top secret clearance? You can't tell us if it did crash; BTW

But keep pushing computers, I need more work.

The future started with the big bang, you must of missed it.
.
The mishap/crash caused by the frequency conflict..
It's public knowledge... neat video.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=df3_1252603199
The others I mentioned are also.

[Rocket_Scientist]

Seriously. This is comedy gold. You are clueless.

On that I agree as well. This so called home run would have been an addition to the avionics package....not a redisign of the entire layout /design of the cockpit and avionics bays.

"This is your captain folks.....sorry to give you the bad news but due to some knucklehead on the ground forgetting to give us the keys to the breaker panel, what started out as a minor problem with an overheated piece of equipment and COULD have been remedied by simply popping a breaker, has now turned into a major conflaguration on the flight deck. Sorry for the inconvenience and we hope your surviving relatives will fly with us again":boggled:

[apathoid]

Why would such a system be dumb enough that you could disable it simply by pulling a breaker?

Others have scoffed at this, but I think it's a good question which doesn't have an immediately obvious answer to those who don't have the relevant experience and/or knowledge.

I've explained why this is the case in my posts 66 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5812599&postcount=66), 69 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5813037&postcount=69), and 87 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5815948&postcount=87) in this thread. Others have as well...I suggest you take the time and reread these posts. The answer is there.


There are a lots of ways one could protect that breaker from unauthorized use. If the system was designed to foil a hostile take over as per 91. then that would be a design requirement and one of the easier parts to do.:rolleyes:OK. Tell us how you would do it.

But first, do you understand why there are banks upon banks of circuit breakers in the cockpit? And what do you mean "protect from unauthorized use"? I'll remind you again that there is no software associated with circuit breakers. Pull one, and that system is dead. If you are talking about physically limiting the availability of the circuit breaker or moving it out of the cockpit, then you are removing an important safety feature(ya know, why they are immediately available to the flight crew in the first place) and the FAA would put the ixnay on your little "Remote Control" Project.

Oh, and circuit breakers aren't the only thing that is keeping "Homerun" and its European counterpart from ever leaving drawing board. Even is easier is reaching up to the Electrical Panel and switching off the engine generators, or better yet, press the Generator Drive Disconnect Switches. Then you are on battery power...two engines, one radio, no autopilot, and a few backup steam gauges is all that's working at that point. Again, no software in sight, and the FAA wont let the Gubmint take out this other important safety feautre(control of generators and generator drives).

The only way it would work is to utilize its own Attitude and Direction System, GPS, Inertial Navigation System, Radalt, ATC, Autopilot, Power Generation System and Engine Control System.

And that.....wont happen.

[George152]

Correct! Refueling receivers approach the tanker usually (at least) 1000' below his altitude and rejoin to the side.

In the correct refueling position the wake vortices are about 2-3' above the vertical stabilizer in a typical fighter. Get a little high and they can be felt on the tail. Get too high and they will have your puteau. That's true in both the KC-135 and the KC-10.

All formation positions are below or to the side of the wake vortices of the aircraft ahead, even the diamond formation flow by the Blue Angles and the Thunderbirds. Can't fly in the turbulence with any degree of precise control.

Just went away and looked at a number of aerial refuelling videos.
The aircraft approaches (in all of them) directly astern and lower.

[apathoid]

Actually the ILS is a seperate radar system, the SPN-44 which was a back-up for the ACLS at night, and also used for daytime approaches when the ACLS isn't needed. The only thing the ILS could do was generate a 2nd set of "needles" for the aircraft to fly on...Pure manual control for the pilot and absolutely no input to the ATC operators in CATCC (Carrier Air Traffic Control Center).

It was purely a pilot aid only, whereas the ACLS was THE final approach radar. All that positional data that could be sent to the aircraft was displayed on the SPN-42A ATC console and comprised three basic modes of operation...mode 3 which meant no "needles" and was purely a talk down to the pilot.......calls for correction by the ATC operator to the pilot....left 2, above glide slope, that sort of thing. Mode 2 was flying the needles being sent by the radar and all info available for a mode 1 landing was being sent to the aircraft without actually being "coupled", and just routine calls by the ATC operator for distance,course, and glidepath errors. Mode 1 was purely automatic all the way to the deck.

And yes for the most part, the aircraft had to have a good beacon for the ACLS to work with th exception of the F4 which had a radar reflector mounted right on the nose gear. Problem with that and the reason they went to a beacon was you never really could tell exactly where the radar was "painting" the aircraft. It MIGHT be locked onto the reflector or it might have locked on to a wing surface. The beacon transponder removed that uncertainty.

There are several planes that aren't mode one capable due to their flight response characteristics. The S3 viking only rated for Mode 1A...automatic down to 1/2 mile, the E2C and COD aircraft mode 3 only...standard talk down from the ATC controllers. The old A7 Corsair II, A6 intruder, EA6B prowler, KA6D tanker, F14, and F18 are all mode 1 capable.

"Fuzzy Logic" has been around for quite a while now. I'll bet an advanced version wouldn't have too much difficulty handling an adverse situation...I just wouldn't want to be on that first plane to find out though:D


Thanks for the info. I did some reading about it today as well; that's quite an impressive system when you take into account how accurate it is, given variables like wind, as well as the ships own movement about multiple axis.
The standard airliner autoland is supposed to set the plane down approximately 1000' down the runway, plus or minus 500' or so and within 25' of the centerline(which wouldn't quite cut it for the Navy, I reckon :D). Quite often, the pilots check the "UNSATISFACTORY" box next to the logbook entry for the autoland because it set down too soon, too late, too far from centerline, or disconnected at some point during the approach. Not to mention that most airliners can't do an autoland if the wind exceeds a crosswind component of 15 knots or so. Clearly something more reliable and exacting is needed. Sheelplesnshills has a fortune waiting for him if he can get his ideas off the ground, so to speak.

[George152]

Why would such a system be dumb enough that you could disable it simply by pulling a breaker? There are a lots of ways one could protect that breaker from unauthorized use. If the system was designed to foil a hostile take over as per 911 then that would be a design requirement and one of the easier parts to do.:rolleyes:

Ah but pilots are authorised to reset circuit breakers. That's why they (the pilots and the circuit breakers) are where they are

[apathoid]

Ah but pilots are authorised to reset circuit breakers. That's why they (the pilots and the circuit breakers) are where they are


More and more, pilots are being told not to reset breakers, just pull them for the remainder of the flight. Many times, resetting a tripped breaker can be a very bad idea. About three weeks ago, following a test of the alternate flap drive system, I witnessed smoke billowing out of the leading edge of a 767. I ran up to the cockpit and pulled the breakers for the slat alternate drive motor, which we found out had burned up. Sure enough, during the test, the breaker popped and was reset by my coworker who thought nothing of it!

