AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Reheat]

What is your thought then? The Dulles web site shows 287.8. The cockpit must
be about 10-15 feet above ground with the landing gear accounted for.

This totals about 300 feet.

So why does the CSV file show 40 feet if the Baro is set to local pressure upon take off?

Beachnut explained it in his post above. If the CSV files indicates 40' (I haven't checked to make sure) then it's the difference between uncorrected pressure altitude and corrected pressure altitude as set in the altimeter.

READ BEACHNUT's POST AGAIN. If you still don't understand then one of us will draw you a diagram unless you continue to try to be a smart donkey.

 

[Scott_Milner]

Beachnut explained it in his post above. If the CSV files indicates 40' (I haven't checked to make sure) then it's the difference between uncorrected pressure altitude and corrected pressure altitude as set in the altimeter.

READ BEACHNUT's POST AGAIN. If you still don't understand then one of us will draw you a diagram unless you continue to try to be a smart donkey.

Are you all kidding me? The value is corrected.

If you think otherwise, please explain how the altitudes match between the
CSV file and the animation once the aircraft ascends over 18,000 feet, or 29.92.

Sorry to say, but some ofyou should call up a sofware company and ask them how this all works.

you load a file. The software plots the flight path. The CSV file is exported and reflects the values sourced from the flight data. This is the same for the animation.

I already posted a link to one software analysis company. Give them a call and try to pull the "manual manipulated" comment with them.

 

[beachnut]

The animation is best to show what the plane was doing in yaw, roll, pitch, speed, heading so the NTSB can see what happens in an accident. The detailed FDR charts in addition to the animation are great for figuring out what happens in an accident.

But for 911 the animation is worthless to show exactly where 77 was unless you place the image of the runway under the animation, and of course the Pentagon image was not correctly oriented to the animation.

Today, I excepted the GPS data in the FDR will give use 30 to 100 foot accuracy for placing a flight path, but for 77 we may have errors as great as on takeoff, you can plot the values in the FDR and see this for yourself; welcome skeptic.

 

[Gravy]

Out of curiosity, Scott, do you believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

 

[Scott_Milner]

Out of curiosity, Scott, do you believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon?

No sir, not at this point.

Today, I excepted the GPS data in the FDR will give use 30 to 100 foot accuracy for placing a flight path, but for 77 we may have errors as great as on takeoff, you can plot the values in the FDR and see this for yourself; welcome skeptic.

i dont' believe you understand how this all fits together, or how a CSV file is created, nor what a CSV file is based on.

Forget the aircraft for a moment. Look at the data. There are different values
for the same parameter while the aircraft is sitting on the runway.

What expert from the NTSB could let such a huge error slide? How is this possible based on the software used to create the animation and CSV?

What is your theory on how these values became different?

 

[Hokulele]

What is your theory on how these values became different?

The same reason as why the numbers on my map are different from the ones in the CSV file from my data collector.

 

[Reheat]

Are you all kidding me? The value is corrected.

OK, so now we know what happened. AA77 buried itself underground on takeoff from Dulles.

 

[Scott_Milner]

The same reason as why the numbers on my map are different from the ones in the CSV file from my data collector.

I think I may have to draw a map for some of you.

Your map is not linked to the CSV file. This is how it works:

flight data file > upload to flight analysis software > automatically creates flight path > export CSV file (data is based on same source).

Look up any filght analysis software to verify this operation. If you disagree, please show me a software manufacturer that creates a CSV file differently for their animation. I would love to study such a program.

 

[Gravy]

No sir, not at this point.

Thanks for your honesty. I have a policy of keeping no-planers on ignore, so I'll say goodbye and leave you with some facts. There's much more at my website, if you choose to face reality some day.

From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.​

 

[BCR]

Just FYI, the NTSB used Flightscape's RAPS software for the extraction and animation. Keep in mind that they were using the version that was around in 2001, NOT the version (Insight) featured almost 8 years later on their website.

 

[Hokulele]

I think I may have to draw a map for some of you.

Your map is not linked to the CSV file. This is how it works:

flight data file > upload to flight analysis software > automatically creates flight path > export CSV file (data is based on same source).

Look up any filght analysis software to verify this operation. If you disagree, please show me a software manufacturer that creates a CSV file differently for their animation. I would love to study such a program.

Ah, I see where you are going with this. In the case of the mapping software, it also has the capability of exporting not one, but two types of CSV files. One would contain the raw data, the other the corrected data. Since the raw data is the version required in case of any legal dispute, that is the one most commonly exported (although it is easier to do directly from the machine).

