AA77 FDR NTSB Parameter Readout
comma delimited text
Revision: January 28 2002 January 29 2002 National Transportation Safety Board
Date Printed: January 29 2002

Download AAL77_tabular.zip

Simple text list of Parameters plotted
Download AA77_ParamsTabular.txt
(Edit to add: This link does not work at the moment, we are currently working on the issue, please stand by. )

Orignial L3 Compressed Raw AA77 FDR File -- 22MB

If you have any technical questions about these files please ask.

Thanks

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

Thers one thing I want to understand.

You say that the animation is provided by NTSB.
Where is the animation to be downloaded from NTSB?
If I go to the links abow I find PDF files, text.
Where did the animation come from?

As I understand it you guys have checked the information in the FDR and established that the animation is corect acording to the information?
And that there is a abnomality in pressure and real altitude?
And perhaps somtthing wrong with the accelration with the plane compared to the flightpath if it is to have stroke the poles?
Most importantly I would like to know where the animation comes from and to know how I can be sertain it is corectly displaying the flightpath acording to the FDR.

Snowygrouch, a researcher from the UK, received the animation through the Freedom Of Information Act. It was supplied to him on DVD and he sent it to us. The paperwork can be found here. It matches the information we have that UnderTow received through the FOIA from the NTSB (except for the blatant cover-up of the altimeter not being set on descent in the animation to make the animation aircraft appear lower than it actually is.. will be explained in full in upcoming documentary.)

It is not available for download anywhere (that i know of.. .its a really big file)... but i do offer it for free on the Pandora's Black Box - Chapter One DVD along with the other research videos which you can order here...


or.. you can order it directly from the NTSB through the Freedom Of Information Act by calling (202) 314-6000 or going here.

Unfortunately i cannot offer it for download on the site as it is a HUGE file and will eat up bandwidth. But i can send it to you within a few days if you pick up a DVD. The NTSB might take a few months to get it to you... or perhaps years...

I apologize if this doesnt help you much.

It comes from a piece of software built to read FDR files and recreate the plane performance as it's recorded in the FDR.

For Example
http://www.simauthor.com/Animation-Visuali.../FlightViz.html

But for the NTSB they most likely contracted to this
http://www.flightscape.com/services/custom.php

Or they could have done it internally.

There are great essays and long conferences about the pros and cons and hows of doing these animations.
The Tabular Read Out is also produced by this same type of software which directly reads the FDR Raw file.

By comparing the data displayed in both, it can been seen that they share the same source. Namely the FDR reportedly recovered at the crime scene. However, the Alitmeter Baro Setting in the animation, and hence it's readout, is in conflict with the same data point in the Tabular Readout.

Do you require more.

How did snowgroch, in Britian ge ANYTHING pn a FOIA requst to the US gov't?!
That's supposed to be for US citizens, I thought.
gards;

Dave
Re

I think your keyboard is broken.

In the letter on this topic, the person asked for and got the Flight Data Report. They did not specify the Flight Data Recorder file. Both could be refered to as FDR.
I'd like to see the reply to the FOIA requst for the raw Flight Data Recorder file.
If they admit, in that letter, that what they sent IS Flight Data Recorder, ( as opposed to Flight Data Report, or Flight Data Record,) that might just be evidence of cover-up, because the goverment Boxes" for flight 93.
Awritten reply to a request for something they SAID didn't exist, Referencing the requsted data, and stateing it is included, SHOOULD fly in court, if need be.
Can someone upload both the FOIA Request for the raw Flight Recorder Data, and the reply letter to this topic, Please?
Just the anser to the Request for the Flight Data Report proves nothing, as a Flight Data Report could be made from Radar, and eyewitness data, excludeing the supposedley un-recovered Flight Data Recorder.

Who ever has the above documents, make many copies, and also scan them!
Keep the copies in different locations, and the scans on Phisicly seperate computers, both at your location, and elsewhere.
This may sound paranoic, but proof of coverup of 911 is to hot a potato for them to leave alone. Locking the house or office, where they are kept, wont do much good, niether will a securitey system.

Putting thise documents here, would go a long way to preserveing them. You'd have LOTS of wittnesses to their existance, and what they said.in that case.


Regards;;

Dave

I made a mistake. The above letter asks for Flight Data Records report.
Flight Data Records might not include the Flight Data Recorder data.

Even though it meentions the SSFDR, An DFDR, that might not be an admission of the existance of AAL77s Flight Data Recorder.
Posting the Reply to the request for the raw Flight Data Recorder file would be most helpfull.

Regards;

Dave

Dave,

Note the dates on the above posts. Then download the actual data and look at it.

Is it true that the altitude is entered to the flight data recorder every .5 seconds? If that is true, then the last 3 entries which were 416, 352 and 273 would mean that flight 77 dropped 143 feet in one second. Given it was an airliner and not a dive bomber, how was that possible?

Which entry are you discussing?
Radio or Baro height?

Both are recorded once per second anyway.

Radio Height to determine descent rate is not accurate because the ground could be rising up, thus making the descent rate artificially high. If you however are able to line up the correct topography under the plane in sync with it's location and timing of the Radio records, then an accurate calculation can be made.

Otherwise, I believe it has been basically confirmed the descent rate was between 4000-6000 feet per minute, which is within reason for a 757, but also fails the "damage path" test if we maintain the "time of impact". Among other problems.

iirc

RE: AA77 Radio transcript

Following the link provided by Rob (above) to the NTSB, I had a quick read of the audio/ATC transcript for AA77.
What immediately struck me was the 5 and a half minute gap in-between the last acknowledgement from AA77 and the next recorded transmission from ATC.
Gaps in themselves are not cause for alarm BUT the next transmission from ATC is peculiar. (disclaimer: I believe this to be a Full transcript of the audio between ATC and AA77)

You will notice that throughout the flight thus far, whenever ATC addresses AA77 it is in the form "American seventy seven.....instruction to do something"
followed by an acknowledgement from AA77.

Here we have a 5 1/2 minute silent period and THEN "American seventy seven Indy".

From my experience, a call worded like this implies that ATC is making a repeated call to the aircraft after a failed attempt to raise them. (ie after a call like
"AA77 contact center on...." / or " AA77 request?" etc. etc.)

Experience tells me that ATC had already made a call or calls to AA77 in this 5 1/2 minute period or AA77 had made calls to ATC........it appears something is amiss.
Do we know why ATC was calling them at that particular time using that particular phraseology? (remember that all radio dialogue has set standard phraseology).
This phraseology implies there are missing calls in the 5 1/2 minutes. What were they??????? Why delete them??????

Cheers

Transcript http://www.ntsb.gov/info/ATC_%20Report_AA77.pdf

GWU Documents, National Security Archives.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc05.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc06.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc07.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc08.pdf

On the file date/time for the above file, I obtained this [but the date/time shows my Sept. download]:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/21221

Unzipping that file, I get this:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/21222

Contrast at what I obtained from the CD .ISO file that I downloaded from J. Farmer's website, back in 2007 IIRC:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/21223

EDIT: See also this NTSB SSFDR report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

and the recent, related comparative AA77 radar (FAA vs. RADES) study, specifically post #9 here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10763888

EDIT2: See also UT's post #5 here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10740953

in thread "Pentagon 9/11 Flight 'black Box', Data File Created Before Actual 'Black Box'?"

Hi Rod!

I took a look on this csv file.

What is value 1400 corresponding to 09:37:44 (cell 37806:LM) ?

According to column header it's TOTAL PRESSURE (MB). Is it real outside air pressure coming from static port?
It should be more than 2500 meters below sea level, in this case. And column LL shows 48 deg. Celsius as TOTAL AIR TEMP

Thanks.

Hi VirPil...



No... total air pressure is the ram air pressure (as opposed to static pressure). Usually measured by the Pitot-Tube and used for calculations by the Air Data Computer (ADC) for altitude and airspeed, in conjunction with the Static air pressure from the static port, and the altimeter setting set by the pilots.



Total Air Temp (TAT) is the air temperature measured when taking into account air compression due to speed. The TAT will be higher than static temp as speed increases. TAT is referenced by pilots for Ice protection. Usually below 10 Deg C, ice protection is put into use to prevent ice build on the airframe if flying in precipitation. TAT is also used for calculations made by the ADC for altitude and airspeed measurements.

This is why 'duhbunkers' are so ridiculous to assume such large errors in the Pitot-Static system being measured and calculated by an aircraft equipped with an ADC.

The ADC takes into consideration many different measurements and calculations above and beyond that of... lets say... a Cessna 172 Pitot-Static system. This is why measurements on a modern airliner with an ADC are highly accurate as compared to something like a Cessna 172. "Duhbunkers" try to get people to believe that a 757 Static system is prone to errors that are inherent in an aircraft such as a Cessna 172. Don't let them fool you.

TAT, Tto, Ppo are also used by some modern airliners which utilize FADEC for better engine control, performance, and efficiency.

