Backatcha Bandit said:
Unless, of course, they were fitted with
Honeywell Pegasus FMCs.
WouldBe said:
Jesus Christ.
Here's the spec for a B767 of a similar age (DOM 1983 - the '9/11' 767's were built in
1983 and
1987) equipped with a Honeywell Pegasus FMC.
United performed a test installation of Honeywell’s Pegasus flight management system (FMS) in one of the carrier’s B767 simulators, Ferro recalls. This was not to see how it "flew," but to test the installation before taking an airplane out of service for FMS updating. Engineers, for example, checked whether the FMS communicated correctly with other avionics boxes over the ARINC data buses.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=1002&file=1002united.htm
Why would 'Ferro' recall (in 2002) UA fitting Pegasus FMC's in their 767 simulator if they don't use Pegasus? Why am I bothering?
WouldBe said:
From
http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0601&file=0601fans.htm
So the system automatically 'asks' the aircraft where it is then sends a 'text' type message to the pilot advising of course / height changes.
Woopie fucking do. Really remote control then isn't it.
The 'System' you are referring to there is FANS. The hardware (the FCS) is what we are discussing. You are conflating the FCS (the 'enabling technology', the hardware) with FANS (an application or 'use' of the hardware).
WouldBe said:
So what your saying here is the manufacturer of the FCS don't know themselves how it works.
There is a socket on car engine management units that can be used to 'download' data and upload data it doesn't mean you can remote control a car and definately not without having something physically plugged into the socket.
You utter, utter tit.
Does the EMS on a car have a radio or satellite bi-directional datalink? No.
Can the EMS of a car affect navigation (move the steering wheel)? No.
What I'm 'saying here' is that
you don't appear to know 'how it works'. Or even how a
car works.
WouldBe said:
Now you really are being stupid. Perhaps you can explain how you get a radio to talk directly to the compass system to get the plane to alter course or talk directly to a pitot tube (air pressure sensor) to get the plane to alter height.
The 'compass system' communicates with the FMC/FCS, the FMC/FCS alters course.
The pitot tube communicates with the FMC/FCS, the FMC/FCS alters altitude (or rather it doesn't, as the pitot tube is the equivalent of a car's speedometer, not the altitude sensor, Mr. Avionics Expert).
The 'radio' (or rather, datalink - can be SATCOM or over RF) 'talks directly' (through MU) to the FMC/FMC (as it does for instance with ACARS)
So to answer you 'question', I don't need to, as the Flight Control System/Flight Management Computer is, funnily enough, responsible for 'Controlling' or 'Managing' the flight.
If I wanted the FMC/FCS to 'talk to' the other Avionic systems, I'd probably go with 'Ferros' amazingly radical bright idea and use the ARINC data buses, since that's what they're there for.
WouldBe said:
That report on the use of FANS says it's only for use in remote areas with little traffic. Do you seriously think, even if it could be used to remote control an aircraft, that ATC would be happy with aircraft changing flight plans as they automatically see fit in highly crowded airspace?
Again, not wishing to encourage you conflation of FANS (Future Air Nav System) and the hardware under discussion, but isn't the whole point of FANS supposed to be to enable more aircraft in the same airspace?
As I understand it, when reliant on voice communications to get geoloc & vector information there has to be a 'safety margin' of distance between aircraft which ofthen means directing aircraft to change altitude / vector which wastes fuel/time.
FANS enables the computation of vectors / flightplans to be done so (for instance) the speed of aircraft can be modified to maintain spacing without deviating from the most efficient flight plan.
I just checked the wiki on FANS to make sure I wasn't about to make a twat of myself
)) and the first line reads
"Future Air Navigation Systems (FANS) is a standard developed by the air transport industry to allow more aircraft to fit into a given volume of air space" - which seems a little at odds with your insistence that 'That report on the use of FANS says it's only for use in remote areas with little traffic'.
WouldBe said:
Ha, ha, ha. Nurse I've just PMSL.
Oh dear. I'm glad I'm not your nurse.
WouldBe said:
These ARINC spec 618 and 619 are specifications like IEEE488 and RS232. They specify how devices are connected i.e. twisted pair of wires, what the message format is (similar to 1 start bit, 8 data bits, 1 parity bit, 2 stop bits), what the transmission speed is (baud rate) and if I could be arsed to spend $218 getting the full spec will include voltage levels, line length / resistance and other stuff.
Glad you took my suggestion.
WouldBe said:
Just like with RS232 you can connect anything you like to the transmission line the actual spec cannot tell you what commands to send to operate the printer, scanner or whatever else you decide to connect to the other end of the cable.
Indeed.
WouldBe said:
Considering as well you can have programmable diagnostics then command 'F' (or whaterver commands they are) might result in an engine diagnostic running one week, a VHF radio diagnostic another week and an undercarriagd diagnostis the week after that, depending what has been programmed.
By jove! I think you're getting close!
WouldBe said:
As for the idea of upgrading the FCS software via radio do you think it's wise to have to re-start the FCS in mid flight considering the FCS is keeping the aircraft in the air?
Why do you keep bringing this term 'upgrading' in? If I hacked you PC and flipped the screen image upside-down, would that be an 'upgrade'?
WouldBe said:
If you get tired of the day job have you thought of going into comedy?
Only if I can borrow your red nose.
Seriously, though, I'm going to have to stick you on ignore for a bit, WouldBe, so your techno-buffoonary will have to go unchallenged for a while.
Since the current 'day job' involves doing something which is of practical use in freeing us from the need to consume hydrocarbons, thus the need to stage spectacular 'terror' attacks in order to garner support for illeagal wars of aggression in order to secure them, I feel I should be paying that a bit more attention, rather than wasting hours explaining essentially irrelevant technical points to knobheads.
Adios!
