AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[R.Mackey]

Likewise.

white streak at 09:16:06
5 seconds after FDR stopped
Not 09:16:08

FDR stopped at 3 seconds AFTER tail seperation with NEW noises of loud bangs and roaring noises due to engine speration. lateral accel pinned.

Page 133 of the PDF, NTSB states: "FDR and CVR data showed that engine
separation occurred during the out-of-control airplane motion that followed
the separation of the vertical stabilizer."

That's exactly what I said. The FDR stopped after tail separation, which does not affect the FDR -- we know this to be true because it records screwy results from the rudder servo, and logs the horizontal acceleration. The FDR also stops before engine separation. There are no other signs of gross breakup, since there is but a single, confined debris field, apart from engines and stabilizer.

So, once again, the stab failure didn't stop the FDR. The engine separation didn't stop the FDR. Gross structural failure didn't stop the FDR. What did?

I wish I could agree with you, but the NTSB reconstruction and videos
tell otherwise:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/board_mtg_anim.htm

This animation is not sufficiently accurate for this purpose, as you well know, having been told literally hundreds of times.

The FDR data, which is what this thread is about, is consistent with pole impacts. As long as we understand the last few seconds are missing, for which there are a number of possible explanations, and precedent. That's what this thread is about. Stop trying to derail. Stick to the subject or concede the point.

You may want to retract that statement after re-reading the study and
watching the video reconstruction of the flight including text highlights of
the events. You may want to read the Flight Path Study, specifically Time
Correlation done by the NTSB

I've read it, seen it, and I've already explained to you that it isn't accurate enough for you to make your claims. The NTSB was off by nearly ten seconds in the AA 11 and UA 175 impacts. The most accurate data we have is from the FDR itself. That is the focus of discussion.

Please re-read the study and watch the flight study. It's all there.

God of the gaps fallacy noted, and ignored.

No, it is NOT. It is the time the sensor creates the signal, converts it and
transmits to DFDAU in ARINC 429 format. IE: Sensor to input side of DFDAU.

Here is MY conversation with Rockwell in it's entirety:

Ah, now that I know what you're talking about, this is something yet again. I was referring to the earlier e-mail that actually involved the DFDAU. This one does not. This is the time between radar signal reception and measurement. Another result that has absolutely nothing to do with latency to the FDR. Rockwell has no way of knowing how AA is going to packetize the result, how it's queued, whether it gets averaged or combined with other measurements in the flight computer, who applies a timestamp and when, and so on. This is totally meaningless for this discussion.

We are debating those points with MacGyver now to credit, or discredit them

You are in no position to credit or discredit refereed journal articles. If you even understand how a debate works, you must accept them as valid until proving they are false. And that, just to save you some time, will never happen.

 

[Turbofan]

That's exactly what I said. The FDR stopped after tail separation, which does not affect the FDR -- we know this to be true because it records screwy results from the rudder servo, and logs the horizontal acceleration. The FDR also stops before engine separation. There are no other signs of gross breakup, since there is but a single, confined debris field, apart from engines and stabilizer.

So, once again, the stab failure didn't stop the FDR. The engine separation didn't stop the FDR. Gross structural failure didn't stop the FDR. What did?

This animation is not sufficiently accurate for this purpose, as you well know, having been told literally hundreds of times.

The animation linked above is for AA587, not AA77. Pay attention. Watch it.

The second set of loud bangs and roaring noises combined with the extreme
lateral acceleration experienced 3 seconds after tail seperation proves the
aircraft was breaking up in flight.

This is the reason the FDR stop recording at this point in time. You obviously
fail to recognize the second set of loud bangs/noises and extreme lateral
angle the aircraft experienced.

The FDR data, which is what this thread is about, is consistent with pole impacts. As long as we understand the last few seconds are missing, for which there are a number of possible explanations, and precedent. That's what this thread is about. Stop trying to derail. Stick to the subject or concede the point.