So, do you think the animation you are referring to would be accepted as a precise and accurate rendition in any legal case?

(Hint, "working".)

 

[Reheat]

If you think otherwise, please explain how the altitudes match between the CSV file and the animation once the aircraft ascends over 18,000 feet, or 29.92.

It's somewhat odd that you know 18,000' and 29.92 are magic numbers.

What would the altimeter have read had 29.92 been set in the altimeter on take off?


ETA: If you know that 18,000' and 29.92 are magic numbers, then why do you not understand what's being explained to you?

 

[beachnut]

Are you all kidding me? The value is corrected.

If you think otherwise, please explain how the altitudes match between the
CSV file and the animation once the aircraft ascends over 18,000 feet, or 29.92.

Sorry to say, but some ofyou should call up a sofware company and ask them how this all works.

you load a file. The software plots the flight path. The CSV file is exported and reflects the values sourced from the flight data. This is the same for the animation.

I already posted a link to one software analysis company. Give them a call and try to pull the "manual manipulated" comment with them.

This is funny. At about 12:28:01 the animation rolls back 300 feet as the animation changes to 2292 pure PA from local altimeter setting. I hate to dig up this junk when you failed to see the animation roll back and you don't understand PA, FDR storage, and the NTSB animation.

 

[Scott_Milner]

Just FYI, the NTSB used Flightscape's RAPS software for the extraction and animation. Keep in mind that they were using the version that was around in 2001, NOT the version (Insight) featured almost 8 years later on their website.

Thank you. I'll look into this.

Gravy, thank you for your information. I'm more interested in the factual government data that is currently conflicting.

As a computer/software guy, this mismatch in data highly concerns me and is difficult to explain from a programming point of view.

 

[beachnut]

No sir, not at this point.



i dont' believe you understand how this all fits together, or how a CSV file is created, nor what a CSV file is based on.

Forget the aircraft for a moment. Look at the data. There are different values
for the same parameter while the aircraft is sitting on the runway.

What expert from the NTSB could let such a huge error slide? How is this possible based on the software used to create the animation and CSV?

What is your theory on how these values became different?

What errors? 40 feet is not an error vs the 300, it is a value converted.

List the errors. What big errors, so far you are free of showing them.

Please show me the data in the FDR used to place 77 over the ground. Please list the parameters used to place the ground under the animation. Is there a ground data list in the FDR used to place the Pentagon image? The runway?

 

[Gravy]

Just FYI, the NTSB used Flightscape's RAPS software for the extraction and animation. Keep in mind that they were using the version that was around in 2001, NOT the version (Insight) featured almost 8 years later on their website.

Thanks. I had checked out their site after seeing that they said they provided services for the NTSB, and Insight did look pretty sophisticated compared to the flight 77 animation.

 

[BigAl]

No sir, not at this point.

Please consider reading this book. See how much physical evidence and ho many close-up eyewitnesses we have for flight Flt 77 at the Pentagon.

Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11:
150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses
by Patrick Creed and journalist Rick Newman​

I expect I won't be bothering with you again.

 

[Scott_Milner]

This is funny. At about 12:28:01 the animation rolls back 300 feet as the animation changes to 2292 pure PA from local altimeter setting. I hate to dig up this junk when you failed to see the animation roll back and you don't understand PA, FDR storage, and the NTSB animation.

Would you like a lesson on Pressure Altitude? Maybe you and I can calculate the elevation at runway 30 and we can figure out which file is reporting the correct value.

From there, we can hypothesize about how two files from the same source contain different values for the same point in time.

I can clearly see the roll back in the animation on climb. Unforturnately, this does not happen on descent through 18,000 feet. Once again, there is an error at this point in the data.

 

[beachnut]

Thank you. I'll look into this.

Gravy, thank you for your information. I'm more interested in the factual government data that is currently conflicting.

As a computer/software guy, this mismatch in data highly concerns me and is difficult to explain from a programming point of view.

What mismatch?

Which flight parameters do not match?

 

[Scott_Milner]

What errors? 40 feet is not an error vs the 300, it is a value converted.

no sir, you are incorrect.

If that were true, then the altitude values at 29.92 would also need correction.

In fact, once the calibration of 29.92 is entered the altitudes match.

So there is an error while the aircraft is sitting on the runway, all the way up to 18,000 feet.

Then, on descent another error as the pressure altimeter does not adjust once below 18,000 feet when local pressure is entered.