Aa77 Fdr Data, Explained?, Need help Options

[clue2mystery]

I’m now confronted with this page and need some help.

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=66047

Does this contradict your statements?


The author:
About Me:
MS Electrical Engineering, worked with the USAF (as a civilian) on F15s doing data recording and telemetry. I've designed, built, tested, installed, and maintained flight data acquisition systems, of which the FDR is a very low-bit-rate version. It also has the unique characteristic, among data recorders, of being crash survivable.

[clue2mystery]

Is the Air Data Computer (ADC) based on a GPS System? Then the time error he speaks about is wrong.

[rob balsamo]

All the claims made in that thread are addressed here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163

Also, Turbofan is doing a great job taking on the gang rape debate style of the govt loyalists in that thread since that site has banned most all others who schooled the GL's. They like to play with a stacked deck.

[clue2mystery]

All the claims made in that thread are addressed here...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163

Also, Turbofan is doing a great job taking on the gang rape debate style of the govt loyalists in that thread since that site has banned most all others who schooled the GL's. They like to play with a stacked deck.

Thank you for moving my Threat to the right place and for the link which is very helpful!

[clue2mystery]

This is what I have for time:

The FDAU should be designed to use a serial digital input of GMT Time from the Electronic Chronometer
System (ECS) having the output signal characteristics set forth in Appendix X, “Assumed Electronic
Chronometer System Digital Signal Standards”.

Source: Page 22, 4.3.3 of ARINC 573-7

Note: This may not be current as the appendix adds this comment

It is anticipated that future generations of GMT TIME generators will likely
provide two additional four-bit characters for SECONDS data. Such future 24-bit
words will be compatible with the ARINC 573 equipment because the unneeded
SECONDS will be transmitted as least significant bits (LSB).

Source: Appendix X of ARINC 573-7

Thank you, that makes sense:

From my experience:
I have developed measurement systems for cars with DGPS System using the DG14 of Magellan. DG14 can be set to 1,5,10,20Hz. Additional we measure some other parameter like acceleration x,y,z direction, temperature, and some other parameters. This data are stored to a Secure Digital card. DG14 at 10 HZ with communication speed to the microcontroller 9600 baud is working to measure all data and to transfer it to the slow SD-Card. Every 0,1 second we have a time stamp with all parameters. Most of the time we use for communication with the DG14 and to write all parameters to the SD Card. 20Hz we can also run by setting higher communication speed between DG14 and the microcontroller. The microcontroller runs with a 20MHz clock, means he runs at 5MHz because he needs 4 clocks for one instruction. The other parameters are AD conversions, Duty cycle or Digital. All this is done every 0,1 sec at 9600 baud and at higher communication rate every 0,05 sec. Altogether we measure and record about 20 parameters with a total length of about 100 signs. Our time error is less then 0,02 sec to UTC.

[clue2mystery]

This is what I have for time:

The FDAU should be designed to use a serial digital input of GMT Time from the Electronic Chronometer
System (ECS) having the output signal characteristics set forth in Appendix X, “Assumed Electronic
Chronometer System Digital Signal Standards”.

Source: Page 22, 4.3.3 of ARINC 573-7

Note: This may not be current as the appendix adds this comment

It is anticipated that future generations of GMT TIME generators will likely
provide two additional four-bit characters for SECONDS data. Such future 24-bit
words will be compatible with the ARINC 573 equipment because the unneeded
SECONDS will be transmitted as least significant bits (LSB).

Source: Appendix X of ARINC 573-7

Do you know on which medium data are recorded? Only to get a feeling for the time needed to write to this medium.

[UnderTow]

go back to this

F15s doing data recording and telemetry. I've designed, built, tested, installed, and maintained flight data acquisition systems,

and really think about it in the context of what he is saying. With no proof, no references (to himself or any of statements), and nothing but the greatest fallacy to overcome the aero industry in 30-50 years.

The guy is bunk itself. His 'paper' is nothing with no backing from any official specifications, documents, standards, or even simple industry references.

...

[Leslie Landry]

I'm now confronted with this page and need some help.

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=66047

Does this contradict your statements?


The author:
About Me:
MS Electrical Engineering, worked with the USAF (as a civilian) on F15s doing data recording and telemetry. I've designed, built, tested, installed, and maintained flight data acquisition systems, of which the FDR is a very low-bit-rate version. It also has the unique characteristic, among data recorders, of being crash survivable.

The website posted doesnt work..at least not for me.

[UnderTow]

It's an illusion. The internet is not real you see.

Continuing,
The first Category I F-15A was rolled out at Saint Louis on 26 June 1972
An initial batch of 30 full-production F-15s was announced on 1 March 1973
The "F-15C", performed its initial flight on 27 February 1979
The "F-15D", as well, performing its first flight on 19 June 1979
A "Multi-Stage Improvement Program II (MSIP II)" effort for the F-15C/D began the mid-1980s
"F-15E" had initial delivery to the USAF on 12 April 1988
The acquisition of McDonnell Douglas by Boeing in the late 1990s, the F-15 is now the Boeing F-15


So, at what point did the Anti-Illusionist help them discover all these problems they had and inform everyone that any data received by or delivered from the FDAU was nearly useless.

Bah, the guy is smoke and mirrors.

[clue2mystery]

The website posted doesnt work..at least not for me.

The correct link I posted was different. And it is not possible to post now the correct link! Something wrong here, we need expert information to be successful in discussions and info to all links with opposite opinion with arguments to sustain. Looks like the wrong way for me.

[clue2mystery]

This is very important information because it shows that error presented with even a small scale electronic system is neglible. The Government Loyalists (GL's),
want us to believe an advanced aircraft acquisition system has delays and erros into the 500 msec range! It's almost enough to make one sick.

I have a three axis accelerometer which I use to measure speed and elapsed time while racing. I compare to the race track computer system and
it's pretty much within a tenth of second. This is WITHOUT any sort of synchronization between systems!

(IMG:http://www.procision-auto.com/ProAuto/gtech1.jpg)
(IMG:http://www.procision-auto.com/ProAuto/gtech2.jpg)

You can see the time slip vs. the acceleromter to be:

12.556 vs. 12.536
12.970 vs. 12.921

The MPH is off only because I didn't let off the accelerator until well past the finish line.

This system I developed 2004 with my team was at that time absolute high Tec. Even it is not really cheap in that sector. You need a fixed base station per track (about 3000 Euro) and each measurement system is over 2400 Euro. The main difference to a permanent system was, our was only built with components from 0 to 70°C, for inside use, if you use components for permanent car specification you have to multiply the prices with 3.

I have too less info about this Air Data Computer, but less then 500ms is very likely, even the technology is old. But less then 1 second is from technical point of view granted, because it records every second new data. EEPROM is fast, so we have low delay in writing.

[clue2mystery]

But why you are not calculating the “correct” time of the last record?

1. You have the time, the position and the speed of impact.

2. You have the approximately position of the plane from the video prior the impact or you can assume and play with this point.

3. You have the position and the speed of the last record, and you want to know the time.

From these 3 points you can calculate the distance.

If you assume the impact time was not on 9:37:45 AM it was 9:37:45:00 AM you can calculate in ms.

This means you have 3 points and you have the approximately speeds and you have the “arrival time” and we want the “departure” time. Then we can see if this could work or where are the differences.

[clue2mystery]

Only this http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....13846&st=20 shows me, that any claims of precision in position or altitude are ridiculous and it’s in the range of a SBAS or DGPS system and works on similar bases with two signals. The result is a submeter result, in this case with an accuracy of +30.48 cm (±1.0 ft) or 2% of indicated altitude, whichever is greater. But even a normal 50 USD single signal GPS has a accuracy of +/- 15 m and in practice you reach with 7 or more satellites +/- 3m.

Every time the computer scans the sensors, the information is updated regardless of what the sensor is doing. For example, if the Landing Gear is not moving, and there is no change, the computer will continue to record the same value.

Alternatively, if the sensor suddenly goes "off-line", or breaks, the computer will record a value to reflect the state of the sensor.

If we replace the word computer with CPU or microcontroller, depending on what it is, 100% correct!