I have created a new program to decode AAL77's raw FDR file.

I am making it available for download along with it's source code and some output files from the program.

You can read more about it here

It decodes almost 4 more seconds of data than what appears at the end of the NTSB CSV file.

I welcome suggestions for any more parameters you would like decoded or any other features you would like added.

I will also be discussing this on the J.R.E.F. "AA77 FDR Data, Explained" thread as well as here.

Warren.

mod edit: Although Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not have any reason to believe the above program is offered for any nefarious purpose, we felt the responsibility to add this disclaimer. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not vouch for nor is responsible for any of the data provided above by Warren. Nor can we guarantee his program is free of malicious code. Download at your own risk.

Thanks Warren.

I noticed your post on Randi's umm- forum, and one or two? of the links weren't working earlier- looked like an "unshared file" Orbitfiles thing to me. You might want to verify the hyperlinks at this page:

http://warrenstutt.com/NTSBFOIARequest2-1-09/index.html

"NTSB FOIA Request Dated 2nd January 2009"

EDIT: Also, I avoid MSIE like the plague- can you package any other kind of installer? Never mind- it works with Firefox too, in a possibly more convoluted way, but I seem to recall it being a problem with the UA93 decoder (that I could not get to install) several months ago.

I was able to download the "setup.exe" file (but those kind of filenames can look awfully "virusy" ).

Warren,

At quick glance... Your last 4 seconds do not add up to impact.

1. The second to last 4 seconds of travel according to your CSV is 2.25 DME, then the next/last 4 seconds is only .25 DME? (yes, i pulled up GE, fits perfectly with impact point. Neat how that works when Beachnut has been yelling the DME is in error for the past 3 years)

2. Your numbers still show a descent rate in excess of 4200 fpm.... which is still more than a 5 degree slope, still too high to hit light poles working backwards from the "impact" hole.

and.... finally...

-99 + 300 = 201. Still too high to hit the pentagon.

Roof of the Pentagon is roughly 110 feet above sea level. 35 ground elevation + 77 height of pentagon. (yes, i also looked at radalt, something fishy going on there as well. They dont match Pressure altitude descent rates and (edit to add) is too high to hit the light poles based on speed. Keep in mind Radalt is altitude above ground or any object on the ground in which the radar is bouncing off... you have to look at true altitude to get a more precise figure and correlate.

Speed also becomes more of an issue in terms of structural integrity and control effectiveness being more than 20 knots faster... not to mention now it doesn't correlate with any other "official" information or documentation. (/edit)

But, your last 4 seconds of decode is more in line with what the CIT witnesses describe for altitude as the NTSB plotted altitudes seemed a bit high compared to witness statements.

Thanks for putting it together.

Assuming your decode is accurate....

The next questions are, why didnt the NTSB show this when they decoded the file using specific software made to decode these files? .. and... why isnt this shown in our decode decoded by an engineer from an FDR Company?



By the way, what is the time created for your raw file?

Nevermind, i found it...


Directory of D:\AA77 FDR

08/09/2007 08:22 AM <DIR> .
24/03/2009 10:13 PM <DIR> ..
08/09/2007 08:22 AM <DIR> AA77 FDR
14/09/2001 04:45 PM 25,165,994 American 77.fdr
1 File(s) 25,165,994 bytes

Directory of D:\AA77 FDR\AA77 FDR

08/09/2007 08:22 AM <DIR> .
08/09/2007 08:22 AM <DIR> ..
08/09/2007 08:22 AM 25,165,994 American 77.fdr
1 File(s) 25,165,994 bytes



Now, my next question is, which raw file had the extra seconds? lol

Had some time to get this more precise....

For Randi's Kids, since I know they'll need a picture drawn out for them...



Feel free to play with the above simulator yourself...

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning_Alt_Errors_Sim.aspx

I noticed that the files were not shared while testing my new web pages and changed them to shared. Let me know if there are still problems with them.


I could just provide a link to the program's .exe file. You could then just download it and run it. Would that be OK?

Warren.

It appears that the DME values are not updated every time they are recorded by the FDR. The DME DISTANCE - LEFT (NM) value of 3.75 was recorded 5 times over a period of 16 seconds before being recorded as 1.5 4 seconds later, so the second to last 4 seconds of travel would have been less than 2.25 DME.


Your welcome.


Perhaps the software that the NTSB used does not decode incomplete fames. The extra almost 4 seconds comes from a frame that only has 1007 of 1020 * 12 bit words.

As far as Undertow's Readout 2 goes, he said on his web site:

I can see that indeed, for the ends of the sections of compressed data represented by the rows of #ERROR in rows 29, 47 and 74 in a77.2_complete.csv, only the last incomplete subframe has not been decoded, but at the end of a77.2_complete.csv, the last 4 complete subframes as well as the last incomplete subframe have not been decoded. I don't know the reason for this. BTW, subframe number 146102 in my program corresponds to the beginning of a77.2_complete.csv. I could produce a decode starting at that point if you like.

Warren.

They both do. Even though the modification dates of the two files are different, the contents of the files are the same, byte for byte.

