|
Post by Obviousman on May 20, 2006 3:50:33 GMT -4
When I was looking through a US government website which talks about disinformation, it mentioned a quote from Boeing:
Now, I was reminded of the crash test they did in the 70s for NASA & the FAA which used a Boeing. That aircraft was remotely piloted.
So is Boeing actually correct? I think they are really talking about an "unmodifed" aircraft - and thus would be correct.
The earlier Boeing would have used hydro-mechanical linkages, and so may have been able to lend itself to automation - but what about the current aircraft?
Does FBW and advanced FCS make turning an airliner into an RPV far more difficult? Impossible? Easier?
Oh, and ref the earlier crash test - if you read about it, you'll find that it was very difficult to remotely get the aircraft to hit the planned section of runway. It actually nearly missed its intended impact point. If a pilot had been at the controls, it would have been no problem. People should remember that when talking about an RPV-airliner being used in the 9/11 attacks.
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on May 20, 2006 7:28:20 GMT -4
Boeing is stating that the aircraft delivered to airlines (and private companies or individuals) have no remote control capability, as you surmised. This doesn't say that they couldn't create special "non-commercial" (experimental) versions for specific customers like NASA, or that those customers couldn't make such modifications.
Fly-by-wire should make such a task far simpler -- the computer which actually controls everything wouldn't know or care whether its inputs came from directly wired keyboards and analog encoders or remote ones via radio.
That said, it should still be possible to rig any airplane (weight and space permitting) for remote control. Motors, servos, and solenoids can handle any mechanical or hydraulic systems, while electric/electronic systems can be connected more directly. And unless the operator has a clear view of the entire operating area, some form of telemetry would be needed to return flight data and (depending on the application) probably at least a forward view.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on May 20, 2006 7:48:34 GMT -4
That's what I would have thought, but wanted to see if there was anything that I was unaware of.
That's what makes the Boeing comment, to me, not very helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on May 21, 2006 23:26:23 GMT -4
[Boeing quote]Pilots can program the airplane to take off, fly to a destination and land automatically, but Boeing design philosophy keeps pilots in control and in the decision-making loop at all times. This quote deserves some amplification. In it, Boeing is distinguishing its control philosophy from its biggest competitor, Airbus. Boeing's philosophy favors experienced pilots. Airbus has more automation to make their planes easier to learn. This makes them more attractive to airlines with limited resources, i.e. those in the third world. An example of this is automated landings. As the quote indicates, a Boeing pilot can tell the plane to perform an autolanding. At any time, he can take over from the computer simply by exercising the controls. Airbus planes, on the other hand automatically enter the autoland mode when they get close to the ground. At that point the computer verifes the gear & flaps position, and puts the plane in the correct attitude for landing. The pilot only has to back-off the throttle to set the plane down when he wants. The computer will ignore any other control input as "invalid for landing". If the pilot doesn't want to land, he must press the "go around" button on the center console. This will cause the computer to exit the autoland mode, increase throttle and pull up, and then allow the pilot to control the aircraft. Here is what happens when the two philosophies collide ( Disturbing Image Warning 2.2MB video): Air France's most experienced test pilot was doing an A320 demonstration flight for executives. He intended to do a low-speed/low altitude fly-by, then climb out and away. He got down low and slow, but didn't realize that the autoland had engaged. As he floated down the runway, he pushed his throttles all the way to the wall and was working the yoke, but the plane simply did not respond: It wanted him to land. The pilot's decades of experience did not include pressing the little button on the center console.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 22, 2006 6:06:05 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 23, 2006 17:01:37 GMT -4
Historical note: Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses were modified to be used as cruise missiles during World War II. The concept didn't work out very well.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on May 24, 2006 23:29:45 GMT -4
The analyses of the Tenerife disaster lead to changes on how pilots are trained these days. There is a lot more emphasis on communication skills.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on May 25, 2006 20:59:49 GMT -4
Let's say hypothetically a plane had been programed to be remote controlable, could the system be triggered from a far to override the pilots?
My other doubt is about the radios and airfones would it be possible to block them? If some mythical system had been installed on the planes that allowed them to take off normally but be overriden midair why couldn't the crew have called for help. I guess the CT's could claim the phone's were disabled before the planes took off but the radios were working normally. From what I understand radios are totally seperate from the flight controlls and navigation systems.
Len
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on May 25, 2006 21:08:47 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on May 26, 2006 13:32:19 GMT -4
Let's say hypothetically a plane had been programed to be remote controlable, could the system be triggered from a far to override the pilots? My other doubt is about the radios and airfones would it be possible to block them? If some mythical system had been installed on the planes that allowed them to take off normally but be overriden midair why couldn't the crew have called for help. I guess the CT's could claim the phone's were disabled before the planes took off but the radios were working normally. From what I understand radios are totally seperate from the flight controlls and navigation systems. Len Its a case of the 'could'ves'. Yes, if remote access to the electronic systems of a large plane was installed then it would be a fairly simple matter to have the power to the airfone and radiocommunication systems turned off or to have audio input to them rerouted away from the passenger's phone and pilot's mic to that of separate, scrambled, voice channels transmitted to a reveiver in the aircraft along with the remote control data. This would be even easier than remote control. However it (an uplink and downlink of remote control and two voice channels) does require a piece of equipment onboard that would be out of place.
|
|
golfhobo
Venus
DAMN! That woulda gone in the hole IF....
Posts: 86
|
Post by golfhobo on May 28, 2006 13:29:10 GMT -4
Len and Obviousman:
In today's world of computer control, anything is possible. It would be possible to control the aircraft from a distance, but not likely. As noted above, Boeing's planes give control decision to the pilots. However, this could easily be "locked out" by installing or changing access codes. But then.... why would the hijackers be needed?
Aircraft can be substituted at the last moment for any flight. They could not guarantee that any "modified" plane would actually make the flight. And WHY would they risk discovery by spending months or years taking flight training in the U.S?
It seems, at times, that you are giving both the terrorists AND the CT's too much credit. You are looking for technical expertise to combat their arguments, when in fact, common sense will do.
However, to further answer your question.... FBW makes it easier to access the flight controls remotely. We ALL know that computers can be "hacked." Stick and Rudder planes would be more difficult which is why, as someone mentioned, the B-17's in WWII were not so amenable, due both to their control mechanisms AND our limited computers at the time.
Hobo
|
|