Just a thought, German wings (tragedy) and AF447 (Air France tragedy) have one or two things in common. The main one is the most experience pilot (the Captain) had left the flight deck either to rest , stretch his legs, take a pee…the other they had crossed out of one radar zone into another (like in the case of MH370) just saying………I dont think Lubitz (the german pilot) commited suicide, and probably neither did the young frenchman fuck up. which leaves us with some rather horrible questions…….
1- were both planes or the three taken over? If so taken over by whom and how and to what purpose??
2- what happened to the paseengers of these above mentioned airliners and the ones in 911?
Ok, this is an honest question, so I would like honest answers. It’s not my intention to create a big debate. The reason I’m asking this is because for me, pilot suicide has always been my personal theory. I can’t understand how a plane could have changed courses so much, possibly changed altitude, without anyone involved. From my little understanding of plane crashes, they tend to build up in a short frame of time and go down fast.
The fact that both pilots were deemed sane, not suicidal, means very little (to me). I know of people who’ve been married for years and have no idea of what each other is thinking . People have married serial killers, terrorists, pedos, etc. Who’s to say there wasnt much more going on the pilot’s private life? Lots of people, especially men, are very hard to read. Being nice to strangers while being shit to your close ones isn’t terribly uncommon; what I mean is that the no apparent changes in mood or life in the captains life doesn’t mean his life was alright. Is it not okay to presume that some people can kill others in cold blood? Maybe I’m crazy, but to me it just makes so much sense that someone flying the plane didn’t just crash it right after take off, but took it on a joy ride. We are talking about a person who loved flying and was in control of a very expensive machine. If he was spending hours flying somewhere/nowhere on his own simulator, why wouldn’t he want to do the same but with a million dollar real plane? I think when people say but “why take all those innocents with him, it makes no sense”, they’re trying to see him the way they see themselves: most of us would never crash a plane on purpose. It may not make sense to us, but think about it. What does 230 faceless people could have meant for the pilot? Why would he care about them if he didn’t care about leaving a widow and fatherless children? I firmly believe that the moment that plane changed its course was the no way back moment. What could he do? Land back and apologize he almost offed them all? The further it went into the open ocean, turning back would become less and less appealing. At some point it was just too late for that.
Regarding the flight paths found on his simulator, imagine if they were flown by any other doomed flight pilot, say the air France 447 pilots, would that mean anything? But here we have a flight gone missing in very strange circumstances piloted by a man who coincidentally flew a route ending nowhere in the SIO. Was he in the habit of flying nowhere? If so, why hasn’t Malaysia said hey, this is the same guy who also flew to the middle of Greenland or something.
And last, if he was there all the way to the end, I don’t see why he couldn’t have just let the plane crash. He was done anyways, the result was going to be the same pretty much. I do think someone went to high lengths to make this plane be hard enough to find. I wish someone would tell me what the implications or consequences for the aviation industry would be if it turns out to be a pilot suicide, especially considering that slightly over a year later, Andreas Lubitz from Germanwings crashed his own plane. So people who have an alternate theory, I’m curious to know which evidence do you deem supports a technical failure and for those who don’t believe it was suicide, please state your honest opinion like I just gave mine. I won’t debate them, I just want to know what you guys think.
EDIT: Has anyone ever read about how Malaysians deal with mental issues? I’ve been wondering. Because none of the pilots had a history of mental issues, but keep in mind this is Malaysia we are talking about. Mental health issues are still taboo or largely ignored in many Asian countries.
(its all one big smear)
Germanwings pilot Andreas Lubitz kept diary that shows his descent into depression
Investigators discover sheet of paper Lubitz left dated March 22, on which he wrote “Decision Sunday”, followed by the BCN, the code for Barcelona airport
Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot who deliberately crashed his Germanwings flight killing everyone on board, kept a diary that reveals how profoundly disturbed he was in the months leading up to the disaster, it has emerged.
The diary and other details uncovered in the German investigation raise serious questions over why Lubitz’s doctors did not alert the authorities to the danger he posed, according to details leaked to the German press.
