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]

I don't know whether we will correct it. Both Frank and I regard the FAR reference as trivial. Perhaps we'll just remove it.

So it appears you found your error. Very good. Now answer the rest of the questions please.

If it was so "trivial", why did you put it in your "Scientific" paper to support your argument? If the paper was "peer-reviewed", why was such a "trivial" (it's actually pivotal in your case) and elementary error made?

Let us know when your next revision comes out.

Substituting A = -99 ft in to the first formula gives
P = 29.9213 * (1 - 0.0019812 * (-99) / (273.15 + 15)) ^ (32.174 / (0.0019812 * 3089.8)) = 30.0285 inHg
Substituting T = 22.91 deg C, S = 30.2194 inHg and P in to the second formula gives
True Altitude = ((273.15 + (22.91)) / 0.0019812) * (1 - ((30.0285) / (30.2194)) ^ (0.0019812 * 3089.8 / 32.174)) = 180 ft

Warren, i asked you to "walk us through" the above calculation. Not show us the equations and their output.

Surely you know the difference?

Perhaps you should ask him.

Perhaps you shouldnt be using files to support your claims when you dont even know which flight they came from nor if they are authentic, nor provide such files to back up your claims.

Since I don't know which flights the FDR files are from, then according to you, I can't show that they are authentic, so there's no point me releasing them is there?

Warren.

Perhaps you shouldnt be using files to support your claims when you dont even know which flight they came from nor if they are authentic, nor provide such files to back up your claims.

For the fourth time Warren, why have you not provided output files for the previous flights listed in your paper? Are laymen supposed to just take your word for it?

[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]

Rob,

<snip>

Why have you not provided output files for the previous flights listed in your paper? Are laymen supposed to just take your word for it?

The decoder output file from which we performed the calculations and plotted the graphs that appear in our paper is now available here.

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Rob,

The decoder output file from which we performed the calculations and plotted the graphs that appear in our paper is now available here.

Warren.

No it isn't Warren. I have disabled your zip file entitled "AA77 Radar and True Altitude Comparisons", as that is not what I asked for, nor do I wish to hotlink any zip file you might provide which could contain a malicious code. Furthermore, your "AA77 Radar and True Altitude Comparisons" has already been debunked.

Please provide CSV output files for LAX, ORD and MCO flights in full and post them at your website. Clearly you dont have them ready now... nor did you have them ready for your "paper".

Warren, you have avoided my questions and/or tap danced around most.

You are now officially considered a troll. But i will continue to leave you in the forum member group you are currently, as you have been an excellent example of those who blindly follow whatever you are told by govt agencies (at the very least), while you admit having zero expertise or aeronautical knowledge, nor any evidence whatsoever linking the data you have claim to decoded to N644AA.

Here are the questions... again... which you continuously avoid. Please answer them.

If [the FAR] was so "trivial", why did you put it in your "Scientific" paper to support your argument? If the paper was "peer-reviewed", why was such a "trivial" (it's actually pivotal in your case) and elementary error made?

Warren, i asked you to "walk us through" the above calculation. Not show us the equations and their output.

Surely you know the difference?

For the fifth time Warren, why have you not provided output files for the previous flights listed in your paper? Are laymen supposed to just take your word for it?

Here's more....

Why didnt you have these files ready when i asked the first time? Why did you continually tap dance? Did you not have them ready for your "paper"?

Stop trolling, stop stalling... your credibility is diminishing by the post.

[wstutt]

Rob,

No it isn't Warren. I have disabled your zip file entitled "AA77 Radar and True Altitude Comparisons", as that is not what I asked for, nor do I wish to hotlink any zip file you might provide which could contain a malicious code. Furthermore, your "AA77 Radar and True Altitude Comparisons" has already been debunked.

Please provide CSV output files for LAX, ORD and MCO flights in full and post them at your website. Clearly you dont have them ready now... nor did you have them ready for your "paper".

When Frank and I worked with the data, we had all the flights in one spreadsheet. We never had separate spreadsheets for the separate flights. The AAL77 Radar and True Altitude Comparisons Input.zip file I linked to was a decode of the parameters we were interested in for the whole FDR file. The file was about 8.4Mb in size, so I zipped it before I uploaded it to my web site. I have produced and uploaded individual CSV files with the same parameters covering only the data graphed for the Dulles, Los Angeles, Chicago and Orlando airports to my web site. They largest of these files is 13kb. Do these files contain the information you are looking for? All the information in these files was in the zip file I linked to earlier.

