Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11??

[PatrickBatemen]

by Jim Heikkila
Saturday August 17, 2002

Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11.


The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.

Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it.

Another piece of critical evidence: the voice recorders came up blank.

The flight recorders that were recovered had tape that was undamaged inside, but it was blank. There is only one way this can happen on a 757 or 767. When the aircraft are commandeered via remote control, the microphones that go to the cockpit voice recorder are re routed to the people doing the remote controlling, so that the recording of what happened in the cockpit gets made in a presumably safer place. But due to a glitch in the system on a 757/767, rather than shutting off when the mic is redirected the voice recorder keeps running. The voice recorders use what is called a continuous loop tape, which automatically re passes itself past the erase and record heads once every half hour, so after a half hour of running with the microphones redirected, the tape will be blank. Just like the recovered tapes were. Yet more proof that no pilot flew those planes in the last half hour.

Eight of the hijackers who were on those planes called up complaining that they were still alive. I'd bet you never heard about our foreign minister flying to Morocco and issuing an official apology to the accused, did you? No, terrorists did not fly those planes, plastic knives and box cutters were in fact too ridiculous to be true. Any of the remaining accused have certainly been sought out and killed by now.

[Bushwacker]

That would be a real smoking gun if it were true but unfortunately it is not. Google the authors name and you will find numerous rebuttals of this ill-informed piece.

For example:
I am a retired Airline Captain, currently flying Business Jets. I have an Airline Transport Pilot Rating qualifying me to fly Captain on Boeing 707/720/727/747-400/757/767/777, Lockheed 382 and L-1011, and Dassault 20 and 2000 Aircraft. I have over 28,000 hours, several thousand of which were in command of 757/767's.

There is no provision for a 757/767 to be flown remotely. It can't be done. Period. Nothing disables the Flight or Voice Recorders, etc., except for the pulling of circuit breakers in the cockpit.

The 1.5 G limit built into the flight control system isn't there. The 757/767 does not have electronic flight controls- "fly by wire" and I don't know of any way to design these limits into the system without fly by wire. Some fly by wire aircraft- the Airbus 319/320/330/340 series and some military aircraft, for example- do have these artificial limits. The limits on the 'Busses is about 2.5 G's. Since the airplane is pulling 1 G in straight and level flight there would only be 1/2 G left for manuvering- not much.

The 757/767 cannot- repeat cannot be "programmed" to fly without a Pilot. It has a very good autopilot, capable of manipulating the controls as directed by the ON BOARD Crew in climb, cruise, descent, and- in some cases- landing. It must be disconnected for takeoff.

The 757/767 is hardly a Commuter aircraft. These are the small jets such as the Canadair and Embraer Jets and Turboprops used by Regional Airlines.

Herb Fischer

[scar]

This was posted a while back. It is contentious but certainly not debunked.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2742&highlight=excee ded+limits

One comment from that thread:

[Bushwacker]

scar, I think we are talking at cross purposes. The original article claims that the plane as standard has these software limits and so on, and therefore could not be flown in the manner claimed by any pilot. People who appear to know what they are talking about say this is not the case, such as the pilot I quoted and all the pilots on pprune. I have not seen the author defend his article, or any convincing support of it, so as far as I am concerned it is debunked.

That of course is not to say that the planes could not be fitted with remote control systems, as Leif says and your reference mentions. Of course they can, and perhaps they were, but that is an entirely different subject.

[scar]

Fair enough. We agree it means nothing.
Its certainly not an entirely different subject but little point arguing semantics.
It is of course good to establish false claims.

cheers

[PatrickBatemen]

its either fake to spread disinformation or there could be truth in it. this was backing it up

I, a Military Occupational Skill 68G, and a Federal Aviation Administration Certified "Privileged" Pilot, as well as an FAA Certified "Privileged" Mechanic, will witness to the overall accuracy of this letter by Jim Heikkila; A testimony, pertaining to equipment (parameter limits both governed and ungoverned), discussing capabilities/limitations of flight control systems and structural performance.

Additionally, MOS33Q10 describes wire and/or transmitted data interplay, consistent with PIC (Pilot In Command) responsibilities of flight safety, as PIC is expressly required to KNOW that:

FAA certified pilots, expressly embodies the PIC with full responsibilities of all flight safety explicit ALSO, as a Licensed Radio Operator in accordance with FCC communication rules, critical concerns of electronic interference with flight critical systems, and other capabilities/limitations of electronic devices [Original Equipment or not] as part of total onboard equipment.

To include such knowledge necessary, concerning functionality and limitations of hand-held, non-amplified, standard private cellular phones, un-repeated through nonexistent equipment, not installed aboard commercial aircraft of the time. These purportedly "private" cellular calls MUST therefore be considered a hoax (not real).

Of utmost importance, so please publish and disseminate to all concerned:

I hereby challenge all other pilots, those who have accepted the gift of wings and a duty to their trusting passengers, for remaining silent before the ears of humanity pertaining to a dangerous delusion, and thus allowed to permeate that same humanity, concerning the skies over the eastern region of North America, September 11, 2001.

Because of this general silence, I can no longer accept these people as MY true brethren, nor the FAA as a legitimate regulatory body who's utmost concern has been "human safety", or so declared. That because of this ongoing silence (licensing body intimidation?), I hereby deny the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration to "Privilege" my right to command and enjoy the apparatus of flight. None-the-less, I retain my natural duty and responsibility to the safety of my person and passengers, including those otherwise bound to Earth.

I so challenge other pilots to consider the appropriateness of allowing an administration to "License" them as well, while in conflict with this overriding duty to human safety.

I so retain the FAA issued paper "proof" of my pilot training, and formal recognition as competent airman, merely as historical artifact. The "authorizing" seal and signature displayed on these artifacts, is no longer considered by me as lawfully valid, nor am I bound by the terms outlined through such a charter.

The first implicit duty of Pilot In Command (that of safety), remains unchanged.

To be absolutely clear, I will hold in contempt, any man or woman who considers themselves' "Pilot" for taking to the controls of air worthy machines, yet does not vocalize a clear stand upon such an underlying principal, that of a pilot dependent upon truth.

I do not recognize the justice of liars "owning" the sky, for one can not retain their wings soaring upon an air of untruth. This will merely ground all of humankind, and THAT is not my destiny.

A pilot,
Erin Sebastian Myers