[gumboot]

If you've ever drafted behind an eighteen wheeler, you know how effective this can be. It's quite substantial. Mythbusters demonstrated this once, if you haven't seen it in action.



Actually Mythbusters demonstrated that it wasn't effective at all. You had to be something like 4ft behind the truck before you gained any benefit. Obviously driving behind an 18-wheeler (or anything, for that matter) at 4ft separation is insane. Also interestingly, at those close separations so much fluctuation of the throttle was used to maintain following distance that fuel consumption actually increased when a human was doing the driving.

[gumboot]

I've flown sailplanes on aerotow.
I've been in the 'wake' and the 'wake' does not extend directly behind the towing aircraft.
Which is why I asked the question


Well let me know how you fare next time your sailplane is being towed by a jet.

The aircraft that do aerotows have very, very small wake turbulence.

[gumboot]

So you are not familiar with the latest advances in optical recognition as well?
How hard do you think it would be for a computer to work out that an object on a relatively flat surface is a boat?

I dunno about them, but I'm familiar with that topic, and it's harder than you might think it is. Water, being a highly reflective and also a polarising surface, makes it even more difficult.


The computer has the huge advantage that it does not have to rely on visible light either, but could use infrared, radar, laser etc for scanning for obstacles in its path.

You've just exponentially increased the avionics package for the aircraft. The mind boggles at even contemplating the programming variables necessary to make this system even remotely viable. What happens the first time the aircraft encounters a variable that hasn't been programmed?


It does not take "intelligence" to land a plane, it takes data and flying skills both areas that a computer can far excel the ability of a human. A computer can be programmed to choose between "crummy" options. In the case of a plane with no engines those options are few and the computer would do what Sully did and chose the best of the bad options he had.

No, in any situation there's a multitude of options, and you cannot program a computer for every single eventuality.

[R.Mackey]

Actually Mythbusters demonstrated that it wasn't effective at all. You had to be something like 4ft behind the truck before you gained any benefit.

No, that's not their result at all:

Controlled road test: fuel consumption
decrease from baseline at 55 mph:
100 ft || 50 ft || 20 ft || 10 ft || 2 ft
11% || 20% || 27% || 39% || 28%

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2007_season)#Drafting_For_Money)

Given that drag is far from the only thing being overcome by motive power, even an 11% decrease -- at a perfectly ordinary 100 feet, and fairly low 55 MPH -- is quite significant.


Obviously driving behind an 18-wheeler (or anything, for that matter) at 4ft separation is insane. Also interestingly, at those close separations so much fluctuation of the throttle was used to maintain following distance that fuel consumption actually increased when a human was doing the driving.

Increased, relative to slightly longer separation, yes. Not increased compared to the baseline with no drafting at all. But yes, there are lots of things that can influence efficiency, human factors being an important one!

[gumboot]

No, that's not their result at all:

Given that drag is far from the only thing being overcome by motive power, even an 11% decrease -- at a perfectly ordinary 100 feet, and fairly low 55 MPH -- is quite significant.

100ft is barely a second at 55MPH. Normal? That's stupidly close.

Even assuming an ideal friction coefficient between the tyres and the wheels, you're looking at a stopping distance of over 120ft (that's allowing a 1s average reaction time but not including a 1s average recognition time, which would add a good 90ft to that distance). Given that driving this close to a truck will prevent you seeing what's happening in front of said truck, you'll be rapidly closing that following distance well before you even hit the brakes. Trucks, also have better stopping performance than cars, which means the truck is going to stop quicker than you. If you're tailing a truck at 100ft and it performs an emergency brake you're pretty much guaranteed to hit it.

Once we take into account other potential variables like normally worn tyres, poor road surface, an empty truck (which means it can stop insanely fast), and a slightly slower-reacting driver, well... death is pretty much a certain outcome.

Granted I grossly exaggerated with my terrible memory (4ft!), but my basic point still stands.

[ref]

100ft is barely a second at 55MPH. Normal? That's stupidly close.


Maybe they drive closer to each other in LA, than in NZ. :p

[sheeplesnshills]

Seriously. This is comedy gold. You are clueless.


You are joking surely? You don't know of any way that would stop someone having unauthorized access to a breaker? talk about being clueless:rolleyes:

Simplest way would be a simple 5 button combination locking panel over it..........or one could simply have the system bypass it once initiated so it cannot be shut down from the cockpit. Yes this would be a risk but then again being hijacked is not exactly risk free!

[sheeplesnshills]

And to make it worse, arrogant about it. Keep it going, there's a Stundie in here somewhere.....

yep, but not me :D

[sheeplesnshills]

I see I will need an O2 source and a crash axe to fly the new automated airlines.

I can see it now, a rapid decompression and the computer forgets to do an emergency decent and everyone is dead upon arrival due to a malfunctioned 12,000 foot cabin pressure sensor while cruising at 35,000 feet.

You have heard of redundancy? Do I really need to explain to you how multiple sensors can be scanned and the one faulty one ignored?:confused:

[sheeplesnshills]

On that I agree as well. This so called home run would have been an addition to the avionics package....not a redisign of the entire layout /design of the cockpit and avionics bays.

"This is your captain folks.....sorry to give you the bad news but due to some knucklehead on the ground forgetting to give us the keys to the breaker panel, what started out as a minor problem with an overheated piece of equipment and COULD have been remedied by simply popping a breaker, has now turned into a major conflaguration on the flight deck. Sorry for the inconvenience and we hope your surviving relatives will fly with us again":boggled:


Agreed, "home run" did not exist and would not been an economic or practical installation on the last generation of commercial jets. It would have to be designed in from the start. keys? see above.......and since we are only talking about a few breakers on specific circuits the odds of ever using the system to start with are low because hijacking are very rare, the odds of it then overheating (and not dealing with that problem itself like every half decent computer already does) and then add the odds that both the captain and the co pilot have forgotten the code.........so the odds of your scenario are higher than you winning the jackpot in the lottery........

