New Fdr Analysis By Frank Legge - Discussion, What do you think? Options

[Decalagon]

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010...ltimeter_92.pdf

I'm reading the document and I am still very doubtful about what it says. Someone can give me some information about that?
Thank you.

[rob balsamo]

The most apparent error is that they assume Radio Height always measures the height above the ground. Wrong.

Pilots know that you can be flying at 31,000 feet and see a Radio Height of 1000 feet (i'll let that one bake the noodle of Warren and Legge for a bit).

Next, their altitude divergence is completely and utterly deceptive and wrong. First they use averages, then they source wiki under the wrong FAR as it pertains to altimeter errors, and third, they speculate altimeters errors on Transport Category Aircraft calibrated with an Air Data Computer increase at "low altitude".

The paper is loaded with pure speculation, littered with errors and peppered with misleading statements. Also notice that not one verified aviation professional has signed their name to it. Reading through the document, it is clear they didn't consult anyone with an aviation background. The most blatant error (which is essentially the foundation for their whole argument), is sourcing the wrong FAR, combined with the fact that their source (wiki) also quoted the FAR they did source, wrong.

If Legge and Stutt were correct, combined with actual allowable errors, this is a depiction of what would be happening daily around the world.



These are just some of the most glaring errors with the paper. There are many more.

Most of the paper was also debunked before it was even published. See here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10792964

[Paul]

The most apparent error is that they assume Radio Height always measures the height above the ground. Wrong.

Pilots know that you can be flying at 31,000 feet and see a Radio Height of 1000 feet (i'll let that one bake the noodle of Warren and Legge for a bit).

Next, their altitude divergence is completely and utterly deceptive and wrong. First they use averages, then they source wiki under the wrong FAR as it pertains to altimeter errors, and third, they speculate altimeters errors on Transport Category Aircraft calibrated with an Air Data Computer increase at "low altitude".

The paper is loaded with pure speculation, littered with errors and peppered with misleading statements. Also notice that not one verified aviation professional has signed their name to it. Reading through the document, it is clear they didn't consult anyone with an aviation background. The most blatant error (which is essentially the foundation for their whole argument), is sourcing the wrong FAR, combined with the fact that their source (wiki) also quoted the FAR they did source, wrong.

If Legge and Stutt were correct, combined with actual allowable errors, this is a depiction of what would be happening daily around the world.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QkCQ_-Id8zI?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QkCQ_-Id8zI?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

These are just some of the most glaring errors with the paper. There are many more.

Most of the paper was also debunked before it was even published. See here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10792964

Just reading you reply already makes me laugh this is great too good, maybe you should publish a rebbutal paper
to his latest paper which claims, oh boy do i have to say it? Maybe i should start believing in fairy dust and fairies
if i am ever going to believe what the paper claims, no i have got a better idea just knock me over the head with a brick.

Dee Bunked already even before the paper is even published, and even just after it has just come out too good lmfao lol.

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

This post has been edited by Paul: Jan 10 2011, 09:37 AM

[rob balsamo]

Just reading you reply already makes me laugh this is great too good, maybe you should publish a rebbutal paper
to his latest paper ...

There really isnt any need. He discredits himself just by publishing his own paper when real experts read it. Why waste time posting a full rebuttal?

If people ask, i'll point out the errors. I'd rather spend my time doing real research and finishing our next presentation on NORAD, ATC and Radar.

I hear even Tino (who adamantly disagreed with my work on the Flight Deck Door) has already blasted Legge as a "disgrace to the movement" after reading his paper.

Seems Legge is his own worst enemy.

[Paul]

There really isnt any need. He discredits himself just by publishing his own paper when real experts read it. Why waste time posting a full rebuttal?

If people ask, i'll point out the errors. I'd rather spend my time doing real research and finishing our next presentation on NORAD, ATC and Radar.

I hear even Tino (who adamantly disagreed with my work on the Flight Deck Door) has already blasted Legge as a "disgrace to the movement" after reading his paper.

Seems Legge is his own worst enemy.

You know what your right keep working on what you are doing can wait to see it when it comes out it will give the detractors something else
to chew on and it might even reign in some new support if we are really lucky just ignore the paid shill Mr Legge and sit back and point and laugh.

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