Another Question For Warren Stutt, concerning altitude Options

[JFK]

Hi JFK,

I found that if I used the same conversion formula for CORRECTED AOA as is used for INDICATED AOA which produces angles in the range -90 to +90 (which in effect halves the corrected AOA values), then the CORRECTED AOA values are very close to the INDICATED AOA values as you said.

Because of this closeness, it is now my opinion that word 210 bits 3 to 12, contains the CORRECTED AOA parameter rather than the DENSITY L TANK, DENSITY R TANK, DENSITY C TANK and DENSITY S TANK parameters. I will change this in the next release.

Good work JFK! The NTSB decoded that word as the DENSITY TANK parameters as well.

Warren.

Perhaps it is time to begin a new DFL sheet as well ?

Edit to add - Especially since the way they botched the numbering of the SuperFrames in word 256 in the 757-3b.txt file.

[JFK]

Sorry Rob, but this has to be said....

If that idiot had the faintest clue what he is talking about he would realize that it was already multiplied by .175... .17578125 to be precise.

(IMG:http://209.85.62.24/309/115/0/p271925/Idiot.png)

Edit to add - I have modified my copy to reflect the raw value, and have taken the first frames with the plane over Bison Kansas en route to Chicago as the following example.

(IMG:http://209.85.62.24/309/115/0/p271947/Raw_AoA_Over_Bison_Kansas.png)

And after the multiplication...

(IMG:http://209.85.62.24/309/115/0/p271953/Indicated_AoA.png)

[rob balsamo]

Sorry Rob, but this has to be said....

If that idiot had the faintest clue what he is talking about he would realize that it was already multiplied by .175... .17578125 to be precise.

No need to apologize JFK.

I already covered it here on the bottom of the post.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10781287

As i've said many times, the GL's do serve a purpose. The purpose is discrediting themselves. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

What I'm wondering is why Warren never corrected them and just let them continue with their BS, and instead Warren elected to throw 86 page pdfs at us, complex math equations, and bullshit correlations in information overload.

Hmmm....

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Ya know... Craig might not have the intense technical background and can come off as abrasive at times (hell, im abrasive to those who piss me off, i have no problem admitting that...),. But Craig is a pretty good judge of character. I actually used to defend Farmer against the claims made by Craig (albeit privately). I learned my lesson later on.


With that said, I thank you Warren for ordering our latest DVD and for your orders in the past. I hope it all arrived down-under safely.... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[JFK]

Yeah, well Craig and I have also gone head to head in the past...
( 84 Rades Data, topography, and flyover when I first began studying it )

What Warren is doing he is doing transparently and he is giving sources for his work and conclusions.

I admit I have not looked at that 86 page .PDF ( since I am heavily into several 1000+ page PDF's regarding C# at the moment ), but rather than pulling numbers out of his ass like the JERFs do, he has sourced where his numbers come from.

And when it comes to the FDR data, that is ALL we have.... Numbers.

[rob balsamo]

Fair enough.....and i agree. This is why i havent given Warren too much of a hard time up to this point. I certainly dont have the time nor the resources to check all his work.

But as you know, Warren reads both here and the cesspool regularly. He sources both for the lurkers. We let it stand.

I find it odd he spends more time trying to prove an impact here (which I now know is confirmed spin based on my personal experience) than correcting obvious blatant flaws at the cesspool.

Well, one thing is for sure, I clearly now know his bias based on incredulity. Craig was right, to an extent, to start this thread.

If Russell Pickering was ever right in anything, it is when he said, "The truth always comes out in the end, and it will be those left standing..." (paraphrased)

Hmmm.. where is Russell now?

[JFK]

Well, one thing is for sure, I clearly now know his bias based on incredulity.

You should have seen my bias when I first sat down and actually watched the video of the towers falling at LetsRoll some 3 years after the fact... ( gave up TV in the early 1990's in lieu of my Tandy HX-1000 and a bootleg copy of Turbo Pascal aquired/recovered from a virus infested 20 Mb hard drive I bought at a swap meet for $5.00. )

The first thing I did ( before even creating an account there ) was go to the major news networks sites in search of archives to prove that the videos Phil had put up were speeded up.

I failed, and if your suspicions about Warren's bias are correct, I believe he will also. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[rob balsamo]

..and if your suspicions about Warren's bias are correct, I believe he will also. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Ask yourself JFK....

Why hasnt Warren corrected the "-15.6 AOA" discussion going on at the cesspool for the past few days (based on the post times i've seen) and instead elected to throw complex math formulas, a 86 page pdf, and a totally bullshit correlation regarding groundspeed vs altitude... at us here?

When you answer that question to yourself, you will then know the answer regarding his bias.

[JFK]

From where I sit he appears to be concentrating on the pitot system rather than the AoA system at the moment.

It looks to me like he is trying to figure an unstandard way to gauge groundspeed, which would by it's nature require a complex equasion.

The groundspeed does however match the 84 RADES data fairly close though.
( which reminds me that I still need to plot the FDR data for that spiral for myself, like I did with the 84 RADES data. )

Edit to add - What is there to correct ?

