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

[aerohead]

Lots of good stuff so far in this thread.

Not only does it appear that there is no evidence
linking the FDR data to American 77, but i havent seen any
evidence linking ANY part to American 77. Think about that.
ALL major parts on an aircraft have Serial numbers that are permanently
logged to that aircraft's tail number. Every Computer, Instrument, Wheel, Brake,
Landing Gear, Seat, Pump, Valve, Manifold, Engine, Gearbox, Starter, Accumulator, Oxygen Bottle,
Life Vest, Oven, Fridge, Antenna, Radio ....etc, all have Serial Numbers permanently logged in the
planes' history to match that part to that tail number. As far as i know, there hasnt been 1 part
that has been serial number matched to any of the 4 planes that day. NOT ONE.
Which is difficult to understand, because it would not be that hard to fabricate a few data
tags to support an operation like that. And it DAMN sure wouldnt be hard to find 1 serial
number tag to positively identify the plane at the Pentagon.

But hey, they found an unscathed passport laying on the street at the WTC.................case closed.

[SwingDangler]

Lots of good stuff so far in this thread.

Not only does it appear that there is no evidence
linking the FDR data to American 77, but i havent seen any
evidence linking ANY part to American 77. Think about that.
ALL major parts on an aircraft have Serial numbers that are permanently
logged to that aircraft's tail number. Every Computer, Instrument, Wheel, Brake,
Landing Gear, Seat, Pump, Valve, Manifold, Engine, Gearbox, Starter, Accumulator, Oxygen Bottle,
Life Vest, Oven, Fridge, Antenna, Radio ....etc, all have Serial Numbers permanently logged in the
planes' history to match that part to that tail number. As far as i know, there hasnt been 1 part
that has been serial number matched to any of the 4 planes that day. NOT ONE.
Which is difficult to understand, because it would not be that hard to fabricate a few data
tags to support an operation like that. And it DAMN sure wouldnt be hard to find 1 serial
number tag to positively identify the plane at the Pentagon.

But hey, they found an unscathed passport laying on the street at the WTC.................case closed.

According to Phd. Frank Legge, they did all that to cause a rift in the truth movement 10 years later. LOL!

[Pier69]

Rob, no one of your links answer the question.

I really do not care about RA altitude limits nor FAR errors in the paper.

BTW, no problem. Dont want you waste your time....mine too. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Thanks for your patience

Pier.

This post has been edited by Pier69: Jan 25 2011, 02:11 PM

[rob balsamo]

Rob, no one of your links answer the question.

Which links? Which question in particular are you confused about?

I really do not care about RA altitude limits nor FAR errors in the paper.

You should if you want to understand the argument, especially when they are using an FAR to corroborate their claims of "Altimeter Error". Of which, is completely wrong. If they understood why it was wrong, and understood the actual speed range and aircraft configuration specified in the actual FAR, and the capabilities of the aircraft for which is referenced, they would understand why their paper is garbage.

How could a paper quote an FAR written for a static system in an aircraft such as a Cessna 172, trying to equate it to a 757 with an Air Data Computer, while claiming the paper is "peer-reviewed"?

I'll tell you why, it is because it was not peer-reviewed (or if it was, it was done by a pilot who has never opened an FAR/AIM). These are the types of elementary mistakes Legge makes in all his papers. When you add them up, you find Legge doesnt have a clue of what he is talking about.

BTW, no problem. Dont want you waste your time....mine too. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I'm making posts in between working on our next project. There is plenty of time to correct the misinformation (and now confirmed disinformation) being spread by Legge.

Thanks for your patience

Pier.

Anytime my friend.

[Pier69]

Which links? Which question in particular are you confused about?

I'm not confused Rob. No one of your links answer my question about LRRA limits (on speed/velocity/tracking capability).

Forget about Legge paper, Wstutt decoding etc.

I repeat myself...Why I can't use Radio Height to understand where the plane was above the ground? What's the real problem?

If the Radio Height were validable, could you explain me a correct procedure to cross RA data with TA? If RH argument is a total BS can you explain me why?

And yes...maybe I'm retarded...maybe not. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Pier

[rob balsamo]

I'm not confused Rob. No one of your links answer my question about LRRA limits (on speed/velocity/tracking capability).

Here, this one may help.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793650

I repeat myself...Why I can't use Radio Height to understand where the plane was above the ground? What's the real problem?

RA doesn't measure from the ground. It measures from any object you are flying over. A tree-line, buildings.. .etc. If you are flying over a path of buildings and other objects of varying heights (for example, along Columbia pike), well outside the capabilities of the processor, how can you possibly expect an accurate reading for True Altitude? You cant. This is why RA is not required for instrument flight, nor it is required for Instrument Approaches, Non-Precision, Precision Cat I and Cat II ILS. All callouts reference the primary altimeter down to Decision Height, within 100 feet of the ground, and it is required.

Again, if Legge and Stutt were correct, that the Primary Altimeter were 80-120' in error, pilots would be thinking they were at the Decision Height on a foggy night approach, while slamming into the runway.

If the Radio Height were validable, could you explain me a correct procedure to cross RA data with TA? If RH argument is a total BS can you explain me why?

You cant, unless you know the exact position of the aircraft, and the exact height from the object which it is measuring. You cant even really get an accurate correlation above the runway as once the aircraft is in the flare, then no doubt the static system will show an error. This is why RA is used for autoland in the flare.

This is based on Angle of Attack. This is why Legge gets so many things wrong in his analysis. He doesnt understand AoA. He uses 10th grade math and physics, not aerodynamics. This is why Legge thinks my calculations are wrong. This has all been explained to Legge as well, but apparently it goes in one ear, and out the other.

You also cant correlate RA with PA in the FDR file to determine a True Altitude as they are both recorded at different times within the frame as well.

And yes...maybe I'm retarded...maybe not. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Pier

You're not "retarded," my friend. Thanks for asking the questions actually as other readers who may be laymen will have a better understanding as well.

As i used to tell all my students (and my flight instructor used to tell me).. there is no such thing as a stupid question in aviation. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I also wanted to clear up something else.

Yes RA is used for Ground Proximity Warnings. But this again doesnt mean it is measuring from the "Ground". It can be buildings or a tree-line, of which, you do not want to hit either.

There can be false warnings as well, or no warning at all. (eg, flying over level terrain directly into a tall building or hill with steep incline, you'll never get a GPWS warning.)

The GPWS measures change in rate. If the rate is too great, it will tell you to pull up.

Another example, almost every approach I've done at CRW Runway 23 we get a false GPWS warning. If we followed such a warning, we would never make the runway.

(IMG:http://i52.tinypic.com/msor2b.jpg)

(IMG:http://i52.tinypic.com/2dqvkv7.jpg)

If you referenced the RA only during the above approach (as Legge and alleged "Avionics Tech" Bursill claim RA is "much more accurate below 2500 AGL and no one checks the [Primary] Altimeter near the ground"...), you would be a smoking hole on the side of one of those hills.

Hope this helps.

[wstutt]

<snip>

You also cant correlate RA with PA in the FDR file to determine a True Altitude as they are both recorded at different times within the frame as well.

I had already thought of the fact that they are recorded at different times in the subframe and decided that the effect was negligible. Here's why:

The RA is recorded in words 31 and 32. The PA is recorded in words 29 and 30. At 256 words per second that means they are recorded less than 8 milliseconds apart. The aircraft would be unlikely to change altitude by more than about a foot in that time which is the resolution of the altitudes.

<snip>

I also wanted to clear up something else.

Yes RA is used for Ground Proximity Warnings. But this again doesn't mean it is measuring from the "Ground". It can be buildings or a tree-line, of which, you do not want to hit either.

<snip>

OK, so since RA is supposedly limited to 200 knots, the Ground Proximity Warning would not work if the aircraft is flying faster than 200 knots? Doesn't it need to work at whatever speed the aircraft is flying at so that the pilot is warned that he is dangerously close to the ground?

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

I had already thought of the fact that they are recorded at different times in the subframe and decided that the effect was negligible. Here's why:

The RA is recorded in words 31 and 32. The PA is recorded in words 29 and 30. At 256 words per second that means they are recorded less than 8 milliseconds apart. The aircraft would be unlikely to change altitude by more than about a foot in that time which is the resolution of the altitudes.

How long does it take for an RA to measure from the top of a roof, to the bottom of the ground, when passing over the edge of a building?

I'll give you a hint, the speed of light. However the accuracy/correlation becomes even worse, when the RA is flying more than 2x outside it's tracking capability.

It makes a HUGE difference.

You cannot possibly determine a True altitude from RA when the aircraft is flying well outside the RA tracking capability and over rolling terrain with multiple objects of varying heights.

OK, so since RA is supposedly limited to 200 knots, the Ground Proximity Warning would not work if the aircraft is flying faster than 200 knots? Doesn't it need to work at whatever speed the aircraft is flying at so that the pilot is warned that he is dangerously close to the ground?

Of course it will "work", this of course doesnt mean it is accurate (see my false warning example above into CRW). It measures rate changes. It also gives many false warnings. It gives so many false warnings that it has caused accidents when it was an accurate warning, but the crew thought it to be false. The American Airlines 757 which flew into a Mountain in Columbia had the GPWS screaming at the crew. They ignored it because they thought it to be a false warning. It's actually a very sad CVR to listen to. We listened to it once in recurrent training.

As a side note, some feel that the 757 in the above crash are the parts which were planted at the Pentagon. They were both a 757-223.

Again Warren, if an aircraft flew over the Pentagon, the data you decoded is exactly what one would expect to see. A Higher True Altitude with a RA bouncing off the roof and the GPWS alerting the crew.