New Aidan Monaghan Paper Considers Autopilot Operation

[RedIbis]

Lots of graphs and mathy stuff. I can't comment on the strengths nor weaknesses of the paper, but so far I find Monaghan poses some interesting hypotheses. I look forward to reading the competing commentary, and as usual, with hope that discourse might be civil and directed at the methods and conclusions of the paper and not at each other.



http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf

Abstract
Video footage depicts United Airlines Flight 175 (UA 175) impacting World Trade Center tower 2 (WTC 2) on September 11, 2001 in New York City via a trajectory comprised of two separate banked turns. The second turn was apparently not required to generate impact. The first turn, which maintains a constant angle of bank (AoB), is evident at 1.2 miles before impact.[1] Although human control of UA 175’s observed maneuvers cannot be ruled out, the precise coordination of variables such as the selections of a correct bank angle and turn start time for the first turn apparently pose challenges to the unaided human control hypothesis. The observed turn stability favors the use of autopilot operation, either functioning in a conventional course control mode or in Control Wheel Steering (CWS) mode.

 

[dtugg]

Now he just has to explain how a Boeing 767 was rigged to fly this way without anybody noticing (or maybe you think that United Airlines was in on the inside jobby job). As it is not a fly by wire plane, I understand that it is impossible.

And of, course, the abstract is only an argument by assertion. I won't bother to read the rest.


rejected

 

[beachnut]

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf

The observed speeds of both attack aircraft were extreme by comparison to the typical speeds of similarly descending aircraft. While creating significantly less response time for possible human hijacker pilot course corrections during final target approaches that would demand superior control surface operation, a general vector analysis considering the final course and speed for each aircraft suggests that the unusually high speeds observed would generate greater accuracy of the aircraft while enroute to their targets, as a result of smaller course deflection angles and ground track displacements, created by existing and potential crosswinds.

Nonsense. Teacher, I got some questions? lol

Is this dolt implying the high speed would make pilot control more difficult, but auto-pilot control would be more precise, easier at higher speed? Self-debunking.

Human is the superior in this case of flying.

The paper debunks itself. The paper is worthless, save learning about flying by checking the false claptrap.

What is the max bank angle for the 767 autopilot? Oh, this is about the fantasy world of 911, where reality is not used. Oops, he makes up the lie the software was changed. Boy, the woo keeps flowing at 911 truth liars club, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf
Journal of Woo

Oh, darn, Flt 175 was hand flown, the max bank angle is 25 degree, 15 to 25 degrees. Oops. All that work out the window. But 911 truth is not in the business of truth, or reality. 911 truth = lies and fantasy.

Here a person makes up lies about flying, humans, adds another thousand in on it, and Red posts it here, explaining he doesn't understand it.

Good job exposing the nonsense red, we have 911 truth making up more paranoid conspiracies, almost a new twist on the old remote control delusion.

The failed paper adds moronic lies off topic, to round out the woo used in the fantasy world of 911 truth.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf
Discrepancies surrounding the authenticity and quality of this FDR data are public knowledge however, including the absence of published inventory control serial numbers for the FDR of AA 77 and a discrepancy of 5 hours between the reported recovery time of AA 77’s alleged FDR and the time stamp contained within its data download file ...

It is amazing he forgot to add the sun came up on 911, or the sky was blue.

 

[Horatius]

So, if "The second turn was apparently not required to generate impact", doesn't that suggest that it wasn't an automatic control? Computers don't tend to second guess themselves....

 

[The Big Dog]

Lots of graphs and mathy stuff. I can't comment on the strengths nor weaknesses of the paper, but so far I find Monaghan poses some interesting hypotheses. I look forward to reading the competing commentary, and as usual, with hope that discourse might be civil and directed at the methods and conclusions of the paper and not at each other.



http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf

Abstract
Video footage depicts United Airlines Flight 175 (UA 175) impacting World Trade Center tower 2 (WTC 2) on September 11, 2001 in New York City via a trajectory comprised of two separate banked turns. The second turn was apparently not required to generate impact. The first turn, which maintains a constant angle of bank (AoB), is evident at 1.2 miles before impact.[1] Although human control of UA 175’s observed maneuvers cannot be ruled out, the precise coordination of variables such as the selections of a correct bank angle and turn start time for the first turn apparently pose challenges to the unaided human control hypothesis. The observed turn stability favors the use of autopilot operation, either functioning in a conventional course control mode or in Control Wheel Steering (CWS) mode.

Gee, Red Ibis pimping another slap at the victims of 9/11. What happened to the pilots Aiden? Red? You want to address this? Maybe Larry pulled them off the plane.

Red. the single most offensive no claimer in history. Pathetic.

