Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking Fdr Data To American 77, FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact Rating Options

[wstutt]

Rob,

<snip>

I find it odd that the A/C Number and Fleet ID were able to be decoded by a Generic data frame layout (albeit with "unsigned integers"... which doesnt really mean anything at this point, nor have you shown where they are linked to N644AA), but not by the Custom Data Frame Layout made by American Airlines for their 757 Fleet, combined with the claim you make that it's in the wrong spot of the data (that is, if you're correct...).

Remember what Dennis Cimino said:

[I]t just all comes down to two data fields being zeroed out. no tickee, no laundry. without those, there can... never be any linkage of the FDR to an 'N' number in the F.A.A. registry. not because the 'N' number is in the AC ID field, but the AC ID FIELD number is directly traceable to an N-Number in the F.A.A. registry, and the FLEET ID shows which carrier it went to.

The A/C Number and Fleet ID are both non zero. An unsigned integer is a type of number. He mentioned "AC ID FIELD number". That's what I found.

You are now asking me, someone who is not in the aviation industry, to link the A/C Number and Fleet IDs to a particular aircraft. Couldn't one of the aviation professionals of your organisation, some of whom work for American Airlines do this? Imagine how much of a boost it would be to your cause if you could show that the A/C Number and Fleet ID were not actually the ones for N644AA.

Dont you find this odd? Or do you still feel the Custom Data Frame layout is "flawed" for the American Airlines fleet and cannot be used by anyone, including American Airlines.

These are both due to the superframe cycle numbers being incorrect in the American Airlines custom data frame layout.

Also, regardless of tracking capability, RA does not guarantee your distance from the ground. This has been explained numerous times in this thread.

What about when the aircraft is over the runway? Is RA the distance above the ground then?

This is why you are seeing an "altitude divergence".

More on this later.

The Low-Range Radio Altimeter is not meant for high speed Terrain Following and does not have the speed of such a processor, nor is it forward looking. It is meant for low speed landings in zero visibility to assist with the flare. That is it.

Then how does the ground proximity warning work?

<snip>

Finally, why do you continue to avoid our questions and requests? You expect everyone to answer your questions, but you avoid all questions asked of you. Why is that Warren?

I've now answered many of them here

<snip>

Can you also walk us through this equation using the last Pressure Altitude data point?

Static pressure (in Hg) = 29.9213 * (1 – 0.0019812 * A / (273.15 + 15)) ^ (32.174 / (0.0019812 * 3089.8))
where A = raw altitude (ft).
True Altitude (ft) = ((273.15 + T) / 0.0019812) * (1 – (P / S) ^ (0.0019812 * 3089.8 / 32.174))
where T = temperature at sea level (deg C); P = static pressure (in Hg); S = altimeter setting (in Hg).


Why have you not provided output files for the previous flights listed in your paper? Are laymen supposed to just take your word for it?

<snip>

More soon.

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Do you think those parameters could be recorded once every 64 seconds (0.015625Hz) rather than once every 4 seconds (0.25Hz)?

Not according to American Airlines.

Show me where in the code that my decoder program adds the extra data that I supposedly made up.

So, in other words, Legge, Ryan nor Jones have verified your data, but published it in their "peer-reviewed" Journal. Not surprised. Not to mention the fact that the parameter you are using is listed as "Not Working or Unconfirmed" by the NTSB. Perhaps they listed it as such because it was flying so far outside it's tracking capability that any data retrieved from it is garbage? Ya think?

The FAR reference is trivial. More soon.

Warren.

Then why is it in your "Scientific" paper?

So, in other words, you havent found your errors regarding the FAR.

Your whole paper is based on an FAR you referenced for Altimeter errors. You quoted the FAR for a Cessna 172, combined with the FAR at Wiki is quoted wrong. It is not for the "operational speed range" of the aircraft.

Once you learn the correct FAR, combined with an Air Data Computer, you'll realize your whole paper is garbage.


Warren, still waiting for you to answer our questions. Why do you keep avoiding therm?

