- Here is a link to an article published by New Scientist,
on the topic of September 11 and remote controlled planes:
-
- http://web.archive.org/web/20010925
-
- Its extremely interesting, not for its superficial content,
but for what it reveals if examined closely. You may wish to read it now,
then continue here.
-
- Years ago, New Scientist was an excellent, very independent
science magazine. Then it was bought out by Packer or Murdoch (can't recall
which, and it makes no difference.) I'd had a subscription for years. Within
a year, the quality and general 'intelligence level' had gone through the
floor. I didn't renew.
-
- Now and then I buy one from newsagents. Almost always,
when reading it, I get the feeling, in a few articles, that I'm being 'mouthpieced
to' by the writers. In other words, NS has become one of the publications
I feel are used for 'social consensus engineering' by the PTB (powers that
be).
-
- Note the date of the article: 12 Sept 01. (The day after!
Pretty quick, given all the experts that the article quotes.) Also consider
the origin: Catherine Zandonella, San Francisco. (ie a US source.)
-
- Next, consider what it is saying (or *not* saying), and
the idea sequence. Summarizing, with implied subtext in [brackets], and
my comments in {these}:
-
- NS: could halt hijackings.. use existing tech... say
experts... but risky...
-
- [ie no one has done it, and we are talking about _potentials_
here, not actual systems already built into planes.]
-
- {So the opening theme is 'why we haven't done anything
about this before.' Or - 'Gosh, if _only_ we'd thought to build in some
anti-hijack system! But we _didn't_!}
-
- NS: most modern aircraft...autopilot... re-programmed
to ignore cockpit controls... 'take direction from ground' ... says person
we are to take as an expert.
-
- [yes, the autopilot can take over the plane, but only
if we then fly the plane by remote control. Says Mr Expert, so you are
to stop thinking here.]
-
- {Absurd! The autopilot can't keep flying the plane once
it has cut off the cockpit controls?! Seems to me, this one 'non-idea'
is the whole point of this article. We are definately *not* to wonder if
the autopilot could do the rest itself. And we are to understand that *no
such system exists*.
-
- But its important to note that this does admit that the
autopilot _could_ be reprogrammed. They are ambiguous on the question of
how this could be done, and whether such capacity exists now. As Vialls
claims it does.}
-
- NS: hijacking detected... control plane from ground...
or else shoot it down.
-
- [We'll say it again: its remote control or shoot down.
*Nothing else*, got that?]
-
- {Those of us with our brains still turned on begin to
wonder why this 'expert' is belaboring this obviously wrong point so much.}
-
- NS: autopilot... can land by itself... another expert...
unmanned military spy planes exist... therefore can imagine remote control
landing of airliner.
-
- [For the third time: it *might* be possible to use the
autopilot to land an airliner by _remote_control_. Just an idea now, of
course. Hasn't been done. By golly, it would be risky!]
-
- {Again the sleight of hand: 'the autopilot can land by
itself normally, but in a hijacking we could only use it to land under
remote control.' That does it! This article is a propaganda plant, and
we gain most by examining its distortions and halftruths. In that they
tell us what the author(s) are endevouring to *prevent* us from thinking
about. And they are clearly trying to bury the idea that the autopilot
could be *both* used to take away control from the pilot, *and* carry on
flying the plane. To land it, or fly it to somewhere... or *into* something.
-
- The ideas _not_ mentioned here are significant. No mention
of how to get new data to the flight computer from the ground (ie via the
transponder.) No mention that to 'remote fly' a plane, the human controller
on the ground _must_ have either a realtime display of several crucial
flight instruments, and/or a view (video feed) from the front of the plane.
Plus some location fix system, such as GPS data from the plane. This is
a lot of bandwidth, and how is that to be maintained as the plane flies
over long distances of countryside? Very hard to do! Much easier to just
have the autopilot run the plane through its (updated) list of waypoints,
then lock into an airport landing guidance system. Or not, if 'landing'
into the side of a building.
-
- Mentions of military RPV (remote piloted vehicles) are
a smokescreen - those are quite flexible in their ability to operate under
remote control (providing camera feed via satelite or battlefeed repeater)
or inertial navigation, or GPS, or even automatic terrain recognition navigation.
-
- Which is what cruise missiles use too. But commercial
airliners don't have any of the systems needed to achieve that. They just
have a really good flight computer, a really accurate inertial navigation
system (good enough to get an airliner to the end of a runway, or a building),
and a quite capable identification transponder. This is effectively a radio
modem.
-
- It doesn't have a very high bandwidth, but it could easily
receive, say, some commands to the flight computer to switch to 'anti-hijack'
mode, and load up a new set of waypoints. If such a mode had been programmed
in, oh, sometime back in the early nineties, as a secret anti-hijack system.}
-
- NS: Hijacking the fail-safe... remote control... remote
control... remote control... another expert... but terrorists might use
the remote control! Planes in flocks... override hijacker's control...
might be tampered with. FAA did remote landings... in the 80s... no one
thinks about that now.
-
- [Now look, its not an 'autopilot', its a remote controller,
understand? But that could let just anyone take over the plane. So now
that you have the 'remote control' idea clear, understand that its a stupid
idea and we don't even touch that idea anymore. There's definately no such
thing in modern planes.]
-
- {Planes in flocks indeed! If that looney image doesn't
distract the reader from thinking carefully about this article, nothing
will. More 'no such system' repetition too. Gee, you'd think they _really_
wanted to make this point.}
-
- NS: Cockpit monitor new tech could... currently.. pilot
has switch... distress signal picked up by radar... FAA no comment on such
signals on S-11.
-
- [There's some clever stuff on planes already, but we
are not saying if it was used this time.]
-
- {'picked up by radar' - sigh. And this is New Scientist.
See what I mean about their standards now being abysmal. What I presume
they mean: the plane's identification system (the transponder) receives
bursts of interrogation data from an air traffic control radar, and answers
with another data burst containing the plane's ID details, which then appear
as text next to the plane's blip on the air traffic control screens.
-
- I don't know if the plane's flight computer is involved
in this transaction, but (as a designer of embedded computer hardware systems)
I'd bet it is. In which case we have an existing data channel from any
ground transmitter that has the right frequency and codes, into the flight
computer. Lucky the flight computers don't run Microsoft Outlook, or every
hacker in the world would be crashing jumbos into buildings.}
-
- The article continues with more smoke to distract your
attention from the fast one that was pulled on you, regarding autopilots
that cease to be autopilots once they disconnect the cockpit controls.
-
- It closes, of course, with a reaffirmation that there
were hijackers, and they somehow got around airport security. 'Hold that
thought!'
-
- ------------------------------
-
- At this point, a read of Joe Vialls' 'Homerun' article
is helpfull, see http://geocities.com/mknemesis
or http://geocities.com/vialls
This article too is not very clear on the distinction between remote control,
and simply switching to 'autopilot god' mode, with an updated waypoint
list.
-
- If we put ourselves in the position of the designers
of such an anti-hijack system, back in the early nineties, we can infer
a few of the features it would have had.
-
- For one thing, we would want it to be, and remain, secret.
We don't want any hijackers to know of it (before it takes the plane away
from them.) If they knew beforehand, they might be able to figure out ways
to defeat the system.
-
- Therefore, it must be _really_ secret - it won't be mentioned
in the airframe tech manuals, the pilots and mechanics won't know of it,
and only a very few in the airplane manufacturers will know of it.
-
- Besides, the pilots union would have kittens if they
knew.
-
- So, the system has to be entirely hidden within systems
that already exist. And it cannot even require any visible modifications
to them. Especially no simple 'cut this wire to disable' points. If it
can be implemented purely as a routine software upgrade, or original equipment,
all the better.
-
- Now for the first deduction: recall that we want this
system to _remain_ secret. Even after the first time we use it to foil
a hijacking. But, if we take over the plane, and the pilots can still use
the radio, they are going to be broadcasting things like "Hey, the
computer is ignoring our controls!" for everyone to hear. Can't have
that! So we would have this system cut off all transmission from the plane.
That includes the cockpit radios, the transponder (which can carry codes
from the pilots, and therefore at a pinch, morse code), and also the onboard
mobile phone repeaters. Otherwise the pilots or hijackers could just get
on the phone (theirs or a passenger's) and let out our secret.
