Hitting the ground is rarely a problem, you just fly into it. It can maybe be a problem if you are going very fast and very close to the ground. But they were not trying to hit the ground.
9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph?
- Thread starter lee h oswald
- Start date
Hitting the ground is rarely a problem, you just fly into it. It can maybe be a problem if you are going very fast and very close to the ground. But they were not trying to hit the ground.
MikeC
Closed Account
Of course the bomber can hit the ground - as has been pointed out it is, literally, dead (sic) easy.
But it looks to me as if the bomber pilot is not actually trying to kill himself or hit the ground, so flying along at 10 feet nice and parallel to it is the hard bit.
The hijackers were not trying to fly parallel to the ground - they were trying to hit it, more or less - preferably somewhere within the area of the Pentagon.
Huh? The video just says they he was an average to below average pilot - with a commercial license. Heck, I'm a crappy pilot and I see nothing incredibly difficult in this Pentagon approach. It was a clear day, you can easily navigate with ground. If you look at the track, he went west until he picked up the 234, then followed that until he could see DC and specifically Arlington, which is quite distinctive from the air, and in its position on the river . Pentagon is just behind and to the right of Arlington. Probably was too busy looking for it to descend properly, then when he saw it he did a right descending 360.
xenon
Active Member
Some interesting things about the pilots that are not often discussed
http://thebigbamboozle.tumblr.com/
We bombed Iraq and Afghanistan and we currently buy oil from Saudi Arabia. Curious, that- given the above findings by the US Congress.
So began my search for Middle Eastern operators of Boeing airliners. Because the hijackers were mostly Saudi Arabian, the firm of Dallah Avco, a Saudi operator of multiple private Boeing airliners, soon stood out as a focal point. To my amazement, I immediately discovered that Congressional investigators had already linked Dallah Avco with the actual hijackers. Omar Bayoumi, a Dallah employee and operative within the Saudi Ministry of Aviation, had provided housing and basic support for three hijackers: Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and the pilot/hijacker of American 77, Hani Hanjour.
FBI evidence of the cell would confirm that the hijacking team of American 77 had formed and operated separately with direct financial support from top-level members of the Saudi government, bitter enemies of al Qaeda. The picture was beginning to clear.
FBI evidence of the cell would confirm that the hijacking team of American 77 had formed and operated separately with direct financial support from top-level members of the Saudi government, bitter enemies of al Qaeda. The picture was beginning to clear.
From this point in the research, the guilt needle began pointing steadily toward Saudi Arabia, in part because 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. With every new piece of evidence, that needle does not fluctuate. As the focus narrowed on San Diego, the footprints of a large Saudi contingent began to appear. Congressional investigators had found, within buried FBI files, evidence that United States Senators would later call “undeniable” that top Saudi officials had known that terrorists were entering the U.S. beginning in 2000 in preparation for some sort of attack. These same officials are among those who work with American oil companies and regulate the flow of crude oil to the United States, the same Saudi officials that regulate the price that has gone from $30 per barrel to over $140 post 911.j
http://thebigbamboozle.tumblr.com/
We bombed Iraq and Afghanistan and we currently buy oil from Saudi Arabia. Curious, that- given the above findings by the US Congress.
Where is this FBI evidence? What evidence exactly did the congressional investigations find? Where is it?
Hani. a poor pilot by available accounts, went all round the house - surely it would be prudent, as a planner and executor of the plan, as well as learning to fly the aircraft; being able to overcome all physical obstacles to commandeer the aircraft in every attempt; hit 3 out of 4 targets; navigate the aircraft to their targets; but fail to study or account for altitude and the topography around the target?!!! Occam?????
Well, clearly the plane DID a descending 360. So Occam would look for the simplest explanation for that.
The simplest explanation was that the pilot was too late in commencing his descent becaue he was navigating visually.
Yeah? Well I'm heading off to bed now - let's hope - as I'm navigating visually - that I don't have to circle too long before I hit the spot I want.
Rico
Senior Member.
Just my two cents regarding comments like "below average pilot" or "poor pilot" by accounts of flight instructors and other aviation professionals.
Around my aviation circle, which includes people like instructors and commercial/airline pilots, generally a "good pilot" would be considered one carries him/herself with a high degree of airmanship, knowing what to do under different circumstances, understanding his/her aircraft in the context of the environment, and able to operate an aircraft in a phenomenal manner with utmost precision and safety. This bar goes as high as maintaining an aircraft perhaps +/- 100 feet by hand, or a heading of +/- 5 degrees, and able to control an aircraft in complex maneuvers with little margin for error.
