AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[jaydeehess]

Actually, that's supporting evidence for the competing theory that AA77 flew under the Pentagon.

Dave

FINALLY!!!1!!1!!

I have been pushing that for years now and have been quite dumbfounded that CiT has not picked up on it. I also thought that certainly a notable pilot and deep thinker such as John Lear would have recognized this as THE plausible explanation as to how TPTB got away with the deception.

For Chewy; the senario, as I have put it, is that the aircraft was equipped with alien technology that was obtained from the UFO crash at Roswell. This tech allowed the operators to change the vibrations of the constituent quantum strings that comprised the aircraft and all within it such that it could bypass the 3 spatial dimensions we all live and experience thus flying under the Pentagon (dropping a bomb as it does, which of course then re-materializes within the building and explodes) and through the space we think of as being occupied by the Earth until it reached the convinient 'exit' from this at a point within the Bermuda Triangle at which point it was safe to bring the aircraft back into our common dimensions. Where it was spirited away to after that is anyone's guess

 

[jaydeehess]

Reheat: How about lat-long positional data? It seems that the cone of variability increased the lower the plane went...is that possible?

Just a guess here but I would think that if the lat/long data is the result of an inertial guidance system that the hefty acellerations experienced during the final turn/descent would have been playing havoc with the system.

 

[jaydeehess]

Ok, I can understand why the NTSB did not bother with the non-complete frames. The FDR data is of little value to an organization that already understands that the aircraft impacted the Pentagon by the fact that the FDR was found there as were the remains of the passengers.

What is odd thouigh is that the PfT made, apparently, no effort to decode the data contained in incomplete frames.

Odd, that is, only if one actually is concerned with garnering as much information as one can possibly get from the FDR and not simply going through motions to make it appear that one is doing the work required to come to the forgone conclusions one has come to prior to beginning this 'work'.

 

[beachnut]

Ok, I can understand why the NTSB did not bother with the non-complete frames. The FDR data is of little value to an organization that already understands that the aircraft impacted the Pentagon by the fact that the FDR was found there as were the remains of the passengers.

What is odd thouigh is that the PfT made, apparently, no effort to decode the data contained in incomplete frames.

Odd, that is, only if one actually is concerned with garnering as much information as one can possibly get from the FDR and not simply going through motions to make it appear that one is doing the work required to come to the forgone conclusions one has come to prior to beginning this 'work'.

Warren did the work and created a decode program from scratch. The p4t had the complete data and failed to decode the "missing data" all these years and they have the experts in FDRs; a salesman and someone who stole the decode program. Oops.

p4t think the NTSB needs to correct something but it appears they gave Warren all the data and the NTSB does not do crime. The chief dolt at p4t has to complain about the NTSB reports and blame the government.

Last RADALT reading 4 feet, wonder if that is when 77 brushed that tree on the overpass as it was knocking down lampposts, or just before impact.
Balsamo is going to say this is 4 clearing the Pentagon, so how did the FDR get in the Pentagon. What a dolt.

The 4 feet would be how high the aircraft was with the landing gear 4 feet above the ground; about where 77 impacted the Pentagon, about that high.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

This is why we have to look at Pressure Altitude adjusted to True altitude and correlate for a more precise measurement and placement of the aircraft. Since the Pressure altitude is still too high, the only logical conclusion based on the data is that the Radar Altitude at 4 feet is not measuring the distance to the ground, but some other higher object, perhaps the top of the Pentagon?

Is he saying what I think he's saying? The plane missed the Pentagon by 4 feet?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Warren did the work and created a decode program from scratch.

In my brief time here, I have gotten the impression that many JREFers have some kind of quasi-religious belief that reproducible results should be trusted more than irreproducible results. And so, just in case anyone here might be thinking of reproducing Warren's data by running or modifying his program, I thought I'd best pass along this warning from Rob Balsamo over at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum:

Also, I would like to make one thing clear (and no offense to you Warren as I have no reason to believe you are anything but sincere, but I do feel a responsibility to add this disclaimer),

Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not vouch for nor is responsible for any of the data provided above by Warren. Nor can we guarantee his program is free of malicious code. Download at your own risk.

For what it's worth.


Will

 

[EvilBiker]

In my brief time here, I have gotten the impression that many JREFers have some kind of quasi-religious belief that reproducible results should be trusted more than irreproducible results. And so, just in case anyone here might be thinking of reproducing Warren's data by running or modifying his program, I thought I'd best pass along this warning from Rob Balsamo over at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum:



For what it's worth.


