AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[beachnut]

I seem to have struck a nerve with you? I sure do program. If you have a set of variables with operators associated with them, the equation is applied to all data.

Therefore if there is a correction factor at the beginning of the file, the correction must be consistent throughout the file below 18,000 feet. You do notice the Baro values in column CG (Baro Cor No.1)? You do realize the conversion is done by the software and not a human? So why the error?

What is the FL change over in GB?

Will not be the first time the software is not set for QNH below 18,000 feet, but the animation is not a factor for 911 analysis or 911Truth. A setting issue? But…

To use the animation as a factor is the true sign of anti-intellectual poppycock.

The animation has nothing to do with any of your delusions. 77 impacted the Pentagon. Why was the Pentagon, not represented or orientated to the FDR data and placed arbitrarily on the animation, you think you plug in some software to the FDR and it draws a sideways rotated Pentagon and 911 was some Military coup or other delusion made up by people who lack knowledge?

The FDR information stands and supports 77 impacting the Pentagon. You are off on the animation tangent, made from FDR data with images added (no images or accurate placement in the FDR of 2001 on 77)?

Explain how images were added to the software with only FDR inputs?

Look below this is what you believe?

 

[Gravy]

Bob, you don't understand what a departure is, or how they are designed. You said the C-130 was not on the departure it flew on 911...

That's a pretty mild claim for Balsamo. After scrupulously reviewing the FDR data, he posited that the Pentagon was attacked by a MOAB dropped from that C-130, while flight 77 skimmed over the Pentagon, made a "hard left," and "escaped" up the Potomac! That's right: a MOAB. I don't recall the people in front of the Pentagon, who watched flight 77 hit it, mistaking it for a MOAB, or of the entire Pentagon and surrounding area being laid to waste by high explosives.

In Balsamo's scenario, the minimum turn radius of flight 77 at 2.5 g and 60-degree bank, beginning at 460 kts, would have put it directly over downtown Washington, D.C., the Washington Mall, and the White House. A "north of Citgo" flightpath makes this "escape up the Potomac" fantasy even more ridiculous...if such a thing is possible.

Why is it that a former pilot has so much trouble grasping such fundamental concepts? Oh, that's right.

​

 

[BCR]

Okay, I am at a loss here. I thought the barometric pressure was set by the pilot as he/she passed through 18,000 feet either on departure or approach. If the AAL77 pilot set it to a default value as he went through 18,000 then it would record as such on the FDR and be reflected in the animation.

What I noticed when working with the RADES and FAA data, was that the MC altitude in the RADES was uncorrected, while the FAA data reflected the corrected-for-pressure value. When plotted, this difference could be seen as an offset in the MC altitude values of aircraft as they descended into IAD or DCA at 18,000 feet. I'm not sure if that is a TRACON corrected function, or whether the FAA radar reads a different altitude value than does the RADES system.

If the pilot failed to make the correction upon descent (no reason Hanjour would since he was not a professional 757 pilot), it makes sense that the value would not correct itself in the animation or CSV. So Beachnut and Reheat, correct my thinking on this if I'm astray somewhere.

Maybe this graph will illustrate what I am talking about better.

 

[WildCat]

How long ago was that post made, Cap'n Bob?

"jtribby has been suspended while account information is being investigated."

lololol

 

[Reheat]

Okay, I am at a loss here. I thought the barometric pressure was set by the pilot as he/she passed through 18,000 feet either on departure or approach. If the AAL77 pilot set it to a default value as he went through 18,000 then it would record as such on the FDR and be reflected in the animation.

What I noticed when working with the RADES and FAA data, was that the MC altitude in the RADES was uncorrected, while the FAA data reflected the corrected-for-pressure value. When plotted, this difference could be seen as an offset in the MC altitude values of aircraft as they descended into IAD or DCA at 18,000 feet. I'm not sure if that is a TRACON corrected function, or whether the FAA radar reads a different altitude value than does the RADES system.

If the pilot failed to make the correction upon descent (no reason Hanjour would since he was not a professional 757 pilot), it makes sense that the value would not correct itself in the animation or CSV. So Beachnut and Reheat, correct my thinking on this if I'm astray somewhere.

