Aal77 Fdr Decoder Program, Decodes almost 4 more seconds Options

[rob balsamo]

So i decided to take a gander over at the romper room, sure enough, mostly personal attacks in between the occasional theory/speculation for pressure altitude.

I didn't read much of it and skimmed through most, but the best theory i thought came from our good friend Mackey.

"Compressibility!" he claims...

Ok students, what happens when you compress air? It gets more dense and pressure increases, right? What happens as you get lower in altitude, air gets more dense and pressure increases.. right?

So, if the altimeter was erroneous due to "compressibility", it would be reading LOWER than actual altitude! Meaning, the 187 MSL calculated above, is actually reading lower than the actual altitude of the aircraft, according to Mackey's theory.

Mackey just shot himself in the foot with such a claim.... but I'm sure he's used to it. This is why he refuses to debate this topic as there is "nothing to debate", yet attempts to do just that sans an opponent.

Now, if he wants a half-way decent theory that perhaps some of his minions may buy, he could perhaps use Boundary Layer separation where the air is removed from the surface of the airframe due to High speeds near Critical Mach thereby decreasing air density/pressure at the static port, erroneously increasing altitude readings. But then he'd have that pesky control effectiveness issue as well, as control surfaces need air to move an aircraft, not to mention .70 - .72 Mach is no where near Mcrit for a 757. So, Boundary layer sep is not much of a factor for control or the static port, but there are many other factors which come into play for control at such high speeds over Vmo which doesn't effect the static port.

Poor Mackey, first its "bird strikes", now its "compressed air" showing an erroneously higher altitude. Too funny.

[Domenick DiMaggi...]

bird strikes?

you mean at some point he claimed a bird hit the plane?

[rob balsamo]

bird strikes?

you mean at some point he claimed a bird hit the plane?

Yeah.. check here... http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16647

I think its somewhere in there towards the end of the thread....

The GL's were trying to come up with theories of why the FDR lost power for their "missing seconds" claim when Warren squashed their "Corrupt Data due to impact" theory.

It was fun to watch...

Mackey also claims somewhere in there that Wallpaper, pound for pound, can do more destruction to steel than Thermite when ignited. Good stuff! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Its all sourced of course....

[Domenick DiMaggi...]

Yeah.. check here... http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16647

I think its somewhere in there towards the end of the thread....

The GL's were trying to come up with theories of why the FDR lost power for their "missing seconds" claim when Warren squashed their "Corrupt Data due to impact" theory.

It was fun to watch...

Mackey also claims somewhere in there that Wallpaper, pound for pound, can do more destruction to steel than Thermite when ignited. Good stuff! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Its all sourced of course....

wow this guy makes this stuff up as he goes along don't he? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbdown.gif)

why does anyone give him the time of day?

[rob balsamo]

wow this guy makes this stuff up as he goes along don't he? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbdown.gif)

Well, its not technically making stuff up in this case.... as he is using proper terminology in the case of "Compressibility". But yes, he is/was pulling anything out his ass with respect to the Bird Strike, in order to hold onto his theory...

This is more of a case of throwing out technobabble in hopes others will follow. Which many of the self-proclaimed "skeptics" have bought hook, line and sinker.

I've been accused of the same, but in 3 short years, we have accumulated these people who obviously understand my "technobabble" considering most have more experience than me.... and the list continues to grow... Mackey's list consist of zero verified aviation experts.

Unfortunately for Mackey, he never earned an Instrument rating, nor learned partial panel and the effects of instrument error and how to properly interpret error to get the aircraft home safe. At the risk of tooting my own horn, I teach it and have signed off students who passed their check rides based on it. I have also had in flight emergencies with respect to static and alternate static ports. .and still got a plane load of kids and the CEO home safe... imagine climbing out and the altimeter is frozen, on both sides, with the airspeed increasing rapidly with almost 10 degrees pitch up... the CEO didnt even know there was a problem till the next day when he asked why the aircraft was in maintenance.. .Just the facts... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

When you know the source of errors, you can easily determine logical conclusions.

Mackey is just yelling out "Compressibility!" without even knowing the effects of such, which is opposite of what he assumes.

Basically, Mackey is a case of having little knowledge is worse/more dangerous than having none.

[rob balsamo]

This was too good to pass up and gives new meaning to the "Treat" in ReTreat".

"Nobody, but nobody uses a barometric altimeter in lieu of a radar altimeter below 500' AGL. This includes any military or the airlines." - Reheat, Oct 22, 2009, Yankees 6 - Angels 4, Bottom of the 7th, 2 men on, 2 Out.

This quote was almost as delicious as watching the Yankees take the lead in one inning down by 4... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Clearly Reheat doesn't know the difference between DA and DH on a Cat I ILS which is based on Barometric Altitude call-outs below "500 AGL" at every airline in the entire world.

Reheat, how can "nobody, but nobody" shoot an approach to 200 and 1/2 if a Radar Altimeter is not required equipment for IFR/IMC? Clearly ReTreat doesn't even know the required equipment for IFR flight.

Here ReTreat, perhaps you should sign up for a basic course at American Flyers.
http://www.americanflyers.net/iraground/iragroundch1.pdf
(page 6, just a simple search i did because the game is more important at this point... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

What a treat from ReTreat as this once again proves why ReTreat will never post his name to verify his claimed credentials, nor debate pilots with real credentials. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And yes, I have it screenshot saved. This is one of his best. If Reheat is really a pilot, he must be in another one of his drunken stupors. You should have heard him when he got the nads to call in to one of the radio shows I was on. He even gave the name "Reheat" as the caller. Well, i must give him one thing, at least he respects his own name enough to not associate it with his absurd claims.

Precious... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Edit to add: I see 'ReTreat', true to form as his moniker suggests, has 'retreated' on his above statements after reading this post, and added this edit to his post...

"ETA: a correction here. We used to shoot Ground Controlled (GCA) approaches to 200' agl 1/4 mile visibility without a radar altimeter. What I said above applies to aircraft with a Radar altimeter. On Precision approaches the Decision Height is based on a barometric altimeter, but you can rest assurred [sic] that the pilot has one eyeball on the radar altimeter (if one is available).

Well...

Lets break this down...

"What I said above applies to aircraft with a Radar altimeter...."

Actually, what ReTreat said above is...

"Nobody, but nobody uses a barometric altimeter in lieu of a radar altimeter below 500' AGL."

Nowhere does ReTreat mention it is only for aircraft which have Radar Altimeters.

Secondly, if ReTreat actually flew an approach "below 500 AGL" all call-outs are based on Baro Altimeter and there is never "one eye on the RadAlt" during such an approach. Baro Alt is ultimate authority. Why would a pilot increase their work-load with 'one eye' on RadAlt attempting to interpret approach clearway obstacles/slope vs Baro Alt on a Cat I approach? They wouldn't. They don't. I don't. I never have. I never seen anyone do it. It has never been taught as such, and I have never taught it as such. Matter of fact, it is discouraged to look at RadAlt on a Cat I ILS. If Reheat were a real pilot, he would know this.

Third, Reheat still refers to Cat I ILS as DH instead of DA. Pilots, you know.. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

ReTreat, you not only hold true to your moniker of retreating on your original claims by adding an edit after you read my above post, but you continue to give real pilots a treat based on your absurd claims.Thank you!

(for those who wish to pay attention to detail, note time of post and time of edit for my post and ReTreat. Be sure to adjust for forum time zone when clicking main page. If still confused, feel free to email me for the original post file before ReTreat retreated on his claims)

ReTreat, if it makes you feel better in your drunken stupor, you could chastise me for the Yankee's losing tonight, as that is pretty much all you have left in your arsenal.... lol.. such a move would be known as a "Beachnut"...

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Oct 23 2009, 01:37 AM

[rob balsamo]

I see Mackey has written a long convoluted post based on the fact he claims "there is noting to debate".

Is it any wonder Mackey does not include a link to "Compressibility" in his post?

Some choice quotes under "Compressibility" with respect to aerodynamics...

Some of the minor effects include changes to the airflow that lead to problems in control

Finally, another common problem that fits into this category is flutter. At some speeds the airflow over the control surfaces will become turbulent, and the controls will start to flutter. If the speed of the fluttering is close to a harmonic of the control's movement, the resonance could break the control off completely.

These are some of the BASIC reasons Mackey writes long convoluted posts when he also claims "there is nothing to debate". I won't bother to get into "Super-Critical" definitions which Mackey obviously lacks basic understanding.


"I don't know enough about the aircraft or the precise flow to guess whether it would go up or down" - Ryan Mackey, Self Proclaimed NASA Scientist.

We do, this is why Ryan refuses to debate this topic with an actual opponent.

Ryan, when will you learn less is more? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Edit to add:

Mackey added an edit to his post...

If you've ever been to an airshow and seen high performance aircraft maneuvering steeply, you've probably seen this -- and it happens at subsonic speeds.

What's happening is that, under maneuver, the airflow is briefly accelerated to sonic speed, and a weak shock forms, attached to the wings. The air gets compressed and heats up in the shock, losing a bit of heat to the boundary layer and so on. But the airfoil isn't done yet. It next decompresses the air, and so doing also reduces the temperature, since there's no heat entering or leaving the fluid. If it decompresses the air enough, this causes water to condense, forming the cloud.

Completely wrong...

This is known as an aerodynamic contrail at an "airshow"... (again, just a quick search i did, but you can also see the same on any airliner on landing in high humidity)

(IMG:http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Chino2006/Highlights/F16Chino2006.jpg)

What is happening is that the pressure above the wing reduces so low (which is a direct relationship to temp, thereby decreasing temp), that it is reduced to the dew point and aerodynamic contrails are visible. It has nothing to do with sonic, transonic or other type of mach speeds. Mackey is blowing smoke up your ass as usual.

(the best i could find for an aircraft landing... for now... and hey, it looks like its a 757! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

(IMG:http://jazzroc.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/heavy-landing.jpg)

According to Mackey, the airflow on the above aircraft, above the wing, is "sonic".... lol... Mackey is so lost its not even funny... Its clear why he will never debate a real expert on this topic. I'm really wondering if he really is an engineer at NASA. If he does work at JPL, perhaps he sweeps floors? He does have a little knowledge that one would have in passing by a conversation, but clearly the guy is lost.

[wstutt]

Warren,

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

I'll add them to the next release. Here is the names of the parameters as they appear in 757-3b_1.txt, if I understand correctly:

Bleed Duct Pressure:
BLEED DUCT PRESS - L
BLEED DUCT PRESS - R

Engine RPM:
ENG N1-ACTUAL - L
ENG N1-ACTUAL - R
ENG N2-ACTUAL - L
ENG N2-ACTUAL - R
ENG N3-ACTUAL - R
ENG N3-ACTUAL- L
N2 CORRECTED TO 2.5 - L
N2 CORRECTED TO 2.5 - R

AC Bus Volts:
BUS AC VOLTS - LEFT
BUS AC VOLTS - RIGHT

Left/Right Fuel pumps:
AFT FUEL PUMP - L
AFT FUEL PUMP - R
C-L FUEL PUMP LT
C-L FUEL PUMP PR
C-R FUEL PUMP LT
C-R FUEL PUMP PR
FWD FUEL PUMP

Fuel Tank Density all tanks:
DENSITY S TANK
DENSITY R TANK
DENSITY L TANK
DENSITY C TANK
R TANK LB/KG
S TANK LB/KG
C TANK LB/KG
L TANK LB/KG

Engine EGT:
ENG EGT-LEFT
ENG EGT-RIGHT
ENG EGT RED - L
ENG EGT RED - R

Engine gen:
ENG DED GEN - L
ENG DED GEN - R

Engine EPR:
ENG EPR COMMAND - L
ENG EPR COMMAND - R
ENG EPR LIMIT-L
ENG EPR LIMIT-R
ENG EPR-ACTUAL - L
ENG EPR-ACTUAL - R
EPR BUG DRIVE LEFT
EPR BUG DRIVE RIGHT
EPR TARGET-FMC

Engine Fuel Flow:
ENG FUEL FLOW - L
ENG FUEL FLOW - R

Engine Oil Pressure
Engine Oil Press, Temp, Quantity:
ENG LO OIL PRESS - L
ENG LO OIL PRESS - R
ENG OIL PRES - L
ENG OIL PRES - R
ENG OIL PRESS RED - L
ENG OIL PRESS RED - R
ENG OIL QTY - L
ENG OIL QTY - R
ENG OIL TEMP - L
ENG OIL TEMP - R
ENG OIL TEMP RED - L
ENG OIL TEMP RED - R

Engine N2, N3:
ENG N2 RED - L
ENG N2 RED - R
ENG N3 RED - L
ENG N3 RED - R

Engine Vibration:
ENG VIBRATION - L
ENG VIBRATION - R

Engine Out (off):
ENG OUT RLY - L
ENG OUT RLY - R
ENGINE OUT (EO) - L
ENGINE OUT (EO) - R

Fan Inlet Temp:
FAN INLET TOTAL TEMP - L
FAN INLET TOTAL TEMP - R

Filter Vibration:
FILTER 1 VIB - L
FILTER 1 VIB-R
FILTER 2 VIB - L
FILTER 2 VIB - R
FILTER 3 VIB - L
FILTER 3 VIB - R

Hydraulic Pumps:
HYD ELEC PUMP OVHT - L
HYD ELEC PUMP OVHT - R
HYD PRI PUMP OVHT - LEFT
HYD PRI PUMP OVHT - RIGH
HYD PUMP 1 OVHT - CENTER
HYD PUMP 2 OVHT - CENTER

