The first plane was on its way to Heathrow in London. The second plane was flying out of London to Thailand.
1st incident
2nd incident (first reported by IBA contributor Ray Boyd)
Both stories note that this was a higlhly unusual occurrence. And yet, it happened twice in a week?
Jets often fly back and forth on the same route. Could both of these jets have been on routes which took them in and out of London on an almost daily basis? And, if so, is this an act of terrorism?
It looks like it very well could be.
And, if it is, is the culprit, or culprits behind this attack alive and ready to do it again?
Let's try to dig up more on this.
1st incident
2nd incident (first reported by IBA contributor Ray Boyd)
Both stories note that this was a higlhly unusual occurrence. And yet, it happened twice in a week?
Jets often fly back and forth on the same route. Could both of these jets have been on routes which took them in and out of London on an almost daily basis? And, if so, is this an act of terrorism?
It looks like it very well could be.
And, if it is, is the culprit, or culprits behind this attack alive and ready to do it again?
Let's try to dig up more on this.
To my knowledge there is no way to focus an emp.
ReplyDeleteI totally forgot the Qantas episode.
However
If the Qantas flight was 15 minutes out it had to be at substantial altitude, in the thousands of feet, the other flight was very near the ground.
Both Boeings. Who wrote the software? How is it updated? By whom and when?
Ray was speculating about an EMP. I agree with you that there is no EMP technology available which could account for this. I think, if this is a terror attacck it is a programming attack. Both planes lost power just prior to landing in England which would be what a trerorist would want to happen because London is very populous.
ReplyDeleteI doubt whether this could be done without infiltration of the Boeing software team. My guess is that to pull this sort of stunt you'd need access to the source code rather than hacking and bit-bashing the software as installed.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I don't understand the technology behind these systems. I am only noting this because it seems like an odd coincidence.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think it was EMP, that was just a comment I put on to spice it up. I think the computer driven flight control was possibly taken over. On the other hand the Quantas 747 is different technology so I don't know.
ReplyDeleteHi Ray,
ReplyDeleteAre you saying the 747 is not computer controlled?
The planes were not both landing at Heathrow. According to the first incident -- if I'm reading it corrctly -- the Qantas plane was flying FROM London 15 minutes from landing in Bangkok. But still, the London connection is there.
ReplyDeleteYes, thank you, Anonymous. I just fixed it.
ReplyDelete:)
Yes, not in the same way as the 777 or the Airbus. It depends how you define "computer". The 747 will have an autopilot and other computerised systems but the fly by wire system is total computer control of the flying surfaces and engine and will fly within flight parameters. i.e. it will not allow an aircraft to stall for instance.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean the pilot doesn't fly it, he does but within those parameters and no mechanical, hydraulic linkages to the flight controls.
In an emergency it can be overidden. I'm no expert but that's my understanding of it.
Both aircraft were in descent to landing. If it's software we could think about the rate of descent below a certain altitude combined with gear down and flaps in certain positions.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot to make me feel like this is 9/11 conspiracy type stuff, but who knows....
I was thinking along the lines of a device smuggled aboard, something that looks like a cellphone, which could generate a signal strong enough (and on the right frequency) to cripple the computers.
ReplyDeleteI think that, unless it was hand-controlled by a used who was actually on board the aircraft himself, this had to be a programmed error, because both planes "lost power" right before landing.
ReplyDelete