AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Turbofan]

A salesman is your expert on FDR. Cool. But the salesman never said the FDR can't stop. Gee, there are many examples of data missing from the FDR. On 9/11 the data on 77 stopped on a true track course of 61.2 degrees, lined up to hit the lampposts and impact the Pentagon within 1 or 2 degrees of impact heading. Why is this significant. Because at 530 mph 77 can not turn more than a degree or two in the 6 seconds left to impact time. An impact time verified by multiple RADAR stations you ignore. You failed to figure out 9/11 and have no rational story of your own.

Your p4t are liars when they say 77 is too high to hit the Pentagon.

Have you fixed that 11.2 G error yet? Good for you, you have salesman who does not say the FDR can not be missing data. Gee, if he does he is a liar, because there are many reasons a FDR can be missing data.

A salesman is your expert, and your p4t decoders can't answer why the DME is in every second of every frame of the p4t decode. Why? Did you show your experts the FAR I got you to look up!

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY Beachnut! Have you called L3 yet ? Maybe they can
explain what I'm already trying to explain.

Show me a sample of this data that you claim PFT decoded and DME is updated
every second!

Please link me again, because I'm SURE I've already addressed this a few pages ago.

Jaydee, do you understand pressure vs true altitude?
Have you read the NTSB Flight Path Study which is NOT a worknig copy?

 

[applecorped]

Sarge: I hate this job

Rookie: Why? Whats wrong?

Sarge: He's gone. We couldn't save him.

Rookie: What happened?

Sarge: He went for it all the way. There was no turning back for him.

Rookie: How many more do you think will go Sarge?

Sarge: I don't know Jimmy. I just don't know.

Fade to black.

 

[beachnut]

Once again, how do you think PFT managed to decode the raw data without the help of industry pros/experts?

The super p4t decode list DME every second when it was proven by you that the DME is sampled every four seconds. Why did your experts list DME evrery second?

See the 3.2 DME repeated 15 times! Error.
See the NTSB decode list the DME each four seconds! This means p4t have no clue what second the DME is really in! They did not even decode the time right.

Plus you have no clue how the NTSB placed the runway or the Pentagon image on the animation. When will you show me the data used to place both the runway, and the Pentagon on the animation?

Show me a sample of this data that you claim PFT decoded and DME is updated every second!

Here is sample of the p4t decode. The fourth column and the last column are DME listed each second, in error by p4t decode posted a long time ago. You better ask then why.
Notice the 4 second frames, and p4t failed to insert the real time. They repeat the frame descriptor 4 times.

 

[jaydeehess]

Jaydee, do you understand pressure vs true altitude?
Have you read the NTSB Flight Path Study which is NOT a worknig copy?

Yes I understand that PA is not exact , especially when the aircraft is outside of the operating envelope for which the PA could be expected to be reasonably accurate. What accuracy do you believe is required for PA during low level flight? Radar altitude would be more accurate if one wants AGL. Now all you need to do is properly place the aircraft in relation to the Pentagon.

Once again this is not about debating with anonymous internet persons. It is supposed to be about PfT getting an organization with recognized expertise on the subject to comment on PfT's work.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Maybe I'm blind, but I can't seem to find any "FDR Experts" on that page.

Can you help me out? Here's the list that I see:

http://www.jurispro.com/category/aviation-s-10/

True enough, and entering "flight data recorder" yields no results. The top does say "The experts found in these areas may consult on issues involving: [...] FDR [...]" Did you check any exeprts'"click here"s? Some do0 accident investigation, which means they've worked with FDR experts and would know who to contact. Are you even trying?

It's actually the anonymous "experts" of JREF who fail to contact "FDR
Experts". PFT have several recordings, emails and exchanges with L3 and
other FDR companies around the world.

