• 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

wstutt said:
I did raise the possibility of a rapid change in the distance between the aircraft and the ground producing a Doppler effect that may affect the radio altimeter in my questions to Dennis Cimino. I suspect that the tracking capability specified for the radio altimeter is that rate of change rather that the speed of the aircraft, but I don't know enough about how radio altimeters work.
Click to expand...

You could be right there Warren, it doesn't make sense to me that the tracking capability would be affected by the speed of the aircraft and from the quote below it seems that the tracking capability could be affected by rapid changes in altitude AGL.

Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) Radar



It is also possible to use a CW radar system to measure range instead of range rate by frequency modulation, the systematic variation of the transmitted frequency. What this does in effect is to put a unique "time stamp" on the transmitted wave at every instant. By measuring the frequency of the return signal, the time delay between
transmission and reception can be measure and therefore the range determined as before. Of course, the amount of frequency modulation must be significantly greater than the expected Doppler shift or the results will be affected.
Click to expand...

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/cwradar/cwradar.htm
 
Rob Balsamo has sent me the following email:
Subject: Suspended ( Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum )
From: "Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum" <forum@pilotsfor911truth.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 08:49:54 -0700
To: wstutt@warrenstutt.com
wstutt,
rob balsamo has sent you this email from http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php.
Suspended. Repeated Trolling. Failure to address questions/information provided.
Cherry picking quotes.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=20960&view=findpost&p=10794127 (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794127)
---------------------------------------------------
Please note that Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum has no control over the
contents of this message.
---------------------------------------------------
Regards,
The Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum team.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php
Click to expand...
In case he was referring to my earlier post when he said "Cherry picking quotes", here for the record are my question and Dennis Cimino's reply in full that I linked to in my earlier post:
wstutt on Pilots for 9/11 Truth said:
Hi Dennis Cimino,

I have now decoded the FLEET IDENT and A/C NUMBER parameters from the FDR data according to the generic Boeing data frame layout 757-3B. When they are interpreted as unsigned integers they have values of 1 and 35 respectively. Although they were not in the text preamble of the file where you were expecting to find them, do you think they could be used to identify the aircraft? They do not appear to me to be a tail number, however if I understand you correctly, you were not expecting them to be a tail number.

I see from Rob Balsamo's list of your credentials that you have experience with Doppler RADAR. It has been suggested that since at least one make and model of radio altimeter that is used to measure an aircraft's height above the ground and that has been used in 757s has a specified tracking capability of 330 feet per second that such a radio altimeter would not work correctly if the aircraft in which it is installed has a speed faster than 330 feet per second. I do not immediately see a reason why this would be so. However, I could see how the Doppler effect would impact the accuracy of the radio altimeter if the distance between the aircraft and the ground is rapidly changing.

Would the tracking capability of the radio altimeter be referring to the speed of the aircraft as has been suggested or to the rate of change of the height of the aircraft above the ground? If it is the former, could you explain why or cite a reference where I can read about it?

Warren Stutt.
Click to expand...

In Dennis Cimino's reply, I have bolded my quote so that it's context can now be seen. It appears that JREF has changed some of the words when I copy and pasted it. There was no * in the original:
Dennis Cimino on Pilots for 9/11 Truth said:
Mr. Stutts:

I now have to define your entire 'work product' as utter and total ********. You had about 4 days to come up with a better ******** story than this one, and to propose that AC ID and FLEET ID are buried in the flight parameter stream after the preamble, where it always always always is, is so beyond the pale and absurd, that 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, to float this ****.

You failed to address any of the incongruencies I published about the entire event, not even one of them. Now, as a non pilot, I don't expect you to try to understand how the entire thing is absurdity from the very start to assert that an 80 ton plane went thru the 'cat door' at the Pentagon, and didn't leave any wreckage till the F.B.I. began to seed it later that morning with the Buga, Colombia jungle weathered wreckage. I can understand that, as you would have no way to explain the lack of aircraft upset during a violent and ugly hijacking, and also, the Altimeter setting in the NTSB fabricated crap in one of their products, because they were so sloppy they failed to both see it and understand it's importance here, in that this, as well as the no aircraft upset, and the lack of rudder inputs, while not on A/P., and the impossible pullout from the dive, all were so impossible that only in a child's game could any of this hokey **** be believable.

