BS: Pilot sues Boeing

Subject: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: GUEST, passerby
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:57 PM

Captain Field McConnell and forensic economist David Hawkins are being interviewed on radio right now.

McConnell just resigned as a Northwest Airlines pilot. He says some of the Boeing passenger jets are wired with explosives, and he cannot fulfill his duty to safely fly people if there are explosives onboard. He's filed a suit for loss of wages (will lose pay due to early retirement), and his govt-controlled union is panicking:

...The lawsuit, filed last week, claims Boeing Co. and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) can't assure him that B747-400 planes are safe. McConnell, who is the process of seeking an early retirement from Northwest, claims the planes are rigged by Boeing and can be remotely detonated.

"We do not believe in any way, shape or form that that is true," said Pete Janhunen, a spokesman for ALPA, the world's largest pilot's union.

"Our senior lawyer and senior engineer both said that on its face, it's an insane complaint. ... It sounds like he's a troubled guy."

http://www.wctrib.com/account/index.cfm?user=login&return_page=http://www.wctrib.com/articles/index.cfm?id=17389&CFID=23272024&C

But Boeing has been fined for using the QRS-11 chip in their large passenger jets. The QRS-11 is the most advanced missile guidance chip in the world:

According to the State Department charges, Boeing shipped 94 commercial jets overseas between 2000 and 2003 that carried the QRS-11 gyrochip embedded in the flight boxes. At the time, the chip, used in the guidance system of the Maverick missile, was on a list of products that required a license for foreign sales....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801450.html

And now Boeing is saying they will "soon" be able to do remote seizures...a story that came out 4 days ago. But many, including pilot McConnell, say this stuff has been in place forever and it's just being reported on now because pilots are starting to talk about it:

...It will be activated by the pilot flicking a simple switch or by pressure sensors fitted to the cockpit door that will respond to any excessive force as terrorists try to break into the flight deck.
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....

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

McConnell says that, in the legal process of his loss-of-pay trial, he'll gain "right of discovery" on key documents. He and economist Hawkins will then enlarge the retirement case into a racketeering case against Boeing. Then after they prove this system was in use on 9/11 (prove it with documents provided in court), they will sue the U.S. govt for racketeering resulting in the deaths of 3,000 on 9/11.

One of the things that will result from this kind of publicity is that the huge fleet of remotely-controlled drones being assembled in the form of Boeing passenger jets will no longer be viable as weaponry. They say there are plans to fit all Boeing planes with pilot override and lockout systems so there will be a fleet of remotely-controlled bombs flying all over the world, hidden in plain sight.

Some other information was discussed (lots of information). Hawkins said that on June 1, 2001, Canada/US did a joint wargame over Alaska. A plane was "seized" and was flown eastward over Canada and then turned south, with a simulated target of the U.S. Capitol building. So that discredits the plausible deniability that Rice and Rumsfeld were using..."no one could've imagined a hijacked plane," etc.

Then on 9/11, Canada/US again held war games (there were multiple going on over the east coast that day), but in one, Canada was the Red, "al qaeda" team, and the US was the Blue, NORAD team. The FAA air traffic controllers were left out of the loop. Just a bunch of blips on the radar screens to them. The Canadians, too, thought it was all just blips and dummy planes, but then some of the planes were switched over to remote-guidance, and they hit their targets.

Couldn't write fast enough to keep accurate track of the other topics they touched on, but the information will turn up over the next few days. Among other things, they said:
> Boeing has admitted in public statements that explosive bolts are on some doors (didn't get the URL of the article)
> The man who helped engineer the backdoor hack-in point for the QRS-11 chip was working for the Rose Law Firm at the time (Hillary Clinton's firm)
> The QRS-11 is manufacutred in Little Rock, Arkansas (Clinton country)
> 120 planes were fitted with the chips in China and Boeing has not made known where they are in service (McConnell says all it would take is releasing a list of the tail numbers of the fitted planes to answer this question)
> The company that manufactures the QRS-11 has said 90,000 units are in service, and it takes 3 to guide a plane, so upwards of 30,000 planes could be flown with these things. But the units are used in other vehicles, too, so it's doubful all are in planes.

Amazing story. This is a big one, and it's not going away. Boeing just announced they're "going to" do this remote-control stuff, and that sure looks like an attempt to take some of the edge off these breaking revelations. They're finally going to get to Clinton & Deutch's treason with this case. And since the Carlyle group financed most of this stuff (QRS-11 was developed by the Carlyle Group's Raytheon), the Bushes will be dragged down too. This is the kind of story that can trigger another "terrorist attack" by the rats who are cornered in the White House and their presidential libraries. These psychos could even trigger WW3 to divert us from this story. That's how big it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:13 AM

The story is not all that big. Hell, Boeing was fined $15 million for having the QRS-11 chip in commercial jets it sold to CHINA. That was back in April, 2006.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:46 AM

QRS 11 Data Sheet. (Some secret, huh?)

