Missing Airliner

Rex and Fast Cargo you are both correct.

The pilots do have the enter zero fuel weight and total fuel into the flight management system when they are pre-flighting. The FMS is what is used to plot the course from point to point and the auto-pilot/auto-throttle systems use as guide points for vectoring. The FMS will calculate fuel burned over the route based on throttle input as well as pilot input for wind velocity/direction. It does not look at the fuel quantity system to figure actual fuel used, but is rather a guide for the pilots if they need to make corrections or change routes in flight. The fuel quantity indication system will keep track of fuel burned and is accurate enough the pilots rely on it. So at way-point such and such a pilot might see FMS calculates thirty minutes fuel left(hypothetical). He then checks the "gauge" and hopefully they agree. If not the "gauge" is correct and he adjusts accordingly.
ZFW and Total fuel calculations are used for maximizing take-off power based on PAX/Cargo weight, field pressure, temperature and run-way length. Saving fuel is saving money so while you may be capable of producing 25,000 lbs thrust per engine, you won't use that much depending on your take-off config. So pilot input of fuel quantities are very important and on all the aircraft I've experience with, the systems aren't integrated to do this for them.
Most all fuel quantity systems are capacitance type. Measuring tank density rather than level. Fuel quantity indication can be MEL'd so long as the tank is "sticked" at each station. However, only one wing is capable of being deferred and it's a hot item. Usually they don't pass thru a MTX base without being fixed. And yes the fuelers and airplane have to agree otherwise the system needs troubleshot, deferred, fixed whatever. The flow meters are on the engines and are used for starting references as well as power calculations. The fuel meter system doesn't care that E1 flow meter says it's burning 2,000 lbs per hour while E2 says 900(just an example...). Fuel metering just sees that 10lbs were removed from that tank and reports it.

While I haven't worked every plane out there, this is pretty standard on Boeing, Airbus, Embrear, Canadair Regional Jets-all transport category aircraft, and a large variety in technological skills.

I personally believe someone stole this plane. Either for the plane, cargo, or passengers. No matter what happened, I don't think it ends well for the passengers.


Mark

Fixin' to have a news conference....seems the Australian PM contacted the Maylay PM and told him they "found something" and that "all people on the plane are dead."

British Air Accident Board working with Inmarsat reckon it crashed going South. Apparently they were able to work out where it was from satellite data, at least approximately. No idea why at the moment but now the search area is at least a bit smaller, though still huge, it may be possible to run seabed sonar and perhaps recover it.

Way out there with a couple of "facts" but still slightly more plausible than randomly turning it around and flying into oblivion...

The Americans are withdrawing from Afghanistan; one of their command and control systems (used for controlling pilotless drones) was hijacked by the Taliban when an American transport convoy was moving down from one of the hill-top bases. The Taliban ambushed the convoy and killed 2 American Seal personnel, seized the equipment/weapons, including the command and control system which weighed about 20 tons and packed into 6 crates. This happened about a month ago in Feb 2014. What the Taliban wants is money. They want to sell the system to the Russians or the Chinese. The Russians are too busy in Ukraine. The Chinese are hungry for the system's technology. Just imagine if the Chinese master the technology behind the command and control system, all the American drones will become useless. So the Chinese sent 8 top defense scientists to check the system and agreed to pay millions for it.

Sometime in early Mar 2014 the 8 scientists and the 6 crates made their way to Malaysia thinking that it was the best covert way to avoid detection. The cargo was then kept in the Embassy under diplomatic protection. Meanwhile the Americans have engaged the assistance of Israeli intelligence and together they are determined to intercept and recapture the cargo.

The Chinese calculated that it would be safer to transport it via civilian aircraft so as to avoid suspicion. After all the direct flight from KL to Beijing takes only 4 and half hours and the Americans will not hijack or harm a civilian airliner. So MH370 is the perfect carrier.

There were 5 American and Israeli agents onboard who were familiar with Boeing aircraft operation. The 2 "Iranians" with stolen passports could be among them.