L3! Yes, he is def an expert! What's the name of the person(s), what qualifications and experience (secretary? salesman? Janitor at L3?) and what did they tell you that makes 1.3 miles from impact into the moment of impact? What's the expert's take on standard INS discrepancy? 1.3 miles or more? How did he explain the accidents where many seconds were missing from FDRs? No more than 0.5? Why is up to 13 reported in a case Beachnut knows? Why can't one guy at NTSB be wrong that :45 is the moment of impact? What's your analysis that supports :45 at the second of alleged impact when you don't even believe in impact? You believe in keeping things going in circles.

Please address my point. The agreement to avoid each other only applies to me and Rob Balsamo, not Turbofan. No expertise crap, just issues. Thanks.

 

[Turbofan]

So you are saying your p4t expert decoders made an error in repeating the DME every second when the FAR states it is sampled each 4 seconds.

NOOOOO!!! You say you're a pilot, but you are pretty incompetent at reading
FAR's, specs and common everyday English!

Do you understand that the FAR is a MINIMUM SPEC? YES, or NO?

There are no errors. The DME is HELD until the next update! Oh MY Freaking GOD!

But gee, why is the DME not changing every 4 seconds when the plane is moving over 300 mph towards DCA. Explain why the FDR is not updating the DME! You can't?

Yes, I already did!!! There are TWO DME receivers. Look again!

Notice the NTSB decoded file list DME each four seconds. Notice the DME does not change each four seconds!

You don't even know what you're looking at! That's the funny thing.
Go back to flight school and redo the test.

See above.

I asked you to ask your expert FDR guys to explain why the DME is not updated each 4 seconds. I also asked why your expert decoders listed DME each second in ERROR! Why is p4t decode in error?

Do you understand the DME is only stored as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8? Can you explain why?

Ask Rockwell Collins. Write them. Phone them.

What year did 77 first fly?
What year was 77's FDR installed?
What year this chip was first released? TE28F128J3C-150 ?
Please tell me the chip you said was in 77's FDR, what year was it first introduced. ??

Got physics? Got research?

Research is here. I posted this twice before, but you're too blind to see it:

FA2100 CSMU
Prior Intel 32 Mbit Binary Devices, Intel Part Number DDI28F032SA100 (5V)
2000.6 Intel 32 Mbit Strata Flash Devices, Intel Part Number E28F320J5-120 (5V)
2005.8 Intel 128 Mbit Strata Flash Memory, Intel Part Number TE28F128J3C-150 (3V)


http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf...F320J5-120.html

Here's a picture of the memory chip and cirucit board:
http://www.aa77fdr.com/pft_forum/CSMU_MPlate.jpg

"many people would be interested if Rob tries to renew his medical".

Who are these 'many' people? Reheat?

Does Gravy still spread lies of Rob being an 'ex-commercial pilot'?
Why are so many "skeptics" in such denial?

My phone is pretty quiet. Anti, Reheat, and Beachnut wont phone.

Cowards.

 

[Turbofan]

.Delete

 

[Caustic Logic]

The super p4t decode list DME every second when it was proven by you that the DME is sampled every four seconds. Why did your experts list DME evrery second?
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77FDRp4tNAV.jpg[/qimg]

Good question.

Here is sample of the p4t decode. The fourth column and the last column are DME listed each second, in error by p4t decode posted a long time ago. You better ask then why. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Notice the 4 second frames, and p4t failed to insert the real time. They repeat the frame descriptor 4 times.

Yep, thanks. :37 sampled and repeated 4X. :41 same. and the end of data is... gulp... screwy! Only two full repeats of :45 the correct DME reading, a third partial? The second number is off there. I don't claim to know exactly what this means, but it's clear to this janitor that 1.5 DME is not an accurate placement. Doesn't PFT say it is? The last DME disproves the INS lat/long?

Even if it did, how far is 1.5 DME from the wall? And what would make this point the one the plane was at AT IMPACT? You realize even 1.5 DME would prove that :45 is not the moment of impact, right?

Of course you realize. So why do you argue these things?