 

[TruthersLie]

Lots of graphs and mathy stuff. I can't comment on the strengths nor weaknesses of the paper, but so far I find Monaghan poses some interesting hypotheses. I look forward to reading the competing commentary, and as usual, with hope that discourse might be civil and directed at the methods and conclusions of the paper and not at each other.



http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf

Abstract
Video footage depicts United Airlines Flight 175 (UA 175) impacting World Trade Center tower 2 (WTC 2) on September 11, 2001 in New York City via a trajectory comprised of two separate banked turns. The second turn was apparently not required to generate impact. The first turn, which maintains a constant angle of bank (AoB), is evident at 1.2 miles before impact.[1] Although human control of UA 175’s observed maneuvers cannot be ruled out, the precise coordination of variables such as the selections of a correct bank angle and turn start time for the first turn apparently pose challenges to the unaided human control hypothesis. The observed turn stability favors the use of autopilot operation, either functioning in a conventional course control mode or in Control Wheel Steering (CWS) mode.

So let me get this straight.
This "paper" in this "journal" is making the claim that the turn couldn't have been done by a person because it "pose challenges to the unaided human." is that correct?

So we just have a huge texas sharpshooter fallacy.... cool.

 

[Quad4_72]

Gee, Red Ibis pimping another slap at the victims of 9/11. What happened to the pilots Aiden? Red? You want to address this? Maybe Larry pulled them off the plane.

Red. the single most offensive no claimer in history. Pathetic.

Exactly. And at least when Red starts a thread we all know what to expect going in. RedIbis never ceases to amaze or disgust.

 

[MG1962]

So, if "The second turn was apparently not required to generate impact", doesn't that suggest that it wasn't an automatic control? Computers don't tend to second guess themselves....

Toronto

 

[Oystein]

Lots of graphs and mathy stuff. I can't comment on the strengths nor weaknesses of the paper, but so far I find Monaghan poses some interesting hypotheses.

The mathy stuff is not very interesting, actually. It gives a rough outline for how a computer would calculate the bank level to achieve a given turn radius, without giving any evidence for the underlying assumption that a certain turn radius was intdended. The math doesn't really support the hypothesis that a fairly constant bank and turn radius is indicative of a computer flying, rathet than a human.

I look forward to reading the competing commentary, and as usual, with hope that discourse might be civil and directed at the methods and conclusions of the paper and not at each other.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf

Abstract
Video footage depicts United Airlines Flight 175 (UA 175) impacting World Trade Center tower 2 (WTC 2) on September 11, 2001 in New York City via a trajectory comprised of two separate banked turns. The second turn was apparently not required to generate impact. The first turn, which maintains a constant angle of bank (AoB), is evident at 1.2 miles before impact.[1] Although human control of UA 175’s observed maneuvers cannot be ruled out, the precise coordination of variables such as the selections of a correct bank angle and turn start time for the first turn apparently pose challenges to the unaided human control hypothesis. The observed turn stability favors the use of autopilot operation, either functioning in a conventional course control mode or in Control Wheel Steering (CWS) mode.

Indeed. The turn can be flown by a pilot aiming at a target and holding the controls steady for some seconds, being confident that his course is good enough and that he will be able to make last-second corrections.

I think the entire math can be thrown out and the discussion condensed to looking at this (page 5):

There appear to be three possible explanations for the observed final 18 degree roll of UA 175 prior to impact with WTC 2: 1.) the roll was the final component of an executed flight plan under augmented GPS-guided autopilot control; 2.) the roll was a correction of a crosswind induced tracking error of the observed 20 degree mile-long banked turn via a flight plan under augmented GPS-guided autopilot control. 3.) the roll was a correction by a human pilot to centralize an impact with WTC 2.

First of all, I think there are more possible explanations, such as pilot panicking at the last second, fearing he might miss altogether, or pilot intentionally banking more to impact more building floors.

The article presents no evidence that would actually and significantly favour one explanation over the others.

Explanation 1.) has more problems than the author acknowledges. One is the fact that the plane came in from many many miles out and was pretty unconstrained. If you are at liberty to execute any flight plan you could wish for, why start the whole approach too high and too far east? Why create the need to turn and dive strongly during the final 12 seconds or so? This contrasts markedly with the low and straight approach that AA11 flew.
Is the author claiming that AA11 was more probably flown by a human, and UA175 by a computer? What then about AA77 at the Pentagon, which flew a very wobbly and wild path?


I am also missing an explanation for why the author thinks the bank/turn rate was remarkably constant for several seconds - how was this determined? From blurry TV images? What margin of error is there?

 

[The Big Dog]

Aidan claims that five thugs got on the plane so that a magical remote control system could make a somewhat difficult turn, and then make another turn just to show off, I guess, while the other three planes did not have the magical remote control feature.

GENIUS! That is why Truthers are held in such high regard, leaving Holocaust Deniers in the dust, and coming up quick on the Reptilians.

