AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[eeyore1954]

All you need to know is that the data released by the NTSB doesn't
match the government's official conspiracy theory.

Does anyone here know the diameter of the front tire on a 757-223?
Maybe the door size, or window size?

Are you insinuating that not only did they plant a FDR with bad data they also planted debris that doesn't match?

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.
Guys come on.

hx and turbo are merely Rob surrogates, over here to do nothing more than flame bait you guys, and now more recently to try and set up free publicity for pft. They can't get any support from their own ilk, and they figure if they get on hardfire, and overrun a guest with assanine ********, then they can use the bragging rights to garnish some thread of respect from the other truthers.

My opinion Ron, bring on Anti, beach, and the others. Have them present their evidence, and let the PFT crowd rot in hell. I agree with the others, they (pft) do not deserve the publicity.

TAM

Turbofan says
That's not fair, nothing will get accomplished that way.

I say nothing will get accomplished by a debate either. It will be just like the technical portions of this thread. The experts from PFT will claim they have presented argument to prove their point regardless of what happens.

The only ways I see for PF "Truth" to really accomplish anything is to hire real unbiased experts to analyze the data or write a clear paper listing the reasons the data shows the plane could not have done what the NTSB or whoever says it did and present this data to people at the NTSB , at the manufacturers of FDRs, to appropriate technical journals etc.

I am pretty certain they will not do this as they have had a couple of years to do this so far. I am pretty certain that they would reject the findings of any true experts anyway.

consider this statement from Turbofan

We contacted the people responsible for release the FDR data. Those are
the phone calls, you heard!

Those are the "experts" that wont talk to PFT.

They can't be all that smart because PFT found errors that they couldn't
catch.

 

[twinstead]

Are you insinuating that not only did they plant a FDR with bad data they also planted debris that doesn't match?

Oh yes. I'm sure some clown lost his corner office at NWO towers for planting the wrong plane parts at the scene. And that bozo who put the wrong data on the FDR they planted...

...I'm sure he was Gitmo bound.

 

[T.A.M.]

hx:

I have you on ignore, but as someone posted a reply addressed to me...

1. If members of pft, PQ911, and others have decided to come out from anonymity, that was THEIR CHOICE. If others wish to remain anonymous, then that is THEIR CHOICE, and others should respect it.

2. Once you come out from your anonymity, and you post strong (some would say treasonous, horrible views) then you are fair game for critics and others to GATHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION on you, and post it. I have made up no lies on anyone in PQ911. For the most part, that thread that seems to irk you, is a project to make sure that those on the list are accurately quoted, and the context in which they were quoted. Where someone has a made an opinion, I have tried to find if they have a history of saying as much, or anything related. If I find that the person in question has radical views on another topic, and it lends evidence to a pattern of thought or view points, then I also included it.

3. My personal reasons for anonymity HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH skeletons in the closet, I can assure you. If I did not have a practice to protect from harassment, and a family to protect, I would gladly display my name. I have nothing to hide, and IMO what I do is far more noble then what you do (but that is a perspective thing).

TAM

 

[Anti-sophist]

You asked me what the t1-t5 timing is for the ARINC 717.

Wow. Are you trying to prove my point for me? Let me say this very clearly for you : ARINC 717 doesn't apply to T1 through T5. It applies to one very specific thing in that sum. You have grossly misinterpreted the requirements of ARINC 717.

My entire point is that you keep pretending standards apply to things they don't, and you just proved it. You just grep the standards for numbers and then pretend those numbers apply to things they don't. That's all you've done. That's what you are doing now. Explaining the standards to you is also pointless because you ignore the truth and continue to repeat your flawed interpretation.

The timing diagrams also shows the refresh of the buffer on ever
poll cycle.

Yet another piece of information that have failed to interpret correctly. Your version of what this means is nothing short of baffling. It's not even wrong.

The other links and ARINC 717 PDF documents, aside from L3's e-mails
and voice call to ED Santana also support the <=500 msec timing from
sensor to CPM.

