AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[Jonnyclueless]

I hope the "perps" behind this conspiracy enjoy their free aprons.

Please post on topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

My Bad, he said "no apron" with the video evidence. I misread it as him saying there was an apron included with the DVD evidence.

 

[Anti-sophist]

The word position write time is not a delay.

Of course it is. But semantics are irrelevant. If you want me to change the words to help your brain cope with the passage of time, I will. The "time period" between when the word is written is when the frame ends is what I named T4. It is an actual amount of time.

Once we've established that you are wrong about the existence of T4 and T5, I will demonstrate to you that you are also wrong about your pretension that they are not "delays". But first things first.

Does any time pass between writing, for example, the first word of the frame until the writing of the last word of the frame? Yes or no?

Yes it does.

Ok. That is T4. Now stop telling me it doesn't exist.

Alright, now on to your equally incorrect claim that T5 doesn't exist.

What happened to the partial frame that was being recorded when the plane crashed? Can you decode a partial frame? How or why not? (hint: for those of you faking expertise, I've already answered this question in this thread)

 

[Turbofan]

Now that I've corrected your terms, let's carry on.

Please state the word position for the three parameters in question.

This will give us the Bob...oops I mean delay...ahhh, I mean T4

From there, we can further pick apart your theory about how 'old' the
data is before the 'impact' of the aircraft

Thank you.

Cough...remember Anti, you have some work to do yet. 8th request for
an answer.

YOu can incorrectly call it "delay" all you want to confuse the readers,
however that is poor terminology.

If a parameter is supposed to be written at word position zero in the frame,
and it just happens to appear at the same position every time...then how
is this a delay?

We expect to see it there. We expect it to be written at a certain time.
THerefore, it is not delayed.

In any case, please post the word positions so we can properly calculate
your so called "T4".

8th time Anti...

 

[bje]

Cough...remember Anti, you have some work to do yet. 8th request for an answer.

Talk about hypocrisy.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Dodging the questions doesn't make the holes in your theories go away. Now that you admitted that T4 exists, I'll get to the delay issues once we establish the existence of T5, as well. The reason for this is that T4 is a "delay" for the same reason T5 is a "delay" and therefore I'd rather deal with them together, once we establish that they exist.

I'm trying to stay on topic and deal with the very first issue you brought up -- you "called me out" on the existence of T4 and T5. Don't call me out and then start dodging when I deal with the issue you tried to bring up (otherwise I'll just start to believe you "called me out" knowing you were wrong, and you just wanted to goad me into argument -- that wouldn't be very intellectually honest, would it?). Now, back to the question you are dodging...

What happened to the partial frame that was being recorded when the plane crashed? Can you decode a partial frame? How or why not? (hint: for those of you faking expertise, I've already answered this question in this thread)

 

[Turbofan]

I don't dodge questions. I've answered everything you asked me to this
point, however you keep avoiding mine.


We're not moving onto T5 because "T4" (a term you fabricated) has not
been resolved. I never denied it existed, I simply questioned your terminology.

It is not a delay. You noted the diagram incorrectly. YOu are confusing
the public!

Remember this?

YOu have T4 in the wrong spot! YOu wonder why we're all confused?

T4 by your definition happens within the FDAU. You are aware of that, right?

Now, 9th time:

What are the word positions for RAD ALT, Speed, and DME?

This is important to figure out your theory!

 

[jaydeehess]

Is the "11.2 G" page still up? Has it been corrected?

PfT found it within their means to have the original on a web page. Now am I to believe that we have to wait until the new cheese comes out free on Youtube that we can see the supposed corrections without having to support PfT with our dollars?
Furthermore, the MSM and others on your mailing list ignored Pandora parts 1 & 2, what makes PfT believe it might be any different this time around?


IIRC BTW Mackey's calculations were based upon a flight path that was proposed by PfT.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=573228904486758033&hl=en

"We're sorry, but this video may not be available."