When MH370 was about to leave Malaysian air space and report in to Vietnamese air control an American AWAC jammed their signal, disabled the pilot control system and switched over to remote control mode. That was when the plane lost altitude momentarily.

How the AWAC can do it ? Remember 911 incident ? After the 911 incident all Boeing aircraft (and possibly all Airbus) are installed with a remote control system to counter terrorist hijacking. Since then all Boeing aircraft can be remote controlled by a ground control tower. The same remote control system used to control the pilotless spy aircraft and drones.

The 5 American/Israeli agents soon took over the plane, switched off the transponder and other communication systems, changed course and flew westwards. They dared not fly east to Philippines or Guam because the whole South China Sea air space was covered by Chinese surveillance radar and satellites.

The Malaysian, Thai and Indian military radar actually detected the unidentified aircraft but none reacted professionally.

The plane flew over North Sumatra, Anambas, South India and landed at the Maldives (some villagers saw the aircraft landing), refuelled and continued its flight to Diego Garcia, the American Air Base in the middle of Indian Ocean. The cargo and the black box were removed. The passengers were silenced by natural means, lack of oxygen. MH370 with dead passengers took off again using remote control and crashed into South Indian Ocean to make it look that the plane eventually ran out of fuel and crashed.

Click to expand...

I dunno, maybe somebody got a hold of one of Tom Clansy's unwritten novels.

Malaysia has a small but modern air force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Malaysian_Air_Force#Aircraft During the 9-11 attacks, two F16 aircraft were scrambled to intercept United Airlines Flight 93. Officials maintain these fighter jets never reached their potential target. Did Malaysian officials receive similar warnings about an impending attack upon Kuala Lumpur? https://www.google.com/search?q=kua...ala_lumpur_malaysia-wallpapers.html;1600;1200

Just a thought.

Way out there with a couple of "facts" but still slightly more plausible than randomly turning it around and flying into oblivion...

Click to expand...

Still way out there, but interestingly enough, the post above and the links below all have one thing in common. Diego Garcia.
For what it's worth to you.

https://www.realfarmacy.com/breaking-hijacked-flight-370-passenger-sent-photo-from-hidden-iphone-tracing-back-to-secret-u-s-military-base-diego-garcia/ BTW, yes, I do see the date this article was posted however it has nothing to do with the article. If you read the links, the information & photo were posted on March 18th.

https://realnewsaustralia.com/2014/04/06/mh370-diego-garcia-calls-for-empty-cargo-ship-for-travel-and-relocation-moving-bodies/ I happened to see this on a friends FB page this morning.

With the long list of oddities and abnormalities of the disappearance of this flight, the fact it flew for at least 4 hours after losing a transponder signal, the passengers phones still ringing through when called, and now the fact that the national media is claiming it had to have crashed, seemingly forgetting about all the evidence that says it didn't and the lack of evidence that says it did, the plausibility that a sophisticated covert military operation has been behind it all doesn't seem to be that far fetched. But if it did happen, we will never know or get a full admission and anyone who believes it did happen will be ridiculed and called a nut. All hail the national media! LOL

I find it disturbing that folks put so much energy in bizarre conspiracy theories when there are plenty of rational explanations available.

The conspiracy theories lend to hope. As long as the plane has not been found, there is always hope. People secretly held for ransom is a far better scenario for their loved ones than accepting that they won't even be able to collect remains from the sea floor.


Mark

With the long list of oddities and abnormalities of the disappearance of this flight, the fact it flew for at least 4 hours after losing a transponder signal, the passengers phones still ringing through when called, and now the fact that the national media is claiming it had to have crashed, seemingly forgetting about all the evidence that says it didn't and the lack of evidence that says it did, the plausibility that a sophisticated covert military operation has been behind it all doesn't seem to be that far fetched. But if it did happen, we will never know or get a full admission and anyone who believes it did happen will be ridiculed and called a nut. All hail the national media! LOL

Click to expand...

Agreed Scott,

There's a lot of crazy theory's out there.

My thoughts are that the media spoon-fed supply of rational explanations are the direct source for all the bizarre conspiracy theories.

The very fact that "WE" as a news consuming society are lead to believe a half dozen or more third world countries stories of: "Nope, we didn't see much on radar" is utterly questionable by its very nature.

Plenty of AWAC's in the neighborhood I might add...Yeah, nope, we didn't see it either, three seven zero musta tried to fly to Cuba via Antarctica.

The northern arc possibility of this aircraft's flight path was negated almost immediately ...Why?

So, the media story is that this plane made a deliberate and intentional (let's add incognito)...(let's also add already over a perfectly good ocean to martyr itself into)...left turn on its way to Beijing, randomly/strategically curved its way around the least radar covered topography, then made another left turn and flew until it ran out of gas and crashed into one of the planet Earth's most remote oceans.

Very...convenient

Maybe I just have some twisted understanding of Ockham's razor...My apologies.

Interesting article at https://news.seadiscovery.com/post/2014/04/04/Bluefin-21-AUV.aspx about the AUV deployed to look for wreckage.

Because conspiracy theories are fun. THAT'S WHY!

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...otograph-from-a-hijacked-passenger-of-mh-370/

…and it causes grief to those who are too, um, tight to let their imagination run loose.

I was considering the notion that perhaps neither the flight crew not the passengers had anything to do with the events that unfolded around then, when a friend sent this to me:

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/03/27/flight-370-the-cia-hoax-gordon-duff/

Vaportrail, is this really possible?

I was considering the notion that perhaps neither the flight crew not the passengers had anything to do with the events that unfolded around then, when a friend sent this to me:

Click to expand...

You should defriend this person unless they were trying to give you a good laugh. The article has the guts to rant against all the media saying they are "fanciful" and "lies." Yet throughout the article, they give no proof or evidence of one single thing they are asserting. The Boeing autopilot patent is cleverly mentioned, although there is no proof it has ever been installed on ANY production aircraft, let alone MH370. This guy just spews and spews the conspiracy cliches like they're going out of style. No proof, no references, just the condescending tone that:

There are a number of devices on commercial aircraft embedded in such a way as to prevent disabling while in flight. You will never hear about where they are, what frequencies they broadcast on or how they work.
They are there.

Click to expand...

Um...yeah. sure, of course they are. Did he care to enlighten us, perhaps share some evidence that would make us favor his version of events? Sadly, no. Standard conspiracy baloney that has been the blight of the internet ever since 9/11.

Not really. I think this guy has some information and expanded on it...ALOT. I have not heard of this auto-return system at all. If such a system had been implemented, it would still fall under the rule of the FAA. As an avionics technician, I would have to be able to troubleshoot, test, and repair this system. The 777 is a giant leap in technology for Boeing, but it is still years behind other manufacturers for technology. Embrears, Airbus, and CRJs have much more advanced aircraft. The 787 is the only production aircraft Boeing has that meets the other manufacturers.
The newer gen aircraft like the 777 have an onboard maintenance system which is integrated into all the computers on the aircraft. I can walk up to any of these aircraft and plug my laptop in and "talk" to the aircraft. With proper equipment, I can make the plane think it's cruising over Italy while it's on jacks in Indy. You can not affect this system when engines are running and/or a weight OFF wheels signal is made. I would say it is technically possible, but you'd have to rewire and reprogram the plane in order to do that. If you went to all that trouble, why not train some pilots to do it? Why waste resources on retrofitting the plane when there are plenty of people willing to do crazy stuff for cash?

This 777-200 does not have that technology onboard.



Mark

VM: I was considering the notion that perhaps neither the flight crew nor the passengers had anything to do with the events that unfolded around them, when a friend sent this to me:

10fttall said:

You should defriend this person unless they were trying to give you a good laugh.

Click to expand...

I sit with a group of 5 engineers at lunch, and we decided to explore all of the possibilities regardless of how unlikely they are. No one is trying to deceive anyone. I was simply asking Vaportrail if such a system exists whereas the plane could be seized from the ground.

The article has the guts to rant against all the media saying they are "fanciful" and "lies." Yet throughout the article, they give no proof or evidence of one single thing they are asserting.

Click to expand...

The author asserts that NORAD knew where the aircraft was at all times. Being a veteran of the Strategic Air Command, I would have to agree that the USAF was monitoring the plane, but not necessarily NORAD. You see, Diego Garcia is in the Indian Ocean and we have B52, B1B and KC135 aircraft stationed there. Although I have no way of telling, I would highly suspect they have a few nukes there too. I digress. The point is no one is going to traverse the Indian Ocean without the USAF knowing about it. So I would find it harder to believe the USAF and perhaps Navy didn’t track the aircraft, then to believe it simply vanished as the “trustworthy” media tells us.

The media has had the “guts” to “report” all manner of nonsense regarding this event. But according to the Wall Street Journal, CNN has seen a significant increase thier ratings over this, so I guess that's the important story.

The Boeing autopilot patent is cleverly mentioned, although there is no proof it has ever been installed on ANY production aircraft, let alone MH370. This guy just spews and spews the conspiracy cliches like they're going out of style. No proof, no references, just the condescending tone that:

Click to expand...

From Article as quoted by 10fttall:
“There are a number of devices on commercial aircraft embedded in such a way as to prevent disabling while in flight. You will never hear about where they are, what frequencies they broadcast on or how they work. They are there.”

Um...yeah. sure, of course they are. Did he care to enlighten us, perhaps share some evidence that would make us favor his version of events? Sadly, no. Standard conspiracy baloney that has been the blight of the internet ever since 9/11.

Click to expand...

Well, he did mention the embedded Rolls–Royce system. Remember the friend that sent the article to me? He’s a system engineer on the Rolls-Royce Trent Engine, the same engine that’s installed on the missing airliner.

The fact is that RR was receiving information from the engines. Normally, this is simply routine data that’s only shared with operators when an anomaly is detected or as prearranged with a specific operator. So when the plane went “missing” RR was keeping the data out of the media storm, and shared only with legitimate customers.

Therefore we (the group) knew immediately that RR was receiving data, but that’s all we knew. The first thing we wanted to know was the duration of the signals. So I calculated endurance of the 777 based on an estimated fuel load for the route. About a week later, we were able to find out that we received signals for the same time as our endurance estimate. Still, that’s all we knew.

In addition, it was in the late 80s, early 90s when NASA demonstrated that by integrating Mode S, differential GPS, and autopilot into an aircraft’s flight systems, they could depart from an airfield, fly a designated course hitting each waypoint, then retun to the airfield and land within a couple feet both horizontally and vertically. All of this was accomplished without pilot intervention. If memory serves, the test plane was a KC135. The integrated system cycled the gear, flaps, throttle, and piloted the aircraft without flaw, and was accomplished in an aircraft that lacked fly by wire and FADEC.

My point is simply this. In a modern airliner, it’s not a stretch to consider that such a system could exist whereas the aircraft could employ an emergency control mode in case of a compromised flight deck.

While it’s also easy to claim someone simply “spews and spews the conspiracy clichés” and “conspiracy baloney.” It’s just as easy to assert that an embedded system doesn’t exist when in fact it does (RR engine monitoring). However, it only takes a bit more to do the research before playing the “baloney” card.

Vaportrail said:

Not really. I think this guy has some information and expanded on it...ALOT. I have not heard of this auto-return system at all. If such a system had been implemented, it would still fall under the rule of the FAA. As an avionics technician, I would have to be able to troubleshoot, test, and repair this system.

Click to expand...

Not if it was installed by Elvis or his alien friends. Just sayin.

