New FDR Decode

page: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
At the recorded speed, crossing a small ground based object gives an extremely narrow window in which polling would give a lower altitude reading. For a car, for instance, there's something like




posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Bottom line, virtually all RA readings will be indicating the ground surface.


Yes, in spite of what I said earlier, I agree. Anyway, it doesn't make any difference as a radar altitude of 4' is plenty low enough for the aircraft to have impacted the building no matter what was causing the return.

From the last position calculated by the "verified by the FAA" cult with their infamous 11.4 G or 33 G garbage there is nothing but a roadway/bridge and a few trees, all of which are plenty low enough to allow AA 77 to impact the building as rational people know it did.

It's ironic that the "verified by the FAA" cult have been using the FDR to promote their distorted agenda, yet it's now biting them in the posterior. The FDR has never been needed to establish that the aircraft impacted. This latest decode of the additional data further establishes that fact.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


No...there are a grand total of THREE RAs on the airplane....


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.


Someone said "four" (I do not know who said this) but this is way wrong!!!

THREE RAs are installed...and for a reason, and that will entail pages and pages to explain....BUT, suffice to say, it is for only one purpose, to have THREE RAs...for the AUTOLAND capability. (Hint...also uses THREE Autopilots....but, that is for another thread.....)

Back to the RAs....there are SIX components on the exterior fuselage (bottom) for those THREE RAs...Three transmitters and three receivers....total of SIX. (OH, BTW....WHEN an airplane is sitting on the ground...the RA, IF read out, will NOT be "zero"...because...it takes into account the pitch attitude that is expected for the airplane, on approach...since the RA is really meant to display, to the pilots, 'actual height' above the ground....anyone who tells you otherwise is just blowing smoke...)

I could take some time to find a photo, but I would suggest anyone who wishes to simply peruse airliners.net....lots of info there, and I save time...bonus!!



[edit on 31 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Trick or treat!



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.


The runway is not flat. It increases in elevation from the approach end to the departure end. This is why you see the PA increase as well. 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 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.

Also, weedwhacker is right. There are only three Radar Altimeters on the 757. This is reflected in the "Parameters Not Working or Unconfirmed" in the NTSB pdf. Why does Warren's data show four RA's?


Happy Halloween all!



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   

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?

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.

At 95 knots, 1200’ down the runway; FDR 65’, GE value 282’ MSL; Correct for 30.21, 331 MSL; 49’ error.

49’ ERROR.

From GE, 132 knots, 2860’ down runway, 287 MSL, FDR altimeter 74’, corrected for 30.21, 340’, altimeter 53’ high.

53’ ERROR.

Flt-77 at liftoff, 290’ MSL, FDR has 49’, corrected for 30.21, 315’, 25’ error. You said PA reads lower than actual altitude at rotation, but it is reading higher, but lower than the earlier 53’ error reading.


The PA is reading higher than the real altitude for Flt-77, even at rotation. What you meant to say is the relative altimeter reading will display lower during rotation than it was reading before rotation.


You said, “Pressure Altitude is very accurate”, and then you revised to not accurate for rotation. Do you have more exceptions? The accuracy at 40,000 feet? What about 100’ at 483 KIAS, 3600 fpm decent, pulling 1.7 Gs?


Redoing for GE, Flt-77 over runway (5562 down the RW, ~100’ in the air, flying), RADALT 99’, FDR 180’. Runway elevation GE, 294’, Flt-77 is 393 feet MSL, correct the altimeter, 446 MSL; 53’ error.

53’ ERROR

You said… “This is why PA is not used once in the clearway zone and pilots switch to Radar Altitude during auto-land below 50' AGL.” Because it is not exact; not accurate.

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.
The max allowable difference between the Captain’s or F/O’s altimeter and field elevation is 75 feet at all field elevations.
The max allowable difference between the Captain’s and F/O’s altimeters on the ground varies by airplane and field elevation, but if they are within 25 feet of each other they satisfy the most restrictive condition.”


After studying Flt-77 and finding 53’ errors in normal operation, it is clear the errors at 483 KIAS can be 100 or 200 feet off. I cheated, I have seen flight test on altimeters. In the studies the altimeter errors increase as the speed increase (reading higher). Don’t trust me find a study or two and look at the charts. During the final seconds we have speed past the certification, high Gs, and a dive all contributing to the error in the altimeter. I showed Flt-77 on 9/11 had 53’ high errors in normal operations; making 150’ and 200’ errors in the ball park during the extremes Flt-77 is at in the last seconds.

The four columns do not imply four RADALTs. There are 6 RADALT related values listed in the Database Editor Summary Report for Flt-77 FDR. Warren would have to be the final authority on why he used 4 columns. In the Database Editor Summary Report, you can see some of RADALT parameters are sampled at .25hz, that could drive Warren to have four columns for the RADALT values. Warren’s four column values match an independent decode of the FDR with the exact same values in one column. Programmer’s prerogative.

www.airliners.net... 3 sets, 6 antennas



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

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.


GE was used as a quick reference to show that the runway is not flat as assumed in your initial calculations, not for actual field elevation. To use it for actual field elevation would be intellectually dishonest as GE actual elevations at IAD do have a margin of error itself, as pointed out by you above.

We know the runway elevation increases during take off roll. We know the PA increased as well. Both are consistent and correspond, except at rotation showing momentarily artificially low, which is expected.

Also, here is the take off roll as shown by the NTSB. Watch the altimeter.

video.google.com...#

To compare a pressure altimeter that is still on the ground, to a pressure altimeter in flight, is also intellectually dishonest.


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.


Captain/FO altimeters can be no more than 20-35 feet apart near sea level. To suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest. If a 200 foot error was allowed, you'd have one crew member calling minimums while the other has 200 feet to go. Check your regs.

The 6 RA data points are based on TX/RX, not height. 3 RA's are based on height.

Considering the data shows a "rotation" of sorts, pulling G's, compressing the air ahead of and below the wings where the static port is located, if the altimeter is in any kind of error, it would be showing artificially low. Meaning the True Altitude is actually higher than what is shown in Warren's data. You have not given any reason for the pressure below the aircraft wings to be lower than normal, creating an artificially higher PA.

Finally, this all assumes the aircraft we are talking about is N644AA. First you have to prove it was N644AA in order to claim the altimeter was operating outside the aircraft envelope.

Start with providing serial/part numbers.

Then you have to prove the altimeter was in error by more than 150 feet.

Air Data Calibration And Measurement

Then you have to convince 757/767 Pilots from American Airlines who have actual flight time in N644AA that the 757 can exceed Vmo by more than 130 knots.

So far all you have is a theory to fit perhaps your already established belief.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Balsamo
 

Why post talk, bring some evidence. You proved there are conspiracy minded pilots at pilots for truth as you advertises the web site of failed ideas from the “offer no theory” society who can’t prove anything since they “offer no theory”, and you make the baseless claims, a failed implication that Flight 77 is not Flight 77 using talk. RADAR path clearly shows it is 77, and the Passenger DNA has you cold case deer in the headlights wrong.

This is not theory. It is called Math.

But you can’t beat the math that shows 53 Foot errors, Flight 77 altitude is reading high for all normal operating ranges. Math proves it, not talk.

I will stick with the math, a 53 foot error for slow speed normal ops.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by iSunTzu]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

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.



There are several mistakes in this post. Mistakes that Ryan Mackey would not make.

First, you have incorrectly identified the location of the static ports on a 757.

There are 3 ports (IIRC). One for the Captain, one for the F/O, and a 3rd emergency back-up. This image shows the 1st 2:
www.boeing.com...

This one shows all 3: www.boeing.com...

This image shows their location on the plane: www.airliners.net...
The double ports are beneath the 3rd passenger window, and the back-up ports underneath the 5th _

You can see that the ports are more than a full wing root chord-length in front of the wing.

The following photo shows that the ports are not "under" the wings at all, but are virtually co-linear with the wings. cdn-www.airliners.net...

Plus, once the plane rotates for take-off, the static ports are going to be significantly above the wings.

The claim that the switch to RA is because of some loss of accuracy due to pressure buildup is nonsense. You switch because RA is significantly more accurate, is calibrated to the main gear touchdown, and gives you directly (instead of having to do the math in your head) the altitude that you really want to know - elevation above the runway.

Mackey doesn't make mistakes like this. Others do.

Tom



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by iSunTzu
I will stick with the math, a 53 foot error...


174' MSL (last True Altitude Reading) - 53 Error as claimed by iSunTzu/Beachnut = 121' MSL

35' Pentagon Ground elevation + 77 Pentagon Height + 6' Gear + 4' RA return off the top of the Pentagon = 122' MSL.

Your 53 foot error just proved the flyover.

@tomk,

Next time you wish to post pictures of static ports, use a picture that people can see.



The above from N509US, a NWA 757

The port is virtually on the belly. Forward and below the wing chord.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by R_Mackey]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Balsamo
 

At 483 KIAS the altimeter error is 93 to 129 feet. Don’t forget the 3600 foot per second decent (dive), and the 1.7 Gs.
The 53 foot error, you now confirm, is for slow speeds normal flight conditions.

No fly over, because the DNA and the FDR were in the Pentagon; plus 77 is in a 3600 foot per minute decent so it would impact the top of the Pentagon anyway. You got to love math, facts and evidence. Next time bring some.
You just confirmed 77 had to impact the Pentagon.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by iSunTzu]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomk52
Mackey doesn't make mistakes like this.


While we all know Cap't Bob and his merry minions do - quite often. Just look at the nice string of faulty claims they have made about the Camp Springs 1 departure, flight in and around P-56, SAMs at the Pentagon, claiming they know exactly where the aircraft hit the lamp poles, "Rush Hour Traffic" into KDCA and of course the latest, the wings will rip of a Boeing 767 at 450 KIAS at 1000 ft.

Add in, now, their misunderstanding of the RADALT/Pressure Altimeter question and they are really building up a pretty good comedy routine.

What's next, TurboBob?

[edit on 1-11-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
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!

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!

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.

Furthermore, the FAA "REQUIREMENTS" do not limit the MANUFACTURER
from improving the measurement capability.

IE: there are several parameters that have improved measurement
capabilities above and beyond what the FAA requires as a minimum.

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.

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.

ETA: Forgot to pin this one down


How is one suppose to determine the difference between turbulence and a light pole hit?


Logic. Supporting parameters. Evidence. Investigations. Story vs. Data.
Those are just a few...use a couple, a few, or all until you get the answer.


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?


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?

Where are all those engine sensors to show the cause of the thick white
"smoke trail" in the DoD video?

From this post alone, and the table I linked from the FAA...your theories
are falling short again. Just like that 90+ disgrace on JREF.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
- Please show where I made ONE false accusation.


Allow me.


- nor are any of his minions have a fraction of the mental capacity it takes to work for NASA.


Well, if I'm considered a "minion" (?) do you think I have the mental
capacity to work for NASA seeing that I have prior military electronic
experience with Raytheon, and currently working for one of the world's
largest SATCOM. manufacturers?

As I said before, I'm willing to put up employment records and education
transcripts to match any of the "GL"'s that claim to be pilots, or engineers,
etc.

Please show proof that "R_Mackey" from JREF is a NASA "scientist".

You might want to refrain from getting your information from 'experts' at
JREF when it comes to avionics. I think the best the have is a TV repair
guy, and he's not really getting the hardcore electronics and systems used
on aircraft.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   

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.


No, what I'm going for is EGT.

EGT is also used in piston engines - especially the high performance race
car engines (ask me how I know)!

The weak and worhtless Air/Fuel system used in your daily driven car is
not a true measure of Air/Fuel Ratio AFR. Most of the time you get two
oxygen sensors down stream of the exhaust system that average all
cylinders. The computer has no idea which cylinder(s) are lean, or rich.

With EGT's, the system can monitor every exhaust runner and adjust
fuel to the specific cylinder individually. Not your typical Honda Civic
engine management system.

Click here if you care to see how a race car measures AFR ... pretty much
like a jet engine:



notice the probes at every exhaust tube.

I don't recall seeing any indication of white smoke spilling out of the
engine in the FDR data


[edit on 2-11-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Well, if I'm considered a "minion" (?) do you think I have the mental
capacity to work for NASA


Hello Turbofan,

You appear to have some basic knowledge of electronics. Are you NASA material? I highly doubt it. IIRC the TV repair guy put you in your place. Do you, for one second think that NASA would hire someone that posts such paranoia on Conspiracy Theory websites as you do? You lack any critical thinking skills and appear to follow the lead of a hack named Balsamo. He creates sock names of NASA scientists probably because most people know what he is and isn't capable of. Case in point:


For more on Balsamo's mathematical incompetence, specifically his calculations of 11.2g and 10.14g, see:

www.ccs.neu.edu...


I can tell you right now, I would not knowingly get on a plane if I knew anyone from PFT were at the controls. No-plane suppoters and quite frankly, failures at what they are trying to accomplish.

BTW, here is a letter written to Killtown. I find it quite fitting for the rest of the no-planers, PFT, CIT supporters.


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




posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
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!



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

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!


Schooled by an auto mechanic is one of the funniest jokes I've heard in a while.


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!


What I said was correct. That's why you didn't quote it.


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.


The misleading crap continues. The tolerances listed above are "BENCH TEST requirements for an instrument, not operational requirements for an installed altimeter system.

Ask yourself how a pilot could determine these tolerances listed in those tables. He can't. I believe this "technologist" really doesn't know the difference. He has no qualifications to comment on any aviation or aeronautics issue at all. He simply likes to display false arrogance and hope the unknowledgable doesn't know the difference.


Originally posted by turbofan
Furthermore, the FAA "REQUIREMENTS" do not limit the MANUFACTURER
from improving the measurement capability.


Which manufacturer? There are several manufacturers involved in the various components of an entire system as installed - the altimeter itself, the static ports and piping, the Air Data Computer and the Aircraft Manufacturer who installs all of these components. The limits and tolerances on altimeter systems haven't changed in over 50 years and the likely won't change until more accurate GPS or other technology based systems are in use.


Originally posted by turbofan
IE: there are several parameters that have improved measurement
capabilities above and beyond what the FAA requires as a minimum.


Sure, as new technology is introduced. Why did you not show that altimeter systems have improved?


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.


Does this idiot really think that an ATP rated pilot doesn't know this? Reading comprehension is not a forte of this so called "technologist"!


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.


I haven't seem a Turbo face here. Information is only fact when you understand what the data applies to and how to interpret it. YOU obviously don't.


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?


Well, Turbo, unless the aircraft rolled inverted and pushed upward a flyover would show positive G, not negative G. How can an aircraft go from an approximate 3600 FPM rate of descent pulling + 1.77 G's to a - 1.08333 in a fraction of a second. It's impossible and YOU FAIL ON THIS POINT ALONE.

Turbo, you simply waste the time of people who have been flying for years with a depth knowledge in aviation you only pretend to have. Stick with car engines, you may have more expertise with those. In most things aviation related you only attempt to turn "investigoggling into into a science spiced with incredible arrogance to only fool those as ignorant as you.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

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!


Perhaps you need to be an integrated systems health manager like Mackey in order to join NASA. Maybe they need more tv repair guys than Raytheon electronics techs. Surely tv repair guys would have an extensive knowledge of avionics. Perhaps a few science fiction novels would help out.

Perhaps this is why the European Space Agency (ESA) controls 60% of the commercial launch market and the US only 30% and dropping.



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


Assuming for the moment that this is the same Ryan Mackey who posts from the forum of magicians and illusion:

NASA Integrated Systems Health Management



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


There doesn't seem to be much avionics or advanced military electronics expertise in Ryan Mackey's background does there?

Scientific Commons - Ryan Mackey




[edit on 11/2/09 by SPreston]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

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.


I have no doubt you'd fail that career requirement test in spectacular fashion simply based on your demonstrated lack of any ability whatsoever to carry on a logical, coherent and lucid debate here on basic issues regarding 9/11.

You might be able to pass the refrigerator repair man boards, though, from what I have seen of refrigerator repairmen.


Examples would be great!


I'm not a television repair guy, but you have not been able to answer any one of the following issues when put in front of you:

1) The Camp Springs 1 departure of Gopher 06.

2) Cap't Bob;'s claim that the CS1 would not be used on a morning event because it would interfere with "rush hour traffic" into KDCA, even though I have seen that scenario many, many times and that the approach/departure deconflictions between the two airports are over 3,000 feet.

3) PFT's claim that Gopher 06 actually flew directly along P-56, dragging its right wing along the boundary that is made up of Independence Avenue.

4) WHY PFT submitted an affidavit in support of April Gallop's law suit when that law suit had several blatant and egregious errors in it, the least of which was that "surface to air" missiles protecting the Pentagon were stood down. This is particularly hilarious in light of PfT's showcase "military" members, such as Lankford and Kolstad, who should have *at least* been able to verify these claims.

5) One of your newest claims that the wings of AA 11 and/or United 175 would have ripped off at the speed of 450 or 500 kias at 1,000 feet when any first-year college research student could discover there are literally dozens and dozens (at the very least) of reported instances where a Boeing aircraft has exceeded its design speed in an extremis situation and recovered. The flight paths of AA 11, U 175 and AA 77 were basic speed runs with little g on the aircraft, making it even more incredible that you people claim the aircraft would not have survived the ingress.

6) Your claim that you know precisely where the aircraft wing leading edge or engine cowling lit hit the lamp poles - at what angle, at what height, at what speed, etc - else you would not have been able build your little cartoon "simulation".

Perhaps in your spare time you could get the faux R_Mackay to help you out and answer those questions?





top topics
 
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join