-
- (And yes, I'm one of those who thinks all the stories
of mobile phone calls from passengers were fabricated by the government.
I would like to hear of some direct, first hand contradiction. There was
one particular TV news story I saw, by someone claiming to have taken such
a call, that I became immediately and totally convinced was a staged act.
Where theres _one_ lie...)
-
- I assume that once the plane is on the ground, and the
hijacking ended, then those on board who knew what happened could be impressed
with the importance of remaining silent. Or kept silent, in the case of
the hijackers (if any survived their capture.)
-
- There is one other channel via which the secret might
leak out - the cockpit voice recorder. Supposing the plane crashed, and
accident investigators played it back. Or even if it was just played back
after the landing. Much better if the record was just an unexplained blank.
-
- So, another design feature of our anti-hijack system
would be that it must shut off all cockpit voice signals to the recorder.
Let it continue recording silence, overwiting its entire loop with nothing.
Maybe also shut off or spoof data to the blackboxes as well.
-
- Its worth briefly reviewing how such autopilots relate
to the rest of the airplane systems, to gain an understanding of why the
pilots can't simply turn it off to regain control of a plane.
-
- As Vialls says, in early planes, the cockpit controls
connected directly via cables and hydraulics to the flight control surfaces
(flaps, rudder, engine mechanics, etc.) But planes got bigger, and the
forces required to operate the control surfaces became too great for human
strength. And there was a need for automatic operation of the plane, at
least some of the time.
-
- So, the manual controls became input devices to a flight
control computer, and that in turn sent signals to the power actuators
that move the planes flaps, etc. The only difference between early nineties
control systems, and more recent 'fly by wire' planes such as the airbus,
is that early flight computers controlled a set of hydraulic valves, and
pipes transmit the pressure to cylinders at the flaps.
-
- Fly by wire systems replace the hydraulic lines with
wires (or even optic fibres) and the heavy duty power pushing and pulling
gear is all located right where the force is needed.
-
- In either case, if the computer program choses to ignore
the pilot's controls, and the pilot can't get the computer back into some
more cooperative mode, there is nothing else the pilot can do. Turning
off the computer simply makes the plane crash, since there is no other
means for operating the flight control surfaces, engines, etc.
-
- Considering the 'Homerun' system design again, its important
to keep in mind that the flight computer is just a computer. No doubt very
reliable, fault tollerant, and programmed up with all sorts of safety features.
But still, a computer. If you are writing the code, you can make it do
anything.
-
- The most basic form of 'Homerun' mode I can imagine would
involve a special code (received via the transponder) switching the computer
into 'ignore the pilot' mode, in which it then accepts a new set of waypoint
data, again via the transponder.
-
- This has the technical advantage that it is a 'one blat'
action, which could be achieved using a single brief burst transmission
from a portable transmitter on the ground. Neither the activation code,
or the new waypoint list, need contain very much data. It might be as little
a few hundred bytes, transmitted in just milliseconds. No need to maintain
communication with the plane for minutes as it flies across the sky, or
hours, across the country.
-
- Another possibility, is that the Homerun code might allow
for uploading of actual new executable code to the computer, possibly even
overwriting the existing flight control code. This would presumably involve
a great deal more data, definately kilobytes, possibly even megabytes.
It would require the ground transmitter(s) to maintain contact with the
plane's transponder for longer, but would allow just about anything to
be done to or with the plane. It would allow, for example, for actions
that would stress the plane beyond the airframe's limits, making it break
up in midair. Normally, the autopilot code will not permit this. But something
like wagging the tail rudder rapidly back and forth, might shake the tail
right off. Throwing one engine suddenly into full reverse thrust, while
climbing, might rip off engines.
-
- Does this remind you of something?
-
- Note Vialls' claim that some European airlines discovered
the 'fly me home' system, and ripped out the US built flight computers
from their US built planes; replacing them with European built computers.
Corroboration of this claim would be very significant.
-
- It would also be highly desirable if the US government
would release the full contents of the voice and blackbox recorders. The
only problem here is, could we now, after all this time, believe this data
was not also a fabrication?
