Remote Control Functions Options

[kawika]

I have heard that the remote control system disables certain functions when it is implemented. I heard that pilots or hijackers would not be able to use the radio or change the transponder code.

What about the engines? Would they be able to shut them off?

I would think that the remote control system would rely heavily on engines working and being able to do whatever was necessary to insure a safe landing at the airfield of choice.

Any comments?

[realitycheck77]

I have heard that the remote control system disables certain functions when it is implemented. I heard that pilots or hijackers would not be able to use the radio or change the transponder code.

What about the engines? Would they be able to shut them off?

I would think that the remote control system would rely heavily on engines working and being able to do whatever was necessary to insure a safe landing at the airfield of choice.

Any comments?

If this is in relation to 9/11 I can't see why there was any likelyhood whatever that the planes were flown by remote control when there is the far simpler , cheaper and less complicated method of getting someone to fly the plane, as the passengers reported, i.e hijack the plane. The complexity and every other issue involved would just rule it out of consideration in any sensible plan.

[MrDoubtfire]

If this is in relation to 9/11 I can't see why there was any likelyhood whatever that the planes were flown by remote control when there is the far simpler , cheaper and less complicated method of getting someone to fly the plane, as the passengers reported, i.e hijack the plane. The complexity and every other issue involved would just rule it out of consideration in any sensible plan.

realitycheck77, I think, this is easy to answer: There has never been a training location presented were the supposed hijackers could learn flying big Boeings into buildings. Dekker's flight school, that was communicated as a culprit, trained on Cessnas.

The number of flight school facilities in the world for Boeing 757 and 767 must be rather small and documentation there must be accurate and complete. The flight school should have been easy to identify, I assume.

Evidence--as far as I am aware of it--therefore says that the supposed hijackers would not have been able to fly the maneuvers necessary for the attacks. But they may have learned to switch on a hidden remote system that overrides manual and automatic systems, maybe even without being aware of the aircraft's true destinations.

The passengers have not reported that the hijackers actually flew the aircraft. Only that the pilots were murdered and that the hijackers had occupied the cockpits. This also fits to the remote theory: If they would have left the pilots alive, they may have switched the remote systems off again.

The hijacker theory may seem simpler and cheaper on first glance; given the evidence, it is simply impossible. Once you rule out the impossible, what remains may be as complicated and expensive as you like, or dislike, it becomes plausible.

Kind regards

Mr. Doubtfire


PS: Isn't it interesting that no Airbuses were involved? Their fly-by-wire systems may have made it impossible to install a remote control. If you assume a 50-50 likeliness of choosing either type, the likeliness that in 4 selection events 4 Boeings are chosen goes down to 12.5%. This makes a special cause more plausible than pure chance by a factor of 4.

PS2: The question who trained the supposed hijackers is so obvious, I wonder why no investigator has ever followed it up. TV shows like CSI tell us the stories of the policemen that diligently follow every little piece of evidence and finally solve the case. This seems to be a fairy-tale. I recommend that before FBI/CIA/NSA/GCHQ/BND etc. investigators read our private e-mails (and for sure messages in this forum; well aware of our true names--Hi there!), they should simply do their jobs and find out the true story behind the news of 2001. That's what they are paid for.

[amazed!]

Doubtfire

If the perpetrators were already in possession of a fleet of 767 modified in Israel for the tanker modification, the odds of an Airbus being used go way down.

As for what happens when the remote control system is employed, that is a trade secret. I doubt there are many pilots in the world who have ever been involved in the testing and development of that system.

[kawika]

So far we have mostly off topic answers.

This isn't a question about the odds of remote control being used. It's about the technical aspects of a known system.

We already know that this doesn't involve any kind of switch in the plane that could be easily turned on and off. It's remote control for the purpose of disabling a hijacker's ability to choose the destination.

If you don't know the answer then kindly sit quietly, or start another thread where you can go off in another direction. I'll respond to your off-topic answers there.

[SlackerSlayer]

I have heard that the remote control system disables certain functions when it is implemented. I heard that pilots or hijackers would not be able to use the radio or change the transponder code.

What about the engines? Would they be able to shut them off?

I would think that the remote control system would rely heavily on engines working and being able to do whatever was necessary to insure a safe landing at the airfield of choice.

Any comments?

The recovery system I was reading about the night of September 11th 2001 on several web sites mentioned that when the transponders are turned off by this recovery system, it is because the system uses the transponders tradio circuits to give the flight parameters to the remote operator. So when the transponders go off, it was an outside pilot taking the flight controls. By the way, each of those web sites that described the technology in great detail, were all removed by the time I returned to my computer on the 12th.

The operation name for this high jack recovery system was named something like "wood pecker".

[MrDoubtfire]

So far we have mostly off topic answers.

This isn't a question about the odds of remote control being used. It's about the technical aspects of a known system.

We already know that this doesn't involve any kind of switch in the plane that could be easily turned on and off. It's remote control for the purpose of disabling a hijacker's ability to choose the destination.

If you don't know the answer then kindly sit quietly, or start another thread where you can go off in another direction. I'll respond to your off-topic answers there.

I have no idea what a remote control can do or not do and how it works. All I see is that the Arabs would not have been able to do the attacks without proper training, and that no one has ever investigated the question who trained them.

Your point on the purpose of remote controls (unfortunately without proper source as evidence) would lead to a new concern. If the US where that well prepared for a terrorist attack with hijacked aircraft in 2001 that they even developed active defense systems, why did the attacks find them so unprepared and unable to respond?

With all the open and obvious questions and the reluctance of government to investigate any of them, the only plausible explanation is that someone powerful in the US wanted this to happen.

[amazed!]

Roger that, Mr.Doubtfire!

[MrDoubtfire]

Interesting question, BTW: Can you hack an autopilot and turn it into a remote control?

HUGO TESO tried it out and says Yes:

http://conference.hitb.org/hitbsecconf2013ams/hugo-teso/

Regards,

Doubty

[amazed!]

I suppose it depends upon the autopilot.

I'm just a pilot, not a technician of any sort.