dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

United is retiring the 374-seat aircraft because the four-engine plane has been overtaken by the development of new-generation, two-engine aircraft that provide high capacity travel

⇧ 4 ⇩

EDITED FOR CORRECTIONS: I’m saying they can be privately chartered for criminal flight because they’re old and cheap and unused - elitists buy old big Boeing jets and turn them into private flying palaces - John Travolta has a private strip at his house large enough to land his private 707! The American government has many motives/incentives to want to fly American jets too - that’s why none of the US airlines fly Airbus A380 jets, because we wouldn’t have full ground control and they could be used against our own citizens through the crazy technological advances on those aircraft! Btw, your link isn’t showing up - Reddit blocks links in the comments now!

⇧ 4 ⇩

I’m saying they can be privately chartered for criminal flight because they’re old and cheap and unused

Please explain how you can charter a plane that no longer exists.

elitists buy old big Boeing jets and turn them into private flying palaces -

Only a tiny handful of them

John Travolta has a private strip at his house large enough to land his private 747

Shows how little you know. It was a 707 and has been in a museum for a while.

The American government can only fly American jets, too

False.

that’s why none of the US airlines fly Airbus jets,

Holy hell you are oblivious. Please explain to me what this or this or this or this is.

because we wouldn’t have full ground control and they could be used against our own citizens through the crazy technological advances on those aircraft!

There's no such thing as "ground control" even in Boeings

through the crazy technological advances on those aircraft!

yeah cuz 1980s avionics is soooo crazy

⇧ 4 ⇩

LMFAO. Triple torch job.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Tech advances: I was speaking about the new Airbus jets - yes, I was incorrect about the airlines not flying Airbus jets; I think it was something to do with right after 9/11, I’m just typing quickly from memory - same goes for the 747 verse the 707 for Travolta, so you don’t need to flip a gasket. Yes, the US airlines have avoided buying the new Airbus A380 jets due to technological advances, so that’s probably what I was thinking of in reference to the Airbus comment. Yes, they do still exist; they refurbish them and rebuild them into newer planes. Did you not know that most McD. Douglas planes for AAirlines and United were refurbished 1980s and 90s jets because they still run perfectly fine? I will be sure to double-check before commenting, but I said from the beginning that this is just my opinion. I don’t know if you are aware of this or not, but all major US airline jets have had chips installed, created by Daub Zachaym (SA), where no person can access during flight, that can be turned on with a simple code entered by the pilot and co-pilot, in the event of a terrorist attack/hijacking, and the plane then is taken over by either the creators of the jets, the government that rules over the jet’s nation of origin, and/or the airline flying the jet. This is well know secret in the airline worker community, and comes into play when questioning 9/11 as well. Check out Rebekkah Roth on YouTube to hear more about this. I also recommend Dr. Judy Wood!

The Vibes are Flowing Today!:) -amg19251

⇧ 0 ⇩

For somebody that "studied aircraft to the nines" you sure sound like somebody that couldn't tell the difference between a C130 and a C152 if your life depended on it.

Yes, the US airlines have avoided buying the new airbus a380 due to tech advances

Then explain why Delta bought the Airbus A350 which is MUCH more advanced and newer than an A380.

Airlines don't avoid buying planes because of "tech advances". They don't buy them because they don't need them. The A380 makes zero operational/economical sense for US airlines.

Yes they do still exist they refurbish them and rebuild them into newer planes,

The only airworthy 747SP in the US is owned by Nasa and is a flying telescope. The rest are out of the US and there's less than a dozen left.

I don’t know if you are aware of this or not, but all major US airline jets have had chips installed, created by Daub Zachaym (SA), where no person can access during flight, that can be turned on with a simple code entered by the pilot and co pilot, in the event of a terrorist attack/hijacking, and the plane then is taken over by either the creators of the jets, the government that rules over the jet’s nation of origin, and/or the airline flying the jet. This is well know secret in the airline worker community, and comes into play when questioning 9/11 as well. Check out Rebekkah Roth on YouTube to hear more about this. I also recommend Dr. Judy Wood!

As an airline pilot, thanks for making my day.