John, I am not totally up to speed on this issue with AA77, but I did watch enough of the animation to see that it does not reflect an altimeter change on descent. I've forgotten the pffft lunatic ravings about altitude on the approach. I'll have to review that, but it's too late tonight to do that.

I believe the Mode C readout is just simple PA and that is corrected at the radar display with the local QNH set by the controller, but I'm not certain about it. That makes sense as the FAA radar is monitored that and the RADES stuff is unmonitored.

 

[beachnut]

Okay, I am at a loss here. I thought the barometric pressure was set by the pilot as he/she passed through 18,000 feet either on departure or approach. If the AAL77 pilot set it to a default value as he went through 18,000 then it would record as such on the FDR and be reflected in the animation.

What I noticed when working with the RADES and FAA data, was that the MC altitude in the RADES was uncorrected, while the FAA data reflected the corrected-for-pressure value. When plotted, this difference could be seen as an offset in the MC altitude values of aircraft as they descended into IAD or DCA at 18,000 feet. I'm not sure if that is a TRACON corrected function, or whether the FAA radar reads a different altitude value than does the RADES system.

If the pilot failed to make the correction upon descent (no reason Hanjour would since he was not a professional 757 pilot), it makes sense that the value would not correct itself in the animation or CSV. So Beachnut and Reheat, correct my thinking on this if I'm astray somewhere.

The pressure altitude in the FDR is always set to 2992 in a sense. The ADC (air data computer) or equal in 77 uses the setting the pilot puts in and does neat things to get very close to the best altitude based on QNH (local altimeter setting you get before takeoff, and during preflight). We use actually altitude flying low so we can avoid the ground; using the wrong setting can cause problems.

I think FAA sees the raw PA all the time; the altitude figured from the RADAR data is absolute. The value in the animation appears to be corrected based on a switch to include the correction. And on descent it was not corrected in the animation. But the animation has no bearing on anything it is a neat visual in a sense, and the FDR is the real evidence; period; the animation is a product of the evidence, an analysis tool used for accident investigations.

It looks like the NTSB ran the software and produced a product but did not refine it. This is not an NTSB investigation and there is no value added to finish the animation that is not primary evidence it a visual aid derived directly from the FDR and neat images added and placed somehow under the animation. With the runway it is simple to place, we know planes, big planes use hard runways and can confidently place the runway image under the animation all lined up with aircraft heading;

But at the end of flight you have to study the damage path and match the animation of the aircraft to the image of the Pentagon knowing the data does end at some point prior to impact. I doubt anyone looked to see if the data was collected up to impact. There was severe damage to the FDR. As you have seen you can roughly line up the FDR with the RADAR to show seconds missing.

Back to setting local QNH, I think Hani did set it; he did fly a lot; it must have been a pain to be marginal as a pilot and train anyway. But he had a goal. I placed kids in simulators and they were able to land a large jet harder to fly than a 757 with no training. Hani wasted money on training, it seems crashing into large targets is only impossible for p4t Balsamo and co.

The only altitude information based on pressure in the FDR is PA; the program would have a switch or could be hard programmed to gather the altimeter setting, or even have it manually set. By manually set I mean you may not want the FDR setting varying so you could program your animation to take the PA and add the correction to 18,000 feet based on your inputted value the pilot used, or used by mistake, or should have used, etc! As an accident investigator there is a need to program flexibility because we may need to see what the pilot should have set, what he did set and what it means. Therefore the animation software has flexibility so we can look at multiple scenarios! This is a humble engineer, pilot and trained accident investigator take; poorly written, but I was trying.

I hope the software was not hard wired for 18,000 feet if you want to use it all over the world and all over different flying conditions.

What is the value of a produce produced from primary evidence but for eye candy? Yes, it is a great tool to see what happened. On 911 there is no real mystery save understanding all this flying junk.

 

[Scott_Milner]

The pressure altitude in the FDR is always set to 2992 in a sense. The ADC (air data computer) or equal in 77 uses the setting the pilot puts in and does neat things to get very close to the best altitude based on QNH (local altimeter setting you get before takeoff, and during preflight). We use actually altitude flying low so we can avoid the ground; using the wrong setting can cause problems.

