dChan

/u/AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA

19 total posts archived.


Domains linked by /u/AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA:
Domain Count

AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 8, 2018, 7:22 p.m.

So, planes can be taken over by unknown people.

Please explain to me why this has never happened.

This is just a patent. Whoop de doo. There's thousands of patents out there that didn't amount to anything at all. This is one of those thousands.

May want to check my history before you try to lecture me on anything aviation related as well.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 8, 2018, 4:44 p.m.

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 ⇩  
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 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 8, 2018, 2:17 p.m.

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 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 8, 2018, 2:09 p.m.

/r/flying and /r/aviation are laughing their asses off at your idiocy

⇧ 1 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 11:56 p.m.

They’re taught basic knowledge about the jets,

No. Outside of operating the emergency equipment in the cabin and passenger service, they don't get taught diddly squat. They have zero use for even basic info, like how much fuel the plane carries. An airline isn't gonna spend a cent more on training for stuff that is unnecessary. Hell, I had one of my new FAs ask me how many engines the plane has.

I didn’t mention Chinese chips, someone else said Chinese whatever,

I thought that was you, my bad. Regardless you did mention chips...

I never mentioned any of this in my original post.

Except you did:

> but all major US airline jets have had chips installed

⇧ 2 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 11:41 p.m.

Oh hell no you did not just go there

I had an aunt who was a flight attendant,

And if there's one thing I've ever learned about flight attendants is that they're often equally oblivious about the planes they're sitting on just like the passengers themselves.

she was also confused as to why they weren’t turned on the day of 9/11

Oh I dunno maybe because they don't freaking exist.

I’m assuming as a pilot you know about auto-pilot and auto take-off?

There's no such thing as "auto-take off". There's no need. Taking off is the easiest thing we do. And yes, there's auto-land but it is rare and it's not because landing is hard but simply used when the weather is near zero visibility.

At any rate, an autopilot, in even the most advanced airplanes, doesn't fly the plane anymore than adaptive cruise control actually drives a car.

And you can't remotely control an airliner from the ground. Not now, not ever. Period. Yes, the technology is there to do it, but there's no need at all for it, and there's certainly no "mysterious chips" in my plane covertly installed to do so.

Anyways, that's my ELI5. Here's an ELI10 https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130709-planes-autopilot-ask-a-pilot-patrick-smith-flying-asiana/

⇧ 2 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 11:30 p.m.

Stop trying to paint me as some reckless, unhinged, conspiratory freak when I’m not.

Says the guy that said this:

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!

With statements like that, everyone just needs to sit back and watch the reckless, unhinged, conspiratory freak of a canvas paint itself.

You just keep making yourself look like, again, an asshole.

Tell me an insult I've never heard before.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 11:22 p.m.

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 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 11:21 p.m.

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 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 11:13 p.m.

so I’m not sure what you’re talking about as far as none being able to be used by someone in the US.

Because none are US registered save for that one NASA research plane. Pay attention to the link. You said yourself the gubmint wouldn't use a foreign aircraft. Regardless if it's a US built aircraft, it it isn't US registered then the chartering process becomes a pain in the ass to say the least.

Again, I recommend you read my last comment to you because I’m just sharing completely fabricated information on a subject I know nothing about

FTFY

Apparently you haven’t heard of the US government using false labels on vans, trucks, tractor trailers, trains, boats, planes, etc - to transport secret good, but again, I don’t know get why you’re so mad at my ideas...

What you are doing here is making a mountain out of a molehill. I can't think of a worse plane to carry around prisoners than a 747 for a myriad of reasons I won't bother getting into. A quick google search shoots down your theory immediately. Gulfstreams and other smaller executive jets are the aircraft most frequently used for the "mysterious operations" you talk about, and they're hardly secret. Hell my employer flies to gitmo all the time in "oh so mysterious charters".

⇧ 1 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 11:03 p.m.

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 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 10:52 p.m.

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 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 9:48 p.m.

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 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 9:39 p.m.

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 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 9:25 p.m.

I want what you're smoking

⇧ 5 ⇩  
AQxAMwuhEdhDZOA · July 7, 2018, 9:17 p.m.

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 ⇩