Here is some information about the flight, the passengers, the dead pilots, the phone calls, etc, that I suggest you read instead of the idiocy linked in the op.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200018.html

 

[Reheat]

Oystein has pegged this one correctly. It is not even mildly persuasive of anything more than twoofer delusion. It appears the author included the math to impress other twoofers, because it adds nothing to establish the contentions of the article.

Essentially, all the author does is prove that he knows nothing about the practical aspects of flying, but believes in an "inside job" based on nothing except paranoia and typical twoofer delusion. It will fool twoofers because of the inclusion of the math/physics of turns.....

It's a waste of time to read it, a waste of bandwidth to post it here and I've wasted my time even commenting on it.

 

[BCR]

I am also missing an explanation for why the author thinks the bank/turn rate was remarkably constant for several seconds - how was this determined? From blurry TV images? What margin of error is there?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[ktesibios]

Here's something that seems to me puzzling about the author's contention that UA175's behavior was the product of a pre-programmed flight path under automatic control.

Okay, I'm no expert on automated flight, but I do have quite a bit of experience with position and speed servos (from working on last-generation tape transports) and one thing that feedback control systems generally don't do is sudden, jerky, last-minute corrections- unless they're broken.

Such a system, acting to bring a controlled variable (e.g. the position of an object) to a desired value (a particular point in its travel), will generally do so smoothly, by means of a continuous process of minimizing error. OTOH, a tyro pilot realizing that he might miss his target is much more likely to make a sudden large change in attitude.

If the crash of UA175 was a pre-programmed flight path, then whatever evil conspiracy engineered the control system did a lousy job of ensuring adequate loop gain for acceptable error and adequate damping for stability.

 

[A W Smith]

Lots of graphs and mathy stuff. I can't comment on the strengths nor weaknesses of the paper, but so far I find Monaghan poses some interesting hypotheses. I look forward to reading the competing commentary, and as usual, with hope that discourse might be civil and directed at the methods and conclusions of the paper and not at each other.



http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf

Abstract
Video footage depicts United Airlines Flight 175 (UA 175) impacting World Trade Center tower 2 (WTC 2) on September 11, 2001 in New York City via a trajectory comprised of two separate banked turns. The second turn was apparently not required to generate impact. The first turn, which maintains a constant angle of bank (AoB), is evident at 1.2 miles before impact.[1] Although human control of UA 175’s observed maneuvers cannot be ruled out, the precise coordination of variables such as the selections of a correct bank angle and turn start time for the first turn apparently pose challenges to the unaided human control hypothesis. The observed turn stability favors the use of autopilot operation, either functioning in a conventional course control mode or in Control Wheel Steering (CWS) mode.

eye hand coordination, Observed turn stability favors holding the yoke steady, Big deal, Also Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[funk de fino]

Lots of graphs and mathy stuff. I can't comment on the strengths nor weaknesses of the paper, but so far I find Monaghan poses some interesting hypotheses. I look forward to reading the competing commentary, and as usual, with hope that discourse might be civil and directed at the methods and conclusions of the paper and not at each other.



http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf

Abstract
Video footage depicts United Airlines Flight 175 (UA 175) impacting World Trade Center tower 2 (WTC 2) on September 11, 2001 in New York City via a trajectory comprised of two separate banked turns. The second turn was apparently not required to generate impact. The first turn, which maintains a constant angle of bank (AoB), is evident at 1.2 miles before impact.[1] Although human control of UA 175’s observed maneuvers cannot be ruled out, the precise coordination of variables such as the selections of a correct bank angle and turn start time for the first turn apparently pose challenges to the unaided human control hypothesis. The observed turn stability favors the use of autopilot operation, either functioning in a conventional course control mode or in Control Wheel Steering (CWS) mode.

I cannot believe you brought that here. Monaghan is an idiot.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

And how would the hijackers know which buttons/switches to hit to get the planes under autopilot (except from simulators)?

 

[Thunder]

The second turn was apparently not required to generate impact.

therefore ruling out auto-pilot. thanks for debunking your own claim.

 

[George 152]

And how would the hijackers know which buttons/switches to hit to get the planes under autopilot (except from simulators)?

Seeing that most of them had Commercial tickets and 350+ flying hours setting up autopilot is a given..

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Seeing that most of them had Commercial tickets and 350+ flying hours setting up autopilot is a given..

True, but atleast 2 of them thought that they were talking with the passengers when they were transmitting to the control towers. So with that piece of the puzzle, I highly doubt they knew where the autopilot button/switch was.

 

[Justin39640]

True, but atleast 2 of them thought that they were talking with the passengers when they were transmitting to the control towers. So with that piece of the puzzle, I highly doubt they knew where the autopilot button/switch was.

I wouldn't know for a fact but I'd imagine talking on the intercom to the cabin might not be covered extensively in a simulator. I'm sure adrenaline may play a role in that mistake too.