Another Question For Warren Stutt, concerning altitude Options

[Jefferson]

Thankyou rob balsamo. Sorry I think I am not being clear.

I am needing the descent rates at the start and end of 0.3s period as well as altitude but never mind I will leave this now.

"Given altitude is recorded once per second, and that the FDR cannot be missing more than 0.5, 'best' case scenario (for the GL "impact" theory in this case)....

-99 PA (174 True) being hypothetically recorded 1.5 seconds west of the wall means based on speed it would need to descend almost 100-120 feet in roughly 0.3 seconds to hit pole 1, "

Is it 1.2 seconds from pole to wall based on speed?

[rob balsamo]

Thankyou rob balsamo. Sorry I think I am not being clear.

I am needing the descent rates at the start and end of 0.3s period as well as altitude but never mind I will leave this now.

"Given altitude is recorded once per second, and that the FDR cannot be missing more than 0.5, 'best' case scenario (for the GL "impact" theory in this case)....

-99 PA (174 True) being hypothetically recorded 1.5 seconds west of the wall means based on speed it would need to descend almost 100-120 feet in roughly 0.3 seconds to hit pole 1, "

Download For Warrens Data
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18239

Download Google Earth
http://earth.google.com/download-earth.html

Google Earth has a measure tool.

Feel free to help yourself. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Is it 1.2 seconds from pole to wall based on speed?

Yes.

[Jefferson]

"Yes. "

Thankyou rob balsamo, that was not mentioned in the post you linked and is where i got confused about where 0.3 seconds came from.

[wstutt]

Hi Jefferson,

<snip>

Can Warren Stutt give more accurate time than 0.3s? I mean can the data show how much was written over old data on last frame? I know that if possible then still not perfect.

<snip>

One thing I will say is that since the pressure altitude is recorded in words 29 and 30 and there are 243 words in the last subframe and subframes which are recorded one per second normally contain 256 words, that the last pressure altitude reading must be at least ((243 - 29) + 1) / 256 = 0.84 seconds before the end of the data.

Warren.

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

Have you read post #4078 by apathoid on the AA77 FDR Data, Explained thread on J.R.E.F?

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Hi Rob,

Have you read post #4078 by apathoid on the AA77 FDR Data, Explained thread on J.R.E.F?

Warren.

Hi Warren,

I skimmed through most of his posts as most of them are typical immature ad homs and personal attacks due to his frustration with the topic. The one that had any substance i addressed here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10780868

Have you asked apathoid to review it? Does he still think a 3500 fpm descent rate can have 4 times more lag than a 5000 fpm descent rate? Do you think so?

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

Hi Warren,

I skimmed through most of his posts as most of them are typical immature ad homs and personal attacks due to his frustration with the topic. The one that had any substance i addressed here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10780868

Have you asked apathoid to review it? Does he still think a 3500 fpm descent rate can have 4 times more lag than a 5000 fpm descent rate? Do you think so?

I have now made J.R.E.F. aware of your previous post that you linked to.

apathoid no longer thinks that proving lag is necessary.

As for the quote "...the ADC starts looking at AoA at Mach 0.55 and higher.... ". Did apathoid say that? if so, where did he say that?

Warren.

[JFK]

Here :

CODE

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread512723/pg96#pid7776956

and here :

CODE

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5239375&postcount=3873

Don't know why the link gets mangled.

Reason for edit: fix link

[rob balsamo]

Hi Warren,

He made the statement at ATS Forum under his other name "767Doctor". Just ask him, I'm sure he wont deny it.

I went over to check replies to your post above. None yet, but i see apathoid is attempting to throw more crap at the wall to see if it sticks in terms of differential pressure Pt vs Ps.

As usual, they are holding onto any possible "error" they can, to hold onto their impact theory, while not even knowing the indications should such "errors" exist. This is what happens when you have a typical part changer (which apathoid is) as compared to someone who not only needs to know the system, but also needs to understand how the system works, apply, and correlate the information. This is known as RUAC in the Instructor world. Crapathiod is stuck on the "R", which means Rote memory.

For instance, +/- 75 feet to them means, +75 feet only.

"Can cause damage", means it was damaged and this damage caused the altimeter to show too high... to them.

The language of "May cause damage" is used for everything over Vmo. See a typical Vg diagram. Note the red shaded section where structural failure MAY occur anytime above Max operating limits. They want their cake and be able to eat it too. They claim the Pitot-Static system is in error above Vmo. Since their "lag" argument blew up in their face, they are now trying to claim "error" is due to damage from a high differential pressure, which they interpret as showing too high for altitude, but disregard all other factors of flying above Vmo, Cp vs CG, Trim characteristics, possible flutter, the list goes on (see also typical Vg diagram above).

