AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[wstutt]

Thank you, I am not as well versed as most of you on this issue.

Is Cimino the one frequently referred to as "your FDR guy" at the 911ft forum by Warren?

Hi Chris,

Yes, Rob Balsamo did later reveal that the "FDR guy" that he referred to in this post and that in my replies I referred to as "your FDR guy" (since Rob had not identified him) was in fact Dennis Cimino.

Finally, is Cimino the only "FDR expert" working for 911pft?
Thanks again if you happen to know the answers to these ?s.

Chris

There was another member UnderTow who arranged for another decode of the AAL77 FDR file that he referred to as Readout 2. This was before I started looking at the FDR file. However according to his Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum profile, he has not logged in for more than 2 years and I although I had some contact with him when I wrote my partial AAL77 FDR decoder, I have had no contact with him since I wrote my full FDR decoder that was able to decode the last 4 seconds of data that did not appear in either the Readout 2 or the NTSB CSV file decodes.

Undertow had a web site with his Readout 2 decode but it is no longer running. You can however view it in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine here.

Another forum member Arthur (awmatt) figured out the format of the block headers which he discussed here. This was also before I started looking at the AAL77 FDR file. However according to his Pilots for 9/11 Truth profile, he has not logged in for almost 4 years.

I am not aware of any other FDR experts at Pilots For 9/11 Truth, however I no longer regularly visit their forum.

Warren.

 

[BCR]

Warren, Gaffney and I participated in a 5-hour program for a small college radio station (OIT) Monday. My segment lasted around 2-hours. For what it is worth, we gave you some some good press and refered folks (primarily engineering students) to your joint Legge paper.

Once again, great job!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Warren, Gaffney and I participated in a 5-hour program for a small college radio station (OIT) Monday. My segment lasted around 2-hours. For what it is worth, we gave you some some good press and refered folks (primarily engineering students) to your joint Legge paper.

Once again, great job!

Indeed.

Both of you (Warren Stutt and John Farmer) have done a thorough and professionally competent job of investigating technical mysteries associated with Flight 77 and the Pentagon. It wasn't easy, but you did it.

 

[BCR]

Why thank you sir

 

[chris lz]

Thank you for this information Warren.

For the benefit of newcomers to this issue, I wonder if you can help me through some of the key points. You have asserted that the last recorded "radio height" was 4 feet. I have been perusing the 911pft forum, and perhaps I missed it, but is Balsamo's only response that the radio height wasn't working properly? Or does he challenge the "4 feet" claim on other grounds too (besides the altimiter showing 273 feet, that is)?

Thanks,

Chris

 

[jaydeehess]

Hi alienentity,
As far as I know I have been suspended from the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum for a month, not banned.

If my suspension is lifted, I doubt whether I will return there. I've had enough of it.

Warren.

Well suspension is just Cappy Robby's way of leading up to your banning.

I was suspended for argueing with a poster and his contention that the Pentagon was hit by a missile. I posted what I thought was a cogent arguement agaisnt such a thing against the bald contention of the other poster. I was told that it was not proper evidence and as such I was suspended.

I was banned for suggesting ways that PfT could get their message out to more people including writing a non-confrontational white paper outlining why they conclude that the DFDR data and the official flight path are mutually exclusive and sending it to ICAO, the pilot's unions and such publications as Sci-Am and Aviation Week.

Even though I had toned down my posts and basically did not argue with anyone I was banned.

Robby would have fulfilled his prediction and probably trumpeted his prescience.

 

[beachnut]

...

I am not aware of any other FDR experts at Pilots For 9/11 Truth, however I no longer regularly visit their forum.

Warren.

Good work. Thanks for taking the time and effort to decode the "missing seconds" and much more. I was interested in the ways Balsamo was perverting what happen on 911, and your efforts illuminated Balsamo's claims as lies and delusions.

 

[wstutt]

Thank you for this information Warren.

