Malaysian airlines plane missing

[I1L2T3 10]

I don't know who has disputed it on the grounds of technical feasability, but that would have been rather stupid: anything technically possible can be patented (subject to basic legal criteria of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability).

 

(As already explained in this thread-) However, a patent application or patent absolutely does not prove that an embodiment of such an invention has ever been built/made/implemented (contrary to popular belief, there is no requirement to build any prototype whatsoever, prior to or for obtaining letters patent).

 

The subject-matter of a patent just needs to stand on its technical feet, it does not need to be commercially-successful (or even exploited at all, e.g. a lot of early patents in the mobile telecoms field were blocking instruments for channelling the competition's R&D and markets, and jockey on ITU committees, with no intention to 'build stuff' whatsoever).

See post 609

That does surprise me, considering your apparent affinity for conspiracy theories.

 

Look it up, I guarantee that you'll lap it up.

 

Surprised the conspiracy theorists have not added it to the list yet (or have they, and I have not kept up? )

 

You're right that the patent does not prove the invention was progressed but it could be indicative of intent. None of us know whether Boeing ever implemented it in commercial planes.

 

We do know that in 2012 they were able to fit a 727 with remote control for a crash experiment. The flight was initiated by human crew who parachuted out after which point the plane was flown remotely. The whole flight could have been operated remotely but for the insiustence by authorities for a human crew to control the plane over the populated areas on the flight path.

 

I would suggest that Boeing has progressed the technology beyond patent stage.

[L00b 441]

None of us know whether Boeing ever implemented it in commercial planes.

Senior groundcrew, particularly avionics support engineers, would get a fair idea rather quick.

I would suggest that Boeing has progressed the technology beyond patent stage.

Undoubtedly, if only in its plus-size military drones by its Phantom works division.

 

Boeing, and others à la McDonnell, Airbus, Raytheon et al, may also have progressed it for reasons of operational safety alone, in the same way car manufacturers have been progressing e.g. automotive radar-based autopilots, i.e. with nothing more sinister going on, than wanting to build still more redundancy (therefore safety) into a very complex moving machine apt to fail rather dramatically and spectacularly whenever its common fallible denomitor, the human(s) at the controls, fails. Particularly, if and when such a 'failure' should be intentional à la 9/11.

 

To the point: patents have sod all to do with it ('it' being technological development), they are simply a legal mechanism to capture the 'intellectual property' vesting in that technological development into a (jurisdiction-limited) economical monopoly for its owner.

 

All that said, I in turn would suggest that anyone who believes that MH370 may have disappeared as a result of a remote acquisition of the aircraft control from the pilot and co-pilot aboard, get themselves seen by a headshrink with a view to diagnose acute paranoia. Just a suggestion, but I hear they make effective (patented -) pills for that condition these days.

Edited April 14, 2014 by L00b

[barleycorn 10]

I don't know who has disputed it on the grounds of technical feasability, but that would have been rather stupid: anything technically possible can be patented (subject to basic legal criteria of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability).

 

(As already explained in this thread-) However, a patent application or patent absolutely does not prove that an embodiment of such an invention has ever been built/made/implemented (contrary to popular belief, there is no requirement to build any prototype whatsoever, prior to or for obtaining letters patent).

 

The subject-matter of a patent just needs to stand on its technical feet, it does not need to be commercially-successful (or even exploited at all, e.g. a lot of early patents in the mobile telecoms field were blocking instruments for channelling the competition's R&D and markets, and jockey on ITU committees, with no intention to 'build stuff' whatsoever).

See post 609

That does surprise me, considering your apparent affinity for conspiracy theories.

 

Look it up, I guarantee that you'll lap it up.

 

Surprised the conspiracy theorists have not added it to the list yet (or have they, and I have not kept up? )

 

Faster than light anti-gravity ship.

GB2347912 (A)

GB2347912 (B)

I seem to remember one about growing unicorns or something too...

 

jb

[I1L2T3 10]

Senior groundcrew, particularly avionics support engineers, would get a fair idea rather quick.