Warren, you have avoided my questions and/or tap danced around most.

You are now officially considered a troll. But i will continue to leave you in the forum member group you are currently, as you have been an excellent example of those who blindly follow whatever you are told by govt agencies (at the very least), while you admit having zero expertise or aeronautical knowledge, nor any evidence whatsoever linking the data you have claim to decoded to N644AA.

It was never my intent to prove that the FDR data file that we have been given was really from N644AA. My intent was to find out whether or not the file is consistent with the official story.

Here are the questions... again... which you continuously avoid. Please answer them.

If [the FAR] was so "trivial", why did you put it in your "Scientific" paper to support your argument? If the paper was "peer-reviewed", why was such a "trivial" (it's actually pivotal in your case) and elementary error made?

OK since you say it's pivotal, if we removed the FAR reference from the paper, would the altitude divergences disappear? If so, why?

Warren, i asked you to "walk us through" the above calculation. Not show us the equations and their output.

Surely you know the difference?

I was not sure what you were after. At one point, I was thinking you wanted me to show you how the equations were derived. I did add the values that I used for the other variables, other than the pressure altitude. OK, see how this goes:

CODE

Substituting A = -99 ft in to the first formula gives
P = 29.9213 * (1 - 0.0019812 * (-99) / (273.15 + 15)) ^ (32.174 / (0.0019812 * 3089.8))
  = 29.9213 * (1 - (-0.19614) / (273.15 + 15)) ^ (32.174 / (0.0019812 * 3089.8))
  = 29.9213 * (1 - (-0.19614) / 288.15) ^ (32.174 / (0.0019812 * 3089.8))
  = 29.9213 * (1 - (-0.00068069)) ^ (32.174 / (0.0019812 * 3089.8))
  = 29.9213 * (1 + 0.00068069) ^ (32.174 / (0.0019812 * 3089.8))
  = 29.9213 * (1.00068069) ^ (32.174 / (0.0019812 * 3089.8))
  = 29.9213 * (1.00068069) ^ (32.174 / 6.1215)
  = 29.9213 * (1.00068069) ^ 5.2559
  = 29.9213 * 1.0035828
  = 30.0285 inHg

Substituting T = 22.91 deg C, S = 30.2194 inHg and P in to the second formula gives
True Altitude = ((273.15 + (22.91)) / 0.0019812) * (1 - ((30.0285) / (30.2194)) ^ (0.0019812 * 3089.8 / 32.174))
              = (296.06 / 0.0019812) * (1 - ((30.0285) / (30.2194)) ^ (0.0019812 * 3089.8 / 32.174))
              = 149435 * (1 - ((30.0285) / (30.2194)) ^ (0.0019812 * 3089.8 / 32.174))
              = 149435 * (1 - ((30.0285) / (30.2194)) ^ (0.0019812 * 3089.8 / 32.174))
              = 149435 * (1 - 0.9936829 ^ (0.0019812 * 3089.8 / 32.174))
              = 149435 * (1 - 0.9936829 ^ (6.1215 / 32.174))
              = 149435 * (1 - 0.9936829 ^ 0.19026)
              = 149435 * (1 - 0.9987950)
              = 149435 * 0.0012050
              = 180 ft

Is this what you wanted? I've rounded numbers throughout the calculations.

For the fifth time Warren, why have you not provided output files for the previous flights listed in your paper? Are laymen supposed to just take your word for it?

Here's more....

Why didnt you have these files ready when i asked the first time? Why did you continually tap dance? Did you not have them ready for your "paper"?

Stop trolling, stop stalling... your credibility is diminishing by the post.

See above.

Warren.

[wstutt]

Rob,

<snip>

Perhaps you shouldnt be using files to support your claims when you dont even know which flight they came from nor if they are authentic, nor provide such files to back up your claims.

<snip>

Does it really matter which flights they came from? Remember we were only interested in verifying that there is no A/C NUMBER and FLEET IDENT in the text preamble since Dennis Cimino say they should be there, not decoding the files.

If the files were not authentic why would my source ask me for help decoding them? In other words, if they were not authentic why would I have them? Why would my source want to waste time working with me to decode files if he knew they were not authentic? So, I have no reason to think they are not authentic.

As far as I know, these files were extracted for FOQA, so there would be no accident records. Also, since my source does not live in the US, the flights and airline(s) could also be outside of the US.

