AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[jhunter1163]

Reading for comprehension just isn't your thing, is it, Turbo? Your "A" above says data rate of 64 w/sec. Beachnut's post shows a data rate of 256 w/sec. You are clearly wrong. And don't try to tell me that the formatting makes it 256. You've been carping about the data rate for ages. And you've been wrong all that time.

 

[Turbofan]

Reading for comprehension just isn't your thing, is it, Turbo? Your "A" above says data rate of 64 w/sec. Beachnut's post shows a data rate of 256 w/sec. You are clearly wrong. And don't try to tell me that the formatting makes it 256. You've been carping about the data rate for ages. And you've been wrong all that time.

Hint:

The DFDAU time division multiplexes the data and passes it to the DFDR over a special continuous time division multiplexed serial databus. Parameters are differentiated by their position (time slot address) in the data frame. It is this databus that is implied when reference is made to an ARINC 717 databus. Words are 12 bits long and are nominally transmitted at 64 or 256 words per second, though the specification also permits 128 and 512 words per second.

Beachnut, are you sure you're not sourcing that quote from the internet,
or some MFG site stating the capability of the FDR data rate?

I guess that's Beachnut's way of researching, just check out internet
sites and read a spec about 256 w/sec and ASSUME the system is
operating at that data rate?

Jhunter, you still stand behind your post?

 

[jhunter1163]

I stand uncorrected. Your data rate in "A" is wrong. Your claim was 64, and Beachnut posted a document showing 256.

Also, you have never answered these questions, and I have a suspicion as to why:

Originally posted by Beachnut:

What year did 77 first fly?
What year was 77's FDR installed?
What year this chip was first released? TE28F128J3C-150 ?

I suspect that you are avoiding these questions because you know Beachnut knows the answers, and they are damaging if not fatal to your fantasy.

 

[beachnut]

it is your 'faceless experts' that claim the FDR broke before impact (between 3.6 and 8 seconds)!

Data is missing from the FDR. 77 FDR. Not the first time data is missing. Never said the FDR broke. The FDR data stops for armature p4t decoders at 13:37:43, and 13:37:44 for NTSB decoders. For unknown reasons p4t expert decoders could not decode the last second due to (corruption, errors, pipeline buffers, backlog of data due to… as in unknown reasons)?

Faceless?

OMG, I am faceless, you got something right! Used DME in the 38.

I did some research to see if I was faceless before, after, and during UPT. I checked later, after UPT, I got my face back.

I had a face when I flew KC-135s. We used DME in the tanker.

I had a face before I flew the T-38 and ablated my face off on my dollar ride. I wonder if this is before my triple bucket lunch upchuck show. The zero delay lanyard goes to the lap belt, where the hell is that seat pin. Oops. Used DME in the tweet too.

Despite Generals trying to rip my face off in Italy, I kept face supporting airlift operataions for Bosnia.

A face only a mom could love, but proves I am not faceless.


Why is the DME repeated in all the wrong rows in the p4t decode, and why are vertical accelerations missing? How did amateur decoders get proprietary data to decode the FDR?



DME is updated every 4 seconds, it took time to get you to post the FAR. Asked you why p4t decode listed DME every second; you have no idea what second the DME is collected in, thus you say there is over a 2 second error in DME?! Your decoders have no clue when the DME is updated, p4t failed to decode DME properly and place the value in the correct second, so they repeat the DME over and over again! Error. They repeat the time too! Error.
NTSB places the DME in the second it was sampled; and every 4 seconds. NTSB also decodes the time, it is slick, how did p4t decoders mess this up?

Here is proof the p4t decode is in error. You proved to me, after being lead to the FAR, that the DME is sampled as we have seen in the data from the NTSB, every four seconds. Why does p4t erroneously repeat DME in the wrong seconds? Is it due to the fact it was really an armature decode? (yes) Why, did they not figure out the correct position in the frame?
This is the exact same seconds as above, this is a image of the p4tr decode! Relax, you guys don't get much right, you were off by a factor of 4 on the data rate, you are only making excuses for this issue.

With the p4t decode, you have no idea what second the DME was sampled in! Man, for wanting to live by some .5 second crap, your lack of standards on this issue is funny.

Note: only values of .0, .2, .5, .8 are stored, notice p4t decode rounded down to .7. Who is the math expert who can explain the accuracy error due to FDR storage; mathematically speaking. (anyone who wants to explain accuracy for the FDR and DME system accuracy; DME accuracy, less than 1/2 mile or 3 percent whichever is greater, and typical accuracy, .23 NM for aircraft like 77 in 2001)


The p4t decode above, is the same time frame as the NTSB above that, the DME columns are reversed on the p4t decode. This is directly from the p4t decode; the same time period as the NTSB. (Column of DME OJ and ON on p4t)

Glad you set me straight on the 4 seconds, but why do you make excuse for p4t data? Double standards?
I helped you with the data rate.

You were wrong on the data rate. It is 256, not 64! quibble away

Which part of 256 do you not understand? You were only off a factor of 4 (FOUR).

I have known the rate because it is in the NTSB doc.

Flight 93 is 64 w/s, 77 is 256 w/s; ;when you see the amount of data, you can see why there is a difference as the FAA et al add more parameters to be recorded.

Funny, u left off the rest of the Doc, I bet B. was 128, and C. was 256, or something simple like that.

77 is 256 12 bit words per minute, found in NTSB FDR decode doc.

The 717 standard/junk does cover multiple rates. I tried to help. I have worked with FDRs to solve real aircraft accidents, and worked with expert, real experts from Boeing. Just trying to help someone lost in the p4t world of false ideas.

If only we were talking about Flight 93; you would have been correct. Would have. Sources -
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf 77 FDR information.
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf 93 FDR informatoin.

Think your salesman FDR expert would have corrected you; Got him on retainer? You know it is easy to figure out the data rate...

 

[WildCat]

A summary of this thread so far, in a 6 second youtube video:

 

[Turbofan]

I suspect that you are avoiding these questions because you know Beachnut knows the answers, and they are damaging if not fatal to your fantasy.

No, I'm not avoiding anything. I'm just tired of doing all the work around
here.

REVISION HISTORY
Date of
Revision
Version Description
09/01/97 -001 Original Version
09/17/97 -002 Modifications made to cover sheet
12/01/97 -003 VCC/GND Pins Converted to No Connects specification change added
ICCS, ICCD, ICCW, and ICCE specification change added
Order Codes specification change added
1/31/98 -004 The mBGA* chip-scale package in Figure 2 was changed to a 52-ball
package and appropriate documentation added. The 64-Mb mBGA
package dimensions were changed in Figure 2. Changed Figure 4 to
read SSOP instead of TSOP.

FA2100 Install date - Not Sure. Model in circulation as early as 1987

N644AA -First Flight 1991

So yes, I stand corrected Beachnut and I will apologize to you for my error.
I had the data rate mixed up for AA77. It is indeed 256 wps, not 64 wps.

This however makes Anti's theory even more a sham. With a word written
every ~ 4 msec, and a bit rate of 3072 bps, the amount of data hung up
in a buffer is even more a joke.

If you have specific questions about the raw data decode, you shuold contact
Undertow at PFT directly. I have not seen any of these images you are linking
and I had no part in the decode process.

I've started a new thread with a trailer to the latest PFT presenation. This
upcoming research will address your questions, and update the 11.2 G
value you keep crying about.

Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LhUY5vLKXg

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And yet no media or experts taking P4T seriously....It's a mystery....

 

[uk_dave]

So yes, I stand corrected Beachnut and I will apologize to you for my error.
I had the data rate mixed up for AA77. It is indeed 256 wps, not 64 wps.

And if you'd cut out all the childish arrogance you exhibit on this forum you would probably have got there alot quicker.

Accept it, you're not infallible and you're not all knowing.
And your faith in the 'experts' of pft is sorely misplaced.

But at least you didn't try to be an expert on building failure this time. So maybe there's hope for you yet.

 

[GlennB]

How did amateur decoders get proprietary data to decode the FDR?

I don't know if this is a rhetorical question Beachnut, but my recollection is that a British student - who used to post over on the UK 9/11 forum as Snowygrouch - was (illegally) slipped the frame layout by a Boeing worker. Or he was part of a group that had an insider contact in the industry .... something like that. I believe Snowygrouch is part of PffT, although I don't read that forum.

The UK 9/11 forum is down at the moment but I'll see if I can track down the story when it's back up.

 

[funk de fino]

No, I'm not avoiding anything. I'm just tired of doing all the work around
here.

REVISION HISTORY
Date of
Revision
Version Description
09/01/97 -001 Original Version
09/17/97 -002 Modifications made to cover sheet
12/01/97 -003 VCC/GND Pins Converted to No Connects specification change added
ICCS, ICCD, ICCW, and ICCE specification change added
Order Codes specification change added
1/31/98 -004 The mBGA* chip-scale package in Figure 2 was changed to a 52-ball
package and appropriate documentation added. The 64-Mb mBGA
package dimensions were changed in Figure 2. Changed Figure 4 to
read SSOP instead of TSOP.

FA2100 Install date - Not Sure. Model in circulation as early as 1987

N644AA -First Flight 1991

So yes, I stand corrected Beachnut and I will apologize to you for my error.
I had the data rate mixed up for AA77. It is indeed 256 wps, not 64 wps.

This however makes Anti's theory even more a sham. With a word written
every ~ 4 msec, and a bit rate of 3072 bps, the amount of data hung up
in a buffer is even more a joke.

If you have specific questions about the raw data decode, you shuold contact
Undertow at PFT directly. I have not seen any of these images you are linking
and I had no part in the decode process.

I've started a new thread with a trailer to the latest PFT presenation. This
upcoming research will address your questions, and update the 11.2 G
value you keep crying about.

Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LhUY5vLKXg

Now you know the specs of that chip you can use the actual chip identifier to tell you exactly when that revision was first used cant you? You do know how to identify which revision it is dont you?

Split this down into parts and you will see.

TE28F128J3C-150

heres a clue. The TE part means - 56 lead TSOP

Now carry on and you should be able to work out when that above chip was first used.

