By

Shawn Helton

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 the subsequent 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 that the 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 Bülow conducted 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 the Technological 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…



.

Revelations of a pilot

The idea of an uninterruptible remote controlled commercial airliner may be shocking to some, but during 21WIRE’s examination of missing flight MH370, we came across retired pilot, Field McConnell, a 35-year flight veteran who suggested that since 1995 this kind of advanced technology has been in use, culminating with McConnell testifying before a US court as to the existence of such systems.

There is some evidence to suggest that these may have been operational in some Airbus planes since 1989. At the start of this article, there were several publications that discussed the controversial autopilot feature a year prior to a subsequent lawsuit by McConnell in February of 2007, and according to his documents, the modification was reported to the FAA, NTSB and ALPA ( airline pilots association).

Apparently, due to McConnell’s lawsuit, Boeing was is said to have stated that by end of 2009 all Boeing planes would be fitted with the BHUAP – making them impossible to manually hijack within the plane but susceptible to remote control by the military, according the flight veteran.

In addition to the advanced avionics avoiding manual hijack through its systems, the AFDS-770 Autopilot Flight Director System, according McConnell, is said to be a ‘slave’ of the Flight Management System making the ‘remote hijacking’ of anything other than entities linked to the FMS and its fellow operating systems unlikely – if not impossible. Boeing’s Areo Magazine described the FMS as “designing and implementing automated flight paths.”



Although the investigative site Abel Danger has had many controversial claims over the years through the collaborative work of McConnell and Forensic Economist David Hawkins, it does seem as though the lid has come off in regards to the historical record of the Boeing Honeywell uninterruptible autopilot, as numerous references have surfaced online recently, including a brand new Wikipedia page created in July. While Wikipedia itself isn’t considered a noted reliable source, the page for BHAUP does have links to other major media outlets discussing the glass cockpit system, including Boeing’s own acknowledgement of the system. There was even an article that appeared 11 years ago in August of 2003, on the popular technology site for Wired magazine, linked to a Wall Street Journal report entitled, “Flying Safety Put on Auto-Pilot,” a feature that discussed the auto-pilot systems already in place:

“Airbus and Honeywell are close to perfecting technology that takes control of airplanes to prevent them from crashing into obstacles, The Wall Street Journal reports. When audible warnings from crash-avoidance systems are ignored, the system overrides actions by the pilot and takes evasive maneuvers, the newspaper said.”

“The system would link crash-warning devices, already common on airliners, with cockpit computers that could automate flying to prevent collisions, executives from Honeywell (HON) said.”

Another development that helped with flight navigation of airliners was the Future Air Navigation System (FANS) with Boeing and Honeywell once again at the precipice of avionics advancement, as FANS used GPS to navigate through remote areas or oceans of the world. The feature was also said to have given an airline operator the ability to upload alternate flight paths.

In November of 2013, there was a federal register for 777-200 ER Boeing’s, stating that there were modifications done to the electrical based systems to prevent unauthorized internal access in the aircraft.

Other documented evidence of communication development within a Boeing 777, comes from Philip Birtles, in his book, “Boeing 777 – Jetliner for a New Century:”

“Honeywell’s massive effort on the 777 involved over 550 software developers. The company built the AIMS computer as a custom platform based on the AMD 29050 processor. It was unique among aviation systems for integrating the other computers’ functions; in other systems, each function resides in a different box [the central maintenance had its own box with its own input/output (I/O), its own central processing unit (CPU), etc.]. AIMS combines all these functions and shares the CPU and I/O among them: it uses the same signals for flight management and for displays, so that the data comes in only once instead of twice; one input circuit provides data to all of the functions.”





In McConnell’s message about the airline industry, he has claimed that are other examples of aircraft being downed remotely, including Air France’s flight 447, Adam Air 574, Kenya Airways 507.

