IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking Fdr Data To American 77, FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact

Rating 5 V
 
onesliceshort
post Jan 21 2011, 11:35 AM
Post #21



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
[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.

[T]hose missing, that [data] could come from anywhere...


[N]obody flies boxes with that data zero'ed out or missing. without this data in the CPM [Crash Protected Memory], in the preamble, there can be no linkage to an aircraft N-Number.

I saw that on the first look.... the test person who extracted that data should have seen the NO ACFT ID and NO FLEET ID and said; "oh, this is such bullshit" and then asked his supervisor why they were asking him to decode BULLSHIT.


Guys, what are "tickee" and "laundry"?

I think it would be helpful to show how this data would appear on a normal FDR dataset from a previous crash, ya know? For visual effect and comparison.

Dennis. Excellent observations on the lack of visible abrupt change in flight pattern at the "moment of hijack".

Thanks guys! thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Jan 21 2011, 12:42 PM
Post #22





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



Nail. Check.

Hammer. Check.

Coffin. Check.

So all this nonsense over the FDR is simply nonsense because the FDR can not be conclusively tied to the flight when 100% of all other FDR's do. After all this, why do you think Legge et. at. didn't know this? They could have spent all that time working harder on the WTC complex. ROFL

Thanks Dennis. It is finally refreshing to see an FDR expert smash those who are trying to support this event through government supplied evidence. I slipped your brief analysis in at 9/11 Blogger. Start the stopwatch on my banning. ;-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 21 2011, 02:24 PM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Hi SD,

We have to be careful..... "nonsense", "fake", "irrelevant" are not words I would use to describe this data.

You pretty much already know this, but for the lurking public.

Reason being is that it has been provided by a govt agency and the agency claims it comes from an aircraft alleged to be used in an attack on our Country. It must be analyzed and those results made public.

When we use the above words, people tend to look the other way. This data, regardless of its authenticity and/or usage is very pertinent in determining truth as it can and will be used in a court of law, and does not support the govt story.

Now we just have to find a Judge willing to look at the evidence.

As i have stated many times in the past....

If the FDR data being provided through the FOIA is fake, it is as alarming as it being accurate.

If the FDR data is fake, it is a felony. Tampering with evidence.

If the FDR data is real, it is a felony, as it does not support the 9/11 Commission Report claims in many significant ways including that a standard 757, N644AA, impacted the Pentagon, for either the NTSB decode, or the "additional".

This evidence, combined with witness statements who "bet their life" on a path opposite the physical damage, combined with numerous Expert Witness, combined with the evidence from the WTC, any Prosecutor worth their salt and an ounce of integrity would love to have for a case. It's a slam dunk.

This is why it puzzles me so much that those who have found evidence in the collapse of the WTC, are attacking our work, without even consulting us or any real aviation expert for that matter. Worse, they are making excuses for bonafide witnesses interviewed on location which conflict with the govt story. I dont get it.

Hope this helps for some of those reading.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 21 2011, 02:48 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 21 2011, 10:35 AM) *
Guys, what are "tickee" and "laundry"?


It's an expression with reference to dry cleaning...it was kinda used in Seinfeld.... A bit of satire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyCMWgYxCOg

Basically Dennis is saying that the govt has not provided any proof their data is from the aircraft they claim it is from, further, the data does not support the story. "What kind of scam you trying to pull here?"


QUOTE
I think it would be helpful to show how this data would appear on a normal FDR dataset from a previous crash, ya know? For visual effect and comparison.


Not sure if Dennis has other data sets laying around, but i suppose if he does, he'll chime in.

Warren claims to have other data sets which he claims have an empty AC ID Field and Fleet Field, but apparently he doesnt want to share them.

Pssst, Warren, those data sets could have come from anywhere as well, if in fact you do possess such data.

One of the reasons for having an AC ID Field and Fleet Field is that say if two aircraft collide, you will immediately know which data goes with which after sifting through mangled aircraft wreckage. Its a sort of "fingerprint" which also prevents tampering from what i understand..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 21 2011, 04:12 PM
Post #25



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I have received a few questions regarding this statement in our article.

