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: 98
12
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Pilots open the cock pit doors all of the time, I have seen it and so has anyone on the thousands of flights across the world. Perhaps today not as much or with an extra measure of caution. The FDR data I firmly believe is flawed. Why? Because there is simply no way the flight could go anywhere without the door being opened, afterall the Pilots have to get into the cock pit, the Pilots have to use the bathroom, they flirt with the stewardess (its true) they get coffee and snacks etc.

Perhaps the polling of the doors didn;t happen when the Pilots got into the plane initially BUT, they had to open that door at one point for the hijackers to get into it if the OS is right.

By this fact alone, the OS is contradicitng itself...badly.



Airline Pilots Security Alliance



Additionally, during flights of any significant duration, the cockpit door will need to be opened in flight.




[edit on 5-1-2010 by mikelee]

[edit on 5-1-2010 by mikelee]




posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


mike,

This has been thoroughly and devastingly covered in the other thread, the one specific to the Flight Deck Door parameter, and whether or not it is recorded by the FDR (It Was Not a parameter on American Airlines Flight 77).

This thread: "77 = No Hijack, Flight Deck Door Closed for Entire Flight"

It is so, so sad that this "banner headline" information was totally without merit, yet got so much attention. Pathetic, really.

It is simply a fact that the door opened/closed was NOT recorded, at all. The FDR does have an area for that datum, should an operator wish to have it recorded for some reason, but it is optional. Also, it was NOT tied in to the EICAS either.

THIS thread is regarding a more detailed (and accurate) FDR decode, especially the previously "missing" final few seconds before impact.

THIS thread also thoroughly discredits certain claims from others regarding these issues.

So, in all: Others' claims that the "Hijacking Was Impossible!!!" (which is still a cliam on their webbsite, AFAIK) because the Flight Deck Door was "never opened inflight" is completely and utterly wrong.

Further, the previous claims, made by the same site, have been shown to be erroneous as well, based on the work done by Mr. Stutt, and is the topic of this thread.







[edit on 6 January 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

It is simply a fact that the door opened/closed was NOT recorded, at all.


I find it amazing that you can make such a bold and unsubstanciated claim without flight 77's ( Tail number N644AA, serial number 24602 ) system schematic manual.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Parameters Not Working or Unconfirmed...Flight 77 per the NTSB's own report. In other words the OS

NTSB report flight 77 FDR data

If it wasn't working then like I have been saying the whole time it was BROKE!

If it is unconfirmed then it cannot be claimed as being shut nor open!



[edit on 6-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
And if it was a parameter which was merely unconfirmed ?

Edit to add - There ARE a bunch of parameters in that list with fluctuating values... Are all of them also not working in your eyes ?



[edit on 6-1-2010 by JFrickenK]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


The NTSB list reads:

Parameters Not Working or Unconfirmed.

Meaning, they weren't working at the time OR they cannot be confirmed to be in any polled state.





Spelling

[edit on 6-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I know this as I have modified my local copy of Warren Stutt's decoder program to decode ALL the parameters... Although some DO give nosensical returns.... ( 14th month of the year )

BUT, As I said MANY of those "Not working of unconfirmed" parameters DO fluctuate and do appear "normal".



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


Could be the difference in what the NTSB uses and what your using.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


Could be the difference in what the NTSB uses and what your using.


Or it could be that the NTSB had no reason to even attempt to verify the flight deck door parameter.

Regardless, without the System Schematic Manual written expressedly for flight 77 and a VALID DFL ( since the generic 757-3b_1.TXT and the ones described in D226A101-3G.PDF ALL produce errors at one point or another ) written expressedly for flight 77, the real truth may never be known.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 





Or it could be that the NTSB had no reason to even attempt to verify the flight deck door parameter.


Why wouldn't they do that is a more accurate question. They would need to do it in order to verify how integrity of the cockpit and to verify other occurrences regarding the crash. Makes no sense within investigative reasonings to just say they didn't do it???



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by JFrickenK
 





Or it could be that the NTSB had no reason to even attempt to verify the flight deck door parameter.


Why wouldn't they do that is a more accurate question. They would need to do it in order to verify how integrity of the cockpit and to verify other occurrences regarding the crash. Makes no sense within investigative reasonings to just say they didn't do it???


Because they were told that the planes were hijacked.

Sure, the "Why's" are easy in retrospect, but at the time from the investigators viewpoint he already "knew" that the plane was hijacked, and was looking for other items to quantify who did it... The flight deck door parameter either was not that important in the grand scheme of things, OR it was truly inoperative.

We already know ( from a FDR data examination company ) that the DFL for the released FDR file is non standard, and that they CAN rebuild one to match the existing parameters.

However they choose not to do so.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 



Because they were told that the planes were hijacked.


That makes no sense in terms of conducting an investigation. In an investigation you must investigate what led up to the incident regardless of who told you because you have to prove it on down the road if it goes to court and use your own agency's methods for proving it or simply to confirm it. One can't show up in court and say :"the FBI told us it was hijacked so we didn't do an investigation".

Being told the plane was hijacked provides no perimeter reasons or effects as to what allowed the plane to be hijacked in the first place nor what controls were being used at the time.

As such, the investigators at the time had no idea and could not foresee the future. So they would have to have investigated it. There isn;t no other reason why it wouldn;t have been investigated.



[edit on 7-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   


The flight deck door parameter either was not that important in the grand scheme of things


Considering thats possibly where a murder or two took place (pilot, attendant, co pilot) in combination with the guidance of a flying bomb so to speak (airplane itself) I'd say it would be highly relevant to read or capture that data.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by JFrickenK
 



Because they were told that the planes were hijacked.


That makes no sense in terms of conducting an investigation. In an investigation you must investigate what led up to the incident regardless of who told you because you have to prove it on down the road if it goes to court and use your own agency's methods for proving it or simply to confirm it. One can't show up in court and say :"the FBI told us it was hijacked so we didn't do an investigation".

Being told the plane was hijacked provides no perimeter reasons or effects as to what allowed the plane to be hijacked in the first place nor what controls were being used at the time.

As such, the investigators at the time had no idea and could not foresee the future. So they would have to have investigated it. There isn;t no other reason why it wouldn;t have been investigated.



[edit on 7-1-2010 by mikelee]


That is what happens when the investigation is stolen from the experienced NTSB by the unexperienced ( as far as air crash investigation ) FBI.

This is also another reason which I feel EVERYTHING surrounding the events of 9/11 should be reinvestigated.... However that is straying off the topic of the FDR data.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 





posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Because, mike and JFK, et al, by repeating the non-sequitor "parameter unconfirmed" it continues to leave the wrong impression in people's minds (which IS the impression desired by the LCF and P4T forums, as they HOPE to instigate and foster confusion).

I truly AM sorry, but a review of the full thread regarding this issue will suffice, no need to repeat again the inanity and misinformation that was attempted, in order to obfuscate this topic. (Specifically, the one aspect of the FDR that involved the Flight Deck Door status, and whether or NOT it was a parameter that was recorded on the device installed and known as the Flight Data Recorder, the one found at the Pentagon, and therefore accepted to have been installed and operating ONBOARD the American Airlines flight 77, up until electrical power to the Recorder was interrupted as a result of th eimpact of the airframe AT the Pentagon).

How many different ways must this be explained?


"hoping" or other forms of "hand waving' away the facts do not alter the facts.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Tell me weedhacker, why is the format of ARINC 573/717 so secret that it is not to be found on the web ?

( AND WTH is up with THIS site remapping my left mouse click to a double click ? )



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JFrickenK
 


Sorry, K you're asking about ARINC now???


And, as to this:


( AND WTH is up with THIS site remapping my left mouse click to a double click ? )


??????????

'nuf said......


(For those interested, 'ARINC' is pertinent only inasmuch as today's more and more sophisticated airplanes have real-time communications ability to convey more than just he "OOOI" times (that's 'Out, Off, On, In') that was the original intent of ACARS, via the ARINC company linking provisions.

We saw this with the Air France jet, lost over the Atlantic Ocean, from RIO to CDG.

We see it in later Boeings, such as the B-777. The airplanes are constantly "talking" to their operating owners, via ARINC links, especially now with GPS updating, so that Dispatch and Flight Operations personnel know where the airplane is at all times...faults that are selected to be serious enough to warrant will flag, and download to Maintenance, in Flight Operations, in order to give a "heads up" so that by the time the crew calls, using one of the other services provided by ARINC, whether SATComm, or just a VHF radio/landline patch, by the time we call, they know already, and time isn't wasted figuring out a solution or a course of action.

HOWEVER, back in 2001, in the case of the American Airlines flight 77, and the other three airplanes, I seriously doubt they were equipped with that form of advanced technology.

At my company, on the 757s we had then, we didn't even yet have GPS!!!

It was installed later, and came already installed on our B-767s as they were delivered. AND, I suppose, on our B-777s (though I never flew the B-777, so have no direct knowledge, other than what I've heard from colleagues).


I'm hoping 767Doctor will have further information on this, regarding the various fleets he's come into contact with, as he's worked on them, because he will know how they were configured, and when they were updated, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also, wanted to add, that as far as ARINC goes, I am just a user, and am aware of only a certain aspect of the company, and what it provides.

LOTS of their other services have evolved into the very, very technical, as can be seen after a short perusal of their websites...
www.arinc.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And too, just for fun, I Googled "ARINC 573/717" and got this, about the American Airlines flight 587 crash, an Airbus A300-600, 12 November 2001:

www.ntsb.gov...

Is this what you're talking about????




[edit on 7 January 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Close, but no cigar.

www.ntsb.gov...

and

www.gwu.edu...

Or have you not read them ?

As far as remapping my mouse button, it is something I had noticed since first coming to this site, and I have verified that today.

It makes it a real PITA navigating tabs in my browser as a double click closes tabs.

This site is the only site which triggers that effect.

I have also seen numerous references to this happening here on JERF.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Per the NTSB -

Its either not working or unconfirmed.

Now your argue with me over what the NTSB criteria states?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join