For the benefit of newcomers to this issue, I wonder if you can help me through some of the key points. You have asserted that the last recorded "radio height" was 4 feet. I have been perusing the 911pft forum, and perhaps I missed it, but is Balsamo's only response that the radio height wasn't working properly? Or does he challenge the "4 feet" claim on other grounds too (besides the altimiter showing 273 feet, that is)?

Thanks,

Chris

Hi Chris,

Rob Balsamo has argued that the radio height wasn't working properly as you said. He argues that since the tracking capability specified for a particular radio altimeter used in 757's is 330 feet per second, that the radio height is inaccurate if the aircraft is flying faster than that speed.

Firstly, I think that the tracking capability refers to the rate of change of the height of the aircraft above the ground rather than the speed of the aircraft. Secondly, I have not seen any confirmation that this particular model of radio altimeter were the ones used in AAL77 (the aircraft has three of them)

He has also argued that the radio height is measured above whatever is below the aircraft, which maybe buildings, trees etc. rather than the ground. At one point, he argued that the 4 feet radio height was above the top of the Pentagon.

Warren.

 

[wstutt]

Indeed.

Both of you (Warren Stutt and John Farmer) have done a thorough and professionally competent job of investigating technical mysteries associated with Flight 77 and the Pentagon. It wasn't easy, but you did it.

Thanks Will, John and Beachnut.

Warren.

 

[wstutt]

Well suspension is just Cappy Robby's way of leading up to your banning.

<snip>

Well it looks like I have been effectively banned. After the suspension period was over back at the beginning of March, I was able to log in to the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum, but when I did, I could not view any posts, so I don't see how I can reply to them. I can only see posts if I log out and view the forum as a guest.

As I said though, I've had enough of it anyway. I only look at the forum now when people such as Chris ask me questions about what was said.

Warren.

 

[chris lz]

Thanks again Warren.

So his entire dismissal of the 4 ft reading is based on saying: the pressure altitude is always reliable; the radio height was unreliable. Is that all?

 

[beachnut]

Thanks again Warren.

So his entire dismissal of the 4 ft reading is based on saying: the pressure altitude is always reliable; the radio height was unreliable. Is that all?

Moron Math Master Balsamo thinks the +-75 foot pressure altitude is more accurate than the +-1 foot radio altimeter (RAD ALT). Balsamo is the Master of Moron Math, what else would you expect from someone selling delusional claims on DVD to people who can't comprehend 911's complex plot, take planes, crash planes into large buildings.


http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap7/aim0702.html
http://www.ehow.com/how_7643776_test-altitude-instruments.html

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_121-appM.html

Balsamo makes up nonsense to sell paranoid conspiracy theory claims and thinking, on a "stick". p4t claim the RAD ALT is false data because 77 was going to fast. Doing math reveals the accuracy of the device based on the speed would not be a big factor until speeds past MACH3, or was it light speed. The point being, the device sends out a radar signal traveling at the speed of light, and returning at the speed of light, Balsamo offered no technical reason the RAD ALT can't work at 480 knots, and he can't do the math.

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

 

[BCR]

I had not read Clinger' response to CPt'n Bob's math before. However, I think it was a low-blow to confuse the good CPt'n with derimitives and border e'kations like that. And I'm sure the CPt'n used tha Calculus thingy on his computer to come up with his results.

 

[George 152]

Thanks again Warren.

So his entire dismissal of the 4 ft reading is based on saying: the pressure altitude is always reliable; the radio height was unreliable. Is that all?

Cap'n Bob does things like that knowing that he controls what gets onto the site....
It's a site to visit when you want to see just how all things aviation can be just plain lied about...

 

[BCR]

Well it looks like I have been effectively banned. After the suspension period was over back at the beginning of March, I was able to log in to the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum, but when I did, I could not view any posts, so I don't see how I can reply to them. I can only see posts if I log out and view the forum as a guest.

Well Warren, I know you have figured this out already, but CPt'n Bob is ... well, dare I say it? Okay, less than honest on such issues.

