Level D Simulator Data Production - *snip*

reply to post by turbofan


turbo, I have listened to your telephone conversation with the flight sim salesman. He is doing his best to help you in relation to renting sim time but it is obvious that he is no expert on flight data recorders. He says you can record what you do on the machine and then mentions you using a videocam. Nowhere do you level with him and tell him you are trying to find out if a simulator can fake a real world jetliner's fdr and I don't think he would be qualified to make a statement about that anyway.

This is the NTSB report on AA 77's fdr . There is a list of parameters at Attachment 1 :-

www.ntsb.gov...

Can you confirm that a simulator would be able to supply the appropriate data to record for say Fuel Pumps and Fuel Flow or engine parameters such as Engine Oil Pressure , Engine Temp, Engine Vibration ?

reply to post by turbofan



You're being unclear on what you are claiming WeedWhacker doesn't know about aviation and airplanes, say again please. (and yes he is a real pilot)

Edit to add: Usally when pilots talk about Level D simulators it's full motion sims of this kind:

www.aerosyseng.com...

reply to post by turbofan


Wait.....hang on. Am I finally seeing the fallacy you were laboring under all this time, on this topic???

You are actually trying to allege that the data released by the FOIA requests.....that THAT was the "faked" data???

You see......all this while, it seemed as if you were trying to make a case for the actual, physical SSFDR, through its FDAU interface, had been "pre-loaded" by some magical means....(To include the nearly 25 hours of OTHER, previous flights too)??? Is that NOT what you allege, then?

Because, if not...then all this time we've been talking at cross-purposes....I had it in my mind that you felt it was somehow possible to fly a Level-D sim and have the entire (flight) of that sim then backloaded into the SSFDR....AND< I thought you believed that was what happened. This is why I told you it was nonsense....to think that the SSFDR itself could have had the data recorded to it in that manner, AND that the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Division personnel and experts would not have discovered any attempts at "faking" data.....well, again, it is just too implausible to envision.


HOWEVER, it does seem that you are really contending that ONLY the data received by those who requested it, in a form of a CD-ROM storage medium.....that THAT could all be "faked"? Is this the actual assertion??

Certainly, I suppose....it could. Just on the info supplied....AT great effort.....would have entailed a whole lot of people doing very tedious work....But, that is such an incredibly paranoid and somewhat outrageous assertion, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Too many prying eyes would, eventually, uncover any attempts at that sort of deception. There are too many cross-refrences, published and available, for comparison. DO you understand why this is so??


Also, for this "scheme" to be actually true (the "scheme" of the SSFDR data released to researchers, on the CD-ROM), it would mean that THIS official NTSB report was also entirely fabricated, in order to "match"......and, this is beyond the pale of believability.


Furthermore, do you not think that Mr. Warren Stutt, who has been devoting a great deal of his time to studying all of this data, would not have caught on to any "deceptions" by now???:

www.warrenstutt.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Now i see.

Going back to monitoring mode

Originally posted by VonDoomen
interesting post OP!
I look foward to weedwhackers reponse.

Its to bad we dont have those blackboxes which could prove this!

That is just the point; we do have black boxes for UA 93 and AA 77. In the latter case an independent researcher has teased out the last few seconds from the fdr, which the NTSB didn't decode, and which proves that AA 77 did indeed crash into the Pentagon just as most people think it did. ( there is a seperate thread about it on here now )

Anyway, turbofan is still wedded to the idea that the plane flew over the Pentagon. Consequently he is not at all happy with this new development and would like to prove the fdr data fake.

reply to post by GenRadek


Yes the same project. Are you comparing knowledge known by Stalin and the Russian government are equal to the citizens of any country? Since he knew everyone else should have known? I'm sure Japan didn't know.

reply to post by Ivar_Karlsen


If you believe the data is different in any way shape or form, phrase a specific question for me to ask the level D simulator company.

Type it word, for word exactly to avoid any ambiguity as I will only make one last phone call.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Can you confirm that a simulator would be able to supply the appropriate data to record for say Fuel Pumps and Fuel Flow or engine parameters such as Engine Oil Pressure , Engine Temp, Engine Vibration ?

I will tell you with my life on the line that it can, and does. You see, you cannot have a data stream that
is missing bits, or words. The data frame would not line up. All of the system inputs/outputs NEED to
be accounted for an emulated.

If you believe the data is different in any way shape or form, phrase a specific question for me to ask the level D simulator company.

Type it word, for word exactly to avoid any ambiguity as I will only make one last phone call.

Lastly, as the technician said on the phone, my $40.00 video game can produce the data, and it would
be difficult for any novice to tell the difference.

So...you're telling me that a $40 Million dollar simulator that uses the SAME electronics would somehow
produce different data?

Most people don't understand that the same guts are in the simulator as the real aircraft. Therefore the
same outputs are produced.

There is NO WAY of telling the difference.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You are actually trying to allege that the data released by the FOIA requests.....that THAT was the "faked" data???

Yes.

