REMOTE CONTROL: Aviation Expert says Germanwings 9525 could have been ‘Hacked’ Electronically

By The Phaser | April 14, 2015 0 Comments

from 21st Century Wire.com:

Following a series of high-profile airline disasters, including Germanwings flight 9525, mainstream media 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 of pilotless commercial flights, have touted the development of such avionics over safety concerns, unfairly laying blame on pilots – without fully revealing the technological advancements in aviation.

Fly by Wire Airliners 

In a recent article appearing in the NY Times, entitled, “Planes Without Pilots,” the 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 TechWormwhich 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.”

Curiously, the Financial Times has disturbed the page containing the Anderson letter, as they have redacted the the entire letter that was posted to its website late on April 7th.

Take a look at the image capture below displaying the redaction of Anderson’s avaiation letter on the Financial Times website…

Was this an attempt by Financial Times to cover-up or confuse the public over a technology that has now been well-documented by other media outlets?

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 say 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…

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpH-Sh92j1s

Last December 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 a unprecedented amount of propaganda associated with many recent airline disasters and some have been proven to have serious geopolitical consequences.

More from The Daily Mail below…


IMAGE: Planting Evidence? – Investigators seen here obtaining the computer of Andreas Lubitz. Why were investigators so quick to blame Lubitz without definitive proof he caused the French Alps crash? (Photo link dailymail.co.uk)

Was Germanwings plane crashed by a HACKER instead of co-pilot? Aviation expert says the jet could easily be accessed remotely

RAY MASSEY

The Daily Mail

An aviation expert has questioned whether the doomed Germanwings passenger plane may had its electronics ‘hacked’ before it crashed killing all 150 on board.

The theory has surfaced in a letter to the respected Financial Times newspaper from aviation boss Matt Andersson, president of Chicago-based Indigo Aerospace. 

The French Alps tragedy which occurred on the flight between Barcelona to Dusseldorf has been widely blamed on co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, 28.

He is believed to have barricaded himself in the cockpit of the GermanWings A320 Airbus before flying the packed plane into the mountainside as the captain fought desperately to get inside.

IMAGE: ‘Blown Apart?’ – Did Germanwings flight 9525 meet a catastrophic end prior to crashing in the French Alps? (Photo link dailymail.co.uk)

Investigators point to a history of mental illness and doctors notes which were hidden from his employer.

Mr Andersson says the French accident investigators are clear that the stricken plane ‘accelerated in its descent’.

But he writes in the FT: ‘That may be, but 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.’

‘This is one reason military and head-of-state aircraft are generally installed with specific shielding and additional active protective measures,’ and he stresses: ‘Civilian aircraft are not.’

Mr Andersson says the public should reserve final judgment until the investigators have completed their enquiries and come to a firm conclusion.

He added: ‘The public should patiently wait for a through, multi-party professional air safetyinvestigation, while maintaining an independence of judgment over preliminary official hypotheses.’

Setting out his doubts about jumping to conclusions based on preliminary findings, Mr Andersson said: ‘Both the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and the flight data recorder (FDR) of the Germanwings flight 9525 have yet to be subject to international standards.

 

Read More @ 21st Century Wire.com