It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FAA or 84RADES data falsified, or both.

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AJ_Frost
 

2. You prefer not to answer as you know it incriminates and invalidates anything trebor has said on this thread.


Okay, using your standards I can consider everything at P4T as "invalid" because of their 11.2G error. And I can also consider anything that you have posted as "invalid" because you claimed that a SID would be included on a flight strip.


originally posted by AJ_Frost
Wrong. Gopher06 was not assigned the Camp Springs One. It is not on the strip. Why would ATC omit a SID on the strip, but include a STAR?

If Gopher06 were assigned Camp Springs SID (Standard Departure), it would be noted as such, just as is the STAR EAU5 (Standard Arrival) into MSP.


Are you sure you want to play that game, AJ?




posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


You know, Boone, it is not worth arguing over. The Camp Springs One and an assigned Departure Heading of 270 are the same thing. Of course, Gopher 06 complied with the altitude restriction. In fact, if I remember correctly he was at 4000' crossing DCA, which is 1000' above the minimum altitude. Perhaps you remember that from the tape and can confirm it or not.

It is grossly in error to believe that a Morning Side One SID would be assigned with an assigned heading of 270 when that heading is exactly the same as the Camp Springs One. In fact, the Morning Side One proposition is just plain silly.

There really is no more that needs to be confirmed about the heading and when Gopher 06 turned. He turned on TO leg as confirmed by timing on the
tape. That took him on the radar and RADES depicted flight path.

In fact, this thread should have ended several pages ago with the 84 RADES data and the FAA radar data confirmed as valid. But, I guess there'll be more attempted diversions from "professionals".

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Ya know...when I looked again at Camp Springs I noted that in the textual description for RW 1 departures it says quite clearly to fly a "270 track."

This indicates to me that it is in the RNAV database...

Perhaps the controller just gave the 270 heading instruction out of habit? OR, to intitiate the "expect RADAR vectors" part. I mean, he hands off to Potomac, with the HDG already assigned...so Potomac knows what he's working with.

I've never worked for ATC....so, if there are any controllers out there, is the way I understand it, the way it's done?

I'm just a mere pilot, with four type ratings and around 20,000 hours...so, what do I know?


edit for one lousy missing word: 'in'
As in, 'in the RNAV database'...

[edit on 6/9/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


It is grossly in error to believe that a Morning Side One SID would be assigned with an assigned heading of 270 when that heading is exactly the same as the Camp Springs One. In fact, the Morning Side One proposition is just plain silly.


You're probably right, Reheat. Even the Grand Poobah is admitting (or at least not contesting his ATC expert's opinion) that GOFER06 flew out on a 270° heading.

We know that there was a transcript made from the recording at Andrews and I know of at least one person who has a FOIA request for the tape, so we'll have to wait and see if the C-130 was issued Camp Springs One (I have no doubt that it was).



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This indicates to me that it is in the RNAV database...


That is a thought, however, what's in the RNAV database? There is no fix of any kind shown for a track. The way it's depicted on the overhead view it's merely a heading.

I believe if RNAV were required it would have RNAV printed on the heading of the SID, yes?

Also, I seriously doubt that Herc had RNAV. Guard units tend to get updates to equipment last in line, so I seriously doubt he had anything except TACAN and VOR. There is a remote possibility he had INS in order to fly without a Navigator, but certainly not GPS. He filed an equipment Code I, so we still don't know exactly what he had.

Perhaps, that track statement is the reason for assigning the heading. In order to avoid any confusion.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
We know that there was a transcript made from the recording at Andrews and I know of at least one person who has a FOIA request for the tape, so we'll have to wait and see if the C-130 was issued Camp Springs One (I have no doubt that it was).


I guess you're referring to the Clearance Delivery frequency., as we already have the Tower tape.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by AJ_Frost
Its called a typo, but i dont [sic] expect you to understand. If i continue to make such typos, please feel free to be my personal spell checker. You're good at it!


Thank you for the kind words. You forgot the apostrophe in don't.




Actually, i havent [sic]seen any errors pointed out by the above, They have misquoted, misinterpreted, and proven to be liars. Its in this very thread.

However...
Why hasnt [sic] Boone, Reheat or Weedwacker pointed out the blatant errors of trebor regording[sic] BUFFR intersection? Yeah, we know. Weedwacker explianed [sic]it above. He was insulted someone questioned his "credentials".


Apostrophe missing haven't and in hasn't. Regarding not regording. Explained is not spelled explianed.



So, all the other threads you contributed to in the "past few months" you respect the "troofers" who replied?


I never said I respected or disrespected anyone. I guess it's possible. If showing people that they are being mislead is disrespectful, then so be it.



Have you revisted your "9/11 Truth - Condition Terminal" thread? No, you havent, and we know why. Most sites are now up in traffic.


Nope, but I can bump it up if your interested?

Oh, and it's revisited not revisted. Haven't is missing an apostrophe.


Rob, you must be proud. Up 30% !!!!


Percent of global Internet users who visit pilotsfor911truth.org:
7 day avg 0.00016%
1 month avg 0.00012%
3 month avg 0.000112%

3 month change 30%


www.alexa.com...

I bet those Father's Day Specials are selling like hotcakes huh?



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


According to the transcript I'm using, the recorded position is "ground control." The earliest recording at that position on Farmer's site doesn't start until 9:30 a.m.

GOFER06 had INS.


9:31:40 (Tape 7982 CIA, Ground Control) Gofer 06 requests temporary
hold to enhance INS system
Link



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This indicates to me that it is in the RNAV database...




That is a thought, however, what's in the RNAV database? There is no fix of any kind shown for a track. The way it's depicted on the overhead view it's merely a heading.


OK...you came to the right place for answers. I do not flame. (Except myself, it seems. Had an entire response almost done, then lost it. This is 'response 2.0')

Here goes: AH, grasshopper! You are an apt student. Please, come with me....


I believe if RNAV were required it would have RNAV printed on the heading of the SID, yes?


You mean like this?

flightaware.com...

(something is screwing with the shortcut. It is the LEEVILLE One...LEV1.LEV)

Notice any differences between the two? Not yet?

(hint: the camp springs is a 'track' without any defined fix. "Expect Radar Vectors". Know what to do if you go NORDO? That will be your homework for tomorrow).

The Houston 'RNAV' departure is tied to a defined NAVAID--in this case, the VOR (OK, if you want to be picky, the 'VORTAC'!). Which will be part of the Flight Plan, so it all ties together nicely.


Also, I seriously doubt that Herc had RNAV. Guard units tend to get updates to equipment last in line, so I seriously doubt he had anything except TACAN and VOR. There is a remote possibility he had INS in order to fly without a Navigator, but certainly not GPS.


Ah...grasshopper....well, I should stop the Carradine bit, huh? Guess it's poor taste, now.

reheat, INS is RNAV. You can fly a 'track' on INS alone. Remember, in ancient times, when INS was subject to the precession errors from the friction in the bearings? THEN, they invented ring-laser 'gyros'...no moving parts. Then, they further integrated into what's now called the 'IRS'...precursor to the 'ADIRU'....but, I am straying. Thanks to radio-updating, the precision improved, until we now have that AND GPS updating. (No, this is not a commercial for Honeywell....)



He filed an equipment Code I, so we still don't know exactly what he had.



I found this here:

www.gofir.com/general/rvsm/aircraft_equipment_suffix.htm


FAA Flight Plan Aircraft Suffixes

Effective September 1, 2005



Suffix
Equipment Capability

.....

AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV)

/Y
LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS with no transponder

/C
LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS, transponder with no Mode C

/I
LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS, transponder with Mode C

....


Full chart at bottom of page.



Perhaps, that track statement is the reason for assigning the heading. In order to avoid any confusion.


I thought I said that!!




[edit on 6/9/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Dang it, Boone!!!

Ya beat me!!


[edit on 6/9/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Shorter re for reheat, to clarify my long one up above:

reheat:


That is a thought, however, what's in the RNAV database? There is no fix of any kind shown for a track.


Again....I DON'T KNOW what the Hercs have. I DO know in the databases we have on the Boeings, in the case of that sort of SID, the '270 track' would draw a magenta line on the EHSI to infinity.

In those cases you would see a discontinuity on the LEGS page of the CDU. These sorts of procedures have been (for civilians) mostly eliminated.

BTW, in my training, that was the only acceptable time to take-off with a DISCO in your LEGS page!!

(Imagine the fun you could have at parties!!!)




EDITING!

Well...either I've earned some 'cred' with all of those eyes that were "watching"...or they're rapidly thumbing through the pages of 'Flying' magazine to catch up!!



[edit on 6/9/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I guess maybe you're having fun hackin' weeds.

Yes, I am aware that one can fly a track with INS. I used a very precise one for several years.

The Camp Springs One is not an RNAV procedure because it is not printed on the chart. Also, the depiction shows no fix from on which to base a track.

A track without a fix at one end or the other doesn't make sense at all. Basically, it's simply radar vectors after the turn in order for ATC to position the aircraft where they want it.

I suspect Departure Control issued typical Radar Vector instructions after Gopher contacted them i.e. "fly heading xxx radar vectors to xxx.

If the NORDO occurred prior to contacting Departure Control the obvious answer would be to proceed under VFR back to Andrews and land. The answer to the NORDO question in IMC is a "gray area" in the FAR's since there is no end point on the SID (if it was assigned) and we don't yet know if he received radar vectors to xxx. I certainly know what I would do, but it's only common sense. I guess that's why robots don't fly airplanes, yet.

Did I pass? No, I won't do it all over again......



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



The Camp Springs One is not an RNAV procedure because it is not printed on the chart.


OK...goood...


Also, the depiction shows no fix from on which to base a track.


Ermm hmmmm....



A track without a fix at one end or the other doesn't make sense at all.


You're doing quite well....but! What about a track "off-set"???


Basically, it's simply radar vectors after the turn in order for ATC to position the aircraft where they want it.


Yeah, but! Since the SID defines the 3-mile ADW arc...and the crossing restriction at the 8 DME, it's not that simple. However...I know what you mean.


I suspect Departure Control issued typical Radar Vector instructions after Gopher contacted them i.e. "fly heading xxx radar vectors to xxx.


We should find the TRACON tape!!



If the NORDO occurred prior to...


OK, that's enough.

You're good to go!

I won't torture you any more.



Editing here because: I thought (though, who am I to 'think'?) that the last few pages of this thread needed a time out. AND a bit of clarity about certain aviation procedures. I think we may have accomplished that. Even IF it seemed OT, I think it was all pertinent.

[edit on 6/10/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Originally posted by Reheat

A track without a fix at one end or the other doesn't make sense at all.


You're doing quite well....but! What about a track "off-set"???


I've never seen a track off-set of any kind on either an approach or a SID. Do you know of any examples? Tacan approaches typically may include an arc, but I certainly don't recall any with an off-set track.


Basically, it's simply radar vectors after the turn in order for ATC to position the aircraft where they want it.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Yeah, but! Since the SID defines the 3-mile ADW arc...and the crossing restriction at the 8 DME, it's not that simple. However...I know what you mean.


That depiction seems to be showing the "Turn within 3 nm of ADW". I'm not sure the "arc" means anything at all. But, you're right in that the 8 nm altitude restriction would vary slightly depending on where the turn began. That's why I think the Radar Vectors caveat is listed. ATC would just position the aircraft where they wanted it via radar vectors regardless of where the turn occurred.

If it was meant to be a hard track why didn't they just base the track off of DCA VOR/TAC or designate a fix somewhere near DCA?

There is no question it's a strange SID. I've don't recall ever seeing one like it. I know someone who lives in the area and has contacts at Andrews. We can always ask him to see if he can contact their TERPS person and find out more about it if it continues to be a question. I doubt it's relevant as the contention is that Gopher didn't fly it......


I suspect Departure Control issued typical Radar Vector instructions after Gopher contacted them i.e. "fly heading xxx radar vectors to xxx.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
We should find the TRACON tape!!


The tape is available and I've listened to it, but I was only interested in the encounter with AA 77 at the time. It won't solve anything as the tapes have been labeled as "falsified" anyway. They have to be "falsified" in order to continue the delusion that Gopher flew on a more Northerly track close to P-56. This discussion and/or the tape won't resolve that issue at all.



[edit on 10-6-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 10-6-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



I've never seen a track off-set of any kind on either an approach or a SID.


Right! Bit of a trick question. We use the off-set feature sometimes when Oceanic. For WX avoidance. That way you can LNAV.

Other, less preferred method is to build a parallel in 'RTE2' and HDG SEL along it, as a guide when dodging WX.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by AJ_Frost
 


When did i ever admit (or anyone else for that matter), that the vector was issued "post-departure" as you have falsely claimed and failed to provide direct quote? You do realize you are in voilation of ATS T&C Ik when making such false claims, right?



posted by Rob Balsamo
The above is clear to any real pilot that Gopher06 delayed his turn after departure. ATC does not ask once, nor twice, to turn to heading if assigned prior to departure.

Post #5



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Reheat :
The tape is available and I've listened to it, but I was only interested in the encounter with AA 77 at the time. It won't solve anything as the tapes have been labeled as "falsified" anyway. They have to be "falsified" in order to continue the delusion that Gopher flew on a more Northerly track close to P-56. This discussion and/or the tape won't resolve that issue at all.


Please read my latest post in the “Prove or disprove a Pentagon fly-over” thread, page 10:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are quite some astonishing discrepancies in those tapes.



posted on Jun, 17 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

There are quite some astonishing discrepancies in those tapes.


Wow! And you're the very first to discover this amazing information. I think you should post it on "truther" sites all over the Internet. It might just revive the "movement" and provide the very first piece of "evidence" that pwooves 9/11 was an "inside jobby job".



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
This is an interesting discussion about the differences between the raw Flight 77 radar data from RADES, processed by John Farmer, and the factual raw radar data from RADES, received by him:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Especially interesting are the 26 seconds discrepancy found by this poster, which does seem to be the same discrepancy John farmer did find through different reasoning, and started to let him doubt some of the offered officially FOIA released Flight 77 data, he received.



—snip—
1. In general, the final AA77 data in the raw file differs materially from the processed file.

2. The final raw file return is at about 13:38:12 or about 26 seconds after the last one recorded in the processed file.

3. The last sweep in the processed file is number 492 timed at 13:37:46 but the raw file has returns for six more sweeps up to number 498 at about 13:38:12.
–snip--


Those 26 seconds more in the raw FAA data of Flight 77 do not fit in the audio file discrepancies from my above post, also not if one should suppose the 14 seconds introductory voice duration as not belonging to the original audio file, which they however do.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


LaB...I am still studying what you brought.

Although it is from another source, I will attempt to analyze it with an open and critical outlook.

There is an important point to remember, however: Pilots, real pilots, will not be fooled by subterfuge....



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join