Undoubtedly, if only in its plus-size military drones by its Phantom works division.

 

Boeing, and others à la McDonnell, Airbus, Raytheon et al, may also have progressed it for reasons of operational safety alone, in the same way car manufacturers have been progressing e.g. automotive radar-based autopilots, i.e. with nothing more sinister going on, than wanting to build still more redundancy (therefore safety) into a very complex moving machine apt to fail rather dramatically and spectacularly whenever its common fallible denomitor, the human(s) at the controls, fails. Particularly, if and when such a 'failure' should be intentional à la 9/11.

 

To the point: patents have sod all to do with it ('it' being technological development), they are simply a legal mechanism to capture the 'intellectual property' vesting in that technological development into a (jurisdiction-limited) economical monopoly for its owner.

 

All that said, I in turn would suggest that anyone who believes that MH370 may have disappeared as a result of a remote acquisition of the aircraft control from the pilot and co-pilot aboard, get themselves seen by a headshrink with a view to diagnose acute paranoia. Just a suggestion, but I hear they make effective (patented -) pills for that condition these days.

 

Why are you so sure that aircraft could not be remotely controlled? Serious question.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2014 at 16:22 ----------

 

Faster than light anti-gravity ship.

GB2347912 (A)

GB2347912 (B)

I seem to remember one about growing unicorns or something too...

 

jb

 

Apart from the fact we have proof that Boeing 727 (a much earlier model than 777) can be remotely controlled.

[dosxuk 10]

We do know that in 2012 they were able to fit a 727 with remote control for a crash experiment. The flight was initiated by human crew who parachuted out after which point the plane was flown remotely. The whole flight could have been operated remotely but for the insiustence by authorities for a human crew to control the plane over the populated areas on the flight path.

 

Apart from the fact we have proof that Boeing 727 (a much earlier model than 777) can be remotely controlled.

 

I take it you didn't watch the programme in question?

 

One of the obstacles they had to overcome was to fly the 727 slow enough that the little plane with the guy with the handheld radio controller (think model airplane) inside could keep up and not let the 727 go out of range and control.

 

It wasn't some sort of highly complicated remote control with some guy sat in a bunker somewhere directly controlling the autopilot, it was some amateur radio kit and some servos mounted to the flight controls flying the aircraft manually from a hundred metres or so away.

[I1L2T3 10]

I take it you didn't watch the programme in question?

 

One of the obstacles they had to overcome was to fly the 727 slow enough that the little plane with the guy with the handheld radio controller (think model airplane) inside could keep up and not let the 727 go out of range and control.

 

It wasn't some sort of highly complicated remote control with some guy sat in a bunker somewhere directly controlling the autopilot, it was some amateur radio kit and some servos mounted to the flight controls flying the aircraft manually from a hundred metres or so away.

 

You're right - I got the experiments mixed up. I was thinking of the Boeing 720 test some time before, not the Discovery channel one. The 720 test was remotely piloted from a bunker, flown as a drone.

[L00b 441]

Why are you so sure that aircraft could not be remotely controlled? Serious question.

I do not recall posting that 'aircraft cannot be remotely controlled'. Kindly point me to my earlier post, if I am mistaken

 

I did however post, that attributing the MH370 disappearance to some sort of 'remote controlling occurrence' is idiotic. That is because no such technology has been rolled in civilian airliners, otherwise you can expect at least some Governments would have kicked an almighty public stuff about it, not to mention whistleblowers and Wikileaks (and the like). The same sort of public beating the US NSA received not so long ago with its long digital ears.

 

There quite a large difference between both, I think.

 

At barleycorn: he who is without sin <etc>. Patent Examiners are human, and by definition that makes them fallible. There is a statutory invalidation procedure built in the Patents Act to kill off patents that have been granted in error. Quite straightforward and, if you DIY, the Office will hold your hand (to an extent). Knock yourself out (or pay me to do it ) if that patent really irks you (and if you can prove that its technical disclosure is contrary to the Laws of Nature/one such craft cannot be built).