Show me the standard. The way you are using what Ed has said is physically impossible. Physics > you. It is trivially demonstrated, as well, using signal theory 101, namely the nyquist criterion. You cannot claim accuracy better than the sampling rate. No amount of appealing to whatever authority you want is going to overcome the laws of nature. Unless you can demonstrate that the parameters are supersampled, what you are claiming is physically impossible.

Would you like to discuss data transfer, ARINC 717 and FDR over the phone
in real time so I can hear you babble and fumble your way through a scentence?

Please explain to me the purpose of discussing the ARINC standard's application to AA77 with someone who has absolutely no idea what the ARINC standardizes? nor how FDR works? nor how basic electronics functions?

You've failed to find a single material flaw in anything I've said. Instead, all you've done is claim to have proven me wrong by showing IRRELEVANT standards and drawing further underlining your abundant ignorance. Every time you try, you look worse.

 

[A W Smith]

WC, you rarely deserve a reply, since most of your replies are attacks, you automatically lose the argument. However, i'll make one exception this time. Click the link above that ends in "media blackout". Do you know what is says?

Here, i'll give you a hint, Why did MSM cover the animation (literally tout his animation, Mike Wilson), not based on any flight data whatsoever, but never covered the animation produced by the NTSB?

I asked this question for 3 pages now. None of you "critical thinkers" have answered. Or perhaps, intentionally avoided?

Im so glad aviation professionals will see this page.

What happens when the sensors or the data recorder lose power?

I asked this question for 3 pages now. None of you "pilots for truth" have answered. Or perhaps, intentionally avoided?

 

[Turbofan]

Wow. Are you trying to prove my point for me? Let me say this very clearly for you : ARINC 717 doesn't apply to T1 through T5. It applies to one very specific thing in that sum. You have grossly misinterpreted the requirements of ARINC 717.

My entire point is that you keep pretending standards apply to things they don't, and you just proved it. You just grep the standards for numbers and then pretend those numbers apply to things they don't. That's all you've done. That's what you are doing now. Explaining the standards to you is also pointless because you ignore the truth and continue to repeat your flawed interpretation.

Yet another piece of information that have failed to interpret correctly. Your version of what this means is nothing short of baffling. It's not even wrong.

Show me the standard. The way you are using what Ed has said is physically impossible. Physics > you. It is trivially demonstrated, as well, using signal theory 101, namely the nyquist criterion. You cannot claim accuracy better than the sampling rate. No amount of appealing to whatever authority you want is going to overcome the laws of nature. Unless you can demonstrate that the parameters are supersampled, what you are claiming is physically impossible.

Please explain to me the purpose of discussing the ARINC standard's application to AA77 with someone who has absolutely no idea what the ARINC standardizes? nor how FDR works? nor how basic electronics functions?

You've failed to find a single material flaw in anything I've said. Instead, all you've done is claim to have proven me wrong by showing IRRELEVANT standards and drawing further underlining your abundant ignorance. Every time you try, you look worse.

LMAO! Are YOU telling me that the PDF links that I posted do NOT explain
the data transfer rates that you had no clue about as per your questions?!


Here are the links again, PAGE 13
http://digilander.libero.it/LeoDaga/Corsi/AD/Documenti/ARINCTutorial.pdf

http://www.pc104.com.cn/Avion-Documentation/PCMCIA429-1_717.pdf
http://www.ballardtech.com/products.aspx/dir/protocol/ARINC_717/

Please state for me whether or not these documents tend to, and answer
your question about t1-t5 timing, and refreshing buffers.

I'll await your YES, or NO response so I can quote it, and highlight it.

You see everyone, Anti is getting nervous because his hand drawn
diagram and assumption abuot timing and buffer operation has been shown
incorrect by proper manufacturer documents.

 

[lapman]

LMAO! Are YOU telling me that the PDF links that I posted do NOT explain
the data transfer rates that you had no clue about as per your questions?!


Here are the links again, PAGE 13
http://digilander.libero.it/LeoDaga/Corsi/AD/Documenti/ARINCTutorial.pdf

http://www.pc104.com.cn/Avion-Documentation/PCMCIA429-1_717.pdf
http://www.ballardtech.com/products.aspx/dir/protocol/ARINC_717/

Please state for me whether or not these documents tend to, and answer
your question about t1-t5 timing, and refreshing buffers.