So now I have to say for the record you guys are a COIN OP for the people who did this. I gave you the benefit of the doubt to prove you were not a ******** mill for Sunstein's cognitive infiltration network of zio prostitutes for Israel, and you totally blew that gig here.

I tell you what. Go sell this to the National Enquirer. They might print your dissertation. But no meaningful and relevant aviation based analysis validates any of your turd feed here, because virtuallly all of your stuff has borne itself out to be so absurd that even the Enquirer would probably balk at publishing your disinformation.

I'm sorry, Mr. Stutts, but you unmasked yourself with this total, utter ******** today. And we didn't even have to do it for you, you did it yourself.
Click to expand...

Warren.
 
Darn, Dennis used to be one of the more respectful and semi-rational of the group. Guess he has been hanging out with CPT Bob too much.
 
Last edited:
So verbal abuse laced with profanity is completely acceptable at PFT, but choosing which bits of it to reply to is a suspendable offence? And the moderator's response is to boast about the suspension and claim that the same behaviour would result in a ban at JREF, despite the continued evasions and cherry pickings of some of our more longevitous truthers? Well, that certainly demonstrates their level of commitment to the principle of open debate.

Dave
 
"...an 80 ton plane went thru the 'cat door' at the Pentagon, and didn't leave any wreckage till the F.B.I. began to seed it later that morning"?? :eye-poppi

Jesus...
facepalm.gif
 
wstutt said:
Rob Balsamo has sent me the following email:
In case he was referring to my earlier post when he said "Cherry picking quotes", here for the record are my question and Dennis Cimino's reply in full that I linked to in my earlier post:

In Dennis Cimino's reply, I have bolded my quote so that it's context can now be seen. It appears that JREF has changed some of the words when I copy and pasted it. There was no * in the original:


Warren.
Click to expand...

I wondered how long you'd last explaining things to superflyboy Rob. The fact that you post here probably also contributed to your demise.

Thanks for all your effort.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
"...an 80 ton plane went thru the 'cat door' at the Pentagon, and didn't leave any wreckage till the F.B.I. began to seed it later that morning"?? :eye-poppi

Jesus... [qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/facepalm.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

They must have really big cats at the Pentagon.
 
"Now, as a non pilot, I don't expect you to try to understand how the entire thing is absurdity from the very start to assert that an 80 ton plane went thru the 'cat door' at the Pentagon, and didn't leave any wreckage till the F.B.I. began to seed it later that morning with the Buga, Colombia jungle weathered wreckage. "
Click to expand...

How would being a pilot be in any way relevant? and Isn't 80 tons a bit of a low estimate for a 757
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

seeded later?.....I guess that he has not seen the photos taken within minutes of the crash and how come no-one noticed folks carrying in the aircraft parts, body parts etc? And has he tested the parts to find Buga, Coliumbia weathering, whatever that is.....
can we expect a paper on this :)
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
Darn, Dennis used to be one of the more respectful and semi-rational of the group. Guess he has been hanging out with CPT Bob too much.
Click to expand...

Really? Must have been *way* before my time because all I have seen from that person is unhinged, spittle-flying typical-P4T childish idiocy wrapped in a profanity-laced tirade against anyone who has a contrary thought.
 
beachnut said:
You have been suspended for being competent, and telling the truth. No truth for you! The truthNAZI, Balsamo has spoken.
Click to expand...

:-)
How dare some-one use facts in their post especially when they have professional knowledge on the subject
 
wstutt said:
Rob Balsamo has sent me the following email:
In case he was referring to my earlier post when he said "Cherry picking quotes", here for the record are my question and Dennis Cimino's reply in full that I linked to in my earlier post:

In Dennis Cimino's reply, I have bolded my quote so that it's context can now be seen. It appears that JREF has changed some of the words when I copy and pasted it. There was no * in the original:


Warren.
Click to expand...
The RADALT stuff is funny. Tracking rate is how it handles changes in altitude, and rising or falling terrain. OOPS...
They are using tracking rate for speed. Another RA with 2,000 f/s tracking rate, which is ~1200 KIAS, has a max grd speed of 2,000 knots. Balsamo has no maximum speed for a 767/757 RADALT, he is using Tracking Capability, that is not aircraft speed across the ground.