"Radio Altimeters do not guarantee measurement from the ground. The device measures whatever object you are flying over within a certain range (a building, trees... etc). The tracking capability of the Radio altimeter is 330 feet per second, or a little under 200 knots(3)."

Legge's paper assumes Radio Altimeter was always measuring from the ground. It wasn't. It was measuring from tops of the tree line and buildings along the approach. Legge claims the approaches on previous flights show an "altitude divergence" of 50-80+ feet. Thats about the height of a tree line and/or buildings that would be along an approach. This is why he is seeing an "altitude divergence" as the aircraft descends closer to the ground.

Every one from a Student pilot to the most experienced know that data is derived for approaches (and departures) to "Clear a 50' Obstacle". It's a standard used for calculations and performance.

The Tracking capability comes from footnote number (3) which is noted. Rockwell Collins. The LRA-900 is the Radio Altimeter used in the Boeing 757 and several other Air Transport aircraft.




Here is the direct link.

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/LRA-900.html

Scroll down to the bottom of the page under "Performance Characteristics" and you will find this.... (minus the red underline of course)



Hope this helps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 21 2011, 04:42 PM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE


thumbsup.gif

QUOTE
One of the reasons for having an AC ID Field and Fleet Field is that say if two aircraft collide, you will immediately know which data goes with which after sifting through mangled aircraft wreckage. Its a sort of "fingerprint" which also prevents tampering from what i understand..


Much appreciated Rob.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Johnny Angel
post Jan 21 2011, 06:04 PM
Post #27





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 192
Joined: 15-April 07
From: Pittsburgh Pa USA
Member No.: 956



Recovering Evidence.. Identifying evidence.

Remember the first truck bombing attack of the WTC.. A truck bomb powerful enough to blow-out 5 floors of parking garage floor and basement walls. (but didnt damage the main core beams or topple the tower)
( laughing1.gif Lucky WTC, that the Muslims didnt use jet fuel in that truck instead of explosives laughing1.gif )

The FBI picked up every peice of debris and dust. It was placed on a conveyor and sifted. The FBI located the
VIN number plate from the rented truck. Within a few days, the terrorists were in Jail..

ABC nightline did one story that the suspected WTC truck bombers were former FBI or CIA operatives working for the
Muhajeen fighting the Russians in Afganastan. (ALQCIA).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jan 21 2011, 09:03 PM
Post #28


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jan 21 2011, 02:21 AM) *
How about now and here, Warren?!

welcome.gif


Has anyone checked on Warren? Is he ok? He was so active here on the topic and so eager to talk to your FDR expert, who turned out to be Dennis Cimino. Where's Warren? WAAARRREN! You out there?!?!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spacecadet
post Jan 21 2011, 09:17 PM
Post #29





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 29-November 09
Member No.: 4,709



QUOTE (tcrofton @ Jan 21 2011, 07:12 AM) *
Thanks for such a clear and thoughtful presentation.
Phony data, no forensic investigation, crime scene ruble recycled immediately, thermite powder all over NYC, a plume of small debris over miles of Penn. from a "hit the ground" crash, a thousand plus pages of the Patriot Act written in days, NORAD unplugged and we support a series of wars to get the bad guys. This was a coup and you are the true patriots putting it on the line.

A COUPE IS the only possibility;you just don't know whose who in Hooterville anymore;you have to watch your back while yer sleeping..........oh!What a backache!ALL ROADS LEAD TO PAKISTAN. cleanup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dennis Cimino
post Jan 22 2011, 02:39 AM
Post #30





Group: Guest
Posts: 31
Joined: 19-November 07
Member No.: 2,496



'JamesAt17' date='Jan 21 2011, 01:22 PM' post='Thank you for your extensive work to provide us with this information. I will tell others. Some will listen, while others will not. Disturbing their cognitive dissonance with proof puts many into an uneasiness or tension that they choose not to deal with.

Thanks, James! and the others who took a good hard look here. I'm sorry the photos can't be pasted in, I don't like the photo bucket links gig, that gives virtually zero control of who can access those pics..but as things about 9/11 are now disappearing and being expunged from the web, those very clear and incredibly stark pics the Frenchman had in his almost immediate and quite cogent rebuttal just days after the false flag attack took place, are in Rob's possession, and I took the liberty to ship the lion's share of my Pentagon photo archive to massive numbers of places so they don't solely reside on my
machine. So they're all over the world now...presumably safe from going down the Ministry of Truth 'rabbit hole' as I call it. In any case, the 'cognitive dissonance' you mention is more like 'cognitive stupidity' and 'cognitive ostrich-ism', because as you might also have noticed, the U.S. Federal Government
is trying, via the Tucson shooting, to pin virtually any and all violent crime on 9/11 TRUTH persons. Yep, we're evil, we are diabolical, and we drink slushee's from 7/11 stores too, making us exceptionally diabolical and evil. *groan* In any case, I was going to write a long cautionary warning, along with an
extension of an 'olive branch' out to Mr. Stutts and Mr. Legge, because I did my best not to point fingers at them. My piece above is not intended to attack anyone except the perpetrators who, now ten years later, are still walking here amongst us as free men. Those perpetrators are at the highest levels of this government, not sitting at computers in Australia or wherever trying to make sense of this crap they sold to most of the nation as reality.

and in extending the 'olive branch' to those guys who I hope will accept it, may be a form of being incredibly naieve on my part, but I don't think Stutts and Legge did their stuff with mal intent for what that's worth. Though they do kind of fit in the Cass Sunstein 'cognitive infiltration' gig that is my 'warning' piece in here tonight as I sit here. I have a warning for this 9/11 Truth movement, and I hope you all heed it.

First, the very highest levels of this government were involved in the treason of that day in September of 2001. Multiple elements of it who aren't just loyal to Richard B. Cheney and his gang of murderers from the Bush administration, but a whole cadre of people not just in NORAD, but in the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Richard Myers comes to mind). Elliott Abrams, Lewis Libby, and Stephen Cambone, and so many others, like Douglas Feith all played pivotal roles in pushing this P.N.A.C. agenda to transform this nation into a no holds barred, military industrial complex dictatorship, ostensibly controlled by
Israel. Oh, I can just see Abe Foxman now on the Fox Noise Channel, with some other nimrod from the S.P.L.C. both chiming in about how we're all here conspiring to overthrow this wonderful and blameless government with our 9/11 Truths. Uh huh, yeah, right..... *groan*

The warning is that Cass Sunstein's 'cognitive infiltration' gig is in motion in this movement. A lot of it has been co-opted, and derailed by these guys who put the zionist agenda ahead of this nation's freedom and liberty, and are willing to murder us to keep that line toed by all of us.

The past week or so, there was a mass shooting in Tucson blamed on all of us. Yep, even those of you who are still fence sitting on this but smelled some form of rat when you saw the Pentagon lawn pictures and no wreckage from any plane. They're in the blogs, and they sometimes come at you as your friend. A case in point was one I had been affiliated with more than three years ago, named Mr. John Farmer, also known as Blue Collar Republican. His modus operandi, if you will, was to win the trust of some of us, and then feed us disinformation and bullshit. For the most part, we bought that bullshit, lock stock and banana peel. Some fellow truthers warned me he was a cointelpro operative, and it turns out that that must be absolutely correct, because I suffered a drive by shooting by him in a snide comment in another blog from him the other day, brought to my attention by another member of this forum.

And the irony was that even though I suspected him as a cointelpro stooge for the government, which he obviously was all along, I always gave him the benefit of the doubt, and never published bad words about his character, his credibility, nor his professionalism. But he breached that trust with me the other day in another blog. And as amazed as I was, I was also sad that I trusted him just a little bit and did give him the benefit of the doubt.

So, my olive branch to Stutts and Legge comes with the warning to you all that this movement has been hijacked in many ways, and the zionists who control the disinfo machine, specifically as Israel did play a pivotal role in what took place on 9/11, and that has been proven, by the way, not conjecture any longer, are active in this allegedly 'new' but not so very new administration, under Cass Sunstein and members of the Dept. of Defense.