So it appears that at least at this time I cannot view any supposed 'correction' that the video may contain.

I see that the webpage of calculations has NOT been corrected. It stil contains the line in which the distance of 97 feet is divided by the acceleration due to gravity which is patently ridiculous.

 

[Turbofan]

I will bring that to Rob's attention just for you, although the page clearly
outlines and explains the issue.

Maybe we can put a link to the video at the bottom?

More importantly, let's get back to the FDAU and word positions.

 

[Turbofan]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5732289044586758033&hl=en

Here is the full link.

 

[jaydeehess]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5732289044586758033&hl=en

Here is the full link.

That seems to have worked. I am about to watch it. I have 15 min. left on my lunch break.

catch ya's all later.

ETA: That did not take long. 2:11 in and PfT claims that the problem with the debunker physics is that it is a 2-d problem. So in less than 2 minutes PfT demonstrates that no one who worked on this problem for them has had undergraduate courses in physics. The horizontal velocity along the line of travel has always been considered constant and therefore there would be NO horizontal accelerations in that direction. If there are changes in lateral velocity they are all small and have to do with the turn rate at any monemt in time. this does not contribute at all to the question at hand, "what is the vertical acceleration required to pull the plane out of a dive and have it level off by the time ir reaches the lawn if it also passes over the VDOT tower and the lamp post?"

3:00 in states that critics claim that there is no data available for the altitude of the aircraft from the FDR data. This is patently untrue to the point of being an outright lie. (TF will note that I do not use that term often) The critics used the senario that PfT originally postulated in whichthey,PfT, supplied an altitude. PfT claimed that it would require a 11.2G (sic) vertical acceleration to pull out of the desent. PfT did not ask one to calculate a path that agrees with the set of g figures supplied by the FDR data and indeed doing so would, again, require that one be able to accurately locate the aircraft over ground objects using the FDR data.

Was the radius used calculated or was an orthoganol line drawn on the page using eyeball dead reckoning? I have to get back to work now.

 

[Anti-sophist]

I never denied it existed, I simply questioned your terminology.

You said that I made it up. Please don't start lying or this conversation will end very quickly. You "called me out" pretending that I "made this up" and we are going to walk through every single element of T4 and T5 even though you know of absolutely none of this. This isn't even my job. It's your job to justify these element but you are so ignorant that you don't even know they exist. I'm going to hold your own hand through all of the things you SHOULD know about (but don't) and then at the end I'll give you a chance to justify these numbers as per your theory. It will be fun, I assure you.

But for us to make any progress, you need to stop dodging the questions and stop desperately trying to change the subject.

I don't dodge questions. I've answered everything you asked me to this point...

Please point me to where you answered this question:

What happened to the partial frame that was being recorded when the plane crashed? Can you decode a partial frame? How or why not? (hint: for those of you faking expertise, I've already answered this question in this thread)

T4 by your definition happens within the FDAU. You are aware of that, right?

This is false.. and I will prove it to you once you stop dodging the above question (actually the above question has a followup, which you'll also need to answer, but then I promise).

It's ok if you don't know the answer to the question. I do. I'll answer it for you, if you are unable. Your foot dragging is boring me to tears though.

 

[Turbofan]

You said that I made it up. Please don't start lying or this conversation will end very quickly. You "called me out" pretending that I "made this up" and we are going to walk through every single element of T4 and T5 even though you know of absolutely none of this.

You did make it up! Show me your documentation which supports you "T4"
term?

This isn't even my job. It's your job to justify these element but you are so ignorant that you don't even know they exist.

Like I already stated a few times, if you knew what you were talking about
and correctly noted the diagram and used proper terminology we would
have nailed this point years ago.

Only now do you see your error, and only now we can move forward.

Please point me to where you answered this question:

What happened to the partial frame that was being recorded when the plane crashed? Can you decode a partial frame? How or why not? (hint: for those of you faking expertise, I've already answered this question in this thread)

I'm going to answer that when you lay down the word positions smart guy.

It's your turn to start providing proof that your thread and theory holds water.
I'm not going to waste time playing your game when you can't even label
a diagram correctly.

The frame and word position is the responsibility of the FDAU period.

The FDAU also converts the data into a serial format.

The FDR is a storage device.

Can I let go of your hand yet?

Post the word position already! What's the matter, don't you know it?
Are you scared to lay down some reality?

It's pretty clear that you don't know. I can see right through you (as do
many).

 

[lapman]

You did make it up! Show me your documentation which supports you "T4"
term?

When are you going to show your documentation that proves the 500ms max time from sensor to CPM? Your ARINC spec doesn't cover it. So, what document does?

 

[Anti-sophist]

Dodge. Dodge. Dodge.

So you accuse me of making up two delays and after I force you to admit one of them exists, you dodge every single question regarding the other.

This trolling attempt fails. Too transparent.

There's no point in arguing with someone who won't defend his own theory from the obvious hole that are being pointed out. When you are ready to defend it, you can start answering the questions I've asked you.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"You did make it up! Show me your documentation which supports you "T4" - Turbo
"I never denied it existed" - TB referring to T4.

hmmm...

 

[Turbofan]

"You did make it up! Show me your documentation which supports you "T4" - Turbo
"I never denied it existed" - TB referring to T4.

hmmm...

Awww, look at everyone helping Anti cover up his lack of understanding.

Anti makes up the term T4, puts it on the wrong spot on the diagram,
refers to it as "delay" and we're all supposed to figure it out!

Wow, good thing this thread is called , "AA77 FDR Data, Explained".

You see, Anti is going to suck me into answering his question and avoid
posting the word positions (which he doesn't know).

After I answer his question about T5 he will further dive into this made
up theory which he cant support via documentation, and we'll go down
the same path.

So I will answer him: No, not to my knowledge. Not unless there is some sort
of understanding of which word is written, the position, and sync words are intact.

You should ask our experts and those who helped decode the raw file. They would
know how, and whether it's possible.

OK, your turn. Give me the word positions for RAD ALT, Speed and DME.

10th request.

 

[Anti-sophist]

Hey look at that. He stopped dodging. Let's see how many times I have to ask him the follow-up question. Once we get an answer to this, I can go about proving to you that these issues constitute a DELAY that you claim doesn't exist.

So I will answer him: No, not to my knowledge. Not unless there is some sort
of understanding of which word is written, the position, and sync words are intact.

Interesting. So you cannot decode partial frames? They got thrown out? That's the correct answer. Remember that, because we will need in that the future.

Next question(s): What are the data policies at the NTSB vis a vis data decoding and data validation of full frames and how many FULL frames might have been on the CPM but were still thrown out? Does your answer include how many FULL frames might be corrupted due to the on-board compression being interrupted by a crash?

Please keep in PfT has assumed this number to be 0. I've never seen a shred of justification for this belief.

 

[ref]

This has to be one of the most persistent threads ever.

 

[Turbofan]

Hey look at that. He stopped dodging. Let's see how many times I have to ask him the follow-up question. Once we get an answer to this, I can go about proving to you that these issues constitute a DELAY that you claim doesn't exist.



Interesting. So you cannot decode partial frames? They got thrown out? That's the correct answer. Remember that, because we will need in that the future.

Next question(s): What are the data policies at the NTSB vis a vis data decoding and data validation of full frames and how many FULL frames might have been on the CPM but were still thrown out? Does your answer include how many FULL frames might be corrupted due to the on-board compression being interrupted by a crash?

Please keep in PfT has assumed this number to be 0. I've never seen a shred of justification for this belief.

Wow, I was right! He didn't answer my word position question!

The deal was:

I answer you. You answer me.

Let's do this so I can prove you wrong in front of everyone.

 

[bje]

The deal was:

I answer you. You answer me.

Let's do this so I can prove you wrong in front of everyone.

You've never answered a question yet, Turbofan. And you just let us know why.