Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking Fdr Data To American 77, FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact Rating Options

[rob balsamo]

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77
FDR Data Exceeds Capabilities Of A 757, Does Not Support Impact With Pentagon

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Flight Data Recorder Expert Dennis Cimino has confirmed that the data being provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is missing crucial information, which according to Dennis, should be present and link the data to a specific aircraft and fleet. The NTSB provided three sets of data through the FOIA for what they claim is from American 77, N644AA. A csv file, an animation reconstruction and a raw data file. Rob Balsamo of Pilots For 9/11 Truth along with numerous other aviation experts, including trained Aircraft Accident Investigators have analyzed these files and determined they do not support an impact with the Pentagon. The data also exceeds the design limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 by a wide margin. This is based on data, precedent and numerous verified experts, including those who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used for the 9/11 attacks (See - "Flight Of American 77", "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" at Pilotsfor911Truth.org for full detailed analysis and interviews).

One file in particular, the compressed binary raw file alleged to be a direct data dump from the Flight Data Recorder, was recently analyzed by an alleged computer expert. He has claimed to decode 4 more seconds worth of data, above and beyond the NTSB decode, although the "additional" data has not been verified by anyone. The claim was made that the reason the NTSB did not decode this "additional" data is because the software used by the NTSB, along with the software used by the manufacturer of the FDR (L3 Communications), has an alleged "bug". If correct, this has grave consequences for Flight Safety as Flight Data is used in the promotion of safe flight through changes in regulation and procedure. The NTSB and L3 have been contacted, along with an Aviation Safety Report being filed with NASA. There hasn't been any reply confirming such a "bug".

A paper was recently published by the mentioned computer "expert" along with an alleged Chemist as the authors. They claim the extra 4 seconds support an impact with the Pentagon. They base this claim on a Radio Altimeter parameter in which the NTSB has listed as "Not Working or Unconfirmed" in the NTSB FDR Report(1). When cross-checked with the "Working and Confirmed" Primary Altimeter True Altitude data, the aircraft is still too high to hit the Pentagon(2). This can only mean that the Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level.

Radio Altimeters do not guarantee measurement from the ground. The device measures whatever object you are flying over within a certain range (a building, trees... etc). The tracking capability of the Radio altimeter is 330 feet per second, or a little under 200 knots(3). According to the data, the aircraft was traveling at a speed of 460-480 knots. Well outside the limits of the Radio Altimeter tracking capability, not to mention well outside the capabilities of a standard 757.

It is interesting that the authors, editors and Journal in which the above mentioned paper is published is highly critical and skeptical of the National Institute Of Standards And Technology (NIST) data and reports with respect to the collapse of the World Trade Center, yet is now attempting to use unverified data from another government agency to support the government story regarding a Pentagon impact. Motives are even more puzzling especially when the NTSB data in fact does not support an impact while exceeding the performance limitations and capabilities of a standard 757 as set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing, by a wide margin. This is also corroborated by precedent. It is also clear the paper was not reviewed by any aviation expert prior to publish, as it is littered with speculation and gross errors. For more information regarding this paper and the numerous errors it contains, please see the discussion at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum(4).

FDR Expert Dennis Cimino further goes on to state:

[I]t just all comes down to two data fields being zeroed out. no tickee, no laundry. without those, there can... never be any linkage of the FDR to an 'N' number in the F.A.A. registry. not because the 'N' number is in the AC ID field, but the AC ID FIELD number is directly traceable to an N-Number in the F.A.A. registry, and the FLEET ID shows which carrier it went to.

[T]hose missing, that [data] could come from anywhere...


[N]obody flies boxes with that data zero'ed out or missing. without this data in the CPM [Crash Protected Memory], in the preamble, there can be no linkage to an aircraft N-Number.

I saw that on the first look.... the test person who extracted that data should have seen the NO ACFT ID and NO FLEET ID and said; "oh, this is such bullshit" and then asked his supervisor why they were asking him to decode BULLSHIT.

Dennis Cimino experience and qualifications:

Electrical Engineer
Commercial Pilot Rating, since 1981
Navy Combat Systems Specialist: RADAR, ECM, cryptographic communications
Flight Data Recorder Engineer Smiths Aerospace
BA-609, IDARS, Military and Commercial
Millimeter wave RADAR and countermeasures expert since 1973
Two patents held for Doppler RADAR ( Kavouras ):
long pulsewidth RADAR droop compensation network,
and wave guide arc detection for high powered RADAR

Further confirmation that there isn't any evidence linking the FDR data to "American 77", tail number N644AA is discussed here:

Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's - Location of American 77 Flight Data Recorder - Part II