Edited April 14, 2014 by L00b

[Anna B 1,417]

Senior groundcrew, particularly avionics support engineers, would get a fair idea rather quick.

Undoubtedly, if only in its plus-size military drones by its Phantom works division.

 

Boeing, and others à la McDonnell, Airbus, Raytheon et al, may also have progressed it for reasons of operational safety alone, in the same way car manufacturers have been progressing e.g. automotive radar-based autopilots, i.e. with nothing more sinister going on, than wanting to build still more redundancy (therefore safety) into a very complex moving machine apt to fail rather dramatically and spectacularly whenever its common fallible denomitor, the human(s) at the controls, fails. Particularly, if and when such a 'failure' should be intentional à la 9/11.

 

To the point: patents have sod all to do with it ('it' being technological development), they are simply a legal mechanism to capture the 'intellectual property' vesting in that technological development into a (jurisdiction-limited) economical monopoly for its owner.

 

All that said, I in turn would suggest that anyone who believes that MH370 may have disappeared as a result of a remote acquisition of the aircraft control from the pilot and co-pilot aboard, get themselves seen by a headshrink with a view to diagnose acute paranoia. Just a suggestion, but I hear they make effective (patented -) pills for that condition these days.

 

So, what is your view of what happened?

 

If simply an accident, do you think Boeing 777s should be grounded and checked for faults, or can we expect more planes careering all over the place in the opposite direction to that intended?

[ronthenekred 10]

So, what is your view of what happened?

 

If simply an accident, do you think Boeing 777s should be grounded and checked for faults, or can we expect more planes careering all over the place in the opposite direction to that intended?

 

Grounding all aircraft is a bit of a blunt tool especially if you don't know why you're grounding them. If a life support machine seems to be having a problem, do you "ground" all life support machines? If so where do you put those they are supporting?

[L00b 441]

So, what is your view of what happened?

Open-minded, yet grounded in common and technical sense and, in any case, awaiting facts rather than wasting neurones engaging in vacuous mindf**king.

 

In simple terms: I don't know, and it does not perturb me enough to stop me sleeping, so I'll happily await however many weeks/months/years until solid evidence is found and a full technical inquiry by suitably-qualified and experienced experts provides reasonably unassailable evidence-based conclusions.

 

Just like Air France 447

If simply an accident, do you think Boeing 777s should be grounded and checked for faults, or can we expect more planes careering all over the place in the opposite direction to that intended?

I am reasonably confident that, within days of the incident (if that long), every last airframe of this particular aircraft model currently in circulation was thoroughly checked in/out/about with full diagnostics, by maintenance experts and most probably also Boeing's very own.

 

The jetliner business is as cutthroat as they come, planes are eye-wateringly expensive capital equipment, so it's rather bad for business if 2 or more airframes of the same type were to fall from the sky in uncomfortably-close temporal proximity.

 

The kind of 'bad for business' that gets airline companies to cancel unfulfilled orders worth billions (beeeellions) and move them to e.g. Airbus.

 

The kind of 'bad for business' that would cause Boeing to start booking its engineers' flights to <wherever other airframes are based> within hours of MH370 going off-air and past its notional autonomy without any further sign of life.

Edited April 14, 2014 by L00b

[barleycorn 10]

... At barleycorn: he who is without sin <etc>. Patent Examiners are human, and by definition that makes them fallible. There is a statutory invalidation procedure built in the Patents Act to kill off patents that have been granted in error. Quite straightforward and, if you DIY, the Office will hold your hand (to an extent). Knock yourself out (or pay me to do it ) if that patent really irks you (and if you can prove that its technical disclosure is contrary to the Laws of Nature/one such craft cannot be built).

 

I was merely providing an example of patents which get granted where no physical manifestation of the patent exists (and this one's expired due to non payment of fees anyway). It helps to highlight the point that even though there may be patents for remote controlling airliners it doesn't mean it has actually been done yet, or is even possible in the way CTists imagine.

 

jb

[johncocker 10]

I think the indian ocean search may take some time:)

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26956798