You now have the A/C NUMBER and FLEET IDENT from the AAL77 FDR file. Is your organisation of aviation professionals going to verify them?

Warren.

[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.

[rob balsamo]

I will correlate all of the below with the RA data point closest to the 4 RA data point on the approach to the Pentagon.

Dulles,

We already know IAD depature Altitude matches perfectly with 3 RA.

Landing IAD Runway 1C (Was 1L in 2001), TDZE is 286.3 feet. At 3 RA (roughly 10 AGL), True Altitude shows 298 feet.

286.3 (TDZE) + 10 (Based on RA) = 296.3

298' True altitude - 296.3' = 1.7 feet.

Less than a 2 foot difference with True Altitude at 10 feet above a known position, the runway.

Los Angeles

Landing LAX 24R, which has a TDZE of 117.2 feet. At 3 RA (10 feet AGL), True Altitude shows 132 feet.

117.2 + 10 = 127.2

Less than a 5 foot difference.

Chicago

Landing ORD 27R with a TDZE of 663.6 feet, 6 RA (roughly 12 AGL), shows a 683 True Altitude.

663.6 + 12 = 675.6 Feet

Less than a 8 foot difference.

Orlando

Landing MCO 18L with a TDZE of 92.5 feet. 4 RA (roughly 10 AGL), shows a 105' True Altitude.

92.5 Feet + 10 = 102.5 feet.

Less than a 3 foot difference.

All of the above can be cross checked here...
http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning_Alt_Errors_Sim.aspx

Warren, the reason the FAR in your paper was so pivotal, is because it describes when the largest errors occur, on landing, at high AOA, in the dirty configuration. You thought it was for all "operational speed ranges" of the aircraft in any configuration (+/- 30 feet per 100 knots) because that is what Wiki told you. You then used this as your theory for the possible error at such high speed at the Pentagon. You were wrong, wiki is wrong. You would have known this had you actually looked at the Reg. You picked the FAR for a Cessna 172 static system which was quoted incorrectly. You may have found they quoted the regulation wrong if you actually looked at the Reg, but you probably would have still used the wrong regulation as you do not have the aeronautical knowledge to tell the difference between Normal, Utility, Aerobatic and Commuter, vs Transport Category. As you can see from the above calculations correlating as close as possible to "4 RA", the Air Data Computer has removed such errors on Transport Category Aircraft when the errors should be at their worst, in the landing configuration at high AOA. Keep in mind the ADC is designed and certified to remove position error's in the static system up to Mach 0.86. This is why you are reading a Calibrated Airspeed on the IAS, and the reason you have an IVSI in most modern jets, not a laggy VSI found in a Cessna 172. It is also the reason you have an Electric Altimeter as your Primary Altimeter.

Your paper is garbage. But feel free to come up with all kinds of theories as to why the Primary Altimeter was reading more than 100 feet too high in a phase of flight where the static system would be experiencing less error than down-dirty-and slow.

The rest of us aviation professionals know that in order to determine what your RA is measuring from, you must cross check your Primary Altimeter for a True Altitude. It appears Jay a.k.a. "apathoid", even knows this....

apathoid -

Radio Altimeters do not and cannot determine your True Altitude*

* who said RADALT is used to determine anything other than absolute altitude?

Answer - Legge and Stutt, but they are failing.

Bottom line -
The data does not support an imapct with the Pentagon. Either in the data provided by the NTSB, or your "additional" data.

[rob balsamo]

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

So why didnt they "imply" the same "negative" for Center Frequency and Freq deviation? Why wasnt the accuracy "implied"?

Warren.... please. Your desperation is showing.

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

Perhaps because they arent describing the same thing? Ya think?

Warren, you are seeing what you want to see, nothing less, nothing more.

Why would an old small printed circuit board have almost 6x the performance of a more modern LRRA?

Answer, it doesnt.

You are attempting to equate two different performance characterstics in order to hold onto your already established conclusions you derived through pure specualtion and numerous gross errors. It's getting very stale.

[rob balsamo]

Rob,

Does it really matter which flights they came from? Remember we were only interested in verifying that there is no A/C NUMBER and FLEET IDENT in the text preamble since Dennis Cimino say they should be there, not decoding the files.

If the files were not authentic why would my source ask me for help decoding them? In other words, if they were not authentic why would I have them? Why would my source want to waste time working with me to decode files if he knew they were not authentic? So, I have no reason to think they are not authentic.

As far as I know, these files were extracted for FOQA, so there would be no accident records. Also, since my source does not live in the US, the flights and airline(s) could also be outside of the US.

You now have the A/C NUMBER and FLEET IDENT from the AAL77 FDR file. Is your organisation of aviation professionals going to verify them?

Warren.

Sorry, i missed the above.

We have already gone through this Warren. You have no evidence linking the data to any aircraft.

Read this statement from Dennis again, read slowly.

....to propose that AC ID and FLEET ID are buried in the flight parameter stream after the preamble, where it always always always is, is so beyond the pale and absurd,

Since you still might be confused, your "35" and "1", mean nothing.

Considering you admit your other files dont have a Fleet ID nor A/C number, they also mean nothing. Frank should stop lying when he makes the claim they are authentic if he has no evidence to support such claims.

Here, let me help you Warren...

These are the steps you need to follow in order to hold onto your theory.

First you need to get the NTSB to accept your "bug" theories and correct their possible errors. This will create a large domino effect in the aviation industry worldwide.

Then you need to get evidence linking your data to an actual 757 or N644AA.

Then you need to find data, precedent or perhaps at least one verified expert willing to put his name to the claim that the aircraft can operate 110-130 knots in the Structural Failure Zone as depicted below, pull G's, and remain controllable, stable or survive.

(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/767_V-G_Diagram_Illustrated_Guide_To_Aerodynamics.jpg)

So far, all evidence, data, precedent and numerous verified experts agree, a standard 757 could not perform as depicted in the NTSB data, or yours.

Then you need to come up with a theory as to why the Altimeter was highly accurate in a phase of flight known for it's worst and expected errors, yet 100+ in error in a phase of flight where the static system is rated and calibrated (to Mach 0.86), while all other static system indications were functioning normally, particularly, the Airspeed data.

After you get done with all that, then you may actually have an argument. Then you will need to take on the multiple witnesses who "bet their life" on the fact that the aircraft observed approaching the Pentagon, was opposite the physical damage.

No amount of speculation on your part is going to make the above facts disappear. (Well, perhaps for you and Legge it will, but not for the rest of us)

[wstutt]

Rob,

I'll respond to some points for now.

<snip>

Read this statement from Dennis again, read slowly.

....to propose that AC ID and FLEET ID are buried in the flight parameter stream after the preamble, where it always always always is, is so beyond the pale and absurd,

OK, so Dennis is saying that the AC ID and FLEET ID are always in the preamble, but never in the flight data?

Then you need to get evidence linking your data to an actual 757 or N644AA.

I don't need to do that to check your claim that the data you received from the NTSB shows the plane was too high to hit the Pentagon.

<snip>

Then you need to find data, precedent or perhaps at least one verified expert willing to put his name to the claim that the aircraft can operate 110-130 knots in the Structural Failure Zone as depicted below, pull G's, and remain controllable, stable or survive.

<snip>

How about Jeff Scott. The following quote is close to the bottom of that page:

These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

Warren.

[IslandPilot]

UH, Please pardon me for "interrupting" this enthusiastic discussion about "FDR data" that can't be "linked" to ANY aircraft (or computer generated image, for that matter) which supposedly impacted the Pentagon on 911.

I want to ask some questions about an "alternate" method of "linking" the alledged "flight path of AA77" to a "specific", real aircraft.

As I understand it, there should be "another possibility" for obtaining "recorded digital parameters" that REQUIRE a UNIQUE 24 bit ICAO Aircraft IDENTIFICATION number in order to function properly, ACCORDING TO FAA REGULATIONS.
I believe this equipment was installed in AA77, was IN USE, and FULLY FUNCTIONAL during the first half of its flight.

I am referring to "MODE S" capabilities of the "Radar Beacon Transponder" installed in AA77, and used during the alledged "pre-hijack" phase of the flight.

I am a Maintenance Technician and not an Avionics Guru, and I haven't seen anything here that mentions the "CAPABILITIES" or "USAGE" of AA7's "PARTICULAR MODE S" "data transmission" protocols.

I don't understand all the different "FLAVORS", "updates", and installation requirements relating to MODE S Aircraft Transponder capabilities. This technology keeps changing... and I don't have any idea what the capabilities were for the RT Box installed in AA77 on 911.

I just spent a few hours chasing through Google and Wiki to learn more about "Mode S transponders".

I assumed that "Mode S" included an enhanced data transmission linkage, similar to "Cell Phone or Dial-up", between "ground" and "aircraft" transponder equipment. This is somewhat true.

I had assumed that:
In addition to ATC Serveillance, ID, TCAS, and recent WX Radar uplink functionality...
that this capability included a "data streaming of aircraft parameters" with a "text messaging" capability between Airline Ops/Maint people on the ground with crewmembers in flight. I observed this Mode S capability while "jumpseating" on a UPS B-757, in the wee-hours several years ago. (1994 maybe).

Today, I learned that UPS and FEDEX were conducting the first "tests" of advanced capabilities at that stage of "development". What "evolved" from that, I do not know.

Today's advanced "ADS-B" flavor of Mode "S", would not have been available in 2001. But several other "protocols" and "Levels" of capabilities would have been functional in AA77. What were these capabilities, if we consider the following info:

The following quote came from:
Mode S transponder info link

Mode S
The greatest difference in Mode S is there will be no more manual code setting. Every physical aircraft will be assigned a unique beacon code, from a list of over 16 million. As the Mode S aircraft enters a controller's responsibility, the Mode S transponder will give the aircraft unique code, which will be looked up by ATC computers and automatically associated with a specific flight. Once that match is made, the controller can select "Delta flight DL 102", and the computer will map that to the unique aircraft number and interrogate that aircraft alone, getting its current position, altitude, and other information.

and from:
Understanding Mode S technology

What is mode S? How does it work and why is it needed? What was wrong with the old mode A and C? What is Flight ID, UF and DF, squitter and elementary surveillance? This article will touch on many aspects of mode S technologies of today and tomorrow. The article will also discuss flight ID, elementary surveillance and UF and DF; explain the details of basic mode S surveillance, how it works and discuss the best practices to verify and test an installation. This discussion will also introduce the new enhanced surveillance, DF17 extended squitter and ADS-B; explain the difference between each of these new technologies and what is needed to verify and test installations.

Each mode S interrogation will have a 24-bit address unique to the aircraft as well as a 24-bit parity check for validation. In basic mode S surveillance, the information is limited to altitude reporting (DF0), aircraft identification (DF4) and basic airframe information (DF11).

(IMG:http://rfdesign.com/images/mode-s-tech-Figure01.jpg)

Yes, Mode S capibilities can include digitial transmissions of aircraft parameters to ATC radar Controllers, and varying degrees of data UPLOADS (WX) and other data or "comm" transmissions.

But the most "BASIC" functionality of Mode S in the beginning was to provide POSITIVE IDENTFICATION of specific AIRCRAFT by giving it a DISCRETE 24 bit ICAO ID "address". The basic idea was to eliminate "clutter" and "erronious" radar returns in high density air traffic areas. Mode A and C worked by transmitting a constant stream of "interrogations" to ALL aircraft in the area... to which they ALL sent simultaneous Replys back to, which caused "false" targets and other kinds of "interference".

By giving each aircraft a discrete 24 bit ID address.. the QUALITY of radar returns could be greatly improved, because once an aircraft was "identified" , the ATC radar could "turn off" some of that aircraft's REPLY transmissions, for another few "sweeps" of the antenna, until the ATC Radar WANTED to update that aircraft's data block again... then it would send out the coded discrete 24 bit INTERROGATION SIGNAL to unlock that aircrafts REPLY transmission.

In other words.... MODE S just DOESN'T WORK AT ALL, if the aircraft it is TRACKING cannot be identified through its discrete 24 bit ICAO ID number.... permanently LINKED to an AIRCRAFT SERIAL NUMBER in the FAA AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION DATABASE!Is THIS CORRECT? and if so.... DOES ANY OF THE RADES 84, or other RADAR related data provided to P4T have some means to VERIFY the LINKAGE of the DATA to the ICAO Mode S identification numbers.

If not, it's just as BOGUS as the FDR data.... maybe... I don't know... I'm just askin.

[rob balsamo]

Rob,

I'll respond to some points for now.

As you usually do with your trolling.

OK, so Dennis is saying that the AC ID and FLEET ID are always in the preamble, but never in the flight data?

That's what the man said. He has 30+ years as an FDR Expert. Who do you have? A Chemist? An idiot who cannot determine the difference between a Boeing 757 and an Airbus A320 and hasnt flown since before color photography was invented?

I don't need to do that to check your claim that the data you received from the NTSB shows the plane was too high to hit the Pentagon.

Glad you finally agree the NTSB data does not support an impact.

How about Jeff Scott. The following quote is close to the bottom of that page:

These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

Warren.

"Jeff" is either wrong or you are misinterpreting his statements. If he is attempting to equate G loading (150% margin) with Airspeed limitations and margins, he is wrong. But if he is a real pilot, and if my experience with you is any indication, you are misinterpreting what he is saying, to suit your bias. If my past experience with "aerospaceweb" is any indication, they attempt to positively identify an aircraft part through a photograph, using a human leg as a measuring device to conclude an "approximation". A part which Legge contradicts himself, and still has yet to correct from his last paper.

Vd is a hard limit and corroborated by precedent. The "Safety Margin" is between Vmo and Vd and is mandated by the FAA. There is no "additional" Safety Margin above Vd (as you and Legge attempt to speculate in your 'paper') let alone is there one 50% above Vd. This is why you do not have a source for such claims, nor precedent, while I do. I have repeated this to you numerous times. It seems to either fall on deaf ears, or... you only hear what you want to hear, or worse, you have an agenda.

Warren, do you know the difference between Vmo and Vd? While I was reading your paper, it appears you do not. This was another major red flag screaming to any pilot reading... "This paper was never really peer-reviewed".

Has Legge, Jones or Ryan verified your decode yet? You have already admitted they didnt verify anything prior to publishing your "data" in their alleged "peer-reviewed" Journal. Have they bothered to check now?

Warren, how do you think Aircraft are certified? Do you think they just pull numbers out of their ass? We went over this before as well. Not surprisingly, you avoided it.

Have you removed your incorrect FAR from your paper yet? Or are you leaving it in there for purposes of spreading disinformation as Legge is doing with his last paper regarding CWS "aiding hijacker control".

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Have you removed your incorrect FAR from your paper yet?

Warren, have you? Why not?

Like I said, Stutt, Legge, and Bursill are part of an intelligence infiltration team out of Australia pretending to be truthers.

[wstutt]

Rob,

<snip>

That's what the man said. He has 30+ years as an FDR Expert. Who do you have? A Chemist? An idiot who cannot determine the difference between a Boeing 757 and an Airbus A320 and hasnt flown since before color photography was invented?

<snip>

I have both of the data frame layout documents that the NTSB used to decode the FDR file and that describe the locations of the parameters within the flight data. The document that the NTSB mainly used is from Boeing and has A/C NUMBER and FLEET IDENT parameters. Their location within the flight data is specified in their document. So do we believe Boeing that these parameters are stored within the flight data or do we believe someone who decided that the information wasn't in the FDR file because he couldn't see it in the only part of the FDR file he put in enough effort to interpret, namely the easily interpreted plain text preamble outside of the flight data?

<snip>

Warren, the reason the FAR in your paper was so pivotal, is because it describes when the largest errors occur, on landing, at high AOA, in the dirty configuration. You thought it was for all "operational speed ranges" of the aircraft in any configuration (+/- 30 feet per 100 knots) because that is what Wiki told you. You then used this as your theory for the possible error at such high speed at the Pentagon.

<snip>

No we didn't. Here's the part of the paper where the FAR is referenced.

US Federal Aviation Regulations appear to permit an altitude error up to +/- 30 feet per 100
knots,²⁷ which would give a maximum permitted error on final approach, ranging from 130
to 140 knots in the data file, of 39 to 42 feet. In none of the sets of landing data examined
was the discrepancy with radio height greater than 17 feet when recording of radio height
commenced, hence there is no reason to suspect that the altimeter was malfunctioning or
badly out of calibration, yet the observed errors were 50 to 83 feet just prior to normal
landings. It therefore appears that this calibration standard is not applied at low altitudes.

The FAR reference (²⁷) is used to conclude that an altitude divergence of 17 feet on final approach would not indicate that the altimeter was malfunctioning or badly out of calibration. We noted that it appeared to not be applied at low altitudes which would include the final moments of high speed at the Pentagon.

Have you found a technical explanation of what LRRA tracking capability means yet that has more technical details than "it gets behind"?

Warren.

[rob balsamo]

Rob,

I have both of the data frame layout documents that the NTSB used to decode the FDR file and that describe the locations of the parameters within the flight data. The document that the NTSB mainly used is from Boeing and has A/C NUMBER and FLEET IDENT parameters. Their location within the flight data is specified in their document. So do we believe Boeing that these parameters are stored within the flight data or do we believe someone who decided that the information wasn't in the FDR file because he couldn't see it in the only part of the FDR file he put in enough effort to interpret, namely the easily interpreted plain text preamble outside of the flight data?

The information used to link the data to the aircraft and Fleet is in the Preamble always according to Dennis, not to mention serial numbers are also used. The "35" and "1" you claim to have decoded means nothing. Feel free to call CAE Flightscape and ask. Tell them you think their industry leading software has a "bug" while you're at it.

No we didn't. Here's the part of the paper where the FAR is referenced.

US Federal Aviation Regulations appear to permit an altitude error up to +/- 30 feet per 100
knots,²⁷ which would give a maximum permitted error on final approach, ranging from 130
to 140 knots in the data file, of 39 to 42 feet. In none of the sets of landing data examined
was the discrepancy with radio height greater than 17 feet when recording of radio height
commenced, hence there is no reason to suspect that the altimeter was malfunctioning or
badly out of calibration, yet the observed errors were 50 to 83 feet just prior to normal
landings. It therefore appears that this calibration standard is not applied at low altitudes.

The FAR reference (²⁷) is used to conclude that an altitude divergence of 17 feet on final approach would not indicate that the altimeter was malfunctioning or badly out of calibration. We noted that it appeared to not be applied at low altitudes which would include the final moments of high speed at the Pentagon.

Yes, a mangled mess of words for sure. It is one of the worse contradictions, double-speak and spin i've seen yet from Legge (mixed in with a good Legge dose of speculation of course), and he has some whoppers in the past. Mostly due to his bias and the fact he hasnt a clue of what he is talking about.

First you offer +/- 30 feet per 100 knots over the "operational speed range" [of an aircraft such as a Cessna 172] (both wrong for your purposes), then you claim there was no error greater than 17 feet in the "landing data", then you claim "observed errors were 50-83 feet prior to normal landings". Then you claim the standard doesn't apply. Implying errors at low altitudes are greater than the standard.

Any layman reading that paragraph will think, "Hmmm... the Pentagon aircraft traveling close to 500 knots, 30 feet per 100 knots... 150 feet discrepancy. Legge figured it out!"

Wrong.

The expected and worst errors are down, dirty and slow with high AOA. At those points in the data (3-6 RA), the discrepancy is less than 2-8 feet over a known position, the runway. Meaning, there would be less error in the phase of flight at the end of data clean and fast, well within the operational range of the static system and calibrated with an ADC up to Mach 0.86. Meaning, the aircraft was too high to hit the Pentagon. Meaning, your data does not support an impact.

Have you found a technical explanation of what LRRA tracking capability means yet that has more technical details than "it gets behind"?

Warren.

It certainly doesnt mean an "implied negative" 0-330 fps in the vertical if that's what you're asking. (I couldnt believe you actually tried to float such absurd speculation. That was an all new low for you Warren)

Again Warren, click and learn.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793876

Feel free to email Rockwell yourself. Let us know how you make out.

Your trolling is becoming very annoying Warren. You are once again ignoring all questions asked of you while expecting people to answer yours, you ignore all information which literally destroy your arguments proving your "altitude divergence" was due to RA measuring from objects other than the ground along the approach (what i have been trying to tell you from the beginning), you then have no choice but to cherry pick quotes where you think you may have some bit of argument left. Consider this your first warning. I think i've given you enough latitude and you are abusing it.

[aerohead]

(IMG:http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/wizardofzwitchmelt3.JPG)

Oh you cursed brat, look what you've done !

(IMG:http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/wizardofzwitchmelt4.JPG)

Im melting............melting !

(IMG:http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/wizardofzwitchmelt5.JPG)

Oh what a world.......what a world

(IMG:http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/wizardofzwitchmelt6.JPG)

Who would have thought a little truth like you
could destroy my beautiful wickedness

[rob balsamo]

It certainly doesnt mean an "implied negative" 0-330 fps in the vertical if that's what you're asking. (I couldnt believe you actually tried to float such absurd speculation. That was an all new low for you Warren)

I have expanded more on Tracking Capabilities here using Warrens speculation demonstrating how absurd such speculation upon speculation can be.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794159