New FDR Decode

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by thomk
All of PfT's maintenance & circuit hand-waving is incompetent nonsense. Turbofan is not an aircraft mechanic. He is an auto mechanic. He has precisely zero time maintaining aircraft.

No, I am not an automechanic. I don't know who started that rumour,
but it's incorrect. I have a side business which caters to performance
tuning/building, and retail sales.

The only time I had a "full time" position in automotive was for about six
months in 2008 when I left a job in electronics to pursue other interests...
and that was to run my shop.

Your other question:

I currently work in the satellite industry. My focus is RF communication and behaviour
in systems when launched into space. Since 1995 I have been working
with military, and/or government related projects including tuning waveguides
for NORAD systems when working at Raytheon.

No, I have never repaired an airplane however I have read, interpreted and
drawn THOUSANDS of digital/analog schematics, diagrams, etc.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by turbofan]

You avoided the question.

"Work with" is a non-specific term that encompasses the CEO, the engineer, the tech & the janitor.

What is your formal training? What is your SPECIFIC job?

TomK

Originally posted by thomk

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by thomk

Originally posted by 767doctor

Bobby needs to show this exact schematic from AA's manual which shows a connection from the flight deck door sensor(S10165 in this drawing) to EICAS.

I disagree.

If he wants to make his case, he has to show a connection of the door sensed signal all the way to the input of the FDR.


TomK

I disagree with both of you. To make his case he has to show evidence that the parameter was actually being recorded. In other words, at least one instance of change in the recorded parameter in 42 hours of data. He can't, so the rest is just interesting trivia.

Perhaps you can show me the data path which generated column 106 in AAL77_tabular.csv, which was obviously recorded ?

I didn't think so.

Perhaps you could reply to the logic that I DID use rather than blather on about the illogic that I did NOT use.

I didn't think so...

TomK

That answers my question exactly how ?

The question I asked of Farmer, who also was unable to answer it.

Originally posted by JFrickenK
The question I asked of Farmer, who also was unable to answer it.

And what precisely did you think when Rob Balsamo and (allegedly) Ralph Kolstad (with his 27 years in airlines, 23,000 hours, and his 13 years of flying 757's for AA) couldn't identify what the "S Tank" was?

Remember how there were only two possibilities?

Only 2 possibilities.

1. American added a tank to N644AA which they have never added to any flights in Ralph's 13 year Career at American.

2. The aircraft which recorded the data we are studying did not come from an American Airlines 757, nor N644AA.

Remember how 10 minutes after you correctly identified the "S Tank" as the Surge Tank Captain Bob was suddenly the expert again?

Yeah.. Ralph remembers that tank now... its a small tank out in the wing tip to prevent sloshing of the fuel during turbulence.

Most planes have em....

Wake up, JFK.

Edit to add - Link for everyone's amusement -> pilotsfor911truth.org...

[edit on 7-12-2009 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by JFrickenK
The question I asked of Farmer, who also was unable to answer it.

No, the question Farmer said was moot and not worthy of the distraction it is intended to generate.

Originally posted by thomk
You avoided the question.

"Work with" is a non-specific term that encompasses the CEO, the engineer, the tech & the janitor.

What is your formal training? What is your SPECIFIC job?

TomK

No, I didn't avoid the question. The answer I gave should have been
satisfactory for this discussion. My signature pretty much answers all
you need to know. I'm not the CEO, and I'm not the janitor. I'm a
technologist. I work in the aerospace industry. I work
with satellite components. I work along side the test & design engineering
departments. I work in a lab. We test individual components and we test
circuits in simulated space environments. My formal training comes from
College, prior work experience and on the job training.

Anything else? How is your inquiry important to our topic?

[edit on 7-12-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by thomk

John,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the recording that we are interested in comes from the FDR. So the door sensor would have to be hooked up to the FDR (either thru the EICAS, or one of the other boxes).

I understand that this data bit may already be encoded into data words per ARINC when passed to the FDR. This would mean simply that you've got to follow the sensor from the door sensing thru all of its formatting & encoding circuits on the way to the FDR. But ultimately, you've got to trace it all the way from the door sensor to the FDR.

As I've said before, I consider all of this unnecessary. Other evidence proves to me that the bit was not recorded.

In my judgment, the lack of a changed bit gives me a 99.9% probability that the bit was not recorded. The fact that it did not bounce around (especially during engine start) tells me that it was not floating. The fact that the cockpit WAS entered during the flight raises the 99.9% probability to 100%.

I am willing to bet a beer with anyone here that, once people have found the RIGHT maintenance manual & schematics, this is exactly what they will find: that the sensor was not sent to the FDR. And that in one of the boxes, that bit was not allowed to float, but was arbitrarily set to Logical 0.

Any takers??

TomK

Hell no!

Originally posted by thomk

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by thomk
I disagree.

If he wants to make his case, he has to show a connection of the door sensed signal all the way to the input of the FDR.
TomK

Unfortunately, the only connection to the FDR is a serial data connection
from the FDAU.

The best you're going to get is a connection from the door circuit to the
EICAS. The documentation shows Port 41 for door messages. Port 41
is buffered by EICAS; IE: All door monitoring routes through EICAS as
per schematic and DFL.

This is not a problem in the slightest for a competent tech.

You get the right EICAS data manual, and it will describe precisely the data inputs & the data outputs. And it will also describe precisely how unused inputs are tied high or tied low.

There is zero "unfortunately" associated with this.
There is zero "difficulty" interpreting the schematics.


TomK

I can agree with this, but I know what Tino was saying. The Aircraft Schematic Manual doesn't really go "inside the box", so to completely followed the sensor path, you'd need the Component Maintenance Manuals and then back out into the SSM. You can do it, but I'd be happy seeing the door sensor tied to EICAS, like in the Door Warning System Schematic I posted upthread.

I agree with your correction to what I asked. But I was just referring to the fact that FLT DECK DOOR is obviously a customer option and not standard equipment on the B757. Obviously 42 hours of 0's says its either not there or not working.



[edit on 7-12-2009 by 767doctor]

Originally posted by thomk
This is not a problem in the slightest for a competent tech.

You get the right EICAS data manual, and it will describe precisely the data inputs & the data outputs. And it will also describe precisely how unused inputs are tied high or tied low.

There is zero "unfortunately" associated with this.
There is zero "difficulty" interpreting the schematics.

TomK

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I was agreeing with your
post except the part about "tracing a conncetion to the FDR"

The FDR is a storage device. Nothing is connected to it except
the FDAU.

Think of the FDAU as your computer's mother board, and the FDR
is your hard drive (solid state in this case).

Take an input device such as your keyboard. It is connected to the mother
board. YOu cannot physically trace the connection to the hard drive, but
the data which you input from the Keyboard is stored there.

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by thomk

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by thomk

Originally posted by 767doctor

Bobby needs to show this exact schematic from AA's manual which shows a connection from the flight deck door sensor(S10165 in this drawing) to EICAS.

I disagree.

If he wants to make his case, he has to show a connection of the door sensed signal all the way to the input of the FDR.


TomK

I disagree with both of you. To make his case he has to show evidence that the parameter was actually being recorded. In other words, at least one instance of change in the recorded parameter in 42 hours of data. He can't, so the rest is just interesting trivia.

Perhaps you can show me the data path which generated column 106 in AAL77_tabular.csv, which was obviously recorded ?

I didn't think so.

Perhaps you could reply to the logic that I DID use rather than blather on about the illogic that I did NOT use.

I didn't think so...

TomK

That answers my question exactly how ?

The question I asked of Farmer, who also was unable to answer it.

What makes you think that YOU are the only one that gets to ask questions.

I have proven that the Flight Deck Door was NOT recorded by the FDR during that flight. Without going into all the maintenance manual & schematic BS.

You simply have to address the statements that I made. The ones that you called "speculation". I'd like to hear which one of those statements you feel is wrong. And how it could be wrong.

Tom

Well I just checked in to see if Balsamo produced any evidence for his FDD claim. I didn't see any, perhaps I missed it because this claim is still displayed prominently at the PFT site as a fact.

Originally posted by 767doctorObviously 42 hours of 0's says its either not there or not working.

According to the proximity switch door schematic, a broken switch completes
a ground to the relay which would fail in the "OPEN" position, or logic "1 / high state"

This leads me to believe it was not connected, and rules out the "failed
switch" option in a debate.

Has anyone been able to follow up with the pre-flight testing? Does the
FDR begin recording as the pilot(s) test the controls?

[edit on 7-12-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by thomk
You avoided the question.

"Work with" is a non-specific term that encompasses the CEO, the engineer, the tech & the janitor.

What is your formal training? What is your SPECIFIC job?

TomK

No, I didn't avoid the question. The answer I gave should have been
satisfactory for this discussion. My signature pretty much answers all
you need to know. I'm not the CEO, and I'm not the janitor. I'm a
technologist. I work in the aerospace industry. I work
with satellite components. I work along side the test & design engineering
departments. I work in a lab. We test individual components and we test
circuits in simulated space environments. My formal training comes from
College, prior work experience and on the job training.

Anything else? How is your inquiry important to our topic?

[edit on 7-12-2009 by turbofan]

Once again, you have completely avoided the question. "Work with" is meaningless.

Do you design boards?
Do you stuff boards?
Do you run a shock & vib table?
Do you deliver components from the stock room to the assembly floor?

A "technologist" is a meaningless term.
Are you a certified tech?

What level of formal training do you have? In exactly what specialty? And where did you get it?

I'll reciprocate. I got my BS Mechanical Engineering from Cornell U. in the early 70's. I've been a Project engineer & product design engineer ever since. I've been in charge of running projects & designing high tech equipment for about 35 years. As I mentioned before, products that I have designed and built have gone to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, to Saturn & into about 100,000 human hearts. Oh yeah, I've got over 50 patents.

Now, please give me a sense of what, exactly, is your job where you work.

TomK

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by 767doctorObviously 42 hours of 0's says its either not there or not working.

According to the proximity switch door schematic, a broken switch completes
a ground to the relay which would fail in the "OPEN" position, or logic "1 / high state"

This leads me to believe it was not connected, and rules out the "failed
switch" option in a debate.

Has anyone been able to follow up with the pre-flight testing? Does the
FDR begin recording as the pilot(s) test the controls?

[edit on 7-12-2009 by turbofan]

It begins with an engine running. And by not working, I wasnt just referring to the sensor itself, besides there is always the possibility of a short to ground.

Originally posted by thomk


I'll reciprocate. I got my BS Mechanical Engineering from Cornell U. in the early 70's. I've been a Project engineer & product design engineer ever since. I've been in charge of running projects & designing high tech equipment for about 35 years. As I mentioned before, products that I have designed and built have gone to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, to Saturn & into about 100,000 human hearts. Oh yeah, I've got over 50 patents.

Now, please give me a sense of what, exactly, is your job where you work.

TomK

Braggart!

Originally posted by thomk
John,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the recording that we are interested in comes from the FDR. So the door sensor would have to be hooked up to the FDR (either thru the EICAS, or one of the other boxes).

I cannot address the hardware issues in "hooking" it all up. I agree with you that it has to be "hooked" up to the DAU, which in this case is a part of the FDR. It is going to get either an analog or digital signal along a specific path that it recognizes as the FLT DECK DOOR parameter. That is not something I am qualified to address in any manner what-so-ever, so I keep my mouth shut knowing anything I say will be taken out of context by the P4T crowd.

However, the DAU takes all of that parmameter data and assigns its state to the serial bit data stream. Any given parameter is sampled in exactly the manner established by the frame layout. If there is nothing to sample, the DAU will simply add some default value to the serial stream for that particular location. In this case, there are only two possible values, 0 and 1. In every case, the value of 0 is assigned, which is translated to CLOSED. Yet, 0 could just as easily be the default value, since 0 in serial bit terms means "no change" in the stream.

So yes, you are dead on. Even if they proved that the parameter was "hooked up" to the DAU, it does not mean that it was being added to the serial bit data stream. The ONLY evidence that demonstrates that is was added to the stream and recorded is a state change (0 to 1 and back to 0). The folks at P4T know that, that is why they are now injecting the nonsense of the other flights NOT being from the plane. That is why I am not responding to JFK's foolishness, because it is a distraction in hopes that no one will notice they have egg all over their faces.

This was check and mate a very long time ago....

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by thomk


I'll reciprocate. I got my BS Mechanical Engineering from Cornell U. in the early 70's. I've been a Project engineer & product design engineer ever since. I've been in charge of running projects & designing high tech equipment for about 35 years. As I mentioned before, products that I have designed and built have gone to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, to Saturn & into about 100,000 human hearts. Oh yeah, I've got over 50 patents.

Now, please give me a sense of what, exactly, is your job where you work.

TomK

Braggart!

That's okay, I got my degree from a box of Cracker Jack's. A Cracker Jack degree is much better than one from Cornell.

reply to post by thomk


Why the need for such detail Tom, are you hiring?

I think this is better suited for a private message rather than part of this debate don't you think? Can you tell me why you are seeking a third
response even more detailed than the previous two?

My job description is fairly broad; there is quite a bit of custom work involved
with testing devices, and setting up detailed circuits to represent a certain
state(s) of operation. Very seldom do we have a customer that requires
a repeat setup (or standard test) as most prjoects are unique in concept.

IE: The function of each satellite is different from others, as well as operating
frequency, # of channels, etc.

A typical day here can be anything from montoring a test for temperature,
pressure, passive intermodulation [PIM], power handling, noise [detection];
many, or all the above...

We could be setting up, calibrating, proving complex test configs (which take anywhere from a couple of days, up to a couple of weeks to setup).

We may also work in teams with engineers to help design a product by
testing prototypes and reporting characteristics of operation in dynamic/
static modes [IE: critical pressure, thermal cycling]

Hopefully this small description gives a taste of what happens around here.
It's much more than popping a deivce into a jig and pressing a button!

If this doesn't answer your question, feel free to send me a U2U message
and I'll elaborate.

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by thomk
This is not a problem in the slightest for a competent tech.

You get the right EICAS data manual, and it will describe precisely the data inputs & the data outputs. And it will also describe precisely how unused inputs are tied high or tied low.

There is zero "unfortunately" associated with this.
There is zero "difficulty" interpreting the schematics.

TomK

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I was agreeing with your
post except the part about "tracing a conncetion to the FDR"

The FDR is a storage device. Nothing is connected to it except
the FDAU.

Think of the FDAU as your computer's mother board, and the FDR
is your hard drive (solid state in this case).

Take an input device such as your keyboard. It is connected to the mother
board. YOu cannot physically trace the connection to the hard drive, but
the data which you input from the Keyboard is stored there.

What are you talking about. This is a pretty absurd statement.

Without a connection, data does not get from point A to point B. Point A is the door sensor circuit. Point B is the FDR.

OF COURSE you can trace the data path from your keyboard to the hard drive. And you find that there is no direct connection.

Check out this very high level schematic.

upload.wikimedia.org...

That the connection went from the keyboard or USB port, thru the IO controller, thru the memory controller, thru the CPU, back thru the memory controller to RAM, back thru the memory controller back thru the IO controller hub & thru the SATA or IDE ports to the hard drive.

If you had the detailed schematics, you could trace it the whole way.

Now, I'm curious what part of the "proof" that I offered (regarding switched pilots) that you find to be less than compelling.

Tom.

reply to post by turbofan


Are you being intentionally obtuse?

I never asked "what goes on at your company?"

I asked, what specifically do YOU do. And what it your formal training? In what specific field? And where did you get it?

Are those difficult questions? You've avoided answering it for 3 successive posts now.

Tom

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by thomk


I'll reciprocate. I got my BS Mechanical Engineering from Cornell U. in the early 70's. I've been a Project engineer & product design engineer ever since. I've been in charge of running projects & designing high tech equipment for about 35 years. As I mentioned before, products that I have designed and built have gone to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, to Saturn & into about 100,000 human hearts. Oh yeah, I've got over 50 patents.

Now, please give me a sense of what, exactly, is your job where you work.

TomK

Braggart!

No. Simply factual.

Tom