9/11 Aircraft 'black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

Interview With Flight Data Recorder Expert

So, if the data is not from N644AA, does not support an impact at the Pentagon, and in fact exceeds the capabilities and performance of a standard 757, what caused the damage at the Pentagon? That is exactly what Pilots For 9/11 Truth are trying figure out and the reason there needs to be a new and truly independent investigation. Some wish to ignore this data, some without expertise attempt to analyze it while attempting to say, "nothing to see here folks, move along..". Please write your Congressional Representatives and Senators. Call into talk shows, tell them there is a growing list of aviation professionals who question the government version of events on 9/11. Tell them the data being provided through the FOIA does not support the government story.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center Attack. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

(1) http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf
(2) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10778240
(3) http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/LRA-900.html
(4) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20960

[SanderO]

Is the RA similar to a radar which rapidly returns distance to target as the transponder in the plane passes over them? If this is the case and it reminds me of how my laser measuring device works on continuous mode... as you move it around a stream of distance returns rapidly appear on the display and in reality it is almost impossible to know what the distance you are measuring.

As a plane is moving very fast perhaps these returns can be averaged but what is the use of this in trying to approach an airport over terrain over varying heights with buildings of varying heights in the approach path?

In addition the transponder needs to always vertical or perpendicular / plumb to the ground. If it is gimballed in all x, y and z axis it would have to be damped and and this would tend to smooth out and make the readings unreliable and inaccurate.

Can someone explain how a RA works?

[rob balsamo]

As a plane is moving very fast perhaps these returns can be averaged but what is the use of this in trying to approach an airport over terrain over varying heights with buildings of varying heights in the approach path?

Exactly.

It is not useful at all unless you know the exact position of the aircraft, what it was measuring from, and the height of that object.

This is why RA's are not required for flight at any time (Part 91, can be deferred as per MEL part 135/121), except on a Cat III Autoland ILS on a Cat III certified runway.... below 100 AGL, on Glide Slope and on the Localizer. You know for a fact it will be measuring from pavement or grass at that point in space. (and for Randi's kids... no, not outer space... i once said something similar and Randi's kids jump all over it thinking i meant outer space.. was pretty hilarious... i digress...)

RA is not even required for a Cat II ILS (although many use it). The Primary Altimeter takes you down to the DA (Decision Altitude) which is 100' AGL.

I couldn't stop laughing when Legge made this claim....

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

Legge, look up the term DA for an ILS.

The best part is that their whole paper is based on an FAR they sourced from wiki, which was written for planes like a Cessna 172 (not for Transport Category Aircraft, and certainly not those with Air Data Computers)... and worse.... it's not even quoted correctly at wiki! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Again, this is just one of the many reasons there isnt an aviation expert name next to Legge and Stutt on their paper.

[aerohead]

Exactly.

It is not useful at all unless you know the exact position of the aircraft, what it was measuring from, and the height of that object.

This is why RA's are not required for flight at any time (Part 91, can be deferred as per MEL part 135/121), except on a Cat III Autoland ILS on a Cat III certified runway.... below 100 AGL, on Glide Slope and on the Localizer. You know for a fact it will be measuring from pavement or grass at that point in space. (and for Randi's kids... no, not outer space... i once said something similar and Randi's kids jump all over it thinking i meant outer space.. was pretty hilarious... i digress...)

RA is not even required for a Cat II ILS (although many use it). The Primary Altimeter takes you down to the DA (Decision Altitude) which is 100' AGL.

I couldn't stop laughing when Legge made this claim....

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

Legge, look up the term DA for an ILS. Too funny...

The best part is that their whole paper is based on an FAR they sourced from wiki, which was written for planes like a Cessna 172 (not for Transport Category Aircraft, and certainly not those with Air Data Computers)... and worse.... it's not even quoted correctly at wiki! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Again, this is just one of the many reasons there isnt an aviation expert name next to Legge and Stutt on their paper.

LMAO ! I see what you mean Rob. HAHA !

Nobody cares ? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Well im sure the passengers would care if they knew that if a pilot doesnt use
it (the RA info) on a CAT3b landing, they will more than likely end up as
a smoldering pile of mush near a runway somewhere. Not that there
were passengers on Flt 77 or any of the other 3 planes that day but just sayin'.
The RA audibly calls out lower altitudes and counts down the altitude below
60' in 10' increments so the pilot can properly flare and prepare a nice smooth landing.
It is deadly accurate, much more than the primary Altimeter at low altitudes (below 2500')
While sitting on the ramp, our RA's read 6', the exact distance from the antenna's to
the ground. If the plane was flying over a lawn lets say at 100 feet, and then encountered
a 50' building and flew over it, the RA would instantly correct from 100' to 50'.