The bar puts things out of perspective, however. Flying an aircraft isn't really all that difficult with a little bit of training and practice. I've known pilots who are considered "poor pilots" by instructors and other aviators. Generally, they are not "poor" because they don't know how to control an aircraft, they are considered poor because they either cannot carry themselves to professional standards, cannot fly to standards, they cannot handle stress, they have little regard for safety, they bend rules, etc etc.
This said, calling the hijackers poor pilots does not, and should not equate to incapability. A brand new student pilot's first day is learning about how to control the aircraft. By the second lesson, they would have enough to maintain level flight, know how to climb and descend, how to turn to a specified heading, and how to use the throttle and trim.
Trying to crash a plane here isn't rocket science. It doesn't require the said hijackers to maintain level flight. It doesn't require them to maintain heading and altitude tolerances. It doesn't require airmanship. It doesn't require any regard for safety. All that was required of said hijackers were to be able to use the basic controls of the aircraft: the control column which commands pitch and roll, the throttle which controls thrust, and the trim. The only difficult part would be the navigation and the operation of the autopilot, but that can be trained behind a desk with a manual and possibly a simulator.
Around my aviation circle, which includes people like instructors and commercial/airline pilots, generally a "good pilot" would be considered one carries him/herself with a high degree of airmanship, knowing what to do under different circumstances, understanding his/her aircraft in the context of the environment, and able to operate an aircraft in a phenomenal manner with utmost precision and safety. This bar goes as high as maintaining an aircraft perhaps +/- 100 feet by hand, or a heading of +/- 5 degrees, and able to control an aircraft in complex maneuvers with little margin for error.
The bar puts things out of perspective, however. Flying an aircraft isn't really all that difficult with a little bit of training and practice. I've known pilots who are considered "poor pilots" by instructors and other aviators. Generally, they are not "poor" because they don't know how to control an aircraft, they are considered poor because they either cannot carry themselves to professional standards, cannot fly to standards, they cannot handle stress, they have little regard for safety, they bend rules, etc etc.
This said, calling the hijackers poor pilots does not, and should not equate to incapability. A brand new student pilot's first day is learning about how to control the aircraft. By the second lesson, they would have enough to maintain level flight, know how to climb and descend, how to turn to a specified heading, and how to use the throttle and trim.
Trying to crash a plane here isn't rocket science. It doesn't require the said hijackers to maintain level flight. It doesn't require them to maintain heading and altitude tolerances. It doesn't require airmanship. It doesn't require any regard for safety. All that was required of said hijackers were to be able to use the basic controls of the aircraft: the control column which commands pitch and roll, the throttle which controls thrust, and the trim. The only difficult part would be the navigation and the operation of the autopilot, but that can be trained behind a desk with a manual and possibly a simulator.
RolandD
Active Member
Even if he was a poor pilot, as you claim, he was a licensed commercial pilot. He was good enough to get certified , he was just a 'poor' pilot by those standards. It's like the old joke, "What do you call the guy who graduated last in his class in med school?" ........................."Doctor."
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Then why on earth do I find any experienced pilot saying it would be a problem for the hijackers to crash their aircraft into these targets? Are we saying they are lying ??? Are they delusional?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Tallest is far from widest . . .
Rico
Senior Member.
Once again you are giving these guys weight because they are 'experienced' pilots.
Why on earth do you find them saying the things they do? It can be due to many reasons. Maybe they are full of themselves. Maybe they underestimate the hijackers. Maybe they overestimate their own abilities. Maybe they believe in what they do because they think they have something to go on. Pilots, experienced or not, are still people, and people are different. An 'experienced' pilot said United 175 carried munitions externally when it hit the WTC. He was proven wrong. Consider these alternatives.
Not all scientists agree on the same things. The same can be said about pilots, engineers, and other professions. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the opinions are. The only thing that matters are the claims and what supports those claims.
Rico
Senior Member.
208 ft is pretty freaking wide.
Met Watch
Moderator
Did you have an actual 757 pilot on Godlike Productions commenting on the matter? All I've seen is a guy flying a Cessna, who hasn't touched a 757, who flat out says he can't fly it.