There is no derail happening here. The NTSB data shows all we need to see.
DME, speed and altitude (to name a few) that indicates the aircraft is too
high and too close to hit the poles.

Couple those parameters alone with the official path, and you cannot have
six seconds missing. Do you think Hani slowed down considerably or something?

This is the time between radar signal reception and measurement. Another result that has absolutely nothing to do with latency to the FDR.

No, again it's not! The RADAR reception is 2 * altitude * speed of light.
Add that to 42 msec if you must.

You are not very keen at these specs and what they mean.

Once again, the time it takes for the sensor to generate the signal and
get it to the input of the DFDAU is 42 msec MAXIMIUM.


If you have issue with this fact, take it up with Rockwell-Collins. I'm not going
to believe you over the Manufacturer, especially when you are not able
follow AA 587 timeline.

 

[beachnut]

There is no derail happening here. The NTSB data shows all we need to see. DME, speed and altitude (to name a few) that indicates the aircraft is too high and too close to hit the poles.

Couple those parameters alone with the official path, and you cannot have
six seconds missing. Do you think Hani slowed down considerably or something?



No, again it's not! The RADAR reception is 2 * altitude * speed of light.
Add that to 42 msec if you must.

You are not very keen at these specs and what they mean.

Once again, the time it takes for the sensor to generate the signal and
get it to the input of the DFDAU is 42 msec MAXIMIUM.


If you have issue with this fact, take it up with Rockwell-Collins. I'm not going
to believe you over the Manufacturer, especially when you are not able
follow AA 587 timeline.

p4t failed to show 77 is too high! Pure stupid when you have 77 impacting the Pentagon as seen. p4t can't figure out the FDR because they have no clue, no expertise in FDRs.

Total garbage and junk science with just you making up hearsay!

The NTSB data show Flight 77 over 6 seconds away with only 370 feet to loose to impact the base of the Pentagon. The terrorist have lost as much as 90 feet per second. That means they can loose 540 feet before the Pentagon and plow into the ground, or aim at the Pentagon as Hani was doing.

The p4t terrorist apologists have take the bait and have put all their eggs in the DME basket!

Therefore the DME in the FDR reads 3.2 DME at :41! OOPSseeee… at 14,489 feet from the Pentagon the impact time at 771 feet per second is :59. OMG what is going on with the DME? What did the experts say about the DME they placed in ever single second when it is only posted every 4 seconds? Why is the expert p4t decode wrong?

Please explain the DME errors and anomalies from the p4t decode.

This is great, I have got you to put all your faith in DME and there is a 3.2 DME entered correctly at :41! Got you again. Failure is yours, get use to it you are quibbling about FDR lost data, have no clue about DME accuracy you posted, and the implications of the storage of DME, or even the standard in the FARs!

 

[Turbofan]

p4t failed to show 77 is too high! Pure stupid when you have 77 impacting the Pentagon as seen. p4t can't figure out the FDR because they have no clue, no expertise in FDRs.

As seen? Show me the decisive video please.

Therefore the DME in the FDR reads 3.2 DME at :41! OOPSseeee… at 14,489 feet from the Pentagon the impact time at 771 feet per second is :59. OMG what is going on with the DME? What did the experts say about the DME they placed in ever single second when it is only posted every 4 seconds?

Once again, you are looking at the wrong file! YOu need only look at the
NTSB information. Do you need glasses? The NTSB submitted the file in
question. Understand? You should also read the R02 disclaimer associated
with the download as it's clear you have not.

This is great, I have got you to put all your faith in DME and there is a 3.2 DME entered correctly at :41! Got you again. Failure is yours, get use to it you are quibbling about FDR lost data, have no clue about DME accuracy you posted, and the implications of the storage of DME, or even the standard in the FARs!

What is your point about 3.2 DME? I see nothing wrong here.

You are not making any sense. You "got us" huh? Yet you refuse to debate
us.