I think FAA sees the raw PA all the time; the altitude figured from the RADAR data is absolute. The value in the animation appears to be corrected based on a switch to include the correction. And on descent it was not corrected in the animation. But the animation has no bearing on anything it is a neat visual in a sense, and the FDR is the real evidence; period; the animation is a product of the evidence, an analysis tool used for accident investigations.

It looks like the NTSB ran the software and produced a product but did not refine it. This is not an NTSB investigation and there is no value added to finish the animation that is not primary evidence it a visual aid derived directly from the FDR and neat images added and placed somehow under the animation. With the runway it is simple to place, we know planes, big planes use hard runways and can confidently place the runway image under the animation all lined up with aircraft heading;

But at the end of flight you have to study the damage path and match the animation of the aircraft to the image of the Pentagon knowing the data does end at some point prior to impact. I doubt anyone looked to see if the data was collected up to impact. There was severe damage to the FDR. As you have seen you can roughly line up the FDR with the RADAR to show seconds missing.

Back to setting local QNH, I think Hani did set it; he did fly a lot; it must have been a pain to be marginal as a pilot and train anyway. But he had a goal. I placed kids in simulators and they were able to land a large jet harder to fly than a 757 with no training. Hani wasted money on training, it seems crashing into large targets is only impossible for p4t Balsamo and co.

The only altitude information based on pressure in the FDR is PA; the program would have a switch or could be hard programmed to gather the altimeter setting, or even have it manually set. By manually set I mean you may not want the FDR setting varying so you could program your animation to take the PA and add the correction to 18,000 feet based on your inputted value the pilot used, or used by mistake, or should have used, etc! As an accident investigator there is a need to program flexibility because we may need to see what the pilot should have set, what he did set and what it means. Therefore the animation software has flexibility so we can look at multiple scenarios! This is a humble engineer, pilot and trained accident investigator take; poorly written, but I was trying.

I hope the software was not hard wired for 18,000 feet if you want to use it all over the world and all over different flying conditions.

What is the value of a produce produced from primary evidence but for eye candy? Yes, it is a great tool to see what happened. On 911 there is no real mystery save understanding all this flying junk.

Your summary still does not account for the program variables and the operations associated with the input/output results. What programming language do you work with "Beachnut"? I have some code I'd like to post for your analysis.

 

[Reheat]

I seriously doubt this is programmed into the software as that software is used all over the world and Flight Level procedures are different in Europe and Asia as opposed to the procedures in North American airspace. It probably has to be set by the technicians managing the animation.

I didn't pay enough attention to the altitude portion of the animation to know if Hanjour applied Reagan National QNH later in the profile, but it does not show any change at 18,000'. I only paid close attention to relevant portions of the animation for general orientation only.

Only pfft and their minions obsess over all of the details in an attempt to find anomalies.

As beachnut and I have both said many times, one does not need the FDR to understand that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. It is an accident investigation tool and there was no accident investigation in this case. Those who do use it to make their twoofer points are merely succumbing to a confirmation bias period.

I'm outta here.....

 

[Gravy]

Okay, I am at a loss here. I thought the barometric pressure was set by the pilot as he/she passed through 18,000 feet either on departure or approach. If the AAL77 pilot set it to a default value as he went through 18,000 then it would record as such on the FDR and be reflected in the animation.

What I noticed when working with the RADES and FAA data, was that the MC altitude in the RADES was uncorrected, while the FAA data reflected the corrected-for-pressure value. When plotted, this difference could be seen as an offset in the MC altitude values of aircraft as they descended into IAD or DCA at 18,000 feet. I'm not sure if that is a TRACON corrected function, or whether the FAA radar reads a different altitude value than does the RADES system.

If the pilot failed to make the correction upon descent (no reason Hanjour would since he was not a professional 757 pilot), it makes sense that the value would not correct itself in the animation or CSV. So Beachnut and Reheat, correct my thinking on this if I'm astray somewhere.

Maybe this graph will illustrate what I am talking about better.

http://aal77.com/jref/altitude.jpg

IIRC Hanjour did reset the Baro on descent. That should show up on the CSV.

 

[Reheat]

IIRC Hanjour did reset the Baro on descent. That should show up on the CSV.