The 777 is a giant leap in technology for Boeing, but it is still years behind other manufacturers for technology. Embrears, Airbus, and CRJs have much more advanced aircraft. The 787 is the only production aircraft Boeing has that meets the other manufacturers.
The newer gen aircraft like the 777 have an onboard maintenance system which is integrated into all the computers on the aircraft. I can walk up to any of these aircraft and plug my laptop in and "talk" to the aircraft.

Click to expand...

So Mark, do you often talk to inanimate objects?

With proper equipment, I can make the plane think it's cruising over Italy while it's on jacks in Indy.

Click to expand...

But can you make it cluck like a chicken?

You can not affect this system when engines are running and/or a weight OFF wheels signal is made. I would say it is technically possible, but you'd have to rewire and reprogram the plane in order to do that. If you went to all that trouble, why not train some pilots to do it? Why waste resources on retrofitting the plane when there are plenty of people willing to do crazy stuff for cash?

This 777-200 does not have that technology onboard.
View attachment 168743

Mark

Click to expand...

Just kidding Mark, thanks for the details.

But now you got me thinking. Putting on my IT hat, over the tin foil one, IF such a system existed, couldn’t it simply be a program stashed away on an encrypted partition in one or more of the computers? Again IF, there was a program that could take control of an aircraft from whoever is sitting in the pilot seat and land it. Would this be something that avionics techs would have access to, or would it be DHS techs? Keeping in mind that the FAA is still F who marches to the drum of DHS, with their cast of anal-probing douche bags and XXXL colostomy bags, is it really a stretch?

While it’s also easy to claim someone simply “spews and spews the conspiracy clichés” and “conspiracy baloney.” It’s just as easy to assert that an embedded system doesn’t exist when in fact it does (RR engine monitoring). However, it only takes a bit more to do the research before playing the “baloney” card.

Click to expand...

Nice try. This clown said there are a "number of devices" embedded in a plane that cannot be disabled, and implied they are always being monitored, and then he (arrogantly) stated that "We will never know about them." SO....sorry to burst your bubble, but I knew about the Rolls Royce engine performance monitors. The whole world does, in fact. So clearly that is NOT what he meant. He was speaking in code that the funny farm crowd accepts as a given fact, implying that OF COURSE there are multiple secret squirrel ways that every plane is monitored every inch, but we will never know. The mention of Rolls Royce is another tactic like mentioning the Boeing patent. It's kinda sorta related, but has nothing to do with what he's trying to say. The engine monitoring bursts have data about (shockingly enough) the engines. It doesn't track the plane's location or even specify it. Through analysis of these signals, in ways that were NEVER designed to be analyzed, a very rough area was developed and searched in the presently believed crash zone.

The author asserts that NORAD knew where the aircraft was at all times. Being a veteran of the Strategic Air Command, I would have to agree that the USAF was monitoring the plane, but not necessarily NORAD.

Click to expand...

So you also realize this author has no basis in reality, but just throwing stuff out there. Probably NORAD because it's like, in a mountain, and sounds more scary and evil than just the plain old Air Force.

It's very nice of you to relate the story of NASA controlling a plane whenever it was, however, I'll do you one better. Drones. Yes, yes, we all know planes are capable of being flown remotely. But neither you nor the author, nor anyone else has a shred of evidence that MH370 had any of it. So the bottom line is that you can if if if if if, all day long, but the author of the article offers nothing but unsubstantiated "if's." Or, more planily-simply talking out of his rear end.

Yes it is possible to fly a plane via remote. A couple of us knuckle draggers, some wire and electrical tape could do it.

Unfortunately, my well thought out dissertation on the possibilities and probabilities of current aircraft got erased somehow. So I will keep this short.

