New FDR Decode

Originally posted by 767doctor
Lily et al, what exactly would you do with the part numbers and serial numbers from the wreckage? How are you, from your computer desk, going to determine whether or not such parts positively ID the aircraft as AA77? I cannot wait for your answer.

And while you are at it, can you point me to a report containing a list of part numbers and serial numbers for all the airliner crashes in history? Too much to ask? OK, how about a single report? All the NTSB accident reports are online here, but I can't seem to find such reports. They do exist, right?

You see, aviation people(with the exception of Pilots For Truth and their groupies) realize that the NTSB does no such parts ID matching to "positively identify" the aircraft in question after a crash. The only reason they would research part numbers/serial numbers would be to find the maintenance history of parts which may have had a role in the crash. This talk of "positive ID" is a red herring, a distraction, created by PFT to attempt to deflect their lack of evidence for their claims.

Here's a little homework assignment for Lily, or anyone who trusts PFT as aviation authorities:

Find me one report stating that a crashed aircraft was ID'ed using part numbers and serial numbers. I don't need to see the parts or know the serial numbers, and I don't need a chain of custody report(all the things that you truthers constantly demand).



[edit on 21-12-2009 by 767doctor]

Does this one count? Its from your source:

1.6.1 General Aircraft Information The accident airplane, serial number 0146, was manufactured by Cessna AircraftCompany on October 22, 1991, and was certified to 14 CFR Part 25 standards.

Originally posted by 767doctor
You see, aviation people(with the exception of Pilots For Truth and their groupies) realize that the NTSB does no such parts ID matching to "positively identify" the aircraft in question after a crash.

And the final nail in your coffin to show your either lying or uninformed:

:

NTSB Question-"Will the NTSB refer to recovered aircraft component serial number data, to determine the positive ID of an aircraft following a mishap, in the absence of other identifying data?"

According to Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007
"Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon."

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Originally posted by 767doctor
You see, aviation people(with the exception of Pilots For Truth and their groupies) realize that the NTSB does no such parts ID matching to "positively identify" the aircraft in question after a crash.

And the final nail in your coffin to show your either lying or uninformed:

:

NTSB Question-"Will the NTSB refer to recovered aircraft component serial number data, to determine the positive ID of an aircraft following a mishap, in the absence of other identifying data?"

According to Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007
"Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon."

You confirmed the NTSB does not have to use serial numbers to confirm aircraft identity. Cool.

The FDR identifies the aircraft that impacted the Pentagon as Flight 77. Witnesses saw Flight 77 impact the Pentagon. RADAR verifies it was Flight 77 that was seen, several independent simultaneous RADAR sites.

How is the identity of Flight 77 not accurate?

The NTSB identifies 77 as the aircraft hitting the Pentagon Officially
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b38361fed71e.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/22718b4cdee2.jpg[/atsimg]

The NTSB issues no reports on 77, they assist the FBI. So there are no standard NTSB reports. Discussing what the NTSB has to do with 911 is not an issue, they don't report normally, they provide evidence to the FBI as needed. Coming up with reports, NTSB reports with serial numbers is kind of lame since the NTSB does not plan on doing reports on the 911 aircraft they were not accidents. The products you see from the NTSB are those requested by the FBI on parts under their control. The FBI has all the stuff you need and after the final trial public disclosure will happen.

So go find UBL and earn 25,000 bucks and that will be a Pulitzer Prize story, how I found UBL and stopped believing delusions about 911.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by iSunTzu]

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Does this one count? Its from your source:

1.6.1 General Aircraft Information The accident airplane, serial number 0146, was manufactured by Cessna AircraftCompany on October 22, 1991, and was certified to 14 CFR Part 25 standards.

Short answer:
The NTSB is chartered to investigate, and determine the cause of, ACCIDENTS.
9/11 was not an accident. As such, the only role that the NTSB had was an advisory one to the FBI.

Even in accidents, the NTSB does not use serial numbers of parts to ID planes. There are much better, more reliable ways to do that. Those ways were used on 9/11 to ID AA77 quite convincingly to any but the most adolescent, most contrarian of minds.
__

As to your question:

Sure it counts.

It counts as an example of a case that proves my point. The case you are citing is an aircraft accident. It was not a hijacking.

If you want to make your point, find a hijacking that was investigated by the NTSB in which they listed the serial numbers of the parts found.
__

You're on the wrong thread with this discussion. It belongs over on the "When did they ID AA77 thread".

Here is my answer to your question over there:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and the post immediately following.
___


Tom

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
And the final nail in your coffin to show your either lying or uninformed:

Why do you kids always do this ... just before shooting yourselves in the foot?

I am REALLY curious.


Tom

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Does this one count? Its from your source:

1.6.1 General Aircraft Information The accident airplane, serial number 0146, was manufactured by Cessna AircraftCompany on October 22, 1991, and was certified to 14 CFR Part 25 standards.

Jeez. I figured as much.....talk about grasping for straws.

First off, every airplane has a unique serial number and you don't need to find it in the wreckage to know what the serial number of a crashed airplane is. If you know the registration number, you can figure out the serial number. See this familiar example. The fact that they list the serial number in the "GENERAL AIRCRAFT INFORMATION" section of the report is not unusual.

But what leads you to believe that they identified the wreckage using that serial number?

"Find me one report stating that a crashed aircraft was ID'ed using part numbers and serial numbers. I don't need to see the parts or know the serial numbers, and I don't need a chain of custody report(all the things that you truthers constantly demand)."

Did you not understand what I was asking for? I was talking about individual parts actually used to identify the crashed plane...not a passing mention of the airplanes line number - see your copy/paste below for more information...

Copy/Pasted by Swing Dangler

NTSB Question-

"Will the NTSB refer to recovered aircraft component serial number data, to determine the positive ID of an aircraft following a mishap, in the absence of other identifying data?"

According to Susan Stevenson of the NTSB on 12/26/2007

"Yes. NTSB investigators rarely encounter a scenario when the identification of an accident aircraft is not apparent. But during those occasions, investigators will record serial numbers of major components, and then contact the manufacturer of those components in an attempt to determine what aircraft the component was installed upon."

Thanks for proving my point. How about you actually read what you posted. They are talking about rare circumstances, like I dont know....maybe a plane that crashes in an aircraft boneyard!


Star for Swing Dangler!





[edit on 21-12-2009 by 767doctor]

[edit on 21-12-2009 by 767doctor]

[edit on 21-12-2009 by 767doctor]

I've been watching from the sidelines again, but haven't had much interest
in the current discussion. Does anyone care to talk about the animation
and raw data?

It's no 'smoking gun', but the final altitude in the animation has always
bothered me. I'm wondering why/how the changes in Pressure Altitude
did not update when crossing through 18,000 feet on descent, even though
the BARO COR columns were updated.

Originally posted by turbofan
It's no 'smoking gun', but the final altitude in the animation has always
bothered me. I'm wondering why/how the changes in Pressure Altitude
did not update when crossing through 18,000 feet on descent, even though
the BARO COR columns were updated.

Simple answer: Pressure altitude, by definition, is always referenced to 1013 mB or 29.92 in Hg. You won't see the effects of baro correction in that particular parameter.

Long answer: I've looked at the data frame layouts and can't find any parameters that record the Capt's or F/O's actual altimeter data, including baro correction. I suppose you could take total static pressure parameter( port D5, label 246, word 90) and correct it manually with the baro correction parameters(port D5, label 235, word 147 for Capts side). But the units are different, so you'd have to do some conversion as well. I'm actually kind of shocked that with 1100 parameters, the altimeters themselves are not recorded. Ditto for the VSI.

eta: you'd do well to forget about the animation and just look at the data.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by 767doctor]

Thanks for that Jay.

I cannot forget about the animation for the fact that the
altimeter changes 18K feet on ascent, but does not change
on descent through 18K feet.

Very odd considering the animation is based on the raw file.

Originally posted by turbofan
Thanks for that Jay.

I cannot forget about the animation for the fact that the
altimeter changes 18K feet on ascent, but does not change
on descent through 18K feet.

Very odd considering the animation is based on the raw file.

I agree that its unusual and we discussed it at length at JREF; not sure what the verdict was. I say forget about it, because we have no idea what was done to produce the animation. It's based on the raw file, sure, but we also know that the aerial imagery that was used as a backdrop doesn't line up with the 61.5 degree true track(we figured out that the magnetic variation at DCA is about 10.5 degrees W, and the map was aligned 21 degrees off in the opposite direction - they rotated they map the wrong way from true north).

But, to reiterate: pressure altitude is pressure altitude. Since there is no parameter for baro corrected altitude, they either looked at a combination of the other parameters I mentioned above, or simply tweaked the output in some way. No biggie. Like I said, we have the raw data. Raw data > animation.

I'll have to look deeper at the parameters at some point.

From my understanding based on the L3 ROSE and CEFA web site, the
animation is generated via a software program directly from the raw
file. This is why the anomaly bothers me.

The raw file is certainly of more value than the animation I'll agree.

Originally posted by turbofan
Thanks for that Jay.

I cannot forget about the animation for the fact that the
altimeter changes 18K feet on ascent, but does not change
on descent through 18K feet.

Very odd considering the animation is based on the raw file.

Another indicator that the pilots during the descent thru 18K feet were not the same pilots that had been at the controls during the ascent thru 18K feet.

During the ascent, the professional pilots reset the Kollman to 29.92 like they were supposed to.

During the descent, the amateur pilot forgot to reset it to the local baro pressure.

Still think that they were the same pilots, turbo??


Tom

Note that the reading in the cockpit altimeter is not the same signal as the reading that gets sent to the FDR. It may, or may not, be coming from the same aneroid in the ADC. But the one that gets sent to the cockpit has a manual adjustment for the local baro pressure. The one sent to the FDR does not get this adjustment.

This means that you should not see that sudden adjustment in the FDR data as they ascended thru 18K feet.

Once the Kollman gets set to 29.92 (all the time AFTER they ascended thru 18K feet), they ought to be close. Before that time, there will be an offset, because the baro pressure was 30.something when they took off.



[edit on 22-12-2009 by thomk]

Well, they couldn't have known the local BARO without contacting ATC.

Not even sure why a 'terrorist' would want to adjust the calibration if they
were going to crash the aircraft...which is funny because the CSV file shows
a change.

"They" would have to fly the plane on visual aid alone (correct me if I'm wrong) as they would have no assistance from the tower.

As far as I'm aware, the ADC uses a pressure sensor, not a non-fluid
mechanical device (like the stand-by unit).



[edit on 22-12-2009 by turbofan]

Maybe I'm way out of date, and location as well, but I used to tune into a continuous recorded AM transmission from the local control tower (Sydney back then). It consisted of local weather, visibility, wind speed and direction, local baro pressure and finished with 'CAT OK' which I took to be a reference to clear air turbulence (never confirmed that one).

reply to post by turbofan

Well, they couldn't have known the local BARO without contacting ATC.

tf, IF Hanjour wanted the local altimeter setting (he certainly didn't need it, not for whta he intended) he doesn't have to "Contact ATC' for it. It's available on the ATIS frequency.



Upper right hand corner, from that chart (the Airport Diagram) Frequency 132.65

If, instead of the airport diagram (that would usually be the 10-7 page in a Jeppesen subscription of IFR charts) he might have had an ILS plate:



The ATIS frequency is on every SID, STAR, Approach Plate, just about everywhere you look.

AND, it doesn't need to be a publication specific to IFR...EVERY Terminal Chart, Sectional Chart, Pilot's VFR Airport Directory Handbook...you name it.

But, Hanjour really didn't need to have the local setting, anyway as I said. It was certainly there and available though, if he cared to just tune the Comm radio. Any pilot would be able to figure out how to do that....



[edit on 22 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Pilgrum

... finished with 'CAT OK' which I took to be a reference to clear air turbulence (never confirmed that one).

hey, Pilgrum, sorry for this being OT, but it does tie in with FDR on AAL 77 (well, sorta...)

Anyway...the automated recording you spoke of was on an FM band, most likely (although maybe you were listening in what we call 'HF' (high frequency)?? AKA the 'Ham' band on the radio spectrum...

And, it was not "CAT OK"....was "CAV OK"....'Clear and Visibility OK'

You won't hear that in the USA, it is more an ICAO (International) term.

Originally posted by turbofan
Well, they couldn't have known the local BARO without contacting ATC.

That's true. But you do not NEED the local Baro to fly the plane. It is used as a "lane divider" to keep the east bound traffic separated from the west bound traffic. But, for planes in the sky, the lanes are about 5 miles wide, and there are very few cars on the road. The chance of any particular plane getting into a mid-air collision are pretty indistinguishable from zero.

Now, if you run thousands of planes per day for years, you're gonna have some problems. And that's why they use the altimeter to separate the traffic.

If you're flying down on the deck, or in poor visibility, of course it keeps you off of the ground too. But neither of these was an issue on 9/11.

Originally posted by turbofan
Not even sure why a 'terrorist' would want to adjust the calibration if they
were going to crash the aircraft...which is funny because the CSV file shows
a change.

No, the CSV data does NOT show the adjustment. I just checked from 12K to 25K feet altitude.

The CSV is exactly what 767doc & I told you: Pressure Altitude. Which is, by definition, uncorrected.

The PILOT'S altimeter alone (NOT the FDR data) should show a correction as they pass thru 18K feet..

Originally posted by turbofan
"They" would have to fly the plane on visual aid alone (correct me if I'm wrong) as they would have no assistance from the tower.

Cripes, Tino. How long now?

Read the NTSB AA77 / UA93 Autopilot study. It's only been out since Feb. 2002. They put it on autopilot.

Originally posted by NTSB
"A few minutes after the hijackers took control of the cockpit (at approximately 08:52), the horizontal mode was changed to a heading select and the airplane began a 180-degree turn back towards Washington. After the new heading was selected, and up until the last nine minutes of the flight, the autopilot operated in modes that receive inputs from the MCP (i.e., target values of altitude, speed, and heading set directly by the operators of the aircraft) rather than from the FMC."

"... At approximately 9:29, while at an altitude of 7000 feet and approximately 30 nautical miles
from Washington Reagan National Airport, the autopilot and autothrottle were disengaged. "

The autopilot flew the heading for them, right to the Pentagon. Once they got within about 8 miles of Reagan at 7000', they picked up the Pentagon visually. They spiraled down in a maneuver that all student pilots learn from the get-go.

There was nothing hard about the navigation.

Originally posted by turbofan
As far as I'm aware, the ADC uses a pressure sensor, not a non-fluid mechanical device (like the stand-by unit).

We've been thru this ... how many times??

An aneroid IS a pressure sensor. As (was it 767doc?) showed you, the ADC's that 757 era jets used, DID use mechanical aneroids. He even provided a diagram showing it.

Combining an aneroid with a DVDT transforms pressure into an electrical signal.

The new sensors are epitaxial strain gauges. They do exactly the same thing. Turn mechanical deformation into an electrical signal.

Nonetheless, whether it's an older aneroid with a DVDT or one of the new types is completely irrelevant to the operation. They do the same thing.

The question was "do the cockpit altimeter and the FDR recorder get their info from the same sensor?"

And since the only numbers that we have now are the FDR numbers, that whole question is moot, too.

Tom

[edit on 22-12-2009 by thomk]

I gotta side with turboman on this one. At subframe 150556 (18,049 feet) the BARO COR NO. 2 (inHg) parameter is changed from 29.91 to 30.23 and remains that for the duration. NO. 1 is ultimately changed to 30.24.

On the first leg of the flight, these 'corrections' are reflected in the NTSB animation, but not in the final leg. And yes, this is a rather interesting anomaly in my book. So yes, the 'pilot' could (and most likely would) get the 'correction' value from a source other than ATC (I don't recall hearing that exchange between pilots and ATC in any of the recordings I have listened to for any plane), and I don't think it odd that Hanjour would have entered the 'corrections'. I do find it odd that they are not reflected in the animation however.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by 911files
I gotta side with turboman on this one. At subframe 150556 (18,049 feet) the BARO COR NO. 2 (inHg) parameter is changed from 29.91 to 30.23 and remains that for the duration. NO. 1 is ultimately changed to 30.24.

On the first leg of the flight, these 'corrections' are reflected in the NTSB animation, but not in the final leg. And yes, this is a rather interesting anomaly in my book. So yes, the 'pilot' could (and most likely would) get the 'correction' value from a source other than ATC (I don't recall hearing that exchange between pilots and ATC in any of the recordings I have listened to for any plane), and I don't think it odd that Hanjour would have entered the 'corrections'. I do find it odd that they are not reflected in the animation however.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by 911files]

I see what you're saying.

I misinterpreted what Turbo said. My bad.

I interpreted Turbo's statement:

Originally posted by Turbofan
I cannot forget about the animation for the fact that the altimeter changes 18K feet on ascent, but does not change on descent through 18K feet.

... as indicating that they did not reset the Kollman during descent.

Turbo, what were you referring to?

My point was that the CSV PRESSURE ALTITUDE data would not show that adjustment. (The release of CSV data that I have from Warren doesn't contain the Baro Correction info. I went to the PA data to look for a step change.)

And, of course, the PA data doesn't show any jumps at that subframe or any other.


Tom

Turbo, what were you referring to?

My point was that the CSV PRESSURE ALTITUDE data would not show that adjustment. (The release of CSV data that I have from Warren doesn't contain the Baro Correction info. I went to the PA data to look for a step change.)

And, of course, the PA data doesn't show any jumps at that subframe or any other.

Tom

Yes, Warren added the BARO COR in a more recent version. You are correct that the CSV pulls the 'standard' rather than 'corrected' PA. As you know, I don't know the in's and out's of the altimeter in the cockpit, but it does look like Hanjour entered 'corrections' as he descended through 18,000.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by 911files]