IPB




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

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

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Aa77 Fdr Data Explained - Corrupt Data Theory Debunked (split From Aa77 Partial Decode Program), "Missing Seconds Theory" - Rest In Peace

wstutt
post May 6 2009, 09:02 AM
Post #1





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



I have just made the following post on the "AA77 FDR Data, Explained" thread at J.R.E.F.
QUOTE
Earlier on this thread there was debate as to whether the data recorded by the flash memory of the FDR may have become corrupted during the crash.

I have written a program to check the Hamming codes and page parities in the AAL77 FDR file. There are only two pages where the Hamming code and page parity shows as being incorrect. It appears to me that this is because these pages were not completely recorded. You can read about it at my web site at warrenstutt dot com. Follow the AAL77 Hamming code and page parity checker link.

I see no evidence that any of the data was corrupted after being recorded.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 6 2009, 10:30 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ May 6 2009, 09:02 AM) *
I see no evidence that any of the data was corrupted after being recorded.



Thanks Warren... and neither did the NTSB. As im sure you know, the GL's like to make excuse and speculate so as not to disrupt their already established beliefs. This is yet another reason they never venture out from their cave for actual debate with an actual opponent.

Dont expect to last long at JRE.F if you disturb their speculation and theories with facts. They have banned every "troofer" who has brought an argument to their AA77 FDR thread, while the mods look the other way when the GL's offer nothing but ad hom and personal attacks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 11 2009, 06:19 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Turbofan @ May 6 2009, 07:35 PM) *
Excellent stuff Warren. It seems you have ruffled a few feathers at Randiland. I look forward to viewing your replies to their questions.


Had some time this morning to take a gander at the cesspool they call a forum over there. Still rancid... pukeface.gif

Looks like Warren ruffled more than a few feathers. Go easy on Beachnut, his posts indicate he may be due for another stroke.

I see since their theories/speculation of corrupt data have been thoroughly debunked by Warren, they are now attempting to set precedent with AA587 for "missing seconds". Please be sure to ask them for a picture of this from AA77 found west of the Sheraton if they want to equate the two.



For some reason, self proclaimed "critical thinkers" throw their critical thinking skills out the window when looking for any excuse to support their extreme bias for the govt story. Each aircraft crash they attempt to set precedent has had an inflight structural failure and/or fire (they have actually attempted to use TWA800 and SwissAir 111 to set precedent as well..lol). Not to mention the fact the NTSB themselves have reported missing seconds for those flights. This is not the case with AA77. "Duhbunkers" love to claim the NTSB is incompetent with their AA77 Flight Path Study, but attempt to use the NTSB to set precedent where missing seconds are reported by the NTSB for other inflight fires/structural failures? Talk about a walking contradiction.... rolleyes.gif

I see Mackey also thinks a CVR can pick up "steaks of white smoke" to correlate for FDR termination on AA587. I think Mackey may be sucking in too many streaks of white smoke.

Seems 911Files/Farmer is still lost as usual, attempting to set a benchmark/standard for time correlation based on his own processed files (most likely manipulated) which are different from the NTSB standard/anchor point for time. Someone may want to once again inform Farmer to review the Time Correlation Study performed by the NTSB, but dont waste too much time with it as Farmer was informed of this before and instead chose to plug his ears, close his eyes, and yell "blah blah blah", before deleting his site, twice. "Senior moment"/second childhood as Farmer describes himself.. i suppose.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post May 11 2009, 06:33 PM
Post #4





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 16 2009, 10:19 AM) *
<snip>

I see since their theories/speculation of corrupt data have been thoroughly debunked by Warren, they are now attempting to set precedent with AA587 for "missing seconds". Please be sure to ask them for a picture of this from AA77 found west of the Sheraton if they want to equate the two.


I see the report just says the data was lost due to the FDR losing power. Did the NTSB just presume that? From what I read from the report, they don't seem to have looked in to the issue of whether the amount of data lost by the FDR is equal to the amount of time the FDR was without power.
ETA: Sorry, I just realised I was looking at the report for the wrong flight. The report I was looking at was for AA1400 from here


QUOTE
<snip>

... Someone may want to once again inform Farmer to review the Time Correlation Study performed by the NTSB ...

When you refer to the NTSB Time Correlation Study do you mean Section II of the "Recorded Radar Data Study--all four aircraft.pdf" document? If not, where can I get the study?

Warren.

This post has been edited by wstutt: May 11 2009, 06:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 11 2009, 06:59 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ May 11 2009, 06:33 PM) *
I see the report just says the data was lost due to the FDR losing power. Did the NTSB just presume that? From what I read from the report, they don't seem to have looked in to the issue of whether the amount of data lost by the FDR is equal to the amount of time the FDR was without power.
ETA: Sorry, I just realised I was looking at the report for the wrong flight. The report I was looking at was for AA1400 from here



According to L3 Communications, the FDR cannot be missing more than 0.5 seconds after loss of power. This coincides with your analysis of 0.5 seconds per page being written. UT has a thread around here somehwere which showed precedent of less than 0.3 seconds missing once power was lost. This is when the "Duhbunkers" attempted their bizarre "corrupt data after crash" theories to explain their "missing seconds theory" for AA77 FDR.

Not sure if the NTSB gives a direct cause for missing data with AA587, but its fact that the aircraft which do have missing seconds of FDR data prior to impact, also had inflight structural failures and/or fires, which gives plausible explanation for the missing seconds reported by the NTSB for those flights, eg. loss of power to FDR in flight. The NTSB does not report any such "missing seconds" nor are there reports of inflight structural failure/fires for AA77 to cause loss of power to the FDR "4-6 seconds" west of the pentagon wall. Although im sure the "Duhbunkers" are in full speculation/spin mode as to not disrupt their already established beliefs since you have crushed their corrupt data theory.

Im sure if one studies further into the flights "Duhbunkers" claim are "missing seconds", i would bet those flights technically arent missing any seconds once power was lost.

The "Duhbunkers" attempt to compare apples to oranges as much as they can to confuse the audience. Hence moving goal posts to widen "missing seconds" time to impact instead of the proper benchmark of power loss. This again is the reason they refuse to debate with an actual opponent, "there is nothing to debate", yet they do just that from their cave daily.... most anonymously...

QUOTE
When you refer to the NTSB Time Correlation Study do you mean Section II of the "Recorded Radar Data Study--all four aircraft.pdf" document?


Yes... and the information above that part as well.

Its hilarious to watch them move their goal posts from wild theory to wild theory in order to hold onto their Official Conspiracy Theory while at the same calling us CTer's when we have hard data and facts.... irony... rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 11 2009, 07:34 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Turbofan @ May 11 2009, 07:23 PM) *
They are back to "compressor stall" as a possible source for power failure



Compressor stall? Geeeze, i know many of them admit to smoking drugs and dropping LSD, but really? That is their theory now?

If (and thats a big IF), "Compressor stall " were the cause for engine rollback and therefore loss of FDR power "4-6 seconds" west of the pentagon wall, there would be some indication in the FDR prior to full rollback....

there isnt any such indication...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=86

(not to mention redundant systems to keep the FDR powered if there were such a "Compressor Stall")


I guess they now think Hani can hit the pentagon wall with a 33 foot margin for error at over 530 mph, engine out, in a 757 with zero time in type? laughing1.gif

Each time they come up with a new theory, they reinforce the fact of why they hide in their cave anonymously. Too funny.... laughing1.gif

If a self-proclaimed aviation "expert" Duhbunker came up with such a theory, he needs to be drug tested the next time he clocks in.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 11 2009, 08:55 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I took the liberty to split these posts out to their own thread since it is now taking on a topic of its own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 12 2009, 06:27 AM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Turbofan @ May 12 2009, 02:39 AM) *
they are even considering bird strikes!



laughing1.gif

They have had almost 100 pages, tens of thousands of views, and their only theory left is to resort to a bird?

laughing1.gif

Someone may want to inform the GL crack-heads to look at system indications as even a bird strike would show up... unless of course they believe the bird impacted the tail at the exact location of the FDR to knock it offline instantaneously...

"Bird strikes".... lol.... they're desperate.... the mods over there should ban the idiot who suggested such a wild and absurd theory. They're far from "critical thinkers".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 13 2009, 02:22 AM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Turbofan @ May 12 2009, 12:39 AM) *
The comedy value at Randi is just priceless since this latest discovery. I wish I had access to that
forum to say, "hello" to all of my best buddies. blink.gif

What's the latest tally of theories from Beachy and co.?

- 2 seconds of missing data (A.S.)
- 4 seconds of missing data (A.S.)
- 6 seconds of missing data (A.S.)
- Buffer lag (A.S.)
- 125 g impact damage to a select number of cells (various)
- Single cell corruption of FLASH EEPROM (Jaydeehess)
- transient erase hypothesis (Cracky and MacGyver2000)
- sensors recording out of their tolerance. IE: DME (Beachnut)
- comparison of flight data with in-flight failure cases (Mackety)
- Bird strikes (Jaydeehess)
- Trees, antenna debris, etc. (Smakety)

Anything else? doh1.gif

Now the J-cult is really on a fishing trip! Mackey has formulated a "plausible" grocery list that includes aerodynamic stress(es), birds, compressor stall, PIO, and power failure. Others are blaming cargo and service doors. Now all they need are the NIST boys with their shotguns! rolleyes.gif

BZZZZZZZTTTT!!!! Try again! The AC bus voltage values don't agree with any of that speculation according to the NTSB's SSFDR data. Here is a bus voltage chart for the final minutes of NTSB data:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/30276

I have graphed many of the FDR engine (and various other) parameters for the NTSB dataset months ago, but we should probably let these J-clowns continue to twist, spin, squirm, and pull yet more contrived excuses out of their rectums as they hurl logical fallacies far and wide. That seems to be what they do best over in Randiland.

Why do those fools collectively remind me of this old TV commercial lately?

http://www.bestofasseenontv.com/banjo/banjo2.html

Yes there is some mild voltage variation, and different (a whopping approx 1.08 VAC difference BTW) mean bus voltages between the 2 engines, but HINT: S.D.= [0.27544 VAC, 0.35797 VAC for the pair for the final time interval that I sampled]
beamme.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 13 2009, 03:01 AM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



"Correction": for the time frame that I analyzed at the end of the dataset, the [arithmetic] mean (or "average") Left/port AC bus voltage was -1.07782 VAC relative to the Right/starboard mean bus voltage. I estimated from my spreadsheet and didn't actually subtract them until just now. I hope you can forgive me on that one TF.

That rectifier thing actually involves a couple of other charts that I made along with the AC bus voltage one, but I think we should either start a pool or else play "Randiite excuse BINGO" for a while while they catch up- it could take several months or years... I've been thinking of starting a "debunka" drinking game, but I haven't figured out the point system yet. I know that "moot" and "canard" will be mandatory drinking words though. Was it "Anti"-sophist that proclaimed "debunked" ad nauseum long ago? wink.gif

"Pffffffffft" should be worth something special- I haven't decided what though.

Ol' pinchy reminds me of an old barnacle-encrusted crab or lobster (or worse). You don't know anyone who works at Joe's Crab Shack that can find us some props do you? wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post May 13 2009, 08:55 PM
Post #11





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ May 16 2009, 10:59 PM) *
According to L3 Communications, the FDR cannot be missing more than 0.5 seconds after loss of power. This coincides with your analysis of 0.5 seconds per page being written...

I believe that the two figures matching are coincidence. I got the figure of 0.5 seconds per page by averaging the rate the compressed data was being recorded at the end of the flight. If I had averaged other data, I could have got a figure that was higher or lower than 0.5 seconds.

I think what beachnut was trying to determine is that since the Hamming code and page parities are incorrect for two pages, then if those two pages were corrupt (and I have no evidence to suspect they are), how much data could have been lost. This is different from what Ed Santana was saying about how long data takes to be recorded in the crash survivable memory.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 14 2009, 01:28 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I havent been over there since the last round of guesses they attempted to equate with AA587 and other inflight structural failures/fires... but going by your quotes above, it appears they're getting really desperate. I did see Beachy attempted to hypothesize a "rollback" the other day by figuring a 1% decrease in N1 over a 15 second period. What a knucklehead...lol. Even a 707 doesnt have such a slow rollback rate if he actually flew one. It futher confirms the fact Beachy hasnt ever worked with jet engines nor heard of FADEC. Someone needs to tell him to look at N2 and N3. The TL's also reduced in slight angle towards end of data. Beachy likes to lie a lot for some reason.

All their "hypothesizing" doesnt mean a hill of beans for"missing seconds" as the NTSB have set precedent for determining such "anomalies" themselves, as they have done and reported for every other aircraft/FDR which were actually "missing seconds". It just so happens those aircraft had inflight structural failures or fires.... Doesnt seem like the GL's can figure that one out.... perhaps they think its just coincidence.... lol


Oh... and Mackey? EGT does start to cool when leaning out an engine, when you begin to starve it of fuel and the engine begins to sputter/shut down. Ask any private pilot. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 14 2009, 02:14 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Looks like there's nothing new over in Propagandaville yet. HINT for "molech:" It's not a port/starboard thing- it's an N3 thing, since "The N3 rotor drives the engine accessory gearbox" in an RB211-535E4 according to the Flight Manual that I've got. HINT2: The APU appears to have been offline with a fully charged battery according to the NTSB.

Jaydee and Mackey's magic goose must have been a big 'un to get all the way down into N3 (like that one that bloodied Fabio's nose on that roller coaster a while back). Funny that goose didn't slow down N1. Holy Randiites lay an egg... rolleyes.gif

Those poor fools are locked in to their "missing data" electronic conspiracy theories with no way to back out now. Squirm bubba!

HINT3: Both N3's were chugging along at ~93-94%. Here's a new chart for the residents of "Arab boxcutter" OGCT Excuseville so that they might finally catch a clue- I threw it right in their f*cking laps:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/30366

Rolls RB211 TCDS
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance...62?OpenDocument

What is that saying about rats and a sinking ship? Hell even "anti-"sophist had enough sense to bail and run like hell back when Emperor Bush stepped down:

The Exit Of "anti-sophist", Like Mark Roberts, urges people 2 ignore
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=16053

EDIT: While we are on the subject of geese, here is what it really looks like when a B757-200 ingests a bird.

Why Did The Alleged Heavy Smoke Trail From Flt 77, Immediately Disappear From Both Videos and Stills?, post #8
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10763789
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 14 2009, 09:15 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (dMole @ May 14 2009, 02:14 PM) *
Those poor fools are locked in to their "missing data" electronic conspiracy theories with no way to back out now. Squirm bubba!


lol... i saw they tried to equate door prox sensors to loss of power. Hey apathoid, are the gear and gear doors on the PSEU? Whooops! There goes that theory...

apacrap should have picked up on such blatant BS "hypothesizing" if he was worth his salt as an avionics tech. Especially noting the airspeed and G's needed to pull out of such dives (if anythnig, the open door conditions are more consistent with the flyover). Its not uncommon for Prox sensors to show open condition on doors in high speed flight. Especially on older aircraft. We had it happen several times on the 328jet and that thing was brand new!. And guess what... no FDR FAIL! Apathoid sure isnt the cracker-jack avionics tech they seem to think he is. Its clear why he also stays anonymous and refuses debate.

laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post May 15 2009, 01:48 AM
Post #15





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (Turbofan @ May 19 2009, 08:33 AM) *
First off, let me apologize to Warren for this back and forth game we're playing with the kids at Randi. I'm no longer able
to post there because one of their members had me banned for a discussion within private messaging.

<snip>

That's OK, no worries. Now that everyone involved is aware of both this thread and the one on J.REF and can post in at least one of them, I won't need to act as a messenger.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 15 2009, 02:02 AM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ May 15 2009, 01:48 AM) *
I won't need to act as a messenger.



There is no need for you ever to act as a "messenger" Warren. Its rather simple actually. Just ask those who claim to be "experts" over there to sign up here and we'll be sure to answer any questions. Unfortunately, the J.REF mods have banned every single one of our representatives willing to engage the unlimited ad homs, personal attacks and libel in the almost 100 page thread over there (i am also a bit surprised they are taking you at your word regarding 'no evidence of corrupt data' after putting up such a fight with Tino/Turbofan for several pages... where is "Macgyver" anyway?...yeah.. we know.. lol), however every one of their "experts" have refused to sign up here... stating such excuse as "there is nothing to debate".. yet they continue doing just that in their cave daily... to almost 100 pages regarding the FDR alone. Their other excuse?... "Rob Balsamo will post my IP and full name!". Oh the horror!

sh*t, those bozo's have posted my full address on their board when i first announced my full name out of "JDX"... (they also thought i was an imposter posing as "Rob Balsamo"... lol). All P4T core members certificated by the FAA can be cross referenced at faa.gov airman database. We even show our faces. Yet they claim we are the ones who are paraniod? rolleyes.gif

I welcome the day one of them actually get the nads to confront us and our work away from their daily cave. I hope it is at my front door... cam in hand... wink.gif


Anyone taking the time to read through the thread over there will not only readily observe why the Original poster (OP) has suggested others to "ignore" (as he himself has stated repeatedly there can be no more than 2 seconds "missing"), but will also understand the majority of them cannot converse sans libel, mostly anonymously, and will observe every opposing voice in that thread with a "banned" label. They are their own worst enemy and the OP saw it coming (as did we). They may have bought themselves a few years with their obfuscation, but they now realize their time is running short, hence their desperate guesses of "bird strikes" and "PSEU" fails.

Dont bother being a messenger Warren. They are obsessed with us. They read this board daily looking for any excuse to libel and attempt character assassination in between their posted lies regarding data they refuse to debate with an actual opponent.... and far reaching "hypothesis". Its their whole life apparently. Very sad....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 15 2009, 04:16 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2001/jan...4cfr25.1459.htm

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 14, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2001]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 14CFR25.1459]

TITLE 14--AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES--Table of Contents

Subpart F--Equipment
Sec. 25.1459 Flight recorders.

(a) Each flight recorder required by the operating rules of this
chapter must be installed so that--

(1) It is supplied with airspeed, altitude, and directional data
obtained from sources that meet the accuracy requirements of
Secs. 25.1323, 25.1325, and 25.1327, as appropriate;
(2) The vertical acceleration sensor is rigidly attached, and
located longitudinally either within the approved center of gravity
limits of the airplane, or at a distance forward or aft of these limits
that does not exceed 25 percent of the airplane's mean aerodynamic
chord;
(3) It receives its electrical power from the bus that provides the
maximum reliability for operation of the flight recorder without
jeopardizing service to essential or emergency loads;
(4) There is an aural or visual means for preflight checking of the
recorder for proper recording of data in the storage medium.

(5) Except for recorders powered solely by the engine-driven
electrical generator system, there is an automatic means to
simultaneously stop a recorder that has a data erasure feature and
prevent each erasure feature from functioning, within 10 minutes after
crash impact; and
(6) There is a means to record data from which the time of each
radio transmission either to or from ATC can be determined.
(b) Each nonejectable record container must be located and mounted
so as to minimize the probability of container rupture resulting from
crash impact and subsequent damage to the record from fire. In meeting
this requirement the record container must be located as far aft as
practicable, but need not be aft of the pressurized compartment, and may
not be where aft-mounted engines may crush the container upon impact.
© A correlation must be established between the flight recorder
readings of airspeed, altitude, and heading and the corresponding
readings (taking into account correction factors) of the first pilot's
instruments. The correlation must cover the airspeed range over which
the airplane is to be operated, the range of altitude to which the
airplane is limited, and 360 degrees of heading. Correlation may be
established on the ground as appropriate.

(d) Each recorder container must--
(1) Be either bright orange or bright yellow;
(2) Have reflective tape affixed to its external surface to
facilitate its location under water; and
(3) Have an underwater locating device, when required by the
operating rules of this chapter, on or adjacent to the container which
is secured in such a manner that they are not likely to be separated
during crash impact.
(e) Any novel or unique design or operational characteristics of the
aircraft shall be evaluated to determine if any dedicated parameters
must be recorded on flight recorders in addition to or in place of
existing requirements.

[Amdt. 25-8, 31 FR 127, Jan. 6, 1966, as amended by Amdt. 25-25, 35 FR
13192, Aug. 19, 1970; Amdt. 25-37, 40 FR 2577, Jan. 14, 1975; Amdt. 25-
41, 42 FR 36971, July 18, 1977; Amdt. 25-65, 53 FR 26144, July 11, 1988]


Looking at a Boeing 757 Flight Manual, I guess some haven't noticed the dual B757 AC Transfer Busses, Hydraulic Driven Generator, redundant Transformer-Rectifier Units (TRU's), DC Bus Tie Breakers, APU BATT VOLTS, dual power sources listed for L-3 FA-2100 SSFDR, etc.:

http://www.l-3ar.com/PDF_Files/MKT051_FA2100FDR.pdf

Of course these are the same characters droning on about "24 hours of previous data" when the first time listed in the NTSB file is "8:19:00 AM" and I didn't find any dates listed anywhere in the NTSB datafile outside the NTSB #comment block at the top 10 lines in column A.

Reiterating,
9:37:41 EDT, BUS AC- Left 115.8 VAC (bus voltage only polled every 4 seconds in data)
9:37:42, BUS AC- Right 116.5 VAC
9:37:43, DME Left 1.5 NM
9:37:44 EDT, PRESSURE ALT 173 feet (uncorrected), APU BATT VOLTS 27.6 VDC, BARO COR No. 2 30.23 In Hg ...
[The final data written was at 09:37:44.375 EDT (my extrapolation from polling frequency) for the 3 accelerometer axes (and the longitudinal axis still doesn't indicate collision)].

The mean Left AC Bus frequency was 400.64521 Hz, S.D. = 0.34522 Hz and the mean Right AC Bus frequency was 400.46757 Hz, S.D. = 0.37127 Hz for the data after 09:30:00 EDT. For the same time sample, the mean APU BATT VOLTAGE was 27.5747 VDC, S.D. = 0.04349 VDC [Min = 27.5, MAX = 27.6 VDC].

There is nothing in the accelerometer, N1, N2, N3, or ENGINE OUT indicators that would indicate collision or engine failure in the NTSB data (or any "theoretical" parabolic 4.0g "pull"). Some persons are trying very hard to fabricate various contrived excuses here rather than inspecting the NTSB data closely, directly, and objectively and reporting as such. FYI- my "AA77" SSFDR data analysis has been completely independent of that of the P4T organization- twice now, with very similar results.

The NTSB isn't making any post-facto excuses (or explanations unfortunately) for the data alleged to have come from AA77 so far. Others should follow suit and avoid their feeble excuses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jun 4 2009, 08:29 PM
Post #18





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Don't these clown realize that the more theories they come up with among themselves bird strike, compressor failure, etc.) to explain this matter and counteract the PFT view , the more they highlight the need for a new investigation?

After all, at a minimum, their thrashing around for theories is proving that the matter is inconclusive, may have many explanations, and has not yet been investigated and explained!

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jun 4 2009, 08:31 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AirmanDave
post Jun 14 2009, 12:57 AM
Post #19





Group: Core Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 28-May 09
From: Florida, USA
Member No.: 4,334



QUOTE (dMole @ May 14 2009, 02:14 PM) *
This coming from a 'scientist' that thinks leaning out air/fuel mixture reduces exhaust gas temps!


Leaning the Air/Fuel mixture does actually reduce EGT... after you reach peak EGT, but it will increase EGT as you initially lean from full rich in order to reach a peak EGT.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jun 14 2009, 01:43 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



The only time EGT starts to drop in temp is when you starve the engine of fuel. You'll only get a 10-20C drop in temp after the significant rise in temp/peak before the engine starts to quit.

Depending on manufacturer, 5-10C rich/lean side of peak is recommended for power/economy cruise.

The context in which the GL's used their theory is that EGT temps decrease as the mixture is leaned. This is not true and will never be true. You will never get a cooler temp from leaning the mixture than when you first started the lean.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th September 2014 - 05:29 AM