Hydraulic Pressure:
HYD PRES - C
HYD PRES - L
HYD PRES - R
HYD RSVR PRESS < 17 - C
HYD RSVR PRESS < 17 - L
HYD RSVR PRESS < 17 - R
HYD RSVR PRESS > 55 - C
HYD RSVR PRESS > 55 - L
HYD RSVR PRESS > 55 - R
HYD SYS LO PRESS - C
HYD SYS LO PRESS - L
HYD SYS LO PRESS - R

Master Warning:
MASTER CAUTION LIGHT
MASTER WARNING CAPT
MASTER WARNING F/O


Let me know if any of these are wrong or you need additional parameters,

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

That works Warren... thanks.. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[wstutt]

As I thanked apathoid on J.R.E.F., I would also like to thank UnderTow for the information he provided that also made my new program possible. The short data frame layout 573b.Short.txt and ReadOut 2 were crucial in this regard and personal messages between us were also very useful.

Warren.

[wstutt]

I do not, but that doesn't mean there aren't any instances that have been corrected by outside influence. As you can see by precedent set, the NTSB usually corrects their information in a timely manner or at least posts a side letter of explanation if in fact such errors exist. I don't think it matters who takes the credit for the find.

I am speculating here. Perhaps the difference in the case of AAL77 is that it was treated as a criminal investigation where the NTSB is only providing support to the FBI. Perhaps the NTSB was more interested in evidence that could be gathered for criminal trials rather than what could be learnt to improve public safety for normal aircraft crashes where the FBI does not become involved. In other words, perhaps normal processes of the NTSB are overridden by the fact that the work is for the FBI.

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

I am speculating here. Perhaps the difference in the case of AAL77 is that it was treated as a criminal investigation where the NTSB is only providing support to the FBI. Perhaps the NTSB was more interested in evidence that could be gathered for criminal trials rather than what could be learnt to improve public safety for normal aircraft crashes where the FBI does not become involved. In other words, perhaps normal processes of the NTSB are overridden by the fact that the work is for the FBI.

Warren.

Warren,

Either the RAPS software that the NTSB uses decodes incomplete frames or it doesn't. I don't think there is a check-box in the RAPS software for "Criminal Investigation" or "Civil Aircraft Accident" in which the software then decides what to decode followed by the NTSB completing a "Flight Path Study" and drawing conclusions based in such a decode.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Not to derail the thread here, but I was curious Warren...

1. Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?
2. Do you believe the plane approached on the north side of the former Citgo gas station based on all the corroborated eyewitness testimony we obtained?

Just wanted some answers, not to harp on anything in particular in this thread. If I find something to harp on, I figure I can make a separate thread for it.

[wstutt]

Warren,

Either the RAPS software that the NTSB uses decodes incomplete frames or it doesn't. I don't think there is a check-box in the RAPS software for "Criminal Investigation" or "Civil Aircraft Accident" in which the software then decides what to decode followed by the NTSB completing a "Flight Path Study" and drawing conclusions based in such a decode.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Does anyone know whether the RAPS software was capable of decoding the raw FDR file? I speculate that the NTSB may have had to use the ROSE software from the FDR manufacturer to decompress the file, so that they could then use the RAPS software on it.

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Does anyone know whether the RAPS software was capable of decoding the raw FDR file? I speculate that the NTSB may have had to use the ROSE software from the FDR manufacturer to decompress the file, so that they could then use the RAPS software on it.

Warren.

Good point actually. I shouldn't have said RAPS as I don't know the exact software used. I was just going by what was said in your cover letter.

[rob balsamo]

I took a stroll through Randiland during my morning coffee and as usual, loads of personal attacks with the occasional theory.

Once again they're trying to confuse their minions with technobabble.

Now Mackey claims this is what they were talking about when he made the statement about a plane turning "steeply" at an airshow at subsonic speed.

(IMG:http://gallery.photo.net/photo/8558369-md.jpg)

"If you've ever been to an airshow and seen high performance aircraft maneuvering steeply, you've probably seen this -- and it happens at subsonic speeds." - Ryan Mackey

Well no. The above Vapor cone, as you can see, is happening in straight and level flight, and it's when the aircraft is breaking the sound barrier. Mackey is so confused he doesn't even realize the difference, and his minions follow right along...

Next, which has been already pointed out... Mackey claims compressibility affected the Pressure Altimeter (of course he admits he doesn't know which way), but fails to understand (or ignores), the control issues associated with compressibility. So, not only was Hani able to get an aircraft completely into its target with a 33' margin for error at 130 knots over Vmo and zero time in type, but he also overcame the control issues associated with compressibility, yet couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots.... according to Mackey. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Pilots will get a kick out of this as well...

"The radar altimeter is the more reliable instrument, period. If there's a conflict between it and the pressure altimeter, we should lean towards the radar altimeter." - Ryan Mackey

So basically Mackey is claiming the RadAlt is primary and the Baro Alt supporting. I think Mackey should perhaps join Reheat at the above recommended American Flyers basic Instrument Rating course.

Thank goodness Mackey doesn't fly aircraft or he would be a smoking hole on a step down approach or going on premature missed approaches all day long on approaches with buildings/rolling hills/tall trees along the approach corridor. But I'm sure Mackey is used to 'missing' prematurely... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


I still see he hasn't learned the definition of supercritical either and that .70 - .72 Mach is no where near Mcrit for a 757, therefore, "compressibility" is not a problem for the 757 at such Mach speed, after all Mmo is .86 on the 757. This of course assumes Mackey can convert airspeed into Mach based on temp, clearly he is unable. But as stated above and ignored by the GL's, many other factors are a problem above Vmo for control which do not effect the static port. Certainly compressibility isn't an issue at .14 - .16 Mach below the aircraft Mmo or 757's would be coming back with missing control surfaces after each flight...

"...another common problem that fits into this category is flutter. At some speeds the airflow over the control surfaces will become turbulent, and the controls will start to flutter. If the speed of the fluttering is close to a harmonic of the control's movement, the resonance could break the control off completely." - Aeronautical Dynamics Of Compressibility


They should stick to their bird strike theory, but this time, that it clogged the static port.... on both sides, at exactly 187 MSL... lol

Yes folks, they do serve their purpose over there. I personally love the fact their forum is mostly littered with personal attacks, libel and photoshopped pictures... but it's even better when they attempt tech-talk and posit theories to fit their incredulity. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)


Too funny...

[rob balsamo]

Since the minions at Randiland are confused... i'll help them out a bit...

Here, let me google that for you.

Mackey is mixing technobabble by stating "Vapor Cone" and "maneuvering steeply at subsonic speeds" in the same context. He is trying to describe one phenomenon based on the causes of another. This goes back to my original statement of having a little information is worse/more dangerous than having none...

Although the Vapor Cone can appear without breaking the sound barrier, its completely incompatible with what Mackey was attempting to describe with "manuevering steeply", not to mention the fact, and once again ignored by Randi's Kids, that the 757 does not experience Compressibility issues at .70 - .72 Mach, which is well below the aircraft Max Operating Mach speed. But again, as stated, many other issues are a factor with respect to control at such excessive speeds over Vmo, which do not affect the static ports (by the way, they are ports, not probes Mackey). If Mackey wants to cling onto his "Compressibility" theory, he will have to posit a different type aircraft, something with more of a straight wing.

I suppose their next theory will be that "Low Pressure" was present at the strategically placed static port(s) (which is located lower than the wing by the way, where the pressure is higher than above a wing), due to Compressibility, but such Compressibility effects not present above the wings or over control surfaces. That would be almost as good as their bird strike theory hitting the tail of the aircraft where the FDR is located to knock it offline 6 seconds prior to impact. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Domenick DiMaggi...]

I took a stroll through Randiland during my morning coffee and as usual, loads of personal attacks with the occasional theory.

Once again they're trying to confuse their minions with technobabble.

Now Mackey claims this is what they were talking about when he made the statement about a plane turning "steeply" at an airshow at subsonic speed.

(IMG:http://gallery.photo.net/photo/8558369-md.jpg)

"If you've ever been to an airshow and seen high performance aircraft maneuvering steeply, you've probably seen this -- and it happens at subsonic speeds." - Ryan Mackey

Well no. The above Vapor cone, as you can see, is happening in straight and level flight, and it's when the aircraft is breaking the sound barrier. Mackey is so confused he doesn't even realize the difference, and his minions follow right along...

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

supersonic hani hanjour!!!!!

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[Omega892R09]

by the way, they are ports, not probes Mackey.

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.

The combined pitot-static probes of the Sea Vixen were a devil. Two rows of staggered slots around the circumference of the probe requiring close inspection with a self lit magnifying lens to look out for cracks. This was required each pre-flight. Even then some tips fell off in flight. But then the a/c did have one on each wing.

Ask Mackey about position error.

Also Critical Mach.

[Omega892R09]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

supersonic hani hanjour!!!!!

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

And in a 172 at that, whilst practicing.

Must have had his pitot-static lines crossed. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)