Do you recall where he set it? The animation does not show a change at 18,000, but as I said I didn't specifically look for a change later....

 

[beachnut]

Your summary still does not account for the program variables and the operations associated with the input/output results. What programming language do you work with "Beachnut"? I have some code I'd like to post for your analysis.

Ada, FORTRAN, Pascal, assembly, BASIC, and more. I worked at AFWAL, the name has changed. But you can keep your code I have to get prepared for work.

I was waiting to be schooled on PA. You have failed to tie the animation to a rational scenario and you lack the insight as a programmer to figure out why the corrected QNH was not used on descent, or do you understand flying. Reheat and I both studied flying for over a year after we first passed some flying screening program. And then we constantly were trained and upgraded while flying in the USAF for 20 to 28 years.

You can’t even get the flying straight, why move to code when it has nothing to do with this topic or 911 to play who can program and who can’t?

We are waiting for our PhD PA training from you!? See you next time; get some rest or study 911 stuff, you are about 2.57 years behind on this event, you must of missed 911 in real time; how did that happen?

But the topic is not programming; it is the FDR.

 

[Scott_Milner]

The topic is the FDR and the provided animation which does not reflect the proper altitude on the descent through 18,000 feet. Beachnut, I'll leave the code samples for another time since you're so busy at the moment. I will however ask why the Baro Cor. No.1 was set to 30.24 from 29.92 in the CSV file upon descent. You can reference these values in column CG of the file.

 

[dtugg]

Damn NWO, so good that it can fake plane crashes in highly populated areas in broad daylight but so incompetent that it can't even correctly fake a FDR.

 

[Gravy]

Do you recall where he set it? The animation does not show a change at 18,000, but as I said I didn't specifically look for a change later....

It's been two or two and a half years since I read up on this, but IIRC it was around 15,000, and the baro knobs at both seats were reset...fiddled with first.

Edit: yup, they start changing at about 18,000 and wind up at 30.24 on #1 altimeter and 30.23 on #2.

 

[beachnut]

The topic is the FDR and the provided animation which does not reflect the proper altitude on the descent through 18,000 feet. Beachnut, I'll leave the code samples for another time since you're so busy at the moment. I will however ask why the Baro Cor. No.1 was set to 30.24 from 29.92 in the CSV file upon descent. You can reference these values in column CG of the file.

I remember Hani did set the Altimeter setting he was a pilot (years ago from the FDR); he had a ticket from the FAA. The FDR shows he set it. The FDR shows he fly poorly. (at 9:24:16 they start to fiddle with setting QNH; 18,049 feet PA)

The animation is a product from the FDR. The FDR is first generation evidence, the animation is not raw evidence (it is a product of).

This means anything you deduce from the animation in a vacuum from the FDR is pure poppycock!

You can’t figure out 911 after 7 years and you choose the lies from 911Truth. It is a reflection on your research abilities and your lack of logic. Your programming skill are not very flexible as you quibble over an animation that is second generation evidence while we all have the compete FDR readout to see. Using the animation as a source of evidence for 911Truth issues is the sign of true anti-intellectual delusions.

You support the delusion of 911Truth; 77 did not hit the Pentagon for you; you ignore the dead passengers killed by the terrorists. Why do you insist on apologizing for terrorist and have do it with an animation you don’t understand?


Yes the terrorists set 3023 and 3024. So? The animation is derived from the FDR, so we don’t need the animation; we have the FDR as primary EVIDENCE. Sorry, the animation is a product, has nothing to do with the real evidence save a reproduction as produced by humans with the aid of tools. Neat visual tool, handy in complex accidents as you can see the plane do the maneuver of interest to solve a complex accident; 911 was on purpose, 19 terrorist killed 8 pilots and flew three planes into large buildings; Flight 93 Passenger in MINUTES figured out 911 and took action; you have had 7 years and you screw up and use an animation derived from primary evidence and use things in the animation you do not understand to form your delusions. Illogical!

The animation is a true tangent, when you realize, WAKEUP to the fact the FDR is the source for the FDR items represented in the animation. Now show me the information in the FDR used to position the images of the runway, and the Pentagon in the animation.