Investigators have discovered a sheet of paper Lubitz left dated March 22, on which he wrote “Decision Sunday”, followed by the BCN, the code for Barcelona airport.
Two days later, on March 24, he deliberately flew Flight 4U9525 from Barcelona to Düsseldorf into the French Alps, killing all 150 people on board.
Until now, the German authorities have released few details of Lubitz’s confidential medical files.
But details of the investigaton leaked to Spiegel and Bild newspaper indicate that he was being treated for depression for months ahead of the crash.
As part of his psychotherapy, Lubitz kept a “happiness diary” between January 1 and March 8 this year.
The co-pilot’s girlfriend has told investigators she had no idea he had mental health issues.
But the pages of the “happiness diary” reveal that Lubitz’s mind was in turmoil. He was suffering from severe insomnia, and writes of getting as little as three and a half hours sleep a night.
Between the pages are prescriptions for powerful antidepressants and tranquillisers.
Lubitz’s descent into suicidal depression appears to have begun when he stared experiencing blurred vision in December 2014.
An ophthalmologist examined him and found no cause for concern, but it appears Lubitz did not believe him. In the next few weeks he visited more than a dozen eye specialists. None could find anything wrong with him, but Lubitz was convinced something was going terribly wrong with his eyesight.
He was recommended to seek psychotherapy and in January, plagued by stress and insomonia, he went to see a psychiatrist, who diagnosed him with depression.
Lubitz had suffered a previous major depressive episode in 2008, which forced him to take a break from his pilot’s training.
If the airline or the aviation authorities knew that Lubitz’s depression had returned, it would have been the end of his career as a pilot.
While German patient confidentiality laws are strict, doctors are supposed to inform the authorities if they believe a patient is a danger to the public.
But the psychiatrist said nothing to Lubitz’s employers or the air safety authorities. He prescribed the pilot mirtazapine, a powerful antidepressant that can have dangerous side effects.
Mirtazapine had appeared to help Lubitz emerge from his 2008 depression. But in some cases, rather than lifting a patient’s mood, the drug can cause suicidal thoughts.
Lubitz’s condition continued to deteriorate. A diagnosis from a neurological clinic in February records him as suffering from “hypochondriacal disorder” and adds “Suicidal thoughts were denied”.
But in March, his GP warned of “imminent psychosis” and referred him to a psychiatric outpatient clinic. Lubitz didn’t go, and again, the airline and air safety authorities were told nothing.
By then, Lubitz appears to have been taking a dangerous cocktail of different antidepressants and other drugs prescribed by various doctors.
In the final weeks before the crash, he spent long hours alone searching online for ways to commit suicide. His internet searches included “what poison kills painlessly?” and “death by petrol”.
He signed a “living will” indicating he did not want to be kept alive if seriously incapacitated, and added a handwritten note saying he wanted to be allowed to die if he was deaf or blind.
His GP had given him a sick note excusing him from work from March 12 to 30, but Lubitz went anyway.
The day before the crash,. Lubitz flew as co-pilot on a positioning flight to move an empty aircraft from Düsseldorf to Berlin. The captain told investigators the landing was “challenging” and Lubitz flew “very well”.
Ominously, however, they spoke about the 9/11 attacks and the reinforced cockpit doors that have since been fitted to passenger aircraft – the same door Lubitz would use to lock the captain out of the cockpit on the fatal flight the next day.
That evening, Lubitz’s girlfriend told investigators, she came home to find him preparing dinner. They ate together, sat and watched television, then slept. She had no idea that he would fly 150 people to their deaths the next day.
FLIGHT CONTROL: Boeing’s ‘Uninterruptible Autopilot System’, Drones & Remote Hijacking
21st Century Wire
Following the apparent ‘vanishing act’ of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370, many investigators and researchers began to question the likelihood of such an event happening in today’s high-tech world.
At 21WIRE, we’ve also looked into the unprecedented disappearance of MH370 and thesubsequent downing of MH17, as certain details have come to light regarding the history of the remote autopilot function installed within Boeing commercial airliners (a subject which also opens the door to the events of 9/11).
