New FDR Decode

reply to post by 911files


reply to post by ownbestenemy


Just to clarify:

If the door latch was broken, or the switch sensing the door 'CLOSED' position was faulty, the signal would default to a logic '1' and the FDR would
show "OPEN" all the way through the flight. This is due to the "pull up resistor" built into the electric circuit connected to the power source.

Because the ground signal is only presented when the switch/door is shut, it is a strong case to show the sensor was functional.

You could argue that it would appear most suspicious to see the field parameter reading OPEN for all flights and never change as this
would be out of practice for pilots in flight.

As Mr. Balsamo stated earlier, it's very common and logical to accept the fact that pilots do not leave the flight deck during short
flights, and therefore a constant CLOSED value is what we would expect to see.

Summary:

If the switch was BROKEN...the FDR would record OPEN for all flight data.

The switch/circuit appears to be working fine as pilots normally do NOT
leave the flight deck for short flights. The longest recorded flight on the
FDR as confirmed by P4T and Warren Stutt was 4.5 hours.

Here;s a little something for TomK, 767Doctor and anyone else
wanting to make a fool of themselves:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Even though VSI samples the pitot port, the static port is used to determine
the delta in pressure (which is also read by the PA absolute pressure sensor).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have you covered all ways. ADC reads from the static port and
supplies PA and VSI.

Even though I thought the STBY ASI was a VSI, I knew enough to state
it only uses the static port.

Earlier on, I told TomK that the STBY instruments don't supply the info
for the FDR data we are discussing.

Care to make more light of this issue?

Have a nice day.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by tomk52

Originally posted by jthomas
When dealing with the hopeless evasions of Rob Balsamo & crew, remember this sage advice given in earlier years of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement:


JT,

I recognize everyone except the guy with the short beard. He'd be...?

"Oh could it be twue...?"

Tom

That would be the mentally unstable Kevin Barrett, Rob Balsamo's partner in crime:

"If you are not aware that you're covering up for that traitor and mass murderer and yes insurance fraudster Silverstein, you'll figure it out when you're beside him on the scaffold. I'll be saving this email as evidence for your trial." – Kevin Barrett, "Scholar For 9/11 Truth" and failed Muslim
*****

“Mark Roberts deserves to die a traitors [sic] death for trying to suppress 9/11 families from seeking the Truth.”–"Pilots for Truth" founder, and ex-commercial pilot, Robert Balsamo

...And a few months later:
"Mark Roberts does deserve to die a traitors death....

I will not apologize for it this time. I will be there for his death should America fall into Civil War. That is not a threat. .that is a promise.

If he gets in my way of defending our Constitution.. it will be my pleasure to put a bullet in his head to defend our Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic." –"Pilots for Truth" founder Robert Balsamo, panicking after I challenged him to a debate. (Punctuation left as is.)

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Originally posted by turbofan

Care to make more light of this issue?

[edit on 29-11-2009 by turbofan]

Sure. It still doesn't change the fact that it does not provide one piece of positive evidence that AA77 "flew over and away from the Pentagon" as you claim.

Keep ignoring the "One Way" and "Dead End" signs on your journey to nowhere.

Originally posted by turbofan
As Mr. Balsamo stated earlier, it's very common and logical to accept the fact that pilots do not leave the flight deck during short
flights, and therefore a constant CLOSED value is what we would expect to see.

What "Mr. Balsamo" doesn't want you to know is that it is ALSO "common and logical" for aircrew to leave the flight deck during short flights.

I was on a 2 hr 20 min flight from IAD to MCO in September and was sitting in the aisle seat, third row. I watched as a flight attendant pulled a reinforced steel cable barricade contraption across the aisle at the very front of the aircraft passenger compartment. He (male flight attendant) stood watching the passengers while the cockpit door opened and someone from the flight deck left to go to the bathroom.

"Mr. Balsamo" would have the ATS readers think that nobody ever leave the cockpit once airborne. That is typical PfT BS handwaving.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by 767doctor

 

Oh, we have another "I.D. ten Tee" amongst us? I'll forgive you
for not reading the entire conversation before making a fool of yourself
this time.

LMAO. I'm sure he'll be comforted by "your forgiveness".

Originally posted by turbofan
If you go back through the discussion you will note the following:

- When I'm speaking of Vertical Accel I already know that it is based on
readings from the static port.

Vertical accel based on double differentiating the static port reading???

Are you REALLY sure you want to stand behind that statement??

Dang, and they went & installed all those really fast, really accurate accelerometers ... and then took accel readings by differentiating, twice, the REALLY slow, REALLY lagging, and really inaccurate (for this purpose) static pressure changes.

Wow. Those guys are DUMM. REALLY dumm. So dumm they can't even SPELL dumm.

Originally posted by turbofan
- I already know that VSI is fed by the air data computer [ADC] which
is what produces the FDR data.

And what transducer, precisely, provides the ADC with its information. Manufacture/model/make please.

Originally posted by turbofan
My only error was looking at the diagram on a laptop with a screen resolution
that made it appear the second STBY instrument was a VSI.

Your error was continuing to think that the VSI needs pitot pressure after that silliness had been pointed out to you several times.

Because you "have a diagram...".

Originally posted by turbofan
This has absolutely no bearing on the discussion because we are looking
at PA values to prove the aircraft was too high to hit light poles and the
Pentagon.

Conclusion noted.
Butchered analysis to follow.

"Objectivity. Who needs it...?"

Originally posted by turbofan
I...read that I", was the one who suggested to extract VSI from the
last four seconds of the FDR to confirm Pressure Altitude.

But wait. There IS NO VSI in the FDR file. So you've got a problem.

But you can calculate approximate VSI info from one of three sources.

1. Differentiating the PA values. And then integrate back to obtain "confirmed PA"?? Puh-leeze.
You cannot USE the PA values to VALIDATE the PA values.

2. Integrating the Vertical acceleration data, and then integrate again to calculate the altitude. But you've got significant drift & errors whenever you integrate for very long. So you need some reference point, just before the crash, to snap your integration errors to zero.
This is, in essence, a double integration "initial value problem". And the initial values that you need are an accurate instantaneous altitude and an accurate vertical speed. And where, oh where, are you going to get both of these?
... Ta da ... the PA elevation.

"You cannot use the PA data to validate the PA data."

3. You can do the same as before, and use the radar data to eliminate your integration errors.
But now you have to know exactly where the plane at the moment that particular radar sample is taken is in order to know the exact elevation AGL. Oops. Problem. And what do all the attempts at calculating ground profile use? PA - RA.

"You cannot use the PA data to validate the PA data."
__

Now, I think that there is a way that an HONEST investigator (oops, leaves you boys out) might be able to do this. Unfortunately, it will not satisfy your little paranoia streaks. What it can do is simply verify that the data is self consistent.

I'm thinking thru the details. I'll let you know if it hangs together...

[End Part 1]

[Part 2]

But I just thought of a much, Much, MUCH easier way to answer this whole question. Assuming, as you like to do, that the PA data is exactly correct.

I challenge the P4T contingent to provide ANY flight path, matched up to GIF elevation data, that is CONSISTENT with the radar altimeter data AND a fly-over of the Pentagon. That means that you've got to produce buildings, berms, bridges, etc., whose elevations match the PA - RA values when overlaid on your asserted flight path.

I think that only the last 10 seconds of data ought to do the trick.

Someone else has certainly thought of this before, and challenged you with it. What was your reply?

If your reply is "the FDR data is all faked", then this whole conversation is moot.

Originally posted by turbofan
So whether, or not I was mistaken about the letter, or the instrumet...
it doesn't mean squat because on page 32 (?) I have already told you,
and TomK that the VSI reads from the static port and records the rate
of change in altitude (meaning ascent/descent rate).

LMAO.

Your selective memory is working overtime, I see.

Yes, you did say that the VSI uses the static port. I guess that must have been some OTHER "Turbofan", your evil Doppelganger twin perhaps, who said that the VSI needed the pitot port...??

LoL.


TomK

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by Alfie1
Do you have anything to suggest that the door sensors were hooked up to a spare port on the FDAU please ?

Alfie,

The fact that it is listed as a parameter and you can see it, is proof it was "hooked up". If it wasn't hooked up, you wouldn't see it, as in the UA93 data.

If it wasn't hooked up, the port would be labeled as a spare and grounded. As explained by Turbofan.

Some then made the excuse that Turbofan was using a 1997 revision of the data frame layout and that it didn't apply since the aircraft was manufactured in 1991. What these people fail to realize is that regulations change, and so do the aircraft which are under such regulation. I provided documentation for that as well above.

Hope this helps.

And we are supposed to depend on your "demonstrated mature & objective assessment" to accept this line of (ahem) "reasoning"???



TomK

Originally posted by trebor451
I was on a 2 hr 20 min flight from IAD to MCO in September and was sitting in the aisle seat, third row. I watched as a flight attendant pulled a reinforced steel cable barricade contraption across the aisle at the very front of the aircraft passenger compartment. He (male flight attendant) stood watching the passengers while the cockpit door opened and someone from the flight deck left to go to the bathroom.

Certainly you can tell us the airline, type aircraft, (perhaps also date and flight number) which has this retractable "steel cable barricade contraption" so we can cross check it with IAD-MCO city pair for the specific airline and flight number?

Originally posted by turbofan
Even though I thought the STBY ASI was a VSI, I knew enough to state
it only uses the static port.

So, does your "avionics mojo" tell you that pressure lines are routinely plumbed into instruments that DON'T USE those pressures??

And the guy who REPEATEDLY insisted that the pitot pressure was plumbed into the VSI ... That was some OTHER "Turbofan"??

Oh, the guy who kept claiming that I was an idiot & didn't know what I was talking about because I said that a VSI only used static pressure ... That was some OTHER "Turbofan"??

Originally posted by turbofan
Earlier on, I told TomK that the STBY instruments don't supply the info for the FDR data we are discussing.

You may well have said this. I notice that you constantly supply irrelevant, off topic nonsense. Some of it that is even correct.

I ESPECIALLY liked this threesome:

1. Altitude is displayed on a gage.
2. Vertical speed is displayed on a gage.
3. Vertical speed is measured in ft/sec.

I gotta tell ya, TF, I was BREATHLESS at those revelations...

Originally posted by turbofan
Care to make more light of this issue?

You betcha...!

Originally posted by turbofan
Have a nice day.

Thanks, I will.

TomK

Originally posted by tomk52
And we are supposed to depend on your "demonstrated mature & objective assessment" to accept this line of (ahem) "reasoning"???

TomK

Tom, why does UA93 data not show a FLIGHT DECK DOOR parameter in the NTSB data/information, yet AA77 data does?

Is it because the regulation change in 1997 allowed Boeing 757 DFDAU's and DFL''s as Airline specific? If so, please provide documentation.

For more information, you may want to click the link I provided to apathoid's post at the Randi Forum. He works for Delta if I recall correctly.

I also see you didn't have a clue regarding the "Vertical Speed Selector" parameter. Good job!



[edit on 29-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

reply to post by R_Mackey


Perhaps a better question is if it's an FAA requirement, thus on the MEL, why didn't UA have it connected on UA 93?

Robby,

Please reconcile these two sentences of yours from the same post of yours:

Originally posted by R_Mackey
"The FAA does not require the FLT DECK DOOR parameter on the FDR. The FAA rule change in 1997 required 88 parameters to be completed by Aug 2001. As you can see, AA77 data has many more parameters being measured than what is required. The FAA requirement is a MINIMUM requirement."

And:

Originally posted by R_Mackey
"If the physical system is installed, it is required equipment ..."

Let's take them one step at a time:

1. "AA77 data has many more parameters being measured than what is required"
True.

2. "The FAA requirement is a MINIMUM requirement."
True

3. In order to measure any parameters, you have to have a system installed on the plane to measure that parameter.

4. And yet, you say that there are many more parameters being measured that what are required.

5. Which means that there must be many more systems installed on the plane than are required.

6. Which means that "not all systems installed on the plane are required".

Please show me the logical error in the above.
Please do not simply restate the same, unsourced assertion.

Alternatively, please point out the FAR that states CLEARLY "all systems installed on planes automatically become required systems".

No substitutions, please.
No interpretations, please.

TomK

Originally posted by turbofan

As Mr. Balsamo stated earlier, it's very common and logical to accept the fact that pilots do not leave the flight deck during short

Thanks, TF, for confirming what we all knew: That Robby Balsamo is the troll "faux R_Mackey".



You guys ain't the sharpest knives in the drawer, are ya??

TomK

Tom,

For some reason, you continue to ignore the words "can be deferred" each time I reference the MEL. Why is that?

Tom, if it's installed on the aircraft, it is required equipment, but CAN BE DEFERRED as per MEL.

In other words, if you don't have an approved MEL, you cannot fly with so much as an overhead sun visor broken (if installed) unless approved by the FAA. If you have done so in your little Cessna, you busted regs. (and yes, it happens everyday and the Feds look the other way).

If a sensor/parameter which is failed "dings" the FDR during self diagnostics for each flight, you CANNOT FLY THAT AIRCRAFT unless approved by the FAA. (But, we know a FDR 'ding' is definitely a "no-go" item)

If you still do not understand this concept, please ask apathoid as maybe you will open your ears and eyes. Further, apathoid seems to think the cockpit door sensor is a "no-go" item. I don't expect an amature like you will understand "no-go", ask apathoid as I'm tired of dealing with your belligerent rhetoric.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by tomk52
And we are supposed to depend on your "demonstrated mature & objective assessment" to accept this line of (ahem) "reasoning"???

TomK

Tom, why does UA93 data not show a FLIGHT DECK DOOR parameter in the NTSB data/information, yet AA77 data does?

Is it because the regulation change in 1997 allowed Boeing 757 DFDAU's and DFL''s as Airline specific? If so, please provide documentation.

I can think of about a dozen reasons why they might be different.

But here's the key point, Robby.

Neither my speculation, NOR YOUR SPECULATION, amounts to a fart in a hurricane.

Now, there are a whole bunch of people in the world whose speculation and logical inferences I might well trust on an issue like this. Because they have demonstrated an allegiance to the truth, rigor & honesty.

Guess what, sport. You didn't make the cut.
By a LOOOOOOOOOONG shot.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
For more information, you may want to click the link I provided to apathoid's post at the Randi Forum. He works for Delta if I recall correctly.

Oh, you mean the link where he says:

Originally posted by apathoid
I fix electricky stuff on big planes for a living. Trust me, there was nothing wrong with the door switch (its not a sensor)...

I'd have to look but a bad cockpit door switch, even pre-9/11, was likely a "no-go" item for flight. Its sole purpose is NOT to provide a record for the FDR, its to warn the pilots if the door is ajar by providing an amber message on the engine display.

I don't feel digging through manuals, but I'll just say that the functionality just likely wasn't there for that parameter - there are many parameters in Warrens RO that produce no change of binary states or produce any data. The FDAU(box that collects all the data and streams it to the FDR) has the capability to collects hundreds, even thousands of parameters in new versions; the FAA mandates 70, I believe. Its up to the airlines if they want to record other params. The vast majority are just open, not wired to the systems that they are supposed to record.

You are SERIOUSLY citing THAT statement to back up your "the sensor must have been working & the door must have been closed throughout the flight" nonsense..?!!

You are SERIOUSLY citing the statement of someone who states plainly that he thinks you are full of crap in general, and completely wrong on THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE, to back up your position.

You are SERIOUSLY citing the statement of someone who referred to your nonsense as "snakeoil" as support for your idiocy?

Do you see now why so many people consider you a shameless deceiver?

Originally posted by R_Mackey
I also see you didn't have a clue regarding the "Vertical Speed Selector" parameter. Good job!
[edit on 29-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Yeah, you're right. I didn't know something and asked a question.

Children (and really immature adults) frequently find this to be a sign of weakness of some sort.

Now, YOUR point was ...?


TomK

Read this statement again from apathiod.

Its up to the airlines if they want to record other params. The vast majority are just open, not wired to the systems that they are supposed to record.

Again I ask Tom, why does UA93 data not show a FLT DECK DOOR parameter, and AA77 does?

Is it because the DFDAU and DFL is airline specific? If so, please provide documentation.

The rest of your post is nothing but personal attacks as usual, and yes, I'm seriously quoting apathoid. Answer the questions.

Perhaps "767Doctor" can answer it himself? Tom has a problem with concession.

side note: Tom, are you really a boss? Wow, I feel sorry for your subordinates. High turn over rate perhaps? Care to give us your full name so we can see who supports you as does Balsamo?

[edit on 29-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by tomk52
Robby,

Please reconcile these two sentences of yours from the same post of yours:

Originally posted by R_Mackey
"The FAA does not require the FLT DECK DOOR parameter on the FDR. The FAA rule change in 1997 required 88 parameters to be completed by Aug 2001. As you can see, AA77 data has many more parameters being measured than what is required. The FAA requirement is a MINIMUM requirement."

And:

Originally posted by R_Mackey
"If the physical system is installed, it is required equipment ..."

Let's take them one step at a time:

1. "AA77 data has many more parameters being measured than what is required"
True.

2. "The FAA requirement is a MINIMUM requirement."
True

3. In order to measure any parameters, you have to have a system installed on the plane to measure that parameter.

4. And yet, you say that there are many more parameters being measured that what are required.

5. Which means that there must be many more systems installed on the plane than are required.

6. Which means that "not all systems installed on the plane are required".

Please show me the logical error in the above.
Please do not simply restate the same, unsourced assertion.

Alternatively, please point out the FAR that states CLEARLY "all systems installed on planes automatically become required systems".

No substitutions, please.
No interpretations, please.

TomK

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Tom,

For some reason, you continue to ignore the words "can be deferred" each time I reference the MEL. Why is that?

Tom, if it's installed on the aircraft, it is required equipment, but CAN BE DEFERRED as per MEL.

In other words, if you don't have an approved MEL, you cannot fly with so much as an overhead sun visor broken (if installed) unless approved by the FAA. If you have done so in your little Cessna, you busted regs. (and yes, it happens everyday and the Feds look the other way).

If a sensor/parameter which is failed "dings" the FDR during self diagnostics for each flight, you CANNOT FLY THAT AIRCRAFT unless approved by the FAA. (But, we know a FDR 'ding' is definitely a "no-go" item)

If you still do not understand this concept, please ask apathoid as maybe you will open your ears and eyes. Further, apathoid seems to think the cockpit door sensor is a "no-go" item. I don't expect an amature like you will understand "no-go", ask apathoid as I'm tired of dealing with your belligerent rhetoric.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

In other words, you can NOT point out the logical flaw in the my post above.

In other words, you simply restate your unsubstantiated "if it is installed ..." nonsense. (Gee, and I asked you, so politely, not to do that...)

In other words, you can NOT cite the FAR that states that "every piece of equipment installed on a plane automatically becomes a required piece of equipment".

In other words, you bring up the misdirection of a broken sun visor, when I never asked you squat about broken equipment on a plane.

You could have saved yourself a passel of typing by just saying so.

Alternatively, you could settle this whole diversion by simply citing the FAR that states that "every piece of equipment on a plane automatically becomes a required piece of equipment".

TomK

PS. Your statement that " if you don't have an approved MEL, you cannot fly with so much as an overhead sun visor broken (if installed) unless approved by the FAA. If you have done so in your little Cessna, you busted regs" is wrong.

I CAN take off in my little Cessna with a broken piece of equipment, without a MEL, as long as I meet the requirements of 91.213(d).

I thought you said you were an instructor...?

Originally posted by tomk52
I CAN take off in my little Cessna with a broken piece of equipment, without a MEL, as long as I meet the requirements of 91.213(d).

So, you can take off in your little Cessna without seat belts? Wings? Engine? Landing Gear? Seats? a Control yoke? A throttle lever? Mixture Lever? The list goes on, amateur.

How many Cessna 172's have you flown which have an MEL?

[edit on 29-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Read this statement again from apathiod.

Its up to the airlines if they want to record other params. The vast majority are just open, not wired to the systems that they are supposed to record.

Again I ask Tom, why does UA93 data not show a FLT DECK DOOR parameter, and AA77 does?
Is it because the DFDAU and DFL is airline specific? If so, please provide documentation.

I don't know the answer to that question.

Why don't you provide your answer.
WITH DOCUMENTATION.
Not your personal speculation.
Not documentation about some peripheral, unrelated issue.
Not your tortured logic about how that spec IMPLIES (in little Robby-world) this.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
The rest of your post is nothing but personal attacks as usual, and yes, I'm seriously quoting apathoid.

Cool, Rob. Thanks for the insight into your debating (dis)honesty.

You cite people who call your specific conclusions unmitigated tripe as your "validators" for those same conclusions.

How ... deceitful.

Just about as deceitful as pretending to be "R_Mackey", wouldn't you say?

Are you gonna smack Turbofan around for letting the cat out of the bag?

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Perhaps "767Doctor" can answer it himself? Tom has a problem with concession.

No I don't. I can get a burger or a beer as easily as anyone.
I also have no trouble admitting when I'm wrong.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
side note: Tom, are you really a boss? Wow, I feel sorry for your subordinates. High turn over rate perhaps?

Yup. No, very little turn-over.

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Care to give us your full name so we can see who supports you as does Balsamo?

Nope. Already endured one of you bat-guano crazy stalkers. One was enough.

TomK

PS. Now, what a waste of a beautiful Sunday morning. I gotta get outta here...

[edit on 29-11-2009 by tomk52]