The FDR data does say -15.6 after the multiplication...

Or if you are referring to Apathiciod's error, I don't know.

[rob balsamo]

From where I sit he appears to be concentrating on the pitot system rather than the AoA system at the moment.

This is known as focus and is based on bias.

For example, my focus and the focus of our organization is clearly spelled out in our mission statement and has been there since 2006. This is our "bias", our "objective", if you will.

It is further spelled out here... on a personal level.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots#Balsamo

Clearly the cesspool, based not only on precedent, is engaged in defamation and libel. They do this not only through anonymous internet UserID's, but also through BS which can be simply refuted (if there were such opposition allowed), strawmans, blatant lies.. the list goes on....

One sentence from Warren could end it, such as "Guy's, the AOA data shows negative and was already converted using the DFL formula's".

Instead Warren elected to post this as a follow up of his previous failed attempts at correlating data to form an impact hypothesis which he readily admits he cannot prove.

It is clear the bias and focus of Warren Stutt.

[JFK]

As clear as the various DFL's.

- respectfully.

[JFK]

In the meantime the old fucked up drunkard come along with :

(IMG:http://209.85.62.24/309/115/0/p272335/fuckwit.png)

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[wstutt]

Warren,

DCA weather values are not precise to the degree. I explained this to you above. Your initial input skews all the rest.

Fair enough. Presumably the wind direction is rounded to the nearest 10 degrees or in other words is +/-5°. In that case, when I use a wind direction of 330° - 5° = 325°, I get a true altitude of -22 feet. When I use a wind direction of 330° + 5° = 335°, I get a true altitude of 46 feet.

.... Also, if you are going to link an 86 page pdf, it might be nice to let readers know its a big pdf file before they click on it. Its just nice internet etiquette.

True. Sorry about that. I see a mod has added a note.

<Snip>

3 sets of independent data match. FMS, Airport and Pitot-Static. This is basic aeronautical knowledge and is why you dont see the Romper Room acting up over it, instead they are making fools of themselves over -15.6 AOA in which it appears the majority of them havent even looked at the parameter data in the files.. (I took a gander over at the cesspool tonight, what a mess...lol).

I've told them that you got that AoA value from my decode.

If you want to compare apples to apples further, try comparing envelopes and margins of error. Still, this would not be in your range for impact. Keep in mind, Airspeed errors are +/- 6 knots according to documents provided by apathoid. Altitude is +/-75 feet. Your correlation doesnt even start till you exceed those initial margins of error.

Those margins of error may not need to be exceeded. Do you know the margins of error for ground speed? If the ground speed errors are +/-6 knots like the airspeed errors, then subtracting 6 knots from the ground speed gives me a true altitude of -219 ft and adding 6 knots to the ground speed gives me a true altitude of 245 ft. Can you cite a reference showing that the ground speed is inertial and not reliant on pitot-static data?

It would also be nice if you would inform the Romper Room regarding the fact that the data presented in your decode and the NTSB csv file has already underwent the conversion from raw data to "engineering units" using the DFL formula's. It appears apathoid is the only one who actually looked at the data in the files, found out it is in fact showing -15.6 deg for a "level AOA", decided to once again use the DFL conversion on data which has already been converted, and still got it wrong as the product would be a negative value...lol. ....

<snip>

He was only trying to explain why the AoA values have such large negative values. I see he is now looking for an alternative explanation. I don't really know anything about AoA, although I see the typical lift coefficient graph on this Wikipedia page only goes down to -5° for a 0 lift coefficient. Do you have any better information on what AoA values we should expect?

Warren.

[wstutt]

Hi JFK,

Perhaps it is time to begin a new DFL sheet as well ?

Edit to add - Especially since the way they botched the numbering of the SuperFrames in word 256 in the 757-3b.txt file.

I notice that too (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Warren.

[wstutt]

<snip>

With that said, I thank you Warren for ordering our latest DVD and for your orders in the past. I hope it all arrived down-under safely.... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

They did thanks Rob.

Warren.

[wstutt]

From where I sit he appears to be concentrating on the pitot system rather than the AoA system at the moment.

This is known as focus and is based on bias.

No Rob, it is focus on the topic of this thread which concerns pressure altitude. The pressure altitude is calculated using the pitot system. I didn't see how AoA was relevant to the topic of this thread.

<snip>
Instead Warren elected to post this as a follow up of his previous failed attempts at correlating data to form an impact hypothesis which he readily admits he cannot prove.

<snip>

I said I couldn't see a way to prove the impact hypothesis here. It was only later that a thought of a way to calculate the true altitude without using the pitot-static data.

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Can you cite a reference showing that the ground speed is inertial and not reliant on pitot-static data?

Groundspeed is calculated by the FMS using all types of Nav data, not just inertial. In RO2, groundspeed is listed under the Nav parameters IIRC. The FMS uses many different sources for its calculations and navigation. VOR/VOR, VOR/DME, DME/DME, the list goes on depending on equipment. I have plenty of sources for this sitting on my shelves and in my flight bag. Feel free to search the web.