[sheeplesnshills]

But first, do you understand why there are banks upon banks of circuit breakers in the cockpit? And what do you mean "protect from unauthorized use"? I'll remind you again that there is no software associated with circuit breakers. Pull one, and that system is dead. If you are talking about physically limiting the availability of the circuit breaker or moving it out of the cockpit, then you are removing an important safety feature(ya know, why they are immediately available to the flight crew in the first place) and the FAA would put the ixnay on your little "Remote Control" Project.

Of course I know why there are breakers:rolleyes:
See above

Oh, and circuit breakers aren't the only thing that is keeping "Homerun" and its European counterpart from ever leaving drawing board. Even is easier is reaching up to the Electrical Panel and switching off the engine generators, or better yet, press the Generator Drive Disconnect Switches. Then you are on battery power...two engines, one radio, no autopilot, and a few backup steam gauges is all that's working at that point. Again, no software in sight, and the FAA wont let the Gubmint take out this other important safety feautre(control of generators and generator drives).

Good luck trying to fly to cuba or into the WTC towers when you are a at best half trained pilot on battery power.............which is, unless I'm very mistaken, the whole point!

The only way it would work is to utilize its own Attitude and Direction System, GPS, Inertial Navigation System, Radalt, ATC, Autopilot, Power Generation System and Engine Control System.

Bingo! give the man a prize.

And that.....wont happen.

Why? because you don't like the idea? Let see...you are a passenger on a 787 that has just been taken over by a band of tea party libertarians intent on flying it into the Capitol building, now you can fight back, but sadly they have MP5s and you have a coffee pot........things are looking very black for you and the folks in Washington..........but they plane refuses to respond to the cockpit controls and descends and land at the nearest airport where the SWAT team are waiting. Sure the bad guys guys could probably still randomly crash it but after 911 that was never really the problem:(

[sheeplesnshills]

More and more, pilots are being told not to reset breakers, just pull them for the remainder of the flight. Many times, resetting a tripped breaker can be a very bad idea. About three weeks ago, following a test of the alternate flap drive system, I witnessed smoke billowing out of the leading edge of a 767. I ran up to the cockpit and pulled the breakers for the slat alternate drive motor, which we found out had burned up. Sure enough, during the test, the breaker popped and was reset by my coworker who thought nothing of it!

Now a computer wouldn't have done that:D

[HawksFan]

And what happens when the system glitches and takes over when it's not supposed to? Or the terrorists hack into the system? No computer system is perfect.

[A W Smith]

100ft is barely a second at 55MPH. Normal? That's stupidly close.

Even assuming an ideal friction coefficient between the tyres and the wheels, you're looking at a stopping distance of over 120ft (that's allowing a 1s average reaction time but not including a 1s average recognition time, which would add a good 90ft to that distance). Given that driving this close to a truck will prevent you seeing what's happening in front of said truck, you'll be rapidly closing that following distance well before you even hit the brakes. Trucks, also have better stopping performance than cars, which means the truck is going to stop quicker than you. If you're tailing a truck at 100ft and it performs an emergency brake you're pretty much guaranteed to hit it.

Once we take into account other potential variables like normally worn tyres, poor road surface, an empty truck (which means it can stop insanely fast), and a slightly slower-reacting driver, well... death is pretty much a certain outcome.

Granted I grossly exaggerated with my terrible memory (4ft!), but my basic point still stands.

Maybe they drive closer to each other in LA, than in NZ. :p

If I left 100 feet between me and a rig here in New Jersey at 55 mph. I can guarantee that two other vehicles would pass me and fill that gap. Trying to maintain 100 feet between ANYTHING here on a multi-lane highway is damn near impossible. And New York drivers are even scarier. They would pass you on the shoulder to fill that gap.

[HawksFan]

Not to mention the R&D costs, the added (non-revenue generating) extra weight of all your redundant systems and sensors, the lost space for cargo to make room for all this equipment, etc.

[sheeplesnshills]

100ft is barely a second at 55MPH. Normal? That's stupidly close.

Even assuming an ideal friction coefficient between the tyres and the wheels, you're looking at a stopping distance of over 120ft (that's allowing a 1s average reaction time but not including a 1s average recognition time, which would add a good 90ft to that distance). Given that driving this close to a truck will prevent you seeing what's happening in front of said truck, you'll be rapidly closing that following distance well before you even hit the brakes. Trucks, also have better stopping performance than cars, which means the truck is going to stop quicker than you. If you're tailing a truck at 100ft and it performs an emergency brake you're pretty much guaranteed to hit it.

Once we take into account other potential variables like normally worn tyres, poor road surface, an empty truck (which means it can stop insanely fast), and a slightly slower-reacting driver, well... death is pretty much a certain outcome.

Granted I grossly exaggerated with my terrible memory (4ft!), but my basic point still stands.


I've seen Artics (18 wheelers) in the UK drive with maybe 10 - 15ft between them in the UK..............stupid? yes but half the population are below average intelligence.........

[I Ratant]

I dunno about them, but I'm familiar with that topic, and it's harder than you might think it is. Water, being a highly reflective and also a polarising surface, makes it even more difficult.
...
.
I've noticed that riding my bicycle at night in rain. The headlight is pretty much useless. It reflects almost nothing -back-, it all bounces off the smooth layer of water on the street and goes forward.
Normally all the pits and bumps on the surface reflect the light back so what is there is visible.
I've wondered if a liquid surface might be a good radar evader, for that reason... and also that might make it difficult for a ditching computer to determine where the water is relative to itself.

[I Ratant]

100ft is barely a second at 55MPH. Normal? That's stupidly close.

Even assuming an ideal friction coefficient between the tyres and the wheels, you're looking at a stopping distance of over 120ft (that's allowing a 1s average reaction time but not including a 1s average recognition time, which would add a good 90ft to that distance). Given that driving this close to a truck will prevent you seeing what's happening in front of said truck, you'll be rapidly closing that following distance well before you even hit the brakes. Trucks, also have better stopping performance than cars, which means the truck is going to stop quicker than you. If you're tailing a truck at 100ft and it performs an emergency brake you're pretty much guaranteed to hit it.

Once we take into account other potential variables like normally worn tyres, poor road surface, an empty truck (which means it can stop insanely fast), and a slightly slower-reacting driver, well... death is pretty much a certain outcome.

