New FDR Decode

Originally posted by R_Mackey
I just want to expand on the above a bit more as it may confuse some.

For example, Warren couldn't find the following in the data.

GMT MONTH
GMT DAY
GMT YEAR
GPS HOURS
GPS MINUTES
GPS SECONDS
DOC DEPART
DOC DEST
DOC FLT NUMBER
DOC LEG NUMBER

Whoops, correction.

This is what I get for not cross checking Warren's data with P4T decode.

The P4T decode does show data for the above.

Here is just a sample.

GMTyear_X10 GMTyear_X1 GMTmon_X10 GMTmon_X1 GMTgpssec GMTgpsmin GMTgpshour GMTday_X10 GMTday_X1
80 7 10 0 25 53 27 10 2
80 7 10 0 25 53 27 10 2
80 7 10 0 25 53 27 10 2
80 7 10 0 25 53 27 10 2
80 7 10 0 25 53 27 10 2
80 7 10 0 25 53 27 10 2
80 7 10 0 25 53 27 10 2

It appears these parameters were being recorded in some form and Warren just "couldn't make sense" of them so he removed it from his program. Certainly they weren't just "empty words" as some claim an empty word only records 0. Entirely BS.

If an empty word records 0, then every 0 in the data for any given parameter may be giving you false information on the condition of that parameter. This is not how aviation works. Especially for a device required for Flight Safety.

This was explained earlier in this thread regarding the Entry Doors. They are all zero's. Does that mean it wasn't recorded? No, it means the doors were closed. Same goes for Gear indications. The list goes on.

Enjoy your day all!

[edit on 30-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by turbofan
Speaking of "changing pilots":

TomK , can you explain why the autopilot does not disengage when
the yoke is moved abruptly during flight?

I don't agree with your 'door open' assessment and neither does the
data. The official story doesn't fit the evidence. Sorry; we'll wait for
John to find an extracted parameter in the data that was not updating.

Who said it wouldn't or that it didn't?

You are ASSUMING that:

1. it did not during the "exchange of pilots".
2. that the only way for the exchange to have happened was by a violent struggle.

Your assumptions are less than worthless.

First, PROVE from the data that the autopilot was NOT disengaged during the struggle.

Second, if you manage to prove 1 above, eliminate all other methods of getting a pilot out of a seat without disengaging the autopilot (talking, cajoling, threatening another crew member, etc.)

Those are YOUR jobs.

MY job was to PROVE from the flight data that:
1. When the plane departed Dulles, there were two competent, experienced, professional pilots at the controls.

2. after the plane turned around, the person at the controls could not maintain his altitude, could not a fly coordinated turn, etc.

I offer, as proof, this document, specifically figure 2, reference points E & F.
And the (admittedly weaker evidence) video reconstruction of the final 330° descending turn to the Pentagon, where the pilot cannot perform a coordinated turn.

Do you agree or disagree with the above two statements.

Please do me the courtesy of providing an answer.

Or be exposed as "unconcerned for the truth" for refusing to answer.

TomK

[edit on 30-11-2009 by tomk52]

reply to post by R_Mackey

Especially for a device required for Flight Safety.

Huh??

The cockpit door is suddenly a 'required device' for 'Flight Safety'???

Sheesh...guess you haven't jumpseated on many UPS or FedEx airplanes, have you??

(FWIW....there is NO 'flight safety' requirement for the cockpit door to be closed and locked...it just ain't an issue, except in as much as for part 121 passenger operations, per the carrier's operating manuals, to comply with the regs....)

Guess no one here has ever participated in a pilot trainer event, either?? Where we actually fly the real airplane, back in the day when the sims didn't meet the requirement for landing certification. But, I'm showing my age, I guess --- 'Pilot trainers' went out with the advent of better technology, of course...assuming the operator HAS the required sims, or leases them from someone...because live Pilot training flights are expensive, both in crew costs and maintenance issues. (cycles, etc...)

(I had an additional comment, but redacted it out of an abundance of civility...shame, it was a good one...)

reply to post by tomk52


tom, I think this is what you are looking for....I invite everyone to look at the graphic display to show the autopilot engagement timeline....this document covers BOTH AAL 77 and UAL 93.

