• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

AA77 FDR Data, Explained

I now have version 1.9 of my AAL77 FDR Decoder available on my web site along with new output files.

I have added some new parameters that may help in identifying the aircraft and/or parts of the aircraft.

You can read further notes on the new parameters here.

Warren.
 
wstutt said:
I now have version 1.9 of my AAL77 FDR Decoder available on my web site along with new output files.

I have added some new parameters that may help in identifying the aircraft and/or parts of the aircraft.

You can read further notes on the new parameters here.

Warren.
Click to expand...
I bet Balsamo is upset. Your decode exposes Balsamo's experts are morons on FDRs. Your decode proves 77 was low enough to impact the Pentagon, making his past claims lies. Balsamo gets his expert morons on 911 to make quotes which are lies, he is the truthNAZI, and an expert as special moron math.

Balsmao bans the truth, you post evidence, evidence is not used by Balsamo.

A quick check; is Balsamo's moron math posted at the failed pilots with delusions on 911 web site?
280% x 4.0 G's = 11.2 G's needed to arrest descent.
Click to expand...
Balsamo's special moron math still posted. Is there a book for this moron-math? http://pilotsfor911truth.org/descent_rate031308.html This is the best pilots for truth can do, post lies based on ignorance. They fail to recognize the FDR is real and make up lies that the FDR is fake. How do they refute DNA?
Balsamo is a paranoid moron who claims he will kill those who get in his way.
"Mark Roberts does deserve to die a traitors death....
Click to expand...
I will not apologize for it this time. I will be there for his death should America fall into Civil War. That is not a threat. .that is a promise.
If he gets in my way of defending our Constitution.. it will be my pleasure to put a bullet in his head to defend our Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic." –"Pilots for Truth" founder Robert Balsamo, panicking after I challenged him to a debate. (Punctuation left as is.)
Click to expand...

Balsamo is saying the FDR is fake. How does that fit into the "offer no theory" nonsense claim. Oops, 757-200 RR is in the FDR; how did that get there?
 
wstutt said:
I now have version 1.9 of my AAL77 FDR Decoder available on my web site along with new output files.

I have added some new parameters that may help in identifying the aircraft and/or parts of the aircraft.

You can read further notes on the new parameters here.

Warren.
Click to expand...

Once again, good work Warren. I'm sure some of the avionics guys here can decipher the new info. The only one that makes sense to me is ...

A/C TYPE = 757-200 RR​

I'm no pilot, but I think that indicates a 757 :)
 
Our fiend friend Turbofan is over at ATS attempting to convince everyone that the FDR data was faked in a simulator. I don't know where he thinks the NWO would get a 757 simulator to use for 25 hours. Probably, an Area 51 hanger or somewhere similar.



 
Reheat said:
Our fiend friend Turbofan is over at ATS attempting to convince everyone that the FDR data was faked in a simulator. I don't know where he thinks the NWO would get a 757 simulator to use for 25 hours. Probably, an Area 51 hanger or somewhere similar.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11810http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1840748075c97c9b2a.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10905http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1840747bbaae1cde53.gif
Click to expand...

But how would you get into the simulator with the cabin door locked ?? LOL
 
BCR said:
Once again, good work Warren. I'm sure some of the avionics guys here can decipher the new info. The only one that makes sense to me is ...
A/C TYPE = 757-200 RR
​
I'm no pilot, but I think that indicates a 757 :)
Click to expand...
You can be a pilot, but you can't be a p4t member, you can read and comprehend;
grounds for banning at "pilots who can't hit buildings in the safety of a simulator". Why does Balsamo and his failed pilots brag about being worse pilots than the terrorists?

Their lies about the RADAR altimeter failed; what is next?
 
pgimeno said:
<snip>

The only slightly puzzling matter is that there's two, and not one, frames lacking ECCs, but since we know so little about the way the recorder works, advancing manipulation as an explanation is putting the cart before the horse. I believe that it's easier to just recreate a modified ECC (as Warren easily did) to cover up the tampering; therefore, I conjecture that it's more likely that there is an explanation related to the way the recording works. A possible one, for example, is that ECCs are calculated in larger blocks which comprehend more than 1 frame, and saved all together. Maybe Warren can tell us what offset the first block starts at, to add some degree of confirmation to that hypothesis. My prediction is that if the ECCs are saved in pairs of frames at a minimum, then it's not possible that the first ECC-failing frame is in an odd-numbered frame position and the second is in an even-numbered one, because the first one has to begin at an even-numbered position always. There's an 1/2 chance that my prediction is met just by luck, so it's not a big confirmation anyway.

<snip>
Click to expand...
Your prediction of pairs of frames is quite close to reality.

There are two flight data streams in the FDR data and the frames are recorded alternately between them. The pages have 128 bytes (1024 bits) and compressed frames are typically larger than that so need more than one page to store them. Compressed frames are not aligned to the beginning of pages so some pages contain the end of one frame and the start of another one.

The last page of the second to last frame where the problem begins starts at hex offset 39952A in the FDR file.

The last page of the last frame which also has a missing ECC starts at hex offset 38972A in the FDR file.

The ECC for a page is contained within its last two bytes.

Warren.
 
BCR said:
Once again, good work Warren. I'm sure some of the avionics guys here can decipher the new info. The only one that makes sense to me is ...
A/C TYPE = 757-200 RR​
I'm no pilot, but I think that indicates a 757 :)
Click to expand...
Yes, the A/C TYPE parameter is coded as well. However the generic Boeing data frame layout document lists the codes for each aircraft type.

Warren.
 
wstutt said:
What particular lies are you referring to beachnut? Can you provide a link?

Warren.
Click to expand...
Don't waste time on it. It was nonsense like Balsamo's fake Vg diagram fraud. Balsamo quotes his expert FDR man (Dennis?) saying the RADALT is not good past 200 knots.

It is one of Balsamo's latest new flashes of woo.

Introduced at JREF, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6788417#post6788417

From the pit of ignorace, known as failed pilots with delusoins on 911, aka pilots for 911truthlies. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html
Theses are not lies to Balsamo, they fall in his catch all, "offer no theory", just moronic math an woo nonsense. The drones at the Balsamo hive must like flies all over this new BS.

The tracking capability of the Radio altimeter is 330 feet per second, or a little under 200 knots(3). According to the data, the aircraft was traveling at a speed of 460-480 knots. Well outside the limits of the Radio Altimeter tracking capability, not to mention well outside the capabilities of a standard 757.
Click to expand...
Oops, these are lies. Poor Dennis has delusions about 911; Balsamo sells DVDs. The truth is the RADALT is calibrated for landing, and the signals work at the speed of light, making speed of the aircraft kind of negligible until past MACH3 (sort of like the lift component of flight when flying east). The truth is, Boeing jets can get close to MACH1, .99 MACH, in a pinch and they might survive if the idiot at the stick was not committing suicide. ... poor Balsamo, a failed aviator spreading lies about 911, and saving a bullet for me; he is so kind. My shout, when you visit the US...
 
beachnut said:
Don't waste time on it. It was nonsense like Balsamo's fake Vg diagram fraud. Balsamo quotes his expert FDR man (Dennis?) saying the RADALT is not good past 200 knots.

<snip>
Click to expand...
Hi beachnut,

I asked Dennis Cimino about that limitation of RADALT. He answered Rob's questions about it, but not mine. He did say ...it's now not conjecture that you're a COIN OP (counterintelligence) from either the U.S. government, or the mossad, but you're actually a very badly managed one... though. Oh well, never mind.

Warren.
 
wstutt said:
Hi beachnut,

I asked Dennis Cimino about that limitation of RADALT. He answered Rob's questions about it, but not mine. He did say ...it's now not conjecture that you're a COIN OP (counterintelligence) from either the U.S. government, or the mossad, but you're actually a very badly managed one... though. Oh well, never mind.

Warren.
Click to expand...

Ah, he is just jealous cause he is the 'fdr expert' who couldn't and you are the 'mossad agent' who could :D
 
wstutt said:
Hi beachnut,

I asked Dennis Cimino about that limitation of RADALT. He answered Rob's questions about it, but not mine. He did say ...it's now not conjecture that you're a COIN OP (counterintelligence) from either the U.S. government, or the mossad, but you're actually a very badly managed one... though. Oh well, never mind.

Warren.
Click to expand...

I accidentally flew over Vmo, for a fly-by. The Boeing RADALT accurately reflected our altitude above the ground and runway while over Vmo, catching the SR-71 as we "pitched up" to downwind; okay, instrument downwind. COIN OP? no, , Experience and science, prove Dennis is twisting the truth to match his idiotic delusions.

... RADALT works in the microwave frequencies, at the speed of light, two of many things Balsamo does not comprehend. Balsamo could figure out the plane barely moves as the RADALT signal returns from the ground, if Balsamo could do math; and he could raise the BS flag on Dennis and his moronic delusions.


Please convey my thanks for the feedback. I will tell my mossad handler about the bad management. (oops, not mossad, Chilean)

... is my wife a mossad agent?
SuzanneDress.jpg
I will ask her. Honey... oops...

thanks,
keith
 
Last edited:
Hi, a couple of questions about the radalt although not really relevant to whether or not it works at higher speeds.

How wide/narrow or what angle can the reciever detect a return from?

Is the reciever on some sort of gimbal or is it fixed with the aircraft?

Is the measurement taken from only the first return?
 
alexi_drago said:
Hi, a couple of questions about the radalt although not really relevant to whether or not it works at higher speeds.

How wide/narrow or what angle can the reciever detect a return from?

Is the reciever on some sort of gimbal or is it fixed with the aircraft?