Granted I grossly exaggerated with my terrible memory (4ft!), but my basic point still stands.
.
When I'm out on the freeway, 3 lanes.. slow, middle, fast. I'll take the middle lane, as the slow lane usually is slower than the speed limit, and had those getting on and off the freeway.
I drive the speed limit plus 5, maybe 10 mph depending on traffic and keep 100 yards as a minimum behind the vehicle in front of me.
I can -be assured- I will be tailgated... less than 50 foot spacing by some broad in a big car... who will sit back there and never pass, despite the fast lane having no traffic to prevent that.
On two-lane roads.. one in each direction, it's worse. They apparently believe (I would say think, but there's none of that going on) that if they get 10 feet behind me, I will speed up and get out of their way a couple miles ahead where the road widens, and they can get to the beauty shop. (They probably need a complete makeover anyway, but getting there in 10 minutes instead of 11 isn't going to make any difference, the task the beautician will face is daunting.)
I don't.
I keep a 100 feet or more behind the car in front of me.
Which came in right handy last night.
The 2-laner widened for a left turn lane.
A car pulled into that lane and stopped, waiting for the oncoming traffic to clear.
The car ahead of me -STOPPED- right next to it!
A 55 mph road, with no stop sign at all there!
Onacause I do keep that spacing, I was able to brake and pull off onto the shoulder safely.
The disabled person in that car... had license plates to prove that on the vehicle.. then proceeded on down the road, attempting to stop at all the wrong places about 4 times, until pulling off to the right to make a U-turn.
Were I a violent person, I would have pulled over beside them, demanded their driver's license, and vanished into the night with it! :)

[Reheat]

.
I've wondered if a liquid surface might be a good radar evader, for that reason... and also that might make it difficult for a ditching computer to determine where the water is relative to itself.

You've guessed correctly. Water is indeed an extremely poor radar reflector. So is desert sand. Apparently it has something to do with the angle of the beam. All of the aircraft with Terrain Following Radar (TFR) can not use that Radar over water or over desert sand. Radar Altimeters, on the other hand, do work. Consequently, TFR capable aircraft use a Low Altitude Radar Altimeter (LARA) over these types of non reflective surfaces. The problem is a LARA does NOT look ahead for obstacles. Radar is not a good solution for this problem. This is just one of many issues that our resident ace geek thinks would be easy. There are lots more......

Perhaps one of our Radar knowledgeable folks could expand on this more....

[Seymour Butz]

Trucks, also have better stopping performance than cars,.

I don't think so.

[beachnut]

.
The mishap/crash caused by the frequency conflict..
It's public knowledge... neat video.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=df3_1252603199
The others I mentioned are also.
Yes I have heard the public ones. Neat to know the others.



You have heard of redundancy? Do I really need to explain to you how multiple sensors can be scanned and the one faulty one ignored?:confused:
There go your costs. Yes I know about redundancy in aircraft I have to have 3 or four systems for my ADI and back up ADIs; I have flown heavy jets and hold an ATP, and worked aircraft design issues at AFWAL.

I am making educated skeptical remarks because I worked system safety issues in aircraft like the B-1 after the darn thing quite and nosed dive into the ground.

Yes quad redundant "flight control computers" are a great idea for planes needing a computer to control the dynamics of neutral stability or negative stability and other.

But unnecessary automation is a waste of money. and some times a surprise failure mode is added to the system, waiting to be disclosed. Like a form-fit replacement that uses less power but remains on a circuit with 10 times the power needs. What happens in a short condition to the system board? Burning circuit boards sending out fake signals of engine fires will ruin your day as the engines are shut down by a computer system which does not really have the skills of a good pilot, they left out Judgment based on knowledge and experience. Enjoy your computer flight, when is it coming?

If humans can make big errors like Payne Stewart's death, then computers can beat humans in messing up; big time. But please keep pushing computers to take over, I am an engineer who would be needed in a massive computer takeover, a job would be there for a pilot with an engineering degree, every engineering team needs a token pilot when working aviation issues. Do it, do it again

[sheeplesnshills]

.
I've noticed that riding my bicycle at night in rain. The headlight is pretty much useless. It reflects almost nothing -back-, it all bounces off the smooth layer of water on the street and goes forward.
Normally all the pits and bumps on the surface reflect the light back so what is there is visible.
I've wondered if a liquid surface might be a good radar evader, for that reason... and also that might make it difficult for a ditching computer to determine where the water is relative to itself.

That could be mitigated by use of gps 3D map data which could know the height of the water (say at high tide for the sea, high water for a lake) and back that up with a vertical laser distance finder or radar altimeter that could feed back more exact heights in the last seconds of descent. Lots of other factors that would need to be considered, like wind direction, direction and height of waves/swell. Tides at least are very predictable so data for mean water height at any time in the future would be easily carried and factored in.

[sheeplesnshills]

There go your costs. Yes I know about redundancy in aircraft I have to have 3 or four systems for my ADI and back up ADIs; I have flown heavy jets and hold an ATP, and worked aircraft design issues at AFWAL.

I am making educated skeptical remarks because I worked system safety issues in aircraft like the B-1 after the darn thing quite and nosed dive into the ground.

The B1, I assume you are talking about a refit as the original plane is hardly cutting edge being over 25 years old and electronics are orders of magnitude faster, cheaper and more reliable since then.


But unnecessary automation is a waste of money.

Unnecessary? That tends to change over time. What would have been regarded as unnecessary 10 year ago may be regarded as standard now.
It not "necessary" to have AC or power steering in a car but yet the vast majority have it. An unacceptable rate of pilot error, or the cost of human pilots could easily make the economics of automation inescapable.

and some times a surprise failure mode is added to the system, waiting to be disclosed. Like a form-fit replacement that uses less power but remains on a circuit with 10 times the power needs. What happens in a short condition to the system board? Burning circuit boards sending out fake signals of engine fires will ruin your day as the engines are shut down by a computer system which does not really have the skills of a good pilot, they left out Judgment based on knowledge and experience.

redundancy takes care of that. If one computer has a fault and does not agree with the others it is shut down. Knowledge and experience is essentially just data and the good thing is that all aircraft become as skilled as the best rather than having a mix of skills and abilities as with human pilots.

Enjoy your computer flight, when is it coming?

