AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

What I am stating is that the yoke movements captured in the data file do not produce the g forces measured by the sensors.

The body of the aircraft does not respond in a 1:1 relation with the yoke
input as the mass of the plane, air pressure, inertia, etc. must be considered.

When viewing the simulator animation, you can confirm this by viewing the
plane's movement with respect to the yoke input.

What ignorance! That is G Data that beachnut posted.

You would not see G in the animation, silly. You are a total waste of time as you don't understand much about flying.

Tell Balsamo to send someone knowledgeable next time. You are a waste of everyone's time.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally Posted by Reheat

What ignorance! That is G Data that beachnut posted.

You would not see G in the animation, silly. You are a total waste of time as you don't understand much about flying.

Tell Balsamo to send someone knowledgeable next time. You are a waste of everyone's time.

Well, to be fair, Reheat, the graph doesn't have it's X and Y scales labeled, nor is there a graphic stating "g data vs. time", e.g.

I think Turbo might have thought the data was showing yoke movement, leading to him making the statement you quoted. I was just trying to clear things up.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Mr. Skinny

Well, to be fair, Reheat, the graph doesn't have it's X and Y scales labeled, nor is there a graphic stating "g data vs. time", e.g.

I think Turbo might have thought the data was showing yoke movement, leading to him making the statement you quoted. I was just trying to clear things up.

To be fair, they were labeled in an earlier post, which if Turbofan had bothered to take time from posting to research, he would have known--and as a hint, they centered around 1.
Additionally, the paragraph immediately preceeding the graph specifically talked about "g" levels, which would lead a reasonable person to kind of assume that the graph pictured what was being talked about.
Plenty of context there, but troofers can't read with comprehension...
80-odd posts in 3 days. If i'd been near a computer, he'd have reached Ignore status even sooner...

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Quite simply put without smoke and mirrors: the data received from the sensor is stored in the solid state crash protected memory within 0.5 seconds (worst case). You are confusing bus speed, and polling time with propagation delay.

No, you have not shown the transport lag to be anything in the F-2100, zip data to support your ideas. I may be confused all the time, but I am an engineer and I have done programming with data transport and delays and timing. I worked with teams to study advance cockpit system. I think you are confused thinking your hearsay stuff has merit. You are wrong.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Fine. Then why does the NTSB animation stop before impact? Where is the data between the stop point, and impact point?

The data stopped, easy question for an engineer and an aircraft crash investigator, trained by the USAF years ago. Oops, I have worked with FDR readouts to investigate real aircraft mishaps, have you? The data was not recorded to the secure chip, it may have been in the system. Oops, you never told me if the plane maintains power when you experience 0.2 Gs or less. Seems like the last push over many witnesses saw, could have tripped the Generators off line and stopping data collection on 77. Time to study the busses.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

After 500 milliseconds (worst case), that information would not have reached the memory and stored. Confirmed by L3 communications.

Hearsay, please produce the specification spelled out in the F-2100 manuals, and the regulations that may of covered the FDR in 77. Gee, you do not even know what the .5 second means, or when it went into effect. You believe hearsay, you are not using evidence, you are using talk made up by p4t.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Because some of you claim the impact force damaged the crash protected memory. This is a false claim.

Not true, some times the chip is damaged in a crash, and data is missing. You need to study other accidents. There are many examples of data missing, so your claim no data can be missing is not valid for 77, since you have no idea how the system works.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Once again, only 500 milliseconds would be corrupt. How do you explain the missing radar altimeter info in the CSV file? It's in the raw data!

Not true, you have not shown me the data in each 4 second frame makes it to the secure chip in less than .5 second. Gee, this was an early SSFDR, and it may be the reason the rules were changed to only have .5 second delay in transport to the secure chip. The NTSB did not decode the RADALT. Gee, another very easy question. Do you even look at the evidence?

Let me repeat, the rule you state by hearsay testimony third hand of .5 second, may have been enacted by the European agency due to the large delays over time in the older SSFDRs. Well, could this be the case? What do you know? Do you even know the date on ED55? Come on show me your facts, and drop the hearsay junk.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Guess what? You can move the stick until you're blue in the face. The movement of the airplane generates the g force, not the yoke movement!!!

Oops, if I throw the stick forward, you get a lot of negative G. I can rip off the tail! Looks like you want to get technical with an USAF Command Pilot, and an FAA ATP rated pilot flying since I was kid. Push forward, you get lighter, pull back, you get heavier. If you want to talk about what make the G force, I could care less, if I want zero g, I move the yoke forward. If you want to quibble, go ahead, it seems like you are just parroting p4t failed ideas, and non theories, and non conclusions of woo.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

The data, and animation shows nothing in the way of extreme alt. Changes to produce such a lag.

What lag?

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Once again, the animation stops pre-impact. Where is the data up until the impact point. The FDR still had power!

It stopped. Either there was a power interruption, or there was 3 to 5 second delay in the pipeline which is why ED55 came out to correct the missing data problem with early SSFDRs. Got some facts, or just more hearsay on this issue? BTW, the animation does not have the Pentagon registered right relative to the aircraft flight path, and this was a working copy, never completed or certified for any real use! Sorry.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

L3 communications certifies the FDR's. Do you know what it takes to certify a commercial airliner for passenger flight?

Yep! I have an ATP, the same certification as all Captains in the airliners have, and I was trained to fly 300,000 pound class jet aircraft. So? Looks like you love hearsay, and have failed to accumulate any real facts on this issue.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Do you know what checks need to happen before the plane takes off prior to flight? If you knew, you wouldn't have typed your statement.

Yep. I have flown large jets since 1976! What did you do while I was doing my checks all those years.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

The NTSB supplied the data. It doesn't support the official story. WHy are you slamming PFT?

p4t are dolts who can't calculate G correctly when told how to. p4t can't even produce a theory or conclusion! They tell you so. The FDR does support what happen on 9/11, you have failed to show it does not! Sorry, but you supplied zero evidence, where as I showed points from the FDR which support witness statements. Oops. 11.2 Gs, is that error still posted?

What year was the FDR installed in 77? As an engineer trained in fabrication of integrated circuits (like computer chips), you are starting to post things that were not available to install in a plane when 77 first flew. You need to back up and use the technology of the day, and stop using hearsay so freely. (and you are right, my years as a pilot, and the same as being an engineer with broad experience, does not count for anything; but your lack of facts and knowledge does)

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Mr. Skinny

Well, to be fair, Reheat, the graph doesn't have it's X and Y scales labeled, nor is there a graphic stating "g data vs. time", e.g.

I think Turbo might have thought the data was showing yoke movement, leading to him making the statement you quoted. I was just trying to clear things up.

Well, beachnut was pretty specific in what the graph was about. However, other statements by turbo indicates that he doesn't understand anyway.

G is not necessarily movement of the aircraft that is detectable from the exterior, it is acceleration.

For example, let's look at an example of the Thunderbirds or Blue Angles aerobatic teams. The aircraft flying the wing or slot position are moving all over the place by several feet, consequently producing G somewhat similar to a PIO, but it appears they are "rock solid" in position.

But, I do believe there is a parameter that shows yoke input, so the confusion is noted.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

To be fair, they were labeled in an earlier post, which if Turbofan had bothered to take time from posting to research, he would have known--and as a hint, they centered around 1.
Additionally, the paragraph immediately preceeding the graph specifically talked about "g" levels, which would lead a reasonable person to kind of assume that the graph pictured what was being talked about.
Plenty of context there, but troofers can't read with comprehension...
80-odd posts in 3 days. If i'd been near a computer, he'd have reached Ignore status even sooner...

Well, there was plenty of context for me. Wasn't aware of the graph being posted previously though.

Honestly, I thought his statement regarding yoke inputs, etc. was silliy, but I wanted to find out whether he misunderstood something. Otherwise, I figued it was Stundie Award material.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Mr. Skinny

Well, to be fair, Reheat, the graph doesn't have it's X and Y scales labeled, nor is there a graphic stating "g data vs. time", e.g.

I think Turbo might have thought the data was showing yoke movement, leading to him making the statement you quoted. I was just trying to clear things up.

It was G vs time, but the time is each sample in the FDR, there are 8 samples per second.

I would post the yoke movement, but I am tried of wasting time do the work 9/11 truth can't. The last recorded yoke movement was greater in value (nose down) than all previous excisions, thus the largest G below 1, was coming up, possibly below zero g, making your lost pencils fly! I have not found yet, what happens to the generators at .2 g in 77, but in some jets, a g of 0.2, will trip power (once again, the exact mechanism is more complicated, but for a pilots, he looses his generators! The pilot must do something!).

[Turbofan]

Wow, I see some of you are very quick to jump on me and assume everything.

Mr. Skinny asked the following question:

Quote:

It's not showing stick movement directly, but beachnut is rightly assuming, I believe, that the g forces shown are indicative of Pilot Induced Oscillation (PIO).

My answer was clearing up what I thought was a graph showing lag in
yoke input to g forces (due to PIO).

With that said, no I didn't take time to fully understand his question, so
now is my time to clarify.

The time to record g's from the instant they are measured to the instant
they are stored in crash protected memory is a MAXIMUM of 500 milliseconds.

THis is true for any parameter written!

The speed of the plane, or g force acting on the plane has NOTHING to do
with the write speed of the FDR, bus speed of the system, or serial data
transfer.

[Turbofan]

Originally Posted by beachnut

[color=black] No, you have not shown the transport lag to be anything in the F-2100, zip data to support your ideas. I may be confused all the time, but I am an engineer and I have done programming with data transport and delays and timing. I worked with teams to study advance cockpit system. I think you are confused thinking your hearsay stuff has merit. You are wrong.

Are you saying it takes a signal from any sensor more than 500 milliseconds
to propagate donw a wire and into the FDR memory?

Do you have any idea about the speed of electron current flow in a wire?

Would you like me to video tape and post an experiment using an oscilloscope,
my scanner, and engine computer to illustrate the amount of time it takes
for cell data to update?

Quote:

Oops, I have worked with FDR readouts to investigate real aircraft mishaps, have you? The data was not recorded to the secure chip, it may have been in the system.

No sir, I have not , but I have worked with military equipment and advanced
electronic equipment (aside from vehicle PCM scanners). Unless the FDR
lost power while said parameter was written, the information would have
been stored within the certified upper limit of 0.500 seconds! This is
stated directly on the L3 FDR spec.

Ed Santana has already confirmed this in an interview with PFT.

Quote:

Oops, you never told me if the plane maintains power when you experience 0.2 Gs or less.

I doubt it would, but let me find out for you.

Quote:

Seems like the last push over many witnesses saw, could have tripped the Generators off line and stopping data collection on 77. Time to study the busses.

Seems like? Well, what sort of g's are experienced when a plane experiences
a dive condition toward earth? Does that shut off power to the bus?
Hmmm...I don't think so!

Quote:

Hearsay, please produce the specification spelled out in the F-2100 manuals, and the regulations that may of covered the FDR in 77. Gee, you do not even know what the .5 second means, or when it went into effect. You believe hearsay, you are not using evidence, you are using talk made up by p4t.

No I'm not. Go read the spec on the L3 site. They made the FDR's and
the data specs are available on the site. 0.5 seconds once again has
been confirmed by L3 Communications as the absoulte maximum time
for sensor info to store in SS memory.

Quote:

Not true, some times the chip is damaged in a crash, and data is missing. You need to study other accidents. There are many examples of data missing, so your claim no data can be missing is not valid for 77, since you have no idea how the system works.

Incorrect. You have no idea how the system works! Show me ONE example
of an FDR which lost memory while the bus had power!

Then show me one example of an FDR that lost one parameter when the
impact was within 5% of 3400 g's!

Has anyone calculated the impact force of flight 77, worst case sceanrio
yet? Care to guess what the g force would have been?

Quote:

Not true, you have not shown me the data in each 4 second frame makes it to the secure chip in less than .5 second. Gee, this was an early SSFDR, and it may be the reason the rules were changed to only have .5 second delay in transport to the secure chip. The NTSB did not decode the RADALT. Gee, another very easy question. Do you even look at the evidence?

If you read the spec on L3 will you believe it? It has been in effect prior to
2001 to certify a commerical airliner!

NTSB did not decode the RADALT, but SOMEONE removed it from the CSV file!!!
Why does it appear in raw data form, but not in CSV format? Hmmmm...

Quote:

Let me repeat, the rule you state by hearsay testimony third hand of .5 second, may have been enacted by the European agency due to the large delays over time in the older SSFDRs. Well, could this be the case? What do you know? Do you even know the date on ED55? Come on show me your facts, and drop the hearsay junk. [/font]

Let me repeat. Take 5 minutes and research L3 products

Quote:

It stopped. Either there was a power interruption, or there was 3 to 5 second delay in the pipeline which is why ED55 came out to correct the missing data problem with early SSFDRs. Got some facts, or just more hearsay on this issue? BTW, the animation does not have the Pentagon registered right relative to the aircraft flight path, and this was a working copy, never completed or certified for any real use! Sorry.

3 to 5 seconds! Are you nuts?

My car 's slow computer can detect a change, update the PCM, send the
info a length of the harness, through the DLC, through the connection
hardware, through my laptop's bus, and display it on a monitor as quick
as my screen can refresh, and you're telling me the system on a 757-200
is SLOWER? Te info can't go from sensor to SS memory in the same time,
or less? LMAO!

Get real. This guy has no clue about data transfer rates and FDR tech.

[Arus808]

12 pages of the same tripe that has been discussed in the OTHER threads on this subject. can you guys just point to those threads; TF is just another mouthpiece for banned members.

[beachnut]

There are examples of lost data in other accidents investigated by the NTSB. The FDR not having the final seconds is not new, and the FDR in 77 has not been shown to comply with ED55, or the need to comply with ED55. And in addition, it has not been presented, besides hearsay!, that ED55 means what the newest non conclusion expert 9/11 truther p4t mouthpiece is saying.

Present the manuals stating what you claim and ED55 with dates of installation of 77's FDR instead of hearsay twisted by p4t to make up their non theories on 9/11. As of yet, p4t have not made a conclusion, or theory about 9/11, they just make up implied ideas that are complete false, like their complete lack of math and physics expertise clearly demonstrated at their web site.

How do you explain to turbofan he is using hearsay and it has not been backed up by facts as of today!?

[Jonnyclueless]

Hearsay? Is that what you call simply making uneducated assumptions about how something works when you have no understanding of it? I could call that BSing, but I guess hearsay is good enough.

[T.A.M.]

I knew it.

90% chance if an old thread is unburied, a truther is at the root.

TAM

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Ed Santana has already confirmed this in an interview with PFT.

No Ed did not present any evidence, he just said it without p4t backing it up with manuals, and ED55. Please produce the manuals saying so, and ED55, and stop using hearsay, it is not proof of anything but you parrot p4t drive by phone calls. This is what hearsay is! Do you understand?