Met Watch
Moderator
Agreed. It's wider than your average runway, and you have to land dead center on those, at least to get a commercial license.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
At 510 knots. . .
Rico
Senior Member.
510 knots after an accelerated descent with the target already showing on the window.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No, I am talking about the consultant used by the news programs . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdjgtBj_HwM
Captain Rusty Aimer is one interviewed at the end of the video above at 21:37 minutes above . . . see below as well
Captain Rusty Aimer is one interviewed at the end of the video above . . . he is a consultant in this news about the death of a pilot . . . seems to be a rational pilot . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-0CtSTaxc
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If it is so easy . . . Have someone with little experience take on a simulator and see what happens . . .
Rico
Senior Member.
I actually would like to see this happen if for no other reason than to learn. I did see Rusty Aimer in a video take a non-licensed pilot in a 757 flight simulator to see what can happen at 500 knots (ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNMakBEECqA). Rusty Aimer, being someone who believes that it is impossible and they ended up rolling the plane uncontrollably. The results are interesting, though being a skeptic, I have my doubts for the following reasons:
1) The video is unclear about what control inputs were used. Did they use trim? Was the aircraft flying the assumed profiles of the OS?
2) Rusty Aimer assumed the hijackers were like his assistant, who has "flown a little bit" in tiny airplanes. However, the hijackers had licenses, so I think it's fair to say that Aimer had a bias. They may not have been good pilots, but it does take a certain degree of proficiency to become licensed
3) The video showed an out of control scenario. It is unclear what software parameter would cause this or if it was simply pilot error. Is it an aerodynamic consequence of flying too fast, or is the simulator assuming the wings would be torn off? Is the software accurate?
4) The simulation bears some similarity to the video you posted from that desktop 747 simulator which claimed that the aircraft will continue to rise from full nose down deflection of the controls, and unfortunately can be debunked using similar parameters (trying it yourself using the same software) and through the use of trim
If these questions can be answered, I would be more willing to accept a coverup story. From my knowledge of physics, and my studies of aerodynamics, outside of structural failure (which can happen), and to some extent, the travel limits of various controls, there is no reason why an aircraft would significantly deviate from it's flight path or otherwise become uncontrollable at the cited airspeeds. I certainly cannot see it rolling over like it does in the simulator Rusty was in unless it was simulating some kind of structural failure. An aircraft flies on relatively simplistic principles. It is controlled by the same principles. The aircraft that struck 3/4 targets on 9/11 were more or less 100 ton objects shooting through the air at a fairly linear flight path. If a wing tears off, sure, I can see it hurling out of the sky. But what if it doesn't? What would make this 100 ton mass so prone to miss a 208 ft wide building? In some respects, this contradicts part of Newton's 1st law.
But then let's say the official story was false. Let's say these 'experienced' pilots were correct. Well then, what are the alternatives? Here are a few off the top of my head:
1) Given the skill of the hijackers, it is impossible for a 757/767 to hit 3/4 targets. Okay, sure, let's accept this for now. But to an extent, this assumes that either the aircraft that hit the WTC and pentagon weren't actually there or that something else hit these buildings. The problems are as follows:
-There are clear signs of aircraft wreckage at the base of the WTC and pentagon. Twisted metals, the frames for the windows, etc. Photographs show this. There were also human remains. What gives? Did they plant this evidence to prove the story?
-Besides videos and photos, there were also eye witnesses. Are these all shills then?
-If aircraft didn't hit the WTC and pentagon, then what did? An aircraft that swapped with the said airliners? Holograms?
-If the aircraft were swapped, it doesn't explain missing personnel, and missing airplanes.
-There are then four unaccountable aircraft in AA and UA's fleet. This adds the complexity of cooperation from the airlines in adding to this conspiracy
-There were also mode C returns coming from United 175's transponder. Unlike the other aircraft, it changed it's numbers but didn't actually turn off. ATC was tracking it the whole way, and the NTSB had drawn a flight path from this. Is this a fabrication then?
2) Ok, what if the aircraft that did hit the WTC and Pentagon were the flights that were told in the official story? This can lead to two alternatives: a) That the 'experienced' pilots were wrong and it is in fact possible to fly the aircraft on target; or b) Your theory, George, that the aircraft were somehow controlled via advanced electronics and the aircraft were indeed hijacked. Let's discuss the problems with point b:
-The testimonials of the 'experienced' pilots seems to point to a physical uncontrollably of the said aircraft. Aircraft operate on three basic axis using three separate controls to control it's movements. If there were physical problems regarding the aerodynamic controllability of such aircraft, technology will not be able to overcome such problems (unless you redesign the airplane). An auto system would still have to control the same "fins' on the aircraft.