Go to the bottom of the page and click Data Sheet. BTW, it's been in production since 1991.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Deckman
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 01:00 AM

If this is true, and I emphize "IF,", the solution is so simple that it's almost boring. DON'T GET INTO AN AIRPLANE!

There ... that didn't hurt, did it? If you don't get into an airplane, just like me, you have nothing to fear. It's exactly the same answer I learned after I saw the movie "Jaws." If you don't get into the water, sharks can't hurt you ... can they?

And, to make it even easier, all you have to do is to convince all your friends (and their friends) to do the same.

YAWN! Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:53 AM

Export of Windows XP is also illegal. Think how dangerous it would be if someone smuggled one of those CDs into China and they copied it.

OOPS! - they did get a license to export a couple of hundred copies to China for specific use by specific agencies related to a few industrial processes.

TREMBLE, T^RE_MB^LE.!!!

But most of the Chinese are still using pirated copies of Win98.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:04 AM

YES!! It's all true, Boing are out to get us!
... from A to B to C

They're all being paid to do it!
... By us

All those big jets won't be useful as secret weapons any more
...As hijackers won't be able to control them

Sorry, am I reading between the wrong lines to see the conspiricy

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:08 AM

But John,

all those copies of XP have built in secret SW that will cause CDs/DVDs to be spun at excessive speeds under remote control (most PCs being connected to the net), thus fragmenting, and acting like a small bomb, possibly taking out terrorists.

If you don't believe me, MythBusters investigated just how CDs will destruct at high speed.

I'm not completely making this up, you know...

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Grab
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:33 AM

Oh boy, what a fruitloop.

So 9/11 was done with remote-controlled aircraft. Care to suggest why the occupants of one of those aircraft rang their families to report terrorists had taken it over? Or are we going on the hypothesis (which we've heard before) that it wasn't them making the calls?

That chip is a gyro, not a control system. It tells you your position. All a "backdoor" into it (assuming one exists) would do is prevent it telling everything else the current position (and hence how to find where it's going). To stop an enemy missile, that's useful. To guide an aircraft somewhere else - well, it just doesn't work like that.

And someone who thinks explosive bolts on doors equals "rigged for remote detonation" - jeez.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:01 AM

Not quite so, Graham. Despite the initial post being all over the place, there is NO reason the planes could not have been remote-controlled and guided into the buildings. Think curise missile. There is difference in the size but not the dynamics.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:04 AM

And the cruise missile, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: jeffp
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:29 AM

Cruise missiles are self-steered according to a route loaded into memory before launch.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: number 6
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 10:36 AM

That's true Jeff ... 1970's technology (they were developed way back then)

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:27 AM

True. But radio-controlled planes have been arond for years, too. Drones used for target practice, for example. The technology already exists. Of course, I doubt I'd want to own the airline that was first to tell folks that the pilot was there as back up for the computer.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:34 AM

"Hawkins said that on June 1, 2001, Canada/US did a joint wargame over Alaska. A plane was "seized" and was flown eastward over Canada and then turned south, with a simulated target of the U.S. Capitol building. "


Anybody ever read Tom Clancy? Already written up before 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: number 6
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:42 AM

It would be rather hard accurately maneuvering a cruise missile flying at supersonic speed with a radio (box with an antennae).

I don't think I would want to fly on an airline that had a backup pilot for the computer that is actually flying it, let alone own one.

That's why I try not don't fly on airlines these days .... in other words don't get around much anymore.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:53 AM

What an amazing new idea! To have a computer-piloted aircraft with a warhead!

Germany's V1, for example.


The US tried it before, and decided it was a bad idea... Until we got a low altitude, terrain-following cruise missle.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-62_Snark

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:54 AM

The tech on the Patriot which flies one helluva lot faster than any plane seems to work, no? (Well, some of the time.)

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:27 PM

Also, by saying that the tech exists to do it does NOT mean someone did. Capiche?

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: jeffp
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:41 PM

I don't think you mean Patriot, Bruce. The Patriot is a radar-guided air defense missile. They were adapted to use as defense against Scud missiles during the first Persian Gulf war, with rather poor results. They were originally intended to be used against airplanes. They are ground-launched under control of a ground-based phased array radar system. They are not designed for long-distance attacks.

Do you mean Tomahawks? Those are the cruise missiles we were speaking of earlier. Or maybe Predators? Those are the remotely-piloted drones that are being used in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: GUEST,passerby
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 01:24 PM

The advantage of remotely seizing huge passenger jets loaded with fuel and explosives would be that no one would expect it. But now the lid is being torn off that particular plan. These two guys are serious, and educated in their fields, and if Boeing planes ARE intended for such a purpose, the plan will soon be scrapped. Because of these two.

They discussed WAY too much for me to take complete notes. Insulation, for example. Hawkins described an aluminum/iron oxide compound that ignites at 1600 degrees and then burns to 5000 degrees. He was talking about thermate, though he didn't use the term. Thermate was in evidence at the collapses of WTC 1 & 2. Also in the wreckage of Ron Brown's plane. These criminals apparently like to burn away any incriminating evidence at the sites of their crimes. Anyway, Hawkins described this stuff being used in a thin coating around a flexible rubber sheet for airline insulation. It bends into place and just sits there until a jet fuel fire ignites it, then it burns the plane at 5000 degrees. He said that would account for the 8-mile debris field of flight 93 in Pennsylvania, and the eyewitness reports of "raining plastic" along the debris field.

Hawkins has educated himself in all kinds of things relating to 9/11, but he's a forensic economist, and once he has his hands on court records regarding stock trades, etc., he should be able to prove a lot. He's already naming names of probable participants in the crime of 9/11 insider trading. People like Noam Chomsky. It'll be interesting to see if Chomsky sues. That's a pretty serious claim, and if Chomsky doesn't sue, then that's tantamount to an admission of guilt. And Chomsky won't sue, because that would lead to a trial and discovery and proof of SOMEONE'S involvement.

It's probably just a pipe dream that these two guys could make the 9/11 crime public knowledge, but you never know. There's always a flashpoint in any confrontation. The problem here is that they're dealing with the court system, which is already blocking hundreds of murder suits against Bush/Cheney for 9/11, so these 2 men probably won't fare any better. We should be thankful they're trying though.

Hopefully this will bring back Deutch's massive treason, Sandy Berger stuffing top secret files down his pants at the National Archives, etc.

And "gust of trim" was the term I couldn't recall a while back. It would have been physically impossible for a large Boeing jet to make the claimed approach to the pentagon, because the turbulence from it's wake interacting with the ground at that low altitude would have made the plane impossible to control. The pentagon "plane" is a red herring. It's a physical impossibility. A missile struck the building.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: jeffp
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 01:39 PM

Of course a plane couldn't fly that close to the ground. That's why they never land.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 01:56 PM

"A missile struck the building. "

Too bad so many people saw the plane....

But don't let reality interfere with your delusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 01:59 PM

Good one Greg. Tomahawk. It's my mind that's going.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Wesley S
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 02:01 PM

Well Jeffp - sure - if you want to go and mess up a perfectly good thread with FACTS.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Greg B
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 02:11 PM

What's more worrisome are how many airline pilots are (or become)
pretty nutty.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: jeffp
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 02:22 PM

Probably stress.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 02:34 PM

Yeah. Well, thinkin' yer flyin' around with tons of explosives will do that to a guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:34 PM

I thought I posted this here an hour ago. Here is another try.

"The Northwest Airlines pilot from rural Glyndon, Minn., said a second attack is imminent and conspirators already have aborted their plan once this year.

"Those beliefs prompted him to begin writing for a Web site where like-minded people gather and to file a lawsuit in Fargo's federal court to expose an alleged conspiracy.

"The lawsuit, filed last week, claims Boeing Co. and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) can't assure him that B747-400 planes are safe. McConnell, who is the process of seeking an early retirement from Northwest, claims the planes are rigged by Boeing and can be remotely detonated.

"We do not believe in any way, shape or form that that is true," said Pete Janhunen, a spokesman for ALPA, the world's largest pilot's union.

"Our senior lawyer and senior engineer both said that on its face, it's an insane complaint. … It sounds like he's a troubled guy."

McConnell, a rural Glyndon rancher, has been a Northwest Airlines pilot for more than 28 years. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1971 and flew planes in the military, including with Fargo's Happy Hooligans, for 22 years.

"I am obligated under company procedures and FAA regulation not to operate an aircraft if I suspect it is unsafe," McConnell, 57, states in his handwritten claim.

"Janhunen dismisses the claim.

"We take every threat to airline security and safety very seriously," he said. "In this case, we do not believe there's any shred of evidence that the allegations about these Boeing airplanes are true, and the case should be immediately dismissed."

"Many of McConnell's allegations are outlined in Internet postings on www.hawkscafe.com, which its creators say provide an analysis of the weapons and motives behind 9/11. The group claims to have more than 4 million members worldwide.

"I think this lawsuit is opening a Pandora's box," McConnell said. "It will turn into a legal case that solves 9/11."

"He claims to know the true conspirators behind the 9/11 attacks and that radical Muslims served as a masquerade.

"If you want to know why I'm doing it, it is to make aviation safer," McConnell said.

"Boeing spokesman Tim Neale said each of its planes exceeds federal standards and undergoes rigorous certification before taking to the air.

"It's (safety) something we take very, very seriously," Neale said. "There are no safety issues that go ignored. There's just too much at stake."

"Northwest Airlines denied comment. In the lawsuit, McConnell said the company and pilots union "have suggested that I am crazy."

"The lawsuit was filed on behalf of those working with the Web site, said McConnell, who previously filed for bankruptcy and seeks $4.5 million from Boeing and ALPA.

"I'm trying to retire early so I can do something more important than hauling 400 people to Hawaii," said McConnell, who added that he wants to move to a warmer climate."

Why is He the ONLY One Who KNOWS?

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Greg B
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:13 PM

Peace---

Every pilot flies around with enough explosives to do him in.

Even 60 or so gallons of gasoline will ruin your whole day.

But that's not what makes you crazy. Us pilots mostly realize
that bored is worse than dead (see Candide). Until we do, we're
really crappy pilots. Tentative, indecisive, timid.

No, what gets the airline pilots is the insane life--- strange
hours, odd sleep patterns, time changes, away from home, resulting
broken marriages. Then odd job pressures on top of it--- corporate
BS, interpersonal politics. On top of it the instability of the
industry PLUS you have to quit at age 60.

And just when you think you know your job, you have 12 inches
of manuals to memorize.

Then try and keep your BP and other health factors inside that
of the average 30-year old--- permanently.

I know a lot of 'em, count 'em as among my friends.

But I fully understand why it would put many people around
the bend.

Far as I'm concerned, they earn every penny of what they make.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: number 6
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 07:34 PM

Good points in your post Greg B. ... they do earn every penny ... it's certainly not a cushy job, far from it ... and don't forget the mandatory 6 month grueling similator test (which is a good thing, which Air Canada does)but awfully stressfull for the pilot ... one f&ckup, it's back to ground school, an one f&ckup there and your out of a job ... hard when your 55yrs old and flying is all ya know.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: folk1e
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:30 PM

I may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here but it is just a giro...... it measures change in attitude! It would be relativly simple to "rig" the autopilot to cut the pilot out of the loop. What is the difference between landing a plane on a foggy airstrip and the WTC?
It sounded to me like the accusation was that 9/11 could have been prevented but wasn't!
You got to love those conspiracy theories!
You are only paranoid if they arn't out to get you!

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Grab
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:31 AM

Not quite so, Graham. Despite the initial post being all over the place, there is NO reason the planes could not have been remote-controlled and guided into the buildings. Think curise missile.

Peace, I'm not denying it's possible to remotely control an aircraft. What I'm saying is that his proposed method of control, namely a backdoor into a gyro chip in the artificial horizon, is simply not possible. It'd be like trying to control a car by overriding the speedo and indicators. :-) You want to override stuff, it needs to be done explicitly in the auto-pilot software.

And that requires a full-blown conspiracy amongst the engineers who designed the auto-pilots, plane manufacturers and pilots. They all have to be in on it, and he's the only one who's figured it out, and now they're out to get him. Hmm...

A missile struck the building.

For once, I'm with Bruce. Too bad people saw it. And too bad there were massive bits of plane strewn around the area. And too bad they were extracting big bits of plane from the building.

It'll be interesting to see if Chomsky sues. That's a pretty serious claim, and if Chomsky doesn't sue, then that's tantamount to an admission of guilt.

Why? If I managed to get on national TV and claim that Tony Blair had been having an affair with the Dalai Lama, why would either of them bother sueing me? If it's too ridiculous for people to believe, they'll let it go as being just another nutter. In fact, sueing is more likely to draw attention to the case, and draw sympathy to the suee who inevitably will be bankrupted by the costs of defending themselves. And it'll cost you money, with no hope of getting anything back - remember that damages are relative to the impact on your reputation, so if no-one believed it then there's no damage to your reputation and you've just wasted thousands of pounds/dollars; and remember that if you do win and get some damages awarded, these guys won't have two pennies to rub together so you won't get anything anyway.

It looks like Guest Passerby has been suckered by the standard device of the paranoid troll, which is to make so many claims that you can't focus on them one at a time, and when you do try to focus on one and debunk it, they throw a half-dozen new ones at you. Quantity does not equal quality, nor does it equal truth.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:57 AM

The fine leveied against Boeing for its use of the sic "Gyro remote Q chip" is a fact.

Has Boeing paid the 615 million dollar fine in full? I don't know

It is a HUGE FINE compared to any other (standard corporate practice of "its cheaper to pay the fine" than follow the law means of doing business)

Exxon Valdez was about a 6 million dollar fine.

In any case it is a rhetorical stretch to say this money is equivalent to hush money paid to the judicial system.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:59 AM

The $615 million fine is the number that the pilot quoted many times on coast to coast radio show this week.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: GUEST,passerby
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 01:09 PM

The initial post was all over the map because the interview I heard was all over the map. They covered so much NEW information. But now that a lawsuit has been filed and the points have been made public, they can be addressed one by one.

The two men suggested that each passenger specifically ask before boarding any Boing plane if it has been fitted with the QRS-11. If it has been, don't fly. And report it. Demand from the secretary of Transportation that a complete list of tail numbers be made public. Write letters to the editor and call in to local talk shows with your complaint. If just a hundred people did that, this would be a HUGE issue.

These guys raised LOTS of issues. First, they seem to want to make sure the fleets of Boeings around the world aren't turned into drones. If they can be remotely controlled, then they can be used as bombs. And if they are fitted with explosives, then anyone flying commercial can be blown up at any time. Secondly, they seem to want "discovery" documents from a trial or two so Hawkins can go after the people who benefitted from insider stock trading, etc. on 9/11. Hawkins is a forensic economist and could piece together the puzzle easily if he had access to the information.

I look forward to hearing more from these two.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM

from the QRS11 website

APPLICATIONS
Stabilization
Satellite Communication Antennas
Optical Line-of-Sight Systems
Missile Seekers
Controls
Aircraft & Missile Flight Control
Attitude Control
Yaw Dampers
Guidance
Missile Mid-Course Guidance
Inertial/GPS Navigation Systems
Instrumentation
Rocket Boosters
Simulation & Training Aids
FEATURES
High-Performance Inertial Sensor

Internal Electronics

Compact, Rugged Package integrates easily in many applications

No moving parts ensures Long Operating Life

Wide Bandwidth

High MTBF

Fast Start-Up

Low Noise Offers Enhanced Performance

PERFORMANCE


PARAMETER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   SPECIFICATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard Range   ±100°/sec
Input Voltage    + and - 5 Vdc ±3% regulation
Short Term Bias Stability(100 sec at const. temp)    0.01°/sec, typical *
Output Noise ( DC to 100 Hz)    0.01°/sec/ *
* Values Indicated Are For ±100°/sec. Range      


[ DATA SHEET ] [ OUTLINE DRAWING ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I am not an engineer but it says it controls aircraft flight !?

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 01:29 PM

Not quite. The specs state it is used in control systems. Not the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 01:54 PM

DESCRIPTION
"The QRS11 is a MEMS technology, solid-state "gyro on a chip." This DC input/high-level DC output device is fully self contained, extremely small and lightweight. Since the inertial sensing element is comprised of just one micromachined piece of crystalline quartz (no moving parts), it has a virtually "unlimited" life. The Model QRS11 is a mature product in volume production. It is fully qualified for use on numerous advanced aircraft, missile, and space systems."


So, I guess that makes the Boeing 747 a spaceship?

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:59 PM

The QRS11 is a "solid state gyro." Period. End of complaint.

With an accuracy of 0.01 degrees per second, it is capable of being used in an "artificial horizon" to which the pilot may refer to determine whether the airplane is right side up, more or less, but that accuracy is far from adequate for ANY NAVIGATION OR GUIDANCE FUNCTION in any flight vehicle.

It is adequate only for a short-term reference to which side up the airplane was a minute or so previous, so that the control system can take out the "lumps" encountered from wind gusts or other minor flight path deviations over extremely short time periods.

The older equivalent was a turd in the pilots britches that would shift and smear if an abrupt maneuver happened accidentally - called "seat of the pants attitude control."

Relative to any sensor suitable for use in a navigation or remote control of anything to actually hit an intended destination more than at most a couple of minutes away it's a toy top, and even if someone were stupid enough to try to use it for the purposes claimed, they would need several pounds of additional components, including a full computer setup and actuator systems to make an inadequate piece of shit "targeting system."

John

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Arne
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:07 PM

In the spirit of the fanciful nature of the thread here:

Deckman:

There ... that didn't hurt, did it? If you don't get into an airplane, just like me, you have nothing to fear. It's exactly the same answer I learned after I saw the movie "Jaws." If you don't get into the water, sharks can't hurt you ... can they?

"Candygram...."

;-)

(disclosure: my idea of fun....)

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 09:10 PM

This chip apparently has been considered for use in robotic control - 'toy' (experimenter) systems - it can be used as John said for a 'reference point' in motion detection, but you need heaps of crap to make it useful - a handful of PICs at the very least - with their associated embedded programming. With enough 'development' there exists the possibility that such 'accumulated junk' can be embedded into a small autonomous system for such tasks in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: GUEST,passerby
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 09:48 PM

Jeez guys. My first search on this turned up all these stories:

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu8FGGvJFu1IAkbCl87UF?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=drone+iraq+kills

Drone weaponry is here and being actively used. Killing people. Read some of those stories.

And when a pilot with 20+ years experience makes a fuss over this, you have to listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:51 PM

Drone weapons have been in use since the 1940s. The point is that the component cited as part of some sort of super sophisticated exotic deadly subversive superspy lethal plot to destroy commercial airplanes or to use them as weapons has NO PLAUSIBLE APPLICATION IN ANY LIKELY DEVICE OF THAT KIND.

Take the word of an aircraft engineer with 40 YEARS EXPERIENCE in the design, construction, and maintenance of navigation and flight control systems - including a dozen or so drone aircraft, target training vehicles and weapons - including both remote controlled and drone devices.

(I've also done tanks and artillery, and both wheeled and tracked military vehicles on demand - but they're not really much fun.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:20 PM

I take your word for it, John. However, UAV technology has been improving and the notion is not a new one. Getting a UAV into the air is fairly straight forward, even if it's something the size of a large jet plane. Landing it would be more difficult. But then landing it isn't the object of the game. Seems more like crashing it on target is what needs to be done. Are you saying that isn't possible?

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:48 PM

Almost anything is 'possible'... now 'probable on a practical basis' is another matter...

These UAVs are not complete 'autonomous robots' - they are given commands like 'go in this direction' go at this height' 'go at this speed' 'go to this point' 'orbit this point' by a human operator.

The operator also depends on the on-board camera feeding back visuals thru satellites (which why the panic over China proving that they can destroy satellites in orbit!), and can then send commands such as 'lock target on this point' - 'launch weapon to targeted point', etc.

The cost of these beasties is such that the whole idea of using them as 'flying bombs' is ridiculous - there are much cheaper weapons - when you something that can hang around for 40 hours, there's far too many more useful things you can do, specially 'watch'... 'mere observation of the enemy' is perhaps the single MOST useful thing!

Now as far as using 'commercial airliners' as weapons - consider that the very people paying (bribing?!!) the pollies also want to make profits from flying these things around - while they MAY get some money from 'insurance' - they also own shares in the insurance companies, and too many 'losses' (don't forget the 'personal policies' payouts) will up the premiums on the planes and lower the insurance companies profits too...

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:52 PM

Btw, can anybody remember the SF authors who wrote stories about remote controlled UAVs?

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 12:05 AM

They are likely working for the CL 289 programme.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 01:40 AM

Robin: does the term X45-A mean anything to you?

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 01:44 AM

"Boeing Unmanned Systems is part of Boeing Military Aircraft and Missile Systems, which designs, produces and provides follow-on support for fighters, bombers, transports, rotorcraft and weapons for the United States and its allies around the globe. The world's largest military aircraft manufacturer, Boeing has delivered more than 130,000 military aircraft to the U.S. government and international customers. Among emerging businesses are unmanned systems, as well as military aircraft that are based on the company's renowned commercial airplanes."

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 07:03 AM

At the time of its introduction 45 or so years ago, the standard navigation system in the 747 was capable of taking off from New York and flying to Paris, under full control of the navigation/autopilot, with no pilot intervention and with no reference to external position sensing and data, with arrival at Paris within approximately 1 mile of the destination landing strip.

A gyro error or drift of 1 degree is equivalent to a "loss of position" of 60 nautical miles. The "drift rate" of this mystical little gyro of .01 degree/second, for the same 7 hour (minimum) flight (25,200 seconds) would give a probable error in attitude of 252 degrees, or an error in position of 15,120 nautical miles. Since a minimum of three of these little gyros, plus a minimum of 3 accelerometers, plus a vertical reference unit would be required for any useful "guidance system" a composite system error rate would be at least on the order of three times the single component error (with statistical estimates for the combining of errors from 6 or 7 similarly inaccurate components), meaning that even for control for 10 seconds after engagement of the system, this "guidance system" would produce a probable "miss" of about 18 nautical miles (21 statute miles), - if the airplane was capable of flying fast enough to keep up with what the "guidance system" tells it to do (i.e. is capable of flying at least 6,480 nautical miles per hour in order to get 20 miles from where you want it to be in 10 seconds).

So what idiot would not just use the information available from the existing nav system computer?

John

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 08:37 AM

"X45-A"

I'll go and twiddle my Saitek joystick... ;-)

Oh you mean?

DARPA LOSING CONTROL OF KILLER DRONES?

For decades, Pentagon mad science division Darpa as been at the forefront of robotics research -- including, and especially, the development of killer drones. But there are signs that agency's work on armed robotic planes and copters could be shrinking in the years to come.

Aerospace Daily reports that Darpa has been forced to cancel its project to develop an unmanned, heavily-armed helicopter. The Army, Darpa's partner in the Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft (UCAR) program, lost interest. And so the agency can't afford the $160 million tab for the project's next phase.

"Designed for low- to medium-altitude reconnaissance and attack, the UCAR would have been the most autonomous unmanned aircraft ever built," Aerospace Daily's Jefferson Morris explains, "capable of coordinating with other UCARs and accepting high-level verbal commands from operators."

Darpa's fixed-wing drone program isn't quite as sophisticated. But its development is way, way more advanced. Today, the UCAR exists only in PowerPoint. There are working prototypes of the unmanned planes, called Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs) in Pentagonese.

Last spring, a Darpa-funded X45-A UCAV dropped a load of smart bombs on targets in the Mojave Desert. In December, a single human pilot was able to control two of the drones at once.

there's more... :-)

UAVs poised to take the next step into combat
By J.R. Wilson

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) first saw combat in the first Persian Gulf War of 1991, where Iraqi soldiers surrendered to a Pioneer UAV rather than have it direct ship-launched cruise missiles on their location. UAVs entered a new era in the second Persian Gulf War of 2003, as more advanced Predator UAVs, armed with Hellfire missiles, became the first robots to engage in combat as aggressors.

The future of continued U.S. air superiority will involve an increasingly large contingent of armed UAVs and a new generation of Air Force and Navy unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), flying missions that manned attack aircraft previously flew, often in joint missions under the control of fighter-bomber pilots.

:-)

oh... nearly missed this clinker...

Some of the greatest strengths brought to the fight by unmanned platforms, however, also can be their greatest weaknesses.

"It's not the specific nature of the lethal aspect that is driving the system so much as designing the system to operate in the adversary's backyard-a very dangerous environment that it not only must pass through, but persist there," says Dr. Michael S. Francis, director of the Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems Office at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in Arlington, Va.

"That creates a very interesting challenge, especially in determining whether the mission is ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance) or lethal," Francis says. "As much as we are trying to make our communications assured, it is another form of Achilles heel. It is much easier to operate in your own airspace, where in the other guy's, he may deny you the level of communication you need to authorize, in a timely way, the ability to deal with a particular target.


Ref "panic over China proving that they can destroy satellites in orbit" above.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 03:35 PM

List of Missiles.

These all are UAVs, RPVs, and/or AUAVs, by the definitions used by most people. There are a few missing from the list.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 03:39 PM

"Boeing Unmanned Systems is part of Boeing Military Aircraft and Missile Systems, which designs, produces and provides follow-on support for fighters, bombers, transports, rotorcraft and weapons for the United States and its allies around the globe. The world's largest military aircraft manufacturer, Boeing has delivered more than 130,000 military aircraft to the U.S. government and international customers. Among emerging businesses are unmanned systems, as well as military aircraft that are based on the company's renowned commercial airplanes."

Well say what ya want and ridicule it too, but the post here is from Boeing's friggin' website.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 03:46 PM

There's some little electronic gadget under the dashboard of my car that I don't quite understand. . . .

Should I be concerned!??

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 04:12 PM

If it looks like this or this, I think you should be a bit concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 08:14 PM

If it looks like THIS, then yes, I would suggest that there is plausible cause for at least some concern.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 12:08 AM

If what JinK posted is your speedometer, your electrical system just fried itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 12:30 AM

Is John in Kansas a JinKs?

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 12:41 AM

"There's some little electronic gadget under the dashboard of my car that I don't quite understand"

I just checked my car Don - I think it's called 'a cigarette lighter'...

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 12:52 AM

Yeah. But this is what it's doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 12:59 AM

That last link, quite incidentally, is somewhat related to airplanes.

It's been circulating in junk email - the kind our friends seem compelled to forward to us "because it's cute." Thus far we've received it from a half dozen different people.

Full text:

HOW TO HANDLE IRRITATING SEATMATES

If you are sitting next to someone who irritates you on a plane or train follow these instructions: (and maybe say goodbye!).

1. Quietly and calmly open up your laptop case.
2. Remove your laptop.
3. Start up
4. Make sure the guy who is annoying you, can see the screen.
5. Close your eyes and tilt your head up to the sky.
6. Then hit this link



I DEFINITELY DO NOT RECOMMEND using the link in the context described.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 01:06 AM

"this is what it's doing. "


lay off the chilies, then...

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: GUEST,passerby
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 12:42 PM

Take the word of an "aircraft engineer with 40 YEARS EXPERIENCE..."

If I had to choose between the word of a pilot with 20 years experience and an engineer with 40, I'd listen to the pilot. If he's right, he dies.

The interview also talked about solid state rocket fuel, essentially a controlled explosion. Hawkins brought up the point that the fuel can be molded into a fuselage to look like just another component, and it wouldn't be ignited until its flashpoint was reached.

Like I said, these two have some new points to make, provocative, and it seems premature to dismiss this stuff.

I'd be curious to know, do any of you believe the Blackbird was the "fastest plane in the world" for half a century? That's what the U.S. govt tells us. Yet the aerospace industry never stops in its R&D. And NASA is the biggest money black-hole in the world. Those "$5,000 toilet seats" are really a $10 seat and a receipt for 5K. The other $4,990 goes to black-ops, likely as not NASA. I suspect the QRS-11 IS old technology to what's currently being produced in secret, but I also suspect that, in conjunction with other components, the QRS COULD be used as these men described. And if there's even a remote chance that a fleet of Boeing drone passenger jets is being created, doesn't that bother you? The below is the article from the first post...it describes the impossible-to-override auto-pilot. The article says it would make it impossible for another 9/11 to happen, but that's just flatly untrue. When the plane is out of the pilot's control, it is in SOMEONE'S control, or under the control of a computer that was programmed by someone. So the article is intentionally misleading. Intentionally. That, too, should raise some concerns. Why are they feeding you horseshit and telling you it's cake?

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

And, the Blackbird. Was that the fastest plan in the world for half a century?

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 12:50 PM

It will be interesting to see where their lawsuit takes them.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 12:54 PM

Having worked at Boeing for a number of years, I—

Aw, to hell with it! I don't have time for this.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 02:38 PM

I worked for a number of years for a pipe company. I had no idea what the corporate office was talking about with each other, with whom outside the company they talked, what their strategic plan was, etc. I did know the stuff I had to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: jeffp
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 05:47 PM

If I had to choose between the word of a pilot with 20 years experience and an engineer with 40, I'd listen to the pilot. If he's right, he dies.


How much do you know about the innards of your automobile?

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: GUEST,passerby
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 06:55 PM

You don't have to know the innards of a Ford Pinto to die in one. Some geenyus designed that little firebomb.

You aeronautics folks...was the Blackbird the fastest plane in the world for all those years?

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 07:14 PM

I'm reading this thread in utter bafflement. What on earth are you all talking about, please?

Maybe this is some story that's been covered in the US but not in Europe.

Are you saying that there are explosives wired into American airlines? Why? Why would anyone do that? Or is there some joke I'm missing?

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 08:04 PM

The Lockheed SR-71 "Blackbird" was powered by two Pratt and Whitney jet engines. It was rated at Mach 3, but actually achieved Mach 3.3 (2200 mph.) at an altitude of 80,000 feet). That's moving pretty good.

From an article about the Lockheed SR-71 "Blackbird:"

"The aircraft flew so fast and so high that if the pilot detected a surface-to-air missile launch, the standard evasive action was simply to accelerate."

The North American X-15, powered by a rocket engine, achieved a maximum speed of 4,520 mph. (Mach 6.85) and attained an altitude of 354,330 feet. The X-15 had an operational range of about 280 miles. The Blackbird had an operational range of about 3,000 miles.

But they had radically different propulsion systems and were built with much different functions in mind. I guess it depends on what you want to call an "airplane." Also, with craft able to achieve orbit (requiring an escape velocity of 7 miles per second) and capable of actually leaving the solar system (Voyager is long gone and still headed outward), speed and altitude records become just a little iffy.

So what's your point?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 08:41 PM

I think Don, the point is that Pratts are not confined only to the planes propulsion systems these days....

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: jeffp
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 08:49 PM

Your pilot knows as much about the inner workings of his airplane as you do about your car. Just enough to drive it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 09:16 PM

"Your pilot knows as much about the inner workings of his airplane as you do about your car. Just enough to drive it. "


Which is why engineers, not pilots investigate what bits broke when planes crash....

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 06:03 AM

I have just heard that the black boxes from the recent Garuda airlines crash which killed several Aussies were found to not be able to be read.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: Grab
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 07:32 AM

Like I said, these two have some new points to make

"New" does not equal "true". JK Rowling is releasing a new Harry Potter book this summer, but that doesn't mean I expect to be replacing the 767 with a broomstick.

If I had to choose between the word of a pilot with 20 years experience and an engineer with 40, I'd listen to the pilot.

My gran drove a car for 60 years. I wouldn't have asked her how a carbuerettor worked.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Pilot sues Boeing
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Mar 07 - 09:29 AM

The fastest manned glider is the Space Shuttle ( STS).