Gaffney sorta went off on them for banning me so CPt'n Bob responds thus:

Gaffney doesn't want to answer such questions. He avoids them at all costs and only listens to what he wants to hear.

By the way, Gaffney did read the above replies. Not surprisingly, he once again doesn't wish to face the facts.

Hey Mark, has your buddy Farmer figured out that he can still post on this forum? Or is he still crying that he is banned..... ?

That comment is dated Jun 25 2011, 03:08 AM. My username at P4T is spcengineer.

Note, the date/time was just a few minutes ago (date/time in lower right corner). So I have been banned from commenting at P4T since trying to be helpful a few months ago by posting two words for them, "magnetic declination".

So I'm sure it must be some kind of mistake because you surely were not banned.

Sorry, date/time a little small so here is a zoom. I guess they need to set the clock on their server too.

 

[wstutt]

Thanks again Warren.

So his entire dismissal of the 4 ft reading is based on saying: the pressure altitude is always reliable; the radio height was unreliable. Is that all?

Yes Chris, that's the crux of his argument.

Also, I should mention that the pressure altitude recorded in the FDR file is not what is displayed to the pilots. For example the final pressure altitude in the FDR file is -99 feet, which is more than 100 feet below the ground elevation at the Pentagon. It needs to at least be corrected for local barometric pressure. I suspect that the value recorded in the FDR file is a raw value and that the air data computer also makes other corrections before displaying the result to the pilot.

Also, The radio height is height above touchdown. So when the plane is taxiing it shows about -6 feet. For the distance from the ground to the bottom of the fuselage, you would also need to add the height of the fuselage above the ground when the aircraft is taxiing. So with the final radio height of 4 feet as recorded in the FDR, we need to add 6 feet to account for the radio height when the aircraft is taxiing to cancel the -6 feet, and about another 6 feet for the height of the bottom of the fuselage above the ground when the plane is taxiing to get about 16 feet for the height of the bottom of the fuselage above the ground.

Warren.

 

[wstutt]

<snip>

So I'm sure it must be some kind of mistake because you surely were not banned.

<snip>

Well John,

it appears to me that Rob Balsamo has been reading my comments and has fixed the problem.

I can now see posts when I am logged in and I got no error when I clicked the reply button on a post.

I did not however actually attempt to post a reply.

Before I couldn't even view the posts when logged in to be able to click the reply button on a post so I never got the error message that you did.

So it now looks like I can post on the forum if I ever wanted to.

Warren.

 

[chris lz]

. . .the final pressure altitude in the FDR file is -99 feet, which is more than 100 feet below the ground elevation at the Pentagon.

Let me make sure I have this correct then. If "pressure altitude" is always 100% reliable, then flight 77 should have approached the Pentagon from underneath the lawn? (No wonder no one really saw a 757.)

Doesn't Balsamo maintain the last decoded second of the additional seconds you found, still yields 273 feet pressure altitude? How does he get that?

Thanks again Warren.

 

[wstutt]

Let me make sure I have this correct then. If "pressure altitude" is always 100% reliable, then flight 77 should have approached the Pentagon from underneath the lawn? (No wonder no one really saw a 757.)

Doesn't Balsamo maintain the last decoded second of the additional seconds you found, still yields 273 feet pressure altitude? How does he get that?

Thanks again Warren.

Hi Chris,

Although the FDR shows a final pressure altitude of -99 feet, this would not have been the true altitude due to corrections that need to be applied to this raw figure.

Rob Balsamo used an online calculator to adjust the final pressure altitude of -99 feet for local barometric pressure to get an altitude of 174 feet in this post. As I indicated before, I suspect that 174 feet would not have been the true altitude either due to the air data computer making additional corrections.

Are you sure the figure of 273 feet that you referred to is pressure altitude and not radio height?

Warren.

 

[chris lz]

Are you sure the figure of 273 feet that you referred to is pressure altitude and not radio height?

I am having trouble finding the post in question at p4t. I remember 273 was the last number in the lower right of a graph. If I find it I will let you know.

Thanks again,

Chris