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 )

10 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
Duhbunkers try to explain ACARS and fail

Aldo Marquis CIT
post Dec 1 2011, 05:29 AM
Post #1


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,172
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



And of course, we see the obsessoids over at the govt loyalist cesspool scurrying, looking for and expecting an immediate explanation from the nameless faceless "experts". This individual can't even think or research for themself, they have to seek comfort in answers from the groupthink tank.


QUOTE
"I'm sure it's here somewhere, but can someone steer me to the debunk of this rubbish-"


This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Dec 1 2011, 05:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Dec 1 2011, 02:50 PM
Post #2


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,172
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Of course one of the idiots chime in, without reading the article obviously...

QUOTE
It's been discussed here:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.p...ighlight=ACARS

I am currently reading that thread, have progressed to post 52 (checking links is time consuming). Pay attention to Femr2, apathoid and CtColumbo and ztry to ignore the bickering by beachnut and others.


ETA: That thread never came to a definite conclusion, but this seems to be the gist:
The ACARS messages involving UA175 were messages to the plane, not from the plane. Obviously, it is possible to send a message to a receiver that is already destroyed.
ACARS messages get transmitted via VHF radio antennae on the ground near the plane - for planes at cruising altitude, "near" can be up to 200 miles away. Sender must include the ground station in the message. It seems that the ground station is usually determined from flight plans, not from live information about the plane's actual location. It seems Harrisburg (and 20 minutes later: Pittsburgh) was near the expected location of UA175 according to flight plan, had it not been hijacked, re-routed, and later crashed. If senders were not informed, or not sure, about the hijack, then sending via flight plan location was a reasonable thing to do. Message content assumed (or hoped) pilots were still in control.
An open issue is whether or not the message would have been recorded (printed out) without some technical acknowledgment from the plane's ACARS system that it has been received. Femr2 thinks that ACARS protocols (always?) include such automatic acknowledgements, apathoid and CptColumbo doubt it. Even if an ACK would have been the rule, it is not clear if an ACK was received or not. Furthermore, it is nor clear if the sent message would not have been recorded if an ACK was exected but not received
In short, having records of messages being send to (or via) Ground Radio in Pennsylvania is no proof of the plane actually being in Pennsylvania at that time, unless it can be proven that the ACARS ground system received an acknowledgment from the plane that it had received the message.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 1 2011, 03:26 PM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,885
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



This brings up a good question, and I'm wondering if anybody knows the answer.

I'm an old ham radio operator, though inactive today. I remember when ACARS came out, but have never used it.

Reading the news of this finding, I had assumed that what was recently discovered is that the message was either received or transmitted by UA175. I wondered how it can be known for certain that any message transmitted from the ground station was received and readable by the airborne station, absent acknowledgment by the aircraft crew through ACARS.

So are we saying that the PA ground station received a transmission from UA175, or are we saying that the ground station merely transmitted a message to 175, and there is no record of acknowledgment or there IS a record of acknowledgment?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 1 2011, 03:43 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,599
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 1 2011, 02:26 PM) *
This brings up a good question, and I'm wondering if anybody knows the answer.

I'm an old ham radio operator, though inactive today. I remember when ACARS came out, but have never used it.

Reading the news of this finding, I had assumed that what was recently discovered is that the message was either received or transmitted by UA175. I wondered how it can be known for certain that any message transmitted from the ground station was received and readable by the airborne station, absent acknowledgment by the aircraft crew through ACARS.

So are we saying that the PA ground station received a transmission from UA175, or are we saying that the ground station merely transmitted a message to 175, and there is no record of acknowledgment or there IS a record of acknowledgment?


From the article...


QUOTE
The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane.

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA SFOLM CHI58R SFOFRSAM
.SFOLMUA 111259/JER
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUSFOLMUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
I HEARD OF A REPORTED INCIDENT ABOARD YOUR ACFT. PLZ VERIFY ALL
IS NORMAL....THX 777SAM
SFOLM JERRY TSEN

;09111259 108575 0543


.......


If one references the standard message block codes linked above, you will notice that a "Technical Acknowledgement" section should be present in ACARS messages. What this means, is that the ACARS system can confirm if the sent 'text' messages have been received or not without requiring any crew input to manually acknowledge the message was received. Similar to an email which may have bounced back, or your cell phone telling you that your text message failed to send, this automatic technical acknowledgement would let the reader know the message failed receipt, or if it were received. An ACK or NAK should be present denoting received or failed, respectively, according to standard message formats. Unfortunately, these standard codes are not available in the above messages. However, according to a Memorandum For The Record(2) quoting United Dispatcher Ed Ballinger, the second time stamp on the bottom of the message, at United Airlines, is the "Technical Acknowledgement" from the airplane that the message has been received -

Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.

According to the above statement made by Mr. Ballinger, all of the above messages were received by the aircraft.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRM...FTER-CRASH.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Dec 1 2011, 08:15 PM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 363
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2011, 05:13 AM) *


Dear Mr Balsamo

It appears the important content above is falling on 'blind' eyes, or a good many people are not taking the time to read it a second time and digest it properly.

Has any body spoken to Mr Ballinger, at all, it would be very interesting to get his current slant on things.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 2 2011, 12:57 PM
Post #6


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 257
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20




One guy over at the unexplained mysteries forum keeps claiming that United Airlines confirmed that Flight 175 had crashed into the South Tower quickly after the incident. But this is not the case. Here's some background info in case you encounter such an "expert" somwhere. United waited until about 12:00 to accept Flight 175 being the South Tower plane; before, they declared it "missing" or "down at an undisclosed location".

Here's a press release of United Airlines for the public. Time: 11:17

United Airlines Issues Second Release
11 Sep 2001, 11:17 AM, EST
United Airlines has confirmed one of its flights has crashed near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. United Flight 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, is the flight number involved. The flight originated in Newark and was bound for San Francisco. United is deeply concerned about a further flight, United Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles. On behalf of the airline, CEO James E. Goodwin said, "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved in today's tragic events. United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights. In the meantime, in line with FAA directives, a worldwide groundstop on all our flights continues. For further information, friends and relatives who may be concerned about a passenger on United Flight 93 should call 1-800-932-8555.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010911230853/..._1748_1,00.html

Here are some guys following the news and exchanging it:

#
09-11-2001, 12:45 PM #1
Kathy Guest
United Flight missing

<HTML>news reports United Flight 175 is missing and unaccounted for.

Kathy :kitten</HTML>

Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
#
09-11-2001, 12:53 PM #2
Lisa Guest
Re: United Flight missing

<HTML>That could be the one that crashed in PA.</HTML>

Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
#
09-11-2001, 12:55 PM #3
Chippsetter Guest
Re: United Flight missing

<HTML>United flight 93 is the one that crashed in PA.</HTML>

Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
#
09-11-2001, 01:06 PM #4
Lisa Guest
Re: United Flight missing

<HTML>They are now reporting that 175 has also crashed but will not disclose where........</HTML>

http://www.cruise-addicts.com/forums/f4/un...t-missing-5776/

Here's an article of the Wall Street Journal, 10/16/2001. Both the American CEO (Carty) and the United CEO (Goodwin) didn't handle United 175 as a candidate for the South Tower hit for a long time.

Just as those orders were being given, the American command center heard television reports of a plane hitting the south tower of the trade center. Many in the room instantly assumed it was American Flight 77, the missing plane from Washington.

"How did 77 get to New York and we didn't know it?" Bertapelle shouted.

Arpey looked at Carty, who had just arrived.

"I think we better get everything on the deck," Arpey said.

"Do it," Carty replied.

American ordered planes to land at the nearest suitable airports. It activated crash teams to deal with the accidents and the families of passengers and began beefing up security at American's headquarters and major stations.

Carty called Goodwin, his counterpart at United. Each told the other that he thought that he had a second missing plane.

Carty and Goodwin were also talking on the phone with Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who was in a government command bunker with Vice President Dick Cheney. Carty told Mineta that American was ordering all 162 of its planes out of the sky; United had already ordered its 122 planes down. About five minutes later, the FAA shut down the skies over the United States completely to all but military aircraft.

Soon, reports began pouring in that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon. Maybe it was the missing United plane?

American still believed its Flight 77 had gone into the second World Trade Center tower. The command center ordered a plane readied to take crisis response teams to New York to assist investigators and relatives of passengers.

Capt. Ed Soliday, United's vice president of safety and security, talked to AMR Vice Chairman Bob Baker, trying to sort out the confusion.

"They thought our airplane had crashed in Washington and that both their planes had crashed at the World Trade Center," Soliday says. Finally, he and Baker agreed that the government should make the final confirmation.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/549497/posts






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 3 2011, 04:23 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,599
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



So... I had some time today to browse the cesspools out there regarding our latest article.

As usual, most of the "duhbunkers" have nothing to offer but vicious name calling and personal attacks from behind their anonymous screenames. When they do try to stick to topic, they offer speculation without any source whatsoever....

With that said, I stumbled across something I found quite hilarious...


Ryan Mackey, NASA Scientist Extraordinaire.. has crawled out of his hole to apparently share an 82 page psychological evaluation of "Truthers".

I admit I have not read the "paper", but I did browse through the thread. It appears Mr. Mackey is attempting to notify all other "debunkers" that there is no reason to entertain the arguments presented by "Truthers".

What I found so hilarious is that Mr. Mackey claims on page 5 of the thread, "I'm a busy guy. Truthers haven't convinced me they're worth the effort. "

Yet, he writes an 82 page paper explaining why he feels "Truthers aren't worth the effort"?

New name for Mackey...

Ryan "There Is Nothing To Debate", "Truthers Aren't Worth The Effort, but read my 82 page paper on Truthers" Mackey. - Comedian/Psychologist/Walking Contradiction

LMAO!

What a sad life that boy must lead that he has to write an 82 page paper to tell others to ignore the people he wrote an 82 page paper about....

If anyone does read it.. feel free to post his psycho-babble with reference to P4T... if it's in his "paper"

Too funny...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Dec 3 2011, 06:27 AM
Post #8





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



Awesome news Woody. I also have to say that I've been quite impressed with your articles Flight 175 was duplicated: Threefold Confirmation and Two "Flight 175" taking off from Boston Logan: CONFIRMED.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
911analyzer
post Dec 3 2011, 06:19 PM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 37
Joined: 3-March 08
Member No.: 2,828



Thanks again for bringing this information to light.

I made a post about it at ATS:
http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread781617/pg1

It was generally well received, however, debunkers are claiming that the last line does NOT denote when the message was received and acknowledged from the aircraft. One guy said it was when the message was printed, and that data could get backed up before hitting the telex.

There are a lot of subsequent posts over there describing ACARS, but it appears there are also a lot of varying formats of text display associated with it. I think this is causing a lot of confusion- no doubt exactly what the "Q" unit is tasked to do.

The big question everyone has is what exactly does that last line mean. There is the trouble, and someone needs to refute or confirm this. We need additional confirmation Rob, that this last line is indeed what you claim it is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 3 2011, 06:36 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,599
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (911analyzer @ Dec 3 2011, 05:19 PM) *
Thanks again for bringing this information to light.
....


Hi 911analyzer. Thanks for helping to spread the information.

I did read through the ATS thread last night when I was checking out the other cesspool forums, and in fact registered a screename there, of course I was banned within 3 posts with many deleted. I would use my real name, but for some reason ATS mods don't want me posting over there and instead allow people like weedwhacker to have multiple socks which are active. If you aren't already aware, "ProudBird" is weedwhacker, and as usual, he gets everything wrong.

As for the second time stamp, all we can go by is the people who work at the airline. ACARS systems can be tailored to Airline specific needs, which is why we haven't seen a standard technical acknowledgement from United, instead Ed Ballinger describes,

Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.


Clearly Ed is referencing the aircraft and not a "printer" as the reason for the second time stamp. I tried to explain this to the people over at ATS, but their mods deleted it, and I was banned.

Now, it's quite possible that "gman" (appropriate name for sure), could have two time stamps on his ACARS messages at his airline, in which the second time stamp refers to a printer., at his airline.

But for United Airlines, the second time stamp refers to when the airplane received the message, as stated by United Airlines Dispatcher Ed Ballinger.

Either way, Cateory A and B Flight Tracking protocol as described and well sourced in our article, is evidence that the aircraft was in the vicinity of MDT and PIT when those messages were sent, received by the airplane or not. "gman" apparently isn't familiar with how messages are routed, and apparently doesn't want to know. He should though...

Feel free to post a link to this thread over at ATS.

Hope this helps... and be sure to clear your cookies after visiting that site. ATS is loaded with malware and spyware.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Dec 3 2011, 06:53 PM
Post #11





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



QUOTE (23investigator @ Dec 1 2011, 07:15 PM) *
Dear Mr Balsamo

It appears the important content above is falling on 'blind' eyes, or a good many people are not taking the time to read it a second time and digest it properly.

Has any body spoken to Mr Ballinger, at all, it would be very interesting to get his current slant on things.

Robert S


I agree. If no one more qualified in these things wants to give it a go, I'd try to speak to him, but I have no idea how I'd get his contact information.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
911analyzer
post Dec 3 2011, 07:02 PM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 37
Joined: 3-March 08
Member No.: 2,828



QUOTE (911analyzer @ Dec 3 2011, 06:19 PM) *
Thanks again for bringing this information to light.

I made a post about it at ATS:
http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread781617/pg1

It was generally well received, however, debunkers are claiming that the last line does NOT denote when the message was received and acknowledged from the aircraft. One guy said it was when the message was printed, and that data could get backed up before hitting the telex.

There are a lot of subsequent posts over there describing ACARS, but it appears there are also a lot of varying formats of text display associated with it. I think this is causing a lot of confusion- no doubt exactly what the "Q" unit is tasked to do.

The big question everyone has is what exactly does that last line mean. There is the trouble, and someone needs to refute or confirm this. We need additional confirmation Rob, that this last line is indeed what you claim it is.


The correct URL to the ATS thread is http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread781617/pg1

WTF, I didn't post that URL, did you edit it Rob?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
911analyzer
post Dec 3 2011, 07:03 PM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 37
Joined: 3-March 08
Member No.: 2,828



QUOTE (911analyzer @ Dec 3 2011, 07:02 PM) *
The correct URL to the ATS thread is http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread781617/pg1

WTF, I didn't post that URL, did you edit it Rob?


Ok, that is autocoding then I see. It trashes any links to ATS...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 3 2011, 07:07 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,599
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (911analyzer @ Dec 3 2011, 06:02 PM) *
The correct URL to the ATS thread is http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread781617/pg1

WTF, I didn't post that URL, did you edit it Rob?



lol... the forum automatically edits the url as I prefer to not subject our readers to sites which are loaded with malware and spyware, linked from us.

If you want to post the url without being filtered, just wrap code tags around it and readers can copy/paste the url to their browser...

like this...

CODE
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread781617/pg1



By the way, you may want to inform them that there are many ACARS messages in the FOIA pdf which do not have the second time stamp. Does this mean it wasn't sent to the printer? If so, how did it get printed?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf

The second time stamp is the time the message was received by the airplane, as described by Ed Ballinger.

Feel free to tell "gman" to come on over if he wants to learn how the system works, especially Category A and B Flight Tracking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Dec 3 2011, 08:43 PM
Post #15





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



I got this message from someone who, while admitting that PFT's article may be accurate, nevertheless thinks it's also possible it's not. Quoting a bit of the conversation for context:

QUOTE (Czero 101)
QUOTE (Scott G)

Let me ask you this; if the message format was identical, why was one labelled as "received", while the other wasn't? Could it be that they were actually -both- received, and the person stating that one wasn't was either misinformed or was downright lying? This is the conclusion of an organization of experts in avionics, Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Considering their vast amount of expertise, you might consider the possibility that they're right.


Is it possible? Yes.

However, based on the documentation presented so far, we know that there are actually 2 acknowledgements sent back to the message originator, the first one from the DSP indicating that the message was successfully accepted for formatting for uplink transmission by the CPS, and the second one is the acknowledgement that the messages was received by the aircraft. All we see in most of the messages is one "acknowledgement time", but we have no way of knowing at this time which one it is.


Now, I started thinking something; of the 4 ACARS messages that are brought up in PFT's ACARS article, all 4 of them have 2 time stamps. Could this actually be what Czero is referring to? One that it was successfully accepted for formating for uplink and the second that it was received by the aircraft?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 3 2011, 09:07 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,599
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (scott75 @ Dec 3 2011, 07:43 PM) *
Now, I started thinking something; of the 4 ACARS messages that are brought up in PFT's ACARS article, all 4 of them have 2 time stamps. Could this actually be what Czero is referring to? One that it was successfully accepted for formating for uplink and the second that it was received by the aircraft?