-
- Another thought: Flight 93, the one that 'crashed' (in
pieces, over an eight mile wide area, after exploding at altitude, with
a fighter plane being seen following the stricken plane down.) Supposing
the crew had somehow managed to regain control of the plane, after the
computer had gone (seemingly) crazy?
-
- Remember, we are taking about the planes being 'autopilot
controlled' here, in which case there _were_no_hijackers_ (as clearly stated
by the airlines, in their published passenger and crew lists.) It would
be very awkward for the government's pre-scripted 'Bin Laden's hijackers
did it' story, if one of the 'hijacked' planes landed safely, entirely
lacking in hijackers.
-
- So, was this plane shot down, not to save lives on the
ground, but to save the necks of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and whoever else
is in on the scam?
-
- And incidentally, this is the plane that received by
far the greatest effort in terms of subsequent spin doctoring, fabrication
of heroics, phone calls, and so on.
-
-
- Comment
-
- Mr. Dunphy Does NOT Know What He Is Talking About
-
- From Raymond A. Hudson
rahudson@parker.com
1-9-2
-
- Dear Mr. Rense:
-
- I recently found Mr. Dunphy's article on your site regarding
"When is an autopilot not an autopilot?"
-
- http://www.rense.com/general18/autoo.htm
-
- Before I critique this article, let me assure you that
I am an autopilot design expert with many years of experience in commercial
aircraft autopilot design and certification. My resume is at the following:
-
- http://www.tree-o-life.org/rainman/resume.htm
-
- Having given you some indication that I know what I am
talking about when it comes to autopilot design, I must tell you that Mr.
Dunphy does NOT know what he is talking about, is quite often wrong in
his assumptions and beliefs about autopilot design, and quite honestly,
his conspiracy-based paranoia leads him to draw conclusions that people
who perform autopilot design for a living (such as myself) would find absurd.
-
- I will provide refutation of only two inaccuracies from
his article, but there are more. First the following quote from his article
that deals with potential transponder and autopilot interaction:
-
- "What I presume they mean: the plane's identification
system (the transponder) receives bursts of interrogation data from an
air traffic control radar, and answers with another data burst containing
the plane's ID details, which then appear as text next to the plane's blip
on the air traffic control screens.
-
- I don't know if the plane's flight computer is involved
in this transaction, but (as a designer of embedded computer hardware systems)
I'd bet it is."
-
-
- Mr. Dunphy would lose that bet! He may be an embedded
system designer, but he clearly does not understand the principles of FUNCTIONAL
ISOLATION that engineers such as myself employ to prevent a non-critical
system (transponder) from inducing failures in a critical system (flight
controls). Precisely for safety reasons, the transponder does not interface
with either the autopilot or the navigation system. Period.
-
- Now, another quote which more blatantly reveals his lack
of knowledge in my area of expertise:
-
- "Fly by wire systems replace the hydraulic lines
with wires (or even optic fibres) and the heavy duty power pushing and
pulling gear is all located right where the force is needed."
-
-
- Wrong again. Fly by wire systems do not, and can not,
replace hydraulic lines. The surfaces are still "muscled" by
hydraulic pressure due to the fact that the surfaces are so large, and
the aerodynamic loads so great, that electric motors could never generate
enough force without the motors being prohibitively large and heavy. I
am currently working on the design of the highest tech fighter aircraft
in the world, the Joint Strike Fighter (built by Lockheed) and even in
this smaller airplane, we are still required to utilize hydraulics to handle
the flight loads. It is a full fly-by-wire fighter, yet still relies on
hydraulics for its muscle power.
-
- I believe what Mr. Dunphy wanted to relate is that fly-by-wire
technology replaces the CABLES that connect the control yoke in the cockpit
to the hydraulic valves in the hydrualic control surface actuators.
-
- Mr. Dunphy is less informed on these issues than the
"experts" he decries from the article he cites. His incorrect
(and paranoid) information is inconsistent with the facts of commercial
autopilot engineering. Furthermore, I would submit that by placing his
uninformed article on your site, you are contibuting to "disinformation"
and feeding unnecessary concern to the flying public about the safety of
our air transports. You would do well to remove this drivel from your
site.
-
- Best Regards,
Raymond A. Hudson
Flight Control Systems Design
Parker-Hannifin Corporation
Irvine, CA
|