So as loathe as I am to not paint Stutts and Legge with that brush, I warn you all that though I have extended the olive branch, as I had once done with Mr. Farmer down in Nashville, TN., that olive branch often will catch fire and burn your hand. The 9/11 Truth movement is a threat to these monsters who did this killing on Sept. 11th. 2001, and is a quintessential threat to the zionists who not only carried the murders out that day, but to the U.S. Federal Government officials, like F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller, who have to this day, shielded and covered for them.

We are under attack not only by these monsters, but those who portend to be bearing good valuable information for us. All of you must never assume
that any apparently innocent feeding of disinformation was strictly a misunderstanding. More often, it's COINTELPRO, the new Cass Sunstein gang, the zionists who did this murder on U.S. soil that day. And they will not stop villifying us, because we are a threat to their continued control of this nation.

Regards,
Dennis C.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Jan 22 2011, 04:18 AM
Post #31





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



sir,

i don't know enough to agree with all that you say here, but, in the main, i agree. there was a coup effected on that day in september. just as we created one in 1973 in chile.

i shall never forget how it was that anyone who tried to reveal the usg's hand in orchestrating that coup in chile was some kind of paranoid schizophrenic. decades later, i think that some paranoia was validated.

some would dispute your characterization of zionists as pivotal in this coup. i don't. the israeli government has been running the usg for decades. as robert sam anson once wrote, government by gunplay rules. mossad, shin beth, et alia have no inhibitions. and they have established a pernicious, traitorous 5th column in the usa. which cannot be countered easily, because too many of the pols have pictures of their peckerdilloes in israel.

that we discuss this coup, here, is an academic exercise, i think. out in the real world, it is the glenn beck's, the rush limbo's that stymie the revelations of our truths. the fascist bastids, whether totalitarians on the right, or on the left, do not want anything to upset the furtherance of any totalitarianism that prolongs their profitability.

and that is how i interpreted beck when he once said on radio that the jersey girls should either be executed for treason or deported.

i am certain that this is what chilled the jersey girls. hell, it would chill me.

i would love to learn what kind of hate mail drg receives.

a republic, if you can keep it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jan 22 2011, 05:15 AM
Post #32





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Why was Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon an impossibility ? Simple, The Laws of Inertia and Gravity.If Flight 77 actually tried the "dive to a straight and level impact"it would have ended something like this................on the lawn. ................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................ ........................An object in motion tends to stay in that motion. Gravity can be a real bitch. ................................................................Edit- Before any critics snipe, yes i am aware that these are airshow loops and whatnot, but they definitively show the glide path and recovery area needed to pull out of a dive and regain straight and level flight. It requires mega amounts of thrustand hell of alot more space than the Pentagon's front lawn.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Jan 22 2011, 05:48 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jan 22 2011, 05:32 AM
Post #33





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Im not sure what the argument is about the RA's.
But the 757's i work on everyday (200's) must have the RA's working
and accurate down to a 2' tolerance in order to remain CAT3 certified
for landing.

The RA's measure from the planes belly to whatever its flying
over (ground, buildings,water ect) by bouncing radio waves.
Thats why its called a radio altimeter or some call it a radar altimeter.

It rapidly measures the distance to whatever is below, normally used
when your altitude is about 2500' or below.
Hope this helped.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Jan 22 2011, 05:42 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 22 2011, 07:10 AM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (aerohead @ Jan 22 2011, 04:32 AM) *
Im not sure what the argument is about the RA's.
But the 757's i work on everyday (200's) must have the RA's working
and accurate down to a 2' tolerance in order to remain CAT3 certified
for landing.

The RA's measure from the planes belly to whatever its flying
over (ground, buildings,water ect) by bouncing radio waves.
Thats why its called a radio altimeter or some call it a radar altimeter.

It rapidly measures the distance to whatever is below, normally used
when your altitude is about 2500' or below.
Hope this helped.


Yes, the LRA-900 is Cat III certified. But that doesnt mean anything if you have dozens of large buildings of varying heights along your approach, as are in Arlington along Columbia pike. One must cross-check RA with the Primary altimeter to determine what the RA is actually measuring from, the ground, or perhaps the roof of a building. The Primary altimeter shows too high to hit the Pentagon. See here....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10778240

Not to mention the tracking capability of the RA is only 330 fps, less than 200 knots according to Rockwell Collins.

The only time that a pilot can depend on RA for absolute altitude (and the only time one is required), is on a Cat III Autoland ILS with a runway certified for Cat III approach and has a clearway zone and/or displaced threshold. The pilot knows for a fact when he gets below 100 AGL (when on Localizer and Glide slope), that the RA is measuring from grass or pavement at this point.

Legge and Stutt are trying to use RA for a True Altitude reading while the aircraft is flying over many obstacles outside the RA tracking capability. It's absurd.

See more here to understand the argument they are trying to make combined with an example of an approach to IAD Rwy 01R using their argument.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490

If Legge and Stutt were correct, aircraft would be plowing into the ground on approaches all across the world, daily. This is why not one aviation expert has signed their name to their paper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 22 2011, 08:10 AM
Post #35





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Is the RA similar to a radar which rapidly returns distance to target as the transponder in the plane passes over them? If this is the case and it reminds me of how my laser measuring device works on continuous mode... as you move it around a stream of distance returns rapidly appear on the display and in reality it is almost impossible to know what the distance you are measuring.

As a plane is moving very fast perhaps these returns can be averaged but what is the use of this in trying to approach an airport over terrain over varying heights with buildings of varying heights in the approach path?

In addition the transponder needs to always vertical or perpendicular / plumb to the ground. If it is gimballed in all x, y and z axis it would have to be damped and and this would tend to smooth out and make the readings unreliable and inaccurate.

Can someone explain how a RA works?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 22 2011, 08:26 AM
Post #36



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 22 2011, 07:10 AM) *
As a plane is moving very fast perhaps these returns can be averaged but what is the use of this in trying to approach an airport over terrain over varying heights with buildings of varying heights in the approach path?


Exactly.

It is not useful at all unless you know the exact position of the aircraft, what it was measuring from, and the height of that object.

This is why RA's are not required for flight at any time (Part 91, can be deferred as per MEL part 135/121), except on a Cat III Autoland ILS on a Cat III certified runway.... below 100 AGL, on Glide Slope and on the Localizer. You know for a fact it will be measuring from pavement or grass at that point in space. (and for Randi's kids... no, not outer space... i once said something similar and Randi's kids jump all over it thinking i meant outer space.. was pretty hilarious... i digress...)

RA is not even required for a Cat II ILS (although many use it). The Primary Altimeter takes you down to the DA (Decision Altitude) which is 100' AGL.

I couldn't stop laughing when Legge made this claim....

"Nobody cares whether the altimeter is accurate near the ground. There is no need to check it. "

Legge, look up the term DA for an ILS.

The best part is that their whole paper is based on an FAR they sourced from wiki, which was written for planes like a Cessna 172 (not for Transport Category Aircraft, and certainly not those with Air Data Computers)... and worse.... it's not even quoted correctly at wiki! laughing1.gif

Again, this is just one of the many reasons there isnt an aviation expert name next to Legge and Stutt on their paper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jan 22 2011, 03:43 PM
Post #37





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 22 2011, 07:26 AM) *
Exactly.

It is not useful at all unless you know the exact position of the aircraft, what it was measuring from, and the height of that object.

This is why RA's are not required for flight at any time (Part 91, can be deferred as per MEL part 135/121), except on a Cat III Autoland ILS on a Cat III certified runway.... below 100 AGL, on Glide Slope and on the Localizer. You know for a fact it will be measuring from pavement or grass at that point in space. (and for Randi's kids... no, not outer space... i once said something similar and Randi's kids jump all over it thinking i meant outer space.. was pretty hilarious... i digress...)

RA is not even required for a Cat II ILS (although many use it). The Primary Altimeter takes you down to the DA (Decision Altitude) which is 100' AGL.

I couldn't stop laughing when Legge made this claim....

"Nobody cares whether the altimeter is accurate near the ground. There is no need to check it. "

Legge, look up the term DA for an ILS. Too funny...

The best part is that their whole paper is based on an FAR they sourced from wiki, which was written for planes like a Cessna 172 (not for Transport Category Aircraft, and certainly not those with Air Data Computers)... and worse.... it's not even quoted correctly at wiki! laughing1.gif

Again, this is just one of the many reasons there isnt an aviation expert name next to Legge and Stutt on their paper.



LMAO ! I see what you mean Rob. HAHA !

Nobody cares ? laughing1.gif

Well im sure the passengers would care if they knew that if a pilot doesnt use
it (the RA info) on a CAT3b landing, they will more than likely end up as
a smoldering pile of mush near a runway somewhere. Not that there
were passengers on Flt 77 or any of the other 3 planes that day but just sayin'.
The RA audibly calls out lower altitudes and counts down the altitude below
60' in 10' increments so the pilot can properly flare and prepare a nice smooth landing.
It is deadly accurate, much more than the primary Altimeter at low altitudes (below 2500')
While sitting on the ramp, our RA's read 6', the exact distance from the antenna's to
the ground. If the plane was flying over a lawn lets say at 100 feet, and then encountered
a 50' building and flew over it, the RA would instantly correct from 100' to 50'.

But lets talk about decision height for a bit. The decision height or DH is the height
where the pilot must make the decision to commit to landing or abort, as trying to abort past
this point would not be possible due to the planes inertia in the glide path toward the runway,
even with flaps down, and DH is normally about 200' or so.
But we are supposed to believe that FLT 77 dove down from over the height of the Navy Annex,
at near 3X the normal landing speed, without flaps, and recovered into
a straight and level impact into the building as shown by their 5 frame video ?

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif


It would have been a smoking hole on the lawn. Period.



Listen to the RA call out the Altitudes on this 757.
Starts at 5:00 min in this video.
"1000........500.......50.........40.......30......20......10" -----------------------------------------------------------------









Comments by the poster-

Boeing 757 Cockpit Approach & Landing
Enjoy....
.
0:08 Radar vectors begin, 180 degrees
0:25 Flap 1, 185 knots
0:58 Localiser intercept heading, 230 degrees, LOC armed
1:48 Localiser capture, Glideslope armed
2:15 Runway in sight
3:00 Glideslope capture
3:08 Flap 5, 165 knots
3:18 2500 feet above ground level, 'Radio Altimeter'
3:45 Gear down
3:52 Flap 20, 145 knots
4:01 Flap 25, 133 knots
4:20 Flap 30, 133 knots
4:56 AutoPilot disconnect
5:04 1000' Radio Altimeter call
5:45 500' Radio Altimeter call
6:43 AutoBrakes disconnected





This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Jan 22 2011, 04:20 PM
Reason for edit: fixed html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 22 2011, 04:44 PM
Post #38



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (aerohead @ Jan 22 2011, 02:43 PM) *
Well im sure the passengers would care if they knew that if a pilot doesnt use
it (the RA info) on a CAT3b landing, they will more than likely end up as
a smoldering pile of mush near a runway somewhere.


They would also care if the Primary Altimeter wasnt used on a Cat I (or Cat II) as there is no possible way to tell your True Altitude from a Radio Altimeter while on the approach, until you're over the clearway or displaced threshold, which is guaranteed at a point where the ILS intersects 100 above TDZE.



QUOTE
It is deadly accurate, much more than the primary Altimeter at low altitudes (below 2500')


Well, you have to be careful how you word such a statement as our detractors are trying to say the same thing. The RA is not accurate at all in determining your TRUE Altitude because you dont know exactly what it is measuring from, until you're over the clearway zone.

Sure, the RA will tell you that you wont hit anything (actually, only Terrain Following Radar will help with this as it is forward looking), but it cannot give you an accurate True Altitude at these locations, this is the reason the RA is not required for Instrument flight, and a Sensitive Altimeter adjusted for pressure ... is. Add an Air Data Computer and calibration during flight testing for certification, and the Primary Altimeter is highly accurate. That is why it is "Primary" for instrument flight. smile.gif

QUOTE
While sitting on the ramp, our RA's read 6', the exact distance from the antenna's to
the ground. If the plane was flying over a lawn lets say at 100 feet, and then encountered
a 50' building and flew over it, the RA would instantly correct from 100' to 50'.


This depends on the tracking capability and processor of the RA box. If you are flying at a speed outside it's capabilities (in the case of a 757, less than roughly 200 knots), you may get either/or... or an average as i understand it. The faster you are beyond the capabilities, the less accurate.

QUOTE
But lets talk about decision height for a bit. The decision height or DH is the height
where the pilot must make the decision to commit to landing or abort, as trying to abort past
this point would not be possible due to the planes inertia in the glide path toward the runway,
even with flaps down, and DH is normally about 200' or so.


Kinda sorta... DH is the Missed Approach Point on a Precision Approach. It is the point where the pilot must have a visual reference in order to continue for landing. The height of DH/A differs based on qualification and certification of aircrew, aircraft, and runway.

Any approach, Cat I, II or III would not be possible based on the calculations made by Legge in his paper.

You should review this thread thoroughly and the other thread linked in our Pentagon section in the footnotes of the article to get some good laughs of the argument being made by Legge and Stutt.

QUOTE
[b]Comments by the poster-


3:18 2500 feet above ground level, 'Radio Altimeter'
3:45 Gear down
3:52 Flap 20, 145 knots
4:01 Flap 25, 133 knots
4:20 Flap 30, 133 knots
4:56 AutoPilot disconnect
5:04 1000' Radio Altimeter call
5:45 500' Radio Altimeter call


This all depends on the approach and Airline procedure.

All callouts on a visual, Non-Precision, Precision Cat I (and Cat II Part 91) reference the Primary Altimeter down to DH, MDA, (or TDZE if visual). Otherwise you would be getting inaccurate 1000' and 500' callouts from the RA on approaches with rolling terrain. You may even get them twice on the same approach (Check BTV , ROA or CRW for example). Can really screw things up.

Cat III references the Radio Altimeter below 100' AGL.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jan 22 2011, 05:50 PM
Post #39





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Thanks for correcting me Rob. When i said its deadly accurate, i should have
clarified- at landing speeds, near decision height (100-200 ft ) and it only gives you
a measurement to the ground, not sea level. Its a landing
tool for harsh conditions (CAT3). True, it doesnt give you true altitude, only
altitude over whatever your flying over, not baro-altitude. It will tell you
if your 1500ft over the ground, but wont tell you how far above sea level
you are. The primary tells you that. I guess what i meant to say was,
Its a great "close to the ground" tool for landing. Not a true Altimeter.
On the ramp here the RA reads 6', but the airport is about 1100' which is what
the Primary reads, and is the true altitude above sea level.


I will check out that argument. Should be fun.

Fight the power. cheers.gif

This post has been edited by aerohead: Jan 22 2011, 05:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 22 2011, 05:56 PM
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (aerohead @ Jan 22 2011, 04:50 PM) *
Thanks for correcting me Rob. When i said its deadly accurate, i should have
clarified- at landing speeds and near decision height (100-200 ft ) and that its a landing
tool for harsh conditions (CAT3). And true it doesnt give you true altitude, only
altitude over whatever your flying over, not baro-altitude. It will tell you
if your 1500ft over the ground, but wont tell you how far above sea level
you are. The primary tells you that. I guess what i meant to say was,
Its a great "close to the ground" tool for landing. Not a true Altimeter.
On the ramp here the RA reads 6', but the airport is about 1100' which is what
the Primary reads and is the true altitude above sea level.


I will check out that argument. Should be fun.

Fight the power. cheers.gif


Anytime my friend. Yeah... that is why there are different descriptions for different types of altitude. Another mistake Legge made in his "paper".

Legge, these are the terms you need to learn.

Pressure Altitude
True Altitude
Absolute Altitude
IAS
CAS
TAS
VSI
IVSI

... and the reasons for each...

Legge claims to be a PhD. Wonder if he has ever heard of the four levels of learning.. RUAC. Rote, understanding, application, correlation. Legge is still stuck in the Rote phase.

It is impossible to determine a True Altitude from an Absolute Altitude unless you know the exact height from the object you are measuring.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 11th November 2019 - 05:56 PM