New FDR Decode

reply to post by 911files


That statement was a conditional based on possibility #4, that the FDR system and sensor were installed and functioning/reporting correctly.

What do you mean by it was not a required parameter? According to what organization? I would like to see some documentation on this.

It's listed as "not working or unconfirmed." The document does not distinguish between the two.

Assumptions about the pilot's bathroom/eating habits does not constitute "data."

Originally posted by solequinox
reply to post by 911files

 

That statement was a conditional based on possibility #4, that the FDR system and sensor were installed and functioning/reporting correctly.

What do you mean by it was not a required parameter? According to what organization? I would like to see some documentation on this.

It's listed as "not working or unconfirmed." The document does not distinguish between the two.

Assumptions about the pilot's bathroom/eating habits does not constitute "data."

This whole discussion is ludicrous at face value. I do not need to offer any proof other than what has been presented. The value NEVER changes in the FDR. Claims have been made that the door was never opened based on this parameter. The burden of proof is not on me, but those making the claims that it was. There is NO evidence in the data to support that it was. I’ve already presented evidence that in a 1991 model aircraft, it was not even in the fdr until a frame upgrade done in 1997.

I don’t have to prove nothing. Those who say it was working have to present evidence it was, and so far, none has been.

oh rob, you lie so easily. Its like breathing for you. what an utter fool.

www.websiteoutlook.com...
pilotsfor911truth.org Estimated Worth $3277.7 USD
Title
Description
Daily Pageview 1495
Daily Ads Revenue $4.49

www.websiteoutlook.com...
abovetopsecret.com Estimated Worth $522833.3 USD
Title AboveTopSecret.com: Conspiracy Theories, UFOs, Politics, and Many Other "Alternative Topics"
Description
Daily Pageview 237992
Daily Ads Revenue $716.21


www.websiteoutlook.com...
forums.randi.org Estimated Worth $73343.1 USD
Title James Randi Educational Foundation
Description The JREF Forum is provided by the James Randi Educational Foundation, a non-profit educational organisation whose goals include promoting critical thinking everywhere, go to forums.randi.org...
Daily Pageview 32673
Daily Ads Revenue $100.47

Heres an idea Rob , Why not copy this thread in entirety, Have the mods delete it, and then paste it over there at pilots for truth? That way you can guarantee that no one of any significance will see it.
jackass

Just tossing a few stones your way rob, seein as i never have posted under a sock.


[edit on 3-12-2009 by A W Smith]

Originally posted by solequinox
reply to post by 911files

 

That statement was a conditional based on possibility #4, that the FDR system and sensor were installed and functioning/reporting correctly.

What do you mean by it was not a required parameter? According to what organization? I would like to see some documentation on this.

It's listed as "not working or unconfirmed." The document does not distinguish between the two.

It doesn't have to. Until both possibilities are eliminated any conclusions drawn from the "inaccurate or unconfirmed" data are just speculative.

Originally posted by A W Smith

www.websiteoutlook.com...
pilotsfor911truth.org Estimated Worth $3277.7 USD
Title
Description
Daily Pageview 1495
Daily Ads Revenue $4.49

How can the above register a "Daily Ad Revenue" when P4T doesnt have any outside ad revenue?

Who exactly is the fool?

Not sure how your link got those numbers, but they are way off. We are much lower. So send in your donations folks!

pilotsfor911truth.org...

... and some make the claim pilots trained to fly jets are in this for the money... :lol

[edit on 3-12-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by adam_zapple
It doesn't have to. Until both possibilities are eliminated any conclusions drawn from the "inaccurate or unconfirmed" data are just speculative.

I agree. My whole post was speculation, and so are everyone else's. I thought that was the point.

According to my understanding of the data, the FLT_DECK_DOOR parameter was recorded from the same port (physical circuit board) and subframe (virtual data stream) as AUTOTHROTTLE DISC which was verified as working by the NTSB and used in their analysis reports.

Can anyone explain how the FLT_DECK_DOOR data could be recorded incorrectly if it were coming from the same physical circuitry and the same data stream as a verified parameter, unless the door sensor was simply never installed?

yes. send your money to a bunch of frauds. Turbofan was your tech guy and supported you and he simply pointed out that you couldn't claim what you were doing with the data. Then you go hog wild and bury a knife in his back and we are now witness to the biggest meltdown in truther history.


As much as turbofan has disagreed with the skeptics, he has provided much more substantiated evidence than you have.


if that is what you do to your supporters, well damn.

Originally posted by solequinox... assuming the data provided by warrenstutt.com is accurate.

1. The door sensor was never installed on Flight 77 and the FDR system recorded a default value of CLOSED.

While this is still a possibility in my mind, it seems highly unlikely. They were installing these proximity switches on the cabin doors of converted 757 cargo planes in the early 90's. It would make sense that they would require this on passenger jets. Also, it makes more sense that a default value would be OPEN.

It sure would be nice to have definitive documentation to put this
theory to rest. If true, this find would shut down the official story hands down.

The default value as per circuit and design efficiency (lowest power
consumption) is CLOSED = 0. due to the fact that the cabin door is
normally closed when the engines are running, engineers design the
logic such that the system uses the least amount of power.

2. The door sensor was broken or somehow malfunctioned.

I don't think this is a possibility. A proximity switch would only record CLOSED if the connection is made. If it cannot measure that connection, then it must report the door as OPEN, regardless of how it was broken or malfunctioned.

Correct, as per 757-200SF manual. Even though the SF models do not have cabin doors, chances are this very same circuit would be used in a
passenger model 757.

I see no reason why they would include door circuit schematics for an
aircraft that does not incorporate a cabin door, and then have a totally
different circuit design for a passenger jet with cockpit door isntalled.
This leads me to believe it's a generic design for similar type Boeing
aircraft...of course we cannot say for sure without looking at the proper
manual.

3. The FDR system was not recording the correct value from the door sensor.

The FDR does not read the signal directly from the door sensor; it reads
from the EICAS. There is a bunch of logic and relays between the door
sensor and the FDAU.

Perhaps someone with a technical understanding can explain how the AUTOTHROTTLE DISC could report accurate data while FLT_DECK_DOOR did not?

The bit position within the frame does not necessarily mean the two
parameters are located on the same circuit. I dont' have the manual
near me at the moment, however the two bit positions could be reading
from an entirely different circuit. It only takes one bit to monitor the door
switch.

Originally posted by turbofan

The bit position within the frame does not necessarily mean the two
parameters are located on the same circuit. I dont' have the manual
near me at the moment, however the two bit positions could be reading
from an entirely different circuit. It only takes one bit to monitor the door
switch.

I posted the full manual HERE.

Page 431 - Documentation on the parameters in question.
Page 22 - Explanations for the headers.

From my reading, it looks like FLT_DECK_DOOR and AUTOTHROTTLE DISC are coming from the same hardware and reporting in the same data stream.

It also says FLT_DECK_DOOR is Rev. A2 which became required (page 9) on 7/11/97 (page 24).

That document does not contain the schematic wiring unfortunately.
What you see are data frame layouts, word structures, etc.

The manual i have access to shows no connection between the door
switch/relay to the FDAU. All other doors such as cargo, passenger, etc.
do have connections to the FDAU through EICAS.

Originally posted by turbofan
That document does not contain the schematic wiring unfortunately.
What you see are data frame layouts, word structures, etc.

The manual i have access to shows no connection between the door
switch/relay to the FDAU. All other doors such as cargo, passenger, etc.
do have connections to the FDAU through EICAS.

Which manual is that? Would you be willing to share if I will keep it private?

This to me seems to suggest that it is a possibility that the sensor was never installed or hooked up. I agree that is a possibility.

However, IF the sensor was installed, it seems to me that the FLT_DECK_DOOR data should be correct as they have verified the other components of the FDR recording system through the AUTOTHROTTLE DISC variable.

Yeah, Tino has it right.

I did a little digging through the 757 Schematic Manual and I shouldn't have been so surprised that Boeing packaged the FLT DECK DOOR parameter in with all the other EICAS messages. There is indeed only one output from the EICAS computer to the FDAU. So the "flight deck door" warning wouldn't be sent to the FDAU through a single wire as a ground or open circuit. It's encoded in ARINC 429; a high speed style data bus that most Boeing avionics "talks" on. I've asked Warren to help makes some sense of this as I now have a new theory.

From looking at our (non-AA) configuration of the 757 regarding the FLT DECK DOOR parameter.....even though we have a door sensor, a data bus between the EICAS and FDAU, it still wouldn't work because our 757's don't register an open cockpit door as an EICAS message. I checked this two ways: with the manuals and with an actual 757. The manuals showed that the sensor for the cockpit door is used only for the cockpit door open switch(the switch the pilots use to open the cockpit door via a strike solenoid when they are strapped in), the accept/deny circuitry, and cockpit entry keypad. I then searched the index of all EICAS messages; FLT DECK DOOR (and other similar descriptions) wasn't listed. I had the opportunity to test this message on an actual 757. The airplane was on jacks, so this was perfect as the aircraft was in simulated "air mode"(many EICAS messages are inhibited in certain conditions..ie "on ground" and "engines off" or "start levers off"), I also simulated "engine's on" with the EEC ground power switches(EEC's are the computers which control all aspects of propulsion) and I put the engine fuel levers from "cutoff" to "run". I cleared the EICAS screen of all the other messages that were active and then opened and closed the door a few times. Nothing. If EICAS didn't register the open door, neither could the FDAU.

I will say that our 757 configuration isn't necessarily the same as AA's. And what I described above is only one possible explantion. I have another one that I'm trying to hash out.



[edit on 4-12-2009 by 767doctor]

reply to post by solequinox


Sorry, I cannot distribute the full manual as requested by the owner.
You would have to contact a member at "the other forum" screen
named, "JFK". I will at some point link a cropped version of the page
which we are discussing.

Originally posted by 767doctorThe manuals showed that the sensor for the cockpit door is used only for the cockpit door open switch(the switch the pilots use to open the cockpit door via a strike solenoid when they are strapped in), the accept/deny circuitry, and cockpit entry keypad.

I agree with this assessment as the proximity switch is merely a device
used to break a ground connection to a multi-pin relay which controls
several separate circuits.

If any sort of message is transported through EICAS, it would only be
one bit in size, and represent a TRUE, NOT TRUE state to correspond
with the Data Frame Layout.

Jay, we know that passenger doors are connected to EICAS and recorded
in the FDR. What sort of message would be displayed on the monitor?

Originally posted by turbofan

Jay, we know that passenger doors are connected to EICAS and recorded
in the FDR. What sort of message would be displayed on the monitor?

Actually there's an annunciator panel on the overhead as well as EICAS. I believe one or more open cabin doors will register as "DOORS" or "ENTRY DOORS" on EICAS. If a service door is open, i think its more specific ie "FWD EQUIP ACCESS DOOR". IIRC the lights on the panel say, ENTRY DOORS, EMER DOORS, CARGO DOORS, ACCESS DOORS.

There is no flight deck door annunciator on that panel. But there is a door open/unlock annunciator light on the cockpit door control panel on the overhead.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by 767doctor]

Originally posted by solequinox

I posted the full manual HERE.

Page 431 - Documentation on the parameters in question.
Page 22 - Explanations for the headers.

From my reading, it looks like FLT_DECK_DOOR and AUTOTHROTTLE DISC are coming from the same hardware and reporting in the same data stream.

It also says FLT_DECK_DOOR is Rev. A2 which became required (page 9) on 7/11/97 (page 24).

First off, FLT DECK DOOR is not a required parameter. Just because it shows up on the 757-3 frame layouts in 1997 doesn't mean that parameter was required. There are over 1000 parameters listed in that table, the FAA mandates 88(or thereabouts).

AUTOTHROTTLE DISC(which is an EICAS message) would be on that port, or bus, as well as a buttload of other data from EICAS. And I would be careful with using the term "manual" talking the FDR frame decoders. Manuals are specific to airframes, they show what is installed on certain airframes and what isn't. The frame descriptor table you listed is all inclusive. It has no idea which of the 1110 parameters are installed on a given airframe. I imagine this is why the NTSB included an appendix of parameters that were "unconfirmed".



[edit on 4-12-2009 by 767doctor]

Originally posted by 767doctor
I did a little digging through the 757 Schematic Manual and I shouldn't have been so surprised that Boeing packaged the FLT DECK DOOR parameter in with all the other EICAS messages.

Thats good to know Jay. As the 757-200SF manual pages Tino has been looking at doesnt have the FLT DECK DOOR listed or packaged on the EICAS.

Looks like Delta records their FDD as well.

This makes sense it shows up in your manual but not the other as a 757-200SF is a Freighter. If they have a door, its probably open most of the flight. No real reason to record the status of the door on a Freighter. Not to mention the manual Tino referenced is from a foreign airline.

@Tino

Since you have demonstrated you are unable to be trusted with proprietary information, you ruined it for everyone else. JFK is no longer sharing his manual.

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Nov 30 2009, 06:05 PM) *
JFK, if I may I'd like to contact you further about this circuit and diagrams.

Thanks!
Tino

-------------------------

(JFK reply)

Nope, not any more.

From now on any and all propriatary documents I possess will remain as such thanks to your actions.

Great work Tino.

pilotsfor911truth.org...


By the way Jay, AA77 was required to record 22 parameter groups. Not 88.

88 was required for aircraft made after Aug 2002.

The NTSB lists over 300 parameters validated which includes Pressure altitude (Pressure Altitude required by FAA as well) and over 750 as "not working or unconfirmed" which listed your highly touted Radar Altitude (RA not required by FAA for AA77).





[edit on 4-12-2009 by R_Mackey]

Originally posted by 767doctor
The frame descriptor table you listed is all inclusive. It has no idea which of the 1110 parameters are installed on a given airframe.

The Data Frame Layout 757-3b_1.txt is a custom Data Layout made by American Airlines for their aircraft. It is based on the Boeing 757-3b Layout. It reports 1110 parameters. I counted all listed on the NTSB document. There are 1103 listed. I may have missed a few in my count. Feel free to cross check the count.

United airlines has a custom layout as well, 757UALmap.xls. This is based on the Boeing 757-4 Layout.

The NTSB obtained their Data Frame Layouts from the specific airline because they are custom made for their aircraft. This is listed bottom of page 2 on both NTSB FDR Report pdf's.

The NTSB lists FLT DECK DOOR as a parameter for AA77, it is in the Custom Data Frame Layout exclusively made by and provided by American Airlines, is NOT assigned RSVD status by American Airlines, and it shows up in the data. The FLT DECK DOOR status was being recorded and in use.

The NTSB does NOT list the FLT DECK DOOR for UA93, it is NOT listed in the Data Frame Layout, it is NOT in the United 93 data. United 93 doesnt record the status of their FLT DECK DOOR.


[edit on 4-12-2009 by R_Mackey]

reply to post by R_Mackey


His document is safe with me. If you were able to read a simple passage
above, you would see that I denied passing on the manual. Unlike you,
I have a little integrity and can keep private conversations/property behind
closed doors. Just remember Robbie, it was your action to ban me after
repeated attempts to show you how the FDR and data works. It was you
that blocked my messages and denied my requests to delete my posts
on your forum.

Remember those last words Robbie? "We're cool now"? Nope, I guess
not... you had to be stupid and bring it out in the open (not really sure
what triggered that outburst?).

Hey Robbie, any idea why an SF model manual would show a door, and
the door circuits if ummmm...the aircraft doesn't have a door installed?


[edit on 4-12-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan
Just remember Robbie, it was your action to ban me after
repeated attempts to show you how the FDR and data works. It was you
that blocked my messages and denied my requests to delete my posts
on your forum.

We dont delete posts on our forum Tino. You know this as you been an admin there. By the way, your posts arent deleted and will be moved back when i get the free time.

Remember those last words Robbie? "We're cool now"? Nope, I guess
not... you had to be stupid and bring it out in the open (not really sure
what triggered that outburst?).

The more i thought about it, and after reviewing the emails which clearly show you have a lot more to hide than i ever will, the more i was uncool with your threats and attempts at blackmail.

I called your bluff Tino. With that, I exposed your true character.

You cannot be trusted with private information. And if people lose their jobs due to your lack of discretion, i hope you lose everything you own, and I will be sure to help them.

Hey Robbie, any idea why an SF model manual would show a door, and
the door circuits if ummmm...the aircraft doesn't have a door installed?

I know i stated in an email that i thought the door wasnt installed on Freighters. I actually got that from this thread from some GL making excuses. The truth is, i actually dont know if the door was installed on that aircraft.

Enjoy your day!

[edit on 4-12-2009 by R_Mackey]

Posted by Tino
Correct, as per 757-200SF manual. Even though the SF models do not have cabin doors

You may want to look at AMM 52__025 page page 387 (202) 52-32-00 before spreading any more disinformation.

Also had you spent any time at all studying that you would realize that those aircraft were converted from passenger aircraft and that was completed 26 January 2004.

Posted by Tino
The manual i have access to shows no connection between the door
switch/relay to the FDAU. All other doors such as cargo, passenger, etc.
do have connections to the FDAU through EICAS.

Oops, too late with the disinfo...

Perhaps you should have done a search for FDAU in SMM 34__015 prior to spouting off about which you know nothing.



BTW, I held up my part, will you follow through with your 2 promises by PM ?

I didn't think so.


[edit on 4-12-2009 by JFrickenK]