New FDR Decode

reply to post by turbofan


I AM sorry, Tino, but you're still wrong.

I mean, you as a layperson, can read ALL of the Boeing 757 manuals you may wish, but you will NOT have the practical knowledge and experience I have, NOR can I convey everything I know in this forum.

OK, in ONE aspect you are correct, in THAT....any given location of ANY gear, while in transit, is not recorded....ONLY its position, whether "down and locked" or "up and locked"....in-between states are NOT measured.

Staying on this aspect (only ONE of many, if you will recall, that I supposed in order to refute your original contention) there are STILL a multitude of parameters that must be agreed to, in order to supply the "logic" for the lights, as displayed to the pilots. It is FAR more than a simple "yes/no" logic switch.....

The landing gear logic circuts are satisfied, of course, IF the sequence behaves in acordance with its design and in the time parameters built in (although the time sequence is irrelevant, really, except to offer the REASON for any discontinuity, should it be triggered).

IF YOU look deeper into the landing gear system, for example, you will find out many, many things.

IF there is a complete loss of 'normal' hydraulics, for instance, the gear is designed to "free-fall" into the down and locked postion (please note the way the nose gear is designed....it retracts upwards and FOREWORDS, thus in "free-fall" mode it will have air resistance to assist its positioning. into the "down and locked" position. The Main Gear simply use gravity, because they are massive enough....)

The REASON we have QRH procedures, for the unlikely event of a failed gear, whether a Main Gear or Nose Gear, is because while they are designed to free-fall, that assumes NO mechanical jamming, and that HAS been known to happen, in very few cases...(not that I'm aware opf in the B-757/767, but in other Boeings, wiht similar design issues...)

Again, in the event of loss of "normal" hydraulics, we have redundant systems (please see the schematics) to release, via hydraulics, the uplocks, to allow what I described above.

Note, also, that we ARE AWARE (and it is incorporated in our QRH) that in the event of certain hydraulic falure procedures, the "DOORS" light, wihtthe EICAS alerts, will remain on, BECAUSE hydraulics are required to close the main gear doors...

Trust me, I have a type rating on these airplanes, AND I am well trained in their operations....

The complexities involved in JUST this one, of very many, sub-systems goes to prove that the notion of somehow "faking" the FDR, by use of a simulator, is just a load of nonsense...

As I've mentioned, before, the computer languages alone are not compatible.

I challenge anyone to prove THAT wrong....




[edit on 24 January 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by turbofan

 

OK, in ONE aspect you are correct, in THAT....any given location of ANY gear, while in transit, is not recorded....ONLY its position, whether "down and locked" or "up and locked"....in-between states are NOT measured.

Correct.

Again, in the event of loss of "normal" hydraulics, we have redundant systems (please see the schematics) to release, via hydraulics, the uplocks, to allow what I described above.

How does this effect the logic state of a switch? Also, how would this
impede the ability to simulate/emulate the locked position of the gear
in a flight simulator?

Note, also, that we ARE AWARE (and it is incorporated in our QRH) that in the event of certain hydraulic falure procedures, the "DOORS" light, wihtthe EICAS alerts, will remain on, BECAUSE hydraulics are required to close the main gear doors...

This is easily programmed via software to simulate such an event.

You don't need hydraulics. You don't need landing gear. You don't
need any sort of equipment.

Computer programming is what I'm talking about.

This is the same concept as simulating engine thrust and not having
engine.

The simulator does not have engines, but it can simulate the aircraft
taking off. It can simulate the speed of an aircraft in flight. The sim.
can trigger warning sounds if the trainee exceeds a certain speed.

The complexities involved in JUST this one, of very many, sub-systems goes to prove that the notion of somehow "faking" the FDR, by use of a simulator, is just a load of nonsense...

As I've mentioned, before, the computer languages alone are not compatible.

I challenge anyone to prove THAT wrong....

It's not a cakewalk, but the example I gave you above proves it can
be done with software. The simulator does not have ailerons, rudders,
Angle of attack sensors, etc., but all of these parameters are recorded
and or programmed to simulate the pilot making these adjustments.

The simulator does not have fuel, but the software can represent fuel
capacity. These parameters are recorded.

There are hundreds of examples where the simulator is not equipped
with 'real world' gear, yet it is programmed to respond and react to
these elements.

Faking an FDR file using a flight simulator is very reasonable. I'm not
saying that is what happened, I'm saying it's a possibility.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


I get it, from your viewpoint as merely a computer programmer, but STILL when you contemplate the complexites involved, IF such a deception were to be attempted, I fail to see it as possible at all, not with our current technology....maybe on Star Trek though.

In any event, as I've pointed out, it requires repeating...I truly doubt the computer languages and protocols used by variuous simulator manufacturers are compatible with the various FDR manufacturers...

Meaning, you can't simply "plug in" an FDR to the simulators' computers, and expet to re-create a simulated or "faked" flight!!! It just ain't that easy, and it don't work that way. Period.

EVERY parameter that is recorded by the FDR has a purpose, and a function, and it is nigh on impossible for anyone to be able to "fake" every parameter in such a way that it all makes logical sense, and displays every aspect of airplane operation, in the proper sequence, with no 'mistakes' that could be glaring enough to actually be pounced upon by the so-called "Pilots" who are notorious for attempting to do so....

...they have failed MISERABLY so many times, by now, and they will continue to fail, because they are tilting at windmills....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by turbofan

 

not with our current technology....maybe on Star Trek though.

The tech has been around for ages. It's not really advanced tech in
the sense of creating a time machine...

I truly doubt the computer languages and protocols used by variuous simulator manufacturers are compatible with the various FDR manufacturers...

Weed: All systems comply to a standard called ARINC. There are
different versions of ARINC, IE: 429, 573, 701, etc.

www.arinc.com...

All electronics going into the aircraft must comply with this protocol if
the manufacturer uses this standard.

Therefore FDR manufacturers that want to sell units and survive in the
industry will have compliant recorders. YOu can even see the listed
standards on their web site. Here is the PDF; notice the many protocols
this device supports:

www.l-3ar.com...

Once again, it is very easy to interface the FDR with a flight simulator.


Question for you:

If you fly 757's, you must train in a 757 simulator, or something every
similar correct?

Do the controls and interior of the flight sim have the same controls as
a real 757? IE: CDU's, Throttle levers, rudder pedals, gauges, etc?

reply to post by turbofan


Yes, and yes.

I have often fantacized about having enough money to fund a trip, with certain ATS memers, to buy time in a simlator, and film it, then post it in ATS online media for all to see...

Question for you:

If you fly 757's, you must train in a 757 simulator, or something every
similar correct?

Yes. Depending on the simulator, it can recreate as closely as possible the actual airplanes that our airline actually operates.

The base B-757 is the standard, and since the FAA acknowledges that a type rating in ONE is the same as the OTHER, we get a type rating of "B-757/767" on our airman's certificates...

On the back, where the "type ratings" are listed.

(AT LEAST, in the old Certificate design...am looking at mine just to remember....)

Do the controls and interior of the flight sim have the same controls as a real 757? IE: CDU's, Throttle levers, rudder pedals, gauges, etc?

Of course!!!

The full-motion simulators re-create in EXACT dimensons of the actual cockpit layouts of the real airplane. Seats, seatbelts, EVERYTHING!!! AND, of course, every "guage" or any other instrument....the ONLY thing different, in a training simulator, is what is BEHIND the normal flight crew stations....it is the place the simulator instructor sits....HE/SHE has control over all of the programming, the location, the visuals, the faults that can be inputted, per the syllabus....not sure how else to descrive htis, unless you've experienced it for yourself.....

(You really MUST visit one to understand more completley....see above)

Originally posted by weedwhackerOf course!!!

The full-motion simulators re-create in EXACT dimensons of the actual cockpit layouts of the real airplane. Seats, seatbelts, EVERYTHING!!! AND, of course, every "guage" or any other instrument...

OK, then why do you feel it's so difficult for the exact instrumentation
in a simulator to interface with an FDR when it's THE SAME as an actual
aircraft?

It's basically a real airplane with the nose cut-off and stuck on some
hydraulic rams to simulate movement (in flight). Those same gauges
interface to a computer , just like in the real aircraft and use the ARINC
protocol to communicate.

Those same signals are recorded to the FDR.

No wings, no engines, no fuel, no landing gear, no ailerons, no oil, no rudders,
etc. are needed.

They simply wire the cockpit controls to a computer and use variables,
lights and logic states to write to the flight data recorder unit which
produces the data file that I'm talking about.

sorry for the confusion earlier...I should have started with my previous
post to explain what I meant.

reply to post by turbofan

OK, then why do you feel it's so difficult for the exact instrumentation in a simulator to interface with an FDR when it's THE SAME as an actual aircraft?

BECAUSE by asking that question it displays a lack of knowledge, of aspects I alluded to in other posts.

Really PLEASE provide some example of just HOW a land-based simulator as built and designed for its purpose of training pilots in the BEST simulation techniques possible, for the benefit of the Humans who are training....

PLEASE show us, the ATS audience, EXACTLY how this computer simulation ( and keep in mind that there are various manufacturers...)

....HOW do these computer simulators interact with the FDRs, as installed on the airplanes, in such a way as to "FAKE" data.

BECAUSE, IF you cannot, then this discussion is over.



[edit on 25 January 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


I already explained it with the links to the FDR manufacturer, ARINC
site and the fact that the simulator uses the same instrumentation as
installed on a real aircraft.

The manufacturer of the simulator doesn't matter. They all conform to
the standard...just like your Dell, HP, IBM, Gateway, Acer, computers
are all different manufacturers but use the same format to communicate.

As I've already explained the controls in the flight simulator are not
connected to engines, landing gear, rudders, ailerons...they are connected
to a computer.

THe computer uses a program to interpret your inputs and produces a
reaction on the simulator based on how a real aircraft would respond.

Your displays change accordingly...panel lights illuminate accordingly...
warning sounds/dings if applicable...CDU's update...guages update.

THis is all software and computer controlled.

The computer in the simulator records your actions and spits out a file
for evaluation and study purposes.

Please don't tell me you've never seen a playback of an actual company simulator?

This play back includes all the data that I'm referring to. Here is a YouTube
video of a flight sim:

www.youtube.com...

What do you think is producing all of the engine sounds, displays on the
monitors, lights on the panels?

It's all controlled by a computer.

All of those parameters are recorded.

All of those parameters can be played back via the file...just like the FDR file.

You can hear the instructor at 5:00 say, "we can simulate an engine fire".

THis is done via a file...through the computer.



[edit on 25-1-2010 by turbofan]

It looks like I've found what we need to prove the point:

www.youtube.com...

At 0:50 of this video, you will see a string of computers connected to the
simulator. These are the computers that control the sim.

Here is a link to an ARINC computer card retailer. These cards connect
to your computer and interface with the airplane's communication system.
This is one way to record the file:

www.altadt.com...

Encode and Decode almost Any ARINC-429 PHY Level Label/Word Signal. The First Card in the Industry to Offer Advanced Test Functions of Signal Generation and A/D Signal Capture.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


Tino, I am sorry....that YouTube video proves nothing....it is laughable to an airline pilot.

It IS designed for the layperson, however....so it's glossy and interesting to those who aren't pilots.

I could spend hours dissecting and explaining it point by point, since I DO have a type rating on the B-737 (as well as the B-757/767 too).

But, those hours are not to be spent in this thread....

Once again, I must tell you that there is simply NO WAY that any sort of FDR could possibly interface into a flight simulator in such a way so as to produce the same data as recorded from an ACTUAL airplane!!!

It just doesn't work like that in the real world....sorry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And your ARINC link, while highly interesting, is worthless for this discussion as well....

Really, you should investigate just WHAT the function of that device actually is, not what you beleive it to be!!!

For reference....data acquisition devices NEED to have data sources, correct???

Meaning, ALL of the various components that monitor, let's say, an engine's operations details. ALL of those inputs are 'funnelled' to whatever Data acquisition device technology exists, and competitors are constantly jumping all over themselves to compete and market their own wares...

Surely this is comprehensible to YOU, a person who contracts with systems that are sold to agencies that work in the aerospace field???

I mean....as an engiineer/inventor/ or whatever, please don't lose sight of reality....











[edit on 25 January 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker



Weed, this isn't about whether it's possible...it's whether it happened, or not.

If you can't take the simple facts as proof, I'll call Thales, or some other
simulator manufacturer to prove it.

I mean really; the simulator uses the exact same equipment as found
in a real 757. It uses the same communcation link...but you believe that
all of these protocols must be revised, re-written and reinvented to allow
the instrumentation to communicate?

Why not just save time, money, effort by using the same system as used
in the real aircraft? Seems simple enough to me....and if the ARINC
PCI interface cards for your computer are not enough to convince you,
the caption about 'capturing data' must be?

I'm shocked you wont concede the fact that this technology is here and now...and possible...even after linking a video and ARINC site complete
with computer interface cards and all.

Please don't confuse the fact with connecting a physical FDR unit and
the data file itself. Since day one, I've said the file might have been
created using a flight sim...I'm not going state that an FDR can connect
with the flight sim, however I do believe it's possible from what I've
researched thus far.

Well, I'll see what I can do about recording a phone call to a Sim. manufacturer, or possibly an e-mail. Are you opposed to sending an
alternate e-mail via U2U so that I can copy you in the message?


[edit on 25-1-2010 by turbofan]

[edit on 25-1-2010 by turbofan]

Here it is Weed, right from the manufacturer's web site:

www.cae.com...

Insight|Animation includes all the functionality of Insight|Analysis, as well as provides a compre-hensive and interactive real-time flight animation system that visualizes raw binary data from aircraft and/or full flight simulators.

This software can produce real time animations from real aircraft data AND
FULL FLIGHT SIMULATORS.

Here is another link (PDF) that outlines how computers are connected to
the communication bus to analyse data. Section 3 and forward is quite
interesting:

www.plris.com...


Do I need to continue finding other examples of how computers interface
to simulators and they do in fact produce flight data in the form of actual
flight conditions?

[edit on 26-1-2010 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


Tino, this is were I agree, but I think you mis-understand its implications...

I mean really; the simulator uses the exact same equipment as found in a real 757.

If I could get ahold of the simulator technicians that actually toiled on our devices, perhaps they could shed some light on this...

Of COURSE the devices, the instruments, EVERYTHING we see, as a pilot/user look the same as what's installed in the actual airplane, or else it wouldn't be a very good simulator, would it???

It is what DRIVES the instruments, what triggers the indications, in a simulator, compare to a real airplane....ALL of that that is so very, very different, perhaps not in "display", but in the technology behind it....

I am at a l0ss for the proper words to convey what I mean, it seems...

I try, but it doesn't seem to convey the way I intend....

My reference to the technicians whose job it is to RUN the simulators is apt, I hope.

THEY could tell you much more than I, about the details of how simulators operate, and jsut WHY this notion of somehow "faking" FDR data inputs is nonsense.

I suppose, given time, I could attempt to contact, through my airline, some of them...but I doubt that ANY comments, being provided by me, from them, would be acceptable to those with closed minds...

Let me provide a personal story, and actual occurrence, in one of my sessions in a simulator.

Good thing we strive for "realism" and we all had seatbelts on, because in the middle of a session the simulator "crashed"...not due to any flight scenario, the hydraulics and the supporting computer software that RUN the simulator, from the outside, suffered a failure. THAT system 'crashed', and required a reboot, and all the associated stuff that the Sim technicians had to do, in order to re-establish and "fix" the problem...

We were in it, it was tilted down, low and to the right....so the normal bridge that is used to access and enter the simulator was not accessible, we had to use an alternate "emergency" exit (one that, BTW, does NOT exist on the real airplane!!!)

Well, we ended that session, back to the hotel, and repeated the next day, to finish the syllabus. (We have duty limits per our Union contract, and compensation accordingly...)

Again, apologies if my description is inadequate, but I am doing my best to relate what I know....writing is hard, talking is MUCH, MUCH easier!!!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weed, I'd be happy to converse with one of your simulator techs. I am
not going to defend this fact much longer, but here's another source to
show that the simulator produces authentic ARINC data which can produce
a flight data file:

human-factors.arc.nasa.gov...

Integration of the A330/A340 Full Flight Simulator and other Flight Training
devices through the standardized DIS interface, TUB’s unique research
capabilities in the field of modern flight deck investigations based on a
level D certified Full Flight Simulator for the aircraft types A330 and A340
with a unique research extension allowing fully ARINC compatible display development, Data, Audio and Video recording in real time at up
to 60 Hz, free access to Auto Pilot, Auto Thrust and Flight Management System software as well as the possibility to include new hardware in the
simulation loop could be made available to all DIS compatible simulation players [7].

I'm not really interested in whether, or not a physical flight data recorder
can be connceted to a flight simulator. I have proven beyond a shodow
of a doubt that a flight data file can be produced using a simulator.

This is the basis of my argument which I presented on the previous page.

If you want to discuss the connection of the flight data recorder to the
simulator further, I would be interested in researching more as I believe
they are fully compatible due to the ARINC bus standard.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by turbofan]

[edit on 26-1-2010 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


I don't understand why many of your links aren't working...


Still, you are mistaken, and ARINC aside, it just doesn't wash, this notion of a simulator beiing able to "fake" FDR data, in order to re-create the AA 77 FDR data, or the UA 93 FDR data...it just isn't feasible, sorry.

reply to post by weedwhacker


How can it not be feasible when I just provided several links proving
flight simulators output flight data files?

How can it not be feasible when the link to the CAE website clearly states
their software can recreate an animation from the output file of a flight
simulator?

How can it not be feasible when I linked you to a site that explains that
the output file of the flight simulator is ARINC language?

How can it not be feasilble when the instruments used in the simulator
are taken from a real 757 and use the ARINC protocol language?

Please explain.

P.S. Which of the 'many' links don't work? I have clicked all of them on
this page and they all work except the previous post which I just fixed. Try it again.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan

Which of the 'many' links don't work?

Must have been a glitch on my end, it is not an issue anymore...

I will greedily digest your links, but so far I still think your interpretation of the data is flawed.

Difficult to explain why, probably best to show, but that's may not be possible in the near term.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


Well, you'll have to do your best to show me/us what is flawed about a
system that is designed to output the same information as a real aircraft,
yet cannot be used to create a data file...even when I've shown several authentic
manufacturer links and products that do that very exact thing.

Weed, the flight simulator instrumentation is analogous to taking a real
757, cutting the nose off and sticking it onto a bunch of hydraulic rams.

Same instruments, same output, same data.

There should be no mystery here.

reply to post by turbofan


Please study here, for a start:

en.wikipedia.org...

That was jsut after a simple Google search, something I have never bothered to search for before.

I will find more, in time.


BUT, it isn't as simple as you imagined, the "cutting off the nose of the B-757" scenario.

Not by a longshot.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Just my thoughts on this...

I wouldn't rule it as totally impossible to artifically generate that data as it simply boils down to programming and recording the binary data into the FDR's memory. The problem is the faithful representation of the 42-odd hours of data recovered and the computer power available in 2001 to get it just right in the timeframe available.

I see it as remotely possible, yet highly improbable.