Will

Yup, I can see the denial mode kicking in. Bob is starting to build his strawmen. He's asked that Warren provide csv data for:

Bleed Duct Pressure
Engine RPM
AC Bus Volts
Left/Right Fuel pumps
Fuel Tank Density all tanks
Engine EGT
Engine gen
Engine EPR
Engine Fuel Flow
Engine Oil Pressure
Engine N2, N3
Engine Oil Press, Temp, Quantity
Engine Vibration
Engine Out (off)
Fan Inlet Temp
Filter Vibration
Hydraulic Pumps
Hydraulic Pressure
Master Warning

In other words, give me the lot so I can find a hole to poke in it.

Kudos, Warren, good job. I got some way through the data but was sidetracked. Frankly, since the total bomb of LC:AC and the dropoff of activity at the PFT, LC and CIT sites, I have not bothered to return to my analysis - I have better things to do, like watch paint dry.

It is a dead parrot movement. It is no more. It has curled up its tootsies and joined the choir invisible.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Capt. Boob
This is why we have to look at Pressure Altitude adjusted to True altitude and correlate for a more precise measurement and placement of the aircraft. Since the Pressure altitude is still too high, the only logical conclusion based on the data is that the Radar Altitude at 4 feet is not measuring the distance to the ground, but some other higher object, perhaps the top of the Pentagon?

Is he saying what I think he's saying? The plane missed the Pentagon by 4 feet?

Assuming that he considers the RADALT to be accurate, yes, that is what he is stating.

However, his own statement above indicates that he considers the PA to be more accurate than the Radalt, once it is adjusted for local pressure.
To my mind that is ridiculous. Yes, radar would bounce off anything below it. However I cannot envision the PA reading being accurate at all when it is on an aircraft that is doing something totally out of the parameters for which it was calibrated.
We have one JREF stating that in his own experience, altimeter readings are highly inaccurate when flying low and fast. Is there an official reference to such a situation? From Boeing or another manufacturer, from a military aircraft designer? Is there referencve to this in aviation publiucations such as "Aviation Week"?

R.B. is putting all his eggs in the PA basket. Is there any official references that either back him up, or shoot him down, as far as the accuracy of PA in an aircraft going 450+ knots below say, 500 feet agl?

I may be reading the data incorrectly but I seem to see that the next earliest Radalt reading is 233 feet. How many seconds prior to the 4 foot reading is the 233 foot reading?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

R.B. is putting all his eggs in the PA basket. Is there any official references that either back him up, or shoot him down, as far as the accuracy of PA in an aircraft going 450+ knots below say, 500 feet agl?

I may be reading the data incorrectly but I seem to see that the next earliest Radalt reading is 233 feet. How many seconds prior to the 4 foot reading is the 233 foot reading?

4 seconds.

Here, extracted from Warren Stutt's CSV file, are the subframe number, pressure altitude in feet, radio height LRRAC in feet, vertical acceleration in g, and airspeed in knots for the last ten seconds:

subframe  pa LRRAC  va(g) knots
151359   592        1.29    441
151360   496   492  1.45    443
151361   399        1.27    450
151362   307        1.40    454
151363   239        1.52    460
151364   173   233  0.66    463
151365   106        0.72    465
151366   035        0.98    474
151367   -40        1.60    481
151368   -99     4  1.68    483

The vertical acceleration (both raw and as a g-load) was recorded 8 times per second. The pressure altitude was recorded just once per second. Some kind of radio height was recorded every second, but it cycled between RADIO HEIGHT CAPT (FEET), RADIO HEIGHT LRRAL (FEET), RADIO HEIGHT LRRAR (FEET), and RADIO HEIGHT LRRAC (FEET). I don't know the differences between those four things, so I listed only the LRRAC.

The discrepancy between changes in pressure altitude and radar altitude are obvious. The pressure altitude continues to drop to the very end of the data, and the discrepancy has already begun to appear in subframe 151364, so Balsamo's insistence upon the priority of the pressure altitude doesn't really support his flyover hypothesis.

There is enough redundant information in Warren's CSV file to treat the altitude as an initial value problem and to graph the solutions to that problem obtained by independent readings of the various instruments. I may do that this weekend. Before doing that, I would compare pressure altitude with radar altitude for the last minute or so.

Will

 

[Reheat]

Reheat: How about lat-long positional data? It seems that the cone of variability increased the lower the plane went...is that possible?

