[andyt]

Hey, I often bike past a grassy field where I see planes being remote controlled. And Top Gear almost managed to remote control their space shuttle. So there.

None of the scenarios sound very likely because this is such an unlikely event. Maybe both pilots had heart attacks and nobody could get into the cockpit. Maybe they had the fish.

[Jabberwalker]

Maybe they were sucked up into the heavens by the Rapture. I'll bet that you never considered that possibility.

[andyt]

No, because they were not Christian. And I don't believe the Rapture works piecemeal like that - it's an all or nothing deal.

[Jabberwalker]

andyt andyt:

No, because they were not Christian. And I don't believe the Rapture works piecemeal like that - it's an all or nothing deal.

You know all of that, do you?

By the way, who says that Christians will be "raptured"? It might be reserved for strictly observant Buddhists, for all that we know. Who sets the criteria?

[andyt]

The Christian bible. Only those who are saved will be "caught up." You don't know this? Just go to Wikki.

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

The Christian bible. Only those who are saved will be "caught up." You don't know this? Just go to Wikki.

Haven't you shit up enough threads today ?

Having a complete fall on your face fail wasn't enough for you ?


STFU, idiot.

[BRAH]

CNN The Most Trusted Name in News!

[Regina]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The principal speculative theories I'm coming across in my circles are (in order of likelyhood):

1. The pilot did this deliberately for an as yet unknown reason. The radical course corrections and altitude changes the plane made and the fact that the course of the plane managed to avoid landfall in an area where it would be desired if there was an electrical fire indicate deliberate action.

2. Someone else took control of the plane for as yet unknown reasons.

3. On the extreme of possibilities but with the facts so far allowing for the possibility: Someone took over the plane by remote control and the radical course and altitude corrections are indicative of lag between the controller and the aircraft. The disposal of the plane in the Indian Ocean (as opposed to using it for a mission of some sort) is beacuse this was a test run of a capability and the disposal of the plane in the IO is to help hide that capability.

Absent any other info I'm going with #1 for now.

#1 is what happened and there was no fire.
#2 is possible ONLY if a passenger or crew outside the cockpit had the expertise to fly a 777. As of yet there is no one on the plane that has been identified with that capability and there would be no way for them to access the cockpit without force........and the rest of the passengers jumping him.
#3 is what crazy people who watch too much TV and have sat too close to radiation think up.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Those are the kind of things that drive me mental. Planes can't be remote controlled.

The jury is out on this. Boeing, Airbus, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls Royce all do remote monitoring of airliners in flight and the two engine makers do have the ability to make remote changes to the performance profiles of their products.

Could someone use those portals to do more than just adjust a jet engine mid-flight?

From my perspective as a network admin I'd say why not? We routinely worry about someone with remote access to one system using that portal to access something else. And all modern aircraft these days are just flying network systems with multiple portals for various things like on-board wifi, internet access, and remote access to onboard systems.

And these machines are all fly-by-wire.

Do I consider this to be a remote possibility? Yes.

Do I think it's impossible? Let's just say I know better than to say that.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

The Christian bible. Only those who are saved will be "caught up." You don't know this? Just go to Wikki.

Andy, just stop.

Hijacking every topic to smear Christians is bad form. No idea what got up your a** today that you're doing it but it's run its course.

[BartSimpson]

Regina Regina:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The principal speculative theories I'm coming across in my circles are (in order of likelyhood):

1. The pilot did this deliberately for an as yet unknown reason. The radical course corrections and altitude changes the plane made and the fact that the course of the plane managed to avoid landfall in an area where it would be desired if there was an electrical fire indicate deliberate action.

2. Someone else took control of the plane for as yet unknown reasons.

3. On the extreme of possibilities but with the facts so far allowing for the possibility: Someone took over the plane by remote control and the radical course and altitude corrections are indicative of lag between the controller and the aircraft. The disposal of the plane in the Indian Ocean (as opposed to using it for a mission of some sort) is beacuse this was a test run of a capability and the disposal of the plane in the IO is to help hide that capability.

Absent any other info I'm going with #1 for now.

#1 is what happened and there was no fire.
#2 is possible ONLY if a passenger or crew outside the cockpit had the expertise to fly a 777. As of yet there is no one on the plane that has been identified with that capability and there would be no way for them to access the cockpit without force........and the rest of the passengers jumping him.
#3 is what crazy people who watch too much TV and have sat too close to radiation think up.

We just don't know yet. Anyone saying anything conclusive at this point is out of line. Even the reasonable explanations are unfounded speculation for now.

[Regina]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Those are the kind of things that drive me mental. Planes can't be remote controlled.

The jury is out on this. Boeing, Airbus, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls Royce all do remote monitoring of airliners in flight and the two engine makers do have the ability to make remote changes to the performance profiles of their products.

Could someone use those portals to do more than just adjust a jet engine mid-flight?

From my perspective as a network admin I'd say why not? We routinely worry about someone with remote access to one system using that portal to access something else. And all modern aircraft these days are just flying network systems with multiple portals for various things like on-board wifi, internet access, and remote access to onboard systems.

And these machines are all fly-by-wire.

Do I consider this to be a remote possibility? Yes.

Do I think it's impossible? Let's just say I know better than to say that.

Nope impossible...........

[Regina]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

We just don't know yet. Anyone saying anything conclusive at this point is out of line. Even the reasonable explanations are unfounded speculation for now.

Maybe be for those who think it's a miracle when they see a plane in the air.

It was professionally executed from start to finish.The black box will tell them which seat switched the systems off and will point to the culprit.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Those are the kind of things that drive me mental. Planes can't be remote controlled.

The jury is out on this. Boeing, Airbus, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls Royce all do remote monitoring of airliners in flight and the two engine makers do have the ability to make remote changes to the performance profiles of their products.

$1:

Along with many conspiracy theories, one that nervous fliers are asking more and more as the mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Air Flight 370 enters its third week is whether it’s true that the 777′s computer controls could have been hacked, causing it to climb abruptly, descend and change course. A number of calls this morning resulted from a comment highlighted in a major newspaper that indicated the possibility of hacking the aircraft’s computer systems.

The short answer is, no. The aircraft systems cannot be hacked while the aircraft is in the air. The system was designed in such a way that changes cannot be made while the aircraft is in flight except from the cockpit. When the digital flight controls were first designed, care was specifically taken in the design to preclude the possibility of someone taking control of the aircraft remotely. The only way to program the flight computers in the air is by someone in the aircraft with a direct connection to the computers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/ ... be-hacked/

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Could someone use those portals to do more than just adjust a jet engine mid-flight?

From my perspective as a network admin I'd say why not? We routinely worry about someone with remote access to one system using that portal to access something else. And all modern aircraft these days are just flying network systems with multiple portals for various things like on-board wifi, internet access, and remote access to onboard systems.

And these machines are all fly-by-wire.

But also from your perspective as a network admin - you also know that remote administration can be limited to certain non-routable private addresses. You can look at some things regarding a network remotely, but it's next to impossible to make important changes remotely.

If they say that navigation is only changeable from the cockpit, I'll tend to believe them.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Do I consider this to be a remote possibility? Yes.

Do I think it's impossible? Let's just say I know better than to say that.

Neither will I say it's impossible. But I highly doubt it. Like you, option 1 makes the most sense to me.

[Regina]

$1:

The jury is out on this. Boeing, Airbus, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls Royce all do remote monitoring of airliners in flight and the two engine makers do have the ability to make remote changes to the performance profiles of their products.

They have nothing to do with control of flight surfaces and navigation.