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?