Its already here in one form or another....all that needs to be done is pull all the parts together. Most of my not inconsiderable time in the air was probably under autopilot and so have lots of my landings, especially in the UK where landing in near zero visibility was commonplace.

If humans can make big errors like Payne Stewart's death, then computers can beat humans in messing up; big time.

The two are not connected so you cannot make such an assertion.

But please keep pushing computers to take over, I am an engineer who would be needed in a massive computer takeover, a job would be there for a pilot with an engineering degree, every engineering team needs a token pilot when working aviation issues. Do it, do it again

Not my sector I'm afraid, but I would love to work on it and If a job change take me into it I'll be glad of your input.:)

[George152]

Well let me know how you fare next time your sailplane is being towed by a jet.

The aircraft that do aerotows have very, very small wake turbulence.

The size of the towplane is relative to the size of the sailplane.
Believe me descending into the wake can give you (and the tow pilot) an interesting few minutes.

Do an accurate steep turn in a light aircraft and hit your wake.
It's a real buzz to fly that accurately

[Rocket_Scientist]

Thanks for the info. I did some reading about it today as well; that's quite an impressive system when you take into account how accurate it is, given variables like wind, as well as the ships own movement about multiple axis.
The standard airliner autoland is supposed to set the plane down approximately 1000' down the runway, plus or minus 500' or so and within 25' of the centerline(which wouldn't quite cut it for the Navy, I reckon :D). Quite often, the pilots check the "UNSATISFACTORY" box next to the logbook entry for the autoland because it set down too soon, too late, too far from centerline, or disconnected at some point during the approach. Not to mention that most airliners can't do an autoland if the wind exceeds a crosswind component of 15 knots or so. Clearly something more reliable and exacting is needed. Sheelplesnshills has a fortune waiting for him if he can get his ideas off the ground, so to speak.

Yes, the system was extremely accurate. If I remeber correctly, in addition to the +/- 2ft range accuracy, the AZ/EL accuracy was rated at +/- 0.0025Deg. That's one of the advantages of having a ground based system. Watching a mode 1 landing through the center line deck mounted camera or PLAT (Pilot Landing Aid Television) which the LSO also used out on the LSO platform, you could actually see the plane moving in perfect syncronization with the ships motion....something no pilot could even see at night, much less compensate for. Yup......25ft right of centerline would have that old F14 pilot crashing into the island structure...ouch:rolleyes:

Another impressive feature of that old SPN-42 was the amount of routine maintainance required to keep it in optimum condition. The newer SPN-46 is better in that regards but there was still a lot of carry over from the old system. Lots of different equipment racks and bays that filled an entire room. The next gen ACLS is supposed to use GPS but will still have to use all those ships motion variables. Anybody remember those cheesy grade c
sci-fi flicks with the big computers with all the flashy lights? That pretty well describes the Univac 1219 computer the the ACLS used. I should post pictures of all this some time. I took quite a few of the radar room and flight operations and just need to scan in and upload.

I think i've actually posted more info on that system than what's vailable on-line. I did some searching a while back and to my experienced self it all seemed just a basic description. :D

[I Ratant]

Well let me know how you fare next time your sailplane is being towed by a jet.

The aircraft that do aerotows have very, very small wake turbulence.
.
I read recently that the first U-2 lost in operational service, near Kaiserslauten,Germany, was the victim of the jet wake of an F-86, 9/17/1956.

[Edx]

What do you guys think of this?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/823847.cms

[sheeplesnshills]

:D Told ya so.........

Pilot is a job of the past not the future..........

[Reheat]

:D Told ya so.........

Says someone who reads an article written without squat detail and ASSUMES it's true because it says what they want to hear. Does that sound like someone folks here might know?.......:D

[apathoid]

What do you guys think of this?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/823847.cms

Snore. Doesn't answer any of our objections.

Straight rom the "Robolander" website (http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/RoboLander_files/RoboLander.htm).....


"Q1.....No action on equipping airplanes with remote guidance. This has been considered but in light of the extensive C/B panel, anyone could disable the airplane systems required to effect the remote pilot connection. This kind of rules out remote control. Other actions are more reasonable at the current time. However, new airplanes could build a feature like this into the design and it is feasible with current technology."


ANSWER: Quite simply any CB's for a RoboLander system should be located in the on-the-ground (only) access panel (but duplicated in the E&E bay) and the system power should be via an auxiliary load-centre, accessible inflight via the E&E hatch (which would be code-locked / combination held only by the captain. He then would be in the same situation as regards his personalised ROBO squawk. Only he would know it and only he could disclose it.). The concept therefore remains fail-safe.In the future, once wiring bundles are isolated, remoted or inaccessible and circuit-breakers are physically inside the code-locked E&E bay, (being replaced in the cockpit by status lights) then would-be hijackers will be unable to down the aircraft. However the RoboLander system is presently designed only to stop normal hijackings and suicide terrorists who might otherwise repeat their 11 Sep routine. Unless systems were physically protected from their predations, hijackers operating with impunity could always "down" an aircraft. This may not be the case in future designs (hopefully).

Note the highlighted part; airplane can still be nosed into the ground by hijackers.

OK. First of all, the FAA won't allow them to "hide" the dedicated Robolander circuit breakers. Not only that, the site says absolutely nothing about existing circuit breakers from systems that Robolander will rely on(like autpilot, FMS, Nav, ILS, GPS, etc, etc, etc). Those breakers will never be restricted, or moved out of the cockpit; that would create what we call a "Safety of Flight" issue. The site also says nothing about simply selecting the engine generators off and flying on DC power, which would be tanamount to flying a Cessna 172. All the bells and whistles are no more.

This sort of system would be effective only if the airplane was designed around it. The site does actually go into detail about that, but that is at least 10+ years off as they missed the boat on the 787.

Color me unimpressed.

[apathoid]

Oops, the article above was written in 2004 and most of the material on the "Robolander" website is dated 2001.

From the article..

...Despite resistance to the technology from unions and airlines, the government may contribute up to £40 million towards a prototype "proof of concept" aircraft to be built by 2010.

Tick-tock Tick-tock.

[MRC_Hans]

OK I give up! I said that the idea was plausible enough for a movie thats all!