You can’t show me the information in the FDR used to position the Pentagon or Runway images used in the animation. Good for you; super programmer who was going to school me on PA which I learned in 1973. Good job teaching me nothing.

Do you have something now?

 

[Scott_Milner]

The animation is a product from the FDR. The FDR is first generation evidence, the animation is not raw evidence (it is a product of).

This means anything you deduce from the animation in a vacuum from the FDR is pure poppycock!

Your replies have taken on a tone of agitation since bringing up these fine points of the FDR data and CSV translation. Don't be upset because all of your programming languages are obsolete and dated.

Still you cannot grasp the issue between the exported data not matching the animation which is derived from the same file. I don't know what to say other than you have no idea how to program. I'd offer to post some code to explain how this all works, but I'm sure you will suddenly become busy again.

In any case, if you do have some spare time I'd be more than happy to have you step through some program code to illustrate your understanding.

You can’t figure out 911 after 7 years and you choose the lies from 911Truth. It is a reflection on your research abilities and your lack of logic. Your programming skill are not very flexible as you quibble over an animation that is second generation evidence while we all have the compete FDR readout to see. Using the animation as a source of evidence for 911Truth issues is the sign of true anti-intellectual delusions.

The only delusion is that your NTSB has provided two files from the same source with conflicting values. Yet you challenge my skill after listing anything but the most current programming languages? There is much more to this puzzle than just this simple point, but we can't move forward until you clue into the obvious fault.

You support the delusion of 911Truth; 77 did not hit the Pentagon for you; you ignore the dead passengers killed by the terrorists. Why do you insist on apologizing for terrorist and have do it with an animation you don’t understand?


Yes the terrorists set 3023 and 3024. So? The animation is derived from the FDR, so we don’t need the animation; we have the FDR as primary EVIDENCE. Sorry, the animation is a product, has nothing to do with the real evidence save a reproduction as produced by humans with the aid of tools. Neat visual tool, handy in complex accidents as you can see the plane do the maneuver of interest to solve a complex accident; 911 was on purpose, 19 terrorist killed 8 pilots and flew three planes into large buildings; Flight 93 Passenger in MINUTES figured out 911 and took action; you have had 7 years and you screw up and use an animation derived from primary evidence and use things in the animation you do not understand to form your delusions. Illogical!

The animation is a true tangent, when you realize, WAKEUP to the fact the FDR is the source for the FDR items represented in the animation. Now show me the information in the FDR used to position the images of the runway, and the Pentagon in the animation.

You can’t show me the information in the FDR used to position the Pentagon or Runway images used in the animation. Good for you; super programmer who was going to school me on PA which I learned in 1973. Good job teaching me nothing.

Do you have something now?

It's only my gut feeling, but I find it really strange that a hijacker would waste his time fooling with buttons to calibrate the pressure altimeter on BOTH panels while flying through highly monitored airspace even though he intended on crashing the aircraft. Very meticulous of Hani I might add. Heck, if I was crashing a 757, I would want to set both altimeters! What a joke.

 

[Hokulele]

The only delusion is that your NTSB has provided two files from the same source with conflicting values. Yet you challenge my skill after listing anything but the most current programming languages? There is much more to this puzzle than just this simple point, but we can't move forward until you clue into the obvious fault.

So? I offered four examples of software that can offer different files from the same source code.

You have yet to address this.

 

[Gravy]

By the way, I've only seen the CSV file, which starts just before takeoff on 9/11. Has anyone seen the rest of the 24 hours recorded by the FDR for this aircraft? If not, has anyone asked for it?

 

[Gravy]

So? I offered four examples of software that can offer different files from the same source code.

You have yet to address this.

Don't get your hopes up. The guy who doesn't believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is now lecturing us on delusions. The woo is strong with this one.

 

[Hokulele]

Don't get your hopes up. The guy who doesn't believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon is now lecturing you on delusions. The woo is strong with this one.

Buzzkill. It is so rare that any of these threads come anywhere near my area of expertise. It is odd though that this person went from knowing absolutely nothing about the issue^* to lecture mode.

*Shrug*

Time to go back to discussing the pros and cons of front-wheel vs. rear-wheel drive in History, I guess.



* - JREF was the first hit on Google for the FDR data. Suuuure.