Warren.

Yes, my wording was a bit unclear, sorry i had just woken up when i posted.

There seems to be many problems with the DME, it repeats 17.5 DME for 48 seconds, then in turn updates 1.5 to 1.25 in one subframe?




Perhaps, and that would be speculation at this point... but why would a govt agency tasked to investigate and ensure safety for the flying public not have software to analyze all the data and then draw erroneous conclusions based on incomplete data sets?




Thanks. He also claimed his software was not certified for Aircraft Accident Investigation whereas the NTSB software is...



I'm good for now with what you have provided. Thanks again Warren.

I have had a chance this afternoon to look over your data more thoroughly.. .I just opened your "FinalFlightComplete" (i opened your other csv file this morning). Given altitude is recorded once per second, and that the FDR cannot be missing more than 0.5, 'best' case scenario (for the GL "impact" theory in this case)....

-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 and Turcious statements of "pulling up to clear...".

Do the GL's now realize the FDR is not missing 6 seconds from the pentagon wall due to a "bird strike", compressor stall or some mysterious corruption due to "impact"? And that Ed Santana was correct when he stated FDR's cannot be missing any more than 0.5 seconds? Looks like an FDR "salesman" (as Beachy likes to marginalize Ed..) knows more than Beachy...

Again, assuming you are correct, you might want to alert the NTSB their Flight Path Study, Time Correlation, "Impact time"... etc etc.. in the National Archives is wrong and the data they are distributing to the American Public through the FOIA is wrong. This has major ramifications for flight safety. We have tried to inform them, but they turned a blind eye.


Once again, no matter how you slice it, the data does not support the govt story of AA77 impact with the Pentagon as reported.

I agree that I am speculating on this. At some point the NTSB, or someone working for the NTSB must have used some code within some program to decompress the data compressed in this particular way. I believe there is no standard for the compression of FDR data. As far as I know, new FDRs no longer perform compression since flash memory is so much cheaper now. Perhaps the NTSB has not had to decode data from many FDRs with this particular compression and the NTSB has not found out that the incomplete frames are not being decompressed and therefore not decoded.

Your welcome.

Does the NTSB have established procedures to correct previously issued reports? Something like an appeals process?

Warren.

I am not aware of an established internal or external procedures aside from attempting to notify the NTSB (which we have done starting in 2006 via various methods), however there are also other methods where flight safety is concerned as described and shown here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18247

The NTSB also has set precedent in correcting their errors in a timely fashion if in fact they exist, most notably is a small 3 degree error in their animation for AA1420 runway overrun at LIT.

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2000/aa1420/anim_boardmtng.htm

And of course with AA77, instead of fixing the animation, the NTSB now just makes a note of the clock annotation error in their FOIA cover letters (EDT/GMT), the NTSB does not mention any other errors in the animation. The only other errors the NTSB mentions are errors in the MCP (autopilot) in one of their pdf's.

im curious to why warren says at other places the last decoded altitude is 4 feet and yet in this thread when you explain to him how its still to high to hit light poles and the pentagon he doesn't bother to mention this yet he is sayin this at other places.

warren?

Do you know if any actions by people outside of the NTSB resulted in the NTSB correcting any of the errors that you mentioned above?

Warren.

I assume you mean Randi's kids. I haven't visited Randiland in quite some time as mostly its just a romper room of personal attacks, libel, photoshopped pictures.. etc.

But i assume they are putting all their eggs in the Radalt basket and making excuses for Pressure altitude.

The last Radar Altitude in Warrens data is 4 feet. This does NOT mean 4 feet above the ground. Radar Altimeters send out a signal straight down from the aircraft that bounces off any object, ground, building, tree.... whatever, and returns to the aircraft giving a read out of your height above that object. Kind of like a Fish-Finder or depth gauge on a boat.. if you will....

The Radar Altitude prior to that is 57 feet. There is a one second interval between the two. Based on speed, thats only 815 feet horizontally. The light poles cover an area up to ~1020 feet from the pentagon. The light poles only get up to 36 feet above ground IIRC? 57' is too high to hit the initial light poles The slope made by the RadAlt is also above the tops of the poles when working backwards from the impact hole.

This is why we have to look at Pressure Altitude adjusted to True altitude and correlate for a more precise measurement and placement of the aircraft. Since the Pressure altitude is still too high, the only logical conclusion based on the data is that the Radar Altitude at 4 feet is not measuring the distance to the ground, but some other higher object, perhaps the top of the Pentagon?

Now, I'm sure the GL's are hand waiving and making all types of excuses for the higher pressure altitude, such as "altimeter lag", as they did before we decoded the raw file and only had the original CSV file from the NTSB, and therefore only Pressure altitude. But like then, they have no evidence for such lag, just innuendo, theory and speculation while we now have several American and United 757/767 Captains who have actual time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 and have never seen such "lag" in their aircraft not to mention they think the speeds are ridiculous, especially pulling more than 2 G's at more than 130 knots over Vmo in a 757. Warren, you may want to inform Randi's kids to familiarize themselves with a Vg diagram.

