Utter BS. Prisonplanet is a haven for kooks, much like this place.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 121552
Hmmm.....Typical....Just ignore the witnesses....You seem to know something everyone else doesn't....Please share your information like the whistle blowers have...
Thanks in advance!
<F>
Anonymous Coward User ID: 137330 3/8/2007 9:15 AM
Re: Boeing GUILTY of secretly putting remote guidance chips in airliners before 9-11!
a very intersting site (this site confirms a rumor about pension investments that i had read, and names the same names in the rumor i read over a year ago)
The "debunkers" seem to think that flying a large arcraft by remote control is impossible. Why that is, I really can't imagine, since the military has been flying both prop planes and jets by remote control since the 1950's.
In 1984 NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) teamed-up in a unique flight experiment called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), to test the impact of a Boeing 720 aircraft using standard fuel with an additive designed to suppress fire. The additive FM-9, a high molecular-weight long chain polymer, when blended with Jet-A fuel had demonstrated the capability to inhibit ignition and flame propagation of the released fuel in simulated impact tests.
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.
Saturday, April 8, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
E-mail article Print view
Boeing pays $15 million fine
By Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter
Boeing has paid the largest fine ever levied on a company for violation of the Arms Export Control Act, settling a dispute with the State Department over the unlicensed foreign sales of commercial airplanes carrying a small gyrochip with military applications.
In addition to a $15 million fine, a consent decree signed March 28 imposes oversight requirements on Boeing because three previous settlements of similar alleged violations didn't result in full compliance with export controls.
Still, Boeing may consider itself lucky. The maximum fine was $43 million.
And because Boeing "has acknowledged the seriousness of the violations ... expresses regret for these activities and its willingness to make amends," the State Department decided that the ultimate sanction of "debarment," or banned from government contracts, "is not appropriate."
In a January speech at a private retreat in Orlando, Fla., for top Boeing executives, senior vice president and general counsel Douglas Bain described export control as the "biggest issue we face" and listed the QRS-11 charges among the company's unresolved legal problems.
According to the State Department charges, between 2000 and 2003 Boeing shipped overseas 94 commercial jets with the QRS-11 gyrochip embedded in the flight boxes, including 19 to China. Export of listed defense items to China is specifically proscribed.
The State Department had determined in 1993 that the chip, used in the guidance system of the Maverick missile, "has significant military utility." That put the devices on a list of products that require a license for foreign sales.
Boeing continued the exports even after the State Department told the company to stop. Boeing ignored those orders after its lawyers advised that the State Department "did not have jurisdiction" to regulate the exports.
"In hindsight, we should have handled it differently," said Boeing spokesman Tim Neale. "We would handle it differently today."
The settlement includes an acknowledgment by Boeing that the State Department has authority to decide which technologies are designated as defense items under export control.
The 2-ounce, 1-inch-diameter QRS-11 chip, made by a unit of BEI Technologies in Concord, Calif., sells for less than $2,000. Boeing executives argued that a military enemy seeking the chip would have alternatives to buying a $60 million jet and taking apart the flight box.
Reaches a head
The dispute between Boeing and the State Department reached a head in the fall of 2003, when two 737 jets were released to China only after President Bush signed a last-minute waiver after a request from then-Chief Executive Phil Condit.
That produced a political settlement the following January in line with Boeing's view of the issue: QRS-11 chips remained on the list of military items but were reclassified as commercial items when integrated into commercial-jet flight boxes.
After that, export of the chips inside Boeing commercial jets was no longer an issue. The case remained alive because of Boeing's previous "blatant disregard" of the State Department. In addition to unauthorized export, State charged Boeing with misrepresentation of facts and false statements.
Other incidents
Boeing has violated arms-export-control rules on three previous occasions.
• In 1998, Boeing was fined $10 million because it shared sensitive technologies without an export license with its Russian, Ukrainian, Norwegian and German partners in the Sea Launch space rocket joint venture.
• In 2001, Boeing was fined $4.3 million for technology transfer without an export license to Australia, Malaysia, Turkey and Singapore on its Wedgetail 737 Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft program.
• In 2003, Loral and Hughes Space and Communication were fined $32 million for illegal export of satellite technology to China. By then that Hughes division had been acquired by Boeing, though the violations happened before the acquisition.
In the March consent decree, the State Department points out that more than $9 million of those previous fines were returned to Boeing to fund remedial compliance measures that would avoid future violations.
Because that didn't work, the new settlement requires Boeing to appoint an independent external officer to oversee companywide export-control compliance for two years, as well as a senior manager internally. And it must retain an outside firm to audit implementation.
The company informed employees of the settlement Friday.
Dominic Gates: 206-464-2963 or dgates@seattletimes.com
DESCRIPTION
The QRS11 is a MEMS technology, solid-state "gyro on a chip." This DC input/high-level DC output device is fully self contained, extremely small and lightweight. Since the inertial sensing element is comprised of just one micromachined piece of crystalline quartz (no moving parts), it has a virtually "unlimited" life. The Model QRS11 is a mature product in volume production. It is fully qualified for use on numerous advanced aircraft, missile, and space systems.
APPLICATIONS
Stabilization
Satellite Communication Antennas
Optical Line-of-Sight Systems
Missile Seekers
Controls
Aircraft & Missile Flight Control
Attitude Control
Yaw Dampers
Guidance
Missile Mid-Course Guidance
Inertial/GPS Navigation Systems
Instrumentation
Rocket Boosters
Simulation & Training Aids
FEATURES
High-Performance Inertial Sensor
Internal Electronics
Compact, Rugged Package integrates easily in many applications
Standard Range ±100°/sec
Input Voltage + and - 5 Vdc ±3% regulation
Short Term Bias Stability(100 sec at const. temp) 0.01°/sec, typical *
Output Noise ( DC to 100 Hz) 0.01°/sec/ *
* Values Indicated Are For ±100°/sec. Range
[ DATA SHEET ] [ OUTLINE DRAWING ]
Anonymous Coward User ID: 206105 3/8/2007 9:24 AM
Re: Boeing GUILTY of secretly putting remote guidance chips in airliners before 9-11!
i am wary of this too. but, the chip's apps are real, and so it boeing's use of them in commercial aircraft. busted. i am also VERY interested in the pension angle since i already came across the rumor before. follow the money......
Anonymous Coward User ID: 137330 3/8/2007 9:38 AM
Re: Boeing GUILTY of secretly putting remote guidance chips in airliners before 9-11!
so who really crashed egypt air, with 33 egyptian officers aboard, into the ocean?
why does everything have to have a stink about it? why do boeing and others like it engage in illegal activity, then lie to cover it up? why should we believe anything from our own press or officials after they've repeatedly lied to us, too?
wsj article, so heavy use of the word 'conspiracy'
Conspiracy thinking can be found anywhere, but in the Middle East it dominates at the highest levels of the government, the media, the academy and the religious establishment. And Flight 990 is a particularly inviting target for conspiracy theorists. It carried 33 top Egyptian military officers, plus it originated in New York, the city with the world's largest Jewish population. That's enough to convince many Egyptians that someone purposely brought down the plane to harm Egyptian interests.
Not for a second do Egyptians accept the idea that a relief pilot, Gamil al-Batouti, had intentionally nose-dived the plane. They cannot imagine that a pious Muslim and former military officer should have caused such humiliation to his family and his country. When Americans try to interpret Batouti's much-repeated statement, "I put my faith in God's hands," Egyptians see bias against Islam.
Thus Egyptians have been engaged in a surreal debate over whether the culprit was Israeli, American or both. An Egyptian without access to Western media has almost no way of knowing that there is a serious case against Batouti.
The government mostly blames America. The managing editor of the government newspaper Al-Jumhuriya muses about a U.S. surface-to-air missile, or maybe a laser ray, bringing down the airliner. Mahmud Bakri explains in Al-Musawwar, a government-run weekly, how the airliner strayed into a no-fly zone and was instantly destroyed to keep some deadly military information secret. Or maybe, he speculates, New York air traffic controllers intentionally sent the plane in harm's way, a line of reasoning Mr. Bakri finds convincing because Jews "have strong networks of communication at U.S. airports."
Egypt's transportation minister told a parliamentary committee that Boeing, maker of the 767 that crashed, was making a scapegoat of Egypt: "It's the airline production company which tried to defend itself." Added one member of Egypt's parliament: "This 'accident' was deliberate, and the target was the large number of military [officers] onboard the plane."
Opposition dailies mostly blamed Israel. "Evidence of Mossad Involvement in Blowing Up the Egyptian Airliner," screams a huge red banner across the front page of Al-Arabi. The chief editor of Al-Wafd writes on the front page of his newspaper that "Israel's fingers are not far away" from the crash, reasoning that the Jewish state could not pass up the opportunity to eliminate 33 U.S.-trained Egyptian military officers.
Stan P. User ID: 180894 3/8/2007 10:15 AM
Re: Boeing GUILTY of secretly putting remote guidance chips in airliners before 9-11!
this is the tip of the iceberg! hundreds of individuals and companies have now been outed as having the info that will solve this. they may not have had a hand in 911, but their companies contain some of the crumbs lining the trail. follow the money.......
pension plans, telephone companies, those companies you see on commercials everyday. our very institutions! but what did you expect in such a condoned milieu as corporate corruption? did you think corruption only has to do with money?
Anonymous Coward User ID: 137330 3/8/2007 10:24 AM
Re: Boeing GUILTY of secretly putting remote guidance chips in airliners before 9-11!
Back in the early 90's, I was waiting in the dentists office and read an article in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics, one of those types of magazines.
It said that commercial airliners had onboard computers that allowed the plane to be remote controlled from the ground in the event something happened to the pilots.
When 9-11 happened, that article was the first thing that popped into my mind.
Believe it.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 199705 3/8/2007 10:45 AM
Re: Boeing GUILTY of secretly putting remote guidance chips in airliners before 9-11!
from yesterday 737 on 7/3/7 thats wrong because it gose month day year not the other way around.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 199705
You are wrong it goes DAY/MONTH/YEAR but like most things we introduced you lot into when we colonised your country you forgot what you were told. Just like you for got how to spell colour, yes you miss out the 'U'.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 121552 3/8/2007 10:58 AM
Re: Boeing GUILTY of secretly putting remote guidance chips in airliners before 9-11!
"Should it concern us that Boeing began installation of a chip that turns a plane into a remotely guided missile immediately before 9/11?"
It should.
It should, if you haven't the faintest idea of what is required (besides a "gyro on a chip") to turn an airplane into a remotely guided missile.
It should, if you don't realize the amount of other equipment that would have to be fitted into the aircraft to do so.
It should, if you believe that prison planet is anything besides a nut-bar site which comprises people like many here at GLP.
It should, if you are the kind of person who considers Sorcha Faal, Jim McCanney, and Click Carneyclown as serious writers and researchers.
It should, if you're the OP.
Quoting: Duncan Kunz
please duncan, read the site about the chip and the claims it makes. plus boeing was busted and fined. the chip promotes remote guidance. if it was just a benign little microchip like you're trying to imply, why can't boeing just sell it to anyone? you should be outraged that boeing is selling military technology to any tom, dick or terrorist. but that's ok with you as long as your handlers make serious coin and give you the tiniest of crumbs. selling out comes pretty cheaply these days, eh, duncan? why don't you condemn the illegal boeing practice as the justice dept has done instead of making excuses?
Anonymous Coward User ID: 200910 3/8/2007 11:03 AM
Re: Boeing GUILTY of secretly putting remote guidance chips in airliners before 9-11!
"Should it concern us that Boeing began installation of a chip that turns a plane into a remotely guided missile immediately before 9/11?"
It should.
It should, if you haven't the faintest idea of what is required (besides a "gyro on a chip") to turn an airplane into a remotely guided missile.
It should, if you don't realize the amount of other equipment that would have to be fitted into the aircraft to do so.
It should, if you believe that prison planet is anything besides a nut-bar site which comprises people like many here at GLP.
It should, if you are the kind of person who considers Sorcha Faal, Jim McCanney, and Click Carneyclown as serious writers and researchers.
It should, if you're the OP.
please duncan, read the site about the chip and the claims it makes. plus boeing was busted and fined. the chip promotes remote guidance. if it was just a benign little microchip like you're trying to imply, why can't boeing just sell it to anyone? you should be outraged that boeing is selling military technology to any tom, dick or terrorist. but that's ok with you as long as your handlers make serious coin and give you the tiniest of crumbs. selling out comes pretty cheaply these days, eh, duncan? why don't you condemn the illegal boeing practice as the justice dept has done instead of making excuses?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 137330
Anonymous Coward User ID: 153014 3/8/2007 11:07 AM
Re: Boeing GUILTY of secretly putting remote guidance chips in airliners before 9-11!
March 4, 2001....6 mos. before 9/11... The Lone Gunmen series aired on FOX TV.
The pilot episode of this X-Files spinoff was about a commercial airliner having its navigation system hijacked and being flown into the World Trade Center via remote control by a covert group within the US government in order to create an alleged terrorist attack on the US.
This pilot episode was filmed between March 20 - April 7, 2000, 19 months before 9/11.
19 hijackers with boxcutters.. just another conspiracy theory!
Chris Carter, the producer of the X-files, may have been a 33rd degree mason.. idk
anyhow this video is excellent..REMOTE ACCESS..COMMANDEER think for yourself, question authority.. - Dr. Timothy Leary ... Life!.. it's just a ride! - Bill Hicks
The possession of anything begins in the mind - Bruce Lee
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.... - ALBERT EINSTEIN
~ * ~ opposing zealousness at roots ultimately suffer
Though our 'creators'(..'in our image' - Genesis) may have given us life. Bighting the hand that feeds you has never been such a wise phrase.
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]
Anonymous Coward User ID: 137330 3/8/2007 11:26 AM
Re: Boeing GUILTY of secretly putting remote guidance chips in airliners before 9-11!
(2004, so they barn door had already been opened for several years). a bunch of industry jargon is contained here, but it is interesting under what jurisdictions the chip falls:
excerpt:
Background
On January 7, 2004, the Department of State published a rule
amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to
remove
from United States Munitions List (USML) jurisdiction certain
quartz
rate sensors when the sensors are integrated into and included as
an
integral part of a commercial standby instrument system for use
on
civil aircraft or exported solely for integration into such
commercial
standby instrument systems.
so up until 2004 it was fully under the jurisdiction of international arms controls and munitions regulations.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
15 CFR Parts 734, 740, and 774
[Docket No. 040202032-4032-01]
RIN 0694-AD03
Licensing Jurisdiction for QRS11 Micromachined Angular Rate
Sensors
AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Export Administration
Regulations
(EAR) to transfer, coincident with the State Department's written
commodity jurisdiction determination of February 9, 2004,
licensing
jurisdiction for QRS11-00100-100/101 Micromachined Angular Rate
Sensors
from the Department of State to the Department of Commerce when
those
sensors are integrated into an instrument system (CSIS) of the
type
described in ECCN 7A994 or aircraft of the type described in ECCN
9A991
that incorporates a CSIS that has such a sensor integrated, or
are
exported solely for integration into such a system. This rule
also
excludes systems or aircraft integrating QRS11-00100-100/101
sensors
from eligibility for the de minimis provisions of the EAR, and
excludes
the sensors from license exception eligibility.
DATES: This rule is effective: February 9, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene Christiansen, Office of
Strategic
Trade, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of
Commerce at
(202) 482-2984.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 7, 2004, the Department of State published a rule
amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to
remove
from United States Munitions List (USML) jurisdiction certain
quartz
rate sensors when the sensors are integrated into and included as
an
integral part of a commercial standby instrument system for use
on
civil aircraft or exported solely for integration into such
commercial
standby instrument systems. The State Department will review on a
case-
by-case basis requests to determine whether a sensor is eligible
for
removal from the USML under the ITAR regulatory change, and must
provide a written determination of commodity jurisdiction in
order for
the removal to take effect (69 FR 873).
As of February 9, 2004, the State Department has determined
that
QRS11-00100-100/101 Micromachined Angular Rate Sensors integrated
into
and included as an integral part of a Commercial Standby
Instrument
System (CSIS) of the type described in the Export Administration
Regulations (EAR) under ECCN 7A994 or an aircraft of the type
described
in ECCN 9A991 that incorporates a CSIS that has such a sensor
integrated, or exported solely for integration into such a system
are
subject to the licensing jurisdiction of the Department of
Commerce. In
all other cases, the QRS-11 Micromachined Angular Rate Sensors,
including the QRS11-00100-100/101 sensors, are subject to the
licensing
jurisdiction of the Department of State, Directorate of Defense
Trade
Controls.
When exported solely for integration into a foreign-made
CSIS, the
QRS11-00100-100/101 is subject to Regional Stability controls
under RS
Column 1 in Part 738 of the EAR, requiring a license for export
to all
destinations except Canada. A CSIS integrating the sensor or an
aircraft incorporating such a CSIS are subject to Anti-Terrorism
controls under AT Column 1. No license exceptions are available
for the
QRS11-00100-100/101 sensor or the CSIS integrating the sensor.
License
Exception AVS is available only for certain aircraft on temporary
sojourn, specifically those eligible under Sec. 740.15(a) of the
EAR.
There is no de minimis level for foreign-made CSISs that
contain
QRS11-00100-100/101 Micromachined Angular Rate Sensors, or for
foreign-
made aircraft that incorporate CSISs that have
QRS11-00100-100/101s
integrated (see Sec. 734.4(a) of the EAR). Both the instruments
and the
aircraft remain subject to the EAR regardless of their
percentage, by
value, of U.S. content.
This final rule involves no new curtailment of exports,
because any
transfer or removal of items from the licensing jurisdiction of
the
Department of State to the licensing jurisdiction of the
Department of
Commerce maintains a continuity of controls. Therefore, the
provisions
regarding the impact of new controls do not apply and contract
sanctity
also does not apply to this imposition of controls (50 app.
U.S.C. Sec.
2405(p)).
Any violation of the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations,
including any violation of the terms and conditions of any
Department
of State issued export license, prior to the transfer of
jurisdiction
pursuant to this final rule, shall constitute a violation of the
Arms
Export Control Act. Items already exported under State
jurisdiction,
including pursuant to USML licenses, will remain subject to State
jurisdiction until such time as the exporter requests and
Commerce
issues authorization to replace the State license. Upon
notification by
Commerce of such authorization, State will revoke any previously
issued
licenses. Such items exported under the ITAR, including pursuant
to
USML licenses, but made subject to the EAR by this rule and
written
determination of the Department of State may, thereafter, be
integrated
into CSISs or aircraft that incorporate CSISs that have such
sensors
integrated, or reexported in accordance with the provisions of
this
rule. Actions pending at the Department of State on February 9,
2004,
including pending license applications, must be refiled with the
Department of Commerce. In addition, items exported or reexported
without a USML license prior to a change in jurisdiction in
accordance
with this rule must be disclosed to the Department of State
pursuant to
22 CFR 127.12 prior to requesting Commerce authorization.
[[Page 5929]]
Consistent with the provisions of section 6 of the Export
Administration Act, a foreign policy report was submitted to
Congress
on February 3, 2004, notifying the Congress of the change in
licensing
jurisdiction reflected in this rule.
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20,
2001,
the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001
(66 FR
44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783), as extended by the Notice of
August
7, 2003 (68 FR 47833, August 11, 2003), has continued the Export
Administration Regulations in effect under the International
Emergency
Economic Powers Act.
Rulemaking Requirements
1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant
for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a
penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject
to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that
collection of
information displays a currently valid Office of Management and
Budget
Control Number. This rule involves a collection of information
subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This
collection has been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget
under control number 0694-0088, ``Multi-Purpose Application,''
which
carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes for a manual or
electronic
submission. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any
other
aspect of these collections of information, including suggestions
for
reducing the burden, to OMB Desk Officer, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503; and to the Office of
Administration,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, 14th and
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 6883, Washington, DC 20230.
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism
implications
as that term is defined under E.O. 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C.
553) requiring prior notice, the opportunity for public comment,
and a
delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation
involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United
States
(5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Further, no other law requires that prior
notice
and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final
rule.
Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are
not
required to be given for this rule under the Administrative
Procedure
Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the
Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable.
Therefore,
this regulation is issued in final form. Although there is no
formal
comment period, public comments on this regulation are welcome on
a
continuing basis. Comments should be submitted to Hillary Hess,
Office
of Exporter Services, Bureau of Export Administration, Department
of
Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044.
List of Subjects
15 CFR Part 734
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Foreign
trade.
15 CFR Part 740
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Foreign
trade,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
15 CFR Part 774
Exports, Foreign trade.
0
Accordingly, parts 734, 740, and 774 of the Export Administration
Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-799) are amended as follows:
PART 734--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 734 is revised to read
as
follows:
Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.;
E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13020,
61
FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp. p. 219; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3
CFR,
1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp.,
p.
783; Notice of October 29, 2003, 68 FR 62209, October 31, 2003;
Notice of August 7, 2003, 68 FR 47833, August 11, 2003.
0
2. Section 734.3, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 734.3 Items subject to the EAR.
(a) * * *
(3) U.S. origin parts, components, materials or other
commodities
integrated abroad into foreign-made products, U.S. origin
software
commingled with foreign software, and U.S. origin technology
commingled
with foreign technology:
(i) In any quantity, as described in section 734.4(a) of this
part;
or
(ii) In quantities exceeding de minimis levels as described
in
section 734.4(c) and Supplement No. 2 of this part;
* * * * *
0
3. Section 734.4 is amended by:
0
(a) Revising paragraph (a), as set forth below;
0
(b) Removing and reserving paragraph (b); and
0
(c) Revising the introductory text for paragraph (c), to read as
follows:
Sec. 734.4 De minimis U.S. content.
(a) Items for which there is no de minimis level. (1) There
is no
de minimis level for the export from a foreign country of a
foreign-
made computer exceeding 190,000 MTOPS containing U.S.-origin
controlled
semiconductors (other than memory circuits) classified under ECCN
3A001
to Computer Tier 3; or exceeding 28,000 MTOPS containing
U.S.-origin
controlled semiconductors (other than memory circuits) classified
under
ECCN 3A001 or high speed interconnect devices (ECCN 4A994.j) to
Computer Tier 4 countries described in Sec. 742.12 of the EAR.
(2) There is no de minimis level for foreign-made items that
incorporate U.S.-origin items controlled for ``EI'' reasons under
ECCN
5A002, 5D002 or 5E002 on the Commerce Control List (Supplement
No. 1 to
part 774 the EAR). However, exporters may, as part of an
encryption
review request, ask that software controlled for EI reasons under
ECCN
5D002 and eligible for export under the ``retail'' or ``source
code''
provisions of license exception ENC, and parts and components
controlled under ECCN 5A002, be made eligible for de minimis
treatment.
The review of de minimis eligibility will take U.S. national
security
interests into account. Other encryption items controlled for NS
or AT
reasons under ECCNs 5D002, 5A992, 5D992, and 5E992 are not
eligible for
de minimis treatment, unless exporters have complied with the
applicable notification or review requirements described in Sec.
740.13(e), Sec. 742.15(b)(1), and Sec. 742.15(b)(2) of the EAR.
Encryption items controlled by ECCN 5A992, 5D992, or 5E992 and
described in Sec. 742.15(b)(3) of the EAR are not subject to
these
notification or review requirements.
(3) There is no de minimis level for foreign-made:
(i) Commercial Standby Instrument Systems (CSIS) of the type
described in ECCN 7A994 on the Commerce Control List (Supplement
No. 1
to part 774 the EAR) when the CSISs integrate QRS11-00100-100/101
Micromachined Angular Rate Sensors; and
(ii) Aircraft of the type described in ECCN 9A991 when such
aircraft incorporate a CSIS integrating a QRS11-00100-100/101
sensor.
Note to paragraph (a)(3): QRS11 Micromachined Angular Rate
Sensors are subject to the export licensing jurisdiction of the
U.S.
Department of State, Directorate of
[[Page 5930]]
Defense Trade Controls, except when the QRS11-00100-100/101
version
of the sensor is integrated into and included as an integral part
of
a CSIS of the type described in ECCN 7A994 or aircraft of the
type
described in ECCN 9A991 that incorporates a CSIS that has such a
sensor integrated, or is exported solely for integration into
such a
system.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section for
certain
computers, items controlled for EI reasons, and certain aircraft
and
instrument systems, the following reexports are not subject to
the EAR
when made to a terrorist-supporting country listed in Country
Group E:1
(see Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR):
* * * * *
PART 740--[AMENDED]
0
4. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 740 continues to read
as
follows:
Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.;
Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR,
1996
Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p.
783;
Notice of August 7, 2003, 68 FR 47833, August 11, 2003.
0
5. Section 740.2 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(9) to read as
follows:
Sec. 740.2 Restrictions on all License Exceptions.
* * * * *
(9) The item is a QRS11-00100-100/101 Micromachined Angular
Rate
Sensor controlled for RS reasons under ECCN 7A994.
* * * * *
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO PART 774--[AMENDED]
0
6. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 774 continues to read
as
follows:
Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.;
10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.; 22
U.S.C.
287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq., 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s),
185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 46
U.S.C.
app. 466c; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; Sec. 901-911, Pub. L. 106-387; Sec.
221, Pub. L. 107-56; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp.,
p.
228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice
of
August 7, 2003, 68 FR 47833, August 11, 2003.