You still seem to miss the point that modern electronics can already fly an aircraft from take of to landing without a pilot and are likely to increasingly do so in the future, first in the military (where the ability to make higher G turns than a pilot can handle is an obviously useful ability, plus you don't lose a pilot when the plane gets shot down) and then in commercial aircraft where they will be, sooner or later, be simply safer than letting a human do the job.Most of this has already been said:

- Remote control of a plane is technically feasible. We have military drones. To have sufficient range, it will have to be via sattelite link.

- An autonomous flight system (no remote, the plane knows where to fly and land) is implemented in some drones, but is far from suitable for a passenger plane. The autonomous drones are catapult or rocket launched, and if they are to land again (some of them are also called cruise missiles), they are recovered by a net. Flying a passenger plane through a crowded airspace to a safe landing is not presently feasible.

- Secrecy: If such a system is implemented it will not be a secret. First of all, pilots must obviously know about it, since they will be the first to know if the plane is being hijacked, so they need to know how to switch to remote; you can't wait till someone on the ground realizes the situation.

Also ATC personnel must know about it. They have to know how to handle a plane on remote entering their airspace.

The system must be under regular maintenance, so maintenance personnel must knw about it. Access to service facilities is under security control, with every spare part undergoing security check, so security personnel must also know about it.

Of course engineers at plane factories, and plane constructors must know about it.

Finally, insurance companies need to know about it; they will want to know if they might be sked to cover a plane on remote.

This all means that about a million people, in the US alone, will know about it.

How come we haven't heard about it, except from some dubious sources?

Hans

[sheeplesnshills]

[QUOTE=MRC_Hans;5846147]Most of this has already been said:

- Remote control of a plane is technically feasible. We have military drones. To have sufficient range, it will have to be via sattelite link.

So no problem there........

- An autonomous flight system (no remote, the plane knows where to fly and land) is implemented in some drones, but is far from suitable for a passenger plane. The autonomous drones are catapult or rocket launched, and if they are to land again (some of them are also called cruise missiles), they are recovered by a net. Flying a passenger plane through a crowded airspace to a safe landing is not presently feasible.

Go back and read the posts.....the Airforce (IIRC)already uses a system to take off, fly and land transports. Its feasible, in fact more than that it would be quite easy as tech challenges go.

- Secrecy: If such a system is implemented it will not be a secret. First of all, pilots must obviously know about it, since they will be the first to know if the plane is being hijacked, so they need to know how to switch to remote; you can't wait till someone on the ground realizes the situation.

I see no need for secrecy. And control could be initiated in lots of ways without the Pilot necessarily doing so.
[QUOTE][
Also ATC personnel must know about it. They have to know how to handle a plane on remote entering their airspace.

The system must be under regular maintenance, so maintenance personnel must knw about it. Access to service facilities is under security control, with every spare part undergoing security check, so security personnel must also know about it.

Of course engineers at plane factories, and plane constructors must know about it.

Finally, insurance companies need to know about it; they will want to know if they might be sked to cover a plane on remote.

This all means that about a million people, in the US alone, will know about it.

How come we haven't heard about it, except from some dubious sources?/QUOTE]

Because such a system does not exist now and did not exist on 9/11. All of which says nothing about whether it could or should.

[sheeplesnshills]

Says someone who reads an article written without squat detail and ASSUMES it's true because it says what they want to hear. Does that sound like someone folks here might know?.......:D


As opposed to reading little and assuming its not?

Its a pity the article turned out to be old as it would have meant we were actually ahead of where I expected us to be.:(

[Reheat]

the Airforce (IIRC)already uses a system to take off, fly and land transports. Its feasible, in fact more than that it would be quite easy as tech challenges go.

Specifics, please.

BTW, the primary objections to what you've had to say have been to AUTOMATED systems with out human involvement. You keep switching back and forth as if they are the same,,,, They're not!

I believe everyone who's commented in this thread has acknowledged that remote control is possible today, but with significant problems in implementing in a passenger carrying operation. That's years away......if ever. Automated systems are another matter entirely, except in your hobby aircraft! :D:D

[funk de fino]

It's a good job Da Vinci is dead or people would be telling him how to paint masters based on seeing a few decent pics done by graphics programs.

If there is one thing worse than a truther telling you your job, its a non truther doing the same.

[WildCat]

How effective would a system like that actually be? Assume terrorists take over a plane. The "home run" system is activated, and the terrorists no longer have control of the aircraft. What's to prevent the terrorists from just getting on the radio and proclaiming they will kill one passenger a minute until control is restored?
Couldn't happen, because there are no terrorists! Ask any truther.

[sheeplesnshills]

Specifics, please.

See post #92

BTW, the primary objections to what you've had to say have been to AUTOMATED systems with out human involvement. You keep switching back and forth as if they are the same,,,, They're not!

See post #92 Sure humans are involved but they don't NEED to be (and thats using yesterdays tech)

I believe everyone who's commented in this thread has acknowledged that remote control is possible today, but with significant problems in implementing in a passenger carrying operation. That's years away......if ever. Automated systems are another matter entirely, except in your hobby aircraft! :D:D

LOL We have cars the park themselves, cars that notice if we are falling asleep, cars with interactive cruise control, driver-less trains, pilot-less drones replacing fighter aircraft where the only real human input required is the target recognition and decision to fire.
The next generation will not care if there is a human on board or not and the current one doesn't care if the pilot does nothing but twiddle his thumbs the whole way (or get too absorbed in their laptops to notice they are 200 miles past where they were supposed to land). They want to get from A to B safely, thats all.
You clearly are not ready to make the mental leap to the next generation....in fact you remind me of a typist or a typewriter manufacturer in 1982....you don't realise that the your whole job essentially was no longer required once the first IBM PC came down the line.

As I said, Pilot is a job of the past, not the future. They are expensive, prone to human weaknesses and becoming the weak link in aircraft safety.

[sheeplesnshills]

"It's a good job Da Vinci is dead or people would be telling him how to paint masters based on seeing a few decent pics done by graphics programs.

lol How likely is it that Da Vinci would choose painting if he was born today? Once he has seen what was possible in 3D Cinema alone, paint would look pretty shabby.......
I think he would not live in the past but would be making the future

If there is one thing worse than a truther telling you your job, its a non truther doing the same.

