9 / 11

[Barry Shnikov]

On that subject, suggesting that the CIA or someone else remotely flew an aircraft on the scale of a passenger jet has no basis in fact. We're only now developing unamnned air vehicles that, whilst ideally autonomous, can also be remotely-controlled. The most advanced of them are about the size of a combat jet. Our technology doesn't currently allow us to control vehicles the size of a passenger jet by remote...at least, not accurately, and not without significant - and visible - modification.

Well, hold on.

There's no technical difference between flying a medium sized aircraft by remote control and flying a medium sized passenger jet. Military jets are all fly-by-wire these days, the computer does all the flying and the pilot's input is restricted to telling the plane where to go. Airbus uses fly-by-wire and I dare say Boeing's modern jets do as well.

In any event, it should be no great problem setting the autopilot of such a vehicle providing you can also override the safety functions. An autopilot is quite capable of using GPS data to change course, change speed, and change altitude, so in principle I see no particular difficulty to be overcome.

[Rhythm King]

On that subject, suggesting that the CIA or someone else remotely flew an aircraft on the scale of a passenger jet has no basis in fact. We're only now developing unamnned air vehicles that, whilst ideally autonomous, can also be remotely-controlled. The most advanced of them are about the size of a combat jet. Our technology doesn't currently allow us to control vehicles the size of a passenger jet by remote...at least, not accurately, and not without significant - and visible - modification.

Doesn't it?

Well, hold on.

There's no technical difference between flying a medium sized aircraft by remote control and flying a medium sized passenger jet. Military jets are all fly-by-wire these days, the computer does all the flying and the pilot's input is restricted to telling the plane where to go. Airbus uses fly-by-wire and I dare say Boeing's modern jets do as well.

Fly-by-wire is not actually fly-by-computer with a pilot to aim it, more a system to replace hydraulics and cables to move the aircraft's control surfaces with a system of electronically controlled actuators. The amount the controls may be moved may be restricted to prevent forces being applied which exceeed the design tolerances of the aircraft. Similarly the aircraft may be aerodynamically unstable and a computer will be used to provide balance and trim, so the pilot can concentrate on managing the aircraft's vector.

In any event, it should be no great problem setting the autopilot of such a vehicle providing you can also override the safety functions. An autopilot is quite capable of using GPS data to change course, change speed, and change altitude, so in principle I see no particular difficulty to be overcome.

True, however commercial autopliot systems don't start up aircraft, obtain clearances and then take off, so you would still be in the realm of either the government doing it, and the pilot baling out (leaving the door open, which would be visible) or having to hijack a plane and know how to re-programme the auto-pilot whilst in flight, in which case you might as well fly it anyway. Added to which, the navigation computers on passenger aircraft don't currently have the sort of in-flight correction abilities of a cruise missile, for example. Also the current GPS satellites are owned and operated by the US military - don't you think it likely they have a rapidly effective off switch, in case someone fires a GPS-guided weapon at them?

[andystyle]

There's no technical difference between flying a medium sized aircraft by remote control and flying a medium sized passenger jet.

Doesn't it?

From reading the article, it's clear that the aircraft had been modified for the role. As I said before, installing equipment to remote-control an aircraft would be very noticeable. Even if it were possible to 'slave' an aircraft to a remote system, ground and cabin crew would be aware that there was no-one in the cockpit long before take-off as there would be no-one responding to pre-flight checks and in the case of ground crew, no visual confirmation of readiness for pushback and taxi.

On the face of it, you would think it is a simple thing to remote-fly an aircraft, but the reality is that if an aircraft isn't initially designed to have no-one in the cockpit, then it's not something that's easily altered later on. The vast majority of controls for the aircraft need an input from a human, even if it's just their mechanical input of moving a throttle or adjusting the altimeter for ambient conditions (very, very important for the precision, remote-flying required for targetting a building, btw). To work round this, alternative systems would have to be installed that would be able to do the pilot's job and be connected directly to the various aircraft systems. And they would be very noticeable.

In any event, it should be no great problem setting the autopilot of such a vehicle providing you can also override the safety functions. An autopilot is quite capable of using GPS data to change course, change speed, and change altitude, so in principle I see no particular difficulty to be overcome.

Auto-pilot is a very simple beast. It can maintain altitude, bearing, trim etc to reduce the pilot's workload, but at no time can it replace him (or her). More modern autopilots can land the aircraft, but only on runways above a certain standard, and they can only do that through the ILS and other electronic systems present at the airport and runway (which give the runway its standard in the first place). It's not a system that can be programmed for the precise flying that was required to hit the towers in New York. And, IIRC, auto-pilot disengages automatically below a certain altitude unless it detects systems such as those found at the afore-mentioned airports.

[Rhythm King]

On the face of it, you would think it is a simple thing to remote-fly an aircraft, but the reality is that if an aircraft isn't initially designed to have no-one in the cockpit, then it's not something that's easily altered later on.

The Americans (amongst others) have been doing it to obsolete aircraft since the late fifties, to provide targets for air combat training and missile tests. Unless you're close enough to see into the cockpit, the only really visible difference is the paint job...

[andystyle]

The Americans (amongst others) have been doing it to obsolete aircraft since the late fifties, to provide targets for air combat training and missile tests. Unless you're close enough to see into the cockpit, the only really visible difference is the paint job...

But the ground-crew would be able to see into the cockpit, and they communicate visually with the pilot prior to take-off (and at landing, but that's a moot point in this case).

At any rate, you're right - there's no visible difference in thos pictures apart from the obvious lack of a crew. But there would be extra equipment all over it to allow for remote control. A passenger jet doesn't have much spare space to conceal anything. You couldn't put the required equipment into the cabin for obvious reasons. Below? No...the baggage handlers would notice anything. Above? No room - all the wiring and AC ducts go there.

Whilst it may be possible to remote-control an aircraft, it's far less possible to do so without anyone in the airport noticing, or without significant modification. It's not a case of plugging in a black box, flicking it to 'On' and making sure the batteries are new.

[Dreadful Scathe]

But the ground-crew would be able to see into the cockpit, and they communicate visually with the pilot prior to take-off (and at landing, but that's a moot point in this case).

Yeah so ? In a busy airport theres not likely to be more than 3 or 4 people paying such close attention to a single plane is there ?

No...the baggage handlers would notice anything.

3 or 4 people, suspiciously carrying concealed weapons and with shorter than normal haircuts - have you even SEEN Die Hard 2

Whilst it may be possible to remote-control an aircraft, it's far less possible to do so without anyone in the airport noticing, or without significant modification. It's not a case of plugging in a black box, flicking it to 'On' and making sure the batteries are new.

So you make sure you use a pre-built plane and your own people - easy for most U.S. government agencies surely

[andystyle]

Yeah so ? In a busy airport theres not likely to be more than 3 or 4 people paying such close attention to a single plane is there ?

It only takes one to notice there's no pilot! The ground crew need visual confirmation from the cockpit that the pilot is ready for pushback from the apron, and needs to visually confirm that the pusher has been detached so the pilot can taxi. If there was no pilot, I imagine they'd question it.

3 or 4 people, suspiciously carrying concealed weapons and with shorter than normal haircuts - have you even SEEN Die Hard 2

Is that the one where Bruce lights jet fuel with a lighter? Hmmm.......

So you make sure you use a pre-built plane and your own people - easy for most U.S. government agencies surely

That, I confess, is a possibility. But a very, very, very small one! Still, wouldn't the cabin crew be aware they hadn't seen the pilot? Unless they are true idealists, would they willingly get on a plane and know that they weren't coming off it?

[Dreadful Scathe]

It only takes one to notice there's no pilot! The ground crew need visual confirmation from the cockpit that the pilot is ready for pushback from the apron, and needs to visually confirm that the pusher has been detached so the pilot can taxi. If there was no pilot, I imagine they'd question it.

uh-huh I'm saying that the ground staff will KNOW ALL ABOUT IT...

[andystyle]

uh-huh I'm saying that the ground staff will KNOW ALL ABOUT IT...

And the cabin crew...?

[Barry Shnikov]

Auto-pilot is a very simple beast.

I am not an expert, but I had understood that autopilot is capable of flying the plane from take-off to landing, providing there are never any adverse factors - close proximity to other aircraft or exceptional weather and so forth.

[Barry Shnikov]

Fly-by-wire is not actually fly-by-computer with a pilot to aim it, more a system to replace hydraulics and cables to move the aircraft's control surfaces with a system of electronically controlled actuators. The amount the controls may be moved may be restricted to prevent forces being applied which exceeed the design tolerances of the aircraft. Similarly the aircraft may be aerodynamically unstable and a computer will be used to provide balance and trim, so the pilot can concentrate on managing the aircraft's vector.

I know. But the point is that when there is no need to exert pressure on the control levers in the cabin, it should be relatively easy patch job to replace the digital input provided by the pilot's hand acting on a joystick with digital data from some other input device. Like a PDA.
(Wait a minute - aren't they called Palm Pilots? Whoa! Maybe we're onto something here...)

[andystyle]

I am not an expert, but I had understood that autopilot is capable of flying the plane from take-off to landing, providing there are never any adverse factors - close proximity to other aircraft or exceptional weather and so forth.

I wasn't aware that they could control the aircraft in take-off (although not for taxi, apparently), but at any rate you're right...what they can't do is precisely fly the aircraft. That's when the pilot takes over. I guess, in theory, that the autopilot system could be hacked and controlled remotely but when it comes to low altitudes and with obstacles like the New York skyline, it would be nowhere near as effective as a human pilot.

[Stuart M]

I am not an expert, but I had understood that autopilot is capable of flying the plane from take-off to landing, providing there are never any adverse factors - close proximity to other aircraft or exceptional weather and so forth.

My understanding of flying is that 90% of the difficulties are related to takeoff and landing - the bit in the middle is a doddle. Which is why the flight between Westray and Papa Westray in the Orkneys, at 9 miles and 2 minutes, is theoretically the most dangerous scheduled flight in the world...

[TurboTomato]

Which is why the flight between Westray and Papa Westray in the Orkneys, at 9 miles and 2 minutes, is theoretically the most dangerous scheduled flight in the world...

Where's Mama Westray in all of this?

[bigdjiver]

It is *only* a matter of changing the computer program.

The (imaginary) conspirators would not have needed to sacrifice the twin towers, some lucky near misses would have served their (imaginary) purpose just as well.

[bigdjiver]

FWIW The art of Europe website had a blog by someone visiting the far east. It recorded that he had seen an american website which claimed that a CIA high-up had been frustrated by knowing Bin Laden was in Afganistan and not being allowed to pursue him because the US government did not want to offend the Taleban. Many US interests were involved in constructing a major oil pipeline across the North of Afghanistan. This CIA guy quit, and took a job as head of Security at the twin towers, and died on 9/11.

I checked on the source website given - but it no longer existed.
I checked back on the blog within a couple of days, and that no longer existed either.

more unfounded stories?

[Barry Shnikov]

FWIW The art of Europe website had a blog by someone visiting the far east. It recorded that he had seen an american website which claimed that a CIA high-up had been frustrated by knowing Bin Laden was in Afganistan and not being allowed to pursue him because the US government did not want to offend the Taleban. Many US interests were involved in constructing a major oil pipeline across the North of Afghanistan. This CIA guy quit, and took a job as head of Security at the twin towers, and died on 9/11.

I checked on the source website given - but it no longer existed.
I checked back on the blog within a couple of days, and that no longer existed either.

more unfounded stories?

Yeah, it's a bit of a mix up of several things. The head of security at the WTC was someone who had been in the US security services, I don't recall which. Played in a film about him ending with the WTC attacks by - um - can't remember whether it was Tommy Lee Jones or Harvey Keitel. But he didn't leave for that reason.

The myth about the US not being able to proceed with anti-terrorist activity in Afghanistan comes, I think, from the truly terrible US miniseries about the whole Islam - WTC - Iraq debacle which appears to have been made by persons with a grudge against Clinton, tried to make out that (in the mini-series) Matt Damon had bin Laden all but in his cross hairs but the head honchos back in the White House refused to give the go ahead because of political imperatives. Nothing even resembling that allegation is found anywhere else, and certainly not in the official report.

Of course, if political imperatives did prevent such a thing happening it doesn't mean it was the wrong decision. That's why we pay these people the big bucks - they have to take the unpopular decisions. Another reason I get hacked off with PMs and Presidents who pander to the populace - if we wanted to be at the mercy of the lowest common denominator (politically speaking) we could just give everyone gadgets like those when Chris Tarrant 'Asks the audience'.

Should we a) invade Iraq b) invade Turkey c) invade Iran d) increase nurses' pay?

[thainmaggiet]

Definitely increase nurses pay!

[Barry Shnikov]

Definitely increase nurses pay!

That'd be my vote too.

[Rhythm King]

Mine too, however the point about the remotely piloted aircraft was that it would be done by the government as part of a conspiracy, so the aircraft would be more likely to leave from a secure base rather than a commercial airport - hell if you really want to go lala on this, they could shoot down a real airliner to account for the missing take off and claim that was another hijack attempt gone wrong. This conspiracy theorising is all make-believe nonsense anyway...