-The avionics bay which houses the aircraft computers and autoflight systems are physically difficult if not impossible to gain access to. There may be potentially a service door somewhere on the upper deck where pilots and passengers are seated, but accessing this area is time consuming, requires tools, requires hijackers to become separated, and isn't something that can simply be programmed
-If technology assisted the 9/11 aircraft in hitting their targets, then they were certainly sloppy considering the flight profiles drawn by investigators
-The conventional autoflight system could have been used, but then, UA175 hit it's target at 38 degrees angle of bank when the autopilot does not command more than 30 degrees. They would not have been able to engage the autopilot
If you can think of a better alternative, let me know. The issue with these alternatives is that they clearly have problems. The official story may or may not be true, but it is far more likelier and probable than the alternatives because it doesn't carry the burden of such problems, is relatively simplistic, and makes sense. While making sense doesn't offer it 100% credibility, it does seem likelier than the alternatives because it doesn't carry the burdens of some of the problems discussed on this thread. It makes the fewest assumptions, and that is where "occam's razor" can ultimately be applied. If it's impossible for the hijackers to have hit their targets, then how did they pull it off, or what did really happen? If it used advanced technology, then how do you overcome some of the said problems?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Rico, thanks very much for your time on this. . . I want to take my time and review your response . . . It is late here and I have an early and long day tomorrow. . . .I promise I will get back on this but it might be late tomorrow. . . Good night. . .
Rico
Senior Member.
Okay, I found a video that contradicts Captain Rusty Aimer's simulator video. I don't speak Dutch, so I don't know exactly what these guys are saying, but apparently, an inexperienced pilot in this particular video was able to hit his target three times using a similar commercial airline simulator (this one is a 747).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOblpjokS5M
Where Rusty's assistant failed, this guy succeeded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOblpjokS5M
Where Rusty's assistant failed, this guy succeeded.
Jazzy
Closed Account
You all assume the pilots were poor. Did someone tell you so? Isn't it rather easy for a capable pilot to act like he wasn't capable?
While you make that assumption, you cannot see why OBL's plan was so effective.
The "training" for the pilots was a spell of regular routine training which had all the appearance of being continuous and unbroken. Its intent was to establish that routine.
It was broken in the dark hours while the FBI surveillance team was changing shifts.
Once that break was made, the surveillance team stood no chance of finding them before their task was complete.
Occam...
...any child could fly those planes the way they were flown. Maybe not George, though, because he can never make his mind up. Or Harvey, because he loses his temper.
While you make that assumption, you cannot see why OBL's plan was so effective.
The "training" for the pilots was a spell of regular routine training which had all the appearance of being continuous and unbroken. Its intent was to establish that routine.
It was broken in the dark hours while the FBI surveillance team was changing shifts.
Once that break was made, the surveillance team stood no chance of finding them before their task was complete.
Occam...
...any child could fly those planes the way they were flown. Maybe not George, though, because he can never make his mind up. Or Harvey, because he loses his temper.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Knowing German wouldn't have helped. These guys are Dutch.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Just because a major media outlet uses someone as a source, doesn't always been that was a good source.
In fact, a poor source is what got me looking at information more carefully. It was early in the BP oil spill, and 'Earth and Sky' on NPR was interviewing a marine biologist about the spill. They asked her the purpose of the relief wells. Opps, not her area of expertise, but instead of directing them to a petroleum engineer or other, she tried to answer it and she blew it. I realized then that if I wanted in depth accurate information, I was going to have to find it on my own.
My first attempts get more information led me to such places as Godlike, Alex Jones, and such. They got quickly dismissed, because their science was so poor, that there were statements that I would known were wrong when I was 12 (I was way of ahead of a normal 12 old in geology--I had already made friends with the adult science section at my local library ).
In fact, a poor source is what got me looking at information more carefully. It was early in the BP oil spill, and 'Earth and Sky' on NPR was interviewing a marine biologist about the spill. They asked her the purpose of the relief wells. Opps, not her area of expertise, but instead of directing them to a petroleum engineer or other, she tried to answer it and she blew it. I realized then that if I wanted in depth accurate information, I was going to have to find it on my own.