Randi's kids are probably also reaching at the limits of margins for error in favor of their "impact" theory as well. The FAA allows +/- 75' margin for error on altimeters which pilots check prior to take off. The AA77 FDR altimeter margin was -13 feet at take off. This is the correct margin for error which should be applied as no altimeter "drifts" 62 feet more off True Altitude during a single flight creating the largest margin for error. Not to mention you have to add the 13 feet to AA77 FDR altimeter to get a proper height. In other words, I calculated 174 feet above in the Alt Sim. When adjusting for instrument error, the True altitude is 187.

To keep it simple...

If the FDR was in the aircraft which flew over the pentagon, the data recorded would look like what Warren has provided.

If the FDR was in an aircraft which caused the damage at the Pentagon, the data would not look like what Warren provided and would show a lower Pressure altitude to match the Radar Altitude.

Hope this helps Dom, and thanks for asking the question as I'm sure Randiland is in full spin mode with theory and speculation for Pressure altitude.

Also, I would like to make one thing clear (and no offense to you Warren as I have no reason to believe you are anything but sincere, but I do feel a responsibility to add this disclaimer),

Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not vouch for nor is responsible for any of the data provided above by Warren. Nor can we guarantee his program is free of malicious code. Download at your own risk.

I do not, but that doesn't mean there aren't any instances that have been corrected by outside influence. As you can see by precedent set, the NTSB usually corrects their information in a timely manner or at least posts a side letter of explanation if in fact such errors exist. I don't think it matters who takes the credit for the find.

It's true that I said on J.R.E.F. that the last decoded radio height is 4 feet. That is the last radio height in the decode and appears in the output files on my web site, look at this .csv file if you are interested. That is all that I claimed.

Whether the radio heights and pressure altitudes in the decode are consistent with the aircraft hitting the light poles and the Pentagon is another matter.

In my post on J.R.E.F. announcing my new program, I included a link to this thread so that readers could follow the views expressed here.

I am in the process of adding more flight parameters to the program for the next release which will hopefully shed more light on this issue.

Warren.

Warren,

If you could be so kind to provide an output (CSV) file of these parameters, it would be much appreciated.

Bleed Duct Pressure
Engine RPM
AC Bus Volts
Left/Right Fuel pumps
Fuel Tank Density all tanks
Engine EGT
Engine gen
Engine EPR
Engine Fuel Flow
Engine Oil Pressure
Engine N2, N3
Engine Oil Press, Temp, Quantity
Engine Vibration
Engine Out (off)
Fan Inlet Temp
Filter Vibration
Hydraulic Pumps
Hydraulic Pressure
Master Warning

No offence taken Rob.

I also put a disclaimer for the program on my web site.

One of the reasons I provide output files is so that people can still look at the results if they feel uncomfortable installing and running the program on their own computers.

I also provide the source code so that the results in the output files can be independently verified should people wish to. I welcome suggestions on how independent verification of the results in the output files can be made easier.

Warren.

Thank you Warren, I'm glad you feel that way as I felt the disclaimer needed to be included in the OP.

thank you rob that helps a lot! as well all know all too well how randi's kids operate.




thank you for clarifying warren. you should mention that to others who are running with this 4 feet "ball" thinking they just scored a touchdown.

So i decided to take a gander over at the romper room, sure enough, mostly personal attacks in between the occasional theory/speculation for pressure altitude.

I didn't read much of it and skimmed through most, but the best theory i thought came from our good friend Mackey.

"Compressibility!" he claims...

Ok students, what happens when you compress air? It gets more dense and pressure increases, right? What happens as you get lower in altitude, air gets more dense and pressure increases.. right?

So, if the altimeter was erroneous due to "compressibility", it would be reading LOWER than actual altitude! Meaning, the 187 MSL calculated above, is actually reading lower than the actual altitude of the aircraft, according to Mackey's theory.

Mackey just shot himself in the foot with such a claim.... but I'm sure he's used to it. This is why he refuses to debate this topic as there is "nothing to debate", yet attempts to do just that sans an opponent.

Now, if he wants a half-way decent theory that perhaps some of his minions may buy, he could perhaps use Boundary Layer separation where the air is removed from the surface of the airframe due to High speeds near Critical Mach thereby decreasing air density/pressure at the static port, erroneously increasing altitude readings. But then he'd have that pesky control effectiveness issue as well, as control surfaces need air to move an aircraft, not to mention .70 - .72 Mach is no where near Mcrit for a 757. So, Boundary layer sep is not much of a factor for control or the static port, but there are many other factors which come into play for control at such high speeds over Vmo which doesn't effect the static port.

Poor Mackey, first its "bird strikes", now its "compressed air" showing an erroneously higher altitude. Too funny.

bird strikes?

you mean at some point he claimed a bird hit the plane?

Yeah.. check here... http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16647

I think its somewhere in there towards the end of the thread....

The GL's were trying to come up with theories of why the FDR lost power for their "missing seconds" claim when Warren squashed their "Corrupt Data due to impact" theory.

It was fun to watch...

Mackey also claims somewhere in there that Wallpaper, pound for pound, can do more destruction to steel than Thermite when ignited. Good stuff!

Its all sourced of course....

wow this guy makes this stuff up as he goes along don't he?

why does anyone give him the time of day?

Well, its not technically making stuff up in this case.... as he is using proper terminology in the case of "Compressibility". But yes, he is/was pulling anything out his ass with respect to the Bird Strike, in order to hold onto his theory...

This is more of a case of throwing out technobabble in hopes others will follow. Which many of the self-proclaimed "skeptics" have bought hook, line and sinker.

I've been accused of the same, but in 3 short years, we have accumulated these people who obviously understand my "technobabble" considering most have more experience than me.... and the list continues to grow... Mackey's list consist of zero verified aviation experts.

Unfortunately for Mackey, he never earned an Instrument rating, nor learned partial panel and the effects of instrument error and how to properly interpret error to get the aircraft home safe. At the risk of tooting my own horn, I teach it and have signed off students who passed their check rides based on it. I have also had in flight emergencies with respect to static and alternate static ports. .and still got a plane load of kids and the CEO home safe... imagine climbing out and the altimeter is frozen, on both sides, with the airspeed increasing rapidly with almost 10 degrees pitch up... the CEO didnt even know there was a problem till the next day when he asked why the aircraft was in maintenance.. .Just the facts...

When you know the source of errors, you can easily determine logical conclusions.

Mackey is just yelling out "Compressibility!" without even knowing the effects of such, which is opposite of what he assumes.

Basically, Mackey is a case of having little knowledge is worse/more dangerous than having none.

This was too good to pass up and gives new meaning to the "Treat" in ReTreat".

"Nobody, but nobody uses a barometric altimeter in lieu of a radar altimeter below 500' AGL. This includes any military or the airlines." - Reheat, Oct 22, 2009, Yankees 6 - Angels 4, Bottom of the 7th, 2 men on, 2 Out.

This quote was almost as delicious as watching the Yankees take the lead in one inning down by 4...

Clearly Reheat doesn't know the difference between DA and DH on a Cat I ILS which is based on Barometric Altitude call-outs below "500 AGL" at every airline in the entire world.

Reheat, how can "nobody, but nobody" shoot an approach to 200 and 1/2 if a Radar Altimeter is not required equipment for IFR/IMC? Clearly ReTreat doesn't even know the required equipment for IFR flight.

Here ReTreat, perhaps you should sign up for a basic course at American Flyers.
http://www.americanflyers.net/iraground/iragroundch1.pdf
(page 6, just a simple search i did because the game is more important at this point... )

What a treat from ReTreat as this once again proves why ReTreat will never post his name to verify his claimed credentials, nor debate pilots with real credentials.

And yes, I have it screenshot saved. This is one of his best. If Reheat is really a pilot, he must be in another one of his drunken stupors. You should have heard him when he got the nads to call in to one of the radio shows I was on. He even gave the name "Reheat" as the caller. Well, i must give him one thing, at least he respects his own name enough to not associate it with his absurd claims.

Precious...

Edit to add: I see 'ReTreat', true to form as his moniker suggests, has 'retreated' on his above statements after reading this post, and added this edit to his post...



Well...

Lets break this down...

"What I said above applies to aircraft with a Radar altimeter...."

Actually, what ReTreat said above is...

"Nobody, but nobody uses a barometric altimeter in lieu of a radar altimeter below 500' AGL."

Nowhere does ReTreat mention it is only for aircraft which have Radar Altimeters.

Secondly, if ReTreat actually flew an approach "below 500 AGL" all call-outs are based on Baro Altimeter and there is never "one eye on the RadAlt" during such an approach. Baro Alt is ultimate authority. Why would a pilot increase their work-load with 'one eye' on RadAlt attempting to interpret approach clearway obstacles/slope vs Baro Alt on a Cat I approach? They wouldn't. They don't. I don't. I never have. I never seen anyone do it. It has never been taught as such, and I have never taught it as such. Matter of fact, it is discouraged to look at RadAlt on a Cat I ILS. If Reheat were a real pilot, he would know this.

Third, Reheat still refers to Cat I ILS as DH instead of DA. Pilots, you know..

ReTreat, you not only hold true to your moniker of retreating on your original claims by adding an edit after you read my above post, but you continue to give real pilots a treat based on your absurd claims.Thank you!

(for those who wish to pay attention to detail, note time of post and time of edit for my post and ReTreat. Be sure to adjust for forum time zone when clicking main page. If still confused, feel free to email me for the original post file before ReTreat retreated on his claims)

ReTreat, if it makes you feel better in your drunken stupor, you could chastise me for the Yankee's losing tonight, as that is pretty much all you have left in your arsenal.... lol.. such a move would be known as a "Beachnut"...

I see Mackey has written a long convoluted post based on the fact he claims "there is noting to debate".

Is it any wonder Mackey does not include a link to "Compressibility" in his post?

Some choice quotes under "Compressibility" with respect to aerodynamics...





These are some of the BASIC reasons Mackey writes long convoluted posts when he also claims "there is nothing to debate". I won't bother to get into "Super-Critical" definitions which Mackey obviously lacks basic understanding.


"I don't know enough about the aircraft or the precise flow to guess whether it would go up or down" - Ryan Mackey, Self Proclaimed NASA Scientist.

We do, this is why Ryan refuses to debate this topic with an actual opponent.

Ryan, when will you learn less is more?

Edit to add:

Mackey added an edit to his post...



Completely wrong...

This is known as an aerodynamic contrail at an "airshow"... (again, just a quick search i did, but you can also see the same on any airliner on landing in high humidity)



What is happening is that the pressure above the wing reduces so low (which is a direct relationship to temp, thereby decreasing temp), that it is reduced to the dew point and aerodynamic contrails are visible. It has nothing to do with sonic, transonic or other type of mach speeds. Mackey is blowing smoke up your ass as usual.

(the best i could find for an aircraft landing... for now... and hey, it looks like its a 757! )



According to Mackey, the airflow on the above aircraft, above the wing, is "sonic".... lol... Mackey is so lost its not even funny... Its clear why he will never debate a real expert on this topic. I'm really wondering if he really is an engineer at NASA. If he does work at JPL, perhaps he sweeps floors? He does have a little knowledge that one would have in passing by a conversation, but clearly the guy is lost.

I'll add them to the next release. Here is the names of the parameters as they appear in 757-3b_1.txt, if I understand correctly:

Bleed Duct Pressure:
BLEED DUCT PRESS - L
BLEED DUCT PRESS - R

Engine RPM:
ENG N1-ACTUAL - L
ENG N1-ACTUAL - R
ENG N2-ACTUAL - L
ENG N2-ACTUAL - R
ENG N3-ACTUAL - R
ENG N3-ACTUAL- L
N2 CORRECTED TO 2.5 - L
N2 CORRECTED TO 2.5 - R

AC Bus Volts:
BUS AC VOLTS - LEFT
BUS AC VOLTS - RIGHT

Left/Right Fuel pumps:
AFT FUEL PUMP - L
AFT FUEL PUMP - R
C-L FUEL PUMP LT
C-L FUEL PUMP PR
C-R FUEL PUMP LT
C-R FUEL PUMP PR
FWD FUEL PUMP

Fuel Tank Density all tanks:
DENSITY S TANK
DENSITY R TANK
DENSITY L TANK
DENSITY C TANK
R TANK LB/KG
S TANK LB/KG
C TANK LB/KG
L TANK LB/KG

Engine EGT:
ENG EGT-LEFT
ENG EGT-RIGHT
ENG EGT RED - L
ENG EGT RED - R

Engine gen:
ENG DED GEN - L
ENG DED GEN - R

Engine EPR:
ENG EPR COMMAND - L
ENG EPR COMMAND - R
ENG EPR LIMIT-L
ENG EPR LIMIT-R
ENG EPR-ACTUAL - L
ENG EPR-ACTUAL - R
EPR BUG DRIVE LEFT
EPR BUG DRIVE RIGHT
EPR TARGET-FMC

Engine Fuel Flow:
ENG FUEL FLOW - L
ENG FUEL FLOW - R

Engine Oil Pressure
Engine Oil Press, Temp, Quantity:
ENG LO OIL PRESS - L
ENG LO OIL PRESS - R
ENG OIL PRES - L
ENG OIL PRES - R
ENG OIL PRESS RED - L
ENG OIL PRESS RED - R
ENG OIL QTY - L
ENG OIL QTY - R
ENG OIL TEMP - L
ENG OIL TEMP - R
ENG OIL TEMP RED - L
ENG OIL TEMP RED - R

Engine N2, N3:
ENG N2 RED - L
ENG N2 RED - R
ENG N3 RED - L
ENG N3 RED - R

Engine Vibration:
ENG VIBRATION - L
ENG VIBRATION - R

Engine Out (off):
ENG OUT RLY - L
ENG OUT RLY - R
ENGINE OUT (EO) - L
ENGINE OUT (EO) - R

Fan Inlet Temp:
FAN INLET TOTAL TEMP - L
FAN INLET TOTAL TEMP - R

Filter Vibration:
FILTER 1 VIB - L
FILTER 1 VIB-R
FILTER 2 VIB - L
FILTER 2 VIB - R
FILTER 3 VIB - L
FILTER 3 VIB - R

Hydraulic Pumps:
HYD ELEC PUMP OVHT - L
HYD ELEC PUMP OVHT - R
HYD PRI PUMP OVHT - LEFT
HYD PRI PUMP OVHT - RIGH
HYD PUMP 1 OVHT - CENTER
HYD PUMP 2 OVHT - CENTER

Hydraulic Pressure:
HYD PRES - C
HYD PRES - L
HYD PRES - R
HYD RSVR PRESS < 17 - C
HYD RSVR PRESS < 17 - L
HYD RSVR PRESS < 17 - R
HYD RSVR PRESS > 55 - C
HYD RSVR PRESS > 55 - L
HYD RSVR PRESS > 55 - R
HYD SYS LO PRESS - C
HYD SYS LO PRESS - L
HYD SYS LO PRESS - R

Master Warning:
MASTER CAUTION LIGHT
MASTER WARNING CAPT
MASTER WARNING F/O


Let me know if any of these are wrong or you need additional parameters,

Warren.

That works Warren... thanks..

As I thanked apathoid on J.R.E.F., I would also like to thank UnderTow for the information he provided that also made my new program possible. The short data frame layout 573b.Short.txt and ReadOut 2 were crucial in this regard and personal messages between us were also very useful.

Warren.

I am speculating here. Perhaps the difference in the case of AAL77 is that it was treated as a criminal investigation where the NTSB is only providing support to the FBI. Perhaps the NTSB was more interested in evidence that could be gathered for criminal trials rather than what could be learnt to improve public safety for normal aircraft crashes where the FBI does not become involved. In other words, perhaps normal processes of the NTSB are overridden by the fact that the work is for the FBI.

Warren.

Warren,

Either the RAPS software that the NTSB uses decodes incomplete frames or it doesn't. I don't think there is a check-box in the RAPS software for "Criminal Investigation" or "Civil Aircraft Accident" in which the software then decides what to decode followed by the NTSB completing a "Flight Path Study" and drawing conclusions based in such a decode.

Not to derail the thread here, but I was curious Warren...

1. Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?
2. Do you believe the plane approached on the north side of the former Citgo gas station based on all the corroborated eyewitness testimony we obtained?

Just wanted some answers, not to harp on anything in particular in this thread. If I find something to harp on, I figure I can make a separate thread for it.

Does anyone know whether the RAPS software was capable of decoding the raw FDR file? I speculate that the NTSB may have had to use the ROSE software from the FDR manufacturer to decompress the file, so that they could then use the RAPS software on it.

Warren.

Good point actually. I shouldn't have said RAPS as I don't know the exact software used. I was just going by what was said in your cover letter.

I took a stroll through Randiland during my morning coffee and as usual, loads of personal attacks with the occasional theory.

Once again they're trying to confuse their minions with technobabble.

Now Mackey claims this is what they were talking about when he made the statement about a plane turning "steeply" at an airshow at subsonic speed.



"If you've ever been to an airshow and seen high performance aircraft maneuvering steeply, you've probably seen this -- and it happens at subsonic speeds." - Ryan Mackey

Well no. The above Vapor cone, as you can see, is happening in straight and level flight, and it's when the aircraft is breaking the sound barrier. Mackey is so confused he doesn't even realize the difference, and his minions follow right along...

Next, which has been already pointed out... Mackey claims compressibility affected the Pressure Altimeter (of course he admits he doesn't know which way), but fails to understand (or ignores), the control issues associated with compressibility. So, not only was Hani able to get an aircraft completely into its target with a 33' margin for error at 130 knots over Vmo and zero time in type, but he also overcame the control issues associated with compressibility, yet couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots.... according to Mackey.

Pilots will get a kick out of this as well...

"The radar altimeter is the more reliable instrument, period. If there's a conflict between it and the pressure altimeter, we should lean towards the radar altimeter." - Ryan Mackey

So basically Mackey is claiming the RadAlt is primary and the Baro Alt supporting. I think Mackey should perhaps join Reheat at the above recommended American Flyers basic Instrument Rating course.

Thank goodness Mackey doesn't fly aircraft or he would be a smoking hole on a step down approach or going on premature missed approaches all day long on approaches with buildings/rolling hills/tall trees along the approach corridor. But I'm sure Mackey is used to 'missing' prematurely...


I still see he hasn't learned the definition of supercritical either and that .70 - .72 Mach is no where near Mcrit for a 757, therefore, "compressibility" is not a problem for the 757 at such Mach speed, after all Mmo is .86 on the 757. This of course assumes Mackey can convert airspeed into Mach based on temp, clearly he is unable. But as stated above and ignored by the GL's, many other factors are a problem above Vmo for control which do not effect the static port. Certainly compressibility isn't an issue at .14 - .16 Mach below the aircraft Mmo or 757's would be coming back with missing control surfaces after each flight...

"...another common problem that fits into this category is flutter. At some speeds the airflow over the control surfaces will become turbulent, and the controls will start to flutter. If the speed of the fluttering is close to a harmonic of the control's movement, the resonance could break the control off completely." - Aeronautical Dynamics Of Compressibility


They should stick to their bird strike theory, but this time, that it clogged the static port.... on both sides, at exactly 187 MSL... lol

Yes folks, they do serve their purpose over there. I personally love the fact their forum is mostly littered with personal attacks, libel and photoshopped pictures... but it's even better when they attempt tech-talk and posit theories to fit their incredulity.


Too funny...

Since the minions at Randiland are confused... i'll help them out a bit...

Here, let me google that for you.