 

[beachnut]

As seen? Show me the decisive video please.

Sean Boger CIT witness!

Sean Boger, Pentagon tower chief - "… I just watched it hit the building."

Your own witness on the p4t expert team of CIT.

Once again, you are looking at the wrong file! YOu need only look at the NTSB information. Do you need glasses? The NTSB submitted the file in question. Understand? You should also read the R02 disclaimer associated with the download as it's clear you have not.

WRONG again, I am looking at the NTSB file! Sad to say you can't handle a complex set of evidence and you miss how the DME proves you wrong again, you limit your support to standard flawed p4t hearsay.

What is your point about 3.2 DME? I see nothing wrong here.

The 3.2 DME is in the :41 second data position. Using this data you have impact at :59! You never investigated the FDR information completely, you are lost!

You are not making any sense. You "got us" huh? Yet you refuse to debate us.

I am not making sense because your knowledge of the data and the FDR system is too shallow to allow you to keep up with simple stuff you should know cold! lol; debate fantasy ideas of p4t, debate your lie of 77 not hitting the Pentagon.

You better brush up on your FDR data and be able to discuss why you only present 1.5 DME and do not show all the data and make all the data support your ideas which are prove to be wrong.

 

[Turbofan]

Sean Boger CIT witness! Your own witness on the p4t expert team of CIT.
WRONG again, I am looking at the NTSB file! Sad to say you can't handle a complex set of evidence and you miss how the DME proves you wrong again, you limit your support to standard flawed p4t hearsay.

Oh yeah, it hit from North of Citgo! So what took down the poles?
Who do you agree with now Beachnut?

The 3.2 DME is in the :41 second data position. Using this data you have impact at :59! You never investigated the FDR information completely, you are lost!
I am not making sense because your knowledge of the data and the FDR system is too shallow to allow you to keep up with simple stuff you should know cold! lol; debate fantasy ideas of p4t, debate your lie of 77 not hitting the Pentagon.

3.2 DME was updated at 09:37:29
+18 seconds = 09:37:47
3.2 DME updated at 09:37:29 supports NTSB Impact time within 2 seconds. Margin for error of 2 seconds due to larger slant range

You forgot the DME update in your calcs didn't you Beachnut? Are you accounting for ALT as well there big guy?

You better brush up on your FDR data and be able to discuss why you only present 1.5 DME and do not show all the data and make all the data support your ideas which are prove to be wrong.

PFT has several studies on the data. Go check it out. 1.5 DME is just the
tip of the iceberg.

Later Beachnut.

 

[jaydeehess]

The data is time division multi-plexed. There are certain sensors needing
up to eight writes per second, some only once per second, and some even
less. The frame must be built whether or not these parameters require
polling, and "placeholder" bits are inserted to maintain frame integrity. This was covered back several pages back and you may find discussions
with Anti-Sophist and Undertow appealing for this topic.
.

Irrelevent, if the data for word #1 comes in to the buffer 1 second before the last word gets there, and only then is the entire frame of 256 words sent on to flash memory, that means the data for word # 1 has taken a minimum of 100% longer to get from sensor to storage than your interpretation of the 0.5 second spec.

If a sensor sends data several times during one frame that does not make the first instance of that reading get to the memory location any faster.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh yeah, it hit from North of Citgo! So what took down the poles?
Who do you agree with now Beachnut?

It hit, didn't narrowly miss, or fly over, or miss the Pentagon to Boger's right (north).

Looking out from Boger's location it has not been shown that he actually could see the Citgo station or if he was implying its location beyond the highway. In the "Pentacon we cannot see the heliport building from the Citgo, you can just see the top few floors of the Pentagon. Being able to see the heliport building and the Citgo from the highway does not cut it.

Nevertheless the Citgo is several hundred feet from him whereas the impact point was a few dozen feet, less than the wingspan of the aircraft he was seeing. At which point, hundreds of feet away or a couple of dozen feet away, do you think his reccollection would be more accurate?

 

[jaydeehess]

The second set of loud bangs and roaring noises combined with the extreme
lateral acceleration experienced 3 seconds after tail seperation proves the
aircraft was breaking up in flight.

This is the reason the FDR stop recording at this point in time. You obviously
fail to recognize the second set of loud bangs/noises and extreme lateral
angle the aircraft experienced.

Mackey states that the FDR continued to operate and record the loss of the vert stab. The aircraft remained intact except for the engines until impact.
The FDR stopped recording prior to that impact. So what caused it to stop recording? The DFDAU data line was severed? The extreme acellerations? or did the data get 'lost' due to the violence of impact?


I have asked several times now for you to list the crashes that would be similar enough to the flight of AA77. You refuse and instead when examples of crashes are given you claim that the goalpost is further away. Park the truck and show us where the goal posts are TF.

 

[bje]

Oh yeah, it hit from North of Citgo! So what took down the poles?

AA 77 took down the poles.

The imaginary "white" jet flew the imaginary " NOC flight path" over the Pentagon just as AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Because it was imaginary, the "white" jet didn't get recorded on the Pentagon security camera video and no one ever saw the imaginary "white" jet flying over the Pentagon.

Multiple security cam videos did catch CIT operatives checking out copies of:

 

[Mangoose]

The imaginary "white" jet flew the imaginary " NOC flight path" over the Pentagon just as AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Because it was imaginary, the "white" jet didn't get recorded on the Pentagon security camera video

Once again for Turbofan, I ask why one should NOT expect to see the jet in the two views here:

when CIT claims that the flyover jet was as low as this:

 

[beachnut]

Oh yeah, it hit from North of Citgo! So what took down the poles?

Who do you agree with now Beachnut?

WRONG, the NTSB flight data shows a true track heading of 61.2 degrees, making the NoC the dumbest idea you ever repeated. But neat to see you have no idea what the FDR information is or means.

3.2 DME was updated at

09:37:29
+18 seconds = 09:37:47 3.2 DME updated at 09:37:29 supports NTSB Impact time within 2 seconds. Margin for error of 2 seconds due to larger slant range
You forgot the DME update in your calcs didn't you Beachnut? Are you accounting for ALT as well there big guy?

You finally looked in the DATA! BUT the 3.2 DME is also posted in the :41 time slot per the 4 second update! OH NO! What does this mean. Explain why the DME is the same for 4 straight 4 second samples and covers 12 seconds without a DME update that is sampled every 4 seconds! Finally, you need to explain this one too Balsamo and you. Is he posting using your login right now, this post is a classic Balsamo bs junk.

:29 gives us :50! Why did I get 20 seconds! Well Turbofan and Balsamo, the speed is averaging 700 feet per seconds! Awe shucks! You are once again foiled by the NTSB FDR data proving you are WRONG again! This is cool getting you to actually use the data! You are refuting yourself as you learn, as you actually use the real evidence! BUSTED

This is funny, as I try to lead you to the truth, which Boger saw with his own eyes.

CIT witness Sean Boger says! - Sean Boger, Pentagon tower chief - "… I just watched it hit the building."

SLANT RANGE; GLAD YOU MADE THE STANDARD POST BS BEFORE YOU DO THE MATH! This is classic Balsamo! So we have 3.2 DME, yep Slant range; oops, that is over the ground at 1700 feet, 3.15 DME, the value I used to get 14,489 feet to impact! Wowzer, that slant range sure took off zero distance since I am a real pilot who tries to tell the truth! I think the boy scout stuff took! So your slant range is BUSTED and 0.05 mile Wow.

But you are also confused, we are using the distance from DCA, and then getting a value for distance to go to impact. Slant range is pure Balsamo junk, he is coaching you with stupid. Cool

You forgot to use a slower speed, and your slant range is bogus for this low altitude stuff! Great if we were at 20,000 feet, but see, we are near the ground Turbofan. If you would do the math yourself you will not be WRONG.