Yes you can fly a Boeing 7(?)7 with a remote. They've done that since the 707.
Is there a system of return to home base? Nope. Imagine if there was and it was activated. How many planes fit down the centerline at one time? No pilot control, that'd be far worse than what the 9/11 guys did.
While I have no allusions about our agencies "protecting" us, I don't think they'd be that stupid.
Food for thought; pilot-less cockpits are in the works now... Engineers want to take the human out of their machines-one less variable. Thing is, humans are the only thing that brings them home when the engineering fails. But yeah windowless and pilot-less cockpits are being designed now.


Mark

10fttall said:

Nice try. This clown said there are a "number of devices" embedded in a plane that cannot be disabled, and implied they are always being monitored, and then he (arrogantly) stated that "We will never know about them." SO....sorry to burst your bubble, but I knew about the Rolls Royce engine performance monitors. The whole world does, in fact. So clearly that is NOT what he meant.

Click to expand...

Nice try. So…sorry to burst your bubble, but you don’t speak for the whole world. Still, since I don’t watch TV “news” I can’t be certain of that. I wouldn’t want to presume what the “whole world” does, or does not know. And I certainly wouldn’t deride someone for making up “baloney” to present as fact, while doing the same thing.

But really, let’s see if we can refrain from further name calling. It doesn’t help your argument and will serve only to get posts deleted. Mmm-K?

He was speaking in code that the funny farm crowd accepts as a given fact, implying that OF COURSE there are multiple secret squirrel ways that every plane is monitored every inch, but we will never know. The mention of Rolls Royce is another tactic like mentioning the Boeing patent. It's kinda sorta related, but has nothing to do with what he's trying to say.

Click to expand...

So you agree that such a patent exists. How about enlightening us on exactly what the Boeing patent(s) covers? Since the exact patent isn’t specified, how do you know which one(s) are in reference? But even though you have none of the facts or evidence that you expect of others, you’re absolutely positive that any such patent(s) held by Boeing are unrelated and I’m supposed to take your word for it. Awesome!

Ok, let me get this straight. Mr. Duff, is “speaking in code that the funny farm crowd accepts” and you use rhetoric like “secret squirrel.” So tell me, are you not speaking “code” accepted by the official-story crowd? Apparently Mr. Duff isn’t the only one employing “tactics’ now is he?

The engine monitoring bursts have data about (shockingly enough) the engines. It doesn't track the plane's location or even specify it. Through analysis of these signals, in ways that were NEVER designed to be analyzed, a very rough area was developed and searched in the presently believed crash zone.

Click to expand...

WOW, and you’re an expert on the RR system too. Please, tell me all about this? Perhaps I can learn something from you that neither the RR Trent system nor systems integration engineers know. I’m sure they’ll find your response as enlightening as the previous one.

So you also realize this author has no basis in reality, but just throwing stuff out there. Probably NORAD because it's like, in a mountain, and sounds more scary and evil than just the plain old Air Force.

Click to expand...

And you realize I didn’t say, nor imply such a thing. Tactic? I’m not going to assume to understand Mr. Duffs choice of NORAD, but I can tell you it looks a fair bit ominous to me, in pictures anyway. Although I held a NORAD security clearance, among others, I can’t tell you what information is relayed to them from around the world. Not because of secrecy, but because I had no need to know and therefore I didn’t. Would an unidentified target 700-1100 miles from a SAC base be handed off? 2000 miles? Perhaps, perhaps not, I’m not going to make that assumption.

And you realize that this was a simple exercise, among Rolls-Royce Engineers, to explore all possibilities regardless of how far fetched? In addition the original question was asked to someone with first hand knowledge of the 777 for his expert opinion, and posted here so others could see if such a system existed or was even possible.

Considering the aircraft stationed at Diego Garcia, not to mention the vulnerability of such a small atoll, just how close do you think an unidentified aircraft is going to get? Now, how unlikely do you think it is that some part of the USAF and/or Navy didn’t see it? How likely do you think it is that the satellite in geosynchronous orbit over Diego Garcia didn’t see it? Pardon my skepticism, but I find it harder to believe that it wasn’t monitored.

It's very nice of you to relate the story of NASA controlling a plane whenever it was, however, I'll do you one better. Drones.