McConnell also mentions the ‘autoland’ and ‘autobrake’ feature for Boeing 777 plane, as it was referenced in the above NASA portion of this article. Additionally, the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777’s are outfitted the ACARS communication systems as well as satellite links through SATCOM according to Honeywell. The satellite/GPS based autopilot features of today owe quite a bit the Quartz Rate Sensor used primarily in drone UAV’s.

Some of McConnell’s latest findings along with his partner Hawkins, have connected MH370’s disappearance to British multinational Serco, as many of the UK’s defense functions were granted to Serco throughout the years, including “Skynet satellite military communications necessary for a remotely-controlled hijack.” Over the years, Serco has been outsourced to provide support for various enterprises by governments all over the world, heading up air traffic control services throughout many parts of the globe, maritime security, outfitting operations for modes of transportation such as buses and metro systems, running security operations for private prisons, all while overseeing Britain’s military ballistic munitions and nuclear arsenal since 1964 – as a complex project management provider.

Here’s a YouTube video looking at McConnell’s case information as it relates to BHUAP…



.

Boeing, Inmarsat & Serco business arrangements in the wake of tragedy

There is an established relationship between Serco, “the global support services company,” and the British satellite telecommunications company Inmarsat, a company who was responsible for the satellite data used to track down MH370 through its ‘handshake’ links, data which has subsequently turned up empty, prompting many to question the various business arrangements involving the support services company Serco and Inmarsat.

Other connections between Serco and Inmarsat bring us to Former Royal Air Force Electronics Engineer, Gordon McMillan, who 1995, was the Operations Director for Serco Aerospace as he later moved on to Inmarsat’s Director of Government services from 2006-2011 and is now the director of Inmarsat’s GX Programme which is partnered up with Boeing to finish the development of the three remaining broadband Inmarsat-5 satellites. In 2013, Serco was scrutinized as they were under investigation for fraud.

Mass media distortion

On March 28th, 20 days after the apparent disappearance of MH370, the Boeing uninterruptible autopilot system was openly discussed on air during CNN’s ‘The Situation Room’ with Wolf Blizter. Here is the link to the CNN transcript posted below. What the show failed to disclose with those familiar with Boeing’s integrated avionics, is that the pilots themselves do not have to trigger anything manually in order to have this system engaged, as it is fully independent of an airliner’s power supply. Boeing like Rolls Royce, has been virtually silent on the issue of MH370, aside from some misleading information as to the whereabouts of MH370. See how the mainstream media tiptoes around the BHUAP:

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: “Wolf, it’s called the uninterruptible Autopilot System. This was reported on about seven years ago by the Homeland Security Newswire and by The Daily Mail. According to these reports, Boeing got a patent for some technology that would enable the plane to be flown by remote control from the ground in the event of an emergency. Now, in a situation of distress in this scenario, the pilot could flick a switch or maybe some kind of a sensor could trigger the autopilot. The autopilot could then be activated by radio or satellite. And our aviation analyst, Mark Weiss, explains what would happen next.”

MARK WEISS, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: “Everything now that the pilots would try to do would be inconsequential because the ground controller would be handling its flight path, its landing gear, its flap system, configuring the aircraft for a landing to a safe place and really taking away the hostile threat.”

TODD: “Now, Mark Weiss says that if that technology was in place now, if this was in all planes and this had widespread capability now, there’s a chance — a chance, Wolf, that this could have saved Malaysia Air Flight 370, but also it may not have. Again, we don’t know a lot of detail about what happened in that cockpit. But if this had been in place then, that’s why we’re raising this now, that it may have played a factor in possibly saving that plane in a certain scenario.”

“We have to say, Boeing is giving us absolutely no comment on this. We’ve come back to them repeatedly, tell us about this patent, tell us about this technology, are you still pursuing it. Nothing. They want nothing to say — they have nothing to say about it right now.”

Hacking, propaganda & security contracts in the aftermath of a disaster



IMAGE: ‘Hack in the Box Origami’ – Hugo Teso works as a security consultant in Berlin, Germany at n.runs AG. He became a media sensation in April of 2013, when he claimed that he could hack into a plane’s Flight Management Systems via his smartphone (Photo: niunpeloderubia.wordpress.com)

In April of 2013, Hugo Teso, an apparent former commercial pilot turned IT security-hack-guru, made waves when he told a crowd gathered at the ‘Hack in the Box’ computer security and hacker conference held in Amsterdam, that he could hack into a plane’s ACARS flight system. According to the applied science used in flight management this would be unprecedented.

Below is a YouTube video of Teso at the Hack in the Box conference located in Amsterdam, discussing his controversial his apparent plane hack…





.

In an article for Avionics Today, the FAA denied the hacker’s ability to change the flight’s hardware system. This could be because the coded BHAUP software is built into the FMS and has other systems acting as a slave to its command functions using the same technology seen in the DarkStar drone:



“The FAA is aware that a German information technology consultant has alleged he has detected a security issue with the Honeywell NZ-2000 Flight Management System (FMS) using only a desktop computer. The FAA has determined the hacking technique described during a recent computer security conference does not pose a flight safety concern because it does not work on certified flight hardware.”

It was recently announced in late July that the FAA was looking to launch its next generation GPS, “satellite-based air traffic control system.” Again the timing here is incredible, as the roll-out for autonomous flight control has been an arduously slow process, taking full advantage of aviation disasters along the way:

“The FAA has been gradually implementing elements of the new, so-called NextGen system to replace a radar-based system used since the end of World War II. NextGen incorporates global positioning technology similar to systems on smart phones and car dashboards, allowing air traffic controllers to track aircraft more precisely. The system’s enhanced precision, say proponents, reduces the space and time between planes taking off or landing.”

It appears as though the FAA has opened the door for the eventual full disclosure of the BHUAP, communications with satellite GPS systems, planes and air traffic control that have already been in use. This could have been a premeditated slow roll-out to get the public to accept the reality of this technology.



IMAGE: ‘Sky Shield’ – C-Music counter defense laser system will be used against MANPADS. The pod is located under the plane’s fuselage.

The Israeli defense electronics company Elbit Systems, has managed to have some timely new developments in the wake of MH17’s apparent downing this past July. Elbit has been able to create a wide range of avionics for dual use in military and civilian aircraft use. Below as an excerpt from Royal Aeronautical Society:

“Given then these lethal threats – can anything be done for civil airliners? Modern military aircraft carry a wide range of defensive aids, from electronic jamming pods, to chaff and flare dispensers to spoof incoming missiles. Larger aircraft such as tankers, transports and VIP assets also can be equipped with DIRCM (directed infra-red countermeasures) a laser in a turret able to burn an IR missile seeker out. However, against radar-guided missiles, HVA (high value assets) such as transport aircraft, would in the first instance, be kept well away from these threats.”

The Royal Aeronautical Society goes on to discuss other more determined and lethal options in the throes of conflict following the highly controversial downing of MH17:

“There is one other related point that the loss of MH17 and military aircraft to SAMs over Ukraine highlights – that is the need for stealth aircraft, EW and SEAD to effectively counter these ground-based threats in modern conflicts.”

Despite mainstream media’s revisionist claims that MH17 had to fly over a known warzone, we know that the Kiev-based Ukrainian Air Traffic Control (ATC) ordered MH17 off of its original flight path along the international air route, known as L980. The media has stated that MH17 was flying its intended route, even though there is evidence of the contrary.

The anomalies surrounding MH370, MH17, along with the hijacked airliners on 9/11, are closer to being understood as more information continues to be pieced together from exploratory investigation. Below is an interview with flight veteran Field McConnell on 21WIRE’s The Sunday Wire radio show uncovering more details about the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot and how it works.





SEE MORE WAR ON TERROR NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire War on Terror Files

READ MORE MH17 NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire MH17 Files

SUPPORT OUR WORK BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV