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 )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
9/11gate, "AA77" FDR numerology

trimble
post Feb 26 2011, 01:08 PM
Post #21





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 10-August 09
Member No.: 4,537



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 26 2011, 10:26 AM) *
You are literally missing the point, I would say you are missing it some 20 miles. This topic is mainly about "AA77" last landing and takeoff at IAD and especially about identifying the gate where the plane was boarded. rolleyes.gif

I'm well aware of what is being discussed in this topic. However it was RB who wrote a response (it was his text I quoted) that said that this drift when applied at the Pentagon would put the plane "north of Citgo". In writing that, I suggest that this would imply to the average casual reader that this drift is somehow supportive to the NoC flightpath. I was calling him on it, as it obviously is no such thing. Hence my query. I think it is you who missed MY point tongue.gif

In any case, you have provided the affirmative correction yourself. So thankyou.
QUOTE
The N/S drift in the data at IAD has little to nothing to do with the drift near Pentagon and if we would really apply this drift at IAD to correct the coordinates near Pentagon, then the plane would be very far - like ~800meters north of Citgo somewhere above Arlington cemetery.


This post has been edited by trimble: Feb 26 2011, 01:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 26 2011, 01:29 PM
Post #22





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,096
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 26 2011, 03:49 AM) *
Did Stutt ever concede that he was wrong for discarding the PA readings after rob had pointed out his "misconceptions"?

I think the True Altitudes he've send to me look too high.
My problem which arised is when I briefly try his "True Altitudes" to fit them on the theoretical Track Angle/GS trajectory from the "impact point" (I've carefully ploted meanwhile), and I find that if he were right with the "True Altitude" values, then the plane would clear the VDOT >~85ft above it and even if I then subtract from his true altitude values this >85ft to let the plane clear just somewhere couple of ft (I don't know exactly I still didn't try to calculate it) above the top of VDOT, then I get the plane in height of the Pentagon roof in the last subframe, so considerably higher than the lightpoles, and if I add 15 ft to clear the VDOT better ( I don't suppose the perps would too risk to crash into it), then the plane, if I calculate it well would in the last subframe clear just
~3ft (doesn't remind me this number something?) above the Pentagon's roof.
QUOTE
Legge/Stutt claim that the aircraft was travelling at 560mph (?) at this point. Say 800fps for argument sake.

We should count with the values which are decoded from the FDR (by Mr. Warren Stutt himself) - The speed values for last subframes added to the record by Mr. Stutt:
151365 472 kts TAS 469 kts GS
151366 476 kts TAS 473 kts GS
151367 484 kts TAS 478 kts GS
151368 488 kts TAS 483 kts GS

The Lat/Lon positions in the last subframes:

151365 38,86705 -77,06892
151366 38,86808 -77,06652
151367 38,86911 -77,06394
151368 38,87032 -77,06154

QUOTE
So, the aircraft had to execute a descent from 117ft agl (57 + 60) to 64ft (45 + 19) = 53ft in 0.5 seconds

= 106fps descent

BUT, Legge/Stutt also claim that the pullup was executed 0.7 seconds before reaching lightpole 1.

This I think is very valid argument putting the Mr. Legge/Stutt argumentation on its head.
QUOTE
A simultaneous 6000fpm descent and a "pullup" that never exceeded "2gs" and ended up in a "1.2 pitch" shallow descent through the lightpoles??

NOTE: There was also an alleged 124fps descent 2 seconds before this (308ft ASL to 184ft ASL in one second)

Datapoints 151365 to 151366

bs_flag.gif

Yeah as I see it what they achieve with their "earlier pull-up" it to considerably aggravate the descent rate needed and then the vertical accelerations again would not fit the values recorded in the FDR if the plane would really execute the kicking down of the lightpoles stunt.

QUOTE
*In the Legge/Stutt paper, Legge claimed that the "4ft reading" was at lightpole 3. And that such a low reading was due to various factors. The perceived physical damage to the pole shows a "break" at around 20ft.
The same method Legge used to establish the physical damage and the RADALT reading should then be applied to lightpoles 1 and 2 (-16ft)

35ft - 16ft = 19ft

The 4ft Radio Height reading is in the last subframe 153368 where is I'm afraid no way how to position it so exactly to fit it on the pole 3, the reading is for the whole subframe and we don't know when exactly within the 1 second span (the plane was flying ~250m/s) it was in fact measured and recorded. So the positioning the RH at the 3rd lightpole is in fact a pure speculation.
There is from logic also very much the possibility that the plane was then already above the roof of the Pentagon - as quite clearly show the Mr. Stutt's "True Altitude" values to be more than possible. (And as show some indicies from the radar data I'm now on to discuss only privately -at least before I'll get the exact DCA radar focal point height to corroborate some intricate findings with the PLA radar record where somebody apparently forget to erase some key blips... whistle.gif) But anyway I would not much rely on RH Mr. Legge and Stutt are so praising -when the instrument was operating so well outside its certified operating envelope -at least I would not prefer it before the PA reading properly corrected to the local pressure and temperature, because as Rob showed the exactitude is pretty damn accurate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 26 2011, 05:30 PM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 26 2011, 06:29 PM) *
I find that if he were right with the "True Altitude" values, then the plane would clear the VDOT >~85ft above it and even if I then subtract from his true altitude values this >85ft to let the plane clear just somewhere couple of ft (I don't know exactly I still didn't try to calculate it) above the top of VDOT, then I get the plane in height of the Pentagon roof in the last subframe, so considerably higher than the lightpoles, and if I add 15 ft to clear the VDOT better ( I don't suppose the perps would too risk to crash into it), then the plane, if I calculate it well would in the last subframe clear just
~3ft (doesn't remind me this number something?) above the Pentagon's roof.


Can you show this visually Jan (by way of an image)?

I remember Rob saying something along those lines..

QUOTE (Rob Balsamo)
-99 PA (174 True) being hypothetically recorded 1.5 seconds west of the wall means based on speed it would need to descend almost 100-120 feet in roughly 0.3 seconds to hit pole 1, and then pull level almost instantaneously...impossible.. or descend 129 in 1.5 seconds to impact the pentagon creating a more than 6 degree slope (86 f/s drop) which clears all the tops of the poles...

If trends are continued as shown in your data from last interval (59 f/s drop) and considering the descent would be less than 59 f/s based on positive G's over 1 for that segment, but, lets just do 1 G linear trend.. 59*1.5 = 88.5... 174 - 88.5 = 85.5. Still too high for the impact hole. Again, this is at 1 G linear descent rate using 'best' case scenario for an impact based on your data. If we incorporate the increase in positive G loads, whoosh... right over the top... and would be consistent with the radalt bouncing off the top of the pentagon..



QUOTE (Tume)
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
So, the aircraft had to execute a descent from 117ft agl (57 + 60) to 64ft (45 + 19) = 53ft in 0.5 seconds

= 106fps descent

BUT, Legge/Stutt also claim that the pullup was executed 0.7 seconds before reaching lightpole 1.


This I think is very valid argument putting the Mr. Legge/Stutt argumentation on its head.


Yep.

QUOTE (Tume)
QUOTE (onesliceshort)
A simultaneous 6000fpm descent and a "pullup" that never exceeded "2gs" and ended up in a "1.2 pitch" shallow descent through the lightpoles??

NOTE: There was also an alleged 124fps descent 2 seconds before this (308ft ASL to 184ft ASL in one second)

Datapoints 151365 to 151366


Yeah as I see it what they achieve with their "earlier pull-up" it to considerably aggravate the descent rate needed and then the vertical accelerations again would not fit the values recorded in the FDR if the plane would really execute the kicking down of the lightpoles stunt.


Literally 124fps descent > 52fps descent > 106fps descent (lightpole 1) > 10fps...all within 2.7 seconds rolleyes.gif


QUOTE (Tume)
QUOTE
*In the Legge/Stutt paper, Legge claimed that the "4ft reading" was at lightpole 3. And that such a low reading was due to various factors. The perceived physical damage to the pole shows a "break" at around 20ft.
The same method Legge used to establish the physical damage and the RADALT reading should then be applied to lightpoles 1 and 2 (-16ft)

35ft - 16ft = 19ft


The 4ft Radio Height reading is in the last subframe 153368 where is I'm afraid no way how to position it so exactly to fit it on the pole 3, the reading is for the whole subframe and we don't know when exactly within the 1 second span (the plane was flying ~250m/s) it was in fact measured and recorded. So the positioning the RH at the 3rd lightpole is in fact a pure speculation.


Oh yeah mate. I'm just using their "logic".

QUOTE (Tume)
There is from logic also very much the possibility that the plane was then already above the roof of the Pentagon - as quite clearly show the Mr. Stutt's "True Altitude" values to be more than possible. (And as show some indicies from the radar data I'm now on to discuss only privately -at least before I'll get the exact DCA radar focal point height to corroborate some intricate findings with the PLA radar record where somebody apparently forget to erase some key blips... whistle.gif) But anyway I would not much rely on RH Mr. Legge and Stutt are so praising -when the instrument was operating so well outside its certified operating envelope -at least I would not prefer it before the PA reading properly corrected to the local pressure and temperature, because as Rob showed the exactitude is pretty damn accurate.


The Legge/Stutt paper is in shreds already. If a layman like me can see through it, I can imagine what Rob and the gang make of it.

Dennis Cimino killed the "reliance" on the RADALT and the "reason" given to dismiss the PA has been refuted. I just went through the RADALT readings to see if they actually added up to anything like Legge claimed. They apparently don't (not in the real world)

Looking forward to your new project Jan!

thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 26 2011, 07:32 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



The Legge/Stutt paper is garbage...

And here are just some of the reasons why...


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794074

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490

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

Richard Gage has sourced the Legge/Stutt paper(s) supporting his "present position" on the Pentagon, indirectly sourcing Mark Roberts and Ryan Mackey (the people who call Richard the "Box Boy" in reference to his WTC collapse analysis using cardboard boxes)

I have contacted Richard via email regarding my concerns. He feels we should just agree to disagree.

I agreed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 26 2011, 11:28 PM
Post #25





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,096
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 26 2011, 12:32 PM) *
The Legge/Stutt paper is garbage...

And here are just some of the reasons why...


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794074

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490

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

Richard Gage has sourced the Legge/Stutt paper(s) supporting his "present position" on the Pentagon, indirectly sourcing Mark Roberts and Ryan Mackey (the people who call Richard the "Box Boy" in reference to his WTC collapse analysis using cardboard boxes)

I have contacted Richard via email regarding my concerns. He feels we should just agree to disagree.

I agreed.

I've sent this email to ae911 some days ago:
Dear Laila,

Recently I've learned Mr. Richard Gage hastily have withdrawed the support for CIT. I think it is a disgrace. Especially for me as one of the supporters of ae911T.

I'm one of the rare people who really dig in the AA77/Pentagon data for years and I must clearly state the conclusions of Mr. Legge and Mr. Stutt which led to this "friendly fire" in the 911 truth movement are almost a total bunk based on misinterpreted altitude Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data with very high confirmation bias. Moreover from the study of the FDR data as well as from the available radar records is now quite clear there is NO official evidence left - except the very fishy lightpoles - to support the "AA77" alleged "impact airpath". Recently found heading divergence in the FDR data (well documented here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...howtopic=21101), lat/lon positioning and timing (originally clearly riged by NTSB - see here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...howtopic=21076), together with the wind meteo data, DCA (Reagan), ADW (Andrews) radars, closely corroborating each other in both timing and positioning, and the grossly timeshifted 84Rades PLA radar data closely corroborating the later at least in positioning (+the CIT wittnesses) all rule-out the so called "South of Citgo" airpath through the lightpoles alley. So the stance of the CIT is supported - maybe not by R. Gage and ae911, but otherwise by all hard, officially released data concerning "AA77" available, closely corroborating one by each other - although the "flyover" is still just a logical speculation based on rare wittness accounts. Nevertheless the conclusion to the meaning AA77 FDR supports "Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon" is not supported by ANY data, is clearly erroneous, based on gross misinterpretation and data manipulation and so should be immediately withdrawn and at least not parroted further. I would think that it would be good -to save the long built reputation of ae911T - which generally shouldn't take stances in disputes outside expertise and credentials of its core members - not to endorse or seem to endorse such ridiculous claims supported by virtually nothing.

With Best Regards

I, etc.


I've got a reply after several days:

Hi Jan,

Sorry for the very late reply, my internet was down for a few days.

I have passed your note below on to Richard Gage since I cannot answer for him. I'm sorry, but I am not up on all that has gone on in the 9/11 movement as my work with A&E is time consuming and I have a job and family to care for on the side!

As for what did and didn't happen at the Pentagon, I cannot give an opinion because I have not looked more deeply into the situation except to say that the photos I've seen clearly show me something other than a passenger jet hit it.

Again, thank you for your comments below.

Regards,
Laila Selk, verifications.


This shows not even a secretary at ae911 - I'm applauding her to have a courage and write her opinion - believes the brand new stance of her boss
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 27 2011, 08:20 AM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
As for what did and didn't happen at the Pentagon, I cannot give an opinion because I have not looked more deeply into the situation..


Do you know how much hassle, bitterness and dischord could have been avoided if certain individuals had taken the same stance?

Nice one Jan.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 28 2011, 03:22 AM
Post #27





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,096
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (trimble @ Feb 26 2011, 05:08 AM) *
I'm well aware of what is being discussed in this topic. However it was RB who wrote a response (it was his text I quoted) that said that this drift when applied at the Pentagon would put the plane "north of Citgo". In writing that, I suggest that this would imply to the average casual reader that this drift is somehow supportive to the NoC flightpath. I was calling him on it, as it obviously is no such thing. Hence my query. I think it is you who missed MY point tongue.gif

In any case, you have provided the affirmative correction yourself. So thankyou.

Sorry if I missed something. rolleyes.gif

But there is nothing affirmative I'm afraid using just the coordinates drift at IAD to affirm the NoC. Rob's note I think was more an allusion to the "tortures" which some people do with the data, for example I was asking Mr. Warren Stutt what they did with the coordinates to get the plane on the runway and at the right crash path to Pentagon and his answer was: "we shifted all the coordinates by the same amount in the same direction." But If they would really do something like that they would get the plane hundreds of meters North of Citgo.
So I think they "shifted all the coordinates by the same amount in the same direction" at the IAD and then they "shifted all the coordinates by the same amount in the same direction" near Pentagon, just with the exception that mutually it was by different ammount and in the opposite direction. rolleyes.gif

I think the N/S drift of the coordinates at IAD is unapplicable for the coordinates near Pentagon. The FDR data show the amount of the drift is changing in the time and the journey from IAD to Pentagon is too long for we could easily apply the drift at IAD to the coordinates correction near Pentagon. The more decisive I think there are the radar records which show the plane quite consistently too north for so called South of Citgo airpath through the lightpole alley. Also the approach angle pattern shown by radars is slightly different than an approach angle needed for the South of Citgo airpath - the average difference for the last 53 seconds of flight is like ~0.4(DCA radar)-2.5(ADW radar), which doesn't look much, but in fact it is indeed about the angle which could make the NoC-SoC airpath difference.
So yes, there are quite strong indicies for NoC, but not just in the FDR alone and it has little to nothing to do with the observed N/S drift at IAD.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 28 2011, 03:26 AM
Post #28





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,096
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 27 2011, 12:20 AM) *
Do you know how much hassle, bitterness and dischord could have been avoided if certain individuals had taken the same stance?

Nice one Jan.

Yeah, I think that people who didn't studied the issue thoroughly shouldn't easily take stances just how their gurus decide for pursuing their agendas.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 28 2011, 05:54 AM
Post #29



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 28 2011, 02:22 AM) *
So I think they "shifted all the coordinates by the same amount in the same direction" at the IAD and then they "shifted all the coordinates by the same amount in the same direction" near Pentagon, just with the exception that mutually it was by different ammount and in the opposite direction. rolleyes.gif


Exactly, and further demonstrates the misleading and perhaps rather deceptive tactics taken by Legge and Stutt. I was going to uncover that if they fixed their other misleading and deceptive tactics that have already been pointed out with respect to their altitude "divergence", sourcing the wrong FAR, and incorrect "impact time" reference, but it appears they prefer to spread confirmed disinformation.

Can INS realign itself in flight?

Not according to the man who has actual flight time in N644AA.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15047

(further corroboration that an INS doesnt realign in flight is the fact the landing is offset at IAD)

UT and I also adjusted the beginning and end of data lat/long when we first got the decode in 2007, but i think most of those images got lost in the move to the new forum.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...ic=4575&hl=
(see attached for one of the images corroborating tume's findings that the aircraft did not depart gate D26)

When adjusted by distance and angle, the path is NoC.


Nobody ever claimed the adjustment matches witness statements NoC. But the fact remains when the adjustment is made, the plot -is- NoC.

Trimble appears to be another one of Randi's kids.

Attached image according to UT.
Green P9-P0 is night before engine off
Red M1 is at the Terminal
Yellow M2 is backed out and start of Taxi
Red M3 is Radio Alt 3 Feet, 1st indication of lift off


Lat/long plot does NOT corroborate a D26 gate departure. OCT debunked once again with their own data.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  AA77_Taxi_out_UTpaint.jpg ( 42.08K ) Number of downloads: 21
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 28 2011, 09:33 AM
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



New article up based on this thread...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/aa77-gate-position.html

It's front page as well.

I also took a stroll over to the cesspit to see if Farmer in his true obsessive fashion has already attempted to deceive his minions regarding this analysis by tume. Sure enough, Farmer is in full bloom spouting lies and trying to spin it any way he can.

There is also one of Randi's kids upset that his co-workers are sourcing our "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" presentation. Farmer in his true obsessive form tries to debunk the analysis with the only thing he has to offer... "Gage thinks P4T work is crap!" because as we all know, Farmer hasnt a clue when it comes to anything regarding aviation. The kid asks Farmer for a link source, Farmer does a song and dance failing to provide one. The reason being that not only is Farmer obsessed with us, but he is also a compulsive liar.

Gage actually bought our "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" DVD because he wanted to support our work. I told Gage i would have sent it to him for free, but Gage insisted on paying for it.

Farmer, dont you ever get tired of being caught in your obsessive compulsive lies? And he wonders why I wont let him post his libelous claims here. Go crawl back into your hole Farmer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 28 2011, 10:07 AM
Post #31



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Excellent work guys!!

thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 28 2011, 12:26 PM
Post #32



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Thanks OSS...

There seems to be a bit of confusion as to why the Landing data does not match with takeoff data, when trying to match it to a gate at Concourse D.

The reason for this is the aircraft was apparently moved (towed) overnight to the staging area as depicted in the original plots done by Undertow i attached above. (i refuse to trust anything that comes out of the Stutt/Legge camp as clearly they are not sincere as has been demonstrated ad nauseam).

When the aircraft is moved without the aircraft being fully powered up (engines running, all systems on line.. .etc) and the INS being realigned, the INS will drift. So that is why there is a conflict between Landing and Takeoff data.

INS navigation is a bit before my time, but when i was coming through the ranks fueling and towing planes on the ramp (in my teens), i remember many times we were told to put a Gulfstream or Challenger in a spot where it can sit for hours. The reason for this is that the pilots were aligning the INS. This HAS to be done prior to flight or else your INS will be all screwed up during flight, as you can see from this data we are analyzing. It's almost as if the pilots who were flying this aircraft didnt care about the INS positional data. Did they have alternative means for navigation? It appears so.

Now, with that said, some have claimed the Lat/long shows being aligned in flight based on the data. Well, i'm sure it did. Probably on a bench. But it wasnt done in an actual aircraft. This is impossible as already pointed out by Capt Ralph Kolstad who has flown N644AA (the aircraft described as AA77).

For now... Forget about the landing data trying to match it to a gate (we know it's offset as well, it shouldnt be, but it is...). All we are concerned with is the morning data after engine start.

If we adjust the morning lat/long plots after engine start to D26, this is what we get.



This above aircraft clearly did NOT depart gate D26 from IAD. Thats the bottom line.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 28 2011, 12:44 PM
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Even if i try to distort the picture to fit it to D26 and close to something resembling a takeoff... (which i'm sure 'duhbunkers' will try, as they are notorious for trying to fit square peg into a round hole).....

This is what we get...



That picture also sums up just about every argument a 'duhbunker' has ever tried to make. Completely twisted and distorted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 28 2011, 01:05 PM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,608
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE
That picture also sums up just about every argument a 'duhbunker' has ever tried to make. Completely twisted and distorted.


Amen.

biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 28 2011, 05:44 PM
Post #35



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I wanted to get a bit more insight from Ralph since the last time we spoke about INS/IRS was awhile ago. Just got off the phone with him.

Basically, when they realigned the Inertial Reference System aka IRS (It was an IRS in N644AA, not INS), the procedure was to make sure the aircraft was fully stopped and the parking brake set. Ralph emphasized the parking brake had to be set. The aircraft had to be left alone for at least 5 mins. No bumps, no moving, preferably no one moving on board. If this was not done, if the IRS was not aligned and was offset, it is impossible for the aircraft to realign itself in flight and to know where it is.



IRS is aligned by Lat/Long position. The actual lat/long is input into the IRS by the pilot and from there laser ringed gyros measure movement from that point. Jeppesen Charts give lat/long coordinates for most Gates at major airports just for this purpose, so pilots can align their IRS during a turn check or first flight of the day.


IRS cannot determine precise location of the aircraft if the IRS was not aligned prior to flight.


Now since we know this, the lat/long plots can be adjusted for the offset after the fact as the IRS measures from whatever point (Lat/Long) it thinks it is at. Which is what we did above. The Lat/Long shows that this aircraft did not come from Gate D26.

Since the aircraft needs an actual lat/long plot input into the IRS and left uninterrupted for at least 5 mins, there is no possible way this aircraft could have realigned itself in flight. Since some have claimed the aircraft lat/long realigned itself shortly after take-off, it highly suggests data manipulation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 28 2011, 08:06 PM
Post #36



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Here are a few more references to support what Ralph has said....

E. When ALIGN is selected, power is applied to the IRU's and the IRU's normally progress through an alignment period of approximately 10 minutes before the navigational mode is armed. When the switches are maintained in ALIGN, however, the IRU's remain in the align mode. Normal alignment requires the entry of present position into the IRU's.

Source - http://digilander.libero.it/andreatheone/irs.htm


"There is a big difference between updating a position.. ok..., which is not a problem at all, and Re-Aligning an IRS in flight which is not possible :=."



"If the Present Position is incorrect when the INS is initialized, it will NOT "re-align" itself! It should be shut down and re-initialized with the correct Present Position."


"No IRS realign in flight, ... alignement realign requires the platform to be stable. no acceleration, no movement, sometimes the movement created by loading container is enough to screw up the align process, on a modern Airliner."


"When you start in the morning, you tell it where it is. Either by telling it the gate position or by giving it the GPS position."


Source - http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-344362.html

Basically what I get from the above is that it depends on IRS system if you will get an update in flight (some systems do not have the ability to update at all). The only way you will get an accurate update in flight is if you aligned the position properly at the gate first flight of day. This makes sense as drift is also calculated. If drift is calculated from a position that was initially incorrect, there is no way it can correct for that drift plus the initial incorrect offset, accurately in flight.

Ralph explained in my call with him that the IRS systems he used with American Airlines were "cheap crappy systems".

Bottom line, if the aircraft was not aligned at the gate, all data updated in flight cannot be used for accurate position. It must be adjusted for the offset observed from first flight and any drift that might be associated enroute.

When adjust at the gate, it is shown the aircraft did not depart from Gate D26.

When adjusted at end of data, it is shown the aircraft is North Of Citgo (some drift may have occurred during flight and this is why the position is far north of the Citgo when adjusted for initial offset).

If someone wants to go through the tedious task of checking Farmer's work, and if past experience with him is any indication, i would almost bet the guy manipulated the data on the enroute portion of flight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 1 2011, 09:49 PM
Post #37



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I was notified of the latest from Farmer in a poor attempt to squash this analysis (since its clear he cannot explain away the IRS data).



Out of all his deceptions, this perhaps has to be his most blatant. He seems to be getting desperate.

The above is claimed to be an exchange between "Ground Control" and "American 77" requesting push off the gate and taxi to runway 30.

There are many problems with the above.

First....

The gate is referred to as "Dixie 26". Aviation Phonetic Alphabet for "D" is "Delta". Cops use "Dixie" (Farmer claims to be a former 'Detective').

Although some old timer pilots do use "Dixie", but it is mostly done in a Delta base (such as ATL or CVG). I used to fly for the largest carrier out of IAD. I never heard "Dixie" from anyone.

Next, when pushing from a gate, pilots are required to contact Ramp Control first. Ramp control for south of Concourse Delta is 130.55 (IIRC).

After you get clearance from Ramp for the push, you push... start engines... do your after start checks... then get clearance from Ramp Control to taxi to a spot available to contact Ground Control before entering the Taxiways.

This spot is Spot 82 if one were to taxi from Gate Delta 26 to Runway 30. It is on the west side of the ramp before you enter the taxiways.

So, if someone were to make an actual tape recording of the incident and for it to sound authentic, it would sound something like this...

(Before Start Check, before start check complete)

"Morning Ramp, American 77 ready for push, Delta Twenty Six, expecting runway thirty, "

"American 77 push approve"

"push approved, American 77"

(push commences... push stops when in position... tug disconnect... all clear... engine start.. .after start checks)

"Ramp, American 77 ready for taxi".

"American 77, Ramp, Taxi to spot 82 and contact ground".

"Spot 82, American 77"

(aircraft taxi's to spot 82)

"Morning ground, American 77, spot 82 with information Echo, taxi"

"American 77, Dulles Ground. .good morning, taxi to runway 30 via Foxtrot, Yankee".

