How Loony are the Loons?

[ArmillarySphere]

(About not using the quote function)

Don't need to! I can follow peoples comments just fine.....

Actually, if you want to actually convince us that your arguments have merit... you do.

Not using the quote button makes it more difficult to find where quoted text ends and your comment begins, makes it take longer to read and increases the risk for misunderstandings. The same holds for not spell-checking and failing to use proper grammar, as has been established by recent research - minor errors easily double the time it takes to comprehend a word or sentence.

But it gets worse: Errors not only reduce the readability of the text, they lower the reader's confidence for the writing and your credibility, and makes him/her less likely to accept your line of argumentation. Further, errors "contaminate" the surrounding text, since irritation with the original error makes the reader more prone to get more annoyed with disposition, complicated wordings, impersonal tone and so forth. If the errors are widespread enough, readers tend to speed up reading (presumably thinkin that the text is not important enough to read carefully).


In conclusion, by steadfastedly refusing to remove an unnecessary and trivial barrier to communicating your own message, which would be in your own best interest, I can only conclude that not only are you not interested in opinions differing from your own, you are not interested in convincing us of your very own ideas.

Thus, any communication between you and any other human being is an utter waste of effort for anyone involved, since you are actively preventing any exchange of ideas from taking place.
Goodbye.

(Reference: Lars Melin: "Vad är det för fel på ett fel?". Forskning och Framsteg 1/07) - it's in Swedish, I fear...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Sorry AWACS was not in on 9/11. I was in the Air Force at the time and we did not do it! (spent many years at Tinker, you think a top secret clearance is enough to know you are wrong again? Real experts stuff)

Could you be wrong?

Your code, not good enough; you left off the components you would put it in.

What are you qualifications as a programmer (they would help)?

Why do you call people bigots?

When will you ever get on topic; it is how loony are the loons?

The piece of code of his you quoted sucks ass
"If (over_ride)
{
continue;
}
else
{
Do normal stuff here.
}"

wtf? Do:

IF NOT(Override)
Do normal stuff;
END IF;

 

[Architect]

Maybe he's actually using Basic?

 

[~enigma~]

RemoveBush could be pdoh again; and he could be 28th; No body can be as bad as these two loons; zero facts; pdoh is just running a scam like LC and he has come back in his payback as multiloonatoadoltal trolls raking the forum as his new left/right/no brain twins.

It is a loon CT of my own. Pdoh welcome back, thanks for the typing tutor like workout!

Pdoh where are you?

My guess is he is 28 as he is ignoring me since I first posted. Someone he isn't ignoring want to reply so he can see this...Bushy....do you think the movie Air Panic was a documentary?

 

[~enigma~]

Can you hear me, major tom?

Must not be using Verizon

 

[stateofgrace]

"stateofgrace - How come phone signals from the planes were impossible yet signals to the planes to remotely control them was possible?

I know it is a software thing, but maybe you could explain it simply for us hammers and spanners guys."

Very good question.... Since several eye witnesses state that they saw a large white plane near the places where the crashes were, it is POSSIBLE that AWACs was used.

As for the code, it could be something like this. If a signal is received with a code of "0xff5555ff", then perhaps this code jumps to a subroutine that would ignore or disable the ability for any manual control to happen. Since the computer gives control back when the pilots throw a switch or push on the yoke, this would be ignored. Maybe the code would look like this:

If (over_ride)
{
continue;
}
else
{
Do normal stuff here.
}

Of course it would be more complex than this, but it would be the same principle.

Does this help?

No it does not help and it not the same principle.

You have failed continually to grasp what has been said to you so I will restate it.

Also, I made it pretty clear that the 767 is not a fly-by-wire airplane, which means that the "software"(which is actually hardware generated data in a DITS format called ARINC 429) only has control of the airplane when autopilot is engaged.

The software that controls the plane is only active when the autopilot is on. This has been said to you time and time again. To over come this you have come out with some absurd theory that the auto pilot function can be over ridden by your rogue software. This is not correct. The auto pilot on/off function is hardwired to the surface computer; it is not controlled by software.

Your rogue program cannot lock out the pilot’s manual input because it will only have control of the plane when the autopilot is engaged. Once the auto pilot is disabled the pilot will have full manual control of the plane, it is hardwired. This hardwiring will take signals from,for example a joystick or trim pot controls and route them via the control computer to the hydraulic controllers. I am not sure what they use on planes but on the remotely operated vehicles I work on they are proportional valves. The manual controls that operate these valves will then shuttle the hydraulic valves in one direction or another, which inturn moves hydraulic rams. This manual controlling of hydraulic proportional valves cannot be locked out by software, it is hardwired. This again has been pointed out to by the fact that the planes computer control system could actually be powered down and the manual control would still be there.

