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 )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Fdr Analysis By Frank Legge - Discussion, What do you think?

Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jan 10 2011, 09:07 PM
Post #21


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 10 2011, 02:38 PM) *
He can now be officially classified as disinformation.


Absolutely.

It's a team out of Australia. Stutt, Legge, and Bursill. Working in conjunction with the American and Canadian (Jeff Hill) counter parts. The movement is infested and they are desperately trying to contain the evidence/analyses from PFT/CIT.

What do we know about Warren Stutt? Absolutely nothing other than he is an identity that is supposed to be a debugger with a degree in computer science that posts on your forum, J.REF (the cesspool of supposed 9/11 Truth debunking), and works with "Dr." "Frank Legge" "PhD" to produce a paper to undermine PFT and their sterling, and truly peer-reviewed, analysis of the alleged Flt77 black box data while attempting to reinforce the official flight path to undermine the smoking gun evidence collected by us, CIT.

What do we know about Frank Legge's background? He's supposed to be a chemist with "Logical Systems Consulting" (alleged experience with Bio-Diesel Energy and Sheep)and has blended in well trying to act like a 9/11 Truth supporter and working with the CD crowd, but yet seems to step out his area of expertise and knowledge to CONTINUALLY AND PERSISTENTLY work to undermine CIT and PFT with (8+) drafts of "peer-reviewed" papers (what kind of peer-review allows for multiple mistakes?) containing overwhelming amounts of disinformation. Is he being influenced? His actions say otherwise.

What do we know about John Bursill? We know he too has tried to blend in with 9/11 Truthers working with the same crowd trying to cast doubt on CIT and PFT. Except he has had the gall to step into the light and debate Craig Ranke, lose the debate, concede he lost and concedes that he will not attack CIT any longer.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=942

Except in true bizarre, infiltrator/provocateur fashion he goes back to attacking us as if nothing he said matters. With bizarre, subversive behavior, one might expect to see some type of connections in his past to military/intelligence, sure enough right in his bio...

John has served his country as a member of the Australian Army Reserve over many years and finished up as acting Operations/Intelligence Sargent for 4/3 RNSWR.
Source: visibility911.com/johnbursill/about-john-bursill/

It's interesting Steven Jones steps out to support them and encourage everyone to go there, especially in light of his behavior with us. I will leave it at that.

Right now, it is a game of mental manipulation and they are using 'Appeal to Authority' to cast doubt by using a Phd and computer techno-jargon and a simple confidence by declaring it is proof of the impact on the official path. They are taking flawed, problematic gov't supplied data which does not prove an impact and are trying to use it to prove an impact. They refuse to acknowledge where they are wrong and instead try to use speculation as proof. Furthermore, this data would mean there is a serious Flight Safety issue and yet Stutt and Legge are only targeting 9/11 Truthers in a psyop, and not taking this supposed crucial find of an alleged bug to the aviation authorities. This proves their agenda is not genuine but instead is designed to target a specific audience.

Read Rob's responses and therein lies the truth.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Jan 10 2011, 09:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 10 2011, 09:22 PM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Decalagon @ Jan 10 2011, 07:00 PM) *
No problem ;-) thanks for welcome.

About the Legge's paper: I believe this is wrong ....



The main and most glaring reason Legge is wrong, is the fact I am still alive, as well as all our Core members.

If Legge were right, We would have plowed into a runway long ago on a foggy night shooting approaches. And so would every other pilot who shoots those approaches (this is why even debunkers who claim to be pilots understand Legge's paper is garbage).

I remember one particular approach into Roanoke. Boy, I'm so glad Legge wasnt flying that approach. I'm sure my passengers are as well.

Those who think Legge is right, better never get on another airplane if your destination is calling for fog and/or low visibility. You'll die! (according to Legge and Warren Stutt).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jan 10 2011, 10:54 PM
Post #23


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



It appears all the fake truth sites are deleting comments that support CIT and PFT and show Stutt and Legge are wrong.

Not surprising. There is definitely a campaign going on here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jan 10 2011, 11:03 PM
Post #24





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (Decalagon @ Jan 10 2011, 05:54 PM) *
Thanks at all for the answers, but I'd like to better understand the technical errors mentioned by Mr. Balsamo. I am aware of the fact that the unidentified flying object has traveled a route to the north of the light poles: for this reason I wanted to understand the bullshits (excuse the term) said by Frank Legge :-)


Legge is trying as hard as he can to simply cast doubt.

He is hoping you will dismiss the witnesses who undeniably contradict the official story in favor of his spin and lies to support the official story based on govt provided evidence.

Yes it's transparent but Legge and his cohorts are desperate.

All they can hope to do at this point is influence the people who prefer to take their word for it instead of investigating for themselves or paying attention to both sides of the discussion.

Legge's deceptive papers really have no effect on anyone who actually views National Security Alert so he is simply hoping that he convinces you to not bother watching it.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Jan 10 2011, 11:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Jan 11 2011, 12:02 AM
Post #25



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 841
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



Legge works hard to link the SoC flightpath to the plane striking - so mathematically he counts everyone who thought the plane hit the Pentagon as a SoC flightpath witness and comes up with a figure greater than the NoC flightpath witness figure.

From a post on 9/11 Blogger (http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-01/joint-statement-pentagon-david-chandler-and-jon-cole)

QUOTE
CIT claims that their witnesses to north path, and therefore to overfly, are infallible because they have them on video. I have found an equal number of witnesses to impact, and therefore to south path, on video.

Legge also states in that same post
QUOTE
Roosevelt Roberts. Saw the plane pass over the light poles then heard impact and screaming. He is a witness to south pass and impact. CIT gives a different impression.

Roberts has clearly stated that explosion came first and then he saw a large plane - and from where he was situated, he would never have been able to see the plane prior to "impact" anyway - and so Legge is obviously believing the charlatans who twist and distort witness evidence while accusing CIT of doing the twisting and distorting.

Whatever his motives, it is a big call for a physics man and a computer geek to interpret FDR data - there are no great programming skills required to decode large amounts of data, just time and patience, but it takes a considerably different expertise to actually know what the data means.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 11 2011, 12:36 AM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
CIT claims that their witnesses to north path, and therefore to overfly, are infallible because they have them on video. I have found an equal number of witnesses to impact, and therefore to south path, on video.


Man, I haven't even got the appropriate words to describe that "logic".

In a recent exchange between Chris "NOC impact or whatever" Sarns and Frank OCT Legge at 911B, both half-arsedly making their contradictory claims, John schizo Bursill interceded and said, "guys, you're on the same page" (!!!).

Legge also claimed on the same thread that Stutt's "data" showed a smooth descent by the VDOT mast through th lightpoles to the Pentagon. No it doesn't. It shows a path that goes by the Navy Annex, descending to a height of 4ft AGL before reaching Route 27, missing the poles, all the while executing a slight right tilt, completely ignoring the True Altitude and every single witness on record!

That sums up their agenda and "scientific method" right there. But they're going to push it nonetheless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Decalagon
post Jan 11 2011, 08:39 AM
Post #27





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 8-December 09
From: Italy
Member No.: 4,778



QUOTE
If Legge were right, We would have plowed into a runway long ago on a foggy night shooting approaches


Understood. So, I will never take a plane piloted by Frank laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Jan 12 2011, 01:41 AM
Post #28





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (Ligon @ Jan 11 2011, 04:47 AM) *
Over at Blogger Steven Jones, co-editor of The Journal of 9/11 Studies (JO911S), writes:



This same "peer-review" claim was made last time Frank Legge published an article about the Pentagon in the JO911S, even though it contained a considerable amount of false and/or misleading information. After the initial publication of this supposedly "peer-reviewed" paper it subsequently underwent multiple revisions to correct errors, and yet even after those revisions it still contained key misinformation (more properly called disinformation since it was pointed out to him after Version 2, and he is now on Version 8) which remains to this day. Read all about that episode here.


http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread648696/pg1

Look at all the replies already looks many have already been sucked into the deep dark black hole from which their is no return created Warren & Legge what a bunch of pathetic loosers, i hope Legge is happy with himself he has acheived what he has wanted to being a shill and a disinfo
agent, i bet he is reading all the replies right now jacking himself off all over his keyboard at the positive response from the all guillable idiots
and f4T & CIT haters his new paper has gotton so far.

blahblah1.gif blahblah1.gif yes1.gif yes1.gif doh1.gif doh1.gif

This post has been edited by Paul: Jan 12 2011, 02:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jan 15 2011, 07:10 PM
Post #29





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



Hi All!

