A Question For Real Airline Pilots

On Wed, 19 May 2004 at 16:25:42 in message
, Bill-R wrote:

The more I think about this question, and it is certainly not a ridiculous
question, I recall Boeing doing tests on jets going back to the 707 days
with complete ground control via remote, so that they can crash test the
planes. So its been around and its been used and if it were implemented in
civil aircraft then it would be a bonus. Maybe it has been the cost factor
over the years why it hasnt been done, but I dont think it would be
technologically difficult to do it.

Remotely piloted full size aircraft go back years - certainly before
WW2. Everyone who has flown a radio control model has done it.

However the philosophical, psychological and safety aspects on doing
this with civil airliners is immense. There are problems of range,
control methods at distances and not least the danger that a system that
involved the possibility of remote compulsory take over seems, on the
face of it, something that might get a lot of attention from hi-jackers.
No need to risk their lives or commit suicide - they might just take
over a ground station or kidnap someone who knew the right codes and use
their own equipment. I can see even more possibilities for concern.
--
David CL Francis

Glenn Jacobs wrote in message ...
On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:56:53 GMT, coustanis wrote:
A remote controlled airliner has already been done. There's a well
known test on an airliner in the desert. The heavy was equipped with
special fuel tanks and anti-misting fuel. [...]

It really did not fly per se, it simply was run down the desert the the
landing gears were sheared off and it "flew" a short distance before
crashing. There was some obstructions in fron of it to assure that the fuel
tanks would rupture.

You must be thinking of a different test. The one that most people
think of was like this, according to NASA:

"On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720
transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards, California),
made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It
then began a descent-to-landing to a specially prepared runway on the
east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly
3.8-degree glide slope. The landing gear was left retracted. Passing
the decision height of 150 feet above ground level (AGL), the aircraft
was slightly to the right of the desired path. Just above that
decision point at which the pilot was to execute a "go-around," there
appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the centerline of
the runway. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the
aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing
low. The fire and smoke took over an hour to extinguish. "

"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 at 16:25:42 in message
, Bill-R wrote:

The more I think about this question, and it is certainly not a
ridiculous
question, I recall Boeing doing tests on jets going back to the 707 days
with complete ground control via remote, so that they can crash test the
planes. So its been around and its been used and if it were implemented
in
civil aircraft then it would be a bonus. Maybe it has been the cost
factor
over the years why it hasnt been done, but I dont think it would be
technologically difficult to do it.

Remotely piloted full size aircraft go back years - certainly before
WW2. Everyone who has flown a radio control model has done it.

However the philosophical, psychological and safety aspects on doing
this with civil airliners is immense. There are problems of range,
control methods at distances and not least the danger that a system that
involved the possibility of remote compulsory take over seems, on the

The "compulsory" or "commandeering" aspect of flying a fully loaded airliner
from a following airplane is the point of this thread. Also, the
possibility that our own government was involved.

Many may want to toss this off as absurd, hateful and not worth considering
yet that is exactly what our government has done in the past.

(1)In 1964, the US military, with Johnson's full support, came before the US
Congress and claimed that the North Vietnamese attacked the USS Maddox in
what is now referred to as "the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Johnson asked
Congress to give the military the right to go into Vietnam and fight.
Congress agreed and passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which marked the
beginning of the bloody Vietnam conflict. Naturally it turns out that the
military's claims were false. The Vietnamese never fired on any US ship. It
was a lie made up to give the military what it wanted, a free hand to wage
war. The skipper and many crew members of the USS Maddox stated as much
years after the end of the conflict

(2) In 1968 the placing of the USS Pueblo off North Korea was probably the
rehearsal for the USS Liberty below but the Koreans were careful not to sink
the ship and blew our plans. LBJ in charge again.

(3)1973 Israel/America(LBJ) plan sinking of USS Liberty spy ship off coast
of Egypt with Egypt to be the patsy and inflame US populace against Israel's
sneak attack against Egypt and Syria
LBJ in charge again this time assuming that another screw up as with the
Pueblo would occur but did with the complete incompetance of the Israeli
military causing LBJ's resignatio

No coincidence that Lyndon Johnson was an architect of all these
demonstraqtions of just how we here are "led" by our refusal to take these
things as "our business."


Simply horrific to think that we are to take high treason as business as
normal here in the United States but the evidence for it is overwhelming.