I'll await your YES, or NO response so I can quote it, and highlight it.

The answer is an absolute NO. Here is why, from your tutorial:

Typically, messages are sent repetitively. For example, measured airspeed
is transmitted from the sensor to the instrument at intervals not less than
100 milliseconds or greater than 200 milliseconds

Your times are how often the data is transmitted from the sensor, not how long it take from the time it's transmitted to when it is written to memory.

 

[Turbofan]

The answer is an absolute NO. Here is why, from your tutorial:
Your times are how often the data is transmitted from the sensor, not how long it take from the time it's transmitted to when it is written to memory.

Oh my, I can't believe you don't even know what you're reading!

You're looking on the wrong page. I even told you which page to
reference! Page 13 contains the transmit information (in chart form).

What you are reading is the update times for each sensor to send information
to the receive buffer before each poll request! As you see the information
is continuously updating waiting for the clock pulse to read the data into
the buffer!

This is why you have two distinct times. If you would have looked at the
chart you would see a min/max which is different than the 100-200 msec.
you quoted!

Once again, the entire process from sensor to CPM is <=500 msec.

You don't add the sensor timing which you stated because it has not
been clocked-in. Those are continious updates between poll times.

IE: If a sensor is polled once every second, the sensor can refresh a
max of ten times before the info is read into the buffer.

Understand?

 

[WildCat]

Actually, I'd like you to flesh out a bit more what you think happened at the Pentagon. Here's what we have so far, based on your posts:

Flight 77 disappears from radar screens, and is replaced by either a "smaller plane" or a missile, above it which flys a Boeing E-4B. Making impossibly tight turns at high speed no other airplane is capable of, the "smaller plane" or missile strikes the Pentagon, while the E4B flys over the Pentagon. Teams of conspirators immediately swoop down on the scene, tearing light poles out of the ground, sticking one in Lloyd England's cab. Other conspirators tear up tree branches, knock over construction equipment and material, fences, and marking poles where they figure Flight 77 would hit if it had actually taken the flight path they programmed into the FDR, which the crack team of conspirators also planted in the Pentagon. Other teams of conspirators spread airplane parts all over the lawn of the Pentagon, inside the Pentagon, and in the alley beyond the C-Ring. They blow a hole in the C-Ring with a wall breaching kit for good measure. At the same time, other conspirators go inside the burning Pentagon and plant the remains of the Flight 77 passengers and crew, which have been ground into hamburger a short time earlier when Flight 77 was diverted to some other airport where everyone on board was killed.

All of this was done in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses - from people on their way to work, to Pentagon employees, to firemen, paramedics, and policemen arriving on the scene. And nobody notices!

But there was one problem - one of the doofuses at the NWO accidentally programmed the flight path of the decoy plane into the planted FDR instead of the fllight path they would officially claim for Flight 77. The NTSB ignores these discrepancies, because they are also in on the conspiracy.

Everything is going smoothly until the crack team of FDR experts and researchers at the PfffT files a FOIA request and the NTSB turns over the incorrect data. Now they have blown the whole scheme wide open!

Is this an accurate summary of what you believe happened Turbofan?

Turbofan, this is what we know you think happened so far according to what you posted in this thread, yes? If this isn't accurate please correct me. Fill in any other details you know also.

 

[stateofgrace]

Turbo, why are you ignoring this post?

Actually, I'd like you to flesh out a bit more what you think happened at the Pentagon. Here's what we have so far, based on your posts:

Flight 77 disappears from radar screens, and is replaced by either a "smaller plane" or a missile, above it which flys a Boeing E-4B. Making impossibly tight turns at high speed no other airplane is capable of, the "smaller plane" or missile strikes the Pentagon, while the E4B flys over the Pentagon. Teams of conspirators immediately swoop down on the scene, tearing light poles out of the ground, sticking one in Lloyd England's cab. Other conspirators tear up tree branches, knock over construction equipment and material, fences, and marking poles where they figure Flight 77 would hit if it had actually taken the flight path they programmed into the FDR, which the crack team of conspirators also planted in the Pentagon. Other teams of conspirators spread airplane parts all over the lawn of the Pentagon, inside the Pentagon, and in the alley beyond the C-Ring. They blow a hole in the C-Ring with a wall breaching kit for good measure. At the same time, other conspirators go inside the burning Pentagon and plant the remains of the Flight 77 passengers and crew, which have been ground into hamburger a short time earlier when Flight 77 was diverted to some other airport where everyone on board was killed.