Manual control of proportional hydraulic valves is the default setting of any remotely operated system, it is the off position. Control of these valves will default to this position, when auto settings and auto controls go wrong.

What you are suggesting is preposterous. That being that rogue embedded software could lock out the pilot and take control of a system. This embedded software would not only have to physically disable the hardwiring from the manual controls but it would also have to be active in taking total control of the planes autopilots functions. It would have to accept input data to continually adjust the position of the plane. It would have to correct all the time the height, the speed, the pitch and roll of the plane. Your rogue program would have to be a learning program that would continually update not only itself but also adjust everything that was going on while at the same time preventing external intervention.

To do this it would have to have access to the planes SatNav system, it would have to be aware of the exact position of the plane at all time and it would also have to adjust the position of the plane to compensate when it moves out of position. Setting a heading on anything is not the same as setting a target. An auto heading will maintain a continual heading but it will not guide anything towards a predetermined target, it will simply maintain that heading. This heading will have to change as a plane drifts either left or right. You rogue program would have to do all this.

Manual control to hydraulic proportional valves cannot be over ridden the way you suggest, please rethink what you are suggesting.

Happy new year.

 

[babazaroni]

Maybe the code would look like this:
If (over_ride)
{
continue;
}
else
{
Do normal stuff here.
}

You had better take some programming refresher courses. The 'continue' statement has meaning only in a 'Do', 'For' or 'While' loop.

http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-tutor.html#switch

 

[~enigma~]

If (over_ride)
{
continue;
}
else
{
Do normal stuff here.
}

No. It makes absolutely no sense so I suspect that someone has partaken of some new years spirits early. If the planes were RC (they weren't)
thwen what was the necessity for an "overrdie" when there wouldn't be any need to? Or was the override available to the pilot in case the RC took them off course?

 

[ConspiRaider]

You had better take some programming refresher courses. The 'continue' statement has meaning only in a 'Do', 'For' or 'While' loop.

http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-tutor.html#switch

Roger your last, BBZ.

RelieveBrain is clueless. It'd really be something like:

// Gubmint Did It And This Prooves It

NormalFly = TRUE
GubmintFly = FALSE

DO WHILE NormalFly

...IF GubmintFly
......InsideJob(EncodePWord)
...ENDIF

...FLY

ENDDO

FUNCTION InsideJob
PARAMETERS PWrdAuth
IF PWrdAuth <> "CheneyBunker"
...GubmintFly = FALSE
ELSE
...NOFLY NO MORE THEN INVADE EVERYBODY
ENDIF
RETURN

// Don't backup this code it could hang us

 

[babazaroni]

No. It makes absolutely no sense so I suspect that someone has partaken of some new years spirits early. If the planes were RC (they weren't)
thwen what was the necessity for an "overrdie" when there wouldn't be any need to? Or was the override available to the pilot in case the RC took them off course?

RB is assuming innocent pilots.

RB contends the over_ride flag would be set if the system received a remote signal initiated remote takeover, and the pilots would be helpless.

However, we have said repeatedly that these planes were not fly-by-wire and that powering down a computer would give control back to the pilots.

I bet they have some training in this since computers can fail.

 

[~enigma~]

RB is assuming innocent pilots.

RB contends the over_ride flag would be set if the system received a remote signal initiated remote takeover, and the pilots would be helpless.

However, we have said repeatedly that these planes were not fly-by-wire and that powering down a computer would give control back to the pilots.

I bet they have some training in this since computers can fail.

So in his loop what is the second option? A loop is the stupidest CT I have heard outside of Judy "The Keebler Elf" Wood. I do think this guy commited the script for Air Panic to memory. Wonder if this is Avi Lerner trying to get some new research

 

[~enigma~]

So in his loop what is the second option? A loop is the stupidest CT I have heard outside of Judy "The Keebler Elf" Wood. I do think this guy commited the script for Air Panic to memory. Wonder if this is Avi Lerner trying to get some new research

Guess Bushy forgot that in Air Panic the FAA guy took control back

BTW if you are Avi...good movie but I would sue the woowoos who think it's a documentary. You won't win in a lawsuit but you can keep these guys in court for the rest of their worthless lives.

ETA - Hopefully that way they will never have time to reproduce.

 

[babazaroni]

So in his loop what is the second option? A loop is the stupidest CT I have heard outside of Judy "The Keebler Elf" Wood. I do think this guy commited the script for Air Panic to memory. Wonder if this is Avi Lerner trying to get some new research

I never saw Air Panic.

