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

[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 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

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.

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

 

[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, and that's why WTC 7 also had to be destroyed. )

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. 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]

Not Sure....

.....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!

 

[George 152]

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 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?