My first attempts get more information led me to such places as Godlike, Alex Jones, and such. They got quickly dismissed, because their science was so poor, that there were statements that I would known were wrong when I was 12 (I was way of ahead of a normal 12 old in geology--I had already made friends with the adult science section at my local library ).
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Rico, thanks for your well thought out response. . . . I have little to say about the rest of your response except some general statements. . . so I will concentrate on #2b below. . . .
1) I think it is possible for good pilots to fly the aircraft into the targets though it is the gray area as far as known flight characteristics since most people don't fly 757/767 in this manner. . . .and therefore an automated system can as well . . . maybe better, maybe worse to the observing eye . . . however, it is the result we are looking for not a smooth graceful flight for the comfort of the passengers. . . . I want as much guarantee I will succeed as possible, I don't want to rely on the hijackers anymore than is absolutely necessary. . .
2) The control bay issue. . . seems the hijackers had plenty of time to access this area if it were possible . . . we don't have any evidence that they could not have. . . the question is what would it require . . .? Or they had help from one or more ground crew. . . an evil cabal could have exchanged or uploaded new avionics without proper procedures . . . That is not too difficult to imagine. . . .
3) As far as the 38 degree and the over 30 degree override. . . Seems if I was to re-program the auto pilot at all to exceed normal flight parameters this could be accomplished as well. . . .unless you have a technical reason why it couldn't. . . or the hijackers were instructed to re-engage the autopilot anytime it disengaged as soon as possible. . . .
1) I think it is possible for good pilots to fly the aircraft into the targets though it is the gray area as far as known flight characteristics since most people don't fly 757/767 in this manner. . . .and therefore an automated system can as well . . . maybe better, maybe worse to the observing eye . . . however, it is the result we are looking for not a smooth graceful flight for the comfort of the passengers. . . . I want as much guarantee I will succeed as possible, I don't want to rely on the hijackers anymore than is absolutely necessary. . .
2) The control bay issue. . . seems the hijackers had plenty of time to access this area if it were possible . . . we don't have any evidence that they could not have. . . the question is what would it require . . .? Or they had help from one or more ground crew. . . an evil cabal could have exchanged or uploaded new avionics without proper procedures . . . That is not too difficult to imagine. . . .
3) As far as the 38 degree and the over 30 degree override. . . Seems if I was to re-program the auto pilot at all to exceed normal flight parameters this could be accomplished as well. . . .unless you have a technical reason why it couldn't. . . or the hijackers were instructed to re-engage the autopilot anytime it disengaged as soon as possible. . . .
Rico said:
Rico
Senior Member.
George, here is a link to a virtual tour to an American Airlines Boeing 757 avionics bay: http://www.hawkeyemedia.com/panos/757_EE.asp
There doesn't appear to be any access short of the ground hatch on this particular bird. Keep in mind that these systems are located in the belly of the aircraft and is separated by the floor in the cabin. If you look at the roof, it's filled with wiring, tubes, and frames.
Now, I don't know if there may be an access on the 767, but the 757 accounts for half of the planes on 9/11. If they couldn't access the 757 avionics bay, chances are they wouldn't have accessed the 767 avionics bay either.
Also to note, the 767 was mostly a 2 pilot aircraft. No flight engineer and all that. From a designer point of view, there is almost no point of having access to the avionics bay in flight, so I highly suspect that there is no access. I know traditional airplanes like the L1011 might have them, but those were different, and those actually had an extra man in the cockpit.
Yeah, but you'd have to throw a few more assumptions for that to make it work. You'd also have to have this 'help' from across 2 airlines, most likely A&P's, and across 3 separate bases (Boston Logan, Newark, and Dulles). It's actually pretty difficult from an execution standpoint. You need at least 3 people with some degree of security clearance doing this behind people's backs. You'd also have to do this either when the aircraft is parked overnight or in a hanger, because people are watching, and airplanes spend more time in the air during their workday. Have to do it behind security cameras too.
There doesn't appear to be any access short of the ground hatch on this particular bird. Keep in mind that these systems are located in the belly of the aircraft and is separated by the floor in the cabin. If you look at the roof, it's filled with wiring, tubes, and frames.
Now, I don't know if there may be an access on the 767, but the 757 accounts for half of the planes on 9/11. If they couldn't access the 757 avionics bay, chances are they wouldn't have accessed the 767 avionics bay either.