All of this was done in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses - from people on their way to work, to Pentagon employees, to firemen, paramedics, and policemen arriving on the scene. And nobody notices!

But there was one problem - one of the doofuses at the NWO accidentally programmed the flight path of the decoy plane into the planted FDR instead of the fllight path they would officially claim for Flight 77. The NTSB ignores these discrepancies, because they are also in on the conspiracy.

Everything is going smoothly until the crack team of FDR experts and researchers at the PfffT files a FOIA request and the NTSB turns over the incorrect data. Now they have blown the whole scheme wide open!

Is this an accurate summary of what you believe happened Turbofan?

A simple yes or no will do.

Edit, beaten to it, sorry wildcat

 

[twinstead]

I'm curious as to Turbofan's answer to the above myself, because to me, his 'theory' is ludicrous.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Still no word from L3 eh? Turbo, they're your experts, shouldn't they agree with your claims?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh and Wildcat is leaving some stuff out. The day of the crash employees form the airline were brought to the scene to identify that the aircraft debris at the Pentagon was not only their plane, but was in fact flight 77. So in addition to all the other things we are expected to believe as the unavoidable result of Turbo's claims is that the people and parts from flight 77 were created and placed at the scene between the time of the flight departure and the time of the "explosion" and as with everything else, in front of 1000s of people.

 

[lapman]

Oh my, I can't believe you don't even know what you're reading!

You're looking on the wrong page. I even told you which page to
reference! Page 13 contains the transmit information (in chart form).

What you are reading is the update times for each sensor to send information
to the receive buffer before each poll request! As you see the information
is continuously updating waiting for the clock pulse to read the data into
the buffer!

This is why you have two distinct times. If you would have looked at the
chart you would see a min/max which is different than the 100-200 msec.
you quoted!

Once again, the entire process from sensor to CPM is <=500 msec.

You don't add the sensor timing which you stated because it has not
been clocked-in. Those are continious updates between poll times.

IE: If a sensor is polled once every second, the sensor can refresh a
max of ten times before the info is read into the buffer.

Understand?

Thank you for finally proving once and for all that you have zero concept of what you're talking about. The quote I posted from page 14 is referring to the tables on page 13. Here is the quote again with notes since you are incapable of reading and comprehending.

Typically, messages are sent repetitively(this means both BCD and BNR messages). For example, measured airspeed(One of the many messages, but this applies to all message types)
is transmitted from the sensor to the instrument at intervals not less than
100 milliseconds or greater than 200 milliseconds.(notice how it says message interval and not transmit time) Messages may also be
sent in repetitive word sequences or frames. Messages from each fuel tank
level sensor are sent in sequence, and then the sequence is repeated after a
specified time. The specific data source to which the data applies is
determined either by the Label or the SDI.

Nowhere in here or anywhere else in the document does it state that the Tx Rates designate time from sensor to memory. The quoted text from your link specifically address what the meaning of those two columns are(time between messages sent from the sensor and not time from sensor to memory). As a matter of fact, there is nothing in that document that covers the inner-workings of the FDR. This document specifically addresses how the sensors are supposed to send data. What the "instrument" does with it is beyond the scope of this document. The other two links are just product pages that have nothing to do with the FDR functions. Do you even know what a PCMCIA card is?

 

[stateofgrace]

Maybe Turbo is seeking guidance from the Pffffffts.

Turbo let us know what Rob tells you to say, ok?

 

[beachnut]

All you need to know is that the data released by the NTSB doesn't match the government's official conspiracy theory.

That is a lie. DVD sales down? You call the FBI, NTSB, FAA, murderers, with zero evidence.

All you need to know, you posted a lie.
Anyone can look up information to prove you wrong.
Please, stop making up lies. At least you save space and keep all your evidence safely locked up. Where is it?

http://www.ballardtech.com/products.aspx/dir/protocol/ARINC_717/

Which one was on 77? Help me out, which one was it?