No, an INS is not affected by altitude, but heavy maneuvering does affect them. Remember AA77's INS was off by about 3000' or so at Dulles. It could have improved with updates, but these INS's used by the airlines are not extremely accurate and the updates are done using VOR/DME. They're close, but not exact. There is no comparison between these and those used by the AF. They are apples and oranges.

 

[stateofgrace]

I'll add the PITCH ANGLE CAPT, PITCH ANGLE F/O and PITCH ANGLE IRU parameters to the next release for you.

Warren.

Thank you Warren, it is appreciated, but from what I have read and with my almost none exist knowledge in this field; it seems that my request is actually irrelevant.

In my minds eyes, simply as a non qualified observer, it would seem the plane was low, some members have stated 4 feet low and travelling at speed towards the Pentagon. This to me is absolute proof, the point of no return.

The plane hit the building.

 

[DGM]

Thank you Warren, it is appreciated, but from what I have read and with my almost none exist knowledge in this field; it seems that my request is actually irrelevant.

In my minds eyes, simply as a non qualified observer, it would seem the plane was low, some memebers have stated 4 feet low and travelling at speed towards the Pentagon. This to me is absolute prove, the point of no return.

The plane hit the building.

I certainly hope that Warren is not doing this to prove the plane hit the building and to counter the PFT. I hope he's doing this to further his (and our) knowledge of the event. Because if it's the former that was done within seconds of impact, the plane was found IN the building (no matter what these morons think).

 

[stateofgrace]

I certainly hope that Warren is not doing this to prove the plane hit the building and to counter the PFT. I hope he's doing this to further his (and our) knowledge of the event. Because if it's the former that was done within seconds of impact, the plane was found IN the building (no matter what these morons think).

Yes, I agree with you but I for one get sick and tried of these guys picking up on the small anomalies. One of these anomalies seems to be the missing data from the FDR. To me and I guess to most rational people this is actually irrelevant to the over all picture. But if somebody comes along and is prepared to not only further my (our) understanding of this event and finally lay this issue to rest, I welcome it.

 

[dropzone]

The last average G for the last 5 seconds have Hani pointing at the Pentagon is his pathetically clumsy flying paws.

Colonel, in Hani's defense he did manage, with minimal experience and skill, to hit the target.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I certainly hope that Warren is not doing this to prove the plane hit the building and to counter the PFT. I hope he's doing this to further his (and our) knowledge of the event.

Regardless of Warren's motives, he has furthered our knowledge of the event. It was tedious work. His accomplishment is admirable and praiseworthy.

Yes, I agree with you but I for one get sick and tried of these guys picking up on the small anomalies. One of these anomalies seems to be the missing data from the FDR. To me and I guess to most rational people this is actually irrelevant to the over all picture. But if somebody comes along and is prepared to not only further my (our) understanding of this event and finally lay this issue to rest, I welcome it.

Amen. IMO, the missing 6+-2 seconds of FDR data were the biggest technical mystery remaining about the attack at the Pentagon. I had assumed I would never know why those seconds were missing. I'm delighted that Warren has solved the major part of that mystery, and I look forward to learning more about the final seconds of flight 77 as qualified experts examine the evidence he has brought to light.

Will

 

[Reheat]

However, his own statement above indicates that he considers the PA to be more accurate than the Radalt, once it is adjusted for local pressure.

Nobody, but nobody uses a barometric altimeter in lieu of a radar altimeter below 500' AGL. This includes any military or the airlines.

For landings in large aircraft such as a C-5 or a B - 747 where judgment of height is difficult and critical, all altitude references for landing are taken directly from the Radar Altimeter exclusively. Pressure variances between the location where the local pressure correction to PA is computed and the location of the aircraft can and will produce differences. Even when both locations are the same, Radar Alt is still used for determining height. Never once in my flying career have I ever relied on a barometric altimeter close to mother earth. It is a quick and easy way to end your career prematurely.

Cap'n King Air's comments regarding a 13' error in AA 77's Altimeter is a humorous distraction with minutiae. Can someone please tell me how all of those "verified by the FAA" cult members he refers to know if their altimeter is not lagging. How do they know just how accurate their altimeter is during all phases of flight. All they really know is how accurate it is on the ground. They can compare the two altimeters, but they don't know whether both are erroneously are reacting in the same way to the same phenomena.

AA 77 was traveling well above design parameters, so, as R Mackey said, who knows what was happening at the static ports.