The Boeing 777 along with other Boeing models, can in fact be flown remotely through the use of independent embedded software and satellite communication. Once this advanced system is engaged, it can disallow any pilot or potential hijacker from controlling a plane, as the rooted setup uses digital signals that communicate with air traffic control, satellite links, as well as other government entities for the remainder of a flight’s journey.
This technology is known as the Boeing Honeywell ‘Uninterruptible’ Autopilot System.
The mere existence of this technology would most certainly provide the final piece to a number of seemingly unsolved airline disaster puzzles in recent years…
IMAGE: ‘A jet for the 21st century’ – An interior view of a Boeing 777-200 ER cockpit (Photo:becuo.com)
In the case of MH370, the aircraft’s Rolls Royce Trent 892 Engines sent ‘automated pings’ independent of the plane’s transponder, to a British Inmarsat satellite for several hours after subsequently losing contact with air traffic controllers. The automated information gave an up-to-date diagnosis as to the well-being of the two engines, which according to data received, were fully operational and showed no signs of electrical damage. Rolls Royce has a partnership that requires the engine to transmit live data to its global engine health monitoring center in Derby, UK, every 30 minutes. Investigators are said to have used the ACARS information uploaded to the engine maker.
Uninterruptible flight control
On December 4th of 2006, it was announced that Boeing had won a patent on an uninterruptible autopilot system for use in commercial aircraft. This was the first public acknowledgment by Boeing about the existence of such an autopilot system.
The new autopilot patent was reported by John Croft for Flight Global, with the news piece subsequently linked by a Homeland Security News Wire and other British publications around the same time. According to the DHS release, it was disclosed that “dedicated electrical circuits” within an onboard flight system could control a plane without the need of pilots, stating that the advanced avionics would fly the aircraft remotely, independently of those operating the plane:
“The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.”
The Flight Global news wire goes on to report that the uninterruptible autopilot system was designed for increased security in the event of a manual hijacking situation, as Boeing itself describes the feature as a preventative measure, keeping unauthorized persons out of a cockpit, setting the stage for an industry wide safety protocol:
“There is a need in the industry for a technique that conclusively prevents unauthorised persons for gaining access to the controls of the vehicle and therefore threatening the safety of the passengers onboard the vehicle, and/or other people in the path of travel of the vehicle, thereby decreasing the amount of destruction individuals onboard the vehicle would be capable of causing.”
Additionally, in the article entitled, “Diagrams: Boeing patents anti-terrorism auto-land system for hijacked airliners,” Croft outlines the clandestine oversight that government has with respect to the uninterruptible autopilot, making note of the auto-land function of the system and stating thatthe technology has its own power supply self-sufficient of any electrical systems on the plane:
“To make it fully independent, the system has its own power supply, independent of the aircraft’s circuit breakers. The aircraft remains in automatic mode until after landing, when mechanics or government security operatives are called in to disengage the system.”
IMAGE: The United States patent for the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot dated November, 28th 2006 (Photo: flightglobal.com)
Boeing and Honeywell have been heavily involved in UAV technology for both civilian and military applications for many decades and in the case of Honeywell, they’ve cornered the aerospace market through the consolidation of many avionics based companies along with their patents. Some researchers have suggested that both corporations could ‘recoup’ the cost of their applied science technology for military development from the commercial sector. It has also been said that Boeing and Honeywell developed existing patents for the Department of Defense for over 40 years including the BHAUP system.
A pilotless pursuit with precision guided munitions
The idea of remote controlled avionics is nothing new.
In actuality, ‘fly-by-wire‘ electronic signal technology has its roots in the early 20th Century and if you go back even further the realization of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) takes us back to 1849, where Austria was said to have launched 200 pilot-less bomb filled balloons over the city of Venice, resulting in the Republic of San Marco being besieged by Austrian forces less than a week later. Additionally, in 1898, the well-known inventor and engineer Nikola Tesla, had successfully demonstrated remote control technology through the creation of two small radio powered boats.
The advancement of radio controlled unmanned aircraft was seen during WW1 with the ‘pilot-less’ biplane and aerial torpedo known as the Kettering Bug, a primitive UAV that according to some estimates, was capable of hitting ground targets nearly 40 miles away.
