Aal77 Fdr Decoder Program, Decodes almost 4 more seconds Options

[wstutt]

I have created a new program to decode AAL77's raw FDR file.

I am making it available for download along with it's source code and some output files from the program.

You can read more about it here

It decodes almost 4 more seconds of data than what appears at the end of the NTSB CSV file.

I welcome suggestions for any more parameters you would like decoded or any other features you would like added.

I will also be discussing this on the J.R.E.F. "AA77 FDR Data, Explained" thread as well as here.

Warren.

mod edit: Although Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not have any reason to believe the above program is offered for any nefarious purpose, we felt the responsibility to add this disclaimer. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not vouch for nor is responsible for any of the data provided above by Warren. Nor can we guarantee his program is free of malicious code. Download at your own risk.

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Oct 22 2009, 05:38 PM

[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!

[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.