PFT has several studies on the data. Go check it out. 1.5 DME is just the
tip of the iceberg. Later Beachnut.

You are funny! You make up junk and forget to do your work! You forgot to check Balsamo's nut case ranting before repeating it raw!

 

[A W Smith]

does the flight data recorder show it pull up over the pentagon?

The security cam video sure doesn't



But whats this? in three frames i see mysterious debris appear right there at the curb. from what CIT calls a "Hollywood shock and awe" fireball almost 600 feet away. if the demolition explosion was contained deep within the 16 foot hole in a blast resistant building. How did this debris make it all the way to the gate house almost parallel to the face of the building? Im just asking questions turbofan. Can you elaborate for us?

debris appears below

 

[R.Mackey]

The animation linked above is for AA587, not AA77. Pay attention. Watch it.

The second set of loud bangs and roaring noises combined with the extreme
lateral acceleration experienced 3 seconds after tail seperation proves the
aircraft was breaking up in flight.

This is the reason the FDR stop recording at this point in time. You obviously
fail to recognize the second set of loud bangs/noises and extreme lateral
angle the aircraft experienced.

You're making excuses. AA 587 did not break up in flight. There was only a single debris field. Only the vertical stabilizer and the engines came off the plane before it hit the ground. The NTSB report is very clear on this point.

I don't care what you think you can infer from an animation. The above is a fact.

Now, perhaps, you meant to say the "extreme lateral angle" (the correct term would be yaw) and acceleration knocked out the FDR, rather than blaming it on structural breakup that never happened. Okay, we can talk about that. But what acceleration are we talking about? What acceleration is the FDR/DFDAU rated for, again? Why did they fail, when the emergency power bus and CVR kept working?

And, most importantly, why did the FDR record garbage data? Once again, according to you, this is impossible.

The correct inference, in case you missed it, is that FDRs sometimes do funny things in extreme conditions or outside their spec. That includes losing data, corrupting data, and producing unreadable data. AA 77 is not remarkable. Your insistence that it is, that AA 77 cannot have lost data, is unsupported.

There is no derail happening here. The NTSB data shows all we need to see.
DME, speed and altitude (to name a few) that indicates the aircraft is too
high and too close to hit the poles.

So you say, with no support. Prove it. Show me your hypothetical path that's a better fit, compare it with mine, and estimate the errors. You'll find it's well within tolerance.

No, again it's not! The RADAR reception is 2 * altitude * speed of light.
Add that to 42 msec if you must.

You are not very keen at these specs and what they mean.

Once again, the time it takes for the sensor to generate the signal and
get it to the input of the DFDAU is 42 msec MAXIMIUM.


If you have issue with this fact, take it up with Rockwell-Collins. I'm not going
to believe you over the Manufacturer, especially when you are not able
follow AA 587 timeline.

The propagation speed of the radar beam is not at all what I was talking about.

Again, Rockwell-Collins has no say over what Boeing does with the signal. They therefore cannot set a requirement on how long it takes for their signal to reach the DFDAU. I have no conflict with their number. The difference is I understand what it means, and you appear not to.

 

[Turbofan]

Irrelevent, if the data for word #1 comes in to the buffer 1 second before the last word gets there, and only then is the entire frame of 256 words sent on to flash memory, that means the data for word # 1 has taken a minimum of 100% longer to get from sensor to storage than your interpretation of the 0.5 second spec.

If a sensor sends data several times during one frame that does not make the first instance of that reading get to the memory location any faster.

So you think it takes a complete second to transmit the frame?

Do you know what the clock rate happens to be?

 

[Turbofan]

Mackey states that the FDR continued to operate and record the loss of the vert stab.

I don't care what Mackey says. The report and study is what we go with.

 

[R.Mackey]

I don't care what Mackey says. The report and study is what we go with.

I provided the report.

You can go read it yourself.

 

[dtugg]

Hey Turbofan, have you guys found any real experts that agree with your fake experts' findings of the FDR being fake and AA77 not hitting the Pentagon?

 

[Turbofan]

WRONG, the NTSB flight data shows a true track heading of 61.2 degrees, making the NoC the dumbest idea you ever repeated.

The FDR also says the plane is too high to hit the pole making the official
story the dumbest thing ever believed.

You finally looked in the DATA! BUT the 3.2 DME is also posted in the :41 time slot per the 4 second update! OH NO! What does this mean. Explain why the DME is the same for 4 straight 4 second samples and covers 12 seconds without a DME update that is sampled every 4 seconds! Finally, you need to explain this one too Balsamo and you. Is he posting using your login right now, this post is a classic Balsamo bs junk.

Hey Beachnut, it seems you don't know how DME works. Do you think
the aircraft just hovered for all that time? Was "Hani" in a helicopter?

:29 gives us :50! Why did I get 20 seconds! Well Turbofan and Balsamo, the speed is averaging 700 feet per seconds! Awe shucks! You are once again foiled by the NTSB FDR data proving you are WRONG again! This is cool getting you to actually use the data! You are refuting yourself as you learn, as you actually use the real evidence! BUSTED

We[re busted again huh? This coming from the guy that says the plane is
1.724 nm, but measures 1.5 DME even though the tolerance is -/+ 0.1nm,
and the system is capable of writing 1.7. Yeah...."Hani's Helicopter"!

SLANT RANGE; GLAD YOU MADE THE STANDARD POST BS BEFORE YOU DO THE MATH! This is classic Balsamo! So we have 3.2 DME, yep Slant range; oops, that is over the ground at 1700 feet, 3.15 DME, the value I used to get 14,489 feet to impact! Wowzer, that slant range sure took off zero distance since I am a real pilot who tries to tell the truth! I think the boy scout stuff took! So your slant range is BUSTED and 0.05 mile Wow.

Six seconds at 1.5 DME, that's your math big guy.

But you are also confused, we are using the distance from DCA, and then getting a value for distance to go to impact. Slant range is pure Balsamo junk, he is coaching you with stupid. Cool

Rob has been reading and giving me some pointers. He's much smarter than
you. I see your mistakes and I'm not even a pilot. Why don't you take this
up with PFT and Rob? Afterall, you claim to know it all!

Do not post on behalf of banned members.

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

 

[Turbofan]

You're making excuses. AA 587 did not break up in flight. There was only a single debris field. Only the vertical stabilizer and the engines came off the plane before it hit the ground. The NTSB report is very clear on this point.

It's not an excuse. Is losing a tail and both engines anything other than
breaking up in flight?

I don't care what you think you can infer from an animation. The above is a fact.

Gee, you wont look at facts...what a surprise.

The correct inference, in case you missed it, is that FDRs sometimes do funny things in extreme conditions or outside their spec. That includes losing data, corrupting data, and producing unreadable data. AA 77 is not remarkable. Your insistence that it is, that AA 77 cannot have lost data, is unsupported.

Until you, or anyone here can confirm only a few seconds can be erased
from flash memory (as opposed to a block), then you might have something.

So you say, with no support. Prove it. Show me your hypothetical path that's a better fit, compare it with mine, and estimate the errors. You'll find it's well within tolerance.

Math has been done by PFT and their research team. It's out there if you
care to study it.

Again, Rockwell-Collins has no say over what Boeing does with the signal. They therefore cannot set a requirement on how long it takes for their signal to reach the DFDAU. I have no conflict with their number. The difference is I understand what it means, and you appear not to.

FYI, the device plugs directy into the DFDAU. How long do you think it takes
an electrical signal to move down the wire once transmitted by the altimeter?

Just give me a number and add it to 42 msec so we can debate it.