The ‘Bug’ had a similar method to the Wright Brothers dolly track system powered flights of the early 1900’s but needed a better autopilot function, which prompted Kettering to enlist American engineer and inventor Elmer Sperry with his gyroscopic stabilizers that revolutionized the autopilot feature and with it the concept of remote control flight.
IMAGE: ‘Blood & Bones’ – Charles Kettering’s ‘Bug’ UAV, he was also known for his discovery and production of tetra-ethyl lead or TEL apparently left over 5 million toxic tons of the substance within the United States. It has been said there were vast implications of TEL genetically speaking, particularly in terms of the amount of lead exposure in humans, leading to blood, bone and cell toxicity (Photo: commons.wikimedia.org)
Coincidentally, as Charles Kettering‘s ‘Bug’ biplane gained notoriety, Kettering’s research team discovered the high-octane booster called tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) which prompted the interest of several manufacturer’s from around the globe, notably, the Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, GM, Ethyl Gasoline Corporation and the Nazi-linked chemical corporation IG Farben before the second world war. A consortium of American companies were openly engaged in fueling the development of many of the Nazi party’s military pursuits, as the occupying faction latched on to the pilot-less Kettering Bug concept, creating a fleet of their own unmanned flying-projectiles known as Buzz Bombs, which tormented London during WW2.
Later, under Operation Paper Clip, the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) employed many of the scientists and engineers affiliated with the applied military development for the Nazi party, including a division of scientists working on remote control technology. The former German operatives were scrubbed and ‘bleached’ of their dark past, as they were allowed to work for the United States government unbeknownst to the vast majority of public at the time.
In the mid 1940’s, there was a strong push for remote controlled flying vehicles like the GB-1 Glide Bomb, along with several other UAV drone-types that had been developed for various military operations towards the end of the World War. The GB-4 could engage targets via a television camera located underneath its warhead but could only function properly in the best weather conditions.
Around this same time, the disastrous Operation Aphrodite was conducted using B-17’s and B-24’s with a gutted interior. They were fully loaded with Torpex explosives. While manned crews operated the first part of the journey, later the crew would attempt to parachute out over the English Channel, giving control of the craft over to a manned mothership remotely, communicating with ground control units.
In 1944, apparently flying a B17 Flying Fortress (although some suggest it could have been a different aircraft), Lt Joseph Kennedy and co-pilot Lt Wilford John Willy failed the manned portion of their mission, as the pair were unable to parachute out before the aircraft’s explosives detonated supposedly due to an electrical malfunction, marking the demise of the military operation. Kennedy’s alleged target was the underground Nazi military complex, the Fortress of Mimoyecques. The operation is said to have had only one successful mission after a dozen or so failed flights operations.
In 1946, the Pilotless Aircraft Branch was created during the rise of the RAND corporation’s first classified projects, as it has been said that RAND research began looking into satellite controlled vehicles, noting that satellites could be applied to all types of military and civilian applications in the future.
The creation of combat UAV’s
In March of 1996, the RQ-3 DarkStar drone manufactured by Lockeed Martin and Boeing, could make an entirely human free flight, with its operating ‘sensors’ acquiring targets and the transmission of flight path information in a ‘fully autonomous’ way. It is also important to note that the programming language used in a Boeing 777, is the same language used for Boeing’s DarkStar drone – Ada-95 programming.
The blend of old bomb-based UAV’s and surveillance drones took shape in the late 90’s with many advancements made to the electronic systems during the 80’s, including the addition of real-time spy capabilities.
The creation of the War on Terror, along with 9/11, ushered in a whole new realm of defense spending for armed drone technology, marking the age of weaponized UAV’s, with the Global Hawk, Predator and Reaper drones used in the extrajudicial killing of targeted individuals and enemy combatants with or without a ‘hot’ battlefield, which has become the most lucrative business model for defense contractors and the military industrial complex since the turn of the century.
IMAGE: ‘Battle of the Atlantic’ – The Royal Air Force Consolidated B-24 Liberator. The RAF operated most of the first production of the B-24’s when they were completed. During Operation Aphrodite some were converted to be used in manned/unmanned missions (Photo:airspacemag.com)
IMAGE: ‘Combat Dawn’ The Ryan Aeronautical Lightning Bug, along with the Ryan Firebee drone missions consisted primarily of intelligence gathering, radio monitoring and reconnaissance. Both were controlled remotely to spy on China, North Korea and Vietnam, during the 60’s and 70’s. The Vietnam War spy drones were the basis for the use of modern drones (Photo: understandingtheempire.com)
Remote control over commercial aircraft
The NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) joined efforts for a remote controlled flight experiment called the Controlled Impact Demonstration(CID), in 1984.
The test conducted included the use of a remote controlled Boeing 720 aircraft to study the ‘effectiveness’ of anti-misting kerosene or (AMK), during what was considered to be a survivable impact. The AMK was added to standard jet fuel to suppress the explosion upon the purposeful impact. This is the description of what happened during the flight experiment according to NASA’s own website:
“On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent to-landing to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8 degree glide slope. The landing gear was left retracted. Passing the decision height of 150 feet above ground level (AGL), the aircraft was slightly to the right of the desired path. Just above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a “go-around,” there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the centerline of the runway. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low. The fire and smoke took over an hour to extinguish.”
IMAGE: ‘ Remotely Downed’ – This was an interior picture of the Boeing 720 that was used in the Controlled Impact Demonstration in 1984 via remote control telemetry systems (Photo:dfrc.nasa.gov)
The controlled impact operation was outlined as an innocuous flight study for safety but its important to keep in mind that this was one of the first pieces of evidence that a large commercial airliner could be flown by remote uplink and ‘pulse code modulated’ downlink telemetry systems – a full 17 years before 9/11, and 30 years before the apparent disappearance of MH370.
Uplink signals were sent from a ground cockpit control to the aircraft’s omnidirectional antenna proving a large Boeing could be flown remotely nearly two decades before the September 11th tragedy:
“The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.”
IMAGE: ‘Drone Jet’ – NASA’s N833NA, was a remotely-piloted Boeing 720 airliner, here you see it making a practice approach over the impact zone on Rogers Dry Lake, California on December 1st, 1984, following 4 years of preparation. The crash test was widely regarded as a complete failure in terms of the flame-reducing fuel additive, but the real prize was remotely flying a huge airliner, which was a soaring success (Photo: thisdayinaviation.com)
The YouTube video below has the original footage of the CID crash test conducted in 1984, showing that the Boeing 720 was remote controlled with ease before its intended impact…
In October of 2001, Raytheon designed and successfully developed a GPS ground station through an Air Force contract with the Joint Precision Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program. This system was said to be an anti-jam landing system for various weather conditions with “planned civil systems utilizing the same technology.”Raytheon and JPALS conducted 6 automated landings with the JPALS feature configured on the Boeing 727:
“The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using the JPALS ground station. “The consistency of the approaches allowed us to proceed to actual autolandings with very little delay,” said Steve Kuhar, Senior Technical Advisor Flight Department for FedEx Express.”
9/11 & remote technology
After the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, President Bush called for the creation of remote control systems in commercial airliners in the event of an emergency, granting air traffic controllers along with other government agencies control over an aircraft – for its final intended destination.
Based on history, we know that the Flight Management Systems within Boeing models are capable of assisting the entire flight through its remote autopilot functions at least since 1984, well before Bush’s politically charged ‘remote control’ flight claim in the aftermath of 9/11.
In the mid-80’s, the coded software on the plane would send data to ground control stations, accepting any return flight information or auto-land command. In addition to civilian aircraft being flown remotely before it was acknowledged, the U.S. Air Force apparently constructed an F-106 Delta Dart fighter to be controlled remotely on a combat mission in 1959 under the direction of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).
There is also a long-held theory that the company Lufthansa, Germany’s state-owned airline, had their onboard flight controls stripped from its fleet during the mid 1990’s for fear that the American government could hack into the airline’s autopilot systems. This idea has been loosely associated with the interview of former German Defense Minister Andreas von Bülowconducted by Stephan Lebert for the German Daily discussing some of the major anomalies in the events surrounding 9/11:
“There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: According to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots’ hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system].”