When are you going to provide the other FDR files which you claim are also missing AC ID and Fleet ID so they can be cross-checked? Can you please tell us which flights they are alleged to have came from?

Have you figured out yet that you have used the wrong FAR as the whole premise for your "paper"? Combined with the fact that the wiki source you provided has the FAR quoted incorrectly? (this one you partially answered... but still got wrong)

Can you also walk us through this equation using the last Pressure Altitude data point?

Static pressure (in Hg) = 29.9213 * (1 – 0.0019812 * A / (273.15 + 15)) ^ (32.174 / (0.0019812 * 3089.8))
where A = raw altitude (ft).
True Altitude (ft) = ((273.15 + T) / 0.0019812) * (1 – (P / S) ^ (0.0019812 * 3089.8 / 32.174))
where T = temperature at sea level (deg C); P = static pressure (in Hg); S = altimeter setting (in Hg).


Why have you not provided output files for the previous flights listed in your paper? Are laymen supposed to just take your word for it?

[rob balsamo]

More on this later.



More soon.

Warren.

What a joke.


Yes Warren, please remember what Dennis said....

I now have to define your entire 'work product' as utter and total BULLSHIT. You had about 4 days to come up with a better bullshit 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,

Let us know when you correct your error regarding the FAR that you used for your whole foundation of your paper but now think is "trivial", and then we'll move onto your other gross errors.

[SwingDangler]

Any chance of posting the other FDR files these memebrs are asking for?

It is 12:00 EST. and I noticed your logged in and reading this topic. Good! I/we await the questions to more of your answers.

Thanks!

This post has been edited by SwingDangler: Jan 25 2011, 01:19 PM

[SwingDangler]

Lots of good stuff so far in this thread.

Not only does it appear that there is no evidence
linking the FDR data to American 77, but i havent seen any
evidence linking ANY part to American 77. Think about that.
ALL major parts on an aircraft have Serial numbers that are permanently
logged to that aircraft's tail number. Every Computer, Instrument, Wheel, Brake,
Landing Gear, Seat, Pump, Valve, Manifold, Engine, Gearbox, Starter, Accumulator, Oxygen Bottle,
Life Vest, Oven, Fridge, Antenna, Radio ....etc, all have Serial Numbers permanently logged in the
planes' history to match that part to that tail number. As far as i know, there hasnt been 1 part
that has been serial number matched to any of the 4 planes that day. NOT ONE.
Which is difficult to understand, because it would not be that hard to fabricate a few data
tags to support an operation like that. And it DAMN sure wouldnt be hard to find 1 serial
number tag to positively identify the plane at the Pentagon.

But hey, they found an unscathed passport laying on the street at the WTC.................case closed.

According to Phd. Frank Legge, they did all that to cause a rift in the truth movement 10 years later. LOL!

[Pier69]

Rob, no one of your links answer the question.

I really do not care about RA altitude limits nor FAR errors in the paper.

BTW, no problem. Dont want you waste your time....mine too. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Thanks for your patience

Pier.

This post has been edited by Pier69: Jan 25 2011, 02:11 PM

[rob balsamo]

Rob, no one of your links answer the question.

Which links? Which question in particular are you confused about?

I really do not care about RA altitude limits nor FAR errors in the paper.

You should if you want to understand the argument, especially when they are using an FAR to corroborate their claims of "Altimeter Error". Of which, is completely wrong. If they understood why it was wrong, and understood the actual speed range and aircraft configuration specified in the actual FAR, and the capabilities of the aircraft for which is referenced, they would understand why their paper is garbage.

How could a paper quote an FAR written for a static system in an aircraft such as a Cessna 172, trying to equate it to a 757 with an Air Data Computer, while claiming the paper is "peer-reviewed"?

I'll tell you why, it is because it was not peer-reviewed (or if it was, it was done by a pilot who has never opened an FAR/AIM). These are the types of elementary mistakes Legge makes in all his papers. When you add them up, you find Legge doesnt have a clue of what he is talking about.

BTW, no problem. Dont want you waste your time....mine too. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I'm making posts in between working on our next project. There is plenty of time to correct the misinformation (and now confirmed disinformation) being spread by Legge.

