• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ARTICLE: "Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits"

Sal The Butcher

Scholar
S
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Messages
103
http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=48

now the article trails on and goes off topic, it also makes alot of claims that may be very false, but i want to know if this part is true

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.
Click to expand...

and if it is true would it really be something that couldnt be overidden?
 
I have no specific knowledge of this, but it seems pretty unlikely. I mean, you wouldn't want to have a pilot be unable to avoid a mid-air collision or some other type of event because software, not physics, kept him from turning the plane fast enough. Also, 1.5g seems like a pretty low limit even if there is one. I'm pulling 1g right now.
 
I think the Boeing 777 was the first commercial airliner to be "fly by wire" meaning the flight controls send signals to the computer, then the computer actually moves the flight surfaces. 757s still use controls that are basically connected directly to the flight surfaces. There are warnings that tell you if you've gone too far, but you can ignore them if you like.
 
I write tech manuals for airplanes. The toilets are rated for 9Gs.

Just sayin'. :D

That's where I'd need to be if I was on a plane pulling 9Gs...the toilet.
 
Doo bee doo bee doo...

The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits.
Click to expand...

On all Airbus planes other than the older A300 and A310, computers prevent the pilot from putting the plane into a climb of more than 30 degrees where it might lose lift and stall. The maximum bank or roll allowed is 67 degrees. The plane's nose-down pitch is limited to 15 degrees. There are protections against overspeed.

And the computer won't allow the plane to make any extreme maneuvers that would exceed 2.5 times the force of gravity.
Click to expand...

He recalled the case of a China Air 747 that tumbled out of control over the Pacific in 1985. The pilots were able to recover by subjecting the jumbo jet to upward of four times the force of gravity.
Click to expand...

The only Boeing plane with fly-by-wire technology is the 777.
Click to expand...

Ho!

It must suck to be consistently wrong all the time...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/boe202.shtml

Also, you will not find anywhere that Boeing aircraft are equipped with remote control capability. You will only find it is possible.
 
Last edited:
Airbus has the fixed limits on FBW control movements. The pilot can't make a more agressive manuever than the computer allows.

Boeing allows the pilot to over rule the computer's FBW limits if he thinks he needs to.

Different philosophies.

I prefer Boeing's.
 
Last I heard the plane won't automatically do anything, it'll just start doing various forms of warnings to the pilot (lights, klaxons, etc). Even if I am misinformed, I'm quite sure that the pilot could override anything the computer opts to do (and unless he's got a different theory, the pilot intended to seriously violate some safety regs). Pretty sure we still trust humans to pilot better than the computer... otherwise why bother with the pilot? It's not like the computer can't take off, fly somewhere, and land... it's just that nobody trusts the things to deal with the unexpected.

I'm also not sure at which point prior to impact during 9/11 they would have exceeded even that arbitrary 1.5G limit. I don't think anyone claimed they were doing stunt flying, and flying into a stationary target on the ground doesn't really require lots of crazy maneuvering.
 
I suspect the resistive force the buildings exerted on the planes far exceeded any reasonable force limit that may have been set in the software.

However, I am also quite sure that once such force was detected, there was insufficient time for anything to alter the outcome.
 
I am quite confident that at least flight 93 exceeded its software limits, unless the software was programmed to allow the plane to fly upside-down.
 
petre said:
I suspect the resistive force the buildings exerted on the planes far exceeded any reasonable force limit that may have been set in the software.

However, I am also quite sure that once such force was detected, there was insufficient time for anything to alter the outcome.
Click to expand...

petre, just to bring you up to speed, the flight the CT'ers go on about on this topic is Flt 77, which hit the Pentagon. It apparently made a rather drastic turn and descent prior to hitting the Pentagon. Someone (who I do not know and using what data) has calculated that they pulled 7g's during the manuver and that that force would have either (1) destroyed the plane or (2) not been allowed by the airplanes computers. Therefore it was a drone/missile/A3/Global Hawk/hologram that hit the Pentagon.

Or so I've heard--I am spending way to much time over at Loose Change...
 
Hutch said:
petre, just to bring you up to speed, the flight the CT'ers go on about on this topic is Flt 77, which hit the Pentagon. It apparently made a rather drastic turn and descent prior to hitting the Pentagon. Someone (who I do not know and using what data) has calculated that they pulled 7g's during the manuver and that that force would have either (1) destroyed the plane or (2) not been allowed by the airplanes computers. Therefore it was a drone/missile/A3/Global Hawk/hologram that hit the Pentagon.

Or so I've heard--I am spending way to much time over at Loose Change...
Click to expand...