There may be aspects that confuse non-pilots, I will be happy to assist if asked.

www.ntsb.gov...
____________________________________________________________

Edit to add...pages 9 and 10 show the graphic depiction that I am refering to.

[edit on 30 November 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by R_Mackey
The P4T decode does show data for the above.

Here is just a sample.

GMTyear_X10 GMTyear_X1 GMTmon_X10 GMTmon_X1 GMTgpssec GMTgpsmin GMTgpshour GMTday_X10 GMTday_X1
80 7 10 0 25 53 27 10 2
80 7 10 0 25 53 27 10 2
80 7 10 0 25 53 27 10 2
80 7 10 0 25 53 27 10 2
80 7 10 0 25 53 27 10 2
80 7 10 0 25 53 27 10 2
80 7 10 0 25 53 27 10 2

It appears these parameters were being recorded in some form and Warren just "couldn't make sense" of them so he removed it from his program. Certainly they weren't just "empty words" as some claim an empty word only records 0. Entirely BS.

You could be absolutely right, but seeing as how you posted data generated by software we can't verify and no documentation as to how the output was generated (sort of like those #ERROR things), we have no way of knowing. We don't know if they are default values generated by the DAU for that parameter. Why don't you post the raw binary for us so we an see what the software is interpreting?

I've got other things to do with my time today, so why don't you get a full frame of the serial bit data and post it for us? That way we can verify what was in the WORD.

Note: Also note this does not deflect anything from what you have already said, the parameters were not being recorded. The issue is your claim that FLT DECK DOOR was. Lest we forget it is you making the claim that it was. Now prove it.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by R_Mackey

@Tom.

Please read this statement again very carefully. I'm not going to bother going around in circles with a less than Private pilot, on this topic.. Especially one who is arrogant and belligerent.

[... blah, blah, irrelevant pile of steaming obfuscating blah ...]

Instead of me billing you for this lesson, please just donate it to P4T. 30 bucks should cover it.

Yep, just what I predicted. Another wall of obfuscating BS.

Since you are incapable & unwilling to concede the tiniest of points, here is the procedure that I CAN follow, without talking to the FSDO, and still LEGALLY fly.

Since you are not going to take my word for anything, I'll put the FAA guidance verbiage in bold italics, excerpted from that same AC, straight from the FAA, that I already posted to you.

I discover that something, call it "an item", is broken. I am going to fly under "the flight conditions", e.g., daytime VFR or whatever. I can meet the requirements of 91.312(d) if I perform the following:

Follow along, starting in Chap 2, pg 7, of the Advisory.

1. The pilot checks the aircraft’s equipment list or KOL to see if [the item] is a required item.
I find that it is NOT.

2. Next the pilot checks the airworthiness regulation under which the aircraft was certificated to determine if [the item] is part of [the conditions] type certificate.
Not having the Type Data Certs, I obtain them from a handy-dandy FBO certified mechanic. I find that [the item] was NOT part of the type certificate.

3. Next, the pilot checks to see if an AD requires [the item].
I check the A/C's maintenance log, & find that it is not listed. While I am talking to the FBO certified mechanic, he confirms that [the item] has not been required by any AD.

4. Next, the pilot checks to see if [the item] is required by FAR 91.215, 91.205, or 91.207.
I check the handy-dandy FARs that are kept in the FBO mechanic's office, and find that they are not.

5. At this point the inoperative [item] must either be removed from the aircraft or deactivated. The person removing or deactivating [the item] must placard it inoperative in the appropriate location.
As appropriate, I choose to simply deactivate & placard [the item], or pay the FBO mechanic to remove & placard it.

6. Finally, the pilot should decide whether the inoperative number 2 ADF creates a hazard for the anticipated conditions of the flight.
Which, of course, I did before I started this process.

Following these procedures, I have followed the requirements of 91.312(d).
At NO TIME in this scenario have I spoken to the FSDO.

Once again, you are proven to be simply & utterly wrong.

And only your ego-driven stubborn incompetence & buffoonery prevented you from admitting it 5 posts ago.

