AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[beachnut]

From Balsamo's anti-intellectual sock he named R_Mackey, "Then you have to convince 757/767 Pilots from American Airlines who have actual flight time in N644AA that the 757 can exceed Vmo by more than 130 knots."

11.2G kool-aid truthNAZI Balsamo has a couple (7, paranoid delusion believers who helped Balsamo do his 11.2G failed math junk?) of paranoid pilots who flew 757s who say, "nanny nanny foo foo" as their evidence.
Example

The truthNAZI shared comments that prove nothing from Rusty Aimer, aka Ross Farhad Aimer, 757/767 Capt for United Airlines who has actual time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 shares his evidence with the world, he said, “********”. Rusty is an expert who support paranoid nut case p4t ideas (Balsamo thinks); good for Rusty he is self-employed, sort of, and safe from his boss sending him to see the shrink. I think Rusty is a bs artist, and forgot to engage his critical thinking skills, if he ever had any, when he signed up for Balsamo’s list of paranoid cultist. http://www.aviationexperts.com/bios.htm At least Rusty statement is autobiographical.

I flew over Vmo and the Boeing jet did not esplode.
A fellow pilot flew his Boeing jet well past Vmo and the high Q, the air pressure ripped off aluminum skin. Why was my jet not damage flying over Vmo at 200' MSL, 100 feet above the ground, because as soon as I was over Vmo I slammed the throttles back to idle and coasted back below. The fellow pilot was chasing me during an operational mission, I was going Vmo, he was miles behind and intent on catching me, he made a mistake (stupid mistake). But his crew chiefs repaired the plane and he flew again.

Flight 77 is only going .82 MACH (Vmo = .86 MACH, flying stuff always has more than meets the eye, there is always the rest of the story), 483 KIAS, Vmo is at 350 KCAS but Hani only exceeded Vmo for 25 seconds and he crashed. On 911 all airliners that we know of that flew over Vmo, CRASHED. I do not recommend flying over Vmo. So Balsamo has some tricycle pilots who have no evidence, "offer not theory", and talk about how planes can't do something, I have done it, Hani did it, the p4t can't do much more than spew paranoid delusions.

 

[jaydeehess]

The idea that Vmo is a wall of destruction is a particularily ridiculous thing for PfT to back..

There are several incidents of 757 or 767's exceeding Vmo in which the a/c was later brought under ontrol and landed. IIRC one occured over Iceland. Indeed in order to get certification, and a/c is tested well beyond its normal operating limits to make sure that Vmo is NOT a wall of destruction.
Exceeding Vmo for less than a minute with the intent of crashing, I hardly think that the person at the controls is going to woory that a few rivets might not make it to the crash scene.

 

[R.Mackey]

I wonder if Cap'n Bob is impersonating him?

Wow, my very own impostor. How childish.

I can't prove that it is Cap'n Bob, but that's a darn good guess:

• The impostor has obviously been humiliated by me in the past
• The only Truthers posting in that thread are PfTers and SPreston
• The impostor comments quite knoweldgeably about conversations that took place years ago between John Farmer and Cap'n Bob, and it ain't John Farmer
• The impostor is quite the idiot about aerodynamics, much like Cap'n Bob
• The impostor posts links to PfT nonsense frequently

Just for fun, guess which of the following out-of-context quotes are the impostor, and which are the real Cap'n Bob. I'll bet you can't.

PA is based on Pressure and is the height above (or below) the standard datum plane as represented by 29.92. PA changes with local pressure changes. Since there is an 80 foot difference and the local pressure on take off at IAD was 30.20, its clear the pressure the night before was somewhere around 30.12/13.

Put 41 feet into the left altimeter indicated altitude, put 30.20 into the right "New Altimeter Setting". Note True Altitude on top. Put 120 into simulator on left indicated altitude. Put 30.12 into simulator "New Altimeter Setting" on right. [...] Its well within 20 feet as Turbofan described.

But if you want to continue to assert 41 PA with a 30.20 altimeter is "significantly" different than 120' PA with a 30.12 Altimeter on a field with an elevation of roughly 300 feet, be my guest. You are wrong.

In other words, if the local pressure at IAD was 29.92 the night before, the PA in the FDR column would read roughly 300 feet, while at take off, it would still show 41 when the local pressure changed overnight to 30.20. So, the question asked, "Which is more accurate.. .the 41 feet at take off, or the 120 on landing?" Answer - Both. They both show the same True Altitude when corrected for local pressure.

