On Again Off Again Airfones

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Interestingly folks, Lytes original posting of the document on page #1 of this thread has now magically disappeared.

Do you mean the image in post #2? I can still see it.

Dave

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Obviousman

Now, despite all what I have said, Beachnut has nailed it:

- There is no reason (and this would be highlighted during an audit) for a manual to contain information on a system that was no longer fitted to the aircraft. It might remain for an amendment or two, but 6 years? I don't buy it.

Just a nitpick, that was Gumboot that nailed it...

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Just a little thing...

The claim is that the top dates are blacked out to hide the date the document was accessed, because this would reveal the identity of the naughty guy that printed it out.

However there's one big slobbering flaw in this theory...

Lyte Trip has stated, numerous times, that the 2007 date at the top is the date it was accessed on the system. Never mind that it quite clearly states this is the revision date.

In addition, the document labels for the blacked out dates quite clearly indicate they are the date for the document, not the date for it being accessed. Since we are supposed to believe the bottom 2001 date is the document date, at least one of the blacked out dates should be the same as this 2001 date.

The fact that these dates are blacked out clearly indicates to me that they are NOT the 2001 date, and left visible, they would reveal the deception of the document.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

yes it is back again now, but it was gone, and I am on the same computer...how very odd...oh well. My apologies.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

I find it strange that the pic was gone though. Is it possible the pic could have been removed/changed at the host, and hence not come up temporarily, and now be restored? Is it possible the server for the image could have been down?

oh well... it is back up..

TAM

I downloaded the image and checked it...same modification date as original, so it must have been either (A) an issue with my comp (less likely as all other pics on the page loaded properly) or (B) a problem with his server (more likely).

[apathoid]

I didn't have much time to research this at work, but while I was looking up a manual reference for the plane I was working(which happens to have been a 757), I decided to read a little about revisions. I also printed out the first page of the Airfone system "Description and Operation" in our B757 AMM for comparison, as well the "Revision Highlights" page.

Firstly, our electronic manuals are kept current by the software 3 times a year, the 28th of January, 28th of May and the 28th of September being the 3 days. That tells me that AA uses the same service for these updates. Secondly, as I browsed the manual, I could not note the revision date for any part of the manual I was browsing(something I never took notice of before). And I should stress that the AMM, depending on what section you're in isn't really in a book-page format. It's broken down by chapter-section-subsection-task-subtask ... In any given chapter-section-subsection-task(ie 23-19-00-501 Description and Operation) the manual reads as a single continuous page, it's not like Acrobat Reader in that sense. Only when you print the manual do the page numbers and the revision date show up.


B757 AMM Sample page

Revision Highlights Page

The release 87.01 is the current revision level of the manual, and it reflects a temporary revision which was made on the 4th of this month.

This basically tells me that the manual page in the OP cannot possibly be genuine as it shows 2 conflicting revision dates on the same page!

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Just a nitpick, that was Gumboot that nailed it...

-Gumboot

Hate to burst your bubble, but we don't have Airfones anymore either, yet the manual reference is still there.

And it's not just AMMs, wiring prints and schematics which no longer reflect any aircraft configuration, for any effectivity, still come up in the Wiring Diagram Manual - and they come up first. You actually have to read the flagnotes for each like print(there could be 10-15 different sets of prints for a given system in a given the fleet) to find which one has been updated for the accomplishment of an EO or Service Bulletin for your effectivity. It's very easy to start troubleshooting with a set of prints that don't pertain to your airplane. I've done it many times.

Why they keep all that stuff in there is beyond me, but I think the FAA has something to do with it....

[T.A.M.]

So this sort of explains the oddity of the two dates, seperated by year, but having the same month and day as not so odd after all, but the two revision dates makes it extremely likely that it has been tampered with?

TAM

EDIT: I think there are enough differences between manuals, from airline to airline, that only a copy of the AA version of the 757 manual from that year will put this to rest.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by apathoid

Hate to burst your bubble, but we don't have Airfones anymore either, yet the manual reference is still there.

Ah okay, thanks for that.

It's interesting that the layout you gave us is almost identical in terms of date placements etc. and it's worth noting that there's no page count in the bottom right corner.

-Gumboot

[MortFurd]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Ah okay, thanks for that.

It's interesting that the layout you gave us is almost identical in terms of date placements etc. and it's worth noting that there's no page count in the bottom right corner.

-Gumboot

Both of the images Apathoid posted have page numbers in the lower right corner. "1 of 5" and "1 of 1." They just don't say "Pace:"

The spot light from your Avatar must have gotten in your eyes.

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

EDIT: I think there are enough differences between manuals, from airline to airline, that only a copy of the AA version of the 757 manual from that year will put this to rest.

I agree and I mentioned yesterday that even though I was going to pull up the exact same section of the AMM, they would likely be very different. I just posted these for comparison, specifically for the revision dates.

I'll get ahold of the AA manual soon enough, don't worry.

[T.A.M.]

no sweat man...you da man.

I was argueing via SLC blog posts with JDX. His latest point, which until I zoomed in on the doc, I thought was a valid one, is that if the bottom of the g were cut off, why would it leave a "c"...it should leave an "o". So then I bring up the document/jpg in my photoshop...low and behold when you zoom in...it is an "o" not a "c"...

So we should be calling this defect the "Paoe 1" defect, not "Pace 1".

TAM

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by apathoid

I didn't have much time to research this at work, but while I was looking up a manual reference for the plane I was working(which happens to have been a 757), I decided to read a little about revisions. I also printed out the first page of the Airfone system "Description and Operation" in our B757 AMM for comparison, as well the "Revision Highlights" page.

Firstly, our electronic manuals are kept current by the software 3 times a year, the 28th of January, 28th of May and the 28th of September being the 3 days. That tells me that AA uses the same service for these updates. Secondly, as I browsed the manual, I could not note the revision date for any part of the manual I was browsing(something I never took notice of before). And I should stress that the AMM, depending on what section you're in isn't really in a book-page format. It's broken down by chapter-section-subsection-task-subtask ... In any given chapter-section-subsection-task(ie 23-19-00-501 Description and Operation) the manual reads as a single continuous page, it's not like Acrobat Reader in that sense. Only when you print the manual do the page numbers and the revision date show up.


B757 AMM Sample page

Revision Highlights Page

The release 87.01 is the current revision level of the manual, and it reflects a temporary revision which was made on the 4th of this month.

This basically tells me that the manual page in the OP cannot possibly be genuine as it shows 2 conflicting revision dates on the same page!

I don't quite understand your wording. So are you saying that the date in the bottom right should not be there at all, or should match with the revision date of software?

Also, shouldn't it state "Page 1 of x" instead of "Paoe 1"?

[qarnos]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

So we should be calling this defect the "Paoe 1" efect, not "Pace 1".TAM

"Pace 1" is much easier to pronounce - let's call it an archaic term.

[Obviousman]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Just a little thing...

The claim is that the top dates are blacked out to hide the date the document was accessed, because this would reveal the identity of the naughty guy that printed it out.

However there's one big slobbering flaw in this theory...

Lyte Trip has stated, numerous times, that the 2007 date at the top is the date it was accessed on the system. Never mind that it quite clearly states this is the revision date.

In addition, the document labels for the blacked out dates quite clearly indicate they are the date for the document, not the date for it being accessed. Since we are supposed to believe the bottom 2001 date is the document date, at least one of the blacked out dates should be the same as this 2001 date.

The fact that these dates are blacked out clearly indicates to me that they are NOT the 2001 date, and left visible, they would reveal the deception of the document.

-Gumboot

Sorry!

Ah, okay. All our manuals (except for the new MHR-90) are paper-based with the e-copy being a PDF version of the original files.

[JamesB]

Also the blacked out dates on the top left (if Apathoid is any guide) are probably in the same dd/mm/yyyy format as the date on the bottom right, and the likely source for any cut and paste.

[Obviousman]

Ours have UNCONTROLLED IF PRINTED on the top and bottom to try and maintain version control.

[pomeroo]

It took several days and many, many phone calls to reach Mr. Hotard. Here are the e-mails he sent me:

(June 27, 2007

Ron, I am doublechecking with my maintenance folks so I give you accurate data.

(June 29, 2007

Ron, engineers at our primary Maintenance & Engineering base in Tulsa tell me that they cannot find any record that the 757 aircraft flown into the Pentagon on 9/11 had had its seatback phones deactivated by that date. An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time.

(June 29, 2007, in response to the photos Apathoid posted of 757 cabins in 2002 and 2003

Ron, be a little careful here. While you may see photos of the seatback phones, they may or may not have been disabled. We did two things: issued the engineering change orders to disconnect/disable the phones, but then did not physically remove the phones until the aircraft went through its next “heavy C” check, which is when you take it in for a complete overhaul, such as removing the seats, sidewalls, floorboards,etc and inspect the wiring, and then refurbish the seats with new seatcovers, etc.

(June 29, 2007, in response to my request that we nail down the myth of cell phones not working in flight

Cell phones may or may not work on aircraft, just as they may or may not work on the ground. It depends whether or not the caller is in range of a tower or satellite. I believe the seatback phones worked by having the signal picked up by land based towers as the aircraft moved across the country.

We do not allow use of cell phones in flight because they can potentially interfere with the cockpit’s navigational and other avionics equipment and thus become a safety issue.

It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected.

(Who is John Hotard?)

I am a manager in the Corporate Communications department of American, meaning I deal with media.

Of course, nothing will satisfy the conspiracy liars, as they have no interest in finding out the facts. For the rest of us, I believe my communications with Mr. Hotard confirmed what we already knew.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

It took several days and many, many phone calls to reach Mr. Hotard. Here are the e-mails he sent me:

(June 29, 2007

Ron, engineers at our primary Maintenance & Engineering base in Tulsa tell me that they cannot find any record that the 757 aircraft flown into the Pentagon on 9/11 had had its seatback phones deactivated by that date. An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time.

(June 29, 2007, in response to the photos Apathoid posted of 757 cabins in 2002 and 2003

Ron, be a little careful here. While you may see photos of the seatback phones, they may or may not have been disabled. We did two things: issued the engineering change orders to disconnect/disable the phones, but then did not physically remove the phones until the aircraft went through its next “heavy C” check, which is when you take it in for a complete overhaul, such as removing the seats, sidewalls, floorboards,etc and inspect the wiring, and then refurbish the seats with new seatcovers, etc.

(June 29, 2007, in response to my request that we nail down the myth of cell phones not working in flight

Cell phones may or may not work on aircraft, just as they may or may not work on the ground. It depends whether or not the caller is in range of a tower or satellite. I believe the seatback phones worked by having the signal picked up by land based towers as the aircraft moved across the country.

We do not allow use of cell phones in flight because they can potentially interfere with the cockpit’s navigational and other avionics equipment and thus become a safety issue.

It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected.

(Who is John Hotard?)

I am a manager in the Corporate Communications department of American, meaning I deal with media.

Of course, nothing will satisfy the conspiracy liars, ...

You forgot to make an announcement to some earth shattering data! You need practice being a truther, they do not present the whole story. You need to cherry pick this and make it a smoking gun.

Good info, good research, good follow up. Excellent. I wonder when PFT will present the whole story?

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by beachnut

. . . I wonder when PFT will present the whole story?

[T.A.M.]

Well done Ron.

Of course, with the Kinder email and their alleged talk with AA's legal person, the Pentacon and PFT people will likely call this man a shill or liar.

This still does not solve whether the document from the AA manual for the 757 that they presented was tampered or not.

TAM

[pomeroo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Well done Ron.

Of course, with the Kinder email and their alleged talk with AA's legal person, the Pentacon and PFT people will likely call this man a shill or liar.

This still does not solve whether the document from the AA manual for the 757 that they presented was tampered or not.

TAM

If someone can post a clearer image of the page, I will send it to Mr. Hotard.

[boloboffin]

Some more info for the mix here. According to the 9/11 CR, the FBI prepared a document called 'American Airlines Airphone Usage' on Sept. 20, 2001.

Page 453 (pdf 470) - Amy Sweeney tried to use an airphone to call AA. The first two attempts failed, but the third went through. That phone call was not recorded, but it lasted for 12 minutes.

Page 455 (pdf 472) - There are numerous references to this report in the notes for Flight 77. Renee May is thought to have used a cellphone, as all four of the airphone calls from Flight 77 were described as "connected calls to unknown numbers". All four of this airphone calls were believed to be attempts of Barbara Olson to reach Ted, with only two making it to his desk.

So Mr. Kinder is either clueless about airphones aboard Flight 77 (and 11!) or he's admitting that AA lied to the FBI. I'm going with the first option.

PS: I have no love for the politics of the Olsons whatsoever. In fact, an opposite term could be used to describe my feeling about their politics and methods. However, I'm quite willing to cut Ted Olson some slack about discrepancies in his accounts, because I imagine that any usual attention to details gets swept out of the mind when in the space of fifteen minutes, you go from the Solicitor General of the United States to a man that conceivably listened to his wife die.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Some more info for the mix here. According to the 9/11 CR, the FBI prepared a document called 'American Airlines Airphone Usage' on Sept. 20, 2001.

Page 453 (pdf 470) - Amy Sweeney tried to use an airphone to call AA. The first two attempts failed, but the third went through. That phone call was not recorded, but it lasted for 12 minutes.

Page 455 (pdf 472) - There are numerous references to this report in the notes for Flight 77. Renee May is thought to have used a cellphone, as all four of the airphone calls from Flight 77 were described as "connected calls to unknown numbers". All four of this airphone calls were believed to be attempts of Barbara Olson to reach Ted, with only two making it to his desk.

So Mr. Kinder is either clueless about airphones aboard Flight 77 (and 11!) or he's admitting that AA lied to the FBI. I'm going with the first option.

PS: I have no love for the politics of the Olsons whatsoever. In fact, an opposite term could be used to describe my feeling about their politics and methods. However, I'm quite willing to cut Ted Olson some slack about discrepancies in his accounts, because I imagine that any usual attention to details gets swept out of the mind when in the space of fifteen minutes, you go from the Solicitor General of the United States to a man that conceivably listened to his wife die.

I would love to see the full, unedited, original email sent to Mr. Kinder. Have PFT made it available to their members?

TAM

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

It took several days and many, many phone calls to reach Mr. Hotard. Here are the e-mails he sent me:

(June 27, 2007

Ron, I am doublechecking with my maintenance folks so I give you accurate data.

(June 29, 2007

Ron, engineers at our primary Maintenance & Engineering base in Tulsa tell me that they cannot find any record that the 757 aircraft flown into the Pentagon on 9/11 had had its seatback phones deactivated by that date. An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time.

(June 29, 2007, in response to the photos Apathoid posted of 757 cabins in 2002 and 2003

Ron, be a little careful here. While you may see photos of the seatback phones, they may or may not have been disabled. We did two things: issued the engineering change orders to disconnect/disable the phones, but then did not physically remove the phones until the aircraft went through its next “heavy C” check, which is when you take it in for a complete overhaul, such as removing the seats, sidewalls, floorboards,etc and inspect the wiring, and then refurbish the seats with new seatcovers, etc.

(June 29, 2007, in response to my request that we nail down the myth of cell phones not working in flight

Cell phones may or may not work on aircraft, just as they may or may not work on the ground. It depends whether or not the caller is in range of a tower or satellite. I believe the seatback phones worked by having the signal picked up by land based towers as the aircraft moved across the country.

We do not allow use of cell phones in flight because they can potentially interfere with the cockpit’s navigational and other avionics equipment and thus become a safety issue.

It is our contention that the seatback phones on Flight 77 were working because there is no entry in that aircraft’s records to indicate when the phones were disconnected.

(Who is John Hotard?)

I am a manager in the Corporate Communications department of American, meaning I deal with media.

Of course, nothing will satisfy the conspiracy liars, as they have no interest in finding out the facts. For the rest of us, I believe my communications with Mr. Hotard confirmed what we already knew.

Nicely done Ron.

This caught my eye though:

...."An Engineering Change Order to deactivate the seatback phone system on the 757 fleet had been issued by that time."

I originally read it as...."....not been issued...", but apparently the ECO to deactivate the phones was written before 9/11. Not that it really matters though, since he also states that (ship 644) was not decativated at that time.

Originally Posted by JamesB

I don't quite understand your wording. So are you saying that the date in the bottom right should not be there at all, or should match with the revision date of software?

Also, shouldn't it state "Page 1 of x" instead of "Paoe 1"?

The date being there at the bottom really doesn't concern me, but it should match the other date. We still have some manuals that are only available in PDF and hardcopy, and the revision dates in those are typically found at the bottom right on each page.

Notice on the page that I posted, the date appears twice - just as it does on the AA doc - but it's the same. But the bigger issue is that AA's manuals, like ours, are updated and maintained electronically - meaning each page printed from the manual should have the same revision date. Also, the date should correspond to the last permanent update(the 3X a year I mentioned above), or the last temporary revision. Suffice to say that AA wouldn't slip up on updating their B757 AMM for 6 years.

I'm thinking that whoever got the manual page from the AA guy sat on it for awhile because it was printed out before the last update(5/28/2007).

ETA: I just heard today that we are taking all of AA's ex-TWA 757s(757-231) in the next few weeks and that our department will be doing the conversion mods on them. Since we are getting the AA planes, hopefully we should also be getting the AA manuals.

[AMTMAN]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

It doesn't say remove all. It says most. But ok I'll give you that.

They were deactivated and removed.

If you think the document was faked or the information is untrue it will be easy to refute via American Airlines.

We know for a fact it is real because we personally know the A&P mechanic that obtained it.

Really, do you realize that the A&P mechanic who obtained it left out some very important information?

[pomeroo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMTMAN

Really, do you realize that the A&P mechanic who obtained it left out some very important information?

Lyte Trip won't be returning calls for a while. He is using his incontrovertible evidence showing that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon really flew over it to win fame and fortune for himself and a Pulitzer Prize for some extremely fortunate reporter.

[T.A.M.]

Very funny that Lyte gave up harping on/promoting this.

Also Odd that JDX (yournightmare on SLC now) has given up harping as well.

TAM

[AMTMAN]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

The upper left page date is the date and time of logon to the computer which was used to search for this document. It was redacted to protect our source.

The only thing that anyone would find out is the date and time it was printed. Lets say it was printed on 06/01/2007 at 08:00. It would bascially mean that one of AA's 10000 mechanics printed it out on that date and time. Not much to go on if you ask me. Besdies, I doubt AA legal would even bother.

[T.A.M.]

AMTMAN:

What information, that was left out, do you feel was important?

TAM

[AMTMAN]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

AMTMAN:

What information, that was left out, do you feel was important?

TAM

Let's just say that he's either leaving out certain facts by design or he's doing it out of ignorance.

[T.A.M.]

likely both, depending on the information

TAM

[qarnos]

Originally Posted by AMTMAN

Let's just say that he's either leaving out certain facts by design or he's doing it out of ignorance.

Is there any reason you can't just tell us what information you think he is withholding?

[AMTMAN]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Our mechanic told us.. prove it wrong.



If you know anything about manuals and doing revisions. each last revision date is on the page itself... not every page has the same date... have you ever revised your manual?

The page itself obviously wasn't revised since the date noted.. but I'm sure other pages in the manual were. Ever seen a revision log at beginning of manuals? Not every revision is the whole manual. And if they do replace full manuals, they do not revise a date on a page that hasn't been revised.



I'll check.

Well you obviously don't know how AA manuals work either. Do you know what the TR next to that first sentence signifies? If you do why don't you tell us the date that is associated with that TR?

[AMTMAN]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Listen....we have obtained this evidence from a licensed A&P mechanic employee within American Airlines.

He remembers clearly the phones with inoperable placards and was pissed he had to keep replacing the phones during C Checks (IIRC it was C Checks)... because the phones didnt even work and he felt it was double the work for nothing.. they should have kept the phones out since they weren't even operative he thought. But AA told their mechanics to put them back in even though they were deactivated. you cant leave a hole in the back of a seat.

We think this maintenance manual is strong evidence so PFT and DRG have ran with it and we back them 100%.

If you can prove them incorrect with stronger evidence then by all means go right ahead.

I'm quite certain they would have no problem admitting their error.

So get to work!

If your source is so good then why can't he find ECO F0878?

Memories are a funny thing. People have a tendancy to get their times mixed up. I'm sure he does remember doing this. However he remembers doing it in 2002, not 2001.

[AMTMAN]

Originally Posted by Lyte Trip

Paint your picture and make the accusations all you want because that's all you have.

I had 100% support for the story in the beginning and throughout the entire thread and still do.

And that's right my posts are all there to prove it.

I was being treated like the authority on the issue so I clarified my level of involvement.

Never ONCE did I express a lack of faith in the legitimacy of the information.

You are twisting my words and misrepresenting my claims.

Nothing has been faked no matter how many times you push your conspiracy theory and lie about my beliefs/claims.

And what do you have, a single page from the AA maintenance manual. You don't have the associated ECO's dealing with the Calircom system. If you did you would have posted them. However you probably would not want to do that since it would make you look rather silly. You don't even bother to explain what the TR next to the first sentence really means.

[AMTMAN]

Since I doubt Lyte Trip will give an answer, or at least an honest one I guess I'll have to explain what the TR means. TR means Temporary Revision. Instead of doing a major update TR's will be periodically added to the manual. This particular TR was added April 2007. In other words that sentence did not appear until April of this year. I can understand why Pilots for Truth would not want that known. Or they themselves don't know. I'm not sure which is worse.

[T.A.M.]

So are you saying, that you have proof that this revision to the manual that they have posted, was made in April 2007?

How do you know this, do you have access to an identical manual.

Please Elaborate.

Thanks in advance.

TAM

[AMTMAN]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

So are you saying, that you have proof that this revision to the manual that they have posted, was made in April 2007?

How do you know this, do you have access to an identical manual.

Please Elaborate.

Thanks in advance.

TAM

Yes I do have access to the identical manual. Since the system was first deactivated in March-April 2002 and the present day there probably were other TR's attached to that manual reference. However none dated prior to 2002. It's most interesting that PfT say they could not locate F0878 yet they have several others dated for 2002. Well there's ECO F0871 that states that the Claircom system will be switched to the off position and associated circuit breakers pulled and collared. It's dated March 2002.

I guess it's up to the CT's to get a hold of their source and prove me wrong.

[uk_dave]

Another one bites the dust.

You'd think some 'truthers' might start to get a bit suspicious about what their 'shining lights' are trying to sell them.

Oh and welcome to the forum AMTMAN!