New FDR Decode

[Part 2]

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Perhaps you've heard the old saying, "I've forgotten more than you've learned"? Perhaps not...

LMAO.

And yet, your unconstrained, angry little boy forces you to CONTINUE to say stupid things like this, Rob. For the simple purpose of trying to salve your wounded ego. Wounded by being FORCED to say, "I was wrong".

Which, of course, you were completely unable to do. Your ego & your arrogance FORCED you to say, "well, I was wrong. But I still know more about this than you."

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Thanks for taking the time to look it up and referencing it properly!

I've designed aneroids. I've PERSONALLY built them, written the specifications, wrote the test procedures, and ran the tests while working out the bugs during the design phase. When they went into production, I wrote the component acceptance tests & assembly instructions. So I did not need to "look up" any of that info. I didn't need to call your guy, Joe, to check with him about any of my info either.

As a result of that experience, there are about 1000 more things regarding aneroids that I also know that neither you, nor any mechanic, nor your flight instructor, know about them. (And there is stuff that a mechanic knows about installation & operation that I don't know.)

Does this make me a better person than either you or Joe or anyone else? Hell no.
Does it make me right, and you wrong, about 9/11? Hell no.
Does it mean that I know more about flying than you do? Hell no.

Does it make your statement, that "you've forgotten more than I've learned" about aneroids pathetically ludicrous? Hell yes.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
... I personally have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

LMAO. Yes you do, Rob.

You are utterly incapable of saying "I was wrong", without adding your ego-balm qualifier.

"I was wrong... But it's not MY fault...!"

Being wrong is ALWAYS your own fault, Rob. No excuses.
Being wrong is not, per se, a huge fault.
Being wrong in your personal area of expertise is a serious problem.
Being a pompous, arrogant, insulting jerk WHILE you're being wrong is it's own set of problems.

All the above are trivial. It's inconsequential.

All of the following are your HUGE problems, Rob.

1. Not distinguishing clearly, to both yourself and to others, the difference between "I KNOW this is right" and "I THINK this is right".

2. Not being able to admit that there are other experts in the world.

3. Having your conclusions driven by your ego.

4. Having your conclusions driven by your politics.

Unless you can eliminate ALL of the above, your conclusions are useless to others. Because your methodology have been perverted and your motives corrupted.

From what I've seen, you've eliminated none of the above.

Your conclusions are useless.
Your methodology perverse.
Your motives corrupt.

And, invoking the single biggest insult an engineer can apply, your conclusions are simply, utterly "wrong".

Tom


[edit on 8-11-2009 by tomk52]

[edit on 8-11-2009 by tomk52]

[edit on 8-11-2009 by tomk52]

Originally posted by turbofan
Now that we're done with the semantics (hopefully) and construction basics
of aneroid devices, I'd be happy if someone would concede the '50 foot error'
nonsense of static port intergration to the vent of a pressure altimeter.

Trying to get your BFF out of hot water, TF??

Let's see if that is justified. Let's see if that's equitable.

Just out of curiosity, EXACTLY how long ago do you guys claim that the REAL "R_Mackey" said that "757s typically fly faster than Mcrit"?

Clearly, from then to (let's see) yesterday is how long you guys believe that someone should be constantly reminded of a mistake.

I'll be perfectly happy to use that as the yardstick for exactly how much longer I should remind your BFF about aneroids.

Sound fair to you?

LoL

Tom

[edit on 8-11-2009 by tomk52]

reply to post by tomk52


I debate my own topics thank you. YOu can continue to go off topic with
"R_Mackey" all you please, but perhaps via U2U, or another thread would
be more acceptable.

As for the length of static tube altering the pressure in the PA device:

Do you continue to stand by your previous statement, or would you
like to rethink your position?

Turbofan,

Originally posted by turbofan
I debate my own topics thank you.

Well, I must be confused. I could have sworn that it was you that tossed a comment into the debate between Fake R_Mackey and me.

Of course, that is completely expected in - perhaps the very purpose of - a public debating forum.

But are you suggesting that, after you interject your comment, you are then immune from a reply?

Originally posted by turbofan
YOu can continue to go off topic with "R_Mackey" all you please, but perhaps via U2U, or another thread would be more acceptable.

Thank you for your suggestion. I'll respectfully decline.

I think that I made the connection between aneroids & FDR data interpretation perfectly clear in my 2 part post above. One of the critical issues is that of "true expertise", versus empty claims of "expertise".

I think that that discussion illustrates beautifully the fact that people become "expert" (to a variable degree) at SPECIFICALLY what they do. Pilots become expert at flying airplanes, and the specific knowledge & tasks required to do that. They do not need to be aerodynamicists or instrumentation engineers in order to do this task competently.

Any more than a person needs to become an automotive engineer in order to be able to drive a car competently.

Some people here recognize the specificity of expertise. Others do not.
Some people recognize their own limitations. Others do not.
Some people carefully distinguish "I believe this" from "I know this". Others do not.

The aneroid discussion is simply a handy little reminder...

Originally posted by turbofan
As for the length of static tube altering the pressure in the PA device:
Do you continue to stand by your previous statement, or would you like to rethink your position?

To be exact, I didn't say the length "altered the static pressure". I said the length & diameter (& several other factors) introduced errors into the PA reading.

And I'm comfortable with that statement.

Do you claim that this statement is wrong?

Tom


[edit on 8-11-2009 by tomk52]

Turbofan,

Originally posted by turbofan
... but perhaps via U2U ...

Now, TF, where would be the FUN in that...?

Tom

reply to post by R_Mackey
Warren's data matches your data, which matches the NTSB data. You were wrong.

You forgot to show your proof, the math, your work shooing Flight 93 altimeter error. It was larger than 50 feet. Why are you avoiding it?

1. You owe a post of the errors in Flight 93 altimeter how you figured the final error. Show your work. You will be doing this.

Flight 77 has errors in the altimeter greater than 50 feet during takeoff and climb and the work was shown.

Taking software without permission is stealing. You can’t provide who got the software. Can you get a letter from the company showing you had permission to take the software? Prove it was not stolen with proof, not talk.

The fact is Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon and you have no excuses for the RADALT reading of 4.

RADALT reads 4 then the data ends because 77 impacts the Pentagon. The final longitudinal deceleration (an off the scale slowdown) is the last data point recorded as 77 impacts the generator next to the Pentagon.

Originally posted by iSunTzu

Tree hit by a 483 KIAS Flight 77.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dee8f0261cd4.jpg[/atsimg]

Very revealing pics and that cab is precisely where we'd expect it to be. The height of the plane at that point could be estimated to within an inch without the need of any altimeter readings.

That tree would be very much in line with the path of the righthand engine and it's difficult to estimate how much of it's top is missing but reasonable to assume it was largely ingested by the turbine. How much actual physical damage to the engine could be expected from relatively soft foliage being shredded by the N1 turbine blades and would that produce a bit of a smoke trail?

At 483k there's about 1 second's flight from the tree to the building so it wouldn't have smoked for long at all.

Speaking of experts, there are quite a few of them at P4T that have
mile long resumes flying and dealing with the very systems and data
some of you are trying to wrap your head around.

I wonder why their verified work experience is always shunted by the
GL camp, and their names constantly attacked?

Originally posted by tomk52To be exact, I didn't say the length "altered the static pressure". I said the length & diameter (& several other factors) introduced errors into the PA reading.

And I'm comfortable with that statement.

Do you claim that this statement is wrong?

Was it not you that mentioned a 50 foot error was introduced when
connecting the vent port of the PA to the aircraft? Maybe it was Reheat?
Perhaps I will roll back through the pages and find the quote...

Before adhering to your statement, I'd like to know what "several other
factors" you refer to, as well as the extent of the "errors" you claim
are introduced.

I will refrain from asking any further questions until your points are
clarified.

Originally posted by tomk52
Not quite.

By adding piping "and stuff", the ERROR in the reading goes up by 50'.

Since the "and stuff" includes a bunch of stuff that is outside of the control of the altimeter manufacturer, including:

1. the length & diameter of the piping
2. the number of other systems that are accessing (read "changing") the static pressure

Remainder truncated

Correction: you said the reading goes UP by 50 feet.

Patiently awaiting your clarifciation on this point alone.

Originally posted by turbofan
Speaking of experts, there are quite a few of them at P4T that have
mile long resumes flying and dealing with the very systems and data
some of you are trying to wrap your head around.

I wonder why their verified work experience is always shunted by the
GL camp, and their names constantly attacked?

First, I am not a GL camper. But to answer your question, the 'experts' at P4T that I am aware of tend to view all evidence through the '911 was an inside job' prism. That is called bias, and most over there cannot look at the data without attempting to fit it into a particular theory.

Science works in the exact opposite manner.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by 911filesFirst, I am not a GL camper. But to answer your question, the 'experts' at P4T that I am aware of tend to view all evidence through the '911 was an inside job' prism. That is called bias, and most over there cannot look at the data without attempting to fit it into a particular theory.

Science works in the exact opposite manner.

The same science your "friends" use? You know the theories and
excuses they make that have been proven false like:

- 2 second delay
- 4 second delay
- 6 second delay
- DME out of tolerance
- Altimeter lag
- Transient erase theory
- BIRD STRIKE THEORY

Is that called science?

How about this latest science that we have happening with the "50 foot
error", or "50 foot additonal reading"?

Which excuse are you going to fall for this time?

How long before "we" prove another excuse is nonsense?

I hope Tom has a Boeing reference manual to back up all of his statements
about this static port and routing. I'll be comparing it to mine.

Wow, more 3 post replies from the rant camp. Looks like you enjoyed your weekend.

Originally posted by tomk52
my social skills.... are non-existent.

You won't get any argument from me on this point.

Making a mistake regarding how an aneriod wafer measures changes in pressure is not the same as a NASA Scientist claiming .70M - .72M is above Mcrit for the 757 and therefore compressibility issues affecting the static system.

My mistake doesn't change the outcome of claimed error in the static system, the aneriod wafers still measure from 29.92. Matter of fact, spring action reduces error as compared to my first assumption/recollection.

I'm sure Tom will want to gloat about this mistake in every post he types loaded with ad homs and personal attacks, but what Tom will fail to realize is that when a point is conceded in a debate, and is still argued by the opposition, this is known as argumentum ad nauseam and is logical fallacy due to the fact they are unable to argue any other issues of the debate.

Hence the reason the following was/is still ignored,

"Once again, those here who support the impact theory have not provided any proof for their claims. Photographs are not proof. Parroting DNA claims as made by the govt is not proof (especially when it is known labs can and do fabricate DNA). Claiming the PA was 150 feet in error is not proof. Claiming 4' RA is not proof without cross checking PA for the object being measured. Claiming Warren's data is authentic without even verifying the code, and the fact it conflicts with the NTSB Flight Path Study and the NTSB provided csv files, is not proof of an impact."

"Keep in mind, the argument used by Tom and his friends that the aircraft was operating "outside its envelope" is wrong. Based on data, the aircraft was traveling .70-.72 Mach. Mmo for a 757 is .86M. Well within the envelope of the aircraft with respect to compressibility issues which could affect the static system. This is why Ryan Mackey attempted to use the "Boeing's typically cruise above their critical mach" claim. Since this has been proven wrong, there is virtually no excuse for altimeter error in excess of 150 feet.

If anyone can prove .70-.72 is above critical mach for a 757, and therefore affects the static pressure system, you may have an argument. Till then, your theory is unfounded."

Enjoy your week. I'll stop by from time to time to see if anyone has provided proof of the above.

reply to post by R_Mackey


All this dancing around altimeter calibrations and who said what really isn't explaining, with any certainty whatsoever, why all the physical evidence including the FDR supports the aircraft flying the 'official' path and impacting the building. There is absolutely no physical evidence of any other hypothesis.

Is there a simple explanation for that?

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by tomk52
Not quite.

By adding piping "and stuff", the ERROR in the reading goes up by 50'.

Since the "and stuff" includes a bunch of stuff that is outside of the control of the altimeter manufacturer, including:

1. the length & diameter of the piping
2. the number of other systems that are accessing (read "changing") the static pressure

Remainder truncated

Correction: you said the reading goes UP by 50 feet.

Patiently awaiting your clarifciation on this point alone.

TF,

Not a good start.

I did NOT say "the reading goes up by 50 feet".

Read my statement again.
Read your version of my statement.
Note CAREFULLY the differences.

Do you not understand the difference between "the reading" and "the error in a reading"? Even when I emphasize the difference by using BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS?

Reheat was explaining to you the difference between the FAA specs for the bench top altimeter and the installed altimeter system. There is an additional error allowance of 50'. (±70' vs ±20', IIRC)

The additional 50' error tolerance in the FAA specification is simply recognition of all the various sources of error that are lumped into the catch basket called "position error".

Your denial of an enlarged error band for the install system (as compared to the error band allowed for the altimeter unit alone) was, in essence, a denial in the existence of "position error". Do you deny the existence of "position errors"

Can you name the FIVE types of errors associated with altimeters? That would be a good place to start.


Tom

Originally posted by tomk52Do you not understand the difference between "the reading" and "the error in a reading"? Even when I emphasize the difference by using BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS?

I'm fine with understanding. YOU need to explain where and how the
"50 foot" value comes into play. There is no documentation, link,
or source to YOUR claim. Back it up please.

Reheat was explaining to you the difference between the FAA specs for the bench top altimeter and the installed altimeter system. There is an additional error allowance of 50'. (±70' vs ±20', IIRC)

Well then Reheat is wrong - again. I've already outlined and proven that
the FAA specification is a MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR INSTRUMENTS USED
IN PASSENGER CATEGORY AIRCRAFT.

Do you understand this?

FAA sets a spec. of +/- 75 feet for Pressure Altitude at a certain altitude.
Devices certified for the aircraft must MEET, or EXCEED this tolerance.

The FAA specification has absolutely NOTHING to do with bench test vs.
installed system. NOTHING.

I proved that with the FAA spec. for RAD Alt. vs. the manufacturer performance
data.

See page 14.

The additional 50' error tolerance in the FAA specification is simply recognition of all the various sources of error that are lumped into the catch basket called "position error".

Wrong! See above. See page 14. It is NOT an additional, "50 feet to allow
for various sources". It's +/- 75 feet to allow for various sources of error.

Period. Not to be debated.

Can you name the FIVE types of errors associated with altimeters? That would be a good place to start. Tom

No I cannot. I do not work with altimeters. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

Feel free to list the FIVE types of errors, however the manufacturer has
already accounted for these variances and designed a system that
performs well within spec. and with much tighter tolerances.

If you feel the need to overstep the manufacturer data, please show
your sources and work.

If you feel the need to overstep the FAA and FAR regulations, please
show your sources and work.

It's quite pathetic that we've already proven a list of theories from the
GL camp incorrect and now you're frontline spreading this disinformation.
It's quite pathetic that you're attempting to skew the information listed
on FAA.gov for all to clearly see.

Answer the questions from my previous posts. Link your sources, or just
stop the nonsense. Your approach is NOT scientific by any means.

It's quite clear nobody here has a clue of how the PA system functions,
nor the connections. Here is a taste of the diagram for a 757-200 direct
from the Boeing systems manual. Do yourselves a favour and BUY a copy,
or find someone in the industry that has this documentation like P4T does:



As per your previous post, tell me what devices are connected to the
PA static port. I've blacked out the physical connections just to test
your understanding.

You get ONE chance to get it right. THis will prove to everyone here
whether or not Reheat, or TomK can backup their talk.

Originally posted by turbofan

You get ONE chance to get it right. THis will prove to everyone here
whether or not Reheat, or TomK can backup their talk.

Hi Turbofan,

I find this a bit disturbing, since you and your Messiah Balsamo have failed to back up anything. The amount of evidence you have been given is next to countless. You handwave it away like it's a fly in your face. Facts and only facts are given to you and the PFT minions. You are blind to them.

Stop posturing! Step up and prove all the evidence false. Here are the three attributes that PFT share:
Cherry picking witnesses, quote mining, and goal post moving.

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. You have to give up your fantasy some day.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Based on data, the aircraft was traveling .70-.72 Mach. Mmo for a 757 is .86M. Well within the envelope of the aircraft with respect to compressibility issues which could affect the static system.

Errr....I thought the wings would rip off at these speeds. At least that is what you said over at your club house web page.

Now we find out that at 530 mph is "well within the envelope of the aircraft with respect to compressibility issues", which would no doubt impact aircraft structural considerations.

What is it? Will the wings rip off or will the not?

By the way, could you get Kolstad or Lankford to post something about SAMs at the Pentagon, please? I'm still curious why you would support an affidavit that is so far off the reservation with regards to...*cough*...Truth.

Originally posted by ImAPepper
I find this a bit disturbing, since you ... have failed to back up anything.

I find this quite disturbing. Do FAA sourced regulations mean nothing to you?

Step up and prove all the evidence false.

Slowly my friend. First Tom must tell me what devices are connected to
the PA static port so we can determine how they effect the readings.

Once we can agree on this point, we will move forward to concluding the
FDR reading for Pressure Altitude.

Originally posted by turbofan
Well then Reheat is wrong - again. I've already outlined and proven that
the FAA specification is a MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR INSTRUMENTS USED
IN PASSENGER CATEGORY AIRCRAFT.

Do you understand this?

FAA sets a spec. of +/- 75 feet for Pressure Altitude at a certain altitude.
Devices certified for the aircraft must MEET, or EXCEED this tolerance.

It's not just passenger category (sic - Transport Category) aircraft, it is ALL aircraft. That certain altitude is ON THE GROUND WHERE IT CAN BE DETERMINED, and I agree, it is a +- 75' tolerance.

Originally posted by turbofan
The FAA specification has absolutely NOTHING to do with bench test vs.
installed system. NOTHING.

Prove it Einstein.

Originally posted by turbofan
Wrong! See above. See page 14. It is NOT an additional, "50 feet to allow
for various sources". It's +/- 75 feet to allow for various sources of error.

Period. Not to be debated.

Says the googleologist without a clue. Isn't this what we've been saying from day one to refute your bench test tolerance of +- 20'?

Can you name the FIVE types of errors associated with altimeters? That would be a good place to start. Tom

Originally posted by turbofan
No I cannot. I do not work with altimeters. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

It's obvious that you don't work with them. How did you get so smart?

Originally posted by turbofan
If you feel the need to overstep the FAA and FAR regulations, please
show your sources and work.

What? The error tolerance has been shown and you've listed it. What's the problem? Do you need to see it again?

Originally posted by turbofan
It's quite pathetic that we've already proven a list of theories from the
GL camp incorrect and now you're frontline spreading this disinformation.
It's quite pathetic that you're attempting to skew the information listed
on FAA.gov for all to clearly see.

Strawman.

www.faa.gov...

Originally posted by turbofan
It's quite clear nobody here has a clue of how the PA system functions,
nor the connections.

This is hilarious coming from you!

BTW, if you're going to participate in an English based Forum you need to write in English and not nonsensical contradicting gibberish.

Also, before you go off on the tangent first mentioned by your messiah regarding airport altitudes and varying locations constituting the reason for a +- 75' tolerance for an installed operational system swallow this down your gullet.

For the last 12 years of my USAF flying career I operated from highly accurate (to inches) surveyed parking spots. The positions were marked by a red square for the nose gear tires. If for some reason the nose gear tires were not on their respective spot, the aircraft was moved to position it correctly. Even tho' the altitude for that spot was as accurate as it gets on the face of the earth +- 75' was still the error tolerance for the altimeter.

That hole to China is getting deeper with every post you make. The operational tolerance for an installed altimeter system is +- 75'. Period.

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by turbofan
The FAA specification has absolutely NOTHING to do with bench test vs.
installed system. NOTHING.

Prove it Einstein.

It already has been proven if you care to read. Page 14. FAA regulation
does not dictate how well an independent manfacturer's device performs.

For you to think otherwise would be stupid. This is how corporations
place themselves in their respective market place - they build a better
product than their competitor. They provide performance specs for the
buyer to evaluate different products.

FAA has nothing to do with how Reheat builds his Pressure Altimeter.

Sound good, "internet Pilot"?

Says the googleologist without a clue.

Isn't this what we've been saying from day one to refute your bench test tolerance of +- 20'?

No. Not surprised you don't know the difference between the FAA regulation
and bench test performance. See my above paragraph if you need more
help with this.

Also realize the device is more accurate closer to sea level.

It's a shame a non-pilot has to explain this to a self-proclaimed pilot.
I'm ready to show my records of employment and education transcripts.
Let me know when I can see your "pilot license"

It's obvious that you don't work with them. How did you get so smart?

Hey Reheat, what devices are connected to the PA static port?

If you don't know the answer, try looking in that deep hole to China...or
ask Tom? We'll see how many pages accumulate before this question is
answered. Here is a portion of the diagram again:






[edit on 9-11-2009 by turbofan]