Finally, this all assumes the aircraft we are talking about is N644AA. First you have to prove it was N644AA in order to claim the altimeter was operating outside the aircraft envelope.

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, [...] There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found.

Since some are still a bit confused, the Baro Altimeter regulated by the ADC is very precise. This is why it is used for precision approaches.

"below 500 AGL" all call-outs are based on Baro Altimeter and there is never "one eye on the RadAlt" during such an approach. Baro Alt is ultimate authority.

Answers below:

Cap'n Bob: A, B, B, B

If by some miracle you, dear reader, are still in the Truth Movement, this is the kind of person you're associating yourself with -- frauds, forgers, and bullies. If what the Truth Movement stood for was actually valid, none of this nonsense would be needed at all. Think about it.

So, in closing, I do not post at AboveTopSecret, and I increasingly take no note of the Truth Movement. Many of them are simply sick. This kind of impersonation is just another example. Although it seems to me this is also another example of poor strategy... By trying to disguise himself as me, Cap'n Bob or whomever isn't fooling anybody, but he can't take a shot at me, either. Must be frustrating.

 

[Hokulele]

Darn. I was sure that 5B was the real R.Mackey.

 

[beachnut]

Wow, my very own impostor. How childish.

I can't prove that it is Cap'n Bob, but that's a darn good guess:...

He had to name his sock you so he to win a debate against you; he lost.

 

[tfk]

Question here:

Looking at (even a schematic of) the innards, you can see that there are delicate mechanical linkages between the anaeroids & the dials. They have to be delicate to give you measurable mechanical output due to the slight difference in static pressure between, say, 100' & 150' elevation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/Sens_alt_components.PNG


All of these linkages (including the diaphragms of the aneroids) are going to be subject to G forces, and being delicate, are going to move around.

I don't know if the FAA has regs that define the altimeter required accuracy during a ±G maneuver. Anyone?

Are any of you guys acrobatic pilots? Anyone (Reheat?) ever notice an immediate effect on a barometric altimeter's reading when pulling positive or negative g's?

The problem with doing the assessment on your own is that when you are, for example, practicing level flight during steep banks, you're using the altimeter to maintain level flight, and any sensitivity would be masked. You need an independent way to maintain level flight in order to check out any effects.

Easier to mount a unit in a centrifuge, I suppose.

Tom

 

[beachnut]

I can't remember what the altimeter was doing when we pulled 7Gs. But no matter what the reading was, we beat feet back above 8,000 foot area lower limit, based on what ever the darn thing was reading. Had no way of knowing our exact altitude.

The fact is we did check out altimeters to for 75 foot accuracy on the ground and we knew the altimeter had 200 foot errors at altitude! Why do you think airways are separated by 1,000 to 2,000 feet!

When we did aerobatics in our work areas, the people flying over our areas were warned about our jet training areas and they did not fly at the top of our areas they were separated by 1,000 feet or more! So we could have 400 foot errors, and they could have 400 foot errors and we would pass within 200 feet.

Balsamo says the 4 foot reading of the RADAR altimeter is the roof of the Pentagon. Flight 77 is in a 3600 foot per minute dive, so Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon roof in less than .3 second in Balsamo's delusion. No matter what Balsamo says the people who saw Flight 77 impact the Pentagon are correct and his paranoid neoNAZI mind has failed to detect reality. Balsamo's neoNAZI cult is too challenged to figure out 911. Balsamo has picked a scenario where Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon.

 

[tfk]

I can't remember what the altimeter was doing when we pulled 7Gs. But no matter what the reading was, we beat feet back above 8,000 foot area lower limit, based on what ever the darn thing was reading. Had no way of knowing our exact altitude.

The fact is we did check out altimeters to for 75 foot accuracy on the ground and we knew the altimeter had 200 foot errors at altitude! Why do you think airways are separated by 1,000 to 2,000 feet!

When we did aerobatics in our work areas, the people flying over our areas were warned about our jet training areas and they did not fly at the top of our areas they were separated by 1,000 feet or more! So we could have 400 foot errors, and they could have 400 foot errors and we would pass within 200 feet.

Balsamo says the 4 foot reading of the RADAR altimeter is the roof of the Pentagon. Flight 77 is in a 3600 foot per minute dive, so Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon roof in less than .3 second in Balsamo's delusion. No matter what Balsamo says the people who saw Flight 77 impact the Pentagon are correct and his paranoid neoNAZI mind has failed to detect reality. Balsamo's neoNAZI cult is too challenged to figure out 911. Balsamo has picked a scenario where Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon.

In the immortal words of the philosopher Melvin Brooks (via "Gabby" Johnson):

"RAB-rah...!!"

And THAT, my good man, is AUTHENTIC frontier jibberish.

Tom

 

[tfk]

I can't remember what the altimeter was doing when we pulled 7Gs...

... uh, perhaps shrinking to the diameter of a rectal thermometer...?

 

[Reheat]

I don't know if the FAA has regs that define the altimeter required accuracy during a ±G maneuver. Anyone?

The only published (in AIM) operational check of the altimeter is within 75' of a known elevation and 75' between the two altimeters (for those A/C with two altimeters).

Are any of you guys acrobatic pilots? Anyone (Reheat?) ever notice an immediate effect on a barometric altimeter's reading when pulling positive or negative g's?

I never paid much attention during aerobatics to the altimeter except when entering or exiting a maneuver. The old analog type had a lot of lag, the newer digital much less. However, the digital one's do still have some lag. That's the reason for IVVI's. When in level flight I've never noticed any affect when pulling 4-6 G's or so. I really can't say how much during a dive recovery as that's not something one stares at. Bear in mind that in dive bombing or strafing the recovery is directly into a steep climb, not to level flight, so several hundred feet of lag would not be noticeable. Also, when recovering from a steep dive the downward vector and descent continue for a bit after applying positive G, so it's impossible to determine what is lag and what are real indications. I can only say that there is definitely lag with digital altimeters filtered thru an ADC. I just can not say how much.

During normal flight there really is no way for a pilot to determine how much the altimeter lags versus what is a valid indication except to compare the indications to the IVVI. The amount in feet would be a guess at best.

As I said earlier in the thread NO ONE in their right mind would use a pressure altimeter in low level high speed flight. It's exclusively Radar Altimeter and eyeballs. At night it's Radar Altimeter and Terrain Following Radar for aircraft so equipped.

The problem with doing the assessment on your own is that when you are, for example, practicing level flight during steep banks, you're using the altimeter to maintain level flight, and any sensitivity would be masked. You need an independent way to maintain level flight in order to check out any effects.

A true statement.

Easier to mount a unit in a centrifuge, I suppose.

Yes, that's the would the only way I can think of to determine the amount.

 

[funk de fino]

Not one of those loonie pieces of crap have ever calibrated pitot static instruments in their life. They have no idea what they are talking about.

I would love to be able to carry out a full independent test on the aircraft I worked on with those jerk offs watching the whole thing. Huge egg on face would ensue. I am sure Capn Bob could get one of his buddies to let him see a calibration test on AC. Maybe Naomi the flight attendant who is one of their experts? Probably more of a clue than that wierdo TF.

 

[wstutt]

I now have version 1.1 of my AAL77 FDR Decoder available on my web site along with new output files.

I have added several new parameters.

I have adjusted the acceleration parameters so that they match the NTSB CSV files exactly rather than having a maximum difference of 1 in the last decimal place.

My program produces different values than the NTSB CSV files for the EICAS COMPUTER,FWD ACCESS DR,MAIN CARGO DOOR,TCAS FAILURE and
TCAS SYSTEM STATUS parameters. I don't know why this is. I used the data frame layouts I received from the NTSB to decode them.

You can read further notes on the parameters here.

Warren.

 

[tfk]

Hey Warren,

Thanks for your hard work.

Someone is wondering "who" you are. I presume "Hi, I'm Warren" is insufficient for their purposes. They'll want to know which branch of the CIA/NWO etc. you work for. Who is your handler, and how long since your last "Disinfo agent of the month" award.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread512723/pg12#pid7474565

Tom

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Hey Warren,

Thanks for your hard work.

Someone is wondering "who" you are. I presume "Hi, I'm Warren" is insufficient for their purposes. They'll want to know which branch of the CIA/NWO etc. you work for. Who is your handler, and how long since your last "Disinfo agent of the month" award.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread512723/pg12#pid7474565

Tom

Indeed. Another poster was asked:

Why are you still posting as "R_Mackey", even tho you've been busted as a poseur?

The poseur's reply:

Off topic.

It's the name I chose.