One time stamp is sent, one is received, according to Mr Ballinger. He references the aircraft, not the DSP, not a printer in the room he is sitting in... he is referencing the aircraft.

Those who make excuse for the govt story will speculate till smoke starts to pour out their ears, trying to twist the words any possible way they can, but the fact remains, the statement made by Ballinger is straight forward, simple... and doesn't leave any room for ambiguity.


Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 3 2011, 11:13 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,523
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Just to add my 2cents on the alleged "printer timestamp" rolleyes.gif ...wtf would be the point of a printer timestamp when those on the ground would want to know at exactly what time the response was received? Or even sent in case of any future investigation (crash, mishap or accusation against aviation personnel both in the air and on the ground), or to make a call on whether they've received the message in time to avert the danger.

Say, for example, a warning was sent where the pilot had to divert from his course because of a weather front or even better warn them of possible hijackers on his aircraft and that they had to lock their doors (as were sent on 9/11), those on the ground would want to know the exact time that the message was received!

Makes no sense whatsoever.

2cents (if that!)



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 3 2011, 11:34 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,523
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



On another note about the "printer timestamp/back up of messages" claim, read through the ACARS messages here

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf

See if you can find any of these "delays". Most have duplicate dual timestamps (within the same minute, sent and received), some are 1 minute difference (possibly due to the minute on the clock being closer to the next, 09:21 and 50 seconds for example), and the largest delay between send and receive was 2 minutes. Just one out of how many?

Many of those messages were sent well after the attacks on the towers. I'd imagine it was pretty busy, no?

Last + nail + coffin on the printer timestamp/back up of messages.

Edit to add: In the PDF linked to above, the "notes" taken at the very start say that at 09:21, "United says, you may want to send out cockpit warnings."

The UA175 ACARS message in question

QUOTE
DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER


;09111323 108575 0574


No delay.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Dec 3 2011, 11:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Dec 3 2011, 11:56 PM
Post #19





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 15-February 11
Member No.: 5,658



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 4 2011, 12:34 AM) *
See if you can find any of these "delays". Most have duplicate dual timestamps (within the same minute, sent and received), some are 1 minute difference (possibly due to the minute on the clock being closer to the next, 09:21 and 50 seconds for example), and the largest delay between send and receive was 2 minutes. Just one out of how many?


Most of ACARS are delivered within 60 seconds. Delays are usually due to high traffic. This is what David Knerr declared to the FBI:

QUOTE
KNERR further advised that AERONAUTICAL' RADIO INCORPORATED ARINC serves as the network administrator for the communication data. According to KNERR, this is important to remember when reviewing data messages because uplink and downlink times may show a time delay when compared. This is caused by the/processing of multiple ACARS messages through the ARINC network at the same time.


FBI302, p. 36

Even only one example of 2 minutes interval between Sent and Received timestamp is enough to disprove the claim of the guy on ATS. And there are several examples of 1 minute delay.
Unless one argues the dispatcher was changing the toner...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 4 2011, 12:51 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,523
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Sergio @ Dec 4 2011, 04:56 AM) *
Most of ACARS are delivered within 60 seconds. Delays are usually due to high traffic. This is what David Knerr declared to the FBI:



FBI302, p. 36

Even only one example of 2 minutes interval between Sent and Received timestamp is enough to disprove the claim of the guy on ATS. And there are several examples of 1 minute delay.
Unless one argues the dispatcher was changing the toner...


Maybe another avenue to explore?

From that link..

QUOTE
. HOUCK could not recall the full name for the acronym, ARINC; however, she contacted the company in San Francisco, California, by dialing their 800 number. This company
was able to ring a bell in the cockpit to alert the crew to pick up their radio. For AA, this service helped when flights were out of radio contact or were not responding to ACARS messages for whatever reason


Not sure if this service applies to UA as well. A company that "rings a bell in the cockpit to alert the crew to pick up their radio".

I'm wondering if they also had the same acknowledgement system and if they were used.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed 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: 19th April 2014 - 06:06 PM