New FDR Decode

reply to post by weedwhacker


What is your link refuting specifically? I see a history of flight simulator
design , regulations, desktop software, gaming simulators...but nothing
about the output data and file creation?

Once again, there's nothing "simple" about the flight simulator. It is however
an exact instrument copy of a real aircraft and therefore produces the
SAME displays, and SAME data.

Keep on searching for something to debate this fact.

I'm about ready to call up Thales, Mechtronix, or some other MFG and just bury this point...

reply to post by turbofan

I'm about ready to call up Thales, Mechtronix, or some other MFG and just bury this point...

Please do so, AND dont forget Rediffusion, Rockwell/Collins, etc....

They don't ALL offer products for every airplane out there...

I cannot tell you who actually BUILT the simulators, and other training devices that I've used (CPT, the 'wooden wonders", as we jokingly called, them), etc.

The companies that BUILT them weren't important to our undertanding of how to use them (well maybe the instructors knew...but only as a side issue of a tidbit of knowledge, again perfectly irrelevant).

I remember, years ago, when I was in our Training Center and a CPT for the B-777 had just been delivered. It was in a whole bunch of boxes, and I thought "How fun that would be to put together, like a model kit" but, of course, it was far, far more complicated than that....just he CPT had an entire WALL of computers, in order to run the software to operate the machine....Oh, BTW, a "CPT" is acronym for "Cockpit Procedures Trainer".

It is a device that mimics, as in a full-motion simulator, all the controls found in the cockpit...AND it requires gigantic computer support, and software, and whatever techinical details that are beyond my knowledge or expertise, JUST to simulate, in a NON-MOVING device, for training purposes...the activcities that would be seen in a real airplane cockpit.

Tino, without having experienced what I have experienced, you will not understand, and I fail to convey, sometimes, adequately, in this forum.

What you need to do is actaully GO see how pilots train, what we use, etc....perhaps with a certain amount of 'begging', or even money, you can...you're Canadian, they are a very reasonable people. Contact Air Canada, or any other major airline in Canada....

If I ever win a lottery, I'd offer to fund a project for the good of ATS, and its members....but, I suppose even THEN there would still be controversy. It's impossible to convince those with such closed minds.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Contact CAE too, if you wish...
www.cae.com...

If one would care to investigate fruther, and actually speak to the manufacturers, and to the instructors who operate the machines, and to the technicians who maintain the machines....

Well, then one may begin to undertand....












[edit on 26 January 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by thomk

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

Even in accidents, the NTSB does not use serial numbers of parts to ID planes.

Ooops your wrong!

Why are you calling this woman a liar:
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."

reply to post by Pilgrum


It is difficult to expl.ain adequately in this forum, and I appreciate you thoughts, but I have trouble comprehending how it could even be a "remote possibility", as you suggest.

What I mean, if I think I undertood your point, is that you imagine a team of people who could go over EVERY input parameter that is recorded by an FDR (all several hundred of them) and somehow have it look just right, and match the time sequencing of the external source clock (whether, in the case of AA 77, the Captain's clock, fed to the ADC, and through the FDAU to the FDR) or in more modern designs, with GPS updating, that source, but in the same pathways, or similar pathways of acquisiton --- either way, this would be a daunting task, would it not?

If we wish to imagine such a task...how many man-hours would be involved??? Distribute the task amongst multitple people, to miminize the time involved in aggregate, but again, HOW many people??? And, how much time? And, to make ZERO errors in the so-called "faked" data??

This thread only addresses American 77, but what about United 93, as well?? (we, unfortunately could not recover AA 11's and UA 175's FDRs ...nor the CVRs) --- BUT if one wishes to cling to, and continue to propose, the notion that ALL of the events of 9/11 were "pre-planned" and "staged", then it is incumbent upon those who claim such to show evidence of HOW this could have been accomplished (since one would assume that the destruction of the Recorders in the WTC could not have been 'assured by the perps '....)


