Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Reheat
For legitimate readers ... need the magic equipment to fly to their destination safely. PERHAPS, It's as simple as that.

edit on 8-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

So you agree the coordinates in the FDR were inaccurate but basically it doesn't affect the flight?
That about sum up your position.?

Accuracy? Is 3,000 feet accurate in a system that drifts 4,800 feet an hour?

The 757 FMC system uses what for navigation?
www.biggles-software.com...

Please explain what is the proper accuracy is? Reference/Source?
Please explain how the pilot knows what the accuracy is?

What is accurate enough to fly 8 NM wide airways in 2001?

reply to post by iSunTzu


So how accurate do you think the FDR data was in giving the planes position over the course of the flight?
The way I read it, if you start 3000' out then it doesn't get any better..
Not with the old INS system and no GPS..

Out of curiosity I thought I'd do a kmz from the UAL93 positional data extracted by Warren Stutt just to see what the behaviour of the INS was when it departed Newark.



Oh my, the plane took off from the roof of a warehouse

reply to post by 911files

Oh my, the plane took off from the roof of a warehouse

That can't be good....
Maybe Warren's figures may have been out a little bit.??

reply to post by backinblack


Well, same phenomenon you see with the AAL77 take-offs (all of them). Then the recorded coordinates align with the radar recorded path once airborne. Not sure if this is the case for UAL93 because I have not plotted the radar data for it in GE. But looks like a familiar pattern with this INS system.

Update

I decided to go ahead an import the GIB radar data (circles) into GE for UAL93 just to see if the pattern holds.



Indeed it does. Shortly after take-off and turning west, the recorded coordinates begin to 'align' with the recorded radar flight path.

reply to post by 911files

Indeed it does. Shortly after take-off and turning west, the recorded coordinates begin to 'align' with the recorded radar flight path.

How do they align.??

reply to post by backinblack


Well that is more a question for the pilots, not me. All I know is that for both planes, the recorded FDR positional data 'aligns' with the recorded radar positional path. At take-off, large errors in position. After take-off, the on-board system adjusts smoothly until the difference between recorded and actual position diminishes to within the error range of the radar.

In other words, the positional data recorded in the FDR's from both planes is VERY inaccurate on the ground, but once the plane gets airborne, the data is 'corrected' and becomes a more reliable indicator of position. Why? Hey, that is for those familiar with the systems to debate. It is enough just to understand that is what the data does and for this discussion whether or not the FDR positional data can be used to determine an exact gate position for departure.

Here is my archive of kmz files for anyone who wants to view this in GE.
KMZ Files

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 911files

 

Indeed it does. Shortly after take-off and turning west, the recorded coordinates begin to 'align' with the recorded radar flight path.

How do they align.??

They don't align, the FMC uses the best position based on an algorithm. Not align, position is updated by the FMC, the position gets as good as the inputs it has.
The FMC uses DME, in the FDR the VOR frequency is tuned in by the FMC to update position, with DME-DME, the accuracy can get as good as .24 NM.

www.biggles-software.com...
I gave you this reference already.

reply to post by iSunTzu


Yeah, I am familiar with that stuff, but I let you pilot types discuss the why. I'm sick of hearing "you are not a pilot so you don't know!" Over on JREF I defer to Beachnut and Reheat to slap the P4T's around with the aero-techno stuff.

By the way, you are using a different definition of 'align' than I am. You have to be careful with terminology, the majority of us are not pilots. The data sets do 'align' with one another after take-off, that is a fact. Now in the context of the INS operation aligning can have a whole different meaning, but I am not referring to that (hence the use of quote marks).

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by iSunTzu

 

Yeah, I am familiar with that stuff, but I let you pilot types discuss the why. I'm sick of hearing "you are not a pilot so you don't know!" Over on JREF I defer to Beachnut and Reheat to slap the P4T's around with the aero-techno stuff.

I'm no aviation expert, but I do know something about surveying and cartography and I know you can't just plop northings and eastings on a Google Earth aerial and expect to get an accurate picture of something's horizontal "behavior". You have to tie or reference the coordinates into that State's plane coordinate system and then you can plot those behavior points, but they are only going to be accurately relative if everything else on the plot is also tied into the same coordinate plane.

reply to post by hooper


Tell that to P4T. They don't seem to understand that

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by hooper

 

Tell that to P4T. They don't seem to understand that

No thanks, I think it would be easier to try and tell water not to be so wet.

So, what do you think? Are they simply relying on people (and for good reason) not to know anything about mapping? But they must realize that getting something pass a few 's on the internet is one thing, trying to bamboozle the general public is another.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by hooper

 

Tell that to P4T. They don't seem to understand that

No thanks, I think it would be easier to try and tell water not to be so wet.

So, what do you think? Are they simply relying on people (and for good reason) not to know anything about mapping? But they must realize that getting something pass a few

's on the internet is one thing, trying to bamboozle the general public is another.

P4T and CIT are being 'discredited' by others in the 'truth movement'. The paper by Legge and Stutt being one example, and recent remarks by Gage another. They are in a hole and scrambling to gain some kind of attention, throwing 'mud' until something sticks to the wall. It is not 'debunkers' that are their problem right now.

Keep in mind, this is Rob Balsamo's life we are talking about. Without P4T he fades into oblivion, and P4T has put their plane into a stall with little hope of recovery.

reply to post by 911files

The paper by Legge and Stutt being one example,

Considering most agree the FDR is not that accurate given the old INS system with no GPS, their paper seems to be based of far more accurate position information than it seems the equipment is capable of..

Face it you will never know the "truth". How do you know this truth seeking information has been manipulated to fulfil the subculture's need? It's quite easy for a computer nerd to sit behind his computer, make loads of made up information up and present it as fact.

I did have a phase of looking at things like this because some of it is convincing, yet you can always find a counter argument if you look for it, rather than reading something and take it as the truth, truth and nothing but the truth.

reply to post by Zanti Misfit


Hello Zanti Misfit,

A large aircraft flying at 500 knots wings level close to the level ground is going to experience ground effect pushing up. Think about a person water skiing, the water feel like it is solid to the skier.

The landing gear would not be down, lowering the gear at high speed would tear off the gear doors and cause flight control problems.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Thermo Klein,

Your statement about a big increase in indicated airspeed seems to point to inconsistency between was is recorded and what is likely or even possible. However consider that the density of the air increases as you decend from 8000 feet to sea level, combined with the acceleration of the descent and some throttle up when
the target point is selected. The change in indicated air speed is consistant with my flight experience in very large aircraft at high speed and low level.

The aircraft would not appear to be accelerating that much as observed from the ground, the instuments are
partially reflecting the change in density of the atmosphere close to the ground.

Hope that helps. I accept the NTSB report as my gospel on this matter and I see a record of the OS, case closed for me

reply to post by whatwasthat

The change in indicated air speed is consistant with my flight experience in very large aircraft at high speed and low level.

So how many times have you flown a "very large aircraft" at 500knts within 20' of the ground ??

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
NTSB data right from the source... gotta love it. Someday we will have absolute proof.

The airplane indicated in this data dove at a consistent rate of about 35 feet per second (35 f/s) for the last 4 minutes of the flight from 8,000 ft to 0 ft [black line], but the airspeed stayed at about 300 knots [green] until the very last few seconds when it jumped to about 450 knots (based on the graph) in about one minute.

edit on 6-3-2011 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)