Aal77 Fdr Decoder Program, Decodes almost 4 more seconds Options

[Omega892R09]

Warren,

If you could be so kind to provide an output (CSV) file of these parameters, it would be much appreciated.

Engine EGT

Engine EPR

Engine RPM

Engine N2, N3

I am very curious about how they correlate and with IAS.

EDIT. To clarify. I am asking about correlation of those speficics with recorded IAS on the FDRs concerned.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Oct 24 2009, 01:39 PM

[rob balsamo]

What is probably confusing him is that static ports can sometimes be incorporated into the pitot probes. Static ports otherwise are often seen on the fuselage and are clearly marked, as are the bungs or covers used to prevent water ingress whilst on the ground with flags attached and a legend 'Remove before flight' or some such.

Here's the static port on a NWA 757, N509US.

(IMG:http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1311/1314121492_98e6963f3c.jpg)


Its practically on the belly. If there are Low Pressure "Compressibility" issues there as claimed by Mackey, you can bet its much worse above the wing and therefore controls.

Sorry Mackey, you can't have your cake and eat it too, although i know you try... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

If anything, Compressibility would cause a higher pressure at that location, creating an artificially lower altitude reading... as originally stated.

Mackey probably thought the static "probes" were protruding out into the relative wind above the wing... poor Mackey...

[wstutt]

I am very curious about how they correlate and with IAS.

EDIT. To clarify. I am asking about correlation of those speficics with recorded IAS on the FDRs concerned.

I'll add the parameters IAS, IAS LIMIT OPER and IAS MODE OPER to the next release for you.

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Looks like our good friend Mackey finally decided to look up the definition of supercritical after I had to repeat it twice, although once again, a little knowledge is more dangerous than none.... Perhaps Mackey while sweeping the floors at NASA overheard Whitcomb talking to a friend or something... (RIP Whitcomb! Don't let Mackey upset your slumber)

First from Mackey....

"Boeing aircraft typically cruise above their critical Mach number..... Up at altitude, they cruise around 0.8 Mach or so all day long. This is done using supercritical wing design," - Ryan Mackey

And now reality...

"Several methods exist to reduce wave drag, including the use of swept wings, slender or thin bodies, and supercritical airfoils. These airfoils have critical Mach numbers very close to one (hence the term supercritical) thereby delaying and reducing the large increase in drag due to wave drag. " - aerospaceweb

"With the supercritical wing, a substantial rise in the drag-divergence Mach number is realized and the critical Mach number is delayed even up to 0.99. This delay represents a major increase in commercial airplane performance." - Centennial Of Flight Commission.

(bolding emphasis mine)

Just a quick search I did to help out Mackey. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

For those still confused, a supercritical wing design delays Critical Mach. It doesn't allow more efficient flight above Mcrit as Mackey would have you believe.

Ohhh... so close Mackey, but still wrong. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

IIRC, Mcrit (Critical Mach, or... Mach Critical) on a 757/767 is near .89-.91 Mach. Usually Mmo is structured around Mcrit. I'll double check with our 757/767 Capts.

(by the way Mackey, not all Boeings utilize supercritical wing design. But i'll let you look that up along with your static "probes" on such aircraft...)

[rob balsamo]

I'll double check with our 757/767 Capts.

Quick update.

I spoke to Rusty Aimer, 757/767 Capt for United Airlines who has actual time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.

I read Rusty the quote from Mackey in the above post regarding "Boeing aircraft typically cruise above their critical Mach number........ ".

Rusty's immediate reply... "Bullshit!"

Needless to say, we had several good laughs. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Rusty also verified my recollection of Mcrit for the 757/767... the purpose of the call...

If anyone wants such quotes on tape, let me know.. my "mom's basement" that i live in (according to many J.REF 'skeptics'... lol).. is in shambles after production of our latest presentation "World Trade Center Attack" filling orders... and i couldn't find my recorder while speaking with Rusty. Although he is willing to put it on tape and will do so if needed. Again, many of our pilots aren't forum types.

I can get many more sources, but whats the point. Mackey is already completely discredited.

J.REF "skeptics", you may want to ask yourself why Mackey never sources any of his claims, starting with his "Compressibility" theory, assuming you are a true "skeptic".

Mackey, it's clear why you attempt to 'ignore' us and instead debate NPT sans an opponent. When you are forced to debate us, you lose credibility by the hour. Then again, you don't even need to debate us to lose credibility, you just need to keep posting your absurd claims. Thanks!

[wstutt]

<snip>
There seems to be many problems with the DME, it repeats 17.5 DME for 48 seconds, then in turn updates 1.5 to 1.25 in one subframe?
<snip>

There is a possible explanation for why the DME values are repeated instead of being updated to new values in Note 6C of the data frame layout D226A101-3G.pdf:
(IMG:http://warrenstutt.com/General%20Images/Note%206C%20of%20D226A101-3G.pdf.jpg)

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

DME 1 and 2 Distance is supposed to be updated every 4 seconds to within 1 mile according to FAR part 121 Appendix M. Combined with normal DME error, which is 0.1 NM (the more restrictive margin is regulatory), there is a problem with the raw file.

DME anomalies in the raw file is one of the main reasons we have not used our raw FDR decode for any official articles nor analysis as the decodes and/or the file itself are not reliable. The only file(s) we can argue are the files officially provided by the NTSB through FOIA which do not need special software for decode. I'm sure the reply we will get from ASAR's regarding your extra 4 seconds conflicting with the NTSB conclusions... is going to be along the lines of, "The NTSB did not decode the file, therefore it is unreliable."

[rob balsamo]

Quick update.

I spoke to Rusty Aimer, 757/767 Capt for United Airlines who has actual time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.

I read Rusty the quote from Mackey in the above post regarding "Boeing aircraft typically cruise above their critical Mach number........ ".

Rusty's immediate reply... "Bullshit!"

Not that it is needed, but I had a chance to speak with Ralph Kolstad, another 757/767 Captain, but from American Airlines, who also has actual time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, specifically N644AA (American 77), about Mackey's "Critical Mach" claims as well.

Ralph's reply when read the above quote from Mackey...

verbatim - "Ahahahahahaha, clearly the guy doesn't have a clue what he is talking about."

We also spoke about Altimeter lag and the new 4 seconds provided by Warren.

Question I asked - "Would the altimeter be reading 187 MSL if the aircraft impacted the Pentagon? Could the altimeter have been lagging?"

Ralph - "No, absolutely not. The standby altimeter may have been lagging as that is expected, they are like the altimeters you see in a Cessna, but certainly not information coming off the Air data computer. These static systems are very accurate on modern jet aircraft. So no, the altimeter wouldn't be lagging."

Question - "The radar altimeter shows 4 feet.... this would have to be bouncing off something higher than the ground due to FDR altitude?"

Ralph - "Yes, and it would have to be something pretty solid, not just an antenna or pole or sporadic tree or something..."

Ralph - "Clearly they [detractors] know the terminology to make it look like they know what they're talking about, but they just don't know how to apply it correctly."

There was a lot more we talked about exposing more fallacies by those who "never been in a cockpit" (as stated by Ralph), such as the new speeds in Warren's data, but at this point, we're into overkill.

Again, i'll be happy to provide such statements recorded if need be.... i still haven't found my recorder. But i can call Ralph again for an interview when i do, and if needed.

[rob balsamo]

I understand some are attempting to argue Pressure altitude inaccuracy by using flights/data from the night before.. etc.

The Pressure altitude (PA) at take off from Dulles is 41 feet. I haven't look at any other altitude data from any other flights claimed to be in the raw file, however it is claimed the night before the PA shows 120 feet on landing. Why the 80 foot difference if the aircraft is on the ground? GL's claim its because PA is inaccurate.

Wrong.

This once again proves GL lack of knowledge on this topic.

PA is based on Pressure and is the height above (or below) the standard datum plane as represented by 29.92. PA changes with local pressure changes. Since there is an 80 foot difference and the local pressure on take off at IAD was 30.20, its clear the pressure the night before was somewhere around 30.12/13. You can check this in the Baro Cor column for that flight, i'm sure its close. Again, I haven't had a chance to look at it, nor will i waste too much time on this.

0.08 inHg represents roughly 80 feet.

In other words, if the local pressure at IAD was 29.92 the night before, the PA in the FDR column would read roughly 300 feet, while at take off, it would still show 41 when the local pressure changed overnight to 30.20.

So, the question asked, "Which is more accurate.. .the 41 feet at take off, or the 120 on landing?"

Answer - Both. They both show the same True Altitude when corrected for local pressure. See the altimeter simulator i posted in this thread.

You would think those who claim to be pilots on the GL side would know this. This is basic student pilot knowledge.

[Guest_Turbofan_*]

I've finally had a chance to catch up on the latest GL rant and FDR decode after being away on vacation.
I'm not surprised to see all the drama and hype from the GL camp! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

The four additional seconds seem to have stirred a few feathers with our GL friends and they now claim
the final RAD Alt. proves "AA77" hit the Pentagon! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Well, if all their excuses in the past about "missing seconds, delays, DME error, bird strikes" wasn't enough
to make comedy of film of the year, this one just might!

From the analysis done on page one and my quick glance at the data, it seems that RAD Alt. does not share
any sort of relation to Pressure Altitude, Angle of Attack, or changes in accelerometer data.

Futhermore, if the GL's claim the final change in accelerometer data implies a smack into the Pentagon wall?

Where are the indications of hitting five light poles in the data prior to this "impact"? Surely and aircraft
hitting five light poles at 462 knots would show some tid-bit of info "eh"? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

I mean all that smoke in the DOD video, but nothing registered in the FDR?! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

We can thank RearTreat for this funny one!

[rob balsamo]

Futhermore, if the GL's claim the final change in accelerometer data implies a smack into the Pentagon wall?

Whaaaa?

I just looked up the long accelerations... Are they claiming -1 G in long accel is the "impact"? Really?

... too funny... Remember when they thought the "impact" was so severe that it caused corrupt data? Now the impact is only 1 G?

Reducing thrust to flight idle quickly and deploying speed brakes would produce more of a deceleration. This would also be consistent with the initial data for a High G high performance turn reducing speed to Corner Velocity rapidly to vacate the area if in fact there was a flyover. Heck, a high performance stop on a short field would produce more. Full reverse, standing on the brakes. .etc.

I know CIT doesn't like to use the FDR or any govt provided data, but Warrens new decode, if accurate, is looking more and more consistent with a flyover than before.

Although technically this new data is not "govt provided" as only Warren has done the decode, has anyone verified the code yet?

No offense Warren, but the years it took you to design your claimed program, one could have just input numbers into a csv file based on trends, for 4 more seconds... I'm not surprised the "skeptics" are taking your information at face value. I'm sure if your data showed 100 feet RadAlt at last data point, the self-proclaimed skeptics would be much more skeptical, and perhaps even attacking you personally consistent with their observed behavior.

Wouldnt it be funny if Warren put this all together to once again prove how the "skeptics" aren't really skeptical at all when it comes to anything which may support the govt story? They are holding onto that RadAlt for dear life. Again, no offense Warren, but I don't know you, and i certainly do not have the computer expertise to verify your code, although i can work my way around computers pretty well.. i learned how to fly airplanes. All the analysis being done here is with the assumption your decode/data is valid. If its not, this is all moot.

Welcome back Tino! I'm sure the GL's missed you considering most of their life is spent behind their screens arguing with people who they think are nuts... they probably thought you were evading them, they have no concept of a real life...lol

[painter]

Yeah. I'd like to see this data independently verified as well before much more is made of it.

[Guest_Turbofan_*]

I just looked up the long accelerations... Are they claiming -1 G in long accel is the "impact"? Really?

... too funny... Remember when they thought the "impact" was so severe that it caused corrupt data? Now the impact is only 1 G?

Yup! A 1G impact that can shred a plane and vapourize it...leaving no visible and identifiable 757 fuselage! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[wstutt]

Whaaaa?

I just looked up the long accelerations... Are they claiming -1 G in long accel is the "impact"? Really?

... too funny... Remember when they thought the "impact" was so severe that it caused corrupt data? Now the impact is only 1 G?

The FDR is not capable of recording a higher deceleration. The range of accelerations the FDR can record is -1.0833G to 1.000G. Perhaps the deceleration the aircraft experienced was greater than what the FDR can record. It has also been suggested that the FDR recording the maximum deceleration is a sign that the accelerometer failed.

<snip>
Although technically this new data is not "govt provided" as only Warren has done the decode, has anyone verified the code yet?

No offense Warren, but the years it took you to design your claimed program, one could have just input numbers into a csv file based on trends, for 4 more seconds... I'm not surprised the "skeptics" are taking your information at face value. I'm sure if your data showed 100 feet RadAlt at last data point, the self-proclaimed skeptics would be much more skeptical, and perhaps even attacking you personally consistent with their observed behavior.

Wouldnt it be funny if Warren put this all together to once again prove how the "skeptics" aren't really skeptical at all when it comes to anything which may support the govt story? They are holding onto that RadAlt for dear life. Again, no offense Warren, but I don't know you, and i certainly do not have the computer expertise to verify your code, although i can work my way around computers pretty well.. i learned how to fly airplanes. All the analysis being done here is with the assumption your decode/data is valid. If its not, this is all moot.
<snip>

Again, no offense taken. It's exactly because I could have just created a csv file showing whatever I liked, that I provided the source code. I welcome verification and would like to help anyone who wants to verify my code.

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Perhaps the deceleration the aircraft experienced was greater than what the FDR can record. It has also been suggested that the FDR recording the maximum deceleration is a sign that the accelerometer failed.

Once again, pure speculation. Might as well suggest a bird strike hit the accelerometer knocking it offline. err.. .wait. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

In other words, the possibilities are numerous for a -1 G long data point. Including rapid deceleration of the aircraft in flight. Considering your altimeter data still shows too high to cause the damage at the pentagon with numerous cross checks, such as descent angle.. the -1 G deceleration is unlikely due to impact as reported. Again, assuming your data is valid.

I welcome verification and would like to help anyone who wants to verify my code.

I would like to see the NTSB verify your code and change their conclusions based on such data if it fact it exists as the NTSB has set precedent on every other study they have performed. Which is why I filled out an ASRS report.

[wstutt]

I now have version 1.1 of my AAL77 FDR Decoder available on my web site along with new output files.

I have added several new parameters.

I have adjusted the acceleration parameters so that they match the NTSB CSV files exactly rather than having a maximum difference of 1 in the last decimal place.

My program produces different values than the NTSB CSV files for the EICAS COMPUTER,FWD ACCESS DR,MAIN CARGO DOOR,TCAS FAILURE and
TCAS SYSTEM STATUS parameters. I don't know why this is. I used the data frame layouts I received from the NTSB to decode them.

You can read further notes on the parameters here.

Warren.

[wstutt]

I now have version 1.2 of my AAL77 FDR Decoder available on my web site along with new output files.

I have added several new parameters.

You can read further notes on the parameters here.

I looked through the data for the following parameters in case they were stored in a different location than in the data frame layouts but was unable to find them. The parameters are:
GMT DAY (Date)
RADIO HEIGHT F/O
VVI (Vertical Speed)

I noticed that the ENG EPR-ACTUAL - L (RATIO) and ENG EPR-ACTUAL - R (RATIO) parameters have values of 0 for the last two subframes. The MAINTENANCE REQUIRED - L but not the MAINTENANCE REQUIRED - R parameter also has a value of TRUE for the last two subframes. Does the ENG EPR-ACTUAL parameter indicate engine thrust?

It would appear to me that the aircraft was still accelerating and had not lost engine thrust in the last two subframes since the COMPUTED AIRSPEED (KNOTS) and the TRUE AIRSPEED (KT) parameters have increasing values and all but the very last LONGITUDINAL ACCEL (G's) values are positive. Perhaps the ENG EPR sensors failed or can someone give me another explanation?

ETA: I have added a page about my credentials, affiliations etc here.

Warren.

This post has been edited by wstutt: Nov 19 2009, 08:14 AM

[rob balsamo]

Hi Warren,

Thanks for posting the new csv file of system parameters. I looked through it and as expected all systems are normal. There isnt any indication of impact with any object.

Bleed Pressure
AC Bus Volts
Fuel Flow
Tank density
EGT
N1, N2, N3
Engine vibration
Inlet Temps

etc...

All operating normally and within limits.

Not sure why the EPR ACTUAL show 0 for last two subframes as the engines were definitely producing thrust. You can see this in N1, N2, and N3 along with EGT and Fuel flow (some pilots actually prefer to set thrust with fuel flow instead of EPR as the flow is instantaneous instead of a slow change in EPR). The other EPR parameters also show thrust.

Anyway, as i said, there is no indication of impact with any object, this includes the tree/bush top at pole 1 which GL's love to pull out their ass claiming you can see the semi-circle made by the top of the bush being ingested into the engine. This would be reflected in the Engine vibration, EGT and perhaps fuel flow. It is not. Their theory is bunk as usual.

By the way, can you upload AOA (angle of attack) when you get a chance? TIA.

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

Hi Warren,

Thanks for posting the new csv file of system parameters.

Your welcome.

<snip>
By the way, can you upload AOA (angle of attack) when you get a chance? TIA.

OK, I'll add the following parameters:
AOA HEAT ON - L
AOA HEAT ON - R
AOA PROBE HEAT - L
AOA PROBE HEAT - R
CORRECTED AOA
INDICATED AOA
INDICATED AOA3
INDICATED AOA4
INDICATEDAOA2

Warren.

[wstutt]

I now have version 1.3 of my AAL77 FDR Decoder available on my web site along with new output files.

I have added some new parameters.

You can read further notes on the parameters here.

I noticed that the ACMS S/W P/N CODE parameter value changes twice in the data recorded in the FDR. Their are 11 flights recorded in the FDR prior to the final flight. Perhaps the FDR software was upgraded twice within that time?

I have also added a link to download just the American 77.fdr file and also added links to download an ISO image of the complete CDROM I received from my FOIA request to the NTSB.

Warren.