Remote Control: Aviation Expert Says Germanwings 9525 Could Have Been ‘Hacked Electronically’
Source: 21stcenturywire.com
Following a series of high-profile airline disasters, including Germanwings flight 9525, the mainstream media has seized the opportunity to openly push for ‘pilotless’ commercial airliners.There has been a concentrated effort to gain public support for pilotless commercial flights and other unmanned aerial aircraft in recent years. Those behind the concept have touted the development of such avionics under the guise of “safety concerns”, unfairly laying blame on pilots – without fully revealing all of the technological advancements which are currently installed on nearly every commercial airliner worldwide.
Image: ‘Empty Cockpit’ – In 2012, BAE Systems an aerospace, multinational defence and security company conducted summer trials for pilotless commercial flights. ( Photo link travelerstoday.com)
‘Fly-by-Wire’ Airliners
In a recent article appearing in the New York Times, entitled, “Planes Without Pilots“, the pseudo push for ‘remotely’ controlled commercial airliners is laid bare:
“Advances in sensor technology, computing and artificial intelligence are making human pilots less necessary than ever in the cockpit. Already, government agencies are experimenting with replacing the co-pilot, perhaps even both pilots on cargo planes, with robots or remote operators.”
Continuing, the report quotes, Parimal Kopardekar, a managing operator at NASA’s Ames Research Center:
“The industry is starting to come out and say we are willing to put our R&D money into that (referring to pilotless aircraft research funding).”
While the NASA quote from Kopardekar, claims that money has only recently been given to this field of research, it is a known fact, that NASA was already remotely flying Boeing 720 aircraft over thirty years ago.
In 1984, NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) joined efforts for a remote-controlled flight experiment called the Controlled Impact Demonstration(CID).
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.
As we suggested earlier in the week here at 21WIRE, the narrative and propaganda regarding Germanwings pilot Andreas Lubitz, appears to have been a well orchestrated smear campaign.
On March 26th, a Daily Mail article entitled,”Why can’t airlines seize control of doomed jets from the ground?“, emerged, revealing one of the largest mainstream media roll outs, regarding the BUAP fly by wire technology:
“Manufacturers in Europe and America have worked on ways of creating a ‘hijack-proof’ aircraft. In 2006, Boeing was awarded a US patent for an ‘uninterruptible’ autopilot system.”
“This would allow pilots, ground controllers or security agencies such as the CIA to activate an automatic flight mode that cannot be turned off by anyone on board.”
“The system could also switch itself on if terrorists tried to fight their way into the cockpit, with pressure sensors on the door responding to excessive force.”
Since 2006, we’ve seen what appears to be a methodical release of information about the existence of remote autopilot functions installed within Boeing commercial airliners. The very idea of an advanced flight system, that can disallow any pilot or potential hijacker from controlling a plane manually, has caused some to feel that passengers and crew are at a greater risk, because a plane could be electronically taken over at any time during a flight’s journey.
In a letter to the Financial Times, entitled, “Wait for air safety professionals to complete investigations,” the president of Chicago-based Indigo Aerospace, Matt Anderson suggested that the Germanwings plane disaster may have been caused by a hack in to the flight’s management systems from an unknown outside entity. The excerpt below is from TechWorm which cited the Financial Times letter:
“It could be from any number of causes, including external electronic hacking into the aircraft’s control and navigation systems through malware or electromagnetic interception.”
The TechWorm reportcontinues referencing Anderson’s apparent quotes from the FT letter by stating the following:
“Andersson points out: “Both the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and the flight data recorder (FDR) of the Germanwings flight 9525, along with other sources of information, have yet to be subject to international aircraft accident investigation standards.”
“Until they are, many broad assertions currently presented to the public may turn out to be erroneous, misleading or in some cases lead to improper or counterproductive regulatory and other reactions — including misplaced liability, financial and insurance claims.”
“Indeed the European Cockpit Association, which represents nearly 40,000 professional pilots, has rightly criticised the premature release of auditory interpretations of the aircraft’s CVR (whose condition remains unverified).”
“Moreover, these and other data interpretations continue to be channelled in part through state legal prosecutors who obviously may not be experts in aviation safety investigation — and which could arguably prejudice a formal technical assessment.
Take a look at the image capture below displaying part of Anderson’s aviation letter to the Financial Times website from April 7th…
In a March 12th report by Reuters, it was stated that Pyotr Fedotov, a 58-year-old resident of the village Chervonniy Zhovten in the Lugansk Region, had witnessed a surface-to-air missile launched from apparent rebel-held territory on the day MH17 was downed.
The following excerpt is from the controversial Reuters report:
“Fedotov, the witness who described the ‘wiggling’ rocket, at first said on camera that it was fired from territory held by the Ukrainian army. Later, off camera, he said it was launched from a nearby rebel area. Asked why he had originally said the opposite, he said it was because he was afraid of the rebels.”
As it urns out, the sentence discussing an off camera discussion was a ‘lie’ according to the Fedotov, as he told RT in a report from March 30th, entitled, “Reuters lied: MH17 witness says reporter falsified testimony.”
Here’s what Fedotov had said in response to the seemingly deceptive quote from Reuters:
“When we talked about the Boeing on camera, I explained everything as it was. The things that I allegedly said off-camera were just made up by the journalist. It’s all lies. Off-camera, we never discussed the Boeing.”
RT’s In The Now reports on the story…
Last December, we also reported here at 21WIRE, we had a report discussing Russia’s Investigative Committee confirming an eyewitness account of a Ukrainian warplane being deployed on the day of MH17’s subsequent downing by passing a lie detector test.
With the unearthed details associated with MH17 in 2014, former French airline CEO Marc Dugain claimed that the United States may have ‘stopped’ (shot down) missing airliner MH370, as it traveled through airspace near Diego Garcia.
There has been an unprecedented amount of propaganda associated with many recent airline disasters and some have been proven to have serious geopolitical consequences.
Beyond the obvious presence of the Uninterruptible Autopilot System here, notice how the media are using doublespeak to shield their propaganda surrounding this story – talking about the plane being ‘hacked’, when it’s far more likely that whoever took over the aircraft did so from a government or manufacturer’s control station. When you have the codes, the aircraft is not being “hacked”, just manipulated.
[...]
Read the rest: 21WIRE