I didn't mean to stray, but it was important to offer more context for contempation of just how difficult the technical aspects of such a "deception" would have been...back then, and even now.

reply to post by turbofan


For turbofan, I printed up this link here,
www.human-factors.arc.nasa.gov......

...from the post I am responding to.

I could explain, in boring detail, just WHY you miinterpreted the points rasied in that paper.

But I won't, except to tell you how the FOQA program, and the QARs that are installed in most of the most recent Boeing designs (and being retro-fitted into older designs, as the technology makes it simpler, and the airlines find it "cost effective") caused a great am,ount of distress among the pilot's Unions, especially (in the USA) ALPA.

Airline Flight Operations Management would see those devics, the software, and the technology as a form of "instant snitch" on poor behaivor, less-than-professional piloting techniques, and other mistakes made by pilots, etc, etc.

The Union, as a form of "protector" insisted on (and received, through negotiation) assurances that the FOQA data would be "de-identified" as to specific flight information, and the crews involved in any "excurisions" from SOPs....so that there would be no disciplinary repurcussions with specific individuals.

HOWEVER, in very, very extreme instances, identity IS available and discussed, the Union reserves the right to intervene with private and personal counseling firstly, but in gross negligence instances, Company Management will also wish to be involved, but that happens rarely. PER the agreement.

This FOQA data, as recorded and accessed from the QAR, is used in trend projections, and funneled to the Training Department, and incorporated, when a trend is seen, as emphasis in training. Not only in recurrent annual groundschool (which is quickly an obsolete concept, as the USE of this FOQA data allows airline companies to participate in the FAA-approved 'AQP' recurrent traing programs, therefore saving money in recurrent traiing costs...see)?

Really, really, really egregious examples of poor decision making, as noticed by the FOQA program, are exhibited for the ENTIRE pilot population to view...such as one where one of our B-777 crews conducted the most unstable approach ever seen (some years ago, happened to be in Santo Domingo, an airport I've flown into numerous times, so I understand HOW they got into the situation they did) yet because it resulted in no accident, it was only known to Management (and the Union, beside the two pilots iun the cockpit) as a result. AND those of us who coould review all the decisions they made, WHY they made those dedcisions, and HOWE to prevent such a mindset in future....lest there be a situation whaer an actual accident occurs.

THAT is the POINT of FOQA!!!

To learn from others' mistakes...because pilots make a lot of mistakes...some usually minor, and caught... the goal is to "manage" those mistakes, in order to "break the chain' of circumstance that has been described as leading (ultimatly) to the accident, which is the focus of these studies (Preventoion of future accidents, by examing past history).


Capisce? (I hope I explained this adequately)

Point being, the data from the QAR is accessed, and viewed, in a way that would NOT allow it to flow INTO the FDR, if that makes sense....

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.

Can you see, now, this mis-comprension? Of, specifically, the one-way nature of data acquistion, depending on the device in question?


[edit on 28 January 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weed, forget about the FDR. I'm not talking abuot connecting an FDR
to the simulator. I thought I cleared this up in a couple of posts earlier?

I am speaking about DATA. A FILE that is generated from the simulator
that contains the same information as you would extract from a flight
data recorder.

Does this makes sense?

P.S. I'll attempt to call at least two Flight Sim. Manufacturers tomorrow
and record the conversations to upload here.

Weed, I thought I'd try one last time to convince you that:

1. Level D flight simulators can produce flight data files as you
would expect to see from a flight data recorder

2. The output data from a flight siumlator can be captured on a
desktop computer via an interface card (like the one i linked earlier).

As I searched for phone numbers to call, I stumbled upon this from Thales:

www.thalesonline.com...

Retargeting of FMC/FMGC aircraft black boxes.

When I took programming back in the day, we learned about retargeting
in Process Automation classes. This is basically reconfiguring, or addressing
a device to emulate another device.

In our case, Thales is retargetting the output of the FMC (Flight management
computer) to interface with a computer as opposed to a black box so
that the same data can be caputered.

Here is a definition of "retargetting":

en.wikipedia.org...

It's quite clear now, that:

1. The flight sims can produce the exact same data files as a jet

2. The flight sims can be connected to a black box

I will confirm this information by calling a couple of places tomorrow.
Hopefully I'll have the audio file uploaded by mid-afternoon.


[edit on 29-1-2010 by turbofan]

Well, I think with my last two posts, we can close the door on this debate.

It's absolutely, 100% possible to connect an FDR to a flight sim. AND/OR
use the flight data from a real flight to program a similar flight sim.

www.avbuyer.com...

But by merging the electronic records from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) with a modern flight simulator, an image emerged portraying exactly what transpired that night, the movements of the aircraft, flight controls, throttles – and its reaction in the weather conditions.

Will you spare me the time and energy, and not bother tech support
tomorrow?

reply to post by turbofan


Tino, I am sorry, but no matter how hard you wish it to be so, you are still uncomprehending of certain elements, and I fear it is partially MY fault for not being able to adequately explain and/or describe.

The physically installed switches/sensors, etc, on an airplane that all communicate their status' to the FDAU, and/or to the ADC (or any other information gathering installed device) and ultimately to the FDR for recording for posterity, IF an accident occurs and the information needs to be evaluate to determine the causal factors that contributed to the accident...

Those physically present sensors, switches, etc are NOT present in a full-motion Level D simulator. The very programming OF the simulator is designed to "work around" this fact...and thusly, "simulate" their inputs.

Perhaps, at a casual glance at your latest link, I missed the portion where it specified what you are alleging, IE, the ability to use a Level-D sim to fly a "profile", and somehow, then, transfer that simulated "flight" INTO an FDR(***), and to program that FDR so as to "fake" a flight that didn't actually happen.

Can you highlight that portion of your link??

So far, as I read through (as I mentioned) the 'CATS' paper it is ever more convincing of what its purpose was, as I described in an earlier post above. Nothing more to add, although I could, but as I said it's just because I've operated the autoflight systems in question, and have the practical experience and knowledge that perhaps, other laypeople don't possess --- and describing WHAT I know would entail a full-level discussion that is beyond the realm of this forum. (I need visual and tactile aids, and a classroom setting...)


***speaking, back to the topic, of AA 77's FDR....I think maybe many keep forgetting that it recorded FAR more than just the slightly over one hour involved with that particular flight segment.

Recall, please, that the FAA regulations require a minimum of 25 hours' worth of data be retained. This was, in days before digital technology, in what would be considered "dinosaurs" in the area of FDRs, by foil tapes, on a very slow moving drive (between the two spools) with needles that traced etchings into the foil, so interpretation of such tracings was not nearly as reliable as with today's technology.

Interim, SOME FDRs used magnetic tape, so they were analog/digital hybrids, in a sense.

Fully digital is, obviously, the wave of the future...and we will no doubt see ever-increasing tech, and patents, and designs.

(If you have money to invest, that may be a consideration --- just a thought...)

Wow, I can't believe this! After giving you two more links...both of which
contain direct references of using/connecting Flight Data Recorders with
flight simulators....you still cannot admit your error?

If you read the entire links you will conclude and agree 100% that a flight
simulator produces THE SAME FILE.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT USES A FLIGHT DATA RECORDER.

A DATA FILE IS A BUNCH OF INFORMATION.

Did you read the part of the quote that says the investigators configured
the flight simulator with data from a flight data recorder?

Did you read the part of the other link which explained Thales takes the
additional effort to RETARGET THE OUTPUT OF THE FMC?

Why would a company have to go through the trouble reconfiguring
the ARINC protocol to work with Window's Vista, XP, 7, etc....which was
originally meant to connect with a flight data recorder?

Once again, I have proven with multiple links, from multiple sources
that:

#1. A level D flight simulator produces the SAME data file as you
would expect from is real life jet counter-part.

#2. As a bonus, I have proven that a Flight Data Recorder is able to
connect with a flight simulator...which you said could not be done.

Just to PROVE it a third time...I am going to call those places , record
the conversation and upload it just to waste everyone's time on a fact
that is clearly available through CREDIBLE MANUFACTUER WEB SITE LINKS.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by turbofan]

Perhaps, at a casual glance at your latest link, I missed the portion where it specified what you are alleging, IE, the ability to use a Level-D sim to fly a "profile", and somehow, then, transfer that simulated "flight" INTO an FDR(***), and to program that FDR so as to "fake" a flight that didn't actually happen.

#1. Who says you have to transfer the simulated flight back into an FDR?

#2. You don't program a FDR...you EDIT THE FILE which you EXTRACT
from an FDR.

#3. You fake the flight with a FLIGHT SIMULATOR and MERGE that data
with any other data you extract from any other FDR.

From the Thales web site PDF (linked above):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d4162d9a8b13.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 29-1-2010 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


I do not know how to get it through to you any better.

You are out of your depth of understanding, and not comprehending (though you THINK you do, because of your computer background) the complexities involved here, and the details.

The link to the "Thales" website, and the segment you highlighted...indicate that you don't understand the acronyms (**), their meaning, and WHY it is important to how wrong you are.

(**) - specifically, 'FMC' and 'FMGC' -


The data files FROM an FDR that was installed and actively recording in an airplane CAN be used, interpreted, for the various simulators...because, in essence, THAT is all that a simulator does anyway! Crunches ones and zeroes.

It does NOT work the reverse way.

The "flight' scenario from a simulator session can't be recorded and "downloaded" INTO an SSFDR.

The Thales' site mentions aspects of directly interacting with OTHER avionics onboard thathave nothing to do (directly) with the Flight Recorders.



I have repeatedly tried to explain that you have an over-simplified impression of reality, in this instance.

Now....I will grant that (and I am guessing here) a Simulator could be "flown", and data extracted so as to create a video, like the ones that were made for AAL 77 and UAL 93.

However....a lot of people are included in the interpreting of the data extracted from the FDRs, and 'stripping' it out....and THEY (or one or more of them) would have "spilled the beans" by now....

...not to mention, the FDRs (Flight Recorders, not CVRs) recorded over 40 hours of data, so there would, in addition to the fatal last flights', be a great deal of MORE information too...and NOT, I assure you, done by using a simulator too!! That is a ridiculous notion.

To make those video recreations they only use certain elements from the data sets...IF they wished, they could include ALL of it in graphical form, to display EVERY input that is recorded....but it would be very, very cumbersome and difficult to interpret for the viewer. TOO much information, in a word.

This thread (or others) have shown examples of the vast quantities of readings taken by the FDRs. Things like fuel quantity probe readings (NOT just the final tally, as displayed on the guages)...valve positions, control surface positions (read directly from potentiometers installed int eh system)...a whole HOST of data that is NOT included in a simulator's files, only created FOR a simulator as needed, to MIMIC (on the instruments/lights installed IN the sim) what is done in real life, on real airplanes by real mechanical and electronic measuring devices/hard-wired switches, etc.



This sort of "speculation" ('faking' of the FDR data) has no basis in actual fact, once looked at in more depth...it resembles a movie scriptwriter's fantasy creation. Over-simplified, but seemingly just plausible sounding enough to fool those not well-versed in the technicalities.
---IOW, "laypeople".

In the case of UAL 93, since there is an intact and readable CVR, there is FURTHER proof of the real thing, because of certain sounds that are tied to certain actions recorded by the FDR. (Flight Simulators do NOT have a CVR).

Also...just thought...simulators don't have to "reproduce" G-loads....the military has some VERY advanced designs with a very large rnge-of-motion to actually use centrifugal force to simulate G loads...but airliner sims don't. They are VERY limited in that manner. HOWEVER, the FDR does record acceleration data....in all THREE axes. A simulator that is tied to the floor, on six hydraulic telescoping piston arms is not able to reproduced sustained lateral acceleration values for recording.

Originally posted by weedwhacker...because, in essence, THAT is all that a simulator does anyway! Crunches ones and zeroes.

It does NOT work the reverse way.

The "flight' scenario from a simulator session can't be recorded and "downloaded" INTO an SSFDR.

So what you're telling everyone is that a level D simulator which has
all the guts and avionics of a REAL aircraft cannot interface to a flight
data recorder that is connected to the same "stuff" in the real world?

Are you sure about that?

Do you want to place any bets?

Let me repeat: Are you saying that a level D simulator which uses the
same electronics as the real aircraft cannot interface with a flight data
recorder?

Let me ask another way: Are you saying that the 1's and 0's that are
'computed' within the level D flight simulator cannot produce a file
similar to the 1's and 0's which are extracted from a flight data recorder?

I don't think I ever said the sim data was downloaded into the FDR...although
I suppose it could be.

What I do recall stating was that:

The file from the FDR was edited to included the flight data from the
level D simulator and sent off for analysis.

I'll have to read back through these pages to see specifically what I said.
afterall, it has been a while since you have replied.

Well, I didn't have to look too far. My exact words are stated just a few
posts earlier and mentions NOTHING about downloading data back into
the FDR.

I said, and I quote:

Originally posted by turbofan

Perhaps, at a casual glance at your latest link, I missed the portion where it specified what you are alleging, IE, the ability to use a Level-D sim to fly a "profile", and somehow, then, transfer that simulated "flight" INTO an FDR(***), and to program that FDR so as to "fake" a flight that didn't actually happen.

#1. Who says you have to transfer the simulated flight back into an FDR?

#2. You don't program a FDR...you EDIT THE FILE which you EXTRACT
from an FDR.

#3. You fake the flight with a FLIGHT SIMULATOR and MERGE that data
with any other data you extract from any other FDR.

By the way Weed,

You know the FDR is pretty much a flash drive like you have inside your IPod,
or even some home computers right?

You can even think of it like an external serial USB Flash drive with some
really expensive and tough shell casing!

But I can't upload, and download information to it?

reply to post by turbofan


I think you are jumping back and forth with your assertions.

Yes, you went back and found the original statement...about EDITING files that are accessed from the DFDR.

Then, you equate the DFDR with a flash-drive.

So...first, you are trying to say that the NTSB video recreations was "faked" by taking the DFDR data (from AAL 77, for example) and then "editing" THAT in order to make the video? Because, that is how it seems, the argument you imply.

Now..the "flash-drive" comparison is apt in a sense, I suppose....and over-simplified sense..., but remember that it is MUCH more complicated. I cannot emphasize this aspect enough, and it seems to be continually ignored. Why??


I'll try to make it very, very simple....the SIM does not have a real TAT probe, nor a real pitot tube/static port, nor fuel pumps, nor engines with oil in them producing pressure, nor a pneumatic system....etc, etc.

The SIM makes all the instruments and lights respond, for the pilots' benefit, to simulate based on what had been determined from flight testing and computer modeling of each airplane...the "environmental" conditions programmed in, as a SIMulation...the "weight" of the airplane is SIMulated, to affect its performance appropriately, to "mimic" the real thing. Algorithims do the math, but in REAL life, it is just basic physics! Heavier the airplane, poorer the performance because of REAL physics!

The logic for the SIM computer is totally different, in terms of sequencing the instrument readings and other display indications...than the REAL airplane, and the hundreds of seperate inputs that are channeled to the DFDR.

It does NOT work as simply as you seem to imagine...that a person could "fly" the SIM, and somehow record all of that, and THEN input it in some "flash" method into the DFDR!

The other direction? Well...when a DFDR is 'read out', the data can be used to THEN make a SIM respond in a way that is similar to what the airplane did, when the DFDR recorded it. BUT, there has to be some common language protocol...it doesn't just "feed right in".

I think you are too fixated on computer technology, and over-state their capabilities.

A better and more thorough experience with a SIM would be very helpful for your understanding. Perhaps some of the engineers who actually program the things would be useful?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I think you are jumping back and forth with your assertions.

Yes, you went back and found the original statement...about EDITING files that are accessed from the DFDR.

Then, you equate the DFDR with a flash-drive.

No, I'm not jumping around with my assertions. I'm trying to keep up with
your long winded replies which include several tangents on my original
claim.

So...first, you are trying to say that the NTSB video recreations was "faked" by taking the DFDR data (from AAL 77, for example) and then "editing" THAT in order to make the video? Because, that is how it seems, the argument you imply.

I'm stating that the NTSB video was based on data created by a flight
simulator.

Now..the "flash-drive" comparison is apt in a sense, I suppose....and over-simplified sense..., but remember that it is MUCH more complicated. I cannot emphasize this aspect enough, and it seems to be continually ignored. Why??

What is much more complicated? The FDR is nothing more than a flash
drive protected within a super strong shell.

It has some very sophisticated filtering electronics to keep power stable
and reject noise.

What more would you like to 'emphasize' about this device that I'm ignoring?

I'll try to make it very, very simple....the SIM does not have a real TAT probe, nor a real pitot tube/static port, nor fuel pumps, nor engines with oil in them producing pressure, nor a pneumatic system....etc, etc.

We went over this before, and I showed you that you don't need these
probes, fuel pumps, engines, hydraulics to make the simulator work!

How the heck do yuo think they get your altitude to show up on the primary
flight display Weed?!

Let me ask you again, when you're sitting the seat of the Level D simulator,
does the speed indicator, altitude indicator, throttle quadrant, etc. , etc.
all appear to function like a REAL 757/767?

Yes, or no.

Answer that, and then I'll explain a second time how this is accomplished.

We'll get to the rest of your reply after we tackle these points.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


I think we may be zeroing in on the core of your confusion...since you recognize this fact:

We went over this before, and I showed you that you don't need these probes, fuel pumps, engines, hydraulics to make the simulator work!

I mentioned those, and listed them (keeping in mind that they are NOT meant to account for ALL the other such devices) as example to show that, YES!! They are not installed in a SIM.

THAT is the very reason I mentioned them...because, in the real airplane and real SSFDR there are hundreds and hundreds of inputs, FROM those very sorts of devices, and their associated sensors and such.

ALL of those data inputs are recorded, and stored in the SSFDR circuitry.

Therefore, and ergo, my point being: The "flying" profile that is "flown" in a SIM cannot be directly and completely downloaded into a real SSFDR, and then subsequently installed into a real airframe, with the intent to "fool" investigators into thinking that THAT unit (SSFDR) was 'recording' before being "staged" at the crash scene....which seems to be a continuing assertion by some in the so-called "truth movement" camp.

See why, yet? I'll help: BECAUSE of the hundreds and hundreds of components and their separate readings and functions that are monitored and recorded in the REAL airplane...these items do not exist in the SIM, and so, they would have NO INPUT into this alleged "faked" data set.

I thought I had been as clear as possible, each time, with this explanation as laid out. Apparently, writing it and expressing a thought, are much harder than just speaking it face-to-face, when it comes to being able to explain such esoteric concepts.

Since I am a user of the machines, and not the designer/programmer, my use of language strays from the technical, to the more practical...in analogy.

Now, as to another analogy --- the "flash drive" bit --- I certainly don't know how the thumb-sized USB thingie really works, when I stick it into my computer...but I daresay the SSFDR is FAR more complex...it has a TIME-BASED REFERENCE, for goodness' sake!

How many Flash Drives can say that about themselves???

Weedwacker,

Are you saying control surface deflection, TAT, weight, speed, static pressure, dynamic pressure, density, fuel load, oil temp, oil press, N1, N2, N3, and all the other parameters/data are not considered and calcualted in a Level D sim?

Are you saying these parameters cannot be recorded to a flash device similar to an FDR?

If so, you would be wrong.

You can even produce a .fdr file and a .udp file with Xplane and Microsoft Flight Simulator for less than 50 bucks, save it to a flash memory, and plant it in a "pig".

Do you know what a "pig" is weedwhacker?



[edit on 23-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]