As for the 500 millisecond smoking gun; the one that changes 9/11 history!
What exactly does this mean to 9/11?!

13. Recording shall commence in the crash-protected memory within 250 milliseconds for audio and 500 milliseconds for flight data after power is applied and start criteria are satisfied (added by i, what if start criteria are not satisfied). After power interruptions of greater than 5 minutes, up to 10 seconds are allowed for flight data sensor initialization and calibration.

The smoking gun of Balsamo. What exactly makes it impossible for an FDR, no matter what happens to the plane, to be missing data?! Those examples of FDRs missing data is what?

Recording shall commence in the crash-protected memory within … 500 milliseconds for flight data after power is applied and start criteria are satisfied. After power interruptions of greater than 5 minutes, up to 10 seconds are allowed for flight data sensor initialization and calibration.

The smoking gun of p4t, the "no theory" experts on 9/11 issues. If you have "no theory" what use is a smoking gun.




At the blistering rate of data transfer in 77's FDR, there is only one reason data could be missing! It got bored waiting to be stored in the SSFDR chip.

The Digital Flight Data Acquisition Unit (DFDAU) provides a means of gathering, conditioning, and converting flight data parameters to digital data. In 77, the DFDAU function is performed by the SSFDR. The DFDAU provides a serial binary digital data stream to the SSFDR at a rate of 3072 bits/sec. A binary, or logical one, is represented by a voltage transition between clock transitions.

At 3072 bits/sec, the missing data waiting to be stored at the end of flight, was off playing with the bit bucket waiting for the data queue to call.

 

[ktesibios]

Oh my flaming @#$%

Hunting around just to gratify my own curiosity about ARINC standards, I found and read the very same Condor Engineering tutorial that Turbofan cites.

I can understand it exactly the same way that I understand the SMPTE timecode standard, the AES-3 digital audio transmission standard or the MIDI standard. All of these do essentially the same things:

1. define an electrical interface, e.g., signal voltages, source and load impedances, pulse timing and so forth
2. define a modulation scheme, e.g., BPRZ for ARINC, biphase mark for SMPTE and AES, NRZ for MIDI
3. define a data structure- number of bits in a word, start and stop bits if used, sync pattern if used, transmission order (LSB or MSB first)

With those elements, you can go a bit farther and assign meaning to parts of the data structure- for example, AES-3 specifies the transmission of 2 channels of 24-bit linear PCM audio but permits the 4 or 8 least significant bits to be used to provide up to 2 auxiliary channels if only 20-bit or 16-bit PCM data is transmitted on the main channels. SMPTE specifies exactly how each BCD digit is to be used in transmitting time information, but provides extra bits for transmitting user-determined information. Both standards provide for bits which indicate transmission modes and other status information.

None of that is of any use in predicting exactly how long a given piece of receiving equipment will take in responding to a transmission. Neither is the ARINC tutorial.

The structure of an NTSC color video signal is completely defined in EIA RS-170A. Knowing the timing of that signal is of no use at all in predicting how long, say, an Apogee Big Ben will take to lock its word clock generator to incoming video.

If I wanted to design some circuitry to receive serial data from an ARINC 429 source and output it in bit-parallel word-serial format, the tutorial would be a good starting point, but to make predictions about how an FA-2100 DFDR installed in a 757 will handle the data presented to it, including errors and missing data would require much more specific information from Boeing and L3- information that they most likely will provide to their customers but not to every Tom, Dick and Rob who calls them up and demands it.

It doesn't take an MSEE like anti-sophist's to see clearly how turbofan is misusing standards information- a decent electronics background will do.

It also requires no technical background at all to perceive that our PffT shills have no real interest in arriving at a technically defensible conclusion about AA77 but are instead seeking a never-ending, pointless argument.

 

[T.A.M.]

No, they are seeking attention. Attention they are regularly denied by fellow Woo, yet attention we seem to be willing to provided them.

I mean I know it has gotten dull on the truther front as of late, but guys...come on.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

I mean I know it has gotten dull on the truther front as of late, but guys...come on.

Easier said than done in this time of woo drought. Easier said than done.