But lets talk about decision height for a bit. The decision height or DH is the height
where the pilot must make the decision to commit to landing or abort, as trying to abort past
this point would not be possible due to the planes inertia in the glide path toward the runway,
even with flaps down, and DH is normally about 200' or so.
But we are supposed to believe that FLT 77 dove down from over the height of the Navy Annex,
at near 3X the normal landing speed, without flaps, and recovered into
a straight and level impact into the building as shown by their 5 frame video ?

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


It would have been a smoking hole on the lawn. Period.



Listen to the RA call out the Altitudes on this 757.
Starts at 5:00 min in this video.
"1000........500.......50.........40.......30......20......10" -----------------------------------------------------------------









Comments by the poster-

Boeing 757 Cockpit Approach & Landing
Enjoy.....
0:08 Radar vectors begin, 180 degrees
0:25 Flap 1, 185 knots
0:58 Localiser intercept heading, 230 degrees, LOC armed
1:48 Localiser capture, Glideslope armed
2:15 Runway in sight
3:00 Glideslope capture
3:08 Flap 5, 165 knots
3:18 2500 feet above ground level, 'Radio Altimeter'
3:45 Gear down
3:52 Flap 20, 145 knots
4:01 Flap 25, 133 knots
4:20 Flap 30, 133 knots
4:56 AutoPilot disconnect
5:04 1000' Radio Altimeter call
5:45 500' Radio Altimeter call
6:43 AutoBrakes disconnected





This post has been edited by rob balsamo: Jan 22 2011, 04:20 PM

Reason for edit: fixed html

[rob balsamo]

Well im sure the passengers would care if they knew that if a pilot doesnt use
it (the RA info) on a CAT3b landing, they will more than likely end up as
a smoldering pile of mush near a runway somewhere.

They would also care if the Primary Altimeter wasnt used on a Cat I (or Cat II) as there is no possible way to tell your True Altitude from a Radio Altimeter while on the approach, until you're over the clearway or displaced threshold, which is guaranteed at a point where the ILS intersects 100 above TDZE.

It is deadly accurate, much more than the primary Altimeter at low altitudes (below 2500')

Well, you have to be careful how you word such a statement as our detractors are trying to say the same thing. The RA is not accurate at all in determining your TRUE Altitude because you dont know exactly what it is measuring from, until you're over the clearway zone.

Sure, the RA will tell you that you wont hit anything (actually, only Terrain Following Radar will help with this as it is forward looking), but it cannot give you an accurate True Altitude at these locations, this is the reason the RA is not required for Instrument flight, and a Sensitive Altimeter adjusted for pressure ... is. Add an Air Data Computer and calibration during flight testing for certification, and the Primary Altimeter is highly accurate. That is why it is "Primary" for instrument flight. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

While sitting on the ramp, our RA's read 6', the exact distance from the antenna's to
the ground. If the plane was flying over a lawn lets say at 100 feet, and then encountered
a 50' building and flew over it, the RA would instantly correct from 100' to 50'.

This depends on the tracking capability and processor of the RA box. If you are flying at a speed outside it's capabilities (in the case of a 757, less than roughly 200 knots), you may get either/or... or an average as i understand it. The faster you are beyond the capabilities, the less accurate.

But lets talk about decision height for a bit. The decision height or DH is the height
where the pilot must make the decision to commit to landing or abort, as trying to abort past
this point would not be possible due to the planes inertia in the glide path toward the runway,
even with flaps down, and DH is normally about 200' or so.

Kinda sorta... DH is the Missed Approach Point on a Precision Approach. It is the point where the pilot must have a visual reference in order to continue for landing. The height of DH/A differs based on qualification and certification of aircrew, aircraft, and runway.

Any approach, Cat I, II or III would not be possible based on the calculations made by Legge in his paper.

You should review this thread thoroughly and the other thread linked in our Pentagon section in the footnotes of the article to get some good laughs of the argument being made by Legge and Stutt.

[b]Comments by the poster-


3:18 2500 feet above ground level, 'Radio Altimeter'
3:45 Gear down
3:52 Flap 20, 145 knots
4:01 Flap 25, 133 knots
4:20 Flap 30, 133 knots
4:56 AutoPilot disconnect
5:04 1000' Radio Altimeter call
5:45 500' Radio Altimeter call

This all depends on the approach and Airline procedure.

All callouts on a visual, Non-Precision, Precision Cat I (and Cat II Part 91) reference the Primary Altimeter down to DH, MDA, (or TDZE if visual). Otherwise you would be getting inaccurate 1000' and 500' callouts from the RA on approaches with rolling terrain. You may even get them twice on the same approach (Check BTV , ROA or CRW for example). Can really screw things up.

Cat III references the Radio Altimeter below 100' AGL.