New FDR Decode

reply to post by JFrickenK

Until you plot it and calculate what exactly happened.

Yeah? What's your point. The turn radius looks about right....

What are those kids at P4T telling you???

Here, here is a calculator to plug in the variables (speed, bank angle) and come up with a turn radius.

Compare that to your Google Mapo scale, there.

Oh, and BTW...I hope you aren't expecting down to the last foot accuracy with the RADES84 data! At least, in relation to the topography. Not sure just HOW accurate it is, but it isn't suitable for hanging your hat on precision-wise.

That's why there is something called PAR (Precision Approach Radar). IT is a stand-alone system, used mostly at military fields. It is a valid Instrument Approach Procedure, little used by civilians, obviously. BUT, we do practice one or two in the simulator occasionally.
___________________________________________________________

Edit...just a hint as to scale...look at runway 01/19 at DCA. It is just over one mile long, for comparison's sake.

[edit on 10 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes, that is the calculator I used.

Guess what, The plane should have fallen out of the sky.

That is what your calculator told me anyway.

I am surprised that you have not seen the thread at LC about it...

Your buddy retreat was even bothering me all the time while I was doing it.

reply to post by JFrickenK

Guess what, The plane should have fallen out of the sky.

That is what your calculator told me anyway.

Should have....fallen....out of...the sky???

On what, pray tell, do you base that assertion?
_________________________________________________________

I am surprised that you have not seen the thread at LC about it...

What is "LC"? If that means 'Loose Change'...then I'd best not say what I think of THEM lest I get myself banned from ATS. (Darn, now I'm interested....and I know better than to search for it....but, have antacid tablets ready...)



[edit on 10 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK

 

Guess what, The plane should have fallen out of the sky.

That is what your calculator told me anyway.

Should have....fallen....out of...the sky???

On what, pray tell, do you base that assertion?

"Aircraft Rated Stall Speed", "Aircraft Speed Entering Turn", "Turn Bank Angle", and "180° Turn Time" from your calculator when the numbers from between points 7 and 15 on that plot are averaged and plugged in.

Edit to add - LOL, I just came across this post while looking at the history of the thread I earlier referenced...

s1.zetaboards.com...

A few weeks later Zetaboards server farm had an explosion, I was bored and did end up signing up.



[edit on 10-12-2009 by JFrickenK]

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Gamolon, the answer to your question requires speculation on my part.

So does claiming that Hani Hanjour was not at the controls of flight 77.

Originally posted by JFrickenK
What I do know is that there is no way Hanni Hanjour could have brought that plane not only around the 270 degree spiral, but over either the antenna mast or over the Navy annex and had it fly so low and near level as was depected by the security cameras.

Making statements like that makes it look like your selective refusal to speculate is just an excuse.

I notice you left out the rest of my statement...

Burlingame maybe, Hanjour no.

Why is that ?

It doesn't matter whether that last statement is in there or not...it's speculation on your part to say that Hanjour couldn't do it.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by adam_zapple]

reply to post by JFrickenK

"Aircraft Rated Stall Speed", "Aircraft Speed Entering Turn", "Turn Bank Angle", and "180° Turn Time" from your calculator when the numbers from between points 7 and 15 on that plot are averaged and plugged in.

I don't know what kind of blathering that is, but you're talking to an actual pilot, with actual experience in the airplanes.

First, you can NOT use an 'average' anything...the ground track plots show that the turn radius varied, as the speed varied...and as bank angle varied...and this is shown, also, in the video from "JohndoeXLC' from YouTube.

You DID look at the changes in turn radii with steeper bank angles, didn't you? Especially with slower airspeeds.

HINT: It is a straight-forward mathematical relationship to angle of bank and airspeed that will define the radius of turn.

LOOK at his airspeed, from the YouTube video, and correlate to the 84RADES plots. Lok, also, at the bank angles. There are moments where he racks it over to more than 35 degrees.

Don't have any idea why you bring up the stall speeds!! You don't honestly think the airplane is going to stall at 37 degrees of bank, and 280 knots, do you? In a descending turn???

And, the time to make 180 degree turn (or 330, etc...just interpolate) also varies, according to bank angle.

This is so basic to pilots, I guess I have trouble remembering it isn't second nature to ground lubbers.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK

 

"Aircraft Rated Stall Speed", "Aircraft Speed Entering Turn", "Turn Bank Angle", and "180° Turn Time" from your calculator when the numbers from between points 7 and 15 on that plot are averaged and plugged in.

I don't know what kind of blathering that is, but you're talking to an actual pilot, with actual experience in the airplanes.

First, you can NOT use an 'average' anything...the ground track plots show that the turn radius varied, as the speed varied...and as bank angle varied...and this is shown, also, in the video from "JohndoeXLC' from YouTube.

And why pray tell should I do that when I have a copy originally released via FOIA by the NTSB on my hard drive ?

If it can't be done with the numbers averaged, how could it be done with the numbers unaveraged ?

BTW, Thanks for throwing that turn calculator ( which you suggested I use ) under the bus since the angles in the real points do not correlate with any options in the calculator.

reply to post by JFrickenK

BTW, Thanks for throwing that turn calculator ( which you suggested I use ) under the bus since the angles in the real points do not correlate with any options in the calculator.

This is so typical...when faced with logic and reason, and the sand castle is eroding around their feet, the "truthers" use this tactic.

Amazing.

You really think that the airplane makes those sorts of sharp angle turns???? WOW!

Oh...you mean every 12 seconds or so, the "hits" from the radar.

Come on, be intellectually honest. Calculate the arcs described by the airplane in a turn.

LOOK at the bloody radii.

They fit just fine.

Originally posted by JFrickenK
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Yes, that is the calculator I used.

Guess what, The plane should have fallen out of the sky.

That is what your calculator told me anyway.

I am surprised that you have not seen the thread at LC about it...

Your buddy retreat was even bothering me all the time while I was doing it.

Ha, He, this is quite humorous! You're pulling the same crap here as you tried to pull on me about 18 months ago. And you've been studying it all of this time?

I tried to correct you then, but you're not worth the time anymore.

You are as incompetent at figuring out anything related to these issues as you are as a Moderator of a silly Conspiracy Theory Web Site.

You don't have a clue about what you're trying to do. Now, since you can't ban me the ignore feature will do

reply to post by weedwhacker


I suggest you ignore him, WW. He had no clue 18 months ago and he's now exposing his ignorance and incompetence again for all to see.

Would you believe he apparently expects someone to take him seriously?

Still attempting to troll me, hey Reheat ?

Shall I post the post which earned your ban ?

You remember, the one where you were trolling Domenick ?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK

 

BTW, Thanks for throwing that turn calculator ( which you suggested I use ) under the bus since the angles in the real points do not correlate with any options in the calculator.

This is so typical...when faced with logic and reason, and the sand castle is eroding around their feet, the "truthers" use this tactic.

Amazing.

You really think that the airplane makes those sorts of sharp angle turns???? WOW!

Nope, and if you knew how to read and interpret properly you would know this as that is stated within the thread.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh...you mean every 12 seconds or so, the "hits" from the radar.

Come on, be intellectually honest. Calculate the arcs described by the airplane in a turn.

LOOK at the bloody radii.

They fit just fine.

img291.imageshack.us...

There are my final numbers for the turn between points 7 and 15 of this plot :
img501.imageshack.us...

And no, the angle of the radii between the 12 second sweeps does not precisely fit the calculator options of 90, 180, and 360 degrees.. It doesn't even come close.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by JFrickenK]

Originally posted by JFrickenK
Still attempting to troll me, hey Reheat ?
Shall I post the post which earned your ban ?
You remember, the one where you were trolling Domenick ?

Troll *you*? You're the one who has showed up here out of the blue and started spouting crap about how you don't know what you are looking for.

I think your idea of who is trolling whom is a bit out of whack, but we've come to expect that from the PfT/LC/CIT crowd.

Originally posted by cesura

Originally posted by 911files
I can't believe that you guys have successfully allowed the P4T troll to derail the thread and spin it into utter nonsense. Darn, the guy did not even know that Hani made a 330 turn, not a 270 one and you really expect him to understand any of this stuff he has been bantering about?

I expect him to ignore everyone who posts information that
could improve his understanding of the new FDR decode.

In a previous post, I said it looked like the accelerations
recorded by the FDR are with respect to the aircraft's axes
(as opposed to the horizon). I now think the accelerations
are with respect to the direction of motion, and had already
been corrected for pitch. At any rate, that interpretation
yields a remarkably good fit between the acceleration and
altitude data:

www.ccs.neu.edu...

Hey Ces,

I disagree. I am sure that the vert/lat/long acceleration data is pure data pulled out of the accelerometers that are simply mounted on orthogonal axes that match the planes major axes.

One dead give-away (other than "common sense") is the effect that climbing has on the longitudinal acceleration.

You'll see that each time the plane climbs, the longitudinal accel shows an increase that is proportional to the steepness of the climb. You're simply getting a "sensor weight" component that is adding into its recorded value. (Obviously it's not a real long. accel, since the plane linear velocity will slow down with constant thrust in a climb.)

This tells you right away that they have not done any "pitch compensation" to the longitudinal accel. And it really doesn't make any sense that they'd start trying to massage the other accels either.


Tom

Originally posted by JFrickenK

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK

 

Guess what, The plane should have fallen out of the sky.

That is what your calculator told me anyway.

Should have....fallen....out of...the sky???

On what, pray tell, do you base that assertion?

"Aircraft Rated Stall Speed", "Aircraft Speed Entering Turn", "Turn Bank Angle", and "180° Turn Time" from your calculator when the numbers from between points 7 and 15 on that plot are averaged and plugged in.

Edit to add - LOL, I just came across this post while looking at the history of the thread I earlier referenced...

s1.zetaboards.com...

A few weeks later Zetaboards server farm had an explosion, I was bored and did end up signing up.



[edit on 10-12-2009 by JFrickenK]

Oh please, Please, PLEASE show me your "calculations that prove the plane should have fallen out of the sky".

I can't wait...

LoL.

Tomk

Originally posted by JFrickenK
When my manual search on the pages 767 doctor pointed me at I used the PDF search function on the chapter.
When that failed I used the PDF search function on the entire AMM and SSM.
When that failed I used the PDF search function on the 747 AMM and SSM, Guess what ! there were 3 hits in those manuals... Relating to EFIS.

This is all meaningless as you have not proven that you are competent enough to properly use the search facility.

Plus you've also demonstrated wilfull ignorance/deception in the Forward Access Door incident - you're quite quick to make all kinds of assertions ("I am calling it what Boeing is calling it") about what's in the manual apparently without reading it. To top it off, it was Turbofan that debunked you and you've not yet had the class to even address his point, let alone concede that you'd made a "mistake".

You've failed to demonstrate to anyone here that you are capable of honest debate, so it really doesn't matter what you assert is in those manuals. Noone really trusts that anything you have to say is factually correct.

I am sure Farmer and the other idiots will enjoy your company in my ignore list you useless little troll.

The only one trolling on this thread, JFK, is you.

But please, put me on your ignore list, just as you would any other person that impedes your freedom of denial. It won't stop me from replying to your posts to point out the hypocrisy and deception in your arguments.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by thomk
I disagree. I am sure that the vert/lat/long acceleration data is pure data pulled out of the accelerometers that are simply mounted on orthogonal axes that match the planes major axes.

That was my original opinion too, but it looks as though
I was wrong. I could be wrong about having been wrong,
however.

Originally posted by thomk
You'll see that each time the plane climbs, the longitudinal accel shows an increase that is proportional to the steepness of the climb. You're simply getting a "sensor weight" component that is adding into its recorded value. (Obviously it's not a real long. accel, since the plane linear velocity will slow down with constant thrust in a climb.)

That will happen if the accelerations are aligned with
respect to the plane's direction of motion, and it will
also happen if the accelerations are aligned with the
plane's axes. (The only plausible way it wouldn't happen
is if the accelerations are aligned with the earth, which
clearly isn't what was done. I suspect you thought I was
arguing for that interpretation.)

Recall that, to a first approximation, fixed wing aircraft
tend to fly in the direction they're pointed. That means
the differences between alignment with the direction of
motion and alignment with respect to the aircraft's axes
are pretty small.

I tried both interpretations, and I have told you which
interpretation best fits the data at the end of the flight.
That doesn't mean that interpretation is correct. Not only
could I have made a mistake, but the differences between
the two interpretations are so small that some other source
of uncertainty or error could be making an incorrect
interpretation appear the more likely.

Will