Also to note, the 767 was mostly a 2 pilot aircraft. No flight engineer and all that. From a designer point of view, there is almost no point of having access to the avionics bay in flight, so I highly suspect that there is no access. I know traditional airplanes like the L1011 might have them, but those were different, and those actually had an extra man in the cockpit.
Yeah, but you'd have to throw a few more assumptions for that to make it work. You'd also have to have this 'help' from across 2 airlines, most likely A&P's, and across 3 separate bases (Boston Logan, Newark, and Dulles). It's actually pretty difficult from an execution standpoint. You need at least 3 people with some degree of security clearance doing this behind people's backs. You'd also have to do this either when the aircraft is parked overnight or in a hanger, because people are watching, and airplanes spend more time in the air during their workday. Have to do it behind security cameras too.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I would think these obsticals are not insurmountable (part of routine maintenance days, weeks, or even months before the hijackings) but then one would have to feel the risks of discovery would have to be greater than the the potential outcome if they did not attempt such covert modifications. . . . I could envision the modifications, but the other fly in the ointment would be making sure you would be flying on the correct modified aircraft. . . . The answer might be all avionics in this era had the same modified code uploaded but remained dormant (requires collusion by people or person at Boeing avionics) . . . the code was triggered by some electronic prompt, password, etc. by the hijackers. . . . difficult? Yes, but we are talking about the crime of centuries. . . . and something that changed the course of human history. . . .
Rico
Senior Member.
Even for a crime of the century... I think it better fits in a science fiction novel than the confines of our reality.
And yes, airlines tail swap their flights all the time. There is no guarantee that the hijackers would be assured they get on the correctly 'modified' aircraft. You can say all the avionics of the era being modified, but it's pretty far down the likeliness scale here. The 757/767 are about 1980s technology, so it's not like it's particularly smart. The autopilot too is made for smooth flying from the 'mechanical' sense, and the only practical application here that I can think of is assuming that it can prevent the aircraft from doing violent deviations with pinpoint accuracy, which it probably can't do.
And yes, airlines tail swap their flights all the time. There is no guarantee that the hijackers would be assured they get on the correctly 'modified' aircraft. You can say all the avionics of the era being modified, but it's pretty far down the likeliness scale here. The 757/767 are about 1980s technology, so it's not like it's particularly smart. The autopilot too is made for smooth flying from the 'mechanical' sense, and the only practical application here that I can think of is assuming that it can prevent the aircraft from doing violent deviations with pinpoint accuracy, which it probably can't do.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I have one answer for you. . . I think black ops are at least a decade ahead of existing technology and especially in computer coding and applications. . . .
It's not the pipe-dream it sounds, either. After 9/11, what with Middle-Eastern gentlemen being able to hijack planes and fly them with military precision, there was a lot of talk of
"... including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control." Needless to say, pilots aren't too happy with the idea of someone off-board taking control of their ship, whoever it is. What if that someone was a "Middle-Eastern gentleman"? [Landing by remote control doesn't quite fly with pilots. Chicago Tribune, September 28, 2001] Even Robert Ayling, former boss of British Airways, got in on the act and "... suggested in the Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack... " [The Economist, September 20, 2001]http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html
Rico
Senior Member.
I can accept that (err kinda), but it's a pretty big assumption that they made such modifications to all our aircraft out there for this singular task. Cobra said something about some of these 'boxes' using 286 processors, which, if you ever owned a 286 computer, you would know they aren't exactly the fastest on the block. On top of that, it would take years of planning, years of concealing it from avionics technicians around the world, and quite frankly, isn't worth the cost when it comes to hijacking the airplane.
If we assume they go to such heights in technology in order to ensure mission success, why don't they just make it impossible to disconnect the autopilot with a flick of the button, and then crash even more 757/767s than just 4?
If we assume they go to such heights in technology in order to ensure mission success, why don't they just make it impossible to disconnect the autopilot with a flick of the button, and then crash even more 757/767s than just 4?
RolandD
Active Member
I know absolutely nothing about avionics computers, but I'm hoping someone else does and can answer this. From the photos, the avionics seem pretty massive, am I incorrect in positing that the programming is hard coded? Meaning that changing the programming is not as simple as deleting a file and replacing it, but exchanging out large volumes of hardware?
Billzilla
Senior Member.