Thanks for your patience

Pier.

Anytime my friend.

[Pier69]

Which links? Which question in particular are you confused about?

I'm not confused Rob. No one of your links answer my question about LRRA limits (on speed/velocity/tracking capability).

Forget about Legge paper, Wstutt decoding etc.

I repeat myself...Why I can't use Radio Height to understand where the plane was above the ground? What's the real problem?

If the Radio Height were validable, could you explain me a correct procedure to cross RA data with TA? If RH argument is a total BS can you explain me why?

And yes...maybe I'm retarded...maybe not. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Pier

[rob balsamo]

I'm not confused Rob. No one of your links answer my question about LRRA limits (on speed/velocity/tracking capability).

Here, this one may help.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793650

I repeat myself...Why I can't use Radio Height to understand where the plane was above the ground? What's the real problem?

RA doesn't measure from the ground. It measures from any object you are flying over. A tree-line, buildings.. .etc. If you are flying over a path of buildings and other objects of varying heights (for example, along Columbia pike), well outside the capabilities of the processor, how can you possibly expect an accurate reading for True Altitude? You cant. This is why RA is not required for instrument flight, nor it is required for Instrument Approaches, Non-Precision, Precision Cat I and Cat II ILS. All callouts reference the primary altimeter down to Decision Height, within 100 feet of the ground, and it is required.

Again, if Legge and Stutt were correct, that the Primary Altimeter were 80-120' in error, pilots would be thinking they were at the Decision Height on a foggy night approach, while slamming into the runway.

If the Radio Height were validable, could you explain me a correct procedure to cross RA data with TA? If RH argument is a total BS can you explain me why?

You cant, unless you know the exact position of the aircraft, and the exact height from the object which it is measuring. You cant even really get an accurate correlation above the runway as once the aircraft is in the flare, then no doubt the static system will show an error. This is why RA is used for autoland in the flare.

This is based on Angle of Attack. This is why Legge gets so many things wrong in his analysis. He doesnt understand AoA. He uses 10th grade math and physics, not aerodynamics. This is why Legge thinks my calculations are wrong. This has all been explained to Legge as well, but apparently it goes in one ear, and out the other.

You also cant correlate RA with PA in the FDR file to determine a True Altitude as they are both recorded at different times within the frame as well.

And yes...maybe I'm retarded...maybe not. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Pier

You're not "retarded," my friend. Thanks for asking the questions actually as other readers who may be laymen will have a better understanding as well.

As i used to tell all my students (and my flight instructor used to tell me).. there is no such thing as a stupid question in aviation. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I also wanted to clear up something else.

Yes RA is used for Ground Proximity Warnings. But this again doesnt mean it is measuring from the "Ground". It can be buildings or a tree-line, of which, you do not want to hit either.

There can be false warnings as well, or no warning at all. (eg, flying over level terrain directly into a tall building or hill with steep incline, you'll never get a GPWS warning.)

The GPWS measures change in rate. If the rate is too great, it will tell you to pull up.

Another example, almost every approach I've done at CRW Runway 23 we get a false GPWS warning. If we followed such a warning, we would never make the runway.

(IMG:http://i52.tinypic.com/msor2b.jpg)

(IMG:http://i52.tinypic.com/2dqvkv7.jpg)

If you referenced the RA only during the above approach (as Legge and alleged "Avionics Tech" Bursill claim RA is "much more accurate below 2500 AGL and no one checks the [Primary] Altimeter near the ground"...), you would be a smoking hole on the side of one of those hills.

Hope this helps.

[wstutt]

Rob,

<snip>

Warren, still waiting for you to answer our questions. Why do you keep avoiding therm?

I have now answered your questions here, here, here, here and here.

When are you going to provide the other FDR files which you claim are also missing AC ID and Fleet ID so they can be cross-checked?

What would providing the other FDR files prove? If you fail to find the AC IDs and Fleet IDs, what's to stop you claiming that I removed them? You already think I fabricated the last 4 seconds of data for AAL77:

<snip>

My opinion?

I think I could have fabricated 4 seconds of data in less time than it took Warren, using Microsoft Flight Simulator or Xplane. (both output .fdr files)

Can you please tell us which flights they are alleged to have came from?

<snip>

I wasn't told which flights they were from or even which airline. It wasn't necessary for me to know that to help my source decompress the files.

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Rob,

I have now answered your questions here, here, here, here and here.

None of the above answered my questions.

Here they are again, with a few more.

Have you figured out yet that you have used the wrong FAR as the whole premise for your "paper"? Combined with the fact that the wiki source you provided has the FAR quoted incorrectly? (this one you partially answered... but still got wrong). If the FAR is so "trivial" why is it in your "Scientific" paper attempting to support your claims of "Altimeter errors"? If the paper was "peer-reviewed", why was this not flagged as the incorrect FAR? Do you intend to correct it?

Can you also walk us through this equation using the last Pressure Altitude data point?

Static pressure (in Hg) = 29.9213 * (1 – 0.0019812 * A / (273.15 + 15)) ^ (32.174 / (0.0019812 * 3089.8))
where A = raw altitude (ft).
True Altitude (ft) = ((273.15 + T) / 0.0019812) * (1 – (P / S) ^ (0.0019812 * 3089.8 / 32.174))
where T = temperature at sea level (deg C); P = static pressure (in Hg); S = altimeter setting (in Hg).


Why have you not provided output files for the previous flights listed in your paper? Are laymen supposed to just take your word for it?

What would providing the other FDR files prove? If you fail to find the AC IDs and Fleet IDs, what's to stop you claiming that I removed them?

So in other words, you made a claim you refuse to back up. Are you now saying that such data does not exist anywhere in your other FDR files? If so, why is Legge claiming they are "authentic"? (see below).

You already think I fabricated the last 4 seconds of data for AAL77:

Wrong. Read it again. I said I could have fabricated the data faster than the time it took you [for your "decode"].

Better?

I wasn't told which flights they were from or even which airline. It wasn't necessary for me to know that to help my source decompress the files.

Warren.

Then why is Legge claiming they are "authentic" in his "rebuttal" piece?

How can he claim them as "authentic" when you dont even know which flight they are from?

Let me guess, Legge lied. Big surprise.

[wstutt]

<snip>

You also cant correlate RA with PA in the FDR file to determine a True Altitude as they are both recorded at different times within the frame as well.

I had already thought of the fact that they are recorded at different times in the subframe and decided that the effect was negligible. Here's why:

The RA is recorded in words 31 and 32. The PA is recorded in words 29 and 30. At 256 words per second that means they are recorded less than 8 milliseconds apart. The aircraft would be unlikely to change altitude by more than about a foot in that time which is the resolution of the altitudes.

<snip>

I also wanted to clear up something else.

Yes RA is used for Ground Proximity Warnings. But this again doesn't mean it is measuring from the "Ground". It can be buildings or a tree-line, of which, you do not want to hit either.

<snip>

OK, so since RA is supposedly limited to 200 knots, the Ground Proximity Warning would not work if the aircraft is flying faster than 200 knots? Doesn't it need to work at whatever speed the aircraft is flying at so that the pilot is warned that he is dangerously close to the ground?

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

I had already thought of the fact that they are recorded at different times in the subframe and decided that the effect was negligible. Here's why:

The RA is recorded in words 31 and 32. The PA is recorded in words 29 and 30. At 256 words per second that means they are recorded less than 8 milliseconds apart. The aircraft would be unlikely to change altitude by more than about a foot in that time which is the resolution of the altitudes.

How long does it take for an RA to measure from the top of a roof, to the bottom of the ground, when passing over the edge of a building?

I'll give you a hint, the speed of light. However the accuracy/correlation becomes even worse, when the RA is flying more than 2x outside it's tracking capability.

It makes a HUGE difference.

You cannot possibly determine a True altitude from RA when the aircraft is flying well outside the RA tracking capability and over rolling terrain with multiple objects of varying heights.

OK, so since RA is supposedly limited to 200 knots, the Ground Proximity Warning would not work if the aircraft is flying faster than 200 knots? Doesn't it need to work at whatever speed the aircraft is flying at so that the pilot is warned that he is dangerously close to the ground?

Of course it will "work", this of course doesnt mean it is accurate (see my false warning example above into CRW). It measures rate changes. It also gives many false warnings. It gives so many false warnings that it has caused accidents when it was an accurate warning, but the crew thought it to be false. The American Airlines 757 which flew into a Mountain in Columbia had the GPWS screaming at the crew. They ignored it because they thought it to be a false warning. It's actually a very sad CVR to listen to. We listened to it once in recurrent training.

As a side note, some feel that the 757 in the above crash are the parts which were planted at the Pentagon. They were both a 757-223.

Again Warren, if an aircraft flew over the Pentagon, the data you decoded is exactly what one would expect to see. A Higher True Altitude with a RA bouncing off the roof and the GPWS alerting the crew.

[tumetuestumefais...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_965
Four passengers survived the crash, all of whom were seated in the same row.
Scavengers took engine thrust reversers, cockpit avionics, and other components from the crashed 757. The scavengers used Colombian military and private helicopters to go to and from the crash site. Many of the stolen parts re-appeared on the black market in Miami parts brokers.
(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) * Crews found a small brown dog alive, inside a carrier in the cargo hold.[21] The dog was adopted by the Red Cross team in Cali, Colombia, for a few weeks (they re-named him "Milagro", which is Spanish for "miracle"), then an American Airlines employee who had worked the crash recovery in Cali adopted the dog and brought it to the United States.[22]

The U.S. encountered difficulty while trying to distinguish Americans from non-Americans, as many passengers held dual citizenships.

N651AA - 757-223 - ser. No. 24609
N644AA - 757-223 - ser. No. 24602

N651AA - FAA N-record

Name SALE REPORTED
when?
Street 4333 AMON CARTER BLVD
City FORT WORTH State TEXAS Zip Code 76155-2605
County TARRANT
Country UNITED STATES
which is AMR Eagle Holding Corporation in Fort Worth, TX | 4333 Amon Carter
http://maps.google.cz/maps?hl=cs&q=433...brcurrent=5,0,0
"American Airlines couldn't spread its wings as far as it does without sister company AMR Eagle Holding. A fellow subsidiary of AMR Corp."
So the AA sold to its subsidiary a 757, previously crashed into mountain, nice.
or vice versa?
"AMR Corporation, parent company to American Airlines"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Arpey

No engines registered

Aircraft Type Number Subsidiary
Boeing 757-200 124 American Airlines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMR_Corporation

http://www.enotes.com/topic/AMR_Corporation owns AMR Eagle Holding Corporation
Key people Gerard J. Arpey (CEO)
(Chairman) & (President)
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Gerard_Arpey#Career
"September 11, 2001
Arpey was Executive Vice President of Operations at the time of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in which American Airlines lost two planes. Arpey made the decision to put a ground stop to all American Airlines flights in the Northeast and then nationwide before the FAA"

all AA flights, all AA flights (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/idea.gif) ...he forget to hit the button for the two? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) Or was he calling the all 100+ 757 + x other planes?

[onesliceshort]

Very interesting post Tume.

[aerohead]

How could a paper quote an FAR written for a static system in an aircraft such as a Cessna 172, trying to equate it to a 757 with an Air Data Computer, while claiming the paper is "peer-reviewed"?

I'll tell you why, it is because it was not peer-reviewed (or if it was, it was done by a pilot who has never opened an FAR/AIM). These are the types of elementary mistakes Legge makes in all his papers. When you add them up, you find Legge doesnt have a clue of what he is talking about.

Umm Ya, if i remember correctly, a 172's static ports are piped directly to its respective altimeter,
and a 757's static ports are piped to the Air Data Computer, which then feeds the Primary's the
info electronically, thus the term "electric altimeter". Huge difference in configuration.
And the RA's on 77 would be "pinging" off of the road, building's, sloped hills etc...... giving
you unreliable information of what your true height above the ground really is. It would be all over the place.
Especially at the speed it was supposedly traveling.