Here's three posts saying what I think of the Legge Paper. I haven't bothered to read it so maybe he has revised his approach to avoid some of this, which are broad conceptual problems with his approach, but I'll bet not all.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777284

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777287

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777290

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jan 15 2011, 07:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 16 2011, 10:43 AM
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jan 16 2011, 12:10 AM) *
Hi All!

Here's three posts saying what I think of the Legge Paper. I haven't bothered to read it so maybe he has revised his approach to avoid some of this, which are broad conceptual problems with his approach, but I'll bet not all.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777284

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777287

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10777290


Very useful links Mark. Particularly the first one.
I recommend people to refresh their memories of just how illogical and out of his depth Legge actually is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 16 2011, 11:15 AM
Post #31





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



While peer review is a sound approach to having qualified experts in a field review new research, the peer review process at Journal for 911 Studies is not peer review but simply having some other people who are not necessarily experts in the field review the research and pass on it. Not only that the reviewers are all pre disposed to supporting the work of their associates in many cases.

What the truth movement is doing is standing on the shoulders of the peer review concept as providing gravitas or validity to their work. It's really an abuse of the peer review concept... and nothing more than an appeal to authority (which is not there).

Bazant's work has been pretty much debunked at the 911 Free Forums - http://the911forum.freeforums.org - as well as faulty critiques of Bazant by James Gourley in the truth movement from Journal for 911 Studies. False critique of false claims! But that is what results when people who are not experts in one field decide to take on an "analysis" and put forth an hypothesis.

All scientific analysis must employ and obey the basic scientific principles. However, each individual discipline.. aeronautics, structure, engineering etc. has advanced set of principles, rules and so forth most of which have been derived from both theory and empirical data. One needs to have mastered these disciplines before one can argue with credibility any analysis within these disciplines. Much of the truth movement's claims tend to reduce complex esoteric data into broad scientific principles and come up with broad (inaccurate in some cases) conclusions. Why? One could suspect plants who are blowing smoke and confusing the issues. One could also attribute it to big egos. And perhaps it's a little of both.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Jan 18 2011, 09:15 AM
Post #32





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



Good day all. Nice job Rob on the Jesse show. I'm wondering why he didn't contact Craig or Aldo at CIT? Anyway, I posed some of the more interesting points over at Blogger as I'm not quite banned yet.

The biggest issue I see is that people outside their field of expertise are writing papers, calling it peer reviewed, and claming it as fact. I compared that to experts in their field having a peer reviewed paper published in a mainstream journal. And now more than ever I'm convinced that 9/11 blogger is a blockade to anything but official story regarding the Pentagon. Sure, we all know the air defense should have interecepted whatever was wondering in the skies that morning, and we all know why that part of the Pentagon was attacked, and yet to suggest anything other than the official story, your voted down immeditely. That is too bad because that site use to be a great tool and resource.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 18 2011, 10:58 AM
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Hi SD, good to see ya!

Feel free to send an invite to those at Blogger who wish to discuss the paper and its numerous errors, without censorship. None of them are banned here.

Post a link to this thread.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 19 2011, 03:13 AM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I was a bit bored tonight and went over to Blogger to see how they're making out without any real experts, sure enough, Legge continues to make a fool of himself.

Frank says...

"Pilots do not depend on the pressure altimeter as they approach the runway...... Instrument pilots use radio height."


Gotta love it... a Chemist trying to tell a Certified Flight Instructor, Instrument Instructor and Multiengine Instructor, how approaches are flown. I guess all those students i had which passed their Check rides (many now flying for airlines themselves), were taught completely wrong information and should have instead listened to a Chemist.

I then sent this email to Frank, Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones.

QUOTE
Frank,

A Radio Altimeter isnt even required for Instrument Flight. Many planes which are IFR Certified do not have a Radio Altimeter.

If your "altitude divergence" was correct, planes would be plowing into the runway daily on foggy approaches. The Baro Altimeter is required, it is the Primary altimeter for use with Category I ILS Instrument approaches, and is used daily. Radio Altimeters are not used on Category I ILS. They can't be, because they arent accurate, especially with rolling terrain or terrain with building, trees, or other objects along the approach.

You may want to stop telling others how aircraft are flown and let the real pilots handle it before you look more a fool.

Please find the required equipment below for Instrument Flight from the FAR's. Please pay particular attention to number 5. Note, the Baro altimeter is required, a Radio Altimeter not. And you call your paper "peer-reviewed"? Now that's laughable.