So it isn't enough for Warren Stutt to identify himself by his real name, backed up by a web site with real evidence; he's supposed to give an affiliation, official title, credentials, and other evidence that he's an "official 9/11 investigator".

But it's none of our business who "R_Mackey" might be, or why he is posting under a misleading name.

Perhaps a double standard is at work.

I'm not sure why, but that exchange reminded me of something Rob Balsamo once wrote:

But, it seems Will makes excuse to only debate from behind his screen. Just like the other numerous cowards.

Will

 

[beachnut]

Final pitch -1.2 (level flight at cruse speed is +1.9)
Final true track heading you can use on GE google earth, to plot a line and see NOC is nonsense. 61.5 (last 4 seconds), over 2400 feet, and before that 61.2.

 

[Baylor]

Nice work Beachy.

 

[tfk]

*** NEWS FLASH ***

Unprecedented Events Reported. Signs of the Apolcaypse?

Blizzards blanket Hades in layer of snow.
Monkeys fly out of News Reporter's butt.
Rob Balsamo admits mistake.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread512723/pg14#pid7498061

Posting as "R_Mackey".
Childishly argumentative.

What a tool this clown is ...!


Tom

 

[Reheat]

What a tool this clown is ...!

You have correctly assessed the jerk perfectly! He possesses the judgment of an immature 5 year old.

He didn't know squat about the internal components of an altimeter, but merely attempted to bluff and intimidate his way through the argument.

Both beachnut and I have had the best aviation training money can buy and I had very little knowledge of an altimeter's inner components. As you correctly pointed out, pilots don't need to know that kind of information.

That he readily admits mistakes is a blatant lie. Examples are all over his Web Site. He has been proven wrong time and time again, but never changes anything.

I suggest you keep the pressure going regarding his personality. You are succeeding in exposing the fraud for what he is and what he's doing. Keep up the great work!

 

[WilliamSeger]

Rob Balsamo admits mistake.

Well, it seems he's still wrong (and the real Mackey is right) about jet airliners routinely flying above critical Mach. I did a lot of digging around on that, and read a lot of opinions both ways, but most people who seemed to have detailed technical knowledge about it agree with Mackey (and the Wiki article, fwiw). The most detailed explanation I found was in a thread at Professional Pilots Rumor Network (2nd post, by OldSmokey):
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/131271-mach-crit-mach-number-buffet-mach-tuck-mach-trimmers-2.html

But the clincher is that several people on that board and others mentioned that they had actually seen shock waves (by refraction) over wings while on passenger jets, and a few mentioned photographing them. Sure enough, a search of Google images turns up several examples. This one is particularly interesting because it exactly matches the description given by several people:

This is an annoted diagram of an interesting phenomenon that occurs due to shock wave formation over the aircraft wings during high subsonic cruising speeds. The picture is a closeup of the wing (which technically is a supercritical type NACA airfoil) of an MD-80 commercial airliner at a cruising altitude of 31,000 feet over Tampa, Florida. The afternoon sunlight is bright and shining down on the wing and passes through some of the shock waves that occur over the top of the wing. Although the cruising speed is subsonic (about Mach .76 or so), a small portion of the air flowing faster over the top of the wing becomes supersonic, and a small shock wave develops (this is normal). Light refracts due to the density changes near and in the small shock wave, and can create bright / shadowed lines on the upper wing surface if the light angle is just right. The arrows point to the shadowed / brighter lines created as light refracts through the shock wave.

(Source: http://www.sky-chaser.com/flying.htm)

It seems that Cap'n Bob (and some other pilots) confuse "critical Mach" with the "drag divergence Mach," which is the point at which drag starts increasing exponentially: On the DU board, Cap'n Bob incorrectly claimed, "As soon as the drag divergence occurs is defined as critical mach." He hasn't yet admitted that that definition is an error.

 

[R.Mackey]

Exactly. I was going to write a more thorough explanation, but I wanted to wait and give Cap'n Bob and his tribe every opportunity to embarrass themselves first. I wasn't disappointed. It's been what, weeks? And he still couldn't find the correct answer, to a question that isn't even critical to the question of Inside Job?

I'll add to this later, but for now, simply note that just traveling on a heavy jet can give you the key information if one pays attention. The depth of his knowledge is remarkably shallow.

Like I said above, Cap'n Bob simply does not have the vocabulary to even understand this discussion.