"Fox, Yankee to 30, American 77"

(taxi's to runway 30, hold's at hold short lines, contacts tower.. and this is what would be heard from there)



(by the way, the voice in the above video is all mine... and people think you cant morph a voice? I did the above video with no training whatsoever and 45 dollar editing software.. i'm sure it shows.. but you get my point.. i hope)

After all that is said, Farmer still has that pesky problem of lat/long in his own data which doesnt support his claims.



Farmer, try again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 2 2011, 03:09 AM
Post #38



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Since i'm taking a shower before i hit the sack tonight, i decided to take a stroll over to the cesspit. Wow, i never seen so much crap flung in such a short duration. They have outdone themselves.

Anyway, as expected, Farmer posted his above audio recording, the minions lapped it up, never realizing that the data conflicts with a D26 pushback. If the audio recording Farmer has posted is authentic (although it's doubtful as there is no indication of contact with Ramp Control during morning rush), it proves the data did not come from "AA77".

Our old Aussie friend "wstutt" has decided to poke his head in without reading all the information..... with this graphic attempting to support a south gate pushback.



Well first, i dont see any gate in the above diagram. I see dirt roads and cars. Clearly the IRS was not aligned, the aircraft should have been grounded. See the numerous posts and sources going back to pprune i have posted.

Secondly, aircraft do not start their engines at the gate prior to pushback. Perhaps they do things backwards "down under"? Dunno.

It seems Warren forgets the FDR doesnt start to record until the engines are started?

The above plot when adjusted for offset makes more sense with this description.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10795540

Its good to see the blind still leading the blind over at the cesspit.

Warren, have you and Legge corrected your confirmed disinformation from your last paper yet?

When you do, feel free to contact me, and i'll walk you through more of your errors.

Shower time for me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Mar 2 2011, 06:10 AM
Post #39





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,096
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Mar 1 2011, 01:49 PM) *
The above is claimed to be an exchange between "Ground Control" and "American 77" requesting push off the gate and taxi to runway 30.

There are many problems with the above.

Yeah, there's maybe also the problem I (uwittingly) mystified Mr. Farmer our FDR plane pushed from the gate at 8:12.
In fact it was most probably at 8:10:46...so at 8:12 it would be a bit late to ask the tower...
laughing1.gif

EDIT: I've also plotted and subsequently overlayed this:

Not to support Mr. Stutt, but to show how almost exactly the pathway pattern fits the pattern of the relatively narrow taxiways, contrary to some of the latest Mr. Farmer's "ideas" about the INS inflight allignments. And there's I think clearly the push from the southern side of the Concourse D is possible and could be quite logical, but definitely not confirming the gate D26. (and yes, to avoid silly notes, I did exactly adjusted the overlay picture scale to have exactly same dimensions as the original pathway pattern)
The red circle at the bottom is a place of possible adjustment of the INS (as my friend pilot suggested to me as a possibility) where the plane is standing, heading -67.8 westwestnorthwards (which happens to be almost exactly our runway angle) all the time 12:17:39-12:18:53, yet the coordinates "mysteriously" shift >38m southwards during this timespan and if I would exclude this shift, the pathway pattern then would fit the taxiways almost absolutely exactly for the plane departing the Gate D20 ...but I'm not insisting on the idea, because it would also need an assumption the coordinates were shifted after the fact, which I would not much wonder, judging after comparing Under Tow's coordinates with the ones from Mr. Stutt and then yet with the ones made in NTSB ...they're always somehow different, usually hundreds of meters...yet the pattern remains rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 2 2011, 06:56 AM
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,661
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Yes, i'm not surprised "Stutt's" coordinates push from the south side after adjusted for the offset. Read more of Legge/Stutt errors here.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10795490

But even then, you still have the aircraft in the grass on Taxi and thrashing the south wall of Concourse Delta.

Also, (and repeated for perhaps the 5th time), aircraft do not start their engines until after pushback.

How can Warren Stutt claim to have a position at the gate, and lat/long plots during pushback, if the FDR doesnt start to record until engines are started?

Answer, he doesnt.


For the third time, see here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10795540

It seems only those with a verified aviation background understand this.

And for perhaps the 4th time, the aircraft should have never left the ground with an IRS more than 1/2 mile in error.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 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: 31st July 2014 - 09:41 PM