Again I'm reluctant to post in this thread - I can feel my IQ dropping as I read some of the posts - but this is a good question. The answer is that no, you cannot reprogram the autopilot at all, it is indeed all effectively hard-wired. The only thing that can have updated information entered into it is the Honeywell FMS. And that's just to update the waypoints for navigation.
Any way you look at it from a hardware point of view it's effectively impossible to do and by far the easiest way to get the desired job done is to simply have a fanatic hand-flying the aeroplane. It'd be easy to do.
Rico
Senior Member.
There are a lot of avionics in an aircraft. Different boxes control different things. There are inertial reference systems, there are air data computers, ILS receivers, ground proximity equipment, ACARS, etc etc. That's why it seems so cumbersome in the avionics bay.
I just found an old textbook of mine that just so happens to cover the Boeing 767 autopilot (Ref: Aircraft Instruments and Avionics For A&P Technicians). Has some nice pictures in it too! The autopilot of the Boeing 767 integrates data from a lot of different sensors: laser sensors (mostly inertial reference units), Flight Control Computers, Thrust management, Air data computers, navigation sensors, engine instrument and crew alerting systems.
There are actually 3 autopilot computers that control 3 servos that controls 3 power control actuators in order to affect the control surfaces of the aircraft. The autopilot itself is a bit downstream from the controls that the pilot uses, so I imagine that to even remotely be able to rig this airplane to be like a cruise missile is quite a lengthy process indeed. I'm looking at a picture of the autopilot unit itself, which consists of a handle and secured by two wing nuts, but it doesn't exactly look as though it is easy to tamper with.
The auto pilot itself links to the pilot's controls via a servo, the best I understand it, and so it essentially steers the plane like a pilot would. Given the problems that could be present from a high speed maneuver carried out by a 767, if a pilot can't fly the plane, it is unlikely that the autoflight system would do any better. The autoflight system is again designed for smooth flights with small control inputs. If there were at all any difficulty for the flights on 9/11 to hit their targets that makes it impossible for the pilot to carry out their task, it is highly unlikely that the computer can accomplish this either. The computer vs. man in this equation is completely contradictory.
I just found an old textbook of mine that just so happens to cover the Boeing 767 autopilot (Ref: Aircraft Instruments and Avionics For A&P Technicians). Has some nice pictures in it too! The autopilot of the Boeing 767 integrates data from a lot of different sensors: laser sensors (mostly inertial reference units), Flight Control Computers, Thrust management, Air data computers, navigation sensors, engine instrument and crew alerting systems.
There are actually 3 autopilot computers that control 3 servos that controls 3 power control actuators in order to affect the control surfaces of the aircraft. The autopilot itself is a bit downstream from the controls that the pilot uses, so I imagine that to even remotely be able to rig this airplane to be like a cruise missile is quite a lengthy process indeed. I'm looking at a picture of the autopilot unit itself, which consists of a handle and secured by two wing nuts, but it doesn't exactly look as though it is easy to tamper with.
The auto pilot itself links to the pilot's controls via a servo, the best I understand it, and so it essentially steers the plane like a pilot would. Given the problems that could be present from a high speed maneuver carried out by a 767, if a pilot can't fly the plane, it is unlikely that the autoflight system would do any better. The autoflight system is again designed for smooth flights with small control inputs. If there were at all any difficulty for the flights on 9/11 to hit their targets that makes it impossible for the pilot to carry out their task, it is highly unlikely that the computer can accomplish this either. The computer vs. man in this equation is completely contradictory.
They could be a hundred years ahead, it does not help. You are thinking about computer systems in Hollywood terms. It simply does not work like that. The actual explanation is perfectly simply, and there is no need to reach for additional explanations. Human pilots would be a far safer bet than some automated solution.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Like the whole thing at 911 wasn't as unprecedented and spectacular as a Hollywood script. . . and I bet the avionics system on a 767 is far more sophisticated than the one on a cruise missile. . . The system is designed to duplicate a human pilot . . .No? Then there is one control node or central processor . . . it receives the data from the sensors and moves the control surfaces. . . . One needs to control this central node and block or alter the data as you wish. . .
You car has "sensors" and "autopilot" (cruise control). That does not mean you could program it (mid-trip even) to drive to Las Vegas and park in front of the Bellagio.
It's a lot easier to use human pilots, even if there was some shadowy conspiracy behind the whole thing. It would have been 100x as reliable to have human pilots fly a bit slower.
Similar threads