Those other landing data you gave p4t, is that the RAW pressure altitude during landing on other sorties? Thanks.

Balsamo, the math expert for p4t, the best they can do.


Wow, Balsamo was going on how pressure altitude is so exact, and then he adds 10 feet, thus when he lands he drives the landing gear 10 feet into the ground, or he has to add 10 feet to the altimeter and lands at the exact PA plus 10. Wow, he is a moron. The Altimeter we use in the cockpit is not used to flare, or figure out when we will hit the runway. We have show the errors associated with pressure altitude - Warren, you guys picked one, that is good enough to show pressure altitude is not accurate at 483.5 knots, pulling nearly 2 gs, in a decent. The RADALT matches knocking down lampposts, and 4 feet RA, about 16 feet above the ground for the fuselage passing over the last lane of the highway before impact. BINGO


Reheat, did you add 10 feet to your altimeter to land on the runway? lol, Balsamo would wash out the first day. In the KC-135, we would have to add 20 feet, we touch down and we are about 20 feet above the ground. We never used the altimeter landing, we used it for approaches, at the correct time; never have I watched the Altimeter to land (I have watched the Altimeter to see the error during flare, and the same on take, errors), I have used the RADALT to help with awareness of the ground/runway during instrument approaches and like the 757, the RADALT is presented in the ADI, the primary IFR instrument, the core of the crosscheck. Something Balsamo will never do left seat heavy, Major Airline. Doubt there are any active pilots in pilots for truth, you have to be rational to fly passengers, and being a member of pilots for truth is not rational, it is proof of having delusions on 911.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
The RADALT stuff is funny. Tracking rate is how it handles changes in altitude, and rising or falling terrain. OOPS...
They are using tracking rate for speed. Another RA with 2,000 f/s tracking rate, which is ~1200 KIAS, has a max grd speed of 2,000 knots. Balsamo has no maximum speed for a 767/757 RADALT, he is using Tracking Capability, that is not aircraft speed across the ground.
Click to expand...

But, but, but, Cap'n Poppycock disagrees and he even did the math today to prove it! :rolleyes: He calculated (I didn't bother to check his math) a slope similar to one might encounter when approaching a mountain and declared that if the RA Tracking Capability were based on vertical speed the GPWS would allow the aircraft to hit the mountain because it could not cope with the rapid change in elevation. :jaw-dropp None of his sycophants bothered to tell him that the aircraft would also hit the mountain if the Tracking Capability were based on forward speed (according to his interpretation), even at 250 KIAS. DUH!

I love the way he keeps repeating that a RA measures what's beneath the aircraft, not necessarily the ground as if that's some sort of revelation. According to him, a barometric altimeter needs to replace an RA for auto land. :eek:

I haven't yet seen him explain the rapid onset of both lateral and longitudinal G in that last frame. Of course, no one has asked yet. They don't dare provoke his insane ego.

I will be very surprised if this is not the end of him and his techno babble nonsense. If his twoofer followers were normal people it would.
 
Reheat said:
... !
I love the way he keeps repeating that a RA measures what's beneath the aircraft, not necessarily the ground as if that's some sort of revelation. According to him, a barometric altimeter needs to replace an RA for auto land. :eek: ...
Click to expand...
The auto-land on the baro altimeter, that would be sporting, like Balsamo doing math. Who knows if you land high, or low. Or the copilot mis-sets 30.02, to 30.22. oops

It appears Balsamo never shot an approach in the weather at, or to minimums.



... passing 2,000 AGL, a call made off the RADALT, not pressure Altitude, setting DH in the RADALT, not the pressure Altitude, DH, a call made from the RADALT... Balsamo, the truthNAZI, and want to be a heavy jet left seat with ATP...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom