< ^ >
9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h
.com
.wtc7.net
Home
Analysis
New York City
collapsing buildings
other high-rise fires
other collapses
WTC 1, 2 collapses
design parameters
role of fires
fire severity
effects on steel
collapse features
explosive events
demolition squibs
frame shattering
concrete pulverization
dust volume
steel shredding
symmetry
mushrooming
speed of fall
demolition proofs
speed of fall
volume of dust
breakup of top
collapse theories
column failure theory
truss theory
demolition theories
basement bombs
nuclear devices
directed energy
radiant projectiles
distributed explosives
thermobarics
thermite
simulations
Building 7 collapse
rate of fall
controlled demolition
WTC 6, 5 holes
Pentagon
assault location
Pentagon videos
witnesses
forensics
impact damage
damage pattern
aircraft debris
shockwave
jetliner approach
theories
Eastman
Bart
attack from the air
NORAD stand-down
flight mysteries
phone calls
theories
suicide pilots
home run system
flight program
bumble planes
Flight 93 shoot-down
Won-Young Kim
follow-up attacks
anthrax
perpetrators
intent
minimized fatalities
maximized shock
conspiracy
Attack Scenario 404
whistleblowers
official actions
evidence destruction
investigation prevention
9-11 anomalies
top anomalies
historical precedents
Search
Essays
Reviews
Talks
Interviews
FAQs
Materials
Papers
Resources
Site Guide
About
Contact
Contribute
V 1.41
Copyright 2003-2013,
911Research.WTC7.net site last updated:3/21/13
fair use notice

Background Attack Aftermath Evidence Misinformation Analysis Memorial

Programmed Flight Control

Hacking the Flight Computers to Take Control of the Targeted Jetliners

The most popular alternative to the official conspiracy theory that Islamic terrorists commandeered the four jetliners on 9/11/01 is that flight control computers were taken over and directed to fly the planes into the targets.

Boeing 757s and 767s apparently use hydraulic systems to drive the control surfaces, like the elevators, ailerons, and rudder. Thus they are not 'fly-by-wire' in the same sense as the more recent 777s. However, 757s and 767s can be flown entirely under the control of their flight management computer systems (FMCS), according to Boeing.

A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer. 1  

Boeing also provides information on the ease of reprogramming various systems including the FMCS.

Airplane systems that can be modified with loadable software are standard on several later-model Boeing airplanes (see table 1). This feature allows operators to change the configuration of loadable systems without physically modifying or replacing hardware components. Benefits include the ability to meet new requirements, incorporate design improvements, and correct errors. In addition, software often can be loaded just in the time required to turn an airplane around for the next flight. A major advantage of changing system functionality without changing hardware is the reduced number of line replaceable unit (LRU) spares both operators and Boeing must keep in stock. 2  

There is a question of whether the takeover of the FMCS by some means would disable the cockpit controls, preventing the flight crew from regaining control of the aircraft. If the controls have direct mechanical linkages to the hydraulic systems, then the crew could probably overcome automated control by simply applying more force to the controls. However, if something had incapacitated or killed the flight crew and passengers first, then the FMCS presumably could have flown the planes into the targets without interference. It is not difficult to imagine a scenario by which the cabin could have been filled with a potent gas at a predetermined point in its flight. For example, the fact that cabin pressure varies as a predictable function of altitude would allow a barometric-triggered device to go off at a predetermined point in a flight.


References

1. 757-200 Background, boeing.com, [cached]
2. Onboard Loadable Software, boeing.com, [cached]

page last modified: 2009-09-11