It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

New FDR Decode

page: 58
12
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
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.

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


Please correct me if I am wrong, but what you seem to be saying is that on the 757 aircraft that you have access to, there is no warning or indicator light through the EICAS display that corresponds to FDD?

Does this necessarily mean that the FDAU doesn't record the parameter?

In other words, might the EICAS send this data parameter to the FDAU even though there is no corresponding warning or indicator light on the EICAS display.

Furthermore, the FDD parameter was custom to the AA 77 data frame layout. If this is a custom data frame, we would not expect to find it on the 757 that you are experimenting with.

I am confused on what you mean by you searched all EICAS messages. Is this on a visual display on the aircraft itself (in the cockpit), or where you searching through something like log files where the parameters are recorded?

If the FDD parameter is custom for AA 77 then we would not expect to see it through the EICAS system that you were monitoring as it wasn't using this data frame layout, and I wouldn't expect every data parameter that is recorded by the FDR system to necessarily have a corresponding EICAS warning indicator.




posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by solequinox
 


Hi, 'solequinox'. You asked for a link...I was speaking rather generically about Warren Stutt's work, but anyways found this on page 2 of this thread, posted by 'ImAPepper':


Orignially posted by ImAPepper
warrenstutt.com...

Here is his e-mail address:

wstutt@warrenstutt.com

__________________________________________________________
fixed tags


[edit on 4 December 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Actually nothing is shot down until Boeing releases the pertinant pages from alleged flight 77's SMM which is in chapter 52 of that manual.


You can produce all the 'documentation' that you want. We can go on for 1000 pages of thread. But the ONLY evidence that the parameter was actually functional would be a change in state. There is none, so now all that is left is perhaps to speculate as to why that might be the case.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Question WW, does this better decode finally include the one or two seconds leading up to the impact that were missing from the first one?

If it does not, why do you think this would happen? Is it possible the light poles had something to do with it?

It's a shame because it would be nice to see how exactly Hani was able to man handle that 757, bringing it perfectly level across the lawn after hitting those five light poles and coming down the slope.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


You're full of it, don't ever claim something you can't prove. I went over
this with Dennis Cimino, Ralph Kolstad, Mr. Balsamo and on my own.

There is NOTHING connecting the door to the EICAS, or directly to the FDAU.
The only way I see it happening is via the panel indicators to show door open,
or lock/unlock status. It is possible that the FDAU receives a voltage reference from these indicators, but even that is not looking very promising.

Just wait until a little later and I'll make you eat your words with diagrams
and screen shots of e-mails sent to all of the above.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 


I don't know...there is a lot to go through at Warren's site.

But, four seconds at over 750 fps covers a lot of ground. I can only speculate about the final moments...seems someone somewhere noticed the acceleration values though, going off-scale. That would seem to indicate a sudden impact/stop, I'd think.

As to 'manhandling'??? It is remarkably easy to fly, doesn't take superhuman strength. Can't say if it was "perfectly level" across the "lawn"...I mean, take a look at the aerial views of the Pentagon, and you'll see how small an area we're talking about. I think the "lawn" looks longer in some of the ground-level photos from that morning. Photos showing a lot of foreground can give that illusion.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by turbofanI'll be sure to upload all private data including your 757 manual.


Do it Tino. I #ing dare you.

And when you do I will personally make sure Boeings legal team is all over you pathetic childish ass for distributing propriatary confidential and copyrighted information.

And what is Boeing's legal team going to do when they found out you gave it him, and presumably Rob Balsamo?

Or are you going to fail to tell them that?

[edit on 4-12-2009 by discombobulator]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by turbofanI'll be sure to upload all private data including your 757 manual.


Do it Tino. I #ing dare you.

And when you do I will personally make sure Boeings legal team is all over you pathetic childish ass for distributing propriatary confidential and copyrighted information.

And what is Boeing's legal team going to do when they found out you gave it him, and presumably Rob Balsamo?

Or are you going to fail to tell them that?

[edit on 4-12-2009 by discombobulator]


Trust me, if these drives are confiscated and gone through, Boeing will be the very least of my concerns.

You presume too much.

And Tino, Perhaps you should do a search for "input number 416" in ALL those documents and see for yourself how it is split into the two EICAS computers, cross compared, and a NULL is sent to the FDAU if the EICAS' disagree.

Also since you are once again hostile toward me, I will not be responding to any more of your posts.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Just wondering --- has the fact that the EICAS connections were result from the Post-9/11 modifications to cockpit doors been considered?

Just sayin'...no need to record the data pre-9/11

NOW, of course, a matter of security and alarm.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Just wondering --- has the fact that the EICAS connections were result from the Post-9/11 modifications to cockpit doors been considered?

Just sayin'...no need to record the data pre-9/11

NOW, of course, a matter of security and alarm.


The diagrams we are working from are for a fleet of aircraft which started life as Passenger 757's with serial numbers pre dating alleged flight 77's serial number, and were completed conversions to freighters in 2004.

Neither the forward access door, proxy switch, or wiring in that aspect was removed... This is clearly documented in the "Service Bulletin List"...
And the vast majority of those were done in December of 2000.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


How was I "hostile" toward you? You are the one that claimed, "I know
nothing" and "I didn't study" the material.

You are wrong. I will look at the connections you have listed and get back to you.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 



Neither the forward access door,


Just because terminology is so important to prevent misunderstanding....

The phrase 'forward access door' immediately jumps out at me as meaning something OTHER than the Cockpit Door.

That would more accurately describe the access 'door' (more like a hatch) directly under the cockpit, behind the nosegear, that MX uses to access the E & E compartment.

On most widebodies there also is a floor hatch inside the cabin (or in the cockpit, depends on the particular airplane). For instance, on the DC-10 there was an exterior equipment access hatch, a short ladder, and then a hatch in the cockpit. We had a guy get in trouble once, many years ago...he was commuting home, missed the airplane at the gate, ran out on the ramp and was let aboard that way. He and the Captain got into hot water over that one...and, of course, can never happen in today's world.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Also wondering how a visual error on VSI/ASI translates into my not
knowing how VSI really works as I explained the function without a
diagram. Robbie? Read back a few pages; maybe I'll quote it for you?



Tino, if you knew the function of the VSI, you would know that a VSI NEVER has a pitot hook up, ever, on any airplane and therefore wouldnt have made a fool of yourself claiming that it does for pages. Until you realized your eyesight.

If you knew how a VSI worked, you would have neve made such absurd claims and looked closer at the diagram.

lol.. too funny.

By the way. Im in contact with Dennis regarding you posting his private emails as well. He is completely wrong. But i'm not surprised, as he got that information from you.

Im sure he will be contacting you shortly to tell you to remove it.

Tno, can anyone trust you with anything?



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by R_Mackey
 


You're so ignorant. Go ahead and contact Dennis, he just wrote me
a few minutes ago and I'll you will be wrong.

Rob, try as you must to twist everything. I do most of my post at
night when I'm at work sans documentation. I looked at the Biggles
diagram and mistook ASI for VSI.. Big F deal. I still knew enough to
describe the function as reading from the static port. It's all right here
on ATS. No go play and continue your childish rant while others still
care to watch your back (me no being one of them at this point).

And for the record, anything post here with regard to FLT_DECK DOOR
with my name connected was written PRIOR to my learning that you
had no clue what you were doing, and that you had ZERO documentation.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
But the ONLY evidence that the parameter was actually functional would be a change in state. There is none, so now all that is left is perhaps to speculate as to why that might be the case.


No, this is pure speculation. Assumptions that the door SHOULD have been opened on previous flights is not evidence or data, it is speculation.

I am not saying that the data is being reported correctly, just that there are many questions that are unanswered here.

You seem to have a double-standard when it comes to this evidence. You are willing to trust in what you think SHOULD have been the case according to your assumptions about the pilot's habits, but you are demanding absolute proof to show that it was otherwise.

I have an open mind and would like to understand more about this evidence. I haven't assumed that the data is accurate or inaccurate.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK
 



Neither the forward access door,


Just because terminology is so important to prevent misunderstanding....

The phrase 'forward access door' immediately jumps out at me as meaning something OTHER than the Cockpit Door.

That would more accurately describe the access 'door' (more like a hatch) directly under the cockpit, behind the nosegear, that MX uses to access the E & E compartment.

On most widebodies there also is a floor hatch inside the cabin (or in the cockpit, depends on the particular airplane). For instance, on the DC-10 there was an exterior equipment access hatch, a short ladder, and then a hatch in the cockpit. We had a guy get in trouble once, many years ago...he was commuting home, missed the airplane at the gate, ran out on the ramp and was let aboard that way. He and the Captain got into hot water over that one...and, of course, can never happen in today's world.



I am calling it what Boeing is calling it. There is another reference to the FWD access door in the AMM with a nice drawing of your "Cockpit door".

So yes, I agree. Terminology is important.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
How was I "hostile" toward you?



Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by JFrickenK
You're full of it, don't ever claim something you can't prove.


If you are incapable of speaking as an adult, don't speak to me.

End of story.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
And you tell lies about me. I studied the manual and circuit with other
qualified individuals. Period. I don't appreciate you saying otherwise.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Frist let me say,

Major thanks to the mods for being fair and let me have my say so people can view both sides of the argument.


tino,

This is how its done if you want to post a private email.

With permission from Dennis Cimino.



well, I read it, and it's what I wrote, but in my own estimation, it's
not maligning you, it's saying; "look, he's under stress, not
sleeping..", and if this is in fact true, then that's not good. BUT,
this was 'wrong' to post this as a 'weapon' against you.

personally, if you 'dogged me' in the past, I don't care. as long as it
wasn't really nasty, I can live with it. it certainly never has been
'my' mode of operation to go after someone in 'revenge mode' for
something I never saw personally anyway.

anyway, I see what you mean. I don't concur with the method. if he
has a bone to pick with you, he's capable of picking up the phone or
e-mailing YOU and not airing this and MY feelings, out on a forum. This
is mean. This is WRONG. and I won't sign off on it continuing.


I'm sorry, Rob, I had no idea he was beating you about the head and
shoulders. My points to him were that you were with stress issues, and
didn't need any more of that. Unfortunately, you weren't allowed to
read all the rest of what I wrote about you, none of it being NEGATIVE
IN ANY WAY.

my concern was that this not continue. it's gone way too long. I did
not willingly have anything to do with this, and I did not consent to
have my e-mails published elsewhere. I stand by what I said, but my
words were never meant to bash you. Just a; "listen, the guy is under
stress, not getting much sleep, cut him some #ing slack, will ya!!",
but it got used in a totally different way.

dennis


My reply




Do i have permission to post your below email only to that forum?


Dennis Cimino reply



you absolutely do. It's the best I can do to help you undo the damage I inadvertently caused.


By the way, Dennis will remain listed as a P4T member.

For those wondering about my "stress".

In the first few days after the article broke on the FLT DECK DOOR based on the "New FDR decode" and verified by our data, I got about 4 hours sleep total with the added work that needed attending to after an article of this magnitude breaks and you have limited resources. Hundreds of email questions and comments, all positive perhaps for a handful of negatives... every single one replied to, over 70+ new applicants for P4T.. Forum use... etc.. .the list goes on.

I'm sleeping a lot better now that things have slowed down a bit.

tino, this whole fiasco could have been avoided if you just took a day or two to cool down after i restricted your forum access for deleting posts.

Enjoy your night folks.


[edit on 4-12-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Well Dennis doesn't know that you cut my access form the forum and restored
my posts after asking you to remove the nicely.

Dennis now knows I was blocked from replying and therefore had to use
this venue to show people still care even though you don't.

Dennis doesn't know many things that happened over these past few days
because I have a life outside of chasing your inappropriate posts on ATS.

Dennis has a good idea to call a truce and stop this nonsense on ATS.
You also leave my posts off P4T, and I drop the document exposure.

Deal?




top topics



 
12
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join