New FDR Decode

I'm hot on the trail to finding an answer to your question.

The data you see in column 106 appears to be a calculated value processed
by the "Fuel Quantity Processor" based on Fuel level readings from the
tank probes and atmospheric conditions.

Fuel quantity data, measured by probes in each tank, is fed to the fuel quantity processor where it is corrected for density then displayed on a Fuel Quantity Indicator for each tank. Total fuel quantity, from a separate calculation, is shown on the Total Fuel Quantity Indicator and is also provided to the FMC

www.biggles-software.com...

As suspected the NAND logic output appears to trigger a totally different
area of interest.

Later today I will work backwards from the Fuel Management Computer [FMC], and Fuel Quantity Processor to get more information. Sorry I can't
spend much more time on this at the moment.

reply to post by thomk


Tommy, what is your last name? I need to verify the claims you made
about your education.

You should probably disclose at least that much before questioning my
field experience and education. At one point 'someone' even posted my
employer information against my will. Maybe one of the members
caught that and will tell you in CONFIDENCE (please and thanks).

Everyone here knows my last name, and I've offered to supply my records
of employment to anyone that challenges my words.

If you want to question my qualifications, it's time to put yours on the table.

Your choice.

reply to post by JFrickenK


JFK, re-read your page. Many answers are right there.

Specifically, look at the note on top.

Note, also, that it is a fairly generic representation of a 'typical' fuel quantity sensing probe.

Yes, only one is in a surge tank, because only one is required. THAT is why they're called 'surge' tanks.

Here's something else you may not know....the surge tanks let fuel IN via one-way check valves, from the associated MAIN tank in the wing.

They then DRAIN out to the CENTER tank. The surge tanks are normally not full. IF and when they are overfilled, they vent overboard --- at the wingtips.

As to Farmer's FOIA data? I addressed that there are many, many, many inputs all over a modern 'electric' jet like a B-757.

Doesn't mean that all bits talk to each other.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK

 

JFK, re-read your page. Many answers are right there.

Specifically, look at the note on top.

Note, also, that it is a fairly generic representation of a 'typical' fuel quantity sensing probe.

Yes, only one is in a surge tank, because only one is required. THAT is why they're called 'surge' tanks.

Here's something else you may not know....the surge tanks let fuel IN via one-way check valves, from the associated MAIN tank in the wing.

They then DRAIN out to the CENTER tank. The surge tanks are normally not full. IF and when they are overfilled, they vent overboard --- at the wingtips.

As to Farmer's FOIA data? I addressed that there are many, many, many inputs all over a modern 'electric' jet like a B-757.

Doesn't mean that all bits talk to each other.

Actually I did know that. And you still have not answered my question as to the datapath nor have you pointed me towards the "correct" portion of the SMM.

The "bits" ( actually words in this case ) must have a data path to communicate eventually with the FDR, as that parameter IS recorded in farmers release. I am not finding that path. I have repeatedly asked you for a p[ointer to the correct page in the SMM because you proclaim to be an "expert" in the matter, yet you have refused that request and continue to belittle me for asking that question.

What are YOU hiding ?

Originally posted by JFrickenK

It would invalidate ANY research done using John Farmers release ( as a basis ) to the general public of an FOIA which he claims to have recieved from the NTSB.

We are literally talking about 10's of thousands of hours of research from both sides of the fence over the past few years.

This is why this question must be answered.

Edit to add - And that does include ALL of Warren Stutt's work as it is also based upon the .FDR file which was included within John Farmers release.

It's a possibility that occurred to me also very early in the piece (that eventually the integrity of the file would come into question) so I looked into it IE any possibility that the raw FDR file used by Warren was different to the earlier released file.

Warren obtained his via an individual FOIA request dated April 6, 2009 and it's in the ISO he made available for download of the entire CD he received. I also happened to have a copy of the original released raw FDR file used in the PFT readout2 that was obtained via a separate earlier FOIA request.

I've done a full binary comparison of the 2 raw files and they are absolutely identical in every respect. They also both work with Warren's decoder producing identical results.

Just wanted to clear that up for any doubters out there.

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Pilgrum]

reply to post by JFrickenK

And I am still finding no datapath from it towards the EICAS...

OK, follow-on to previous, and looks like our good friend turbofan has more to add, as well.

BUT, allow me to tell you what you are looking at, on the page you posted.

I was wrong...it's NOT the quanitity sensor...I wrote the above post after only a quick glance.

What you are looking at is the MANUAL fuel quantity measuring stick, as a typical installation. See the access panel? It is mounted on that panel.

In old days they were referred to as "drip sticks", because they were simply a hollow tube, with graduated markings. What you (this was a MX function, THEY have the charts, and graphs to account for local slope and such) is...unlatch the 'stick', and pull down just until fuel begins to "drip" from it...that indicates the level of the fuel at THAT point in the tank.

What replaced the messy 'drip' stick is the float, with the stick in the center. Two magnets. The stick drops down, until the magnet in the ring catches it. THEN, a person looks at the scale on the side of the stick. Notes in on a chart. Repeat for other locations.

You now have an visual verification of fuel quantity, to comapre with the guage readings. AND the upload figures from the fuel slip the fueler prepares...AND the FOB that was recording by the previous crew when they finished the last flight.

Fuel is verified, by MX, for ALL ETOPS flights.

Capice?

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by weedwhacker
NOW that their cover-up has been revealed, it falls to others to keep muddying the waters, and demanding to discuss ever more complicated minutiae in order to further cloud the issue.

The tactics of bunk are very plain for all to see.

Very plain to see...however JFK has stated that he believes the FDR data to be faked, which would still invalidate any of PFT's claims which rely on the data.

It would invalidate ANY research done using John Farmers release ( as a basis ) to the general public of an FOIA which he claims to have recieved from the NTSB.

We are literally talking about 10's of thousands of hours of research from both sides of the fence over the past few years.

This is why this question must be answered.

Edit to add - And that does include ALL of Warren Stutt's work as it is also based upon the .FDR file which was included within John Farmers release.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by JFrickenK]

And THIS is the idiotic way that you are attempting to answer this question???

Why don't you:

1. Look for someone else who has released the same info. Or
2. Submit your own FOIA request.

Allow me to provide the answer:

For exactly yhe same reason that you refuse to answer other people's questions: you aren't the slightest bit interested in the truth.

You're interested in perpetuating your mythical conspiracy.

Lame.

TomK

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by JFrickenK

It would invalidate ANY research done using John Farmers release ( as a basis ) to the general public of an FOIA which he claims to have recieved from the NTSB.

We are literally talking about 10's of thousands of hours of research from both sides of the fence over the past few years.

This is why this question must be answered.

Edit to add - And that does include ALL of Warren Stutt's work as it is also based upon the .FDR file which was included within John Farmers release.

It's a possibility that occurred to me also very early in the piece (that eventually the integrity of the file would come into question) so I looked into it IE any possibility that the raw FDR file used by Warren was different to the earlier released file.

Warren obtained his via an individual FOIA request dated April 6, 2009 and it's in the ISO he made available for download of the entire CD he received. I also happened to have a copy of the original released raw FDR file used in the PFT readout2 that was obtained via a separate earlier FOIA request.

I've done a full binary comparison of the 2 raw files and they are absolutely identical in every respect. They also both work with Warren's decoder producing identical results.

Just wanted to clear that up for any doubters out there.

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Pilgrum]

Thank you for that Pilgrum...
I guess that lets Farmer off the hook so I now retract any and all statements I have made regarding Farmer faking that portion of the data.

JFK, I have found the answer.

In addition to my post at the top of the page, you will see the confirmation
of the density calculation based on fuel temperature on pages:

28-21-01, Page 101 and 28-21-02, Page 101 and 28-41-02
Page 101.1.

There is no connection via sensor to column 106, only an internal processed
calculation stored in that word position.

Also out of interested, pin 3 of the Fuel Level Sensor Control Card (p50) activates a
series of relays which control overfilling.

I hope this helps.


[edit on 8-12-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by JFrickenK



OK...let's see if we can clear up a few more things.

I am not a mechanic. Never have been (changing tires and brakes on Cessnas, replacing the cowlings ---stuff like that, all when I was a teenager, under supervision of a licensed A&P doesn't count).

My experience comes from over three decades of flying.

The "bits" ( actually words in this case ) must have a data path to communicate eventually with the FDR, as that parameter IS recorded in farmers release. I am not finding that path.

AFAIK the FDR only needs to (in the case of fuel quantity) record the aggregate totals, per tank. But, there are many, many more arcane functions that are recorded, for whatever reason known only to the engineers who A) designed the bloody thing and, B) are the "experts".

I have repeatedly asked you for a p[ointer to the correct page in the SMM...

[insert laughter here] Your "request" is nothing other than an obvious tactic. Deflect and dazzle, trying to confuse the issue. It is NOT that complicated, unless you attempt to make it so.

... because you proclaim to be an "expert" in the matter, yet you have refused that request and continue to belittle me for asking that question.

First, now it's your turn to show ME the page where I "claim to be an expert in the matter". I've already described my area of expertise.

Also...'belittle'? That was the term I was looking for, thank you --- the one to describe an attitude used in a recent post towards me.

What are YOU hiding ?

That is the funniest sentence of the week (so far).

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK

 

And I am still finding no datapath from it towards the EICAS...

OK, follow-on to previous, and looks like our good friend turbofan has more to add, as well.

BUT, allow me to tell you what you are looking at, on the page you posted.

I was wrong...it's NOT the quanitity sensor...I wrote the above post after only a quick glance.

What you are looking at is the MANUAL fuel quantity measuring stick, as a typical installation. See the access panel? It is mounted on that panel.

In old days they were referred to as "drip sticks", because they were simply a hollow tube, with graduated markings. What you (this was a MX function, THEY have the charts, and graphs to account for local slope and such) is...unlatch the 'stick', and pull down just until fuel begins to "drip" from it...that indicates the level of the fuel at THAT point in the tank.

What replaced the messy 'drip' stick is the float, with the stick in the center. Two magnets. The stick drops down, until the magnet in the ring catches it. THEN, a person looks at the scale on the side of the stick. Notes in on a chart. Repeat for other locations.

You now have an visual verification of fuel quantity, to comapre with the guage readings. AND the upload figures from the fuel slip the fueler prepares...AND the FOB that was recording by the previous crew when they finished the last flight.

Fuel is verified, by MX, for ALL ETOPS flights.

Capice?

OK, I can understand that... But it only serves to muddy the waters further as there is no other procedure referenced within the AMM ( nor the SMM for that matter ) which I have found regarding the surge tank sensors.

And still no datapath from the surge tank sensors towards anything but overfill systems... and those are binary values, not word values which are required.

Can you help clarify that ?

( I sincerely do hope that my suspicions at this point are unfounded and due to an error on my part )

reply to post by JFrickenK




I think turbo says it best:

Originally posted by turbofan
28-21-01, Page 101 and 28-21-02, Page 101 and 28-41-02
Page 101.1.

There is no connection via sensor to column 106, only an internal processed calculation stored in that word position.

Also out of interested, pin 3 of the Fuel Level Sensor Control Card (p50) activates a series of relays which control overfilling.

Can anyone summarize what this latest claim is all about? I see JFK reference column 106 - that's not a parameter, so I guess my question is: what is the parameter in question. And why is PFT talking about it? Are they saying that since there's no connection from (whatever column 106 is) to EICAS, that the parameter is recorded magically?

Honestly, I don't understand what they are getting at, other than further highlighting their own incompetence.


S TANK DENSITY?

[edit on 8-12-2009 by 767doctor]


[edit on 8-12-2009 by 767doctor]

Originally posted by turbofan
JFK, I have found the answer.

In addition to my post at the top of the page, you will see the confirmation
of the density calculation based on fuel temperature on pages:

28-21-01, Page 101 and 28-21-02, Page 101 and 28-41-02
Page 101.1.

There is no connection via sensor to column 106, only an internal processed
calculation stored in that word position.

Also out of interested, pin 3 of the Fuel Level Sensor Control Card (p50) activates a
series of relays which control overfilling.

I hope this helps.


[edit on 8-12-2009 by turbofan]

Thanks Tino, How exactly is that word generated ?

I mean exactly how are column 106's values generated if there is no connection to the Surge tank fuel level sensors ?

I fully understand how the the center, left and right tanks are calculated, but not the surge tanks. ( 28-21-04 - all )

Originally posted by 767doctor
Can anyone summarize what this latest claim is all about? I see JFK reference column 106 - that's not a parameter, so I guess my question is: what is the parameter in question. And why is PFT talking about it? Are they saying that since there's no connection from (whatever column 106 is) to EICAS, that the parameter is recorded magically?

Honestly, I don't understand what they are getting at, other than further highlighting their own incompetence.


S TANK DENSITY?


[edit on 8-12-2009 by 767doctor]

Correct, S Tank density in column 106 of AAL77_tabular.csv
It is recorded and that value does fluctuate.

How is that value generated when there appears to be no datapath from the sensors within the surge tanks to the EICAS, FDAU, or FDR ?

I was looking at 28-21-02 of the SSM and trying to find a path back toward the FDR... and have thus far failed.



[edit on 8-12-2009 by JFrickenK]

reply to post by JFrickenK

Correct, S Tank density in column 106 of AAL77_tabular.csv
It is recorded and that value does fluctuate.

Which side? Left or right?

Are there two, one for each surge tank?

And...do ya think maybe, just maybe, the FDR can discern the individual values AFTER it has gone through the FUEL TOTALIZER circuitry?

Or, in other words...looking for discrete wiring from the wingtip to the FDAU, thence the FDR, might be like looking for a ghost in a snowstorm.

Why not figure the various components 'talk' to each other in ways not always evident?

Remember, too....the SMM you are using is designed to assist technicians (fancy name for mechanics) in troubleshooting, repair and overall continuing maintenance.

Every little detail of every 'magical' electronic component on the airplane won't be addressed there.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK

 

Correct, S Tank density in column 106 of AAL77_tabular.csv
It is recorded and that value does fluctuate.

Which side? Left or right?

Are there two, one for each surge tank?

And...do ya think maybe, just maybe, the FDR can discern the individual values AFTER it has gone through the FUEL TOTALIZER circuitry?

Or, in other words...looking for discrete wiring from the wingtip to the FDAU, thence the FDR, might be like looking for a ghost in a snowstorm.

Why not figure the various components 'talk' to each other in ways not always evident?

Remember, too....the SMM you are using is designed to assist technicians (fancy name for mechanics) in troubleshooting, repair and overall continuing maintenance.

Every little detail of every 'magical' electronic component on the airplane won't be addressed there.

Both appear to be combined into one value on "M586 FUEL LEVEL SENSOR CONTROL CARD(P50)"

From there it appears to "talk" to no one but the overfill controls.

I do not expect for every "magical" electronic component to be addressed, however this one is important as it is a value which is recorded and does fluctuate.

If it can not "talk" to the FDR, then how was that parameter recorded ?

deleted

[edit on 8-12-2009 by thomk]

Ehhhh! Mehhhhh!

Should not bother to cross-post obvious nonsense.

Deleted.

[edit on 8 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ehhhh! Mehhhhh!

Should not bother to cross-post obvious nonsense.

Deleted.

[edit on 8 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Thanks, your reply was helpful.