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Seems like? Well, what sort of g's are experienced when a plane experiencesa dive condition toward earth? Does that shut off power to the bus? Hmmm...I don't think so!

I already told you once, some planes will loose electrical power from the engine driven generators when exposed to G forces less than 0.2 G, or negative Gs. I have flown jets which have generators that trip off line with subjected to low G force! It happens in real life. You think wrong!

Yes, some jet aircraft loose generator power in low G environments, what you might experience in a thunderstorm.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Incorrect. You have no idea how the system works! Show me ONE example of an FDR which lost memory while the bus had power!

Go look them up, the NTSB has them, and if you try you too can find them and stop thinking p4t non conclusion, non theory stuff is true. How are non theories considered? Do you know p4t make no conclusions or theories? What a bunch of no fact charlatans, selling nothing but false information for 15 bucks a DVD. Who are those without knowledge who fall for the non theories of 9/11 truth and p4t?

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Then show me one example of an FDR that lost one parameter when the impact was within 5% of 3400 g's!

Gee, there are examples where the data stopped and there was no real physical upset as you are trying to allude to. What are you getting at? If the data is correct in 77, the last seconds are missing! No impact was needed. It is unknown. (examples can be found where data is missing; the specification of data storage required by ED55 is evidence that early SSFDRs did not store data within 0.5 seconds. Glad mom made me go to engineering school, and I wanted to fly jets.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Has anyone calculated the impact force of flight 77, worst case sceanrio yet? Care to guess what the g force would have been?

p4t can do that for you, they are experts at pulling numbers out their pack of pilots who can't hit buildings in the safety of a simulator, why not make up some more false G numbers. 77 was going over 700 feet per second, how fast did it come to rest? Different items came to rest at different times. Why not tell us the G force, which has nothing to do with the data missing on 77. You can study physics and calculate it.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

If you read the spec on L3 will you believe it? It has been in effect prior to 2001 to certify a commerical airliner!

Wrong, 77 flew first in 1991, the specs you state were not in effect for all FDR installed before 2001; you need to read the FARs and FAA rules and present them. You are using present day junk for a 6 year old event and a plane first flown in 1991. You are using data that is 16 years new to lecture others on 9/11, and event you present hearsay and expect it to come true.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

NTSB did not decode the RADALT, but SOMEONE removed it from the CSV file!!! Why does it appear in raw data form, but not in CSV format? Hmmmm...

No, the NTSB did not decode the RADALT. So? Read what the NTSB tells you. They list the data they decoded. They list the data they did not decode. Wowzer.
You make up false ideas of doubt, when the NTSB tells you up front, they did not decode the data you are trying to make up some CT out of. This is really bad since you can look this up if you take the time. You say look up stuff you have never found personally, I tell you to look up stuff, even someone you call NUTS has found today again for the nth time.

The NTSB tells you in clear text, they DID NOT decode the radio altimeter! Why not research the non conclusions you seem to making up in your mind with partial or false data!

The NTSB did not decode the radio altimeter (aka RADALT). Repeated for learning the learning impaired, mainly me!

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Let me repeat. Take 5 minutes and research L3 products

Oh, they have the model FDR information right this second, a part installed over 10 years ago? What spec was Ed, the salesman talking about? The salesman hearsay expert testimony. If only you had some real evidence to support your ideas. You got the word of a salesman, that is super; a salesman, and Rob! Super duper…

Originally Posted by Turbofan

3 to 5 seconds! Are you nuts?

Originally Posted by Turbofan

My car 's slow computer can detect a change, update the PCM, send the
info a length of the harness, through the DLC, through the connection
hardware, through my laptop's bus, and display it on a monitor as quick
as my screen can refresh, and you're telling me the system on a 757-200
is SLOWER? Te info can't go from sensor to SS memory in the same time,
or less? LMAO!

Get real. This guy has no clue about data transfer rates and FDR tech.

Based on the data I see on the FDR, there are seconds missing. But I could be wrong, I have only been flying for 35 years. The data rate is clearly stated to the chip, it is 3072 bits per second. The data passed in a second is the amount of data collected in a second on the FDR used on flight 77. I doubt your car can withstand 3400 Gs and maintain 550 knots true airspeed. Your car has nothing to do with an aircraft, and your comparing your car or truck to a plane built and flying in 1991, and you are telling me the specs of a airworthy chip are like the junk in our cars today? What was the speed of a flash memory in 1991? And before you answer, what was the speed of the flash memory in the FDR installed in the plane which flew first in 1991. Do you understand lead times! Freezing the design so you can sell it? I see you clearly stated the exact time your car passes data! It was as fast as my screen updates. Wowzer. Is that engineering terms for what? As fast as… ?

Based on the input in the yoke, and the elevator position, the largest change compared to previous excursions of G, are in the last two seconds of data decoded by the NTSB. The p4t only decode up to the last recorded second. This stick inputs and elevator position CHANGE, point to the witnesses saying the plane pitched down. This would lead to the minimum G. What do you think? On your own without the hearsay experts of p4t.

I hope I am nuts, if it means able to see liars on 9/11 topics! NUTS; that is my favorite statement; ask my dad why…

[Calcas]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I knew it.

90% chance if an old thread is unburied, a previously banned truther is at the root.

TAM

Fixed it for you...

[TjW]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

<snip Great Red Herring for sake of Captain Ahab>

If your $1500.00 car computer can do all of this, you can rest assured a much more elaborate and expensive jet data acquisition system will outperform
this many times over.

Not necessarily. Because of the expense of certification, and the small quantities involved, avionics quite often lag several generations behind the state of the art. Unless and until a particular feature is mandated by regulation, or saves the operator money, it isn't likely to be implemented.

[Turbofan]

Originally Posted by TjW

Not necessarily. Because of the expense of certification, and the small quantities involved, avionics quite often lag several generations behind the state of the art. Unless and until a particular feature is mandated by regulation, or saves the operator money, it isn't likely to be implemented.

This debate is useless because:

1. If I point you to a developer site with specs., you wont go and read them.

2. My sources are professionals, yet anyone I mention is considered a crackpot,
or not experienced enough....however the people calling these guys crackpots
are no where near the level of ability of said individuals.

3. Many of you believe bus speeds on aircraft are between 2-6 seconds
before data is stored! I have computers from the 70's that are more advanced!

4. Many of you don't understand what it takes to certify an aircraft,
yet you post information as if it were fact! It's not the age of the plane
that determines the spec/certification. If the law changes, the equipment
must meet/exceed the standard for that year.

5. Many of you don't understand how the FDR records data , even though
I posted a basic relationship to a car's computer to draw a parallel.

keep on believing what you want, and that FDR's have snail paced data
storage from the stone age. Whoever is feeding this garbage to you
is not helping out.

For your sake, take a course in computer technology, or electricity.

[Tomblvd]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

For your sake, take a course in computer technology, or electricity.

Uh, wouldn't it be more useful to take a course in avionics?

[Turbofan]

I guess, but aren't you learning about the computer systems and electrical
properties in avionics? Maybe you're right though...it would pertain specifically
to airline industry tech.

Sure, the NTSB didn't decode the RADAR ALT., but why is it missing from
the CSV file if everything else was included?

GET A CLUE PEOPLE

The raw file contained the parameter, so it shuold have been extracted with
everything else.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

I guess, but aren't you learning about the computer systems and electrical
properties in avionics? Maybe you're right though...it would pertain specifically
to airline industry tech.

Sure, the NTSB didn't decode the RADAR ALT., but why is it missing from
the CSV file if everything else was included?

GET A CLUE PEOPLE

The raw file contained the parameter, so it shuold have been extracted with
everything else.

Are you truly interested in trying to find the truth? Comments like these seem to suggest otherwise.

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

This debate is useless because:

2. My sources are professionals, yet anyone I mention is considered a crackpot, or not experienced enough....however the people calling these guys crackpots are no where near the level of ability of said individuals.

How do you know the qualifications of anyone who has replied to you?

You might consider Balsamo a professional. Most of the rest of us don't. Who are these other "professionals"? Undertow? Jeff Latas is a retired AF Pilot just as Beachnut and I are. While he may be a professional pilot, what experience does he have with analyzing FDRs? I've seen no evidence that he had anything at all to do with analyzing the FDR data.

Perhaps being an Accident Board President impresses you, but I know that it's an administrative position and the other members of the board are the professionals with expertise in various areas.

At any rate, why is it that you want to argue about the FDR to the point of obsession? What about all of the other mountain of evidence that exists?

You accuse everyone of not going to the L3 Web Site, but you still don't know if anyone has or not. That's in contrast with your direct statement that you would not read the recommended book on the firefighting efforts at the Pentagon.

At this point in time it's senseless to argue about the FDR because it is going to prove nothing either way. Balsamo claims it doesn't support the Government's Story when the entire story is not just the Government's it a compilation of 1000's of people in and around the area surrounding the Pentagon most of whom are not Federal Government affiliated.

I will guarantee you will not get anywhere at all here unless you bring substantial evidence to the agenda. So far, you have failed miserably. Do you have anything more than hearsay from pffft? If not I suggest you peddle your snake oil somewhere else, because no one here is buying.

[Turbofan]

Are you looking at the same data that we are?

The info released by the NTSB?

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

GET A CLUE PEOPLE

Oh the irony! It wouldn't be so funny if it came from anyone else.

Turbo, what are some of the FDR systems that you are experienced in?

[Turbofan]

None, but I can understand how to read the data.

I can also understand that a CSV file with missing parameter(s) has
been tampered with.

How about you Johnny? What's your expertise? Why are you so willing
to believe these guys, over pilots and systems analysts?

Has anyone called up L3 to speak with their tech support, or read their
products specs?

I have. It's all on the site.

What would it take to make anyone here believe that the maximum data
write period is half a second?

Should I call L3 and record a conversation? Video tape? I have either.

Give me a list of questions and let's start putting this to rest with sources
we both can agree upon.

Who's up for the challenge?

[Reheat]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Give me a list of questions and let's start putting this to rest with sources we both can agree upon.

Who's up for the challenge?

Why the sudden change in attitude. Perhaps if you'd started off with the same attitude you'd have gotten a better reception.

Having a thousand conversations with the manufacturer is NOT going to show you how the FDR actually performed.

I've got a better idea. Have their competition decode and analyze the data and then it can be discussed in a reasonable manner.

You're never going to get proper attention until someone competent and without a biased political agenda decodes and analyzes the data.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

What would it take to make anyone here believe that the maximum data
write period is half a second?

As beachnut already noted, it would take a cite from the manual of the model SSFDR used, and the electronics from the sensors to it.

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Do you have any idea about the speed of electron current flow in a wire?

As an aside, electrons in a wire carrying electrical current move at a rate on the order of a small fraction of a millimeter per second.

[Myriad]

Or, Turbofan, I've got another idea: if the manufacturer of Flight 77's FDR knows that it's not possible for it to have failed to record the last few seconds of data before the crash, they should be pretty upset that the FAA is telling everyone that it did, and releasing data files that show that it did! Imagine, the public organization overseeing a large segment of the industry their company serves, is telling everyone that their product failed to perform as well as they know for a fact it must have performed! Surely they would be sparing no effort to set the record straight and defend the excellence of their FDR engineering.

So, give me a link to the press releases where the manufacturer denounces the FAA's libelous slur on the quality of their instruments' engineering. Give me a link to the lawsuit they filed for damages from the misrepresentation of their product as having failed, at the most crucial of moments during the most publicized news event in history, in a manner that they know for certain it could not possibly have failed. Give me a link to the Web page they've published to let the public know that the missing data cannot have been their machine's fault and must therefore have been tampered with by someone.

I would find that information quite convincing. On the other hand, I would find excuses for why that information doesn't exist (let me guess: they're afraid the government will somehow force the airframe manufacturers and airlines to boycott their products if they say anything) quite destructive to your case.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Are you looking at the same data that we are?

The info released by the NTSB?

I am a professional as well and your posts are junk. You compare cars to aircraft.

I worked avionics, electronics and electrical systems on fast jet military aircraft with nav computers which had less speed and memory than my phone. I serviced FDR for the aircraft. You are talking junk.

Think about whe the plane was built and then think about when it was designed. Look at the spec you are tossing around and see when it was introduced.

You claimed the plane should have shown the impact of the poles. You are wrong. Tell us why they would have done so or you are ignorant of aircraft and FDR.

You have made a fool of yourself.

[Turbofan]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

I am a professional as well and your posts are junk. You compare cars to aircraft.

I worked avionics, electronics and electrical systems on fast jet military aircraft with nav computers which had less speed and memory than my phone. I serviced FDR for the aircraft. You are talking junk.

Think about whe the plane was built and then think about when it was designed. Look at the spec you are tossing around and see when it was introduced.

You claimed the plane should have shown the impact of the poles. You are wrong. Tell us why they would have done so or you are ignorant of aircraft and FDR.

You have made a fool of yourself.

Yeah. You're right. I'm comparing cars to aircraft. Have another...

Buddy, I would school you in a technical discussion. It clearly shows, and
you haven't offered any tech in return. You don't threaten me with your replies.

[Turbofan]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Or, Turbofan, I've got another idea: if the manufacturer of Flight 77's FDR knows that it's not possible for it to have failed to record the last few seconds of data before the crash, they should be pretty upset that the FAA is telling everyone that it did, and releasing data files that show that it did! Imagine, the public organization overseeing a large segment of the industry their company serves, is telling everyone that their product failed to perform as well as they know for a fact it must have performed! Surely they would be sparing no effort to set the record straight and defend the excellence of their FDR engineering.

So, give me a link to the press releases where the manufacturer denounces the FAA's libelous slur on the quality of their instruments' engineering. Give me a link to the lawsuit they filed for damages from the misrepresentation of their product as having failed, at the most crucial of moments during the most publicized news event in history, in a manner that they know for certain it could not possibly have failed. Give me a link to the Web page they've published to let the public know that the missing data cannot have been their machine's fault and must therefore have been tampered with by someone.

I would find that information quite convincing. On the other hand, I would find excuses for why that information doesn't exist (let me guess: they're afraid the government will somehow force the airframe manufacturers and airlines to boycott their products if they say anything) quite destructive to your case.

Respectfully,
Myriad

The FAA ? Since when and where did you read the FAA stated such comments?

Please find me a quote from the FAA and I'll find the documents you request.

BTW, the MFG of the FDR is L3 Communications. I figured you would know
at least that much?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

This debate is useless because:

1. If I point you to a developer site with specs., you wont go and read them.

2. My sources are professionals, yet anyone I mention is considered a crackpot,
or not experienced enough....however the people calling these guys crackpots
are no where near the level of ability of said individuals.

3. Many of you believe bus speeds on aircraft are between 2-6 seconds
before data is stored! I have computers from the 70's that are more advanced!

4. Many of you don't understand what it takes to certify an aircraft,
yet you post information as if it were fact! It's not the age of the plane
that determines the spec/certification. If the law changes, the equipment
must meet/exceed the standard for that year.

5. Many of you don't understand how the FDR records data , even though
I posted a basic relationship to a car's computer to draw a parallel.

keep on believing what you want, and that FDR's have snail paced data
storage from the stone age. Whoever is feeding this garbage to you
is not helping out.

For your sake, take a course in computer technology, or electricity.

You are the biggest bs specialist in a while pushing hearsay as fact and telling all you can school everyone on things you never used.

You have no real new stuff, you post hearsay from an L3 salesman, your expert is a salesman, third hand! Wowzer.

Please explain how fast electrons let us store data on the FDR installed in 77! You said you could school us, but it seems the FDR was limited to 3072 bits per second, not sure how that jives with the speed of light, but I think you are missing a few facts to tie your expert opinion to reality.


So besides hearsay, what do you have?

Originally Posted by Turbofan

...
BTW, the MFG of the FDR is L3 Communications. I figured you would know
at least that much?

Please supply proof the FDR on 77 was manufactured by the L3 Communications. Please hurry, so far you have backed your data with zero sources. I await your sources in the clear and direct. Are you capable of producing evidence and data in the first person?

Quote:

The introduction of solid-state flight recorders in the late 1980s marked the most significant advance in evolution of flight recorder technology. The use of solid-state memory devices in flight recorders has expanded recording capacity, enhanced crash/fire survivability, and improved recorder reliability. It is now possible to have 2-hour CVRs and DFDRs that can record up to 256 12-bit data words per second...

Schlumberger, Loral, Lockheed Martin, and L-3 Communications, who really made the one and only FDR used in 77?

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Yeah. You're right. I'm comparing cars to aircraft. Have another...

Buddy, I would school you in a technical discussion. It clearly shows, and
you haven't offered any tech in return. You don't threaten me with your replies.

Which aircraft did you work on? Tornado F3 was mine. Weapons, avionics, power, communication, radar, FDR, fuel systems etc etc

You are a glorified car mechanic. You couldnt even school me on changing a tyre.

You know nothing about FDR systems from those days and are stupid enough top try tp compare them to car computers which have more power and speed in them than the fast jet aircraft I worked on.

The FDR in our aircraft was a piece of slow junk. Why would the plane show the impact of the poles champ? Stop avoiding the question.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

None, but I can understand how to read the data.

I can also understand that a CSV file with missing parameter(s) has
been tampered with.

How about you Johnny? What's your expertise? Why are you so willing
to believe these guys, over pilots and systems analysts?

Has anyone called up L3 to speak with their tech support, or read their
products specs?

I have. It's all on the site.

What would it take to make anyone here believe that the maximum data
write period is half a second?

Should I call L3 and record a conversation? Video tape? I have either.

Give me a list of questions and let's start putting this to rest with sources
we both can agree upon.

Who's up for the challenge?

I have no experience. But I am not the one making claims about how the FDR works, you are. So you are dictating how it works based on absolutely know experience. And doing so to people who have direct experience engineering the devices? And your only expertise you use is a car? And you wonder why you aren't being taken seriously?

Am I willing to believe the guys who work with FDRs over pilots who don't know the first thing about the engineering behind FDRs? Abso-***********-lutely. to listen to pilots instead of engineers would be absolutely idiotic. Is that what you are doing? Is that your experts? Pilots? Seriously?

Why don't you talk to a car driver about the engineering behind an engine build instead of an engineer who builds engines?

[Jonnyclueless]

Every now and then we need to put these conversations in perspective. What's being argued is that flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, but instead it was flown over in front of 1000s of people in the hopes that they would just happen to get lucky and no one would notice. Then they planted a fake black box and put in readings that made it impossible for the plane to have hit the building instead of readings showing that the plane hit the building. And during this fiasco, they planted an entire plane's worth of parts as well as the belongings and remains of the passengers of flight 77. All doing this at the exact moment of the crash in front of 1000s of people with no one noticing. And of course this also means that they managed to crash flight 77 and get all the parts to the scene between the time it took off and the time the pentagon was hit. In addition they also had to knock down all these light poles on the heavily travelled roads in front of 1000s of people with no one noticing. They then also had to plant explosives that would go off just as the plane flew over but without damaging the plane and without the plane votex interfering with the explosion. They also did it in a way that the explosion sucked materials into the building. They then also pulled off a massive cover up that would have to involve 1000s of people who are in it simply for no personal gain but to hurt others.


And somehow people think they are crazy....

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

The FAA ? Since when and where did you read the FAA stated such comments?

Please find me a quote from the FAA and I'll find the documents you request.

BTW, the MFG of the FDR is L3 Communications. I figured you would know
at least that much?

Ah, my mistake. It was the NTSB rather than the FAA that released Flight 77 FDR data that's missing data in the final seconds, which the manufacturer of the FDR knows with certainty could not really have been missing.

So, are you now going to show me where the manufacturer has contested this tampered data that wrongfully implies that their recorder was unreliable, in the press, in court, or in public?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by Reheat

Why the sudden change in attitude. Perhaps if you'd started off with the same attitude you'd have gotten a better reception.

Having a thousand conversations with the manufacturer is NOT going to show you how the FDR actually performed.

I've got a better idea. Have their competition decode and analyze the data and then it can be discussed in a reasonable manner.

You're never going to get proper attention until someone competent and without a biased political agenda decodes and analyzes the data.

Why don't you answer this or better yet ask Pilots for "Truth" why they don't do it .

[Turbofan]

[quote]You are a glorified car mechanic. You couldnt even school me on changing a tyre.[\QUOTE]

Actually, no I'm not a car mechanic. Another stupid assumption. You just
assume that because I posted images of performance software.

Quote:

You know nothing about FDR systems from those days and are stupid enough top try tp compare them to car computers which have more power and speed in them than the fast jet aircraft I worked on.

I know more about FDR than you have shown to date in this thread.
If you're too slow to understand the parallel between both computer
systems, then god help you.

Do you understand how the error codes are set in an FDR? Yes, or no?

Please explain.

Quote:

The FDR in our aircraft was a piece of slow junk. Why would the plane show the impact of the poles champ? Stop avoiding the question.

Why would the plane show impact of the poles? Apparently there are pressure
sensors on the airplane, and bleed air ducts on the wings, and RPM monitors
for jets.

When the plane strikes an object at 500 MPH, the impact against the wing
creates sound, vibration, and pressure change (shockwave). None of the sensors managed to pick up any such variation.

Don't you think that's a little odd?

[Turbofan]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

I have no experience. But I am not the one making claims about how the FDR works, you are. So you are dictating how it works based on absolutely know experience. And doing so to people who have direct experience engineering the devices? And your only expertise you use is a car? And you wonder why you aren't being taken seriously?

Nobody here is a qualified FDR specialist, yet you all believe what you want.
That's great.

No, I never touched an FDR, but I have researched the operation and specs.
I have also look to industry professionals for their conclusions, as opposed
to a few annonymous internet wanna-be's that wont even post their name,
or view/call L3 communications to verify the information they are denying!

Quote:

Am I willing to believe the guys who work with FDRs over pilots who don't know the first thing about the engineering behind FDRs? Abso-***********-lutely. to listen to pilots instead of engineers would be absolutely idiotic. Is that what you are doing? Is that your experts? Pilots? Seriously?

What engineers? I have a degree in Electronics Engineering and have over
16 years experience with the technology. Nobody here has shown an ounce
of engineering skill, or understanding of data transfer.

You want me to take those seriously who don't give their credentials, or
name to verify? You want me to take these same people seriously that
can't follow a spec and understand that all systems must comply to said
spec?

You want me to believe these guys when they're throwing out guesses
of how the power was interrupted on the FDR when it shares the main
power bus with the cockpit supply?

As far as I'm aware, the FDR in "AA77" had battery backup. Once I verify
that, then what is your excuse for power failure going to be? Bin Laden
unplugged the data bus before the plane crashed?

Quote:

Why don't you talk to a car driver about the engineering behind an engine build instead of an engineer who builds engines?

Why don't either of you go live with me, or PFT , or post up some questions
so I can call L3 myself and record the coversation?

Still no takers?

[celestrin]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

The CSV file shows that each pressure altimeter was set at the exact same
time! Down to the second!

[Pretending the above actually has any merit or even meaning]
Yes, isn't it funny that this would happen when there were two hijackers onboard 77 who had pilot training.
[/pretending]
(ETA: ---- not that it matters too much, but disregard the above, I got the threads mixed up ----)

Hey, Turbofan, what did Calum Douglas say when you approached him with your "at most 0.5 to 2 seconds missing" or "1600 feet" hypothesis? Did he laugh at you? Did you ever ask yourself why not? Do you laugh at his radar altitude analysis, showing the plane was about 5000 feet out at last recorded data? Why not?

[Turbofan]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Every now and then we need to put these conversations in perspective. What's being argued is that flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, but instead it was flown over in front of 1000s of people in the hopes that they would just happen to get lucky and no one would notice. Then they planted a fake black box and put in readings that made it impossible for the plane to have hit the building instead of readings showing that the plane hit the building. And during this fiasco, they planted an entire plane's worth of parts as well as the belongings and remains of the passengers of flight 77. All doing this at the exact moment of the crash in front of 1000s of people with no one noticing. And of course this also means that they managed to crash flight 77 and get all the parts to the scene between the time it took off and the time the pentagon was hit. In addition they also had to knock down all these light poles on the heavily travelled roads in front of 1000s of people with no one noticing. They then also had to plant explosives that would go off just as the plane flew over but without damaging the plane and without the plane votex interfering with the explosion. They also did it in a way that the explosion sucked materials into the building. They then also pulled off a massive cover up that would have to involve 1000s of people who are in it simply for no personal gain but to hurt others.


And somehow people think they are crazy....

Big deal; that's only one slice of the pie my friend!

You still have to account for:

- Entry hole impact damage (photo)
- FDR data (NTSB)
- E4-B video from CNN
- Norman Mineta testimony on video
- The other witnesses contradicting your witnesses (video)
- Video of witness testimony claiming C-130 over 'AA77'

Why aren't you considering these facts?