ETA: That last directed at Turbofan, who has inherited Capt. Bobby's writing style, avatar, and penchant for avoiding ME.

 

[Turbofan]

True enough, and entering "flight data recorder" yields no results. The top does say "The experts found in these areas may consult on issues involving: [...] FDR [...]" Did you check any exeprts'"click here"s? Some do0 accident investigation, which means they've worked with FDR experts and would know who to contact. Are you even trying?

Yes, I'm trying and I did look hence the link. I don't see any FDR experts
that everyone is crying about. Their credentials are no better than the
pros at PFT.

So please, help me find an FDR guy and i WILL contact him/her with
audio and/or e-mail history.

L3! Yes, he is def an expert! What's the name of the person(s), what qualifications and experience (secretary? salesman? Janitor at L3?) and what did they tell you that makes 1.3 miles from impact into the moment of impact?

How do YOU arrive at 1.3 miles from impact? That's a new one! Check
that value. Are you thinking 1.5 nm DME perhaps?

How did he explain the accidents where many seconds were missing from FDRs?

What examples are those? Name the flights please. I can assure you
those planes had catastrophic failures before impact in order to lose data.

Has anyone come up with a reason for AA77 to stop recording before impact?

No more than 0.5? Why is up to 13 reported in a case Beachnut knows?

Like I said, list the flight number and state the case. You can't assume
that each plane experiences the same trouble. That's a poor analogy,
and I'm sure you know that.

It's like asking why one car blows up in a crash and another just dents a
fender.

Why can't one guy at NTSB be wrong that :45 is the moment of impact?

If they're wrong, then they wont admit it . They wont fix it. We're simply
asking for an explanation and complete investigation.

What's your analysis that supports :45 at the second of alleged impact when you don't even believe in impact? You believe in keeping things going in circles.

Our analysis is just that. The plane didn't crash! The flight data shows it,
and it's NOT a working copy. are you not concerned?

Please address my point. The agreement to avoid each other only applies to me and Rob Balsamo, not Turbofan. No expertise crap, just issues. Thanks.

I hope I've answered everything in your post.

 

[Turbofan]

Even if it did, how far is 1.5 DME from the wall? And what would make this point the one the plane was at AT IMPACT? You realize even 1.5 DME would prove that :45 is not the moment of impact, right?

Of course you realize. So why do you argue these things?

BZzzzz, wrong!

See you guys are good at looking at one parameter and then jumping for
joy!

1.5 DME, and the altitude is several hundred feet too high, and too close to
the Pentagon according to the impact time.

 

[SDC]

.Delete

Turbofan, this is about the only sensible statement you've ever posted here.

 

[beachnut]

BZzzzz, wrong!

See you guys are good at looking at one parameter and then jumping for
joy!

1.5 DME, and the altitude is several hundred feet too high, and too close to
the Pentagon according to the impact time.

1.5 DME, 77 is not too high to hit the Pentagon.
Final heading puts 77 inline to impact!
So you stand by 1.5 DME! 77 is 2816 feet from the Pentagon at 273 AGL (125 feet) 398 feet MSL to hit the Pentagon at 40 feet MSL, we need to have 358 feet in 2816 feet. The heading is steady at 61.2 degrees true track!

As already shown when p4t messed up physics, the physics shows this is possible for 77 to impact the Pentagon without ripping off the wings. This is where JDX/p4t 11.2 G major flawed physics comes in! You have fallen in the 1.5 DME trap, but yet you don't even know the errors in the DME!

For all math competent people, the DME is stored as X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8. These are the only values stored in the FDR for DME. The p4t members lack math skills and fail to see a DME value with an system error of under ½ mile, and a storage error as stated above, that the 1.5 DME is only good to 1500 to 2000 feet. The p4t experts are not able to handle about or approximate. They are absolute fantasy ideas on 9/11.