Something that has been said by more than one cabinet minister around the
table at the first meeting with Bush Jr. is their surprise that Bush did not
only have any particular knowledge of their departments but also had zero
interest in them. Indeed he made it plain that his only interest was
making war with Iraq and Afghanistan and his orders to them were to just
give me a reason - and deniability.

This plan of his was never spoken to his fellow Americans, the real
(supposed) government of America, during his campaign. In fact Bush never
mentioned those countries once to us.

Party animals can rant their knee-jerk hatred of this thinking but it has
not a thing to do with political parties .
This is about power pure and simple and how to get it and use it without
blowing it. Bush is a Texas Republican and LBJ is a Democrat and a most
probable close Bush family friend and fellow Texan.

I was wondering if this was going to turn into a 911 conspiracy thread.
Looks like I was right.

"rob" wrote in message
...
I was wondering if this was going to turn into a 911 conspiracy thread.
Looks like I was right.

Turn into? It started that way.

Blue wrote:

(3)1973 Israel/America(LBJ) plan sinking of USS Liberty spy ship off coast
of Egypt with Egypt to be the patsy and inflame US populace against Israel's
sneak attack against Egypt and Syria
LBJ in charge again this time assuming that another screw up as with the
Pueblo would occur but did with the complete incompetance of the Israeli
military causing LBJ's resignatio

LOL! It was Egypt and Syria that attacked Israel, not the other
way around. Oh, and Richard Nixon was US President in 1973 and
had been since 1968. Is the rest of your screed on a par with
this idiocy?


"What a maroon!" --Bugs Bunny

"Blue" wrote in message ...

"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 at 16:25:42 in message
, Bill-R wrote:

The more I think about this question, and it is certainly not a
ridiculous
question, I recall Boeing doing tests on jets going back to the 707
days
with complete ground control via remote, so that they can crash test
the
planes. So its been around and its been used and if it were implemented
in
civil aircraft then it would be a bonus. Maybe it has been the cost
factor
over the years why it hasnt been done, but I dont think it would be
technologically difficult to do it.

Remotely piloted full size aircraft go back years - certainly before
WW2. Everyone who has flown a radio control model has done it.

However the philosophical, psychological and safety aspects on doing
this with civil airliners is immense. There are problems of range,
control methods at distances and not least the danger that a system that
involved the possibility of remote compulsory take over seems, on the

The "compulsory" or "commandeering" aspect of flying a fully loaded
airliner
from a following airplane is the point of this thread. Also, the
possibility that our own government was involved.

Many may want to toss this off as absurd, hateful and not worth
considering
yet that is exactly what our government has done in the past.

(a) Nov 22 1963 JFK murdered in Dallas putting Lyndon Johnson into the
American presidency.
Republican plumbers of Watergate fame arrested on overpass dressed as
bums
and inexplicably released. Bush SR, a CIA agent is in Dallas on
"assignment.
Bush who was a major architect of the attack on Cuba that JFK refused
to support soon after JFK murdered rockets to top of CIA.

(1)In 1964, the US military, with Johnson's full support, came before the
US
Congress and claimes that the North Vietnamese attacked the USS Maddox in
what is now referred to as "the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Johnson asked
Congress to give the military the right to go into Vietnam and fight.
Congress agreed and passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which marked the
beginning of the bloody Vietnam conflict. Naturally it turns out that the
military's claims were false. The Vietnamese never fired on any US ship.
It
was a lie made up to give the military what it wanted, a free hand to wage
war. The skipper and many crew members of the USS Maddox stated as much
years after the end of the conflict

(2) In 1968 the placing of the USS Pueblo off North Korea was probably the
rehearsal for the USS Liberty below but the Koreans were careful capture
and
not to sink the ship and blew our plans. LBJ in charge again.

(3)1967 - June Israel/America(LBJ) plan sinking of USS Liberty spy ship
off coast
of Egypt with Egypt to be the patsy and inflame US populace against
Israel's
sneak attack against Egypt and Syria. (There is no doubt of this as anyone
can ascertain
by a google search on USS Liberty.
http://www.google.com/search?q=uss+liberty
LBJ was "invited" to join in on the war
but told Israel "my people won't go along with it" The USS Liberty fiasco
was intended to address that problem.
LBJ in charge again this time assuming that another screw up as with the
Pueblo would occur but did with the complete incompetance of the Israeli
military causing LBJ's resignation.

(4) Can't omit Bush Sr's luring Iraq into invading Kuwait in 1990 by
dispatching
April Glaspie to Baghdad to tell Hussain in reference to his dispute with
Kuwait that
"But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border
disagreement with Kuwait."
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
Also, google up "april Glaspie for many other references to her complicity
in this.

No coincidence that Lyndon Johnson and George Bush Sr were architects of
all these
examples of just how we here are "led" by our refusal to take these
things as "our business."


Simply horrific to think that we are to take high treason as business as
normal here in the United States but the evidence for it is overwhelming.

Something that has been said by more than one cabinet minister around the
table at the first meeting with Bush Jr. is their surprise that Bush did
not
only have any particular knowledge of their departments but also had zero
interest in them. Indeed he made it plain that his only interest was
making war with Iraq and Afghanistan and his orders to them were to just
give me a reason - and deniability.

This plan of his was never spoken to his fellow Americans, the real
(supposed) government of America, during his campaign. In fact Bush never
mentioned those countries once to us.

Party animals can rant their knee-jerk hatred of this thinking but it has
not a thing to do with political parties .
This is about power pure and simple and how to get it and use it without
blowing it. The Bushs are a Texas Republicans and LBJ is a Democrat and
a most
probable close Bush family friend and fellow Texan.

Thanks to briarroot for his knee-jerk rant allowing me to correct the USS
Liberty date.

A side note, I was on the top floor of the South Tower of the WTC a few
months
before it was destroyed and was surprised at the amount of air traffic at
all times near the tower.
Also, the plane that crashed in PA was cdlosely followed by a small jet
without markings of any kind.
A witness said that it appeared to have "government colorations and
appearance."
No part of any of the four planes was allowed to be inspected bringiing into
suspicion the installed "comandeering apparatus."

I think we should consider whether or not we want "war presidents" as Bush
boasts of being -
or an executive branch at all. The Roman Republic that all admire didn't
have one and was truly
admirable until Ceasar simply took it over and it went down hill from there.
Our first constitution had no chief executive either and when it was revised
to our present constitution
much consideration was given to three simultaneous executives.
The principle reason we ended up with a president was the overwhelming
popularity of George Washington
who was considered - and was- indispensible to the nation. Unfortunately we
were unable to clone him.

Glenn Jacobs wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2004 13:56:53 GMT, coustanis wrote:

Blue wrote:

I have a question that can only possibly be answered by real airline pilots
and pilots of the heavy oil-burners at that. Even they may not know - or
want to tell the answer.

I have heard that most if not all of the heavies now flying have special
equipment in them to thwart hijacking. The equipment that I am referring to
is not just an autopilot which is standard but additional mechanical devices
to completely remove control from the cockpit making it possible to take
control away from the flight officers and giving that control to an outside
pilot which could be in a following aircraft or at an airport or anywhere.

Hope a real airline pilot will comment on this question.

A remote controlled airliner has already been done. There's a well
known test
on an airliner in the desert.
The heavy was equipped with special fuel tanks and anti-misting fuel.
The idea was to try to reduce the explosion / fire hazard in an airliner
when it crashed.
So, they outfitted an airliner with this fuel setup, installed remote controll,
flew it and crached it into the desert.
The airplane flew well but the test failed. The fireball was spectacular.
There is a video around that's not too hard to get.

It really did not fly per se, it simply was run down the desert the the
landing gears were sheared off and it "flew" a short distance before
crashing. There was some obstructions in fron of it to assure that the fuel
tanks would rupture.


It flew all right. It shows in the video as it descends in a flat
attitude until it impacted the desert floor.
The rest is, as they say, history.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:30:48 GMT, Rob Andrews wrote:

"Bill-R" wrote in
:

Well I heard it on CNN some time ago and also read about it , so its
not a state secret. The guts of the technology might be, but the fact
that its being developed has already been stated.

Bill


I just saw something on Discovery Wings (I think it was) about this.

They did something like this back in WWII. Outfitted B-17's with remote
control gear, and had another aircraft fly along side to direct it. The
B17 was packed full of bombs, etc. and to be flown into the heavily
fortified submarine pens in France and Germany.
I think this is how Joe Kennedy Jr. died in such an attempt. so it
goes back that far.
Harold A. Climer
Dept. Of Physics,Geololgy, and Astronomy
U.T. Chattanooga
318 Grote Hall
615 McCallie Ave
Chattanooga TN 37403

This is an aviation group not a politics one!!!

--
Salud y Suerte