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

[onesliceshort]

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.

To which I replied..

If I'm understanding the limitations correctly, the RA is limited to 200 knots at low altitude.
The pilot usually comes in for landing at that sort of speed, not 540mph - well above the VMO at that altitude.

I just don't see the scenario where a pilot could physically "accidentally" find himself at such a low altitude at cruise speed without the instruments warning him well in advance. Maybe the manufacturers hadn't anticipated "9/11 physics" turning the laws of nature and aerodynamics on its head Warren?

I took your earlier post as saying that you didn't understand why the RA isn't capable of working "at whatever speed the aircraft is flying at so that the pilot is warned that he is dangerously close to the ground?"

The RA would have been more accurate at below 330fps velocity and isn't designed for low level flight at 540mph because it is unheard of?

[wstutt]

To which I replied..



I took your earlier post as saying that you didn't understand why the RA isn't capable of working "at whatever speed the aircraft is flying at so that the pilot is warned that he is dangerously close to the ground?"

The RA would have been more accurate at below 330fps velocity and isn't designed for low level flight at 540mph because it is unheard of?

OSS,

Here's the specifications for another radio altimeter. I notice that the Track Rate is +/-2000 fps. Why would they list a Track Rate that can be positive or negative if the Track Rate is the aircraft's speed? How often does an aircraft fly with a negative speed (going backwards)?

If however, the Track Rate is the rate of change in the height of the aircraft above the ground which can obviously increase or decrease, then +/-2000 fps makes sense. It would also explain why we see the Track Rate specified in fps rather than knots.

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

OSS,

Here's the specifications for another radio altimeter. I notice that the Track Rate is +/-2000 fps. Why would they list a Track Rate that can be positive or negative if the Track Rate is the aircraft's speed? How often does an aircraft fly with a negative speed (going backwards)?

If however, the Track Rate is the rate of change in the height of the aircraft above the ground which can obviously increase or decrease, then +/-2000 fps makes sense. It would also explain why we see the Track Rate specified in fps rather than knots.

Warren.

Warren, does that mean the LRA-900 does not have the ability to measure a rise in terrain, only a drop, because it does not have a negative value for Tracking Capability?

(IMG:http://i54.tinypic.com/107wbhx.jpg)

Did you notice one is called Track Rate and the other is called Tracking Capability? Did you also notice your pdf is a single printed circuit board for old fighter trainers (military), while the LRA-900 is a long box designed for Transport Category Aircraft?

Hmmm.....

You really need to stop listening to people who cannot determine the difference between a Boeing 757 and an A320. But now, it appears you just want to sow confusion on your own. Stop trolling please.

[wstutt]

Rob,

Warren, does that mean the LRA-900 does not have the ability to measure a rise in terrain, only a drop, because it does not have a negative value for Tracking Capability?

The negative value could be implied, i.e. an absolute value was specified.

(IMG:http://i54.tinypic.com/107wbhx.jpg)

Did you notice one is called Track Rate and the other is called Tracking Capability?

Yes. What is the difference between Track Rate and Tracking Capability? Why aren't they two different names for the same thing?

Did you also notice your pdf is a single printed circuit board for old fighter trainers (military), while the LRA-900 is a long box designed for Transport Category Aircraft?

Hmmm.....

<snip>

Yes, I realised that they were for different aircraft.

I still haven't seen a good explanation as to why the radio altimeter is limited by the speed of the aircraft. Dennis Cimino said about it getting behind, but what is being received too quickly to be processed? The signal is transmitted and received at the same speed, the speed of light which is over one million times the speed of AAL77.

Warren.