How was the system compromised?

Did new code get downloaded?

Were there any hardware upgrades?

Was it controlled from some distant location or was there some trailing aircraft?

 

[~enigma~]

I never saw Air Panic

Go rent the DVD, watch it and you will be reliving this thread in full color.

How was the system compromised?

When the planes went in for maintainance. Incidentally the film's release was supposed to be 9/11/01 but they delayed it because the opening scene was a plane flying into a Denver skyscraper.

Did new code get downloaded?

The plane was outfitted with a new autopilot chip for safety reasons and the "fired employee" knew when the planes would be in so he rewrote the code.

Were there any hardware upgrades?

Guess I answered that

Was it controlled from some distant location or was there some trailing aircraft?

The rewritten code had the chip connect to the "fired psycho" so he could control the plane from his home. Incidentally it had the target of the last plane as a nucler reactor...like Sentinel's theory...guess he has been using this as a documentry also

ETA - They did have 2 f-16s intercept and a shoot down order was given

 

[pomeroo]

Boeing Joins Very Large List

So, RB, just to be clear: When Boeing rep Liz Verdier states for the record that Boeing 757s and 767s cannot be flown by remote control, she is carrying out orders to lie. The Boeing Corporation is therefore complicit in mass murder. Right?

 

[~enigma~]

So, RB, just to be clear: When Boeing rep Liz Verdier states for the record that Boeing 757s and 767s cannot be flown by remote control, she is carrying out orders to lie. The Boeing Corporation is therefore complicit in mass murder. Right?

That's right Ron. RB thinks Air Panic is the 9/11 script.

 

[apathoid]

Please provide in that document where he states that he has seen the EMBEDDED code and that he personally uploaded the code into the computer! Provide this and this will be the end of the arguement!

Unlike you, I won't exaggerate or lie about my expertise in certain fields. I know absolutely nada about software code, much less "imbedded" software code. I presently work in the instrument shop, where I work on electromechanical units 90% of the time, but I have worked on environmental control units in which I had to flash EPROMs for mods(no not sekrit gummint mods). So technially, I have written embedded software to an aircraft computer.

If it'll make you happy, I'll walk on over to the autopilot shop and print out some documentation on the FCC-701 and ask the gurus what, if any, software is installed on FCCs. I have my suspicions that the only software installed on these puppies is firmware and it only instucts the FCC how to operate. The steering commands and I/O discretes going in and out of the FCCs are in the form of ARINC 429 data. This is why I hypothesized about the takeover scenario using ACARS which would negate the need for imbedded code because the commands would be recieved "live".

That's an ASSUMPTION that the MAIN circuit breaker is available to the pilots. Do they have access to the MAIN computer???? I would doubt that! I would believe that they have access to many of the sub-components, but not the MAIN computer. Having access to the main computer is not logical. Having access to some of the sub components is logical. Such as radios, and some of the other electronic systems. I doubt they have any direct access to the system that controls the Auto Pilot.

Already answered above, but I'll elaborate. The circuit breakers for the: FCC (Computer), FCC(Servo Power), Flight Management Computer, and ACARS are all located in the flight deck on the overhead circuit breaker panel, which is just aft of the overhead instrument panel.

The generator control switches, generator drive disconnects, generator Auto/Isolation switches, battery switch, and standby power switches are all located on the electrical system control panel - and I have a nice diagram of one in my paper. On 767s, the pilots have access to the FCCs themselves as well as the ships battery through a hatch located just aft of the flight deck door.

The evidence you provided as precidence was for a "737", and I'm sure a 757/767 is a little more advanced...... I have contacted a friend who works for US Air to get his input, as he is Fully licensed to maintain these aircraft and can name them from the ground by thier engine sounds.

I can't name them from their engine sounds, but I'm intimately familiar with both types(767/737) as I've had 3 months of schooling on them and have worked on them for years(almost 3 years 767 overhaul/1 year 737 overhaul/and 2 years of working mod lines and non-routine maintenance on all fleet types)..
Yes, 757s and 767s are a little more advanced than 737s - however the flight controls, hydraulics, and electrical systems are very similar in operation. The big differences are that 737s can actually be flown without any hydraulics at all, if need be, and engine control is mechanical on the 737, while the 757/767 is electronic. I've asked JREF member Billzilla and fellow 911myths contributor Giulio Bernacchia, who are both experienced 747 Captains, for their take and they had no problems with the "no power" scenario...

