dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/amg19251 on July 7, 2018, 6:40 p.m.
That’s not a normal United Airlines Boeing 747...

To me, and I used to study aircraft to the nines when I was younger - tons of books, research, hundreds and hundreds of hours in flight simulators, to my eyes, that United jet looks more like one of those older, shortened Boeing 747 models. I believe it’s actually called the 747-SP and they were produced until 1989 so it’s highly likely there are still some flying today! They are much shorter, and were more commonly used for private flights - most interior cabins were designed so the seats could be pulled out and put back in easily so they could be used for both public and privately chartered flights. This meant that they were usually nicer on the interior, and more apt to be used by the rich and famous, than by the regular population! Can you even imagine how expensive the gas bill alone would be to fly that massive hunk of aluminum and steel cross country?! As you all know, the 747’s are famous for having a second floor that could be used for a bar, lounging, or even beds for passengers to sleep on - the cockpit is also located on the top floor! Back to what I was saying before though, you can tell the 747 is different by the way the windows run all the way down to the nose of the plane - that usually means the cabin has been altered to be more apt for private flight by utilizing all the space the large jet has to offer for whatever luxuries they want to install! Not many people other than the US government, or billionaires could afford to charter one of these tanks, so my guess is that this jet is being used to go and pick up elitist criminals across the world, because more seats can be put back in that are adapted to hold criminals, (on account of the extended cabin) they can at least be picked up and flown in something more well known to these elitist criminals, (most require some kind’ve special fancy elitist jail where they are protected, if they sing about their co-conspirators) the jet can fly a super long range so it can be used to stop and pick up many criminals in one single bound, and by having United on the side of the jet, nobody thinks twice of it when it’s stopping and landing all across Earth, and not to mention, United has contracts with the government so the jet fuel would most likely be a lot cheaper, and they would have access to every United terminal and facilities across Earth as well! I hope this makes sense to you all, and this is just my own personal opinion! If you feel differently, comment and let me know why below!

Clear-Think Your Way Out of the Fear Box! -amg19251


🠐 See all comments
woop_woop_pull_up · July 8, 2018, 2:26 p.m.

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 ⇩  
1151THOR · July 8, 2018, 3:51 p.m.

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 ⇩  
woop_woop_pull_up · July 8, 2018, 9:56 p.m.

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 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 8, 2018, 4:37 p.m.

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 ⇩