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: 73
12
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I have found that surge tank density is a calculated value based on
temperature read from the right main tank fuel temp sensor. This
explains the 'missing' connection.


G. Fuel Quantity Indicating and Measurement
(1) The fuel quantity indicating system (AMM 28-41-00/001) has tank
units, compensators, and densitometers that supply fuel volume and
density measurements to the FQIS processor. The FQIS processor uses
these measurements to compute the weight of the fuel in each fuel
tank.



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.


The Fuel Quantity Processor is responsible for this calculation. All fuel temperature measurements are taken from the one and only right main
tank temperature. sensor.

reference:
SMM 28_025
SMM 28_015
www.biggles-software.com...




posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Tino,

My curiosity got the best of me as to why PfT was suddenly talking about this parameter, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the flight deck door....especially why JFK kept referring to EICAS, with regard to the S TANK DENSITY parameter.

So I went to the PFT clubhouse to see what was up. Turns out they were trying to find an EICAS related parameter that produced no EICAS caution message(duhh, I can think several off the top of my head, then again I do this for a living). This way they could say:

"gee, this EICAS parameter doesn't go through EICAS but it got recorded somehow"

Well done geniuses, except that the S TANK DENSITY parameter has nothing to do with EICAS. The DFL's even show as much..you don't even need an aircraft schematic.

Robby said this...

JFK, do you have the ability to see a list of the EICAS messages? If so, see if there is one associated with the Surge Tank and Density.


to which JFK replied...


No there isn't Rob, But that signal gets combined with the main tank density and that is displayed.


and Rob is satisfied that he need.



So, an exclusive parameter can be recorded without an associated EICAS.

Pretty much what I thought.

(...)

Of course i never seen such a Density EICAS caution in flight and would have to refer to the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook)


Well there's an earth shattering revelation...I could have told him that! This was all a tu quoque fallacy in response to me showing schematics that show no EICAS to cockpit door sensor connection. But as it turns out, it's more evidence of a complete and total ignorance of the systems they are attempting to debate.

But I want to know: how did they decide S TANK DENSITY was in any way related to EICAS?


Edit:

Aha! I see where they got confused. JFK found that there are tank probes and confused those with densitometers. After all, how much crap could there possibly be a fuel tank?


[edit on 9-12-2009 by 767doctor]

[edit on 9-12-2009 by 767doctor]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
My guess is that they're trying to prove that FLT_DECK_DOOR was
connected and functioning by showing other parameters updating data
which do not show a physical connection to the FDAU.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Smoke and mirrors. I have already been alerted to the next 'smoke and mirrors' diversion and am already working on it. I may have it shut down through 'back channels' already, but we will see. The P4T crowd is desperately trying to discredit the Warren RO. I wonder why?

ETA: Check your U2U for details doc.


[edit on 9-12-2009 by 911files]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
My guess is that they're trying to prove that FLT_DECK_DOOR was
connected and functioning by showing other parameters updating data
which do not show a physical connection to the FDAU.



And in typical Balsamic fashion, they failed...spectacularly.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files
Smoke and mirrors. I have already been alerted to the next 'smoke and mirrors' diversion and am already working on it. I may have it shut down through 'back channels' already, but we will see. The P4T crowd is desperately trying to discredit the Warren RO. I wonder why?

ETA: Check your U2U for details doc.


[edit on 9-12-2009 by 911files]


PFT:
"The FLT DECK DOOR parameter from AA77's FDR readout proves it wasn't hijacked! = OMG INSIDE JORB PROOVED!"

Rational folks:
"Not so fast, you made some really poor assumptions there.(explains in detail why this is the case..and explains what would constitute proper evidence of the claim)."

PFT:
"The FDR data is all fakety fake anyways = INSIDE JOBBY JOB!"


Facepalm.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


I am looking for any path to the outputted file, That is why I stuck the "or" into "EICAS, FDAU, or FDR"

In my manual the surge tanks do NOT have densiometers.

In 28-41-04 this is a snippett for the densiometer :



Also after a manual AND search engine search there is NO port 29 within chapter 31... AT ALL.

Edit to add - There is no "port 29" ANYWHERE within the manuals I have.

Tino can verify this.



Also had you been keeping up, 5 or 6 pages ago I have admitted to misreading a label early in that circuit trace.

With what I have for reference there is no signal from the flight deck door proxy switch to the EICAS, FDAU, OR FDR.

GOT THAT ? GOOD. Now kindly # off in that respect.



[edit on 9-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by 767doctor
Now, JFK, are you any closer to finding a signal path from the door sensor to EICAS?

Of course he isn't.

He doesn't even know how to read the manual.


I *could* post some schematics which would make your head spin.

The ones my boss sent me to school in Las Vegas from Maine to learn how to read... Of course that would also mean posting propriatary information.

And you are correct, What 767 doctor has posted does not correlate with what I have in my manual.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
I am looking for any path to the outputted file, That is why I stuck the "or" into "EICAS, FDAU, or FDR"

Also had you been keeping up, 5 or 6 pages ago I have admitted to misreading a label early in that circuit trace.


I ask again......

Am I wrong for questioning why PFT, with ALL their "expertise" and "constantly increasing membership", can't simply end this question in one post from one American aircraft maintenance man or engineer, rather than have a bunch of Internet conspiracy theory discussion forum people look at an aircraft manual the way a monkey looks at a cell phone?

To answer the anticipated question, watching you flail around with an aircraft manual you obviously have no clue whatsoever how to use or read (hence: monkey and a cell phone) relates directly to this thread about the new FDR decode and what it says.

Forget the cell phone and just hurl poo at the non-PFT'ers, non-CIT'ers and non-LC'ers. You'll feel better and won't look like such a fool.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
Tino,

My curiosity got the best of me as to why PfT was suddenly talking about this parameter, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the flight deck door....especially why JFK kept referring to EICAS, with regard to the S TANK DENSITY parameter.


It began with a question of what an "S tank density" represented in column 106 of AAL77_tabular.csv.

And if it referred to the surge tanks why only one parameter was listed.

I decided to try and answer those questions since I do have more info relating to the subject than most... and I do have a background which involves reading schematics, troubleshooting, and repair.

The answer to the second question appeared apparant looking at 28-21-02.
However upon attempting to find the path back to the EICAS, FDAU, OR FDR, I could not.

If there is no path and yet that data was recorded, where did the data come from ?

And here we are now, no closer to a verifyable answer based on what is available.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by JFrickenK]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


reply to post by trebor451
 


And I reply again. I AM NOT PFT.

I did not bother reading the rest of your trolling drivel.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
And I reply again. I AM NOT PFT.


Of course not. You are an admin there. You post there. You are carrying Cap't Bob's water from there. You are arguing their story line.

If you do not want to be associated with PFT, then I would recommend you rescind your admin privileges there. As things stand right now, you are nothing but a toady for Balsamo, doing his bidding here while he works on his DVD and hat sales. Is LC a bit slow these days that you need to head elsewhere?

Of course. You are not PFT.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
But it's so asinine anyway. Why would the FDR prove anything when the plane apparently flew over the building? In order for P4T's other assertions to be correct anything that comes from the FDR is logically worthless.

That's why many are so sick of the false gambit of picking holes in some mystical OS. You can do that with anything, for years. You'll find stuff that disagrees, witnesses that conflict, weird stuff happening. The world's like that. But at some point you have to construct an alternative narrative. And the "truth" movement has never been able to do that.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by JFrickenK
And I reply again. I AM NOT PFT.


Of course not. You are an admin there. You post there. You are carrying Cap't Bob's water from there. You are arguing their story line.

If you do not want to be associated with PFT, then I would recommend you rescind your admin privileges there. As things stand right now, you are nothing but a toady for Balsamo, doing his bidding here while he works on his DVD and hat sales. Is LC a bit slow these days that you need to head elsewhere?

Of course. You are not PFT.


You are wrong and know nothing of my "role" at PFT.

The only reason I joined here is because Tino threatened to publicly post a manual which I ( in error ) allowed him to download from me.

As it stands now you are nothing but a troll trolling me.

Welcome to my ignore list, I hope you enjoy Farmers company there.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


This thread is about data, not witnesses.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor

Aha! I see where they got confused. JFK found that there are tank probes and confused those with densitometers. After all, how much crap could there possibly be a fuel tank?


Kindly show me anything else which is electrical in my version of the SSM within the surge tanks.

You already know the company, so pulling up that manual should be no problem for you.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Tino, Does it not still have to know how much fuel there is in the surge tanks for it's calculations ?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrickenK
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

This thread is about data, not witnesses.


Really?



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
But all the witnesses who are at all credible say that the plane flew over the building. So obviously the FDR is fake. So any conclusions drawn from it are worthless.

That's what I been told anyway boss.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But all the witnesses who are at all credible say that the plane flew over the building. So obviously the FDR is fake. So any conclusions drawn from it are worthless.

That's what I been told anyway boss.


Which part of "this thread is about data, not witnesses" did you not understand ?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join