0
7. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List),
Category 7--Navigation and Avionics, ECCN 7A994 is amended by
revising
the License Requirements section, and the ``Related Controls''
paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as
follows:
7A994 Other navigation direction finding equipment, airborne
communication equipment, all aircraft inertial navigation systems
not controlled under 7A003 or 7A103, and other avionic equipment,
including parts and components, n.e.s.
License Requirements
Reason for Control: RS, AT
Control(s) Country chart
RS applies to QRS11-00100-100/101 RS Column 1
Micromachined Angular Rate Sensors when
exported solely for integration into a
CSIS controlled in this entry.
AT applies to entire entry................ AT Column 1
License Requirement Notes: There is no de minimis level for
foreign-
made Commercial Standby Instrument Systems (CSIS) that integrate
QRS11-00100-100/101 Micromachined Angular Rate Sensors (see Sec.
734.4(a) of the EAR).
* * * * *
List of Items Controlled
Unit: * * *
Related Controls: QRS11 Micromachined Angular Rate Sensors are
subject to the export licensing jurisdiction of the U.S.
Department
of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, unless the
QRS11-
00100-100/101 is integrated into and included as an integral part
of
a CSIS of the type described in ECCN 7A994 or aircraft of the
type
described in ECCN 9A991 that incorporates a CSIS that has such a
sensor integrated, or is exported solely for integration into
such a
system (See 22 CFR Part 121). In the latter case, such items are
subject to the licensing jurisdiction of the Department of
Commerce.
Technology specific to the development and production of QRS11
sensors remains subject to the licensing jurisdiction of the
Department of State.
Related Definitions: * * *
Items: * * *
0
8. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List),
Category 7--Navigation and Avionics, ECCN 7E994 is amended by
revising
the License Requirements section, and the ``Related Controls''
paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as
follows:
7E994 ``Technology'', n.e.s., for the ``development'',
``production'', or ``use'' of navigation, airborne communication,
and other avionics equipment.
* * * * *
List of Items Controlled
Unit: * * *
Related Controls: Technology specific to the development and
production of QRS11 sensors remains subject to the licensing
jurisdiction of the Department of State (see ECCN 7A994, Related
Controls).
Related Definitions: * * *
Items: * * *
0
9. In Supplement No. 1 to part 774 (the Commerce Control List),
Category 9--Propulsion Systems, Space Vehicles and Related
Equipment,
ECCN 9A991 is amended by adding a ``License Requirements Note''
to the
License Requirements section, and revising the ``Related
Controls''
paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, to read as
follows:
9A991 ``Aircraft'', n.e.s., and gas turbine engines not
controlled
by 9A001 or 9A101 and parts and components, n.e.s.
License Requirements
Reason for Control: AT, UN
Control(s) Country chart
AT applies to entire entry................ AT Column 1.
UN applies to 9A991.a..................... Rwanda.
License Requirement Notes: There is no de minimis level for
foreign-
made aircraft described by this entry that incorporate Commercial
Standby Instrument Systems (CSIS) that integrate
QRS11-00100-100/101
Micromachined Angular Rate Sensors (see Sec. 734.4(a) of the
EAR).
* * * * *
List of Items Controlled
Unit: * * *
Related Controls: QRS11 Micromachined Angular Rate Sensors are
subject to the export licensing jurisdiction of the U.S.
Department
of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, unless the
QRS11-
00100-100/101 is integrated into and included as an integral part
of
a CSIS of the type described in ECCN 7A994 or aircraft of the
type
described in ECCN 9A991 that incorporates a CSIS that has such a
sensor integrated, or is exported solely for integration into
such a
system (See 22 CFR part 121). In the latter case, such items are
subject to the licensing jurisdiction of the Department of
Commerce.
Technology specific to the development and production of QRS11
sensors remains subject to the licensing jurisdiction of the
Department of State.
Related Definitions: * * *
Items: * * *
Dated: February 3, 2004.
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-2655 Filed 2-6-04; 8:45 am]
"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system assures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload."
[clip]
The furture air navigation system / flight management system was operational before S11. I did a whole research thingy on it. You can find the automatic landing tests info from NASA and Boeing... *yar har fiddley dee
plunder the market 'cause a pirate is free*
Disclaimer: This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality
or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every
effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually
review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.
The content of post
on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in
no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of
the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or
administration of GodlikeProductions.
This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.
Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.