Now for a basic lesson of the system as its clear apathoid doesnt even realize his latest technobabble actually works against him once again. Once you have a better understanding of the system, you will understand apathoid, true to his moniker "crapatiod", is just trying to throw crap at the J.REF cesspool wall, as his minions lap it up.

Pt vs Ps differential pressure is based on differential at the airspeed indicator. Pt (Pitot) is RAM air entering the instrument, and yes, the airspeed indicator is the ONLY instrument which utilizes the Pt (Pitot) air (unlike what Tino would have you believe..lol). To understand this, see a typical airspeed indicator diagram. (the principle of the airspeed indicator is the same in every aircraft, whether they have an ADC or not).

(IMG:http://www.tpub.com/content/aviationmaintandmisc/TM-1-1500-204-23-4/img/TM-1-1500-204-23-4_56_0.jpg)

Note the Pitot connection (Pt) and the static connection (Ps). As the aircraft moves forward, the RAM air enters the Pitot tube and increases pressure in that diaphragm above. Sort of like blowing up a balloon (if you will). As that diaphragm expands due to increased Pt, the linkages, springs etc... interpret that to airspeed on the indicator dial which the pilot reads. Pressure increases, the pilot see's the airspeed increase. Pilot says, "Oh hey, we're moving forward!" (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But is he really moving forward? What if the pitot tube becomes clogged? Another lesson for another day.. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

(Side story - I departed on one flight and realized I had a clogged static port when i was Chief pilot and flying the King Air. The alternate static port was clogged as well. Departed KBED after a night of freezing rain. We were deiced, but the ports remained clogged. Not fun climbing out while your instruments are going haywire or stuck in place. But its easy to remedy if you can recognize the problem and know the system thoroughly. A full load of kids and Executives made it home and didnt even know the problem existed... Again.. another story for another day.)

Now, if you increase the pressure too much at Pt (RAM Air), thereby having a large differential in pressure, you could blow out that diaphragm. When this happens the springs will cause the diaphragm to "deflate", the airspeed will then read zero, and the RAM air will "leak" into the rest of the static lines, increasing the pressure in the static system, and could cause damage to other instruments. This is what crapathoids' documents mean when they say more than 10" can cause damage. (keyword = "can" cause damage, not "does" cause damage).

Question - If increased pressure is sensed in the static lines (ie: altimeter), due to Ram Pitot (Pt) air leaking from the Airspeed indicator, what will happen to the Altimeter?

Thats right, the altimeter will read artificially LOWER than actual (not higher as crapathoid would have you believe).

The limits set for BENCH testing have a margin of error as engineers know that techs who are sloppy in their work can and will damage the instruments. Crapathiod admits himself he has done this. For instance, we know, based on the data, the Pitot-Static system was operating normally, as if the difference in pressure was too great and damaged the diaphragm, we wouldnt even have an airspeed reading. It would be reading zero. If Pt air leaked into the static lines due to such damage, the altitude you are reading is LOWER than true altitude.

Also note Bench test limits for descent is 5,000 fpm. I had to call Capt Kolstad to make sure, but the IVSI on the 757 reads up to 6000 fpm, and when a rapid descent is needed whether by ATC or other, they regularly peg the IVSI. No damage done to instruments. I have performed descents to 10,000 fpm. Instruments were fine.

This is the difference of those who change parts for a living (crapathoid), and those who actually have to know the system because their ass depends on it. This is why pilots train on partial panel work for their instrument rating (what happens if the pitot tube is clogged? Static port clogged? Both? etc..). And then further learn the systems more thoroughly when they become an Instrument Instructor (as I am trained and trained others).

Dont get me wrong, there are many Avionics Techs out there who are excellent. We have quite a few who are in our organization. Crapthoid isnt worth his weight in salt and i'm surprised he still has a job at Delta after damaging an ADC/instruments due to his incompetence.

So, to sum up.

In order for those who blindly support the govt story to hold onto their theory, they must prove the PA was 120 feet in error, they must prove .70M-.72M is above Mcrit for the 757 and as such, the compressibility issues cause an artificially high PA reading, they must prove the "+/- error" is in their favor, they must prove the Pitot-Static system was "damaged" to their favor, and finally, they must prove the data came from N644AA.

So far they have done nothing but throw crap at the wall hoping it will stick. Most of it has bounced back into their face.

I also see Farmer is back on J.REF with a sock. Didnt he once say J.REF can "kiss my ass" and left with his tail between his legs?

Man, as i said before, that guy waffles more than an Eggo... too funny.

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

I think Tom's point of uncertainty in measurement is important here.

You have said that if the altimeter is incorrect by more than +/- 75 feet, then it is repaired or replaced as required by the FAA.

However, how often do pilots fly commercial airliners so fast that the OVERSPEED warning comes on? In both of the FDR files that the NTSB has told us are from AAL77 which contains 42+ hours of data and UAL93 which contains 106+ hours of data, I found only the final flights show OVERSPEED warnings.

Also, would maintenance engineers test altimeters under an OVERSPEED condition?

If an altimeter becomes incorrect by more than +/- 75 feet only when the aircraft is giving an OVERSPEED warning and nobody tests or uses the altimeter under these conditions, then how would anyone know that the altimeter needs to repaired or replaced?

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Warren,

Tom and his minions are now trying to claim that the pressure differential caused damage to the airspeed indicator and therefore caused the ADC to show an artificially high altitude reading.

Well, if you want to be certain regarding possible "damage" at such speeds, just look at the groundspeed and wind direction/speed parameters.

The groundspeed is within 1-2 knots of airspeed (due to an almost direct crosswind) and the wind data from the FMS is right in line with the METAR for DCA, which was reported 4 mins after the supposed "impact". DCA reports 330 at 10 knots. The FMS data reports 336.5 degrees at 12.5 knots. Groundspeed is calculated using Nav data, not pitot-static. Wind speed/direction is calculated by the FMS using headings, course, groundspeed and airspeed. Nav data and pitot-static data are within 1-2 knots!

Not too shabby for an airspeed indicator producing data that is operating at a pressure differential 2 inHG above its bench test limits where apathoid and Tom claim the indicator was "damaged" and therefore affected PA readings. They're all smoke and mirrors Warren. That's all apathoid and Tom are. This is why they will never put their name behind such absurd claims. If there was anything wrong with that static port or the airspeed indicator itself due to high pressure differential or excessive speed, the airspeed data would not be so close to Nav/DCA data, or as Tom put it.. "..end up with a permanent offset, reading way too high....". The airspeed data is within 1-2 knots and in some instances, dead on! It doesnt get any better than that!

Remember, the ADC doesnt even start to make adjustments to the data until Mach 0.55 according to apathoid. This is above Vmo at sea level. The ADC bases its calibrations on Mach number, not knots. Mackey claims compressibility "sets in" at Mcrit and MAY affect the static system at this point, and he is right! But, he is very wrong when implying Mcrit for the 757 is at .70-.72M.


The only reason Tom and his cohorts are attempting to use this latest "high pressure differential caused damage" excuse is because "lag", "compressibility" and all their other excuses fell flat on their face. And now their latest BS of "high pressure differential/damage" also has crashed and burned a fiery death. The airspeed indicator/data was working flawlessly, it wasnt damaged. If the airspeed indicator was flawless, the pitot-static system was working flawlessly. With the angle of attack in level flight, and a flawless operating pitot-static system, the ADC certainly didnt arbitrarily adjust the altitude artificially 120+ feet too high.

Bottom line, they have absolutely no proof the Pitot-Static system was damaged (matter of fact, it has been proven it was operating flawlessly when cross checked), absolutely zero proof that the PA was artificially 120+ feet too high, absolutely zero proof the data came from N644AA and therefore absolutely zero proof that the aircraft which recorded this data has a Vmo of 350 knots.

[dMz]

Off-topic meta-"chatter?" split here:

As The TomK Turns..., split from A Question for W. Stutt
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19325

because I haven't handed out a warning to a chronic verbally-abusive enema-receptacle for some time now... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/angry.gif)

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

<snip>

The groundspeed is within 1-2 knots of airspeed (due to an almost direct crosswind) and the wind data from the FMS is right in line with the METAR for DCA, which was reported 4 mins after the supposed "impact". DCA reports 330 at 10 knots. The FMS data reports 336.5 degrees at 12.5 knots. Groundspeed is calculated using Nav data, not pitot-static. Wind speed/direction is calculated by the FMS using headings, course, groundspeed and airspeed. Nav data and pitot-static data are within 1-2 knots!

I calculated air speeds from the wind speeds and ground speeds but they did not match with the TRUE AIRSPEED values from the FDR file.

I used the formula V_t = V_g - V_w where:
V_t is the true airspeed vector (supposedly with magnitude of TRUE AIRSPEED),
V_g is the ground speed vector with magnitude of GROUNDSPEED CAPT and direction of TRACK ANGLE TRUE and
V_w is the wind speed vector with magnitude of WIND SPEED and direction of WIND DIRECTION TRUE.

Do you think I am using the correct FDR parameters and formula?

<snip>

Bottom line, they have absolutely no proof the Pitot-Static system was damaged (matter of fact, it has been proven it was operating flawlessly when cross checked), absolutely zero proof that the PA was artificially 120+ feet too high, absolutely zero proof the data came from N644AA and therefore absolutely zero proof that the aircraft which recorded this data has a Vmo of 350 knots.

The OVERSPEED indication in the FDR file corresponds with the COMPUTED AIRSPEED being over 350 knots so wouldn't that suggest that the FDR file is from an aircraft with a V_mo of 350 knots?

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Warren,


Not sure what you did with your calculations, but i double checked the data with this. They match.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/e6bcalc.html

Edit to add: Looks like you are missing Heading. You need heading to get your wind correction angle from True course (Track Angle True). You need to adjust Mag heading to True Heading as i didnt see any parameter for True Heading.

Groundspeed is within 1-2 knots of Airspeed. In your data, it is dead on for the last data point. 483 knots with a wind speed of 10.5 knots. You dont have wind direction decoded, but the NTSB data shows 336.8 degrees. DCA reports 330 at 10 knots. Airport wind reports are always in terms of 10's of degrees. 330, 340, 350.. .etc.

Groundspeed is calculated independent of airspeed.

Furthermore, the FMS onboard the aircraft calculates the winds exactly as did Regan National Airport.

Wind direction and speed is calculated by the FMS using course, heading, groundspeed and airspeed (as you will see in the above calculator).

3 independent sources match, this means the pitot-static system was working flawlessly.

As for overspeed. You are correct. However, this still doesnt prove the data is from N644AA. Nor does it prove the data was erroneous or "at an offset, reading way too high". Finally, to blindy trust any of the data is absurd. You may feel differently. We want answers for all lthe conflicts. Others are attempting "Nothing to see here folks, move along".

In other words, if there was a problem with the pitot-static system, you would not have 3 independent sets of data within 1-2 knots of speed, nor wind direction/speed matching with an Airport report.

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

Warren,


Not sure what you did with your calculations, but i double checked the data with this. They match.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/e6bcalc.html

Edit to add: Looks like you are missing Heading. You need heading to get your wind correction angle from True course (Track Angle True). You need to adjust Mag heading to True Heading as i didnt see any parameter for True Heading.

Groundspeed is within 1-2 knots of Airspeed. In your data, it is dead on for the last data point. 483 knots with a wind speed of 10.5 knots. You dont have wind direction decoded, but the NTSB data shows 336.8 degrees. DCA reports 330 at 10 knots. Airport wind reports are always in terms of 10's of degrees. 330, 340, 350.. .etc.

Groundspeed is calculated independent of airspeed.

Furthermore, the FMS onboard the aircraft calculates the winds exactly as did Regan National Airport.

Wind direction and speed is calculated by the FMS using course, heading, groundspeed and airspeed (as you will see in the above calculator).

3 independent sources match, this means the pitot-static system was working flawlessly.

I found that I was treating the wind direction as the the direction it is blowing to rather than from.

I have added WIND DIRECTION TRUE and TRUE HEADING CAPT to my decode (version 1.6)

The last values I have are:
TRUE AIRSPEED (KT) = 488
TRUE HEADING CAPT (DEG) = 61.2
WIND SPEED (KNOTS) = 10.5
WIND DIRECTION TRUE (DEG) = 334.3
GROUNDSPEED CAPT (KNOTS) = 483
TRACK ANGLE TRUE (DEG) = 61.5

If I enter these TRUE AIRSPEED (KT), TRUE HEADING CAPT (DEG), GROUNDSPEED CAPT (KNOTS) and TRACK ANGLE TRUE (DEG) values in to the "Wind Speed" and "Wind Direction" sections of the calculator page you linked to (I'm presuming TRACK ANGLE TRUE (DEG) is Course) then I get a calculated wind speed and wind direction of 6 and 34 respectively instead of 10.5 and 334.3 recorded in the FDR file respectively.

If I enter these TRUE AIRSPEED, TRUE HEADING CAPT, WIND SPEED (KNOTS) and WIND DIRECTION TRUE (DEG) values in to the "Course, Ground Speed, And Wind Correction Angle" section of the calculator page you linked to, I get a ground speed of 488 knots rather than the 483 knots recorded in the FDR file.