I had suspected as much, but I thought it might be helpful to note a rather graphic example where the plane would not be able to avoid an excessive force.

I could examine the data further, but there is no need. The only possible point that could be established is that, assuming the source of the data used to make the conclusion is reliable, the data is incorrect (that is their point in stating that the scenario could not have occurred as stated). Simply the fact that at least some of that data is incorrect does not in any way support any alternative explanation. Additionally, the fact that they have proven at least some of their data is incorrect calls into serious question the starting assumption, that the source of the data is reliable.

Therefore, the sources of all information must be listed for examination and verification if the analysis is to have any value.
 
Hutch said:
petre, just to bring you up to speed, the flight the CT'ers go on about on this topic is Flt 77, which hit the Pentagon. It apparently made a rather drastic turn and descent prior to hitting the Pentagon. Someone (who I do not know and using what data) has calculated that they pulled 7g's during the manuver and that that force would have either (1) destroyed the plane or (2) not been allowed by the airplanes computers. Therefore it was a drone/missile/A3/Global Hawk/hologram that hit the Pentagon.

Or so I've heard--I am spending way to much time over at Loose Change...
Click to expand...
You might want to inform the person who claimed that figure of 7 G's that there are two basic different type of G-forces, positive and negative. A drastic turn and decent involves both types of G-forces. A quick turn would impart positive G's. A quick decent involves negative G's. Both together would tend to cancel out the G-forces in one direction or another. Anyone who has ever ridden in an airplane has experienced small doses of both effects.

I'm no aviation expert but I highly doubt a commercial aircraft could reach a 7 G limit except possibly in a full-speed dive. In that case it would be negative G's and most people pass out at 2 to 3 negative G's (and the blood vessels in your eyeballs burst too). Humans don't tolerate negative G's nearly as well as positive G's. That makes it highly unlikely that the plane ever got anywhere close to 7 G's, since the pilot did not pass out and eventually steered it into the Pentagon.
 
This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.
Click to expand...

If a plane comes out of a fog bank and the pilot sees a mountain dead ahead and can't pull up fast enough because the software is getting in the way, grandma's unbroken neck will be the only piece of her big enough to get a DNA sample from for positive identification.

This is wishful thinking from the conspiracy nuts whose only evidence is thier desire for it to be true.
 
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.
Click to expand...


Umm maybe it is just me but the entire aricle sounds nuts. The quote above is one of the better sections of lunacy. And 'Norad can fly the plane by remote control'? I think I would like to see another source for that gem.
 
valis said:
Umm maybe it is just me but the entire aricle sounds nuts. The quote above is one of the better sections of lunacy. And 'Norad can fly the plane by remote control'? I think I would like to see another source for that gem.
Click to expand...

I just wonder if there isn't a well hidden piece of net parody in this supposedly 2002 article written by a supposed military communications expert. At first I thought he was just pulling numbers and factoids out of his ass. Then I got to thinking, (I know not what I'm best at), who else makes articles that are so completely incorrect?

The Onion. Is it possible that someone at the onion or some other humorous outlet decided to come up with and outrageous and bluntly false article, post it on all the CT web sites and see how far they run with it.

If you read the article (and it has been around for a while adding and refining statements along the way. )

Alikkieh is the guys name spelt back wards, does not seem to have a significant meaning. Anyone good at spotting this type of thing want to take a crack at it? I'm going to but will most likely come up with a theory that holds a bout as much water as this article does.
 
Last edited:
valis said:
Umm maybe it is just me but the entire aricle sounds nuts. The quote above is one of the better sections of lunacy. And 'Norad can fly the plane by remote control'? I think I would like to see another source for that gem.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see one for the idea that 757 and 767 black boxes use tape. Given the size, cost and robustness of solid state memory vs endless loop tape, I would be really surprised if they actually had a mechanical tape recorder in there.

eta: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-3/Black-Box.html
 
Last edited:
TjW said:
I'd like to see one for the idea that 757 and 767 black boxes use tape. Given the size, cost and robustness of solid state memory vs endless loop tape, I would be really surprised if they actually had a mechanical tape recorder in there.
Click to expand...
Data were recovered from the flight data recorder on flight 77 (Pentagon) and both the flight data and cockpit voice recorders on flight 93 (Pennsylvania).

eta:News reports refer to the transcripts of the "tapes," but the reporters may just be assuming that the recorders were tape recorders. The 9/11 Commission report refers to "digital recorders," which isn't conclusive. I can't tell from the crash scene photos what the makes and models are.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom