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.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Bottom line, virtually all RA readings will be indicating the ground surface.
Maybe I'm getting too lazy to look up operating specs and algorithms so perhaps someone could tell me (and everyone) a little more in-depth info on the radar altimeter operation.
Originally posted by iSunTzu
The altimeter reading stored in the FDR was 40 feet, at an actual elevation of 288 feet MSL. Corrected for 30.21 is “exactly” 306 feet. Is that an “exact” 18 foot error?
At 95 KIAS, on the ground, the altimeter reads 65 feet. Corrected for 30.21 we have 331 feet MSL with Flt-77 on the ground at Dulles. A 43 foot error and we are on the ground going 95 knots.
Flt-77 starts to liftoff; the FDR altimeter value is 49 feet, reading 74 feet 5 seconds before. We lifted the nose gear off the ground and the plane has jumped 25 feet down!? What?,
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Originally posted by iSunTzu
... 18 foot error
... 43 foot error
... According to GE, there is more than a 30 foot increase in runway elevation from approach to departure end. Still well within 20 feet of manufacturers specs.
Flt-77 ... 49 feet, reading 74 feet 5 seconds before. ...
... until the wings lift from the ground. Therefore the PA will read artificially low at this point in time, while the aircraft is actually higher. ...
... Why does Warren's data show four RA's?
Originally posted by iSunTzu
RUNWAY 12 Elevation: 309.8 ft.
RUNWAY 30 Elevation: 287.8 ft. www.airnav.com...
Great; use GE; just before takeoff, FDR has 40’, Flt-77 is at 278 MSL. Correct for 30.21, 306 feet, 26’ error.
Info from a 757/767 pilot’s study guide. “…
max allowable difference between the Captain’s and F/O’s altimeters in-flight is 200 feet.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
...
Originally posted by iSunTzu
Flt-77 starts to liftoff; the FDR altimeter value is 49 feet, reading 74 feet 5 seconds before. We lifted the nose gear off the ground and the plane has jumped 25 feet down!? What?,
This is due to rotation while still on the ground. The wings are acting as a type of plow, compressing the air in front of and below the wings creating a High Pressure forward of and below the wings (where the static port is located) until the wings lift from the ground. Therefore the PA will read artificially low at this point in time, while the aircraft is actually higher. This is why PA is not used once in the clearway zone and pilots switch to Radar Altitude during auto-land below 50' AGL. At this point in time, they know the Radar Altimeter is in fact measuring height above the ground because everything is clear in the clearway zone.
Originally posted by iSunTzu
I will stick with the math, a 53 foot error...
Originally posted by tomk52
Mackey doesn't make mistakes like this.
_1,000........................................ 31.018 20
0............................................. 29.921 20
500........................................... 29.385 20
1,000......................................... 28.856 20
1,500......................................... 28.335 25
2,000......................................... 27.821 30
3,000......................................... 26.817 30
4,000......................................... 25.842 35
6,000......................................... 23.978 40
8,000......................................... 22.225 60
10,000........................................ 20.577 80
12,000........................................ 19.029 90
Test (feet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Leak Test.............................................. ±100
Hysteresis Test:
First Test Point (50 percent of maximum altitude)......... 75
Second Test Point (40 percent of maximum altitude)........ 75
After Effect Test........................................... 30
How is one suppose to determine the difference between turbulence and a light pole hit?
Using his logic perhaps the - .5 lateral G accompanied by the - 1.08333 longitudinal G (the maximum able to be recorded) in the last frame of the FDR was the light poles. Is that enough, Turbo? Do you want to count that as the light pole strike or is it that suspended wall that you dismissed?
Originally posted by ImAPepper
- Please show where I made ONE false accusation.
- nor are any of his minions have a fraction of the mental capacity it takes to work for NASA.
Originally posted by weedwhacker Air/Fuel ratio sensors?!? (It's not a piston engine...) Where, in the FCU? I think what you're going for, here, is the F/F (fuel flow) measurements.
Originally posted by turbofan
Well, if I'm considered a "minion" (?) do you think I have the mental
capacity to work for NASA
For more on Balsamo's mathematical incompetence, specifically his calculations of 11.2g and 10.14g, see:
www.ccs.neu.edu...
Killtown,
I am certainly aware of people like yourself who believe that those of us who suffered on 9/11 must be part of some giant plot, either as dupes or plotters. I was in the Pentagon when the plane hit, I held parts of that aircraft in my hands, covered with fuel and oil, and I helped with the triage area. I helped a guy with a headwound, aided ambulances coming in, and suffer to this day with ongoing nightmares on a very regular basis. When one has seen what I saw, and had to do what I had to do, the images, the smells, the sounds, resonate in your mind forever.
I do not object to your desire to dispute the facts of that day. While I feel you are hopelessly naive and silly, that is your right. But please know that your page on the Pentagon crash is deeply offensive to the survivors such as myself. Again, it's not that you argue. But your tone is one of mocking, of making light of the greatest suffering I ever saw in my 25 years of military service. Your fake "quotes," your quips, all mock the pain of those of us that were there, and served that day. I am very likely one of the people in some of your photographs, and I assure you our thoughts were not about the grass (a silly claim you make, by the way), but were deeply, intensely worried about the people hurt, the people left inside. I will never forget that day, and while I can forgive your foolishness in not understanding the facts, the science, the reality of that day, I find it much harder to forgive your willingness to laugh at those who were so terribly hurt that day. Such an attitude shows you to be a cruel and heartless person, in addition to silly one.
LT Col Hal Bidlack
USAF Retired
Originally posted by turbofan
A weekend away and I look forward to coming back to "GL speculation and spin".
I see there is a need to go back a few pages and correct, as well as
expose several anonymous, "internet pilots". I'll start with "ReHeat"
because he's the easiest to school!
Originally posted by turbofan
Aside from the fact that a self-proclaimed 'pilot' can't tell you how a
commercial category triple-altimeter works (more on that later), he can't
properly assess or provide specifications for PA!
Originally posted by turbofan
So, here's the correct link which shows the proper tolerances by FAA for
Pressure Altitude at many intervals:
www.risingup.com...
An excerpt from the chart
_1,000........................................ 31.018 20
0............................................. 29.921 20
500........................................... 29.385 20
1,000......................................... 28.856 20
1,500......................................... 28.335 25
2,000......................................... 27.821 30
3,000......................................... 26.817 30
4,000......................................... 25.842 35
6,000......................................... 23.978 40
8,000......................................... 22.225 60
10,000........................................ 20.577 80
12,000........................................ 19.029 90
Gee "Reheat", 75 feet of error doesn't even apply until about 9,000 feet!
So people, do we believe the MFG and FAA tables, or some kid on the
'Net claiming to be a pilot?
From what I can tell, "Reheat" is using the wrong table to quote his +/- 75 feet. I think he's looking at Table II
Test (feet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Leak Test.............................................. ±100
Hysteresis Test:
First Test Point (50 percent of maximum altitude)......... 75
Second Test Point (40 percent of maximum altitude)........ 75
After Effect Test........................................... 30
You will notice these values apply at 50% of maximum certified altitude
of the aircraft.
Originally posted by turbofan
Furthermore, the FAA "REQUIREMENTS" do not limit the MANUFACTURER
from improving the measurement capability.
Originally posted by turbofan
IE: there are several parameters that have improved measurement
capabilities above and beyond what the FAA requires as a minimum.
Originally posted by turbofan
Lastly, contrary to what Reheat thinks: a commercial grade RADAR altimeter
uses three transceivers on the bottom of the fuselage which produce one
output for the pilot to see. The system determines aircraft height based
on all three transceivers, not three separate displayed readings for the
pilot to decipher.
Originally posted by turbofan
So there you have it. Links to the FAA and some real tech from a real
technologist. Believe the links. You might want to believe me...but
please don't believe a faceless kid on a forum who continues to spin the
facts.
Originally posted by turbofan
By your logic, little changes in accel could be turbulence and tough to
distinguish from light poles. How do you tell the difference from a
pull up showing a - 1G reading?
posted by turbofan
You highly doubt it, huh?
What are the requirements for a NASA RF tech, or aerospace electronics tech? Maybe I'll check their website and have a look to see if I meet their career requirements.
Well, please tell me how this TV repair guy put me in my place?
Examples would be great!
Into the mid 1980s, the United States dominated the space launch industry with almost 100 percent of the business. However, the American decision to drop investment in expendable launch vehicle (ELV) technology in favor of space shuttles left the U.S. with a smaller portion of the commercial launch market. From the mid-1980s, the European Space Agency (ESA) gained a major proportion of the world's commercial launch business. Today, the Europeans control about 60 percent of the market and the Americans about 30 percent. Other countries such as China, Japan, India, Brazil, Italy and Israel aim for the rest with low cost launch services. Commercial launches range from $10 million for a low earth orbit (LEO) satellite up to $80 million for high altitude satellites.
Source
ABSTRACT:
Deep-space manned missions will require advanced automated health assessment capabilities. Requirements such as in-space assembly, long dormant periods and limited accessibility during flight, present significant challenges that should be addressed through Integrated System Health Management (ISHM). The ISHM approach will provide safety and reliability coverage for a complete system over its entire life cycle by determining and integrating health status and performance information from the subsystem and component levels. This paper will focus on the potential advanced diagnostic elements that will provide intelligent assessment of the subsystem health and the planned implementation of these elements in the ISHM Testbed and Prototypes (ITP) Project under the NASA Exploration Systems Research and Technology program.
Source
Originally posted by turbofan
You highly doubt it, huh?
What are the requirements for a NASA RF tech, or aerospace electronics
tech? Maybe I'll check their website and have a look to see if I meet
their career requirements.
Examples would be great!