As for overspeed. You are correct. However, this still doesnt prove the data is from N644AA. Nor does it prove the data was erroneous or "at an offset, reading way too high". Finally, to blindy trust any of the data is absurd. You may feel differently. We want answers for all lthe conflicts. Others are attempting "Nothing to see here folks, move along".

In other words, if there was a problem with the pitot-static system, you would not have 3 independent sets of data within 1-2 knots of speed, nor wind direction/speed matching with an Airport report.

I agree that the overspeed does not prove the data is from N644AA, nor does overspeed prove the data is erroneous. I am only looking to see whether the data could have come from a plane crashing in to the Pentagon.

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Warren, since the numbers are so close for True Heading and Course, True Airspeed, Computed Airspeed and groundspeed, and the fact they arent recorded at exactly the same time and there was a direct crosswind which was relatively light with an aircraft at high speed, this throws off the calculator above. Try using Computed airspeed instead of True and adjust Mag heading with variation. You'll see.

I expect the FMS on the aircraft and the airport instruments to be a lot more accurate than an online calculator using recorded parameters that were recorded at different times in a subframe. The FMS calculates the parameter nearly instant using all other data at that moment in time, and then its recorded. Then it moves onto the next parameter. Changes happen in fractions of a second on an aircraft. You can see this when comparing True Heading to Mag heading when adjusted for 9E variation, they dont exactly match and in some instances are more than 1 degree off, this is due to the different polling and record timing and of course the aircraft is moving during that time, and again, throws off the calculator you're using, especially when its almost a direct crosswind.

The bottom line, 3 independent data sets match. Airport, FMS and Pitot-Static. This means the pitot-static system was operating flawlessly.

[rob balsamo]

Here Warren,

This might lift some of the confusion.

Put these into "Heading, Ground Speed, And Wind Correction Angle"

Wind Speed - 10.5
Wind Direction - 334.3
True Airspeed - 488
Course - 61.5

This will give you a more accurate picture of what the Heading and groundspeed was at that moment in time when the FMS calculated the above.

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

Where did you get the temperature and pressure for the true altitude adjustment in this post?

Thanks,
Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Hi Rob,

Where did you get the temperature and pressure for the true altitude adjustment in this post?

Thanks,
Warren.

METAR KDCA 111251Z 35005KT 10SM CLR 21/14 A3021
SPECI KDCA 111341Z 33010KT 10SM CLR 23/14 A3022
METAR KDCA 111351Z 34009KT 10SM CLR 23/14 A3023
METAR KDCA 111451Z 32008KT 4SM HZ CLR 24/14 A3022
METAR KDCA 111551Z 33009G15KT 7SM CLR 26/14 A3021

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

Here Warren,

This might lift some of the confusion.

Put these into "Heading, Ground Speed, And Wind Correction Angle"

Wind Speed - 10.5
Wind Direction - 334.3
True Airspeed - 488
Course - 61.5

This will give you a more accurate picture of what the Heading and groundspeed was at that moment in time when the FMS calculated the above.

Thanks for the altimeter and weather data you posted.

When I put in the above numbers, I get a figure of 487 versus 483 for the ground speed in the FDR file which is a difference of 0.82%

I agree with what you said above that since the parameters are recorded in different places in the subframe, that that could make a difference, so I did a straight line interpolation on each of the last values with the second to last values to estimate the values as they would have been at the start of the last subframe. This gave me:

Wind Speed - 10.8
Wind Direction - 330.5
True Airspeed - 484.7
Course - 61.5
Ground Speed in FDR file - 481.2

When I put in the above numbers, I get a figure of 485 for the ground speed which is a difference of 0.78% and a slight improvement on 0.82%

Now, 0.78% may sound like only a small difference, however, consider this:

Take the altimeter setting of 30.22 inHg and reduce it by 0.78%. I get 29.98 inHg. Now if I use the altimeter correction calculator to correct the last pressure altitude value of -99 feet at 29.92 inHg and correct it to 29.98 inHg instead of 30.22 inHg, I get a corrected altitude of -47 feet.
(IMG:http://www.warrenstutt.com/General%20Images/Altimeter%20Correction.jpg)

Now, I am not saying that the ground speed differences above prove that the error in the altimeter reading was as great as this or that it was in this direction. However, I think this does demonstrate how sensitive the altimeter reading is to small errors in static pressure.

At this point, it appears feasible to me that since the aircraft was overspeed, that the static pressure could have had small errors that would be larger than when the aircraft is flying at normal speeds. However I don't see a way of proving that this was the case.

Warren.