Congratulations, Robby. ONCE AGAIN, you've shown yourself to be BOTH incompetent & untrustworthy.

It's a GREAT lesson for anyone reading along who is not familiar with your Standard Operating Procedure.


TomK

PS. You can send $135 to Screw Loose Change. That's my standard hourly rate. But for putting up with your nonsense, consider yourself lucky that I don't triple it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tomk52

 

tom, I think this is what you are looking for....I invite everyone to look at the graphic display to show the autopilot engagement timeline....this document covers BOTH AAL 77 and UAL 93.

There may be aspects that confuse non-pilots, I will be happy to assist if asked.

www.ntsb.gov...
____________________________________________________________

Edit to add...pages 9 and 10 show the graphic depiction that I am refering to.

[edit on 30 November 2009 by weedwhacker]

Thanks, weed.

That's significantly better than the brief NTSB datasheet I posted.

Assuming the resolution of that data is sufficient, it appears to show that the plane did not come off autopilot during the "exchange of pilots". Which leads me to conclude that the terrorists "talked" the pilot & co-pilot out of their seats. Probably by threatening another crew member.

As they say on the playgrounds, "BFD". Changes nothing.

I'm still waiting for Turbo to claim that there was no exchange of pilots. That the guys who couldn't maintain an altitude or perform a simple coordinated turn are the same guys that took off.

Or to explain how the pilots exchanged places without opening the cockpit door.

Everything else is typical babbling.

TomK

Okay gang, I gotta hang this up for awhile. I'm wasting too much time doing P4T's homework for them and not enough time writing. Bottom line, for the assertion that the FLT DECK DOOR parameter to be used as evidence of ANYTHING, it must first be demonstrated to be functional. In 12 flights and 42 hours of recorded operation, the parameter never changed, hence a reasonable person would conclude the parameter was not functional.

The parameter was not added to the frame until 1997. Like other parameters added to the frame, there is no evidence that the hard wiring was done to make these functional, the DAU is simply adding default values which may be all 0's or some other string of 0's and 1's (that depends upon how the DAU is set up to handle them). For the parameter in question, a 0 is obviously the default, but it could have just as easily been a 1 (only 2 possibles in this case). Only a change in state can verify it was actually functional. And no turbo, the FDR records digital data, not the analog signal you posted the circuit for (that goes to the DAU and is not what is stored in the FDR).

So have fun with the folks while I 'run silent' for awhile. I'll jump back in if I hit writers block again.

reply to post by tomk52


Actually....when you look at the seating position and assume that the pilots were either A) Killed as they sat --- throats cut from behind, or some such or; B) "Talked" out of their seats as you suppose...which I find more doubtful....I lean to the "A" scenario.

In any event, 'BFD' as you say. It takes QUITE a lot of movement on the column, especially if it's just the motion of the column fore and aft...the A/P will disconnect much more readily with aileron input, via the control wheel. The pilots' bodies, IF killed as they sat, could have been removed without undue disturbance that would have caused an uncommanded A/P disconnect.

In fact, when I review the FDR data, it shows quite clearly when the hijackers began to have 'control'....evidenced by the poor mismanagement of the various autoflight modes. This shows a rudimentary knowledge, but lack of 'finesse' in fully understanding the systems.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tomk52

 

Actually....when you look at the seating position and assume that the pilots were either A) Killed as they sat --- throats cut from behind, or some such or; B) "Talked" out of their seats as you suppose...which I find more doubtful....I lean to the "A" scenario.

In any event, 'BFD' as you say. It takes QUITE a lot of movement on the column, especially if it's just the motion of the column fore and aft...the A/P will disconnect much more readily with aileron input, via the control wheel. The pilots' bodies, IF killed as they sat, could have been removed without undue disturbance that would have caused an uncommanded A/P disconnect.

In fact, when I review the FDR data, it shows quite clearly when the hijackers began to have 'control'....evidenced by the poor mismanagement of the various autoflight modes. This shows a rudimentary knowledge, but lack of 'finesse' in fully understanding the systems.

Bingo.

I was going to check Warren's data for indications of short duration excursions that happened before the heading reversal. From the coarse data in the two files that we posted, it doesn't look like any, but it might not show up. Where it will in the second-by-second FDR data.

But, of course, it doesn't really matter if it does, or does not, show up before the reversal. The end result is "the pilots changed". There is precisely zero way around that.

And if Robby & TF & PfffT want to hang their hats on "the door never opened", well they better come up with a working "Star Trek transporter" pronto.



TomK

Originally posted by tomk52
I don't CARE whether the switch was never hooked to the FDR (98% probability), whether it broke while the door was forced (1% possibility) or some other event happened.

Can you justify those subjective numbers for me? Some people are interested in how probability is used and abused. I'm one of those people.

How are you assinging the missing 1%? Will it be spread across more than one alternative?

Originally posted by tomk52
That door WAS opened. Period. End of story.

So your next post will explain definitively, why the FDR recorded the door shut?


Please do so without resorting to these kinds of attacks against me, like you did against R_Mackey:

Originally posted by tomk52
"... and Suzy says you're ugly and called you, like, a TOTAL slut...!"
Cripes, Robby. Have you regressed to JUNIOR high level now?
Why don't you assume responsibility for the trash that comes out of YOUR mouth, and allow others the same license.

You really should keep your pillow talk off the boards. It's not appropriate here.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by tomk52
I don't CARE whether the switch was never hooked to the FDR (98% probability), whether it broke while the door was forced (1% possibility) or some other event happened.

Can you justify those subjective numbers for me? Some people are interested in how probability is used and abused. I'm one of those people.

How are you assinging the missing 1%? Will it be spread across more than one alternative?

Originally posted by tomk52
That door WAS opened. Period. End of story.

So your next post will explain definitively, why the FDR recorded the door shut?


Please do so without resorting to these kinds of attacks against me, like you did against R_Mackey:

Originally posted by tomk52
"... and Suzy says you're ugly and called you, like, a TOTAL slut...!"
Cripes, Robby. Have you regressed to JUNIOR high level now?
Why don't you assume responsibility for the trash that comes out of YOUR mouth, and allow others the same license.

You really should keep your pillow talk off the boards. It's not appropriate here.

Did Robby & Tino send you to fight their battles, now that they've run off?

Run away, little boy.

I don't have time or patience for the juvenile level of debate that you've shown.

TomK

PS. If you have a "closed door" explanation to the clear, concise statements of indisputed facts that I posted along with those probabilities, you're welcome to post them. If you say something insightful, I'll respond.

But a conversation??

Some epsilon indistinguishable from zero...

Originally posted by tomk52
Did Robby & Tino send you to fight their battles, now that they've run off?

No. I don't take orders from anyone. Thanks for asking.

Originally posted by tomk52
Run away, little boy.

A personal attack that I would expect from someone who doesn't know how to debate properly.

Originally posted by tomk52
I don't have time or patience for the juvenile level of debate that you've shown.

So you can't answer me why you chose those subjective probabilities of 98%, 1% and unknown? Why can't you answer me?

In my opinion, probability is one of the most abused topics in mathematics. You made an incomplete, subjective assignment of probabilities for your reasons why the FDR recorded the CLOSED parameter.

I ask you to justify your reasons and you appear to dodge your responsibility for doing so. If you don't have time to justify yourself, then why make the claim?

Originally posted by tomk52
PS. If you have a "closed door" explanation to the clear, concise statements of indisputed facts that I posted along with those probabilities, you're welcome to post them. If you say something insightful, I'll respond.

No, you made the 98%, 1%, unknown claim. It is your responsibility to explain why.

For some reason you still have not provided a definitive reason why the FDR recorded a CLOSED value. Why is that? Can't you be 100% sure?

Originally posted by tomk52
Did Robby & Tino send you to fight their battles, now that they've run off?

Since many here think I'm "Robby", I suppose Tom means me?

No, Tom, no one has run off.... we just... (see quote for remainder of sentence)

...don't have time or patience for the juvenile level of debate that you've shown.

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by tomk52
Did Robby & Tino send you to fight their battles, now that they've run off?

Since many here think I'm "Robby", I suppose Tom means me?

No, Tom, no one has run off.... we just... (see quote for remainder of sentence)

...don't have time or patience for the juvenile level of debate that you've shown.

I've been meaning to ask about that. Why are you impersonating the well respected Ryan Mackey? And if you are not Rob, who is? I find it hard to believe that he'd abstain from this thread.

reply to post by 767doctor

It's been explained before, 767doctor. Obviously, as a new member to ATS you're probably not familiar with the login names that people are free to select.

R_Mackey is a general name. R could be anything. In fact, if I didn't know better, I would think that Mackey is related to the South Park Mr Mackey... hmmmm, k?

The fact that you assume that it stands for Ryan Mackey is an indication of your willingness to find fault in anything but the topic at hand.

ATS kind of 'reserves' real 'celebrity' names for those people. johnlear was the only person allowed to use the name johnlear. Similarly, when Jose Escamilla joined ATS (and was promptly banned for his obvious T&C abuses), he had to identify himself to the Moderators. I think that it was Springer who verified that it really was Jose. I'm sure that if Ryan Mackey wanted to login to ATS using his real name, he would be permitted to do so, once he could verify himself to the Admin team.

You need to prove that R_Mackey is impersonating the 'NASA scientist' Ryan Mackey. Your failure to do this will merely demonstrate that you don't like the name that R_Mackey has chosen to use. Tough luck for you, as it has been approved by the ATS team.

It all appears to be a smokescreen to take attention away from the FDR topic. Why would you do that?

Do you have a 100% definitive reason for why the FDR data shows the door being closed? tomk52 won't answer me, he can't be 100% sure. He can't account for the missing 1% in his subjective probabilities.

Thank you tezzajw,

I was going to hold off on this till page 50. But close enough.

I think ATS has a policy against previous banned members registering as socks?

ATS has banned Rob Balsamo from posting on ATS, long ago. And from what I have read through the archives, for much less offense than those seen by TomK, jthomas, ImAPepper, Reheat, trebor/Pinch, etc.


[edit on 30-11-2009 by R_Mackey]

reply to post by R_Mackey

Yeah I am almost certain that ATS forbids previously banned members to login again.

Anyway, I'm still waiting to read a definitive 100% reason that explains the door being shut. There probably could be a simple solution, so why has it taken so long?

EDIT: Ok, I wasn't sure if Rob was banned on ATS. I know that pinch was banned, last visit in April 2009. trebor registered in May, 2009.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

It's been explained before, 767doctor. Obviously, as a new member to ATS you're probably not familiar with the login names that people are free to select.

R_Mackey is a general name. R could be anything. In fact, if I didn't know better, I would think that Mackey is related to the South Park Mr Mackey... hmmmm, k?

The fact that you assume that it stands for Ryan Mackey is an indication of your willingness to find fault in anything but the topic at hand.

(...)

You need to prove that R_Mackey is impersonating the 'NASA scientist' Ryan Mackey. Your failure to do this will merely demonstrate that you don't like the name that R_Mackey has chosen to use. Tough luck for you, as it has been approved by the ATS team.

So, of all the possible nicknames, they select the exact same name as one of their biggest detractors on another forum. Coincidence....yeah, okay! I think Rob signed up as RMackey in an obvious attempt to discredit his arguments; ironically, by doing so, he only discredited his own while shattering what was left of his credibility. Go ahead an apologize for him, someone has to!

Originally posted by 767doctor
So, of all the possible nicknames, they select the exact same name as one of their biggest detractors on another forum. Coincidence....yeah, okay!

Yeah, it is a coincidence. There were a lot of coincidences about 911. This just happens to be another one of them.

Originally posted by 767doctor
I think Rob signed up as RMackey in an obvious attempt to discredit his arguments;

Stated as your opinion, that's fine. If you want others to believe you for a fact, then you'll need to prove it. Probably in another thread, as you're steering away from the FDR topic here.

I don't apologise for anyone, except me. I'm already confused in this thread. With the alleged sock puppets trying to deflect from the data, I don't know if I'll ever get a 100% definitive explanation for the door being recorded as CLOSED.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by tezzajw]