To attempt to correlate possible (again, not proven) "groundspeed" errors to pressure altitude is completely and utterly intellectually dishonest as i explained in past posts on this thread and again is the reason not even the Romper Room has jumped on it. But knock yourself out if thats what you need to do to sell the impact theory to yourself.

He was only trying to explain why the AoA values have such large negative values.

Wrong, he (and his cohorts) found an opportunity to write another post personally attacking me and it blew up in their face.

Do you have any better information on what AoA values we should expect?

Read this again Warren.

I dont care if the data shows -1000 degrees under AOA. Maybe thats the way they want it calibrated.. .who knows. We did explore this "mystery" early in our research years ago and one of our guys did come up with a good explanation, but i dont recall the reason. Its probably somewhere here on the forum. Feel free to search.

Again, bottom line.. In order to get a "fix" for "level AOA", all you have to do is correlate it with pitch and phase of flight as i did in the attached csv file in this post. Of course, first, one would actually have to look at the data, of which many from the cesspool didnt even bother and ended up putting their foot in their mouth.

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

Groundspeed is calculated by the FMS using all types of Nav data, not just inertial. In RO2, groundspeed is listed under the Nav parameters IIRC.

Yes that's correct, the parameter is named NAVgndspdcapt in ReadOut2.

<snip>

To attempt to correlate possible (again, not proven) "groundspeed" errors to pressure altitude is completely and utterly intellectually dishonest as i explained in past posts on this thread and again is the reason not even the Romper Room has jumped on it. But knock yourself out if thats what you need to do to sell the impact theory to yourself.

<snip>

How can it be intellectually dishonest when I have shown how I use the ground speed together with other data to calculate true altitude?

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

How can it be intellectually dishonest when I have shown how I use the ground speed together with other data to calculate true altitude?

Warren.

Warren, you are using data from a nav source to calculate a pitot-static data point of which the data points are all over the place.

Again, knock yourself out if thats what you need to do to sell the impact theory to yourself. But i wouldnt bring such an absurd extrapolation to any pilot as you'll just get laughed at.

Warren, again, the FMS, Airport and Pitot-Static data match. For the 100th time, these sources are independent of each other. This means the Pitot-Static system was operating flawlessly based on the data. You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole (no pun intended). It may make others think you have an agenda.

[rob balsamo]

With respect to +/-6 knots error allowed for TAS and +/- 75 feet for altitude. I missed this in your post...

Those margins of error may not need to be exceeded.

Yes they do Warren. What the above allowable margin of error tells us is that TAS can be +/-6 knots off and altitude be 'dead-on-balls' accurate. Or vice-versa.

The rest of your reply was speculation so i wont bother to address it.

Warren, i think the problem here is that you are confusing yourself due to the E6B calculator i provided (which i guess is partially my fault for providing it). Since groundspeed can be calculated using winds, TAS.. .etc, you're thinking it can be used to calculate errors in altitude.

But, this is not the case with the data. The groundspeed you are using was NOT calculated using TAS, winds.. etc. It was calculated by the FMS using Nav sources. You cannot equate or extrapolate data from a nav source into a pitot-static data point. This is kind of what i was trying to say when stating apples and oranges. Maybe it didnt come out so clear.

Also, i think i now recall the conversation regarding an explanation for AOA indicating negative for level.

Stall of an aircraft is based on angle of attack only. You can stall an aircraft at any speed, weight, CG.. .etc. The angle of attack at which a wing stalls remains constant. This is called the critical angle of attack. This might be the reason AOA is calibrated the way it is in the data.

For example, if this data was proven to come from a 757, the 757 has a specific AOA at which the wing stalls. I personally dont know what it is and dont really feel like looking it up, but lets say it's 16 degrees. The AOA in the data may be calibrated to where 0 AOA means aircraft stall. Now, this doesnt mean the data was calibrated to a 0 degree stall indication as i do see some instances where the AOA is 0 (mainly on departure where the slats and flaps would be out changing the critical angle of attack needed for stall), but this may explain why the AOA shows -15.6 (or thereabouts) for level AOA.

In other words, any AOA indication showing positive is a stalled or near stalled condition? Sounds plausible to me.

Read more here on stalls. I briefly skimmed it but it looks pretty accurate for a wiki entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_%28flight%29

[Craig Ranke CIT]

No Rob, it is focus on the topic of this thread which concerns pressure altitude. The pressure altitude is calculated using the pitot system. I didn't see how AoA was relevant to the topic of this thread.

Warren.

You are correct in that the thread started with a question regarding your position on what the data says for altitude.

But the true purpose of this thread should be clear and that is to determine if you are being forthright or disingenuous while playing both sides of the fence in this discussion.

You've made it perfectly clear that you are being disingenuous when it comes to the witnesses which doesn't set a very good precedent.

From what I can tell so far from Rob's responses you have followed suit with the data.

Sorry and perhaps you'll come around but as it stands this doesn't bode well for your credibility in my opinion.