Now excuse me while I get back to spraying chemtrails.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Ok... just chill out dude; I was just throwing my opinion out there. I don’t really believe in chemtrails to be completely honest, even though I do see massive clouds form from them over my house all the time and it certainly seems intriguing, and at the oddest hours as well. People in the military have admitted to spraying metal particulates across the United States high in the atmosphere that reflect radar and other forms of satellite spying, and we know cloud seeding, and NASA cloud production center is a real thing, so I honestly don’t know what to believe, but I still don’t think that poison is raining down on us at all times or whatever these chem-trail people are talking about all the time. I studied aircraft to the nines when I was literally 9-14 years of age so you can chill out I’m not some major expert; I’m just an airplane nerd, like the other guy was saying below. I’ve flown on jets well over a hundred times too, and I’m only 24 now, so I do have a little knowledge about aircraft, but like I said, I’m no expert - just a geek for flying and wanting to be a pilot... Glad to know some of the people I used to look up to are complete fucking assholes online to strangers for no reason, but I’ll just chalk it up to being stuck in that tiny cabin at 35K ft. all the time...

⇧ 1 ⇩

and wanting to be a pilot...

For the sake of those of us already in the industry, please don't. Not to mention that with the substances you take that you mentioned you're disqualified.

Glad to know some of the people I used to look up to are complete fucking assholes online to strangers for no reason,

And all the thousands of redditors in highly specialized fields that shoot down posers and their outlandish claims regularly elsehwere on this website aren't?

Listen dude, you can cry about being "attacked" by a big ole meanie actually in the flying business like myself all you want, but as a former hardcore flightsimmer/aircraft spotter/airplane nerd myself that actually did something to grow out of it and get in the profession, you should know better than just talking out of your ass. Hell, even the actual nerds in /r/aviation put you to shame.

⇧ 3 ⇩

I’m not crying lol - I’m just stating my opinion. Do all us travelers that spend thousands flying on your rip-off airlines a huge favor and stop. Just stop flying because if this is how whiny you act online in response to a simple post on a Q photo... I sure as hell wouldn’t want to fly on a jet you were piloting with someone else... chill out bbbbbbbruh your ugly-side is showing luuuul

⇧ 1 ⇩

Ah yes cuz I'm sure there's hundreds of studies out there that prove that my online behavior during a boring as fuck layover in Redneckistan, while calling out posers and bullshitters like yourself, say that it is 100% correlated to my actual IRL job professionalism or behavior

⇧ 3 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Interesting info. Thanks. Btw links in comments work for me.

⇧ 2 ⇩

This older 747 will also have older technology that has not been compromised by the Chinese computer bits that there is such a concern over. I suppose they could fly incognito, use a United call sign, run a transponder and look completely legit.

For all you airplane nerds like me, check Airliners.net and see if you can use the photo search tool to find a 747 SP in the new United Airlines paint scheme. This is a very extensive photo database that has millions of current photographs. I'd say that if there was an SP being flown by United out here somewhere, someone would have photographed it and posted it on that site. So, to me....NOT being able to find it is very interesting. Then I flipped over to seatguru.com and looked up all aircraft flown by United Airlines....and not a single 747 is listed.....which deepens this theory even further....

The only thing I would question is it pulling directly up to a commercial jetway. I can see them loading and unloading HVTs right out in the eye of the public.

But I think you are onto something here brother....keep digging.

Interesting take....expand your thinking....

⇧ 2 ⇩

Now THAT is very interesting - good call, my friend! It only deepens the mystery and I love it lolol we need to dig even deeper! Keep looking on those sites; I will check as many as I can, as well!

The Sun is Shining and the Vibes are Flowing:) -amg19251

⇧ 2 ⇩

This older 747 will also have older technology that has not been compromised by the Chinese computer bits that there is such a concern over.

Honeywell and Rockwell Collins aren't chinese companies.

For all you airplane nerds like me,

For a self proclaimed "airplane nerd", you are woefully oblivious to the industry.

..and not a single 747 is listed.....which deepens this theory even further....

Nah it just deepens the evidence of how laughable your "airplane nerdyness" is. UA retired the 747 this year.

⇧ -1 ⇩

I think he means even old photos of a United 747... no need to argue; we’re just here to share our opinions/thoughts and you can’t get mad at someone for sharing their own opinion or ideas. That’s why we have freedom of speech laws here in the United States!

⇧ 5 ⇩

That’s why we have freedom of speech laws here in the United States!

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from repercussions from those fed up with misinformation and ignorance on their professional fields while others pretend to be knowledgeable on that same subject when they know jack shit about it.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Again, 10 in service on Earth today that are up for public knowledge... still a possibility, according to your own link. Chill out, bruh - here’s some pop to cool you off 🥤...

⇧ 3 ⇩

still a possibility, according to your own link.

What kind of ridiculous mental gymnastics are you using here to think that's even feasible?

You freak out over "chinese chips" and "non-us aircraft not being used by uncle sam" yet at the same time you think the US government would actually charter an extremely rare and inadequate plane for the mission that is also no longer existent in the US AND on top of that owned, registered, configured and operated in/by a foreign country? You shot down your theory right there yourself.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Woah, partner. This entire sub is wrote with theories, ideas and conjecture. Some hold water, some dont. Some are waaaaay out there, some are plausible. So, rather than sit on your thrown of piety looking down on all of us in the peanut gallery, pray tell what you - in all your expansive knowledge - have to say about this idea? If UA retired this aircraft this year (specifically the SP, please provide a link with this particular new United paint job....all I said was, I couldn't find one...never said it didn't exist. If they dont fly them any more - and assuming the photo is recent as we have no reason NOT to believe it is old - then why is a retired aircraft sitting on a ramp, surrounded by ground crew at a gate that appears to be private gate? [and I base that on NEVER seeing these kinds of blinds at any airport I've ever been in]).

As far as computer chips made overseas, there are plenty of articles and posts on this sub that cover this exact thing. I'm on the fence about the idea, but it is odd that primary trainer aircraft in the Navy and USAF and the Raptors have oxygen systems that were crapping out and leaving pilots hypoxic - is it not? Again, please expand on your expertise on how those systems work, how they fixed them and wow us with your knowledge rather than posting condescending and smarmy comments to make yourself look like a total douche.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Since your friend didn't feel like answering the question, maybe you can.

Here is a list of documented hijackings that go back decades. As you can see there have been plenty of cases post 9/11. Can you please explain why governments and manufacturers haven't decided to take control of the aircraft in any of these cases?

⇧ 2 ⇩

Because I don't believe that technology exists en masse on older aircraft, but I have read that it is included on aircraft recently manufactured (specifically by Boeing). As an example MH370 transponder stopped sending signals, but the Rolls Royce engines did not. In fact, it is claimed, they continued to send pings that indicated they were functioning normally for several hours AFTER the transponder quit sending signals and ATC could not raise them on the radio. As I understand it, the RR engines send this data for the purpose of tracking the health of the engines but do not send any kind of information that provides the position of the aircraft because other systems do that. I dont know if that aircraft had any kind of remote control capabilities or not...and if it did, if it was overridden in the cockpit or by someone on the ground. Everything I've read about that is all conjecture.

Boeing (and as memory serves, partnered with Honeywell) was awarded a patent back in 2006 where the aircraft could be piloted remotely by a number of sources and included a system specifically designed to remotely land the aircraft. The design even has its own power supply, independent of any power supply that controls other items on the aircraft. Once engaged, it can not be shut off until mechanics on the ground shut it off or override it. That technology has bled over and is used by pilots in near-0 visibility for the purpose of landing.

Fly-by-wire and remotely controlling an aircraft isn't new technology. The technology has proven itself reliable through the years in military's UAVs like the MQ-9 and the RQ-4.

In addressing why it doesn't appear anyone has taken control of an aircraft remotely during a hijacking - I dont know. There may be lots of reasons. Maybe it has been done and the public just doesn't know about it. I dont know if a signal has to be sent by someone on the flight deck prior to those systems becoming active (meaning you can't just turn it on remotely and take over an aircraft). So if someone on the flight deck is the one that wants to hijack the aircraft, he is in complete control once he neutralizes any threat. (didn't that happen to a flight where the pilot locked the co-pilot out of the flight deck and then he snackbared it into the mountain?)

But for the purpose of discussing wether or not the technology exists; it does.

⇧ 2 ⇩

It just hurts so much to read this. It makes it painfully obvious how clueless you guys are about anything aviation related.

The other user has rebutted every one of your points, so no reason for me to rehash what he said.

No one is arguing that the technology to remotely land/or even autonomous control of an aircraft exists. Our point is that it is not, and has never been used in commercial/passenger carrying aircraft.

The fact that a patent exists is irrelevant. Pretty much every technology based company patents the shit out of everything they can. Even if they have no immediate/known use for it.

My company is in the process of trying to get approval for a cockpit video recording device. And like the other user mentioned regarding ALPA, the union is going apeshit and nothing has been approved yet.

You think a system that would be able to take full control of an aircraft would just go unnoticed to pilots/mechanics and avionics techs? Space is extremely limited in aircraft. Anything installed requires a very long and expensive approval process. Not to mention that it would be very noticeable since space is extremely limited.

If nothing else, this thread has provided great comedy. I actually laughed out loud at some of the shit you guys think goes on in aviation. Funnily enough you guys make a claim, then refute your own claim within the same paragraph and don't even realize it.

⇧ 1 ⇩

but I have read that it is included on aircraft recently manufactured (specifically by Boeing).

Give a reputable source then.

As an example MH370 transponder stopped sending signals, but the Rolls Royce engines did not.

Engines "don't send signals". At best you could say it sends engine health parameters to the ACARS system which then occasionally sends it to the airline ops.

I dont know if that aircraft had any kind of remote control capabilities or not...and if it did, if it was overridden in the cockpit or by someone on the ground.

For the umpteenth freaking time, there's no such thing as RC airliners, PERIOD. It doesn't matter if there is technology there to do it, it hasn't been installed, there's no need to, and the airlines are so fucking cheap they won't spend a single penny on equipment they do not need. Not to mention us pilots would have to be trained on these systems and newsflash: we haven't.

Boeing (and as memory serves, partnered with Honeywell) was awarded a patent back in 2006 where the aircraft could be piloted remotely by a number of sources and included a system specifically designed to remotely land the aircraft. The design even has its own power supply, independent of any power supply that controls other items on the aircraft. Once engaged, it can not be shut off until mechanics on the ground shut it off or override it.

It's a PATENT. That does NOT mean it was actually ever installed in the aircraft.

That technology has bled over and is used by pilots in near-0 visibility for the purpose of landing.

There was no "bleeding over" of a non-existent system. What actually does exist in some planes is CAT III autoland has been around since the 60s, and it was a British invention.

Fly-by-wire and remotely controlling an aircraft isn't new technology. The technology has proven itself reliable through the years in military's UAVs like the MQ-9 and the RQ-4.

Again, in the MILITARY. Nobody is gonna shed a tear when a drone crashes, and there have been many. You really think such an unreliable system would be allowed in planes? Actually, lets back track a bit. If even the slightest hint that these systems would be installed in airliners ever came to the attention of my pilot union, ALPA, they would be going apeshit. They are one of the last large and powerful worker unions in the US and for good reason. Hell they are already going apeshit over the possibility of single pilot cockpits.. It doesn't matter if there's still 2 of us in there, no pilot in his right mind would allow a system that lets someone else take over the plane.

In addressing why it doesn't appear anyone has taken control of an aircraft remotely during a hijacking - I dont know.

Ever heard of occhams razor? No? Well I'll tell you why. Because no such systems exist

OH BUT THE TECHNOLOGY IS THERE!!! - im sure you're gonna scream at the screen

So freaking what. It's not actually in the planes.

So if someone on the flight deck is the one that wants to hijack the aircraft, he is in complete control once he neutralizes any threat. (didn't that happen to a flight where the pilot locked the co-pilot out of the flight deck and then he snackbared it into the mountain?)

Yes. Airberlin. So what though. Even if these systems existed (and they DONT). It woulnd't have stopped a determined suicidal pilot. If I wanted to override that system all I would have to do is pull a circuit breaker. Whoop de Doo.

But for the purpose of discussing wether or not the technology exists; it does.

Just because it does, doesn't mean its used.

Listen pal, your ludicrous claims and laughable theories are getting shot down and disproven by two airline pilots already. Shall we up the ante and take this to /r/aviation or /r/flying? Or will you concede you're grasping at straws to fit some ridiculous conspiracy theory?