How does the humble pie that beachnut has just served you taste? Feel silly?

 

[funk de fino]

That is not an answer to my question

Why are some of the parameters missing or not recorded properly as stated by the NTSB report on the FDR.

Why would there be corrupt or unintelligible data?

I am not asking what recorded or nor recorded is, I am asking why 8 pages of parameters are missing from the report.

Repeated due to another ignore

 

[Caustic Logic]

I don't know if this is a rhetorical question Beachnut, but my recollection is that a British student - who used to post over on the UK 9/11 forum as Snowygrouch - was (illegally) slipped the frame layout by a Boeing worker. Or he was part of a group that had an insider contact in the industry .... something like that. I believe Snowygrouch is part of PffT, although I don't read that forum.

The UK 9/11 forum is down at the moment but I'll see if I can track down the story when it's back up.

I thought he had gotten the decode from an anonymous expert person on a laptop, but was mixed up. The story of that (if this is what you mean) is here. Undertow of Pfft runs this site.

Snowygrough was the one who first got the animation without asking for it and without having it mentioned in the letter. I always found that odd. It was only on subsequent releases that NTSB acknowledged it. Originally, it was 'slipped in.'

They get stuff slipped to them sometimes I guess.

 

[uk_dave]

I thought balsamo was always crowing about how they (or someone) filed a FOIA request for the animation and they got it with a covering letter from the NTSB saying how this was their best possible interpretation of what was being requested, which balsamo likes to tell everyone means the NTSB think the animation itself was their best possible interpretation of events.

Or something like that.

 

[Bananaman]

This thread is almost embarrassing to read now.

Edited for civility. Do not change member names as insults.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

Bananaman.

 

[GlennB]

I thought he had gotten the decode from an anonymous expert person on a laptop, but was mixed up. The story of that (if this is what you mean) is here. Undertow of Pfft runs this site.

Snowygrough was the one who first got the animation without asking for it and without having it mentioned in the letter. I always found that odd. It was only on subsequent releases that NTSB acknowledged it. Originally, it was 'slipped in.'

They get stuff slipped to them sometimes I guess.

It turns out that Snowygrouch discussed the "insider" issue and data frame layout files, right here in this very thread Check post 358 on page 9.

 

[Turbofan]

Thanks Chillzero, it's nice to see the rules applied to all members.

As mentioned before, PFT has industry pros helping out behind the scenes.
That is how we obtained the necessary tools and software.

Humble pie? A little taste is good I guess; it much better than eating the
whole pie like most of your 'experts' that have been confronted and exposed.

Like I said before, the higher data rate puts a bigger damper on Anti's
theory. So I'll take that pie with some whip cream and a cherry on top.


Thanks for the pics Beachnut. You're kinda cute...

Now will you put your name behind your claims and debate PFT with your
info? We are all waiting patiently.

 

[SDC]

Turbofan's posts, never much on content in the first place, have long since degenerated into little but baiting and insults. "Almost embarrassing," Bananaman? It's like... Well, I have been following the hearings leading to the firing of Detroit's mayor, Kilpatrick. One of his lawyers, McPhail, tried a cross-examination which was so poorly done it went all the way to painful to watch -- even for people who don't like her. (Who are most of the people of southeast lower Michigan.)

Turbofan's posts are like that. Painful. (Notice that I am only attacking her/ his posts. Not her/ him personally. Probably saintly and articulate in other areas of life.)

 

[Turbofan]

You know what's painful? Nobody (especially Anti) has come back to
explain T4-T5 now that is has been exposed as "insignificant" and post
CPM.

Nobody wants to touch the technical facts about the subject. Data rate
has squat to do with the data acquired. Nothing changes my friend.

So keep dodging the questions, and I'll keep asking for a debate on the
FDR particulars. Still waiting for someone to step up.

 

[WildCat]

So keep dodging the questions, and I'll keep asking for a debate on the
FDR particulars. Still waiting for someone to step up.

Because it's all about pwning people on internet debates.

Whatever you do, don't contact a real FDR expert to corroborate the findings of your pretend FDR experts! It's not like you think you're sitting on evidence of the crime of the century or something...

 

[funk de fino]

You know what's painful? Nobody (especially Anti) has come back to
explain T4-T5 now that is has been exposed as "insignificant" and post
CPM.

Nobody wants to touch the technical facts about the subject. Data rate
has squat to do with the data acquired. Nothing changes my friend.

So keep dodging the questions, and I'll keep asking for a debate on the
FDR particulars. Still waiting for someone to step up.

It is you who is dodging questions and posts. This forum is a debate and you are being schooled here. If it went live you would end up shrieking and shouting and namecalling. The debate would be ruined.

You made insulting and mocking and arrogant acusations and were namecalling beachnut when he tried to show you an error. Then it appears you were completely and utterly wrong again. Did you aplogize for the namecalling or insults or arrogance? No you apologized for making the mistake. The sad thing is he gave you a direct quote from the actual FDR report prepared by NTSB for flight 77 and you completely missed it. How can this be? Surely you know that report inside out?

Be a man and apologise to beachnut for the namecalling and insults about this issue and admit he proved you to be fallible.