Is the measurement taken from only the first return?
Click to expand...
OTTOMH

I think there are 6 antenna on the belly near the nose on the 757/767; fixed. There is a photo of the antenna around here or on the web. The new jets have multiple sensors, most likely for advanced landing systems; bet the system votes and if there is disagreement a fault is issued to stop using the system for auto-land, etc. That is a bet made by a pilot and an engineer, but let us use your money please...

The antenna send out a "radar" like (like, exactly like a microwave frequency range signal) signal and then it picks up the return to figure out the distance to the ground, it is kind of instantly unless you are 186,000 miles above the ground.

On a KC-135 there are two antenna, one for the left seat, and one for the right. The antenna are flush and about the size of a silver dollar.

The RADALT works at high speed. I know it works near 400 knots very well, and Reheat flew RADALT over MACH 1 and it worked. When you think about the speed of LIGHT vs the speed of air breathing human flying vehicles, you would have to wonder why the dolts at p4t (Balsamo club for delusions on 911) can't figure out they are piloting on the BS.

Remembering the speed of light; so the angle stuff is; the signal leaves the aircraft and returns, the plane has moved less than 0.02 inches. What is that angle from 100 feet up??? The sensor/antenna on the tanker was about an inch big, maybe bigger.

When landing in the KC-135 (LANDING, with the GEAR DOWN), you could read off 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, touchdown, it was exact. It was calibrated for landing, so a reading from flight 77 of 4 feet, the last reading from 77 stored in the FDR found burnt and damaged in the Pentagon, means the plane was about 16 feet above the ground just before impact during the last 800 feet. I forgot where in the data stream it was stored. I can look that up, but I think it was discussed somewhere...



tfk said:
Hey Beach,
Congrats.
Clearly, you have much better taste than she does...
:)
tom
Click to expand...
the mossad agent, my wife, wants to know your address, to thank you, properly... sorry you missed the wedding, June 73
 
Last edited:
The 3 dB beamwidth on the radar altimeter antennas I could find on the web were 45-55 degrees.
So to outrun the signal, you'd have to move past the illuminated "footprint" on the ground before the signal returns.
A rule of thumb that's easy to remember is that at C a foot is about a nanosecond. That's not terribly accurate, but you don't need great accuracy for this.
So doing it in feet, with a 45 degree beamwidth, you'd have to travel forward (however many feet you are above the ground) in (twice the number of feet you are above the ground) nanoseconds.
That would give you a speed of N ft/2N nSec
If we substitute 1 for N, then you have to travel 1 ft in 2 nSec. That's about half the speed of light.
I suppose it's not quite that bad. You could argue that the signal needs to travel the slant range to the ground, instead of just the altitude. That gets you down to about one-third C.
I'm sure Doppler effects could shift the return frequency outside the passband of the receiver before then.

Pneumatic air data systems can have errors over the speed range -- pitot pressure is pretty straightforward, but finding a good position for a static port can be a problem, since the pressures can change quite a bit on the fuselage with changes in AOA and yaw.

And finally, if the Gossamer Albatross had crashed into the Pentagon, they might have a point. The Gossamer Albatross used a rangefinder from a Polaroid camera as an ultrasonic altimeter. That would be affected by the speed of sound. I don't think it would have caused quite as much damage as a jetliner, though.
 
TjW said:
The 3 dB beamwidth on the radar altimeter antennas I could find on the web were 45-55 degrees.
So to outrun the signal, you'd have to move past the illuminated "footprint" on the ground before the signal returns.
A rule of thumb that's easy to remember is that at C a foot is about a nanosecond. That's not terribly accurate, but you don't need great accuracy for this.
So doing it in feet, with a 45 degree beamwidth, you'd have to travel forward (however many feet you are above the ground) in (twice the number of feet you are above the ground) nanoseconds.
That would give you a speed of N ft/2N nSec
If we substitute 1 for N, then you have to travel 1 ft in 2 nSec. That's about half the speed of light.
...
Click to expand...
You lost Balsamo on "3", and "dB" sent him into a low earth orbit of woo. Do we need special fuel to reach 1/2 c?
 
beachnut said:
You lost Balsamo on "3", and "dB" sent him into a low earth orbit of woo. Do we need special fuel to reach 1/2 c?
Click to expand...

Capt'n BS is really scrambling to come up with techno babble to reject that RA reading. I suspect he almost had a heart attack when Warren asked if the RA wasn't one of the main components of the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) in virtually all modern airliners. He's scrambling to come up with enough BS simply to instill doubt.....over and over again....

He hasn't yet proven the spec limit of 200 knots from Rockwell Collins that is being thrown around. The Web Page he linked to turns up 404 (page not found). There isn't anything on the R-C Web site either.

If someone can find the manufacturer and model # of the RA in the F-111F it might prove interesting. I can't find it in my material or on the Web, but it was certified to Mach 1.2 and I have flown in the TFR LARA override mode very near that speed in the early 80's. If anyone here was on the USS Ike in the Med. during that period that was me that buzzed the ship and sent everyone scrambling for cover. Hehehe!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom