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: 62
12
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
OK, can we end this notion that Data Frame Layout 757-3B is specifically tailored to AA's 757 fleet?

From the D226A101-3G doc from Warrens site, page 12 and 13:

The 757-3B DFL can actually be used for the 757-300 as well as the -200; AA has no 757-300's. There are only six....yes just six different DFL options to cover the vast number of 757 fleet configurations in the world. So yes, they are generic. Also note the description of discrete B118. If B118 is a "1", this indicates a Boeing Defined Data Frame; if B118 is a "0", then its a customer unique data frame. In both cases for 757-3B(pre and post 1997 wiring mod), B118 is a "1".



Read the bottom of page 2 here for AA77. Jay.

www.ntsb.gov...

Read the bottom of page 2 here for UA93 Jay.

www.ntsb.gov...


Jay, you claim to be an avionics Tech. Why do you not know that Airlines tailor generic Boeing DFL's to the Airline specific needs?

Hint for you Jay. 757-3b is not the exact same as 757-3b_1. Nor is 757UALmap the exact same as 757-4.


Jay, why does a loser pilot like myself know this, and you dont?

Jay, im gonig to expose you faster than i did Tino.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by R_Mackey]




posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
Please provide Flight numbers for each Flight you claim and passenger manifests and Flight Crew. Thanks.


The burden of proof is on you bubba.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Jay, you claim to be an avionics Tech. Why do you not know that Airlines tailor generic Boeing DFL's to the Airline specific needs?


This is an interesting quote Mr. Balsamo. Please clarify what you mean
by, "tailor" DFL's:

1. Do you mean the can assign parameters to already existing inputs
as an "option" as specified in the Boeing documentation

2. Are you trying to imply that a unique airline can re-wire the system
to their own needs? IE: Put a discrete door input on any port of the FDAU
Jay, you claim to be an avionics Tech. Why do you not know that Airlines tailor generic Boeing DFL's to the Airline specific needs?


Hint for you Jay. 757-3b is not the exact same as 757-3b_1. Nor is 757UALmap the exact same as 757-4.


Can you tell us the difference between 757-3b and 757-3b_1?

Do you see extra assignments to the FDAU?

Do you see different port assignments addressed to different word, or bit
positions within the data frame?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan

Jay, you claim to be an avionics Tech. Why do you not know that Airlines tailor generic Boeing DFL's to the Airline specific needs?


This is an interesting quote Mr. Balsamo. Please clarify what you mean
by, "tailor" DFL's:




Tailored, custom designed by the individual airline for their individual needs.

Read the bottom of page 2 in the above pdf's as i told you since day 1 as the NTSB uses the same word. Custom.

Your Camaro is "tailored". Its custom. Its not factory stock.

Thats what it means.



Can you tell us the difference between 757-3b and 757-3b_1?


One is made by Boeing, the other is made by the airline.

Read bottom of page 2 in the above pdf's.

Anyone provided proof for an open door indication yet?

Flight number and passenger manifests for the alleged "past 11 flights"?

[edit on 5-12-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Please accept my apologies for interrupting these
intelligent and civil discussions with my remarks
about the new FDR decode.


Originally posted by PersonalChoice
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?

I'm not WW, but Warren's decode does finally include
four seconds that had been missing from previous
decodes.


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.

The aircraft did not quite reach "perfectly level"
flight before the end of data. By my calculations,
it was still descending at about a 3% grade at the
end of the data. That does represent considerable
levelling out compared to the approximately 10% grade
just a few seconds before the end of data. Details at
www.ccs.neu.edu...

Will



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Since it seems we are in an intermission ---

Just wanted to commend 'turbofan' here for pointing out the shenanigans.

It takes a big person to realize, then admit that what he/she had been told all along was bunk.

I think you deserve a round of applause, especially for exposing the "FWD ACCESS DOOR" nonsense that keeps being thrown up, again whether intentionally or not...it certainly confuses the issue.

While, again, that particular parameter is more pertinent in the specific thread devoted to the AAL 77 FLT DECK DOOR, the overall W. Stutt decode encompasses eveything, and certainly destroys the claims of the past...whatever they were...by some other camps.

It is a shame that so many words were wasted on baloney...and time...and fingers frantically tapping keyboards.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I think you deserve a round of applause, especially for exposing the "FWD ACCESS DOOR" nonsense that keeps being thrown up, again whether intentionally or not...it certainly confuses the issue.

While, again, that particular parameter is more pertinent in the specific thread devoted to the AAL 77 FLT DECK DOOR, the overall W. Stutt decode encompasses eveything, and certainly destroys the claims of the past...whatever they were...by some other camps.


Agreed. For me, the most important aspect of the data is that for the first time in the three years I have been studying the flight path, it is now finally pinned down fairly well up to when the plane crossed 27. We can "see" the post encounters in the acc data and confirm pretty much what the eyewitnesses have to say. Sadly however, there are some who don't know how to interpret eyewitness accounts. For example, when a guy in the Army-Navy golf course says he saw the plane "over the tree", he is pointing at a less than 45 degree angle. Clearly, he does not mean the plane was directly above the tree, but that he saw it aligned over the tree. If a reasonable person triangulates the directional information he is giving, with the directional information given by those on Columbia Pike, they describe exactly what the radar and fdr data show the path to be.

The same holds true for the ANC witnesses. They point south, while those on I-395 point north. The only real exception to the pattern is Lagasse, and he was facing his patrol car at the time facing south, so it is hard to reconcile his statement with his actions at the time (confirmed with the Citgo video).

This is important data, and continued debate over a parameter that simply does not change at any point in the record is simply not important. Now that that fact is established, some are injecting more stupidity to the degree of suggesting the other 11 flights did not happen, demanding the pilots names and manifests. Many pages ago, Rob challenged me on a point. The very next post I admitted that I did not know for sure and could be wrong. You would think he could be man enough to admit he was wrong on the FLT DECK DOOR parameter and send out a retraction. But no, he would rather ridicule those of us (including Turbo) who have the maturity to admit mistakes and go on.

But I guess that is the purpose of government disinformation plants like Rob who's entire function in the process is to disrupt and spread confusion.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Originally posted by 767doctor
OK, can we end this notion that Data Frame Layout 757-3B is specifically tailored to AA's 757 fleet?

From the D226A101-3G doc from Warrens site, page 12 and 13:

The 757-3B DFL can actually be used for the 757-300 as well as the -200; AA has no 757-300's. There are only six....yes just six different DFL options to cover the vast number of 757 fleet configurations in the world. So yes, they are generic. Also note the description of discrete B118. If B118 is a "1", this indicates a Boeing Defined Data Frame; if B118 is a "0", then its a customer unique data frame. In both cases for 757-3B(pre and post 1997 wiring mod), B118 is a "1".



Read the bottom of page 2 here for AA77. Jay.

www.ntsb.gov...

Read the bottom of page 2 here for UA93 Jay.

www.ntsb.gov...


Jay, you claim to be an avionics Tech. Why do you not know that Airlines tailor generic Boeing DFL's to the Airline specific needs?

Hint for you Jay. 757-3b is not the exact same as 757-3b_1. Nor is 757UALmap the exact same as 757-4.


Jay, why does a loser pilot like myself know this, and you dont?

Jay, im gonig to expose you faster than i did Tino.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by R_Mackey]



Hmm, so let me follow your logic here. Since the attachment 757-3B_1.txt is a document from AA and 757-3B is a document from Boeing - that means they are different even though both show the same exact number of parameters?! That means its generic, you tool.

Look at page 13 of D226A101-3G. There is an option for a Customer Unique Frame, if discrete B118 is false. Is B118 false? Apparently not, because Boeing DFL 757-3B is being used. That page describes it as a "Boeing Defined Data Frame". Fail.

BTW, 757-3 and 757-3A both have the FLT DECK DOOR parameter, too. In fact, 757-1, 757-2, and 757-4 don't record any door warnings at all. So we can say FLT DECK DOOR is in every DFL that records EICAS messages dealing with open doors. So much for FDD being this custom, unique parameter specific to AA.

You have a lot of work to do if you still want to prove this claim. Get to it, since you have nothing else to do.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by 767doctor]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey



Originally posted by turbofan
Can you tell us the difference between 757-3b and 757-3b_1?


One is made by Boeing, the other is made by the airline.

Read bottom of page 2 in the above pdf's.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by R_Mackey]


Uhh, I think he meant what are the differences in the document, as in the actual data. I can download 757-3b_1.txt and rename it to 757-3b_1_a.txt and host the file, has it changed? Has the ownership changed?

[edit on 5-12-2009 by 767doctor]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Found something interesting Rob/R_Mackey. You said this:





(On 757-3B_1 Data Frame Layout)Tailored, custom designed by the individual airline for their individual needs.




Jay, you claim to be an avionics Tech. Why do you not know that Airlines tailor generic Boeing DFL's to the Airline specific needs?




If you dont post the type FDR installed in the aircraft, and do not have the associated custom data frame layout as designed by the individual airline,



Ok, you've made your assertion. Now, can you tell me why there are Pratt & Whitney specific parameters in the readout of a Rolls Royce engined airplane? Engine type is about as basic as you can get, fleet configuration wise.

I invite everyone here to look at this, don't take my word for it.

Take a look at 757-3B_1.txt and the 757-3B DFL in the D226A101-3G doc. Both of these docs can be found here:


You'll find that the 757-3B DFL specifies Pratt & Whitney specific parameters(ie 2.5 BLD ACT POSN -L/R, ENG STATIC PRESS - L/R, etc, etc, etc...). Why do these show up in the supposed tailored 757-3B_1 DFL, which you say is tailored for a Rolls Royce powered AA aircraft? And it's not just one or two of the Pratt & Whitney engine specific parameters, its all of them.

Bob, you can go ahead and publish a retraction now. This proves what I've been saying about the DFL's all along. Generic.





[edit on 5-12-2009 by 767doctor]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
Hmm, so let me follow your logic here. Since the attachment 757-3B_1.txt is a document from AA and 757-3B is a document from Boeing - that means they are different even though both show the same exact number of parameters?! That means its generic, you tool.


This is just an example of how they are different.


CORRECTED AOA
This parameter appears in 757-3b_1.txt but not in D226A101-3G.pdf. In D226A101-3G.pdf, the DENSITY S TANK, DENSITY R TANK, DENSITY L TANK and DENSITY C TANK parameters are stored instead in the location for this parameter indicated in 757-3b_1.txt.


There are many more explained here.

Note On Parameters
www.warrenstutt.com...


So, has anyone provided proof for an open door indication yet?

By the way, if 757-3b_1 was designed custom by American Airlines for their fleet, and Warren couldnt use this data frame layout in some instances because some of it didnt make sense, conversion factors different, parameters assigned for differently, etc, and instead had to use the Boeing generic DFL, and since we know the Serial Numbers are "Mysteriously Absent" from the FDR Data, and the FDR found in two opposite locations at the Pentagon, how do you guys even know this data is from N644AA?

Jay, does Delta require both Comparators for flight?

Hmmmm.....

[edit on 6-12-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey
...how do you guys even know this data is from N644AA?


And exactly what plane is it from if not N644AA?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Alright, it's time to turn over a new leaf (at least for me). I have cooled
down somewhat over the past couple of days and talked to a very good
buddy of mine via e-mail who has been the better man through all of this.

I would like to ask that further personal attacks cease and that we remain
civil (as possible) as we continue to discuss these points. Sure, it's a stretch
but I'd like to see this behind me very soon.

Having said that, there is a conflict of interest here because my position
on 9/11 differs from many of you in this thread. If you haven't already
figured it out, I stand behind my research and I will call it like I see it.
P4T has some very well thought out, and well documented presentations/research
that I agree with.

The latest however does not make the cut for reasons stated earlier.
As Jay, "767" doctor has shown, the DFL's are generic which was the
point I was making by stating the differences between revision levels.
AA, UA, etc. based their DFL on one of the configurations shown in the
document. This does not mean every parameter was used and/or connected
as proven by the engine specifics in "767"'s remarks.

There is absolutely no proof available to make such a claim about
FLT_DECK_DOOR. As I thought more about this over the weekend,
I'm wondering if the .fdr file contains recording of the instrument tests
pre-taxi stage?

I know that pilots test their controls before every flight, and I know that
the FDR will be recording. I also know the cabin door is open at this time,
and also during the passenger boarding. I took a flight about 6 weeks
ago where the cockpit door was open, engines running and people boarding
the plane.

My question is: is the pre-flight data within the file, and if yes, can we
get Warren to decode this portion? I no longer have direct contact with
Mr. Stutt, but I will try his e-mail via his web page. Maybe someone
else with closer ties can give him a buzz and suggest the above?

ETA: Has Warren decoded the comparator column yet?

[edit on 6-12-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
You'll find that the 757-3B DFL specifies Pratt & Whitney specific parameters(ie 2.5 BLD ACT POSN -L/R, ENG STATIC PRESS - L/R, etc, etc, etc...). Why do these show up in the supposed tailored 757-3B_1 DFL, which you say is tailored for a Rolls Royce powered AA aircraft? And it's not just one or two of the Pratt & Whitney engine specific parameters, its all of them.


Probably because American bought TWA in 2001? And at that time didnt know if they were going to retire the TWA Pratt 757's?

Duh...

Jay, you sure you work for the airlines?

j/k..



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
My question is: is the pre-flight data within the file, and if yes, can we
get Warren to decode this portion? I no longer have direct contact with
Mr. Stutt, but I will try his e-mail via his web page. Maybe someone
else with closer ties can give him a buzz and suggest the above?


Warren's software pulls all of the data in the file, and is under the impression (as I am) that the fdr records while the engines are running (pre and post flight).



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by R_Mackey

Probably because American bought TWA in 2001? And at that time didnt know if they were going to retire the TWA Pratt 757's?

Duh...

Jay, you sure you work for the airlines?

j/k..




Hm, I read your post, but didn't see an explanation....just a piece of commercial aviation trivia that I already knew.

Typical woosh-over-the-head response. No sh!t Sherlock. Those planes are now in widget colors, so I'm well aware of them. But how does that fact help your argument? I would have thought the logic would be simple enough for a first grader, but I should know better than to overestimate your intellect.

OK, think this through Bobby. You stated repeatedly the DFL's are custom for each airline and all parameters on the 757-3B_1 are functional for the aircraft. The implication of both Pratt & Whitney specific and Rolls Royce specific parameters being on the 757-3B_1 list(and readout) of N644AA, a Rolls Royce powered 757 is an obvious one: Not all parameters on the DFL pertain to the aircraft under readout. This is no longer speculation, we now have proof of what I've been saying all along.

I'll ask the other members here to keep hammering Balsamo for proof that there is such a "FLT DECK DOOR" EICAS warning for for AA's fleet. That's the only way he can prove his case. He says he has PFT members who are AA mechanics; all they have to do is confirm this and Balsamo has proven his claim. Really simple. The fact that he hasn't done so yet means he knows this is all BS.





Jay, does Delta require both Comparators for flight?



Oh noes! I sense another press release coming. Can I write the headline? How about this:

"PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH EXCLUSIVE:

ZOMG AA77 INSTRUMENT COMPARATOR DISCREPANCY PROVES 9/11 INSIDE JOBBY JOB!!1!ONE. THOSE DASTARDLY GL'S WONT BE ABLE TO DEBUNK US THIS TIME. JOIN NOW! *NEW MEMBERS SPECIAL* GET A 5% DISCOUNT ON ANY $500 PURCHASE IN OUR ONLINE STORE. "






[edit on 6-12-2009 by 767doctor]

[edit on 6-12-2009 by 767doctor]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Alright, it's time to turn over a new leaf (at least for me). I have cooled
down somewhat over the past couple of days and talked to a very good
buddy of mine via e-mail who has been the better man through all of this.

I would like to ask that further personal attacks cease and that we remain
civil (as possible) as we continue to discuss these points. Sure, it's a stretch
but I'd like to see this behind me very soon.

Having said that, there is a conflict of interest here because my position
on 9/11 differs from many of you in this thread. If you haven't already
figured it out, I stand behind my research and I will call it like I see it.
P4T has some very well thought out, and well documented presentations/research
that I agree with.

The latest however does not make the cut for reasons stated earlier.
As Jay, "767" doctor has shown, the DFL's are generic which was the
point I was making by stating the differences between revision levels.
AA, UA, etc. based their DFL on one of the configurations shown in the
document. This does not mean every parameter was used and/or connected
as proven by the engine specifics in "767"'s remarks.

There is absolutely no proof available to make such a claim about
FLT_DECK_DOOR. As I thought more about this over the weekend,
I'm wondering if the .fdr file contains recording of the instrument tests
pre-taxi stage?

I know that pilots test their controls before every flight, and I know that
the FDR will be recording. I also know the cabin door is open at this time,
and also during the passenger boarding. I took a flight about 6 weeks
ago where the cockpit door was open, engines running and people boarding
the plane.

My question is: is the pre-flight data within the file, and if yes, can we
get Warren to decode this portion? I no longer have direct contact with
Mr. Stutt, but I will try his e-mail via his web page. Maybe someone
else with closer ties can give him a buzz and suggest the above?

ETA: Has Warren decoded the comparator column yet?

[edit on 6-12-2009 by turbofan]



Good post turbofan. Yes, the FDR records on the ground as long as an engine is running. So there should be plenty of 1's in the data, both in pre-flight as well as in flight. Pre-9/11 cockpit doors were open all the way up to the "prepare cabin for departure" PA announcement which came well after engine engine start.

I still literally cant believe that a self anointed leader of a pilot organization believes that no pilot left his seat a single instance in 11 flights, which averaged over 3 hours a piece. Idiocy. That fact that the state never changes once alone debunks this retarded theory.

I'll send Warren a PM at JREF, he said he's already hard at work on this topic.



[edit on 6-12-2009 by 767doctor]




top topics



 
12
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join