 

[apathoid]

Your rogue program cannot lock out the pilot’s manual input because it will only have control of the plane when the autopilot is engaged. Once the auto pilot is disabled the pilot will have full manual control of the plane, it is hardwired. This hardwiring will take signals from,for example a joystick or trim pot controls and route them via the control computer to the hydraulic controllers.

Just a teensie correction here. The part I bolded is actually a good description of a fly-by-wire airplane, like a 777. I have next to no experience on 777s and zero experience with Airbuses, but I believe the flow of control is something like:
Control column -> Flight Guidance Computers -> Hydraulic Actuators -> Control Surfaces.

On a mechanical jet like a 767, it would be:
Control column -> Mechanical linkage -> Hydraulic Actuators -> Control Surfaces.
On autopilot, it would be:
Autopilot mode panel -> FCCs(thru the FMC in LNAV/VNAV operation) -> Autopilot Servos -> Control surface.

Some aircraft(like 737s) have the autopilot servos actually take control of the input cable to the actuator, so it would be:
Autopilot mode panel -> FCCs -> Autopilot Servos -> Hydraulic Actuators -> Control surface.

To do this it would have to have access to the planes SatNav system, it would have to be aware of the exact position of the plane at all time and it would also have to adjust the position of the plane to compensate when it moves out of position. Setting a heading on anything is not the same as setting a target. An auto heading will maintain a continual heading but it will not guide anything towards a predetermined target, it will simply maintain that heading. This heading will have to change as a plane drifts either left or right. You rogue program would have to do all this.

With a Flight Management Computer - you do have a rudimentery(sp?) method of turning your airplane into a cruise missile by programming a predetermined flightplan both vertically and laterally - but on 767s/757s, the accuracy(or rather inaccuracy) of the Inertial Reference System makes this a bad approach(literally)....some of the CTers are clinging to a "remote takeover system" called JPALS, which I cover in my paper. I'm going to eventually do another essay on it when I get more info on this system, and its civilian couterpart...

 

[stateofgrace]

Just a teensie correction here. The part I bolded is actually a good description of a fly-by-wire airplane, like a 777. I have next to no experience on 777s and zero experience with Airbuses, but I believe the flow of control is something like:
Control column -> Flight Guidance Computers -> Hydraulic Actuators -> Control Surfaces.

On a mechanical jet like a 767, it would be:
Control column -> Mechanical linkage -> Hydraulic Actuators -> Control Surfaces.
On autopilot, it would be:
Autopilot mode panel -> FCCs(thru the FMC in LNAV/VNAV operation) -> Autopilot Servos -> Control surface.

Some aircraft(like 737s) have the autopilot servos actually take control of the input cable to the actuator, so it would be:
Autopilot mode panel -> FCCs -> Autopilot Servos -> Hydraulic Actuators -> Control surface.

With a Flight Management Computer - you do have a rudimentery(sp?) method of turning your airplane into a cruise missile by programming a predetermined flightplan both vertically and laterally - but on 767s/757s, the accuracy(or rather inaccuracy) of the Inertial Reference System makes this a bad approach(literally)....some of the CTers are clinging to a "remote takeover system" called JPALS, which I cover in my paper. I'm going to eventually do another essay on it when I get more info on this system, and its civilian couterpart...

Thanks I have no problem with being corrected. I do not work on aircrafts nor am I a software engineer. I simply base my posts on my own area that I work on offshore. I work on high voltage and hydraulic ROV's (remotely operated vehicles). I have simply applied my understanding of the autopilots and the navigation system used on these vehicles to trying to remote operating an aircraft.I know for a fact you could not over ride the manual inputs to the vehicles i work on as they simply byepass the vehicles control computer and speak directly to the vehicle.

Equally so I know what a Herculean task it is to get these vehicles under control and being able to operate them remote. Something which continually is moving in all dimensions and needs continual corrections to keep it on track.

I wish RB was right all it would take was to put in a software patch and they would do what ever his patch told them to do. Jesus he would make a fortune offshore with it.

 

[Horatius]

Already answered above, but I'll elaborate. The circuit breakers for the: FCC (Computer), FCC(Servo Power), Flight Management Computer, and ACARS are all located in the flight deck on the overhead circuit breaker panel, which is just aft of the overhead instrument panel.

The generator control switches, generator drive disconnects, generator Auto/Isolation switches, battery switch, and standby power switches are all located on the electrical system control panel - and I have a nice diagram of one in my paper. On 767s, the pilots have access to the FCCs themselves as well as the ships battery through a hatch located just aft of the flight deck door.

Don't these goons ever get tired of being wrong? RB's going around accusing us of making assumptions to fit our arguments, and then gets totally fact-slapped by someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

Personally, I'd get tired of that, eventually.