Its your job to design autonomous aircraft? No you are designing typewriters or carburettors :)

[beachnut]

lol How likely is it that Da Vinci would choose painting if he was born today? Once he has seen what was possible in 3D Cinema alone, paint would look pretty shabby.......
I think he would not live in the past but would be making the future


Its your job to design autonomous aircraft? No you are designing typewriters or carburettors :)

da Vinci would not paint because there is 3D Cinema? There are not enough laughing dogs. When you understand the tradeoffs in the digital world, when I see the back ground frozen due to compression artifacts, I have to go outside and see the real 3D world. What engineering school did you graduate from?

Are you going to wow us with your work better than da Vinci due to 3D Cinema, or are you saying it takes a da Vinci to make art and he would make it in 3D Cinema? More laughing dogs but I have to go see the real world and why the digital world of 3D Cinema is still short. I have chased clouds in a supersonic aircraft and pulled 7Gs to pullout while weaving down to the ground at 600 mph, and now Da Vinci will trade in painting for 3D Cinema when he is born again, never to paint again.

Why are stage plays still here? When will the Matrix takeover? A digital wife? A digital dog? A digital apple, from the digital apple tree? Will the digital rose smell like a real rose? Where is the digital smell in 3D?

Wednesday I have to format two new 2TB drives and add two new dual digital tuners; so technology is not new nor the end all for me; it is a tool to do tasks. I have programed computers since 1971 and worked with technology in advanced cockpits. What engineering credentials do you have to lecture technology, or are these your opinions?

Autonomous aircraft that match humans have not been invented. When will they? Not in your time.

[gumboot]

LOL We have cars the park themselves, cars that notice if we are falling asleep, cars with interactive cruise control, driver-less trains, pilot-less drones replacing fighter aircraft where the only real human input required is the target recognition and decision to fire.
The next generation will not care if there is a human on board or not and the current one doesn't care if the pilot does nothing but twiddle his thumbs the whole way (or get too absorbed in their laptops to notice they are 200 miles past where they were supposed to land). They want to get from A to B safely, thats all.
You clearly are not ready to make the mental leap to the next generation....in fact you remind me of a typist or a typewriter manufacturer in 1982....you don't realise that the your whole job essentially was no longer required once the first IBM PC came down the line.

As I said, Pilot is a job of the past, not the future. They are expensive, prone to human weaknesses and becoming the weak link in aircraft safety.



I happen to be a member of that "next generation" and I think you're full of crap. One day we probably will have automated aircraft, but it won't be for a very, very long time yet.

[Pardalis]

I happen to be a member of that "next generation" and I think you're full of crap. One day we probably will have automated aircraft, but it won't be for a very, very long time yet.

We can't really imagine which technology is going to pan out and be picked up by companies in the future, we're still waiting for the flying car, and that never materialized, but remote-controlled airplaines I don't think so.

If the technology pans out for airplaines to be piloted remotely, this means they will also become "hijackable" remotely as well. People with ill intentions will find a way to use this technology for their own ends, and I don't think airlines will risk it.

Sometimes the risk is too great to continue with a technology, and human reflexes and intuition are still working quite well.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger#Flight_1549
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pich%C3%A9

If it wasn't for these pilots and their training and experience, there would have been no survivors.

[funk de fino]

lol How likely is it that Da Vinci would choose painting if he was born today? Once he has seen what was possible in 3D Cinema alone, paint would look pretty shabby.......
I think he would not live in the past but would be making the future

An artist is an artist. Computers are not artists and they are not pilots.

Its your job to design autonomous aircraft? No you are designing typewriters or carburettors :)

12 years service working on fastjet fighter arcraft? Whats your avionics experience?

[funk de fino]

pilot-less drones replacing fighter aircraft where the only real human input required is the target recognition and decision to fire.

Except this has not happened. You are clueless as to what fighter aircraft mission is.

[apathoid]

So no problem there........

Go back and read the posts.....the Airforce (IIRC)already uses a system to take off, fly and land transports. Its feasible, in fact more than that it would be quite easy as tech challenges go.


Easy, theoretically? You bet. Easy as far as maintaining an acceptable level of safety and reliability? Not at all. I wish I could show you just one modern airliner logbook so you can see yourself how many times that particular plane is "on the hook" for an autopilot problem that takes it out of autoland status. Then, you have all the unsuccessful autolands, disconnects, porpoising squawks, etc which makes me glad somebody is up there to fly the damned thing by hand when the autopilot is SNAFU'ed. Oh, and most of the time, we can't duplicate the autopilot write-up on the ground. So if the autopilot "return to service" test is successful, we put the plane back on autoland status without a repair(unless there is a history, in which case we'll throw parts at it until a successful autoland is made).

I've troubleshot an intermittent uncommaded roll autopilot squawk on an MD88 which turned out to be something as trivial as a misrouted wire(which was unshielded and picked up EMI from power feeder wires which are also unshielded). The 777 has, and I'm sure the 787 will as well, a superb self diagnostic system that detects problems real time and even recommends fixes.... but still, I've seen things that boggle my mind how they could go undetected. If you only knew that dangers that lie ahead for fully autonomous flight, you'd be leery too. As someone else upthread said; it's not what the programmers take into consideration - it's what they don't. See the famous Airbus A320 demonstrator crash (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzD4tIvPHwE), for example.


BTW, which aircraft(that isn't still under a veil of secrery) in the USAF inventory is fully autonomous? This is the second time you've made this claim. I'd like to know what airplane you are talking about.

[R.Mackey]

I've troubleshot an intermittent uncommaded roll autopilot squawk on an MD88 which turned out to be something as trivial as a misrouted wire(which was unshielded and picked up EMI from power feeder wires which are also unshielded). The 777 has, and I'm sure the 787 will as well, a superb self diagnostic system that detects problems real time and even recommends fixes.... but still, I've seen things that boggle my mind how they could go undetected. If you only knew that dangers that lie ahead for fully autonomous flight, you'd be leery too.

Yup. That diagnostic is the 777 CMC (Central Management Computer) if you want to look it up -- there are many papers on the subject, chief among them work by Dr. Ramohalli at Honeywell. The function of the CMC is to certify the aircraft for reflight, verifying that it has enough still-functioning redundant systems to pass an FAA checklist.

See that scary word up there, "certify?" Certification is a huge issue. There are lots and lots of technologies required to reach this level, things that no hobbyist ever encounters. For example, you as Joe the R/C Enthusiast can put whatever computer and operating system you want on your toys -- any basic SBC (http://www.pabr.org/chromicro/doc/chromicro.en.html#part_cpu) will do, running Linux in all probability. Think that'll fly in civil aviation? Guess again. There are literally hundreds of ARINC standards that apply, and if you don't meet those (which you don't), you don't fly. All of these standards are developed after years of bitter experience in everything that can go wrong.

The basic standard of civil aviation is that your system must demonstrably meet an incident rate of 1 per 1 million flight hours of operation. That's the total system threshold. Your autonomous software gets a slice of this probability space, so let's say 1 incident in 10 million flight hours is a good target. Knock yourself out.

We're beginning to repeat ourselves, sheeplenshills. Yes, some of us work on this for a living. I invite you to look up my papers on the subject. Your faith in this technology is gratifying, because it means folks like myself have done a good job... but it's a lot more complex than you think.

In my estimation, pilots in combat aircraft are within 20 years of being reduced to secondary importance, but in civil aviation -- carrying passengers -- I predict it will be about 30 years before the co-pilot position is retired, 40 years before a computer ever becomes PIC (Pilot In Charge) of a heavy jet, and perhaps 100 before pilots are fully eliminated, if ever. You also won't see this happen first in aviation. Heck, our light rail still has human operators. There are easier places to apply this technology first.

And yes, I expect the above to be ignored again. This is how Truthers are made -- sheer stubbornness and hubris among amateurs. The seed of it lives within us all. Fight it! ;)

[I Ratant]

.. Heck, our light rail still has human operators. There are easier places to apply this technology first.

And yes, I expect the above to be ignored again. This is how Truthers are made -- sheer stubbornness and hubris among amateurs. The seed of it lives within us all. Fight it! ;)
.
And as has been shown, the technology available isn't always used, so the human operators can be distracted by other technology (texting) and create problems.
And there's not many transportation systems as limited in out-of-limit operation as a train.
These -must- be on -those- rails to move all.
2-dimensional linear motion, and that isn't as controlled as it can be.

[sheeplesnshills]

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20048

Is this new? Balsammo talking to a supposed former aviation tech. Wayne Anderson who supposedly witnesses another guy David Prentice (sp?) take over the autopilot of a 757 through the Mode S transponder mode to the autopilot and that this Wayne could not disconnect it with the breakers.

Of course this was via software of unknown origin and we only have Waynes word that it could not be disabled via the breakers.

I could not make out the name of the company, sounded like Delfors (maybe this is on the P4T site but I'm blocked :))

The whole story sounds like second hand hearsay as both Wayne and Balsammo seem very vague on details they should know if they were really knew what they were talking about. But does this company really exist and did they or did they employ a Wayne and this Dave Prentice?

[R.Mackey]

Not possible for a wide variety of reasons. For starters, one can kill the transponder and the autopilot completely using the breakers. Maybe Cap'n Bob can't, but that aircraft is beyond his capabilities to begin with. ;)

[ElMondoHummus]

Maybe Cap'n Bob can't, but that aircraft is beyond his capabilities to begin with. ;)

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/rofl.gif

[apathoid]

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20048

Is this new? Balsammo talking to a supposed former aviation tech. Wayne Anderson who supposedly witnesses another guy David Prentice (sp?) take over the autopilot of a 757 through the Mode S transponder mode to the autopilot and that this Wayne could not disconnect it with the breakers.

Of course this was via software of unknown origin and we only have Waynes word that it could not be disabled via the breakers.

I could not make out the name of the company, sounded like Delfors (maybe this is on the P4T site but I'm blocked :))

The whole story sounds like second hand hearsay as both Wayne and Balsammo seem very vague on details they should know if they were really knew what they were talking about. But does this company really exist and did they or did they employ a Wayne and this Dave Prentice?



Yeahhh, a "whistleblower" :rolleyes:. Jeebus, the little egos...anyways, I listened to about 5 minutes and couldn't stomach any more. The guy talking to Booby is more clueless than he is. There is no software that can make a transponder take control of an airplane. Aviation illiterate truthers have vastly overstated the use of software on 757/767's over the years. Other than firmware and unit-specific "ops" software, software doesn't have any effect whatsoever on aircraft flight control manipulation(757/767).

ARINC data busses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC_429) are how individual units in a system(say an Autopilot Mode Control Panel and an Autopilot Computer) talk to each other and execute commands. Separate systems(ie Air Data, Flight Management and Autopilot) also interface via these ARINC busses. In fact, that's the primary form of communication between avionics in a modern airliner; not software. Oh and of course, assuming the fantasy of "rogue software" were true, there certainly isn't any software, rogue or otherwise, that will run when the unit isn't powered.

And lastly, a 767 autopilot doesn't talk to the transponder(TCAS does, and no TCAS doesn't talk to the autopilot either). We've been over this the last several pages....there 3 ways to disable any kind of "backdoor", even if it wasn't pure fantasy. Any one option will work. 1. Switch the transponder(or ACARS, or SATCOM, or whatever the perps are using for uplink) to "STBY" or "OFF" positions...like the real hijackers did) 2. P11 Circuit Breaker Panel; the ATC(ACARS/SATCOM) breakers, as well as the autopilot computer/autopilot servo power breakers are located there. Pull them. 3. Configure the Electrical System panel to fly on Battery/Standby Power. Defeating truther e-hijacking retardedness is just that easy.

[apathoid]

Not possible for a wide variety of reasons. For starters, one can kill the transponder and the autopilot completely using the breakers. Maybe Cap'n Bob can't, but that aircraft is beyond his capabilities to begin with. ;)

Cessna 172's don't have autopilot. :p

[sheeplesnshills]

Not possible for a wide variety of reasons. For starters, one can kill the transponder and the autopilot completely using the breakers. Maybe Cap'n Bob can't, but that aircraft is beyond his capabilities to begin with. ;)


Yeah I remember that info from earlier. It was more, trying to track down the supposed company "Delfor(sp?)" that "Wayne" and "Dave" supposedly worked for.

[George152]

Cessna 172's don't have autopilot. :p

A C172 would be far beyond his evident and limited skills.

[apathoid]

Yeah I remember that info from earlier. It was more, trying to track down the supposed company "Delfor(sp?)" that "Wayne" and "Dave" supposedly worked for.

Dalfort? I nearly hired on there after I got my A&P. Dalfort Aerospace is an MRO, which is a third party repair station.