Boeing patents remote flight control for airliners

[moodforaday]

Okay, so if anyone thought remote flight control was strictly a tinfoil hat thing, I'm sure they'll be interested to know Boeing got a patent on just such a system last week. They expect to start rolling it out in actual airliners.

Nothing to be afraid of. At least we know it's been tested. And it works.


New autopilot will make another 9/11 impossible | News | This is London

Scientists at aircraft giant Boeing are testing the tamper-proof autopilot system which uses state-of-the-art computer and satellite technology. (...) Once triggered, no one on board will be able to deactivate the system. Currently, all autopilots are manually switched on and off at the discretion of pilots.

The so-called 'uninterruptible autopilot system' - patented secretly by Boeing in the US last week - will connect ground controllers and security services with the aircraft using radio waves and global satellite positioning systems.

After it has been activated, the aircraft will be capable of remote digital control from the ground, enabling operators to fly it like a sophisticated model plane, manoeuvring it vertically and laterally.

A threatened airliner could be flown to a secure military base or a commercial airport, where it would touch down using existing landing aids known as 'autoland function'.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23387585-details/New%20autopilot%20will%20make%20another%20911%20impossible/article.do


Also a Slashdot story now:

Slashdot | Remote Control To Prevent Aircraft Hijacking
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/07/2212244

[Ezlivin]

1. K&R

I wonder if we've seen any of the tests?

[seemslikeadream]

2. 1984

"Before the final flight on December 1, 1984, more then four years of effort passed trying to set-up final impact conditions considered survivable by the FAA. During those years while 14 flights with crews were flown the following major efforts were underway: NASA Dryden developed the remote piloting techniques necessary for the B-720 to fly as a drone aircraft; General Electric installed and tested four degraders (one on each engine); and the FAA refined AMK (blending, testing, and fueling a full size aircraft). The 14 flights had 9 takeoffs, 13 landings and around 69 approaches, to about 150 feet above the prepared crash site, under remote control. "

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/Small/index.html

[rman]

3. A plane under remote control can be flown anywhere

(fuel permitting).
And it's not like this was invented yesterday, and has never been tested.
Also there's no particularly special technology involved; this has been feasible for ages.

[Make7]

4. Operation Aphrodite ( n/t )

[LARED]

6. Very cool, you gotta love those WWII guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite

Remote control
To facilitate control of what was essentially a slow guided missile, two television cameras were fitted in the cockpit of each B-17, providing a view of both the ground and the main instrumentation panel. This view was transmitted back to an accompanying control aircraft, designated CQ17, (referred to as the 'mothership'), allowing the craft to be flown remotely.

Because the crude remote control thus created did not allow for safe takeoff from a runway, each craft was taken aloft by a volunteer crew of two (a pilot and flight engineer), who were to pilot the aircraft to an altitude of 2,000 ft.(600 m), at which point control would be transferred to the remote operators. Just before reaching the North Sea, the two-man crew would prime the Torpex explosive payload and parachute out of the cockpit, the canopy of which was removed to speed their exit. The 'mothership' would then direct the missile locking it onto a course for the target.

[Make7]

12. Although it wasn't very successful, it does show that remote flight technology ...

... was conceived of and implemented long ago.

- Make7

[seatnineb]

5. Excellent find...thanks n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

7. Who thinks remote control aircraft is tinfoil hat stuff?

Predator drones?? and the 1984 test mentioned up-thread (and a thousand times in the dungeon)


Kooky conspiracies aside, I don't know that I like the idea of an 'uninterruptible autopilot system' .......but that's the pilot in me talking. I'm reminded of that Air France flight that couldn't disengage fast enough from, IIRC, the landing configuration........ during an air-show...it was new "fly by wire" technology.

Maybe I'm a luddite. We'll probably see pilot-less air-liners before too long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVsXLdraB30

[Duer 157099]

8. These two threads are linked

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=147912&mesg_id=147912

[Celebration]

9. yes they are linked

But the pilot says this was used in some planes (and unauthorized) before 9/11. Somehow this had something to do with the large fine Boeing paid.

[Duer 157099]

10. Sure. I have no doubt that they have already tested this out

that would make the most sense anyway

I also heard the interview -- it was very confusing, have to listen again,lol

[naboo]

11. I remember when myth defenders

laughed at the idea of remote controlled planes just after 9-11 and called 9-11 skeptics crazy for mentioning the idea.

[hack89]

15. No ..

I think we laughed at the incredibly complex and implausible theories that were built around the idea that yes, planes can be flown remotely. Would you care to advance a theory on how it was done on 911?

[hack89]

13. So how do you think this fits into 911?

care to advance a plausible theory using this technology?

[wildbilln864]

14. what ?

a failure of imagination? Really?
Surely, you don't need others to explain?

[hack89]

16. Well yes,

because it is my experience that the active imaginations on this forum usually lack a sense of detail or appreciation of the actual facts. Are you saying that those who advocate the use of remote controlled planes on 911 have no obligation to explain how it could be done? Are the appropriate feelings all that matter?