The reason you are seeing an "altitude divergence" is because the Radio Altimeter is not measuring from the ground. That was your first major error. And if you had your paper actually "peer-reviewed" by a real pilot, they would have told you that Radio Height does not guarantee your height above ground.

Good luck!

Subpart C—Equipment, Instrument, and Certificate Requirements

(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:

(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph of this section.

(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.

(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft:

(i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in 121.305(j) of this chapter; and

(4) Slip-skid indicator.

(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.

(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation.

(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.

(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).

(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).



Frank may also want to look at an actual ILS Approach plate.

Here is one from Dulles.

This is the Profile View and Minimums Section of the approach plate. It tells you the altitude you're allowed to descend to before either continuing for landing, or breaking off for a missed approach. You must see at least the "rabbit"(ALSF) to continue another 100 feet below these minimums, you must have the runway environment in sight to land (Full approach lights, runway lights... etc).



(here is the full approach plate - ILS RWY 01R IAD)

Look at S-ILS 1R in the left margin.

These are the minimums for a Straight in approach to ILS Runway 1 Right at Dulles.

You'll see a 512/18 followed by a 200 then (200 - 1/2)

The 512 is your "minimums". This is directly referenced from your primary altimeter, the Barometric altimeter and is your height above sea level at Minimums. The 18 means forward visibility in hundreds. 1800 feet is required visibility for Airliners (Part 121/135) to shoot the approach, but not for private/corporate aircraft.. .etc, this is a little over 1/4 mile in fog. This is based on RVR measurements from equipment on the side of the runway (Runway Visual Range). The 200 means this is your height above the Touch Down Zone Elevation (TDZE) at 512 feet MSL (note, this is NOT your height above the ground you are flying over, at that point on the approach). The (200 - 1/2) means it is a standard 200 and 1/2 Category 1 ILS. The Airport could be actually calling "Zero/Zero" in fog (Zero ceiling, Zero visibility) and Corporate Aircraft (Part 91) can shoot the approach to go down and take a "look-see". If they dont see the lights at "Minimums" (512 MSL), they must execute a missed approach.

All altitudes and callouts are referenced from your "Baro Altimeter" during the approach.... (i call it a Baro altimeter here for the layman, it's really referred to as your Primary Altimeter, or just plainly "The Altimeter").

When you get down to 512 MSL, if you see the approach lights, you can continue another 100 feet. If you go down another 100 feet (now 412 MSL... 100 TDZE) and dont see the runway environment, you must execute a missed approach.

If Legge was correct with his "altitude divergence" of more than 80+ feet, up to an error of almost 124 feet, not only would pilots be busting minimums daily... but worse, there would be many crashes. Pilots on approaches in low visibility would be calling "minimums" at 512 feet thinking they were 200 feet above the runway TDZE, but they would really be as low as 120-80 feet above the runway (Minimums Busted, Expect a call from the FAA). If they saw some approach lights, they would continue down another 100 feet hoping to see the runway. Again, all this is based on referencing the Primary Altimeter, the "Baro Altimeter". They would continue down another 100 feet thinking they were 200 feet above the runway, but according to Legge, they would really only be 120-80 feet above the runway. If the visibility were low enough, they would slam into the runway before they even called "Missed Approach" thinking they were almost 100 feet higher.

Now, this is for a Cat I ILS. Cat II makes it worse. Most Cat II approaches do reference the RA when you get that low and there are certain requirements when that low, specifically a runway clearway zone so you know for a fact that the RA is measuring from nothing but grass (and not trees, buildings, etc...), but RA is not required for a Cat II under Part 91. If shooting a Cat II with referencing the Primary Altimeter only, pilots would be calling "minimums" at almost 50-100 feet below the pavement, if Legge were correct.

The only way to tell what the RA is measuring from (a building, trees... other objects...) is to check it against your Primary Altimeter as you have a solid reference for this height, which is from sea level. Final MSL height in the "extra" data Warren decoded shows 174' MSL (above sea level), RA shows 4'. This can only mean the RA was bouncing off an object higher than ground level and the MSL height shows too high to hit the Pentagon.

End of story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Jan 19 2011, 11:14 AM
Post #35





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



Long time no chat, gents. As an associate member of PFT and long time supporter, I have yet to be banned at 9/11 Blogger. As a result, I've garnered some attention from Legge over there regarding his perception of flying.

QUOTE
Regarding the question of aviation experts being highly skilled at understanding the arguments, I need only draw your attention to the calculation by Rob Balsamo that g-force would have destroyed the plane on approach to the Pentagon. It only takes high school maths to show that his calculation is so far out as to be laughable.

Equally surprising is Balsamo's comment:
"If Legge were right, We would have plowed into a runway long ago on a foggy night shooting approaches. And so would every other pilot who shoots those approaches (this is why even debunkers who claim to be pilots understand Legge's paper is garbage."

Pilots do not depend on the pressure altimeter as they approach the runway. Visual pilots look at the runway to judge when to commence the flare. The idea of taking your eyes off the runway to look at the altimeter at this critical moment would be absurd! Eyes are better than altimeters for landing. Instrument pilots use radio height or ILS with glide slope. Ground proximity warnings are generated by radio height, not by the altimeter. Automated landings do not depend on the altimeter alone. Nobody cares whether the altimeter is accurate near the ground. There is no need to check it. Everybody knows that radio height, accurate to about 1 foot, is the thing to depend on. The accuracy of the altimeter can never be anything like that.

There is however one situation in which radio height would not be safe to use by itself until the plane was over the runway. That would be the case if the ground sloped upward steeply before the runway. ILS with glide slope could still be used. This would be specified in the landing procedures for that airport.

It is also important to note that our paper does not say that all aircraft suffer divergence between pressure altitude and radio altitude as they descend to land. Perhaps it is only Boeing 757s. Perhaps it is only the particular plane that hit the Pentagon. We found the divergence in all the 12 flights of that plane on the file. 12 out of 12 seems pretty consistent.


I'd like your response to his comment above. Thanks all and great job on Ventura's show!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 19 2011, 11:30 AM
Post #36



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



It appears Frank made some edits to that post after i sent him the email and made my post above yours, clearly he is now trying to weasel his way out of his mistakes. He's only made it worse... wish i took a screenshot.

Here's an example. It looks like he added the bold here....

"Instrument pilots use radio height or ILS with glide slope."


The sentence stopped at "Instrument pilots use radio height" in his original post (see my post above yours). It appears Frank added - "... or ILS with glide slope." Clearly he added this in an attempt to weasel his way out of looking like a fool after I posted the approach plate above and notified him that a Radio Altimeter is not required for Instrument flight, but it only made him look more like a fool.

Basically, Frank is now saying Instrument pilots can use Radio Height alone to shoot Instrument approaches, OR an ILS with Glide slope [and a "Baro Altimeter"].

So, i guess if an aircraft is equipped with a Radio Altimeter, an Instrument pilot can just barrel his way on down into the soup without any vertical or lateral guidance whatsoever? Wow! I'd like to see you try that Frank.

Frank, the only time RA is used on an approach, is WITH an ILS, if you're so equipped. There is no "or" about it.

Most of Legge's BS was addressed in the post above yours, but thanks for posting it as i forgot to address this.... (well, I already addressed it with Legge, many times, but he still doesnt get it....).

Frank says...

"I need only draw your attention to the calculation by Rob Balsamo that g-force would have destroyed the plane on approach to the Pentagon. It only takes high school maths to show that his calculation is so far out as to be laughable."


That is exactly the problem with Frank. He is using High School math, not aerodynamics.



The above is for a 767, reduce the speeds by 10 knots for a 757.

Frank, what does it say all the way to the right at 1 G? That's right grasshopper, it says "Structural Failure". Very good!

Frank, can you guess what that big Yellow "Caution" zone is? Do you know how it is derived? After reading your paper, clearly you don't.

This is the best part....

Nobody cares whether the altimeter is accurate near the ground. There is no need to check it.


Quick, someone alert the FAA to re-write every approach plate Missed Approach Point that has ever been made! While you're at it, alert every Airline, Regional, LCC, National, Military, Corporate, Charter, Flight School, to Private Pilot... to change their Standard Operating Procedures for checking altimeter accuracy on the ground, prior to each departure.

Frank Legge is his own worst enemy.... too funny.

This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Jan 19 2011, 12:32 PM
Reason for edit: clarity, exposed Franks deceptive edit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SwingDangler
post Jan 19 2011, 03:14 PM
Post #37





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 17 2011, 02:30 PM) *
It appears Frank made some edits to that post after i sent him the email and made my post above yours, clearly he is now trying to weasel his way out of his mistakes. He's only made it worse... wish i took a screenshot.

Here's an example. It looks like he added the bold here....

"Instrument pilots use radio height or ILS with glide slope."


The sentence stopped at "Instrument pilots use radio height" in his original post (see my post above yours). It appears Frank added - "... or ILS with glide slope." Clearly he added this in an attempt to weasel his way out of looking like a fool after I posted the approach plate above and notified him that a Radio Altimeter is not required for Instrument flight, but it only made him look more like a fool.

Basically, Frank is now saying Instrument pilots can use Radio Height alone to shoot Instrument approaches, OR an ILS with Glide slope [and a "Baro Altimeter"].

So, i guess if an aircraft is equipped with a Radio Altimeter, an Instrument pilot can just barrel his way on down into the soup without any vertical or lateral guidance whatsoever? Wow! I'd like to see you try that Frank.

Frank, the only time RA is used on an approach, is WITH an ILS, if you're so equipped. There is no "or" about it.

Most of Legge's BS was addressed in the post above yours, but thanks for posting it as i forgot to address this.... (well, I already addressed it with Legge, many times, but he still doesnt get it....).

Frank says...

"I need only draw your attention to the calculation by Rob Balsamo that g-force would have destroyed the plane on approach to the Pentagon. It only takes high school maths to show that his calculation is so far out as to be laughable."


That is exactly the problem with Frank. He is using High School math, not aerodynamics.



The above is for a 767, reduce the speeds by 10 knots for a 757.

Frank, what does it say all the way to the right at 1 G? That's right grasshopper, it says "Structural Failure". Very good!

Frank, can you guess what that big Yellow "Caution" zone is? Do you know how it is derived? After reading your paper, clearly you don't.

This is the best part....

Nobody cares whether the altimeter is accurate near the ground. There is no need to check it.


Quick, someone alert the FAA to re-write every approach plate Missed Approach Point that has ever been made! While you're at it, alert every Airline, Regional, LCC, National, Military, Corporate, Charter, Flight School, to Private Pilot... to change their Standard Operating Procedures for checking altimeter accuracy on the ground, prior to each departure.

Frank Legge is his own worst enemy.... too funny.


Thanks Rob, I appreciate. My deceased grandfather who was a AT-6 Texan pilot trainer for WW2 pilots and an FAA Flight Examiner for the State of Indiana would be laughing in his grave. Nevermind, he has been laughing since the first revision.

I fully expect to be banned over there very soon. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 19 2011, 04:06 PM
Post #38



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Jan 19 2011, 02:14 PM) *
I fully expect to be banned over there very soon. smile.gif



It's a badge of honor nowadays. The list gets longer by the day.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10790766

I wouldnt be surprised if they have banned more "Truthers" than JREF by now. lol.

I heard they recently banned Tino as well, for attempting to correct and explain the Radio Altimeter to John Bursill. What a joke.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 19 2011, 04:34 PM
Post #39



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
That's right grasshopper...


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Sometimes I feel like I'm in The Twilight Zone when I see Leggy making assertions with no knowledge at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 19 2011, 04:43 PM
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,699
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 19 2011, 03:34 PM) *
laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Sometimes I feel like I'm in The Twilight Zone when I see Leggy making assertions with no knowledge at all.


As I said, Legge is his own worst enemy. Although, he has been a great help in providing comic relief for my phone calls with people like Capt Ralph Kolstad, Capt Rusty Aimer... Capt Jeff Latas.

With that said, i forgot to address this part of Legge's rant....


It is also important to note that our paper does not say that all aircraft suffer divergence between pressure altitude and radio altitude as they descend to land. Perhaps it is only Boeing 757s. Perhaps it is only the particular plane that hit the Pentagon. We found the divergence in all the 12 flights of that plane on the file. 12 out of 12 seems pretty consistent.


Seems Legge missed this part in the email I sent to him....

QUOTE
The reason you are seeing an "altitude divergence" is because the Radio Altimeter is not measuring from the ground. That was your first major error. And if you had your paper actually "peer-reviewed" by a real pilot, they would have told you that Radio Height does not guarantee your height above ground.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 30th October 2014 - 09:42 AM