Mackey is mixing technobabble by stating "Vapor Cone" and "maneuvering steeply at subsonic speeds" in the same context. He is trying to describe one phenomenon based on the causes of another. This goes back to my original statement of having a little information is worse/more dangerous than having none...

Although the Vapor Cone can appear without breaking the sound barrier, its completely incompatible with what Mackey was attempting to describe with "manuevering steeply", not to mention the fact, and once again ignored by Randi's Kids, that the 757 does not experience Compressibility issues at .70 - .72 Mach, which is well below the aircraft Max Operating Mach speed. But again, as stated, many other issues are a factor with respect to control at such excessive speeds over Vmo, which do not affect the static ports (by the way, they are ports, not probes Mackey). If Mackey wants to cling onto his "Compressibility" theory, he will have to posit a different type aircraft, something with more of a straight wing.

I suppose their next theory will be that "Low Pressure" was present at the strategically placed static port(s) (which is located lower than the wing by the way, where the pressure is higher than above a wing), due to Compressibility, but such Compressibility effects not present above the wings or over control surfaces. That would be almost as good as their bird strike theory hitting the tail of the aircraft where the FDR is located to knock it offline 6 seconds prior to impact.

supersonic hani hanjour!!!!!

What is probably confusing him is that static ports can sometimes be incorporated into the pitot probes. Static ports otherwise are often seen on the fuselage and are clearly marked, as are the bungs or covers used to prevent water ingress whilst on the ground with flags attached and a legend 'Remove before flight' or some such.

The combined pitot-static probes of the Sea Vixen were a devil. Two rows of staggered slots around the circumference of the probe requiring close inspection with a self lit magnifying lens to look out for cracks. This was required each pre-flight. Even then some tips fell off in flight. But then the a/c did have one on each wing.

Ask Mackey about position error.

Also Critical Mach.

And in a 172 at that, whilst practicing.

Must have had his pitot-static lines crossed.

I am very curious about how they correlate and with IAS.

EDIT. To clarify. I am asking about correlation of those speficics with recorded IAS on the FDRs concerned.

Here's the static port on a NWA 757, N509US.




Its practically on the belly. If there are Low Pressure "Compressibility" issues there as claimed by Mackey, you can bet its much worse above the wing and therefore controls.

Sorry Mackey, you can't have your cake and eat it too, although i know you try...

If anything, Compressibility would cause a higher pressure at that location, creating an artificially lower altitude reading... as originally stated.

Mackey probably thought the static "probes" were protruding out into the relative wind above the wing... poor Mackey...

I'll add the parameters IAS, IAS LIMIT OPER and IAS MODE OPER to the next release for you.

Warren.

Looks like our good friend Mackey finally decided to look up the definition of supercritical after I had to repeat it twice, although once again, a little knowledge is more dangerous than none.... Perhaps Mackey while sweeping the floors at NASA overheard Whitcomb talking to a friend or something... (RIP Whitcomb! Don't let Mackey upset your slumber)

First from Mackey....

"Boeing aircraft typically cruise above their critical Mach number..... Up at altitude, they cruise around 0.8 Mach or so all day long. This is done using supercritical wing design," - Ryan Mackey

And now reality...

"Several methods exist to reduce wave drag, including the use of swept wings, slender or thin bodies, and supercritical airfoils. These airfoils have critical Mach numbers very close to one (hence the term supercritical) thereby delaying and reducing the large increase in drag due to wave drag. " - aerospaceweb

"With the supercritical wing, a substantial rise in the drag-divergence Mach number is realized and the critical Mach number is delayed even up to 0.99. This delay represents a major increase in commercial airplane performance." - Centennial Of Flight Commission.

(bolding emphasis mine)

Just a quick search I did to help out Mackey.

For those still confused, a supercritical wing design delays Critical Mach. It doesn't allow more efficient flight above Mcrit as Mackey would have you believe.

Ohhh... so close Mackey, but still wrong.

IIRC, Mcrit (Critical Mach, or... Mach Critical) on a 757/767 is near .89-.91 Mach. Usually Mmo is structured around Mcrit. I'll double check with our 757/767 Capts.

(by the way Mackey, not all Boeings utilize supercritical wing design. But i'll let you look that up along with your static "probes" on such aircraft...)

Quick update.

I spoke to Rusty Aimer, 757/767 Capt for United Airlines who has actual time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.

I read Rusty the quote from Mackey in the above post regarding "Boeing aircraft typically cruise above their critical Mach number........ ".

Rusty's immediate reply... "Bullshit!"

Needless to say, we had several good laughs.

Rusty also verified my recollection of Mcrit for the 757/767... the purpose of the call...

If anyone wants such quotes on tape, let me know.. my "mom's basement" that i live in (according to many J.REF 'skeptics'... lol).. is in shambles after production of our latest presentation "World Trade Center Attack" filling orders... and i couldn't find my recorder while speaking with Rusty. Although he is willing to put it on tape and will do so if needed. Again, many of our pilots aren't forum types.

I can get many more sources, but whats the point. Mackey is already completely discredited.

J.REF "skeptics", you may want to ask yourself why Mackey never sources any of his claims, starting with his "Compressibility" theory, assuming you are a true "skeptic".

Mackey, it's clear why you attempt to 'ignore' us and instead debate NPT sans an opponent. When you are forced to debate us, you lose credibility by the hour. Then again, you don't even need to debate us to lose credibility, you just need to keep posting your absurd claims. Thanks!

There is a possible explanation for why the DME values are repeated instead of being updated to new values in Note 6C of the data frame layout D226A101-3G.pdf:


Warren.

DME 1 and 2 Distance is supposed to be updated every 4 seconds to within 1 mile according to FAR part 121 Appendix M. Combined with normal DME error, which is 0.1 NM (the more restrictive margin is regulatory), there is a problem with the raw file.

DME anomalies in the raw file is one of the main reasons we have not used our raw FDR decode for any official articles nor analysis as the decodes and/or the file itself are not reliable. The only file(s) we can argue are the files officially provided by the NTSB through FOIA which do not need special software for decode. I'm sure the reply we will get from ASAR's regarding your extra 4 seconds conflicting with the NTSB conclusions... is going to be along the lines of, "The NTSB did not decode the file, therefore it is unreliable."

Not that it is needed, but I had a chance to speak with Ralph Kolstad, another 757/767 Captain, but from American Airlines, who also has actual time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, specifically N644AA (American 77), about Mackey's "Critical Mach" claims as well.

Ralph's reply when read the above quote from Mackey...

verbatim - "Ahahahahahaha, clearly the guy doesn't have a clue what he is talking about."

We also spoke about Altimeter lag and the new 4 seconds provided by Warren.

Question I asked - "Would the altimeter be reading 187 MSL if the aircraft impacted the Pentagon? Could the altimeter have been lagging?"

Ralph - "No, absolutely not. The standby altimeter may have been lagging as that is expected, they are like the altimeters you see in a Cessna, but certainly not information coming off the Air data computer. These static systems are very accurate on modern jet aircraft. So no, the altimeter wouldn't be lagging."

Question - "The radar altimeter shows 4 feet.... this would have to be bouncing off something higher than the ground due to FDR altitude?"

Ralph - "Yes, and it would have to be something pretty solid, not just an antenna or pole or sporadic tree or something..."

Ralph - "Clearly they [detractors] know the terminology to make it look like they know what they're talking about, but they just don't know how to apply it correctly."

There was a lot more we talked about exposing more fallacies by those who "never been in a cockpit" (as stated by Ralph), such as the new speeds in Warren's data, but at this point, we're into overkill.

Again, i'll be happy to provide such statements recorded if need be.... i still haven't found my recorder. But i can call Ralph again for an interview when i do, and if needed.

I understand some are attempting to argue Pressure altitude inaccuracy by using flights/data from the night before.. etc.

The Pressure altitude (PA) at take off from Dulles is 41 feet. I haven't look at any other altitude data from any other flights claimed to be in the raw file, however it is claimed the night before the PA shows 120 feet on landing. Why the 80 foot difference if the aircraft is on the ground? GL's claim its because PA is inaccurate.

Wrong.

This once again proves GL lack of knowledge on this topic.

PA is based on Pressure and is the height above (or below) the standard datum plane as represented by 29.92. PA changes with local pressure changes. Since there is an 80 foot difference and the local pressure on take off at IAD was 30.20, its clear the pressure the night before was somewhere around 30.12/13. You can check this in the Baro Cor column for that flight, i'm sure its close. Again, I haven't had a chance to look at it, nor will i waste too much time on this.

0.08 inHg represents roughly 80 feet.

In other words, if the local pressure at IAD was 29.92 the night before, the PA in the FDR column would read roughly 300 feet, while at take off, it would still show 41 when the local pressure changed overnight to 30.20.

So, the question asked, "Which is more accurate.. .the 41 feet at take off, or the 120 on landing?"

Answer - Both. They both show the same True Altitude when corrected for local pressure. See the altimeter simulator i posted in this thread.

You would think those who claim to be pilots on the GL side would know this. This is basic student pilot knowledge.

I've finally had a chance to catch up on the latest GL rant and FDR decode after being away on vacation.
I'm not surprised to see all the drama and hype from the GL camp!

The four additional seconds seem to have stirred a few feathers with our GL friends and they now claim
the final RAD Alt. proves "AA77" hit the Pentagon!

Well, if all their excuses in the past about "missing seconds, delays, DME error, bird strikes" wasn't enough
to make comedy of film of the year, this one just might!

From the analysis done on page one and my quick glance at the data, it seems that RAD Alt. does not share
any sort of relation to Pressure Altitude, Angle of Attack, or changes in accelerometer data.

Futhermore, if the GL's claim the final change in accelerometer data implies a smack into the Pentagon wall?

Where are the indications of hitting five light poles in the data prior to this "impact"? Surely and aircraft
hitting five light poles at 462 knots would show some tid-bit of info "eh"?

I mean all that smoke in the DOD video, but nothing registered in the FDR?!

We can thank RearTreat for this funny one!