Von Bülow continued by outlining the difficulty of pulling off such a cataclysmic plot without a massive support apparatus from state-run operations:
“I can state: the planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry.”
It’s difficult to know if Von Bülow’s account of the alleged British flight engineer is true, but many researchers and investigators have cited a man by the name of Joe Vallis, as the apparent insider engineer, who according to other sources, was said to have spilled state secrets about the alleged remote control ‘Home Run’ technology supposedly involving two American multinational corporations and DARPA, during the 1970’s.
Critics have charged that Vallis was nothing more than an agent provocateur with ties to British intelligence, sending internet sleuths on a fruitless journey.
Whether or not Vallis was a real whistleblower – or a partially mythologized creation following 9/11, its important to remember that there are autopilot patents similar to the kind that were supposedly discussed by Vallis and when you couple that with the entire history remote control technology, a compelling case begins to emerge, as advanced uninterruptible autopilot avionics could have been in full use prior to 9/11.
Here’s a YouTube clip of the former German Member of Parliament and Government Defense Minister discussing the manufactured nature of 9/11 and the profitable War on Terror that followed…
There are so many questions when looking at 9/11 and one of the more important topics that keeps coming up over the years, is the unlikely act that inexperienced terror-pilots were able to precisely fly a Boeing 767, or 757 with almost zero room for error into the Pentagon and WTC buildings, as it has been said that flight UA 175 maintained a constant ‘angle of bank’ that stretched for apparently 1.2 miles, before it collided with WTC 2, prompting many investigators to hypothesize the possibility of remote control flight, including 9/11 researcher, Aidan Monaghan,in an article for Boiling Frogs Post:“The observed turn stability favors the use of autopilot operation, either functioning in a conventional course control mode or in Control Wheel Steering (CWS) mode. The probability that either of these two control systems were used is discussed. Flight deck images of United and American airlines 757s and 767s suggest that such CWS functions may have been disabled circa 2001. Constant radius turns utilizing plotted way-points during commercial aviation operations are routinely supported by augmented GPS navigation service and related commercial Flight Management Systems (FMS) available circa 2001.”
The information below, provides historical context to the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot Patent…
In 1914, the American multinational conglomerate known as Honeywell,
began acquiring and merging with various companies to create Honeywell Aerospace and was well on its way to becoming the largest manufacturer of aircraft engines and avionics.
Historically speaking, the Sperry Corporation held the very first autopilot patent in 1916 and in August of 1956, Honeywell had its first autopilot patent, ushering the race for future UAV technology in its multifaceted applications with the Automatic control apparatus for aircraft patent US 2953329 A. Through Honeywell’s acquisition of many aerospace and avionics based companies a number of patents for future use were consolidated under their ownership. From the 1950’s through the 1980’s Honeywell had many technological breakthroughs, whether it was the Ring Laser Gyroscope in 1958, a device that determined acceleration information for navigation and better flight control, or the Glass Cockpit digital displays of 1980, which was driven by the Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) software, both of these advances in avionics were vital to the creation of the uninterruptible autopilot, as its combined precursor.
Boeing filed for a patent called “Composite Aircraft” in 1954 that related to the ‘method and means’ to control an airliner.
In 1984 and 1986, Honeywell had two very important patents pertaining to the modernization of Flight Management System technology, both helping with the integration of automated flight digital data processing and in 1995, Boeing filed a patent for an “alternate destination planner,” to be used in conjunction with other Honeywell patents.
In 1995, Boeing and Honeywell participated in the Category III-b flight test conducted at NASA’s Wallops Island, Virginia, using a Boeing 757 completing a number of automated landings. The functionality of automated flight returns benefited greatly from the realization of global positioning systems (GPS) around that time.
There are many other patents between Boeing and Honeywell that also aided in the development of the BHAUP system. Airline manufacturers and avionics makers benefited greatly from theTechnological Revinvestiment Project TRP) that was put in place by President Clinton in 1993, as the TRP was said to grant funds to certain companies of ‘merit’ for products that had both a civilian and military purpose.
In a YouTube report by James Corbett we see a how the questions of MH370, could lead us to the answers of 9/11…