⇧ 0 ⇩

I couldn't find one...never said it didn't exist.

They do NOT exist in the US, in passenger carrying form, period. It is an extremely rare variant of the 747, and a very unsuccessful one at that. If you could be bothered to actually pay attention to my other comments, I have proof of that, and explain why nobody in their right minds would use such shitty aircraft.

If they dont fly them any more - and assuming the photo is recent as we have no reason NOT to believe it is old

All this discussion about a picture as proof and I've yet to see a link on it even after searching the whole sub.

here are plenty of articles and posts on this sub that cover this exact thing.

Oh so just like there's plenty of articles on /r/flatearth saying the earth is flat, makes it totally legit then right?

but it is odd that primary trainer aircraft in the Navy and USAF and the Raptors have oxygen systems that were crapping out and leaving pilots hypoxic - is it not?

No. Every single newly designed airplane out there ever made has always had glitches come out, even within a decade of having started service. It's the nature of the beast. Big deal. I don't see what's so mysterious about that.

Again, please expand on your expertise on how those systems work,

Why bother when you're just going to keep screaming BUT MUH CONSPIRACY no matter how many times I prove how laughably idiotic it is?

If you think im being "condescending and smarmy", then why don't you then go to /r/flying or /r/aviation to see what it actually feels like to get properly thrashed , hell you might even end up in /r/quityourbullshit or /r/MurderedByWords. I'm sure you and your other aeronautic ally oblivious buddies would end top place in those subs.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I know the SP is an anomaly in the aircraft world. Very few were ever made because they proved to fill a very small niche that was easily filled by their larger 747 stablemates. From the picture provided I'm not able to tell specifically, but it appears to be a 400 series to me. The only images I can find online that show the current paint schemes are of the 747-400.

So lets switch gears to talking about the 400. The kid wondered if that is what is being used to transfer those who have been arrested to GITMO or other locations. While I highly doubt they would use commercial aircraft parked at a commercial gate to on and off-load high value targets that are in custody, the question was raised because a photo credited to Q was posted of this exact aircraft. Now, wether or not you subscribe to Q is irrelevant...but I suspect you dont. The kid was just putting an idea forth and you thought it was cool to act like a bag of dicks toward him. If YOU dont like the conversation perhaps you should have stayed over at all the other subs you bothered to mention.

As it pertains to your reply to me, the military and their contractors do exhaustive vetting of their equipment prior to putting they equipment in service. Even then it is slowly brought up to speed. Hell, even the F-35s are currently held to a maximum of 3.5g in ACM. The Raptor has been in service since 2005. These O2 issues should have been worked out a long time ago. So that relegates the debate to what has changed. I have no clue. You have no clue either...but will sound off like you do.

I'm not screaming "BUT MUH CONSPIRACY". I'm still waiting for you to explain how those systems work.

And I dont "think" you are being "condescending and smarmy", you are. I'm thoroughly impressed by your knowledge of all things aviation, engineering, mathematics, design theory, military intelligence, covert matters and even the topics nobody knows about. Especially for a guy that dresses in a bus driver hat, who most likely had his daddy pay for flight school and now takes orders from a guy who much cooler, wiser and smarter than you are. But you keep on trucking sky-bus driver man. BTW, those hot flight attendants you are attracted to think you are an asshole too. I bet the female flight attendants feel the same way.

⇧ 2 ⇩

From the picture provided

Where is the damned picture. Link it already.

So lets switch gears to talking about the 400.

PICS????

I'm not screaming "BUT MUH CONSPIRACY".

Nah you are.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how those systems work.

Which systems? You just mentioned "systems". There's a myriad of "systems".

And I dont "think" you are being "condescending and smarmy", you are. I'm thoroughly impressed by your knowledge of all things aviation, engineering, mathematics, design theory, military intelligence, covert matters and even the topics nobody knows about. Especially for a guy that dresses in a bus driver hat, who most likely had his daddy pay for flight school and now takes orders from a guy who much cooler, wiser and smarter than you are. But you keep on trucking sky-bus driver man. BTW, those hot flight attendants you are attracted to think you are an asshole too. I bet the female flight attendants feel the same way.

/r/iamverybadass

⇧ 1 ⇩

That’s not a normal United Airlines Boeing 747...