Click to expand...

You’re quite welcome. It was published in Aviation Week and Space Technology, if you’re interested in looking it up. But I think you’re missing the point. Considering this was about a quarter century ago, it was quite significant as the aircraft was entirely autonomous, rather than remotely piloted. With the rapid developments of technology over this same period, the idea that such a system could exist is well within the scope of reason. Thus the original question “Vaportrail, is this really possible?”

But neither you nor the author, nor anyone else has a shred of evidence that MH370 had any of it. So the bottom line is that you can if if if if if, all day long, but the author of the article offers nothing but unsubstantiated "if's." Or, more planily-simply talking out of his rear end.

Click to expand...

Again, the question is “Vaportrail, is this really possible?” To which the reply was, and I’ll paraphrase, Yes, BUT.

So the bottom line is you can claim first hand knowledge all day long, but you offer nothing but unsubstantiated rhetoric. Or, more plainly-simply talking…

Now then, until your argument includes Elvis, Aliens, Bigfoot or some combination thereof, I shall use them to replace your rhetoric.

Vaportrail said:

Yes it is possible to fly a plane via remote. A couple of us knuckle draggers, some wire and electrical tape could do it.

Unfortunately, my well thought out dissertation on the possibilities and probabilities of current aircraft got erased somehow. So I will keep this short.

Yes you can fly a Boeing 7(?)7 with a remote. They've done that since the 707. Is there a system of return to home base? Nope. Imagine if there was and it was activated. How many planes fit down the centerline at one time? No pilot control, that'd be far worse than what the 9/11 guys did.
While I have no allusions about our agencies "protecting" us, I don't think they'd be that stupid.
Food for thought; pilot-less cockpits are in the works now... Engineers want to take the human out of their machines-one less variable. Thing is, humans are the only thing that brings them home when the engineering fails. But yeah windowless and pilot-less cockpits are being designed now.

Mark

Click to expand...

Again, thanks for the info, although you didn’t mention Elvis once. Indeed the NASA tests were conducted in controlled airspace. But I think you underestimate both the knowledge and ability of the “knuckle draggers,” and the stupidity of our protectorate agencies.

If I recall, again 25+- years ago, Rutan had a system integrating Mode-S, GPS, Autopilot, HUD and some sort of regional traffic monitor, which projected a series of hoops on the windscreen. With destination entered, one would sit at the end of the runway and a series of hoops, 1 mile apart, would appear in front of the pilot. The pilot would then fly through these hoops to the destination. This system was significant in its integration. GPS told the system “I’m Here,” the Mode-S, via traffic monitor, told the system “Traffic is Here.” When an “I’m Here” signal crossed paths with the “Traffic is Here” signal, the hoops would adjust to avoid collision. A system like this for ground movement would come in handy on foggy days.

Haven’t heard anything about it since, and with Burt’s retirement and new hobby, I doubt anything will come of it.

Nice try. So…sorry to burst your bubble, but you don’t speak for the whole world. Still, since I don’t watch TV “news” I can’t be certain of that. I wouldn’t want to presume what the “whole world” does, or does not know. And I certainly wouldn’t deride someone for making up “baloney” to present as fact, while doing the same thing.

Click to expand...

Ok, this phrase illustrates the problem with continuing to discuss this with you. The whole world DOES know about it, or at least anyone who cares to know has found out or could VERY easily. I'm sorry you haven't watched the news or researched it enough to realize this is a widely known and universally available fact. I am not making up anything. Just so you know I am pointing out the silliness of this article, not attacking you. I get it, you bunch of engineers were thinking about various things. I'm just writing about the article in the link you posted. I'm stating it is a factual vacuum and a speculative masterpiece. If you disagree, fine. If you have any evidence, fine, lets hear it. But I'm not getting into a quote fest line by line disproving a bunch of speculation. That could go on as long as someone was willing to speculate. That's not how it works. You bring the evidence first, and this article ain't it.