I'm not at all surprised that "beachnut's dolt" won't give up the delusions. He has too much invested and will continue to BS his way through any data that is obviously determined to be accurate, even to the point of lying, cheating, and stealing to continue just as he's doing with this baro altimeter versus radar altimeter accuracy BS.

ETA: a correction here. We used to shoot Ground Controlled (GCA) approaches to 200' agl 1/4 mile visibility without a radar altimeter. What I said above applies to aircraft with a Radar altimeter. On Precision approaches the Decision Height is based on a barometric altimeter, but you can rest assurred that the pilot has one eyeball on the radar altimeter (if one is available).

 

[funk de fino]

I used to test and calibrate the pitot static systems on the fast jets I worked on and the altimeter was only 50ft accurate low level. That was mil spec stuff. The high speeds at that height would have made it even worse than normal.

pfffft are a bunch of morons, as are their lackeys. They will kick and scream and act like Pippy Long Stockings rather than admit they have been wrong all along.

 

[apathoid]

We have one JREF stating that in his own experience, altimeter readings are highly inaccurate when flying low and fast. Is there an official reference to such a situation? From Boeing or another manufacturer, from a military aircraft designer? Is there referencve to this in aviation publiucations such as "Aviation Week"?

The reason airplanes have Instantaneous Vertical Speed indicators is because of lag in the pneumatic plumbing of the pitot-static systems . A standard "steam" powered VSI will lag and not give a true measure of how fast you are descending. The IVSI uses accelerometers to compensate for the lag. No altimeters are instantaneous - so they lag, which would be more noticeable the higher the descent rate. I've noticed it doing pitot-static system checks on airliners that have Air Data Computers(which do a lot of PFM, but they don't reduce the lag).

R.B. is putting all his eggs in the PA basket. Is there any official references that either back him up, or shoot him down, as far as the accuracy of PA in an aircraft going 450+ knots below say, 500 feet agl?

You'd have to talk to Boeing engineers I'm afraid. I'm not RMackey, but I do know that static port positions are different plane to plane and I know that the airflow over those sensors are different from plane to plane. I'm sure Boeing has the certification range, but I'm equally sure you won't find that on Google.

I may be reading the data incorrectly but I seem to see that the next earliest Radalt reading is 233 feet. How many seconds prior to the 4 foot reading is the 233 foot reading?

You are looking at just one Radalt system there(probably the Center system), the FDR alternates samples between the Left, Center, and Right LRRA's. The last 10 seconds go: 621, 492, 515, 352, 273, 233, 183, 89, 57, 4.


@Mangoose: On the Lat/Long. The pilots enter the airport's lat/long in the Flight Management Computer at the departure gate; that's why initially it was 3,000' off. But once in the air, the IRS(not INS - lets not give Robby any ammo here) system used navaid triangulation to keep the error to a minimum. But the resolution of DME is 0.10 nm, so thats the most accuracy you can expect out of a pre-GPS IRS system on the 757.

 

[apathoid]

I used to test and calibrate the pitot static systems on the fast jets I worked on and the altimeter was only 50ft accurate low level. That was mil spec stuff. The high speeds at that height would have made it even worse than normal.

pfffft are a bunch of morons, as are their lackeys. They will kick and scream and act like Pippy Long Stockings rather than admit they have been wrong all along.

Yup. I was going to post something to this effect in my last post but I forgot. When we are doing accuracy checks, we always use speed/alt pairs. The pairs usually go:

120 kts/0'
180 kts/5000'
220 kts/10000'
300 kts/20000'
350 kts/30000'
400 kts/40000'

The manual is very explicit not to deviate from the pairs and you have to keep the delta(p) between pitot and static below a certain threshold or you risk blowing the bellows in the ADC, Elevator Feel Computer, Standy Alitmeter/ASI.

We never test the ADC's or standby gauges for hi-speed/low alt, or low-speed/high alt. Since we don't test it, I'm thinking the system was not certified(or designed) to operate that way.

 

[Reheat]

You are looking at just one Radalt system there(probably the Center system), the FDR alternates samples between the Left, Center, and Right LRRA's. The last 10 seconds go: 621, 492, 515, 352, 273, 233, 183, 89, 57, 4.

Excellent analysis apathoid. That average descent rate was about 3700 FPM. While it would be disconcerting for passengers it is not excessive for someone who didn't give a hoot about passenger comfort, but was hellbent on ramming the building.

As usual Balsamo is full of hooey!