FAA: Boeing's New 787 May Be Vulnerable to Hacker Attack

Larry Dighera wrote in
news
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:15:03 GMT, wrote in
:


What would one "control"?

The motor that drives the pump.


Oh Anthony! We've found a little friend for you!

Bertie

On Jan 10, 8:43 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
george wrote in news:df5c7fac-837e-4313-b2b5-a0bc3f04f011
@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On Jan 10, 8:16 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:05:43 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote in :

Manual reversion is primitive in a 'bus, but adequate for the task.

Are you implying that there is a physical link between the flight
controls and the control surfaces?

Oh lord no.
We pray toward the right and the aircraft responds by turning right.
It would be blasphemy to have a connection between controls and
control surfaces.

The rudder and the stab are both stil physically ( hydraulics) attached to
the flight controls. Crews are trained to land the airplane using these
alone.
It hasn't had to be done for real yet.

It'll happen
I'm still considering the statement about flight controls that do not
connect to the control surfaces.
Almost good enough for a sig

george wrote in
:

On Jan 10, 8:43 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
george wrote in
news:df5c7fac-837e-4313-b2b5-a0bc3f04f011
@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On Jan 10, 8:16 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:05:43 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote in
:

Manual reversion is primitive in a 'bus, but adequate for the
task.

Are you implying that there is a physical link between the flight
controls and the control surfaces?

Oh lord no.
We pray toward the right and the aircraft responds by turning
right. It would be blasphemy to have a connection between controls
and control surfaces.

The rudder and the stab are both stil physically ( hydraulics)
attached to the flight controls. Crews are trained to land the
airplane using these alone.
It hasn't had to be done for real yet.

It'll happen
I'm still considering the statement about flight controls that do not
connect to the control surfaces.


Almost good enough for a sig

Mmm, you lost me there.

No modern jet except the 737 has it's flight controls mechanically
connnected to the stick. well, except for the little ones like the
Canadairs and whiat not maybe. They all ahve multiple hydraulics.


Bertie

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:15:03 GMT, wrote in
:


What would one "control"?

The motor that drives the pump.

That is usually the same "motor" that drives the airplane.

Even if it is a separate electric motor, the pump is always on.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jan 10, 12:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


Mmm, you lost me there.

No modern jet except the 737 has it's flight controls mechanically
connnected to the stick. well, except for the little ones like the
Canadairs and whiat not maybe. They all ahve multiple hydraulics.

his claim is that there is no connection between controls and control
surfaces.
So if the pilot initiates a turn with the controls nothing will happen
in his world because there is no connection.
In our world we move the control and the relevant control surface will
move no matter whether it is control cable, hydraulic or fly by wire.
Therefore there is a connection

george wrote in news:65e9393d-bd28-43f1-b84a-036e2c4e0b68
@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

On Jan 10, 12:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


Mmm, you lost me there.

No modern jet except the 737 has it's flight controls mechanically
connnected to the stick. well, except for the little ones like the
Canadairs and whiat not maybe. They all ahve multiple hydraulics.

his claim is that there is no connection between controls and control
surfaces.
So if the pilot initiates a turn with the controls nothing will happen
in his world because there is no connection.
In our world we move the control and the relevant control surface will
move no matter whether it is control cable, hydraulic or fly by wire.
Therefore there is a connection


Well, hopefully.

Bertie

On Jan 10, 4:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


Well, hopefully.


You should have heard a friend who sits in a 777 with all those
unconnected controls in front of him...

george wrote in news:58e92631-96ef-49df-8bb0-
:

On Jan 10, 4:28 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


Well, hopefully.


You should have heard a friend who sits in a 777 with all those
unconnected controls in front of him...



I have one!
He likes it. On the plus side for the 777, it's controls behave like
controls al the time. The 'Bus has several "laws" it operates in givng the
pilot several distinct types. For instance,one, "direct law" will behave
just like any airplane. This law comes into play as the airplane closes in
on the ground during approach. it's seamless with the previous mode so you
shouldn't evn notice it. Another law will give you pitch and attitude
control similar to some older autopilots. You pull pitch and when the pitch
you require is reached, you neutralise the stick and the airplane will sit
at that attitude all day or until it starts doing something it doesn't
like, in which case it will recover. The bank is the same. you roll to the
bank you like and release and the airplane will sit there. Mostly you'd
just be using the heading select, speed select alt hold and nav tracking
functions and bitching about how much you had to work for what you were
paid and how that asshole at security took your emery board off you and
then let you go out to your 200 ton 500 knot bomb.

The 777 works more like a trad airplane though. Except most of the flight
you'd still be following the pink string just like the 'bus

Bertie

Another article on the subject:


http://cs.schwab.com/clicker/cli?req...sfaaaaardcvupm
Boeing claims it has engineered safeguards to shut out
unauthorized users, but some security analysts worry navigation
and communications systems could be vulnerable.

"The odds of this being perfect are zero," said Bruce Schneier,
chief technology officer at the security services firm BT
Counterpane*. "It's possible Boeing can make their connection to
the Internet secure. If they do, it will be the first time in
mankind anyone's done that."
...



* http://bt.counterpane.com/

John Smith wrote in
:

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I have one!
He likes it. On the plus side for the 777, it's controls behave like
controls al the time. The 'Bus has several "laws" it operates in
givng the pilot several distinct types. For instance,one, "direct
law" will behave just like any airplane. This law comes into play as
the airplane closes in on the ground during approach. it's seamless
with the previous mode so you shouldn't evn notice it. Another law
will give you pitch and attitude control similar to some older
autopilots. You pull pitch and when the pitch you require is reached,
you neutralise the stick and the airplane will sit at that attitude
all day or until it starts doing something it doesn't like, in which
case it will recover. The bank is the same. you roll to the bank you
like and release and the airplane will sit there. Mostly you'd just
be using the heading select, speed select alt hold and nav tracking
functions and bitching about how much you had to work for what you
were paid and how that asshole at security took your emery board off
you and then let you go out to your 200 ton 500 knot bomb.

Computerized negative stability?

Well, they are less stable, and that is one of the main reasons they
wanted the FBW in them. With an aft CG the airplane is effectively
lighter since the downforce on the stab is less. so the airplane goes
better for a start. Another benefit of this is your buffet margins are
improved so you can go higher. Higher mesans lower burn. Big savings
over the lifetime of an airplane. Same "traditional" airplanes like the
747-400 and MD-11 also do this with the autopilot engaged by virtue of
their ability to shift fuel in flight. They;re all still stable, but
stability is relative and these would be difficult to hand fly without
the augmentation supplied by the computers, unlike the drastically
unstable military airplanes that rely on these devices.

Bertie