Hope this helps...

Thanks for explanation!

I even don't know who they are.

By a way, is TAT and RAM value corresponds to alleged altitude/speed?

Another thing. You write

Is it done automatically?

Otherwise one can ask himself - why terrorist that is going to crash listens to METAR and set correct altimeter, moreover he does it on both - capt. and 1st pilot.

TAT and RAM air measurements (along with Static air measurements.. temp and pressure) are used to calculate altitude and speed. So, yes, they will correspond. lol

In fact, we know the pitot-static system was operating normally without error as it corresponds to groundspeeds when calculated. Groundspeed data comes from the Flight Management Computer (FMC), calculated using navigational aids, and is independent of the Pitot-Static system.





Altimeter setting is not set automatically. The pilots have to set it themselves. You can see this being done during climb and is explained thoroughly in our presentation Flight Of American 77 (starts at 42 min mark), but it is not done during descent in the NTSB animation, although the csv file shows it as being set during descent.

See more here...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...st&p=992727



Exactly...

Is this CVS file available for download from any official site in GOV domain (and METAR for FDCA as well)?
(official video is not, as I understand)

I write sort of article in Russian about contradiction between NTSB flight data and NIST report (altitude, bank, pitch), and I don't want anybody will have even a chance deny authenticity of such data.

Thanks.

OK, METAR is here: http://vortex.plymouth.edu/sa_parse-u.html ( http://vortex.plymouth.edu/cgi-bin/gen_sa_...dd=11&hh=14 )

P.S. Can I edit my posts after posting?

The data is not available on a gov site. You have to request it through Freedom Of Information Act. See more below...

4. Claim - The Information that P4T has analyzed may not be from the NTSB (P4T may have fabricated the information and claims it came from the NTSB)

csv file download and cover letters provided by Undertow
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...hp?showtopic=64

Raw data decode provided by Undertow
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=4574

Animation cover letters/envelope provided by Snowgrouch
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...p?showtopic=375

Animation cover letters provided by Mick Harrison
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=6205

Reserved - More forthcoming

Animation provided by Third party on google video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=65...=AA77+Animation

George Washington University NTSB Data
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

NTSB FOIA Website
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

NTSB FOIA Contact - Melba D. Moye
202-314-6000

NTSB FOIA Request form -
http://www.ntsb.gov/pubmail/pubmail.asp

See more here - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7163

You have 5 mins to edit your posts.

As you make more posts, you will gain more access.

The NIST did not do a report on AA77 nor the data. The NTSB animation conflicts with the NTSB csv file in terms of altimeter setting.

Try here for example http://govtloyalistsite.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64.

They do nothing but spread malicious lies about Rob Balsamo, lies lies lies and more lies all lies, a few of them in particular are very nasty characters.
There is one who's name starts with a B he is very malicious in spreading his lies, this fellow is very delusional. Take note non of them are pilots none of
them seem to have any expertise in the field of aviation, anything they say is to be taken with a grain of salt, they cannot get a single person who has
any expertise in the field of aviation to back anything they say or claim about this organisation. Rob Balsamo is very good at destroying their lies, he exposes
them for who they really are a pack of faceless cowards who will not agree to a real debate with any real experts.

My apologies Rob but i just had to. Keep up the excellent work you have done in exposing the lies of the official narrative.

9/11 is a lie and everyone knows it.

By a way, Rod, probably you can even fill lawsuit against NTSB for providing faked data (I guess you paid for it) basing on following :

1. NTSB video contradicts their own FDR data (no baro correction)
2. NTSB data contradicts official story (assuming it's true)- NTSB shows right bank and decreasing pitch in last seconds, while it "should" be opposite, and NTSB reported altitude make such hit impossible.

My name is Rob... with a B.

1st time you called me "Rod", i let it slide as a typo.... 2nd time is lack of attention to detail.






I could, how much are you willing to contribute?

Our last lawsuit was thrown out by a panel of Judges which included a relative of Bush, only to sanction the lawyers more than 15,000 dollars.

So, if you can raise the funds to cover such a lawsuit and possible sanctions, let me know and we will pursue it. Until then, we are just trying to keep our little corner of the net online.

Hey, I got an idea, why don't you ask Richard Gage? I heard they made over 300,000 dollars last year.... (and have yet to file a lawsuit or file an affidavit in any court).

Sorry Rob.

Actually 1st and 2nd time is the same error (I'm not from US, and both names are not familiar to me).
Sorry again, know I remember your name.

I'm not familiar with US juridical system as well...