[rob balsamo]

Umm Ya, if i remember correctly, a 172's static ports are piped directly to its respective altimeter,
and a 757's static ports are piped to the Air Data Computer, which then feeds the Primary's the
info electronically, thus the term "electric altimeter". Huge difference in configuration.
And the RA's on 77 would be "pinging" off of the road, building's, sloped hills etc...... giving
you unreliable information of what your true height above the ground really is. It would be all over the place.
Especially at the speed it was supposedly traveling.

Exactly...

It's so refreshing to have a real avionics tech on our roster.

[onesliceshort]

OK, so since RA is supposedly limited to 200 knots, the Ground Proximity Warning would not work if the aircraft is flying faster than 200 knots? Doesn't it need to work at whatever speed the aircraft is flying at so that the pilot is warned that he is dangerously close to the ground?

Warren.

If I'm understanding the limitations correctly, the RA is limited to 200 knots at low altitude.
The pilot usually comes in for landing at that sort of speed, not 540mph - well above the VMO at that altitude.

I just don't see the scenario where a pilot could physically "accidentally" find himself at such a low altitude at cruise speed without the instruments warning him well in advance. Maybe the manufacturers hadn't anticipated "9/11 physics" turning the laws of nature and aerodynamics on its head Warren?

[wstutt]

None of the above answered my questions.

Here they are again, with a few more.

Have you figured out yet that you have used the wrong FAR as the whole premise for your "paper"? Combined with the fact that the wiki source you provided has the FAR quoted incorrectly? (this one you partially answered... but still got wrong). If the FAR is so "trivial" why is it in your "Scientific" paper attempting to support your claims of "Altimeter errors"? If the paper was "peer-reviewed", why was this not flagged as the incorrect FAR? Do you intend to correct it?

I don't know whether we will correct it. Both Frank and I regard the FAR reference as trivial. Perhaps we'll just remove it.

Can you also walk us through this equation using the last Pressure Altitude data point?

Static pressure (in Hg) = 29.9213 * (1 – 0.0019812 * A / (273.15 + 15)) ^ (32.174 / (0.0019812 * 3089.8))
where A = raw altitude (ft).
True Altitude (ft) = ((273.15 + T) / 0.0019812) * (1 – (P / S) ^ (0.0019812 * 3089.8 / 32.174))
where T = temperature at sea level (deg C); P = static pressure (in Hg); S = altimeter setting (in Hg).

Substituting A = -99 ft in to the first formula gives
P = 29.9213 * (1 - 0.0019812 * (-99) / (273.15 + 15)) ^ (32.174 / (0.0019812 * 3089.8)) = 30.0285 inHg
Substituting T = 22.91 deg C, S = 30.2194 inHg and P in to the second formula gives
True Altitude = ((273.15 + (22.91)) / 0.0019812) * (1 - ((30.0285) / (30.2194)) ^ (0.0019812 * 3089.8 / 32.174)) = 180 ft

<snip>

Then why is Legge claiming they are "authentic" in his "rebuttal" piece?

How can he claim them as "authentic" when you dont even know which flight they are from?

Let me guess, Legge lied. Big surprise.

Perhaps you should ask him.

Since I don't know which flights the FDR files are from, then according to you, I can't show that they are authentic, so there's no point me releasing them is there?

Warren.

[wstutt]

If I'm understanding the limitations correctly, the RA is limited to 200 knots at low altitude.
The pilot usually comes in for landing at that sort of speed, not 540mph - well above the VMO at that altitude.

I just don't see the scenario where a pilot could physically "accidentally" find himself at such a low altitude at cruise speed without the instruments warning him well in advance. Maybe the manufacturers hadn't anticipated "9/11 physics" turning the laws of nature and aerodynamics on its head Warren?

OSS,

I don't know what you're asking me here.

According to the FDR file, the overspeed warning came on when the computed airspeed was 355.5 knots. 7 seconds later, the ground proximity warning and pull up warnings both came on when the radio height was 1500 feet.

Warren.