2816 to go, and to loose 358 feet is less than 6000 feet per minute, the terrorist pilot has already demonstrated better than 6000 feet per minute, and the terrorist pilot just put in the biggest down stick yet. Oops, your 1.5 DME is possible to hit the Pentagon.

So you have to place the 1.5 DME on a 61.2 true track.

Darn, there are 3.6 seconds to go when the FDR stops. Darn, this means you have no clue where or when 77 impacts the Pentagon.

BTW, there are multiple independent RADAR returns verifying 77 was actually 4700 feet from the Pentagon when the FDR stops. If only you were a pilot and an engineer with over 35 years experience. Gee, I have actually used FDR data in major accident. You know an accident over a million dollars in damage.

And I see you can't answer questions you just post junk.
What year did 77 first fly?
What year was 77's FDR installed?
What year this chip was first released? TE28F128J3C-150 ?
Instead of posting junk, answer the question or say you can't! Can you answer anything with your many experts, did you ask John Lear's aliens to help? Are you and John going to the moon soon?


You have not even modeled the errors of DME in the transmit/receive system or storage in the FDR.
The big hint on one error issue is, X.0, X.2, X.5, X.8. Do you understand math? I always tell my students, math is good; p4t failed to listen.

 

[Turbofan]

And I see you can't answer questions you just post junk.
What year did 77 first fly?
What year was 77's FDR installed?
What year this chip was first released? TE28F128J3C-150 ?

You shuold tell your students how to research their own questions. Use
Google, phone a friend, ask the audience, 50/50 LMAO!

Poor Beachnut has to ask me all of these questions, and this is the guy
you claim is your 'expert'?

Your graphs are garbage Beachnut. If you place the aircraft at 4700 feet
from impact (LOL), then the NTSB impact time and lack of data before
impact time is grossly in error!

I love how you make up these numbers, and they don't even support
the flight data.

Do you remember how fast the plane was moving? 1.5 DME was the last
updated value...so how do you arrive at your magic FPS value to make
the flight data true?

There are more versions of flight data fantasy in this thread, than there
are experts! LMAO!

Hey, can anyone find me a FDR expert at Juris Pro?

All of these people freaking out over Juris Pro, but they can't find me
an expert! Failed research perhaps?

Anybody want to call me? I have the recorder ready and waiting to
school you on the ARINC system and Flight Data. My buddy Rob will
join in too if you like.

P.S. Beachnut never called/contacted PFT for a debate EVER. He is
a liar. Set it up Pomeroo! I want to get these jokers on tape to show
my grandkids one day.

 

[beachnut]

If you use 1.5 DME, and you have 61.2 degrees true track. Sorry, there are 3.6 seconds to go! Can't help it if you are unable to figure this out! I understand since your best efforts at math and physics produced 11.2 Gs and you can't correct that. There is no real chance you can figure this out!

My grandkids are watching now, and they see your fantasy is made up due to ignorance.

You failed to answer the easy questions from your bank of super experts at p4t
What year did 77 first fly?
What year was 77's FDR installed?
What year this chip was first released? TE28F128J3C-150 ?
Guess your chip was made after the FDR was installed on 77. Darn!

You are using the NTSB time of impact based on what clock? Relative to what clock. I have multiple radar returns from 77 which verify my impact time of 13:37:50, and leaves your ideas in the bit bucket.

Anyone who can do math can take your 1.5 DME and the 61.2 degrees and see it is 3.6 seconds away. Can you?


Darn, you are using the wrong impact time. Too bad for you.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

BZzzzz, wrong!

See you guys are good at looking at one parameter and then jumping for
joy!

1.5 DME, and the altitude is several hundred feet too high, and too close to
the Pentagon according to the impact time.

See. Here lies the problem. you are naive in thinking that anyone who knows computer basics can be an FDR expert because of some of the protocols and technical specs used by the equipment. The problem, and the reason experts are needed is because you don't understand how the data applies to the events they are used for. you can read some numbers, but you lack the expertise to know how to read their meaning. Hence you thinking that the numbers show the altitude as being too high. You're just looking at them as numbers and not understanding how they apply in the real world. THIS is what experts are for.

And you're still claiming impact time? Once again showing that you don't understand how to use the data you are looking at.

 

[Turbofan]

If you use 1.5 DME, and you have 61.2 degrees true track. Sorry, there are 3.6 seconds to go! Can't help it if you are unable to figure this out! I understand since your best efforts at math and physics produced 11.2 Gs and you can't correct that.

My grandkids are watching now, and they see your fantasy is made up due to ignorance.

So where's the 3.6 seconds of flight data Mr. Physics?

500 MPH? LOL!

You make me laugh. That theory doesn't even workout with the data transfer rate.

 

[Turbofan]

See. Here lies the problem. you are naive in thinking that anyone who knows computer basics can be an FDR expert because of some of the protocols and technical specs used by the equipment. The problem, and the reason experts are needed is because you don't understand how the data applies to the events they are used for. you can read some numbers, but you lack the expertise to know how to read their meaning. Hence you thinking that the numbers show the altitude as being too high. You're just looking at them as numbers and not understanding how they apply in the real world. THIS is what experts are for.

And you're still claiming impact time? Once again showing that you don't understand how to use the data you are looking at.

Rolling my eyes and sighing....

So, explain it to me then? Show me (PFT) where we're wrong?

NTSB states an impact time.

The raw and CSV file shows too high at that time.

How does all of this wonderful data work in the real world?

I'm grabbing a coffee and waiting for your expert answer.

P.S. Still waiting for an expert from Juris Pro

(someone is changing the subject )

 

[jaydeehess]

Still argueing this grave issue of flight safety with anonymous internet posters Turbofan?
Still calling for a verbal debate in which all you will have is an "it is this way/no, it is this other way" back and forth that will accomplish absolutly nothing at all.

Once again this is not about debating with anonymous internet persons. It is supposed to be about PfT getting an organization with recognized expertise on the subject to comment on PfT's work.

When do you or PfT plan on doing what would be neccessary to accomplish that?
(noting that the vitriol already produced by PfT may have already poisoned that well)

 

[Turbofan]

Still argueing this grave issue of flight safety with anonymous internet posters Turbofan?
Still calling for a verbal debate in which all you will have is an "it is this way/no, it is this other way" back and forth that will accomplish absolutly nothing at all.

Once again this is not about debating with anonymous internet persons. It is supposed to be about PfT getting an organization with recognized expertise on the subject to comment on PfT's work.

When do you or PfT plan on doing what would be neccessary to accomplish that?
(noting that the vitriol already produced by PfT may have already poisoned that well)

Yup, still beating a dead horse I guess. As long as you're all still answering,
I'll keep replying as well.

Jaydee, what are the chances that L3 as a company would endorse JREF,
or PFT?

What are the chances all employees of L3 would agree with either side
of this debate?

I still don't see how getting their approval of a study would make the case
any stronger?

We both know now that PFT has submitted their study, but no response
was given (for/against).

I've asked a couple of your members to find me a FDR expert from Juris Pro
that I may contact. Nothing.

Who do you feel I should contact to help the cause?

 

[Turbofan]

Beachnut, i notice you bring up John Lear alot to argue your case against PFT.

We'll set aside the fact that "Lear" is a household name and helped design
the famous jet. So lets compare credentials, shall we?

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/JL1.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/JL2.jpg

This is just one of nine pages on Lear at FAA.gov. What do your credentials
look like at FAA.gov? Care to put your name to your claims as does John
Lear? Can you even touch the bottom of Lears' boots with your credentials?

I guess this is why you're scared to debate, because you can't touch
experience like Lear.

BTW, can you find me a FDR expert on Juris Pro please?

Can you also state your guess as to how 3.6 seconds of data could be missing
from the crash protected memory? Aside from your FDR power-out theory at < 0.2 g's