Another Question For Warren Stutt, concerning altitude Options

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Warren Stutt,

You must be aware that people are referencing you to suggest that your findings contradict the statements by P4T that the last reported altitude in the NTSB data shows a value too high to hit the light poles and the building.

Are you willing to set the record straight here and at j.ref by publicly agreeing that your findings in the data concerning altitude CONFIRM the findings of P4T that it shows the plane too high to hit the light poles and the building?

[rob balsamo]

Warren,

DCA weather values are not precise to the degree. I explained this to you above. Your initial input skews all the rest.

I will admit I dont have the time nor the desire to cross check your math. Also, if you are going to link an 86 page pdf, it might be nice to let readers know its a big pdf file before they click on it. Its just nice internet etiquette.

Bottom line...

You can spend hours upon hours attempting to fit the data to an impact, but this list will still grow with professionals who understand the big picture when reviewing the data and information. We have another update coming soon.

3 sets of independent data match. FMS, Airport and Pitot-Static. This is basic aeronautical knowledge and is why you dont see the Romper Room acting up over it, instead they are making fools of themselves over -15.6 AOA in which it appears the majority of them havent even looked at the parameter data in the files.. (I took a gander over at the cesspool tonight, what a mess...lol).

If you want to compare apples to apples further, try comparing envelopes and margins of error. Still, this would not be in your range for impact. Keep in mind, Airspeed errors are +/- 6 knots according to documents provided by apathoid. Altitude is +/-75 feet. Your correlation doesnt even start till you exceed those initial margins of error.

It would also be nice if you would inform the Romper Room regarding the fact that the data presented in your decode and the NTSB csv file has already underwent the conversion from raw data to "engineering units" using the DFL formula's. It appears apathoid is the only one who actually looked at the data in the files, found out it is in fact showing -15.6 deg for a "level AOA", decided to once again use the DFL conversion on data which has already been converted, and still got it wrong as the product would be a negative value...lol. Of course he also couldnt miss out on an opportunity to make another post loaded with personal attacks. You might want to bring some jelly over there when you inform them as Im sure they are getting tired of eating their shoe raw. Too funny.

For those interested. See attached for a clear picture of what we been talking about regarding AOA and pitch angles. (We've already had enough laughs at Will's expense. I suppose it's time to throw him a bone.. you're welcome Will, and thanks for all the laughs when you attempted to use FD Pitch for aircraft attitude).

Attached File(s)

 Pitch_aoa_altitude_airspeed.csv ( 327.03K ) Number of downloads: 26