You see......all this while, it seemed as if you were trying to make a case for the actual, physical SSFDR, through its FDAU interface, had been "pre-loaded" by some magical means....(To include the nearly 25 hours of OTHER, previous flights too)??? Is that NOT what you allege, then?

Correct.

In fact my theory states there was no FDR involved in this process other than to take photos of the physical
device.

Because, if not...then all this time we've been talking at cross-purposes....I had it in my mind that you felt it was somehow possible to fly a Level-D sim and have the entire (flight) of that sim then backloaded into the SSFDR....AND< I thought you believed that was what happened

I'm gald we are now on the same page. I'd like to spare a phone call to waste somebody's time if we can
just agree that my theory IS POSSIBLE even if you believe it did not happen.

Certainly, I suppose....it could. Just on the info supplied....AT great effort.....would have entailed a whole lot of people doing very tedious work....But, that is such an incredibly paranoid and somewhat outrageous assertion, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

No sir, it's not that difficult.

The technology is there to have software do the work.

IT was easy enough for them to insert fake RADAR blips to produce a simulated war game.

The RADAR data is also fake in my opinion.

All the technician needs is to input co-ordinates that match the fake aircraft data, or use the CSV values
from the .fdr file to insert into the RADAR system.

Furthermore, do you not think that Mr. Warren Stutt, who has been devoting a great deal of his time to studying all of this data, would not have caught on to any "deceptions" by now???:

Warren Stutt, or anyone else would be oblivious to the HOW the data was produced.

There is no distinction to how this .fdr file was created with respect to the guts of a simulator, or an aircraft.

It like trying to determine what brand of printer printed the newspaper you are reading.

You just read the text and interpret the words on the page...you can't tell if the printing machine was an IBM,
or a Hewlette-Packard.

Get my drift now?

Can we consider this topic closed?

reply to post by weedwhacker

Certainly, I suppose....it could. Just on the info supplied....AT great effort.....would have entailed a whole lot of people doing very tedious work....But, that is such an incredibly paranoid and somewhat outrageous assertion, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Too many prying eyes would, eventually, uncover any attempts at that sort of deception. There are too many cross-refrences, published and available, for comparison. DO you understand why this is so??

As I have confessed, I do not know enough about this topic to get involved but I do have one question..
You talk about "a whole lot of people doing very tedious work"
But are we not merely talking about the last " 4 seconds" of data, not the entire file???

Surely 4 seconds worth of data would not be that much...

Originally posted by backinblackBut are we not merely talking about the last " 4 seconds" of data, not the entire file???

Surely 4 seconds worth of data would not be that much...

It would have to be the entire flight.

The entire flight corresponding to "AA77" on Sept 11th; not the previous flights.

Even four seconds of data would be a hell of a task to type in by hand...because you have thousands of bits
per frame of data.

reply to post by turbofan

Even four seconds of data would be a hell of a task to type in by hand...because you have thousands of bits
per frame of data.

Well, it did take 9 years to get those last 4 secs..
Enough time?

reply to post by backinblack


ha, yes that is a long time!

But...in context, that data was always there.

Warren Stutt simply extracted the extra information using a home made program.

Warren didn't type those four extra seconds, he just found a way to get around the parity and error checking
bits to pull out the information.

It's not as though the NTSB released another file, or released more data.

The file has been in public hands for years.

Hope that helps clarify where/how the extra data came to be.

reply to post by turbofan

It's not as though the NTSB released another file, or released more data.

The file has been in public hands for years.

Hope that helps clarify where/how the extra data came to be.

So has anyone else since extracted that extra data and why was it not viewable to start with??

Originally posted by Alfie1
This is the NTSB report on AA 77's fdr . There is a list of parameters at Attachment 1 :-

www.ntsb.gov...

It is good to see you are aware of the above document. Can you please tell us where the Radar Altimeter is listed that you, Legge, Stutt and others rely so heavily upon?

Can you tell us where Pressure Altitude is listed?

I'll give you a hint. Radar Altitude is listed under "Not Working Or Unconfirmed"

Pressure altitude is listed as working and confirmed.

Alfie, why do you rely on Radar Altitude?

reply to post by OptimusPrimeX


Whatever the listing I haven't seen anyone, on either side of the argument, seriously argue that the radio heights are not in fact in the data. You can always download the data yourself from Warren Stutt's website and check it out.

So far as pressure altimeters versus radio altimeters goes there is some discussion of the divergence between the two in relation to AA 77 in the new Legge/Stutt paper. I am no expert on altimeters but from what I have learnt there does seem to me to be a consensus that a radio altimeter is much more accurate at low altitude. So accurate in fact as to be withn +- 1'. Pressure altimeters on the other hand have much wider tolerance. You will see in this article that it says " In fact changes in atmospheric pressure from one side of an airport to another can provide a noticeable altitude error " :-

www.amtonline.com...

I also noticed an Avionics Engineer, John Bursill, over on 9/11 Blogger the other day maintaining that a radio altimeter is the device of choice below 2,500 feet. ( John Bursill is a member of AE911t so no debunker )

So, as of now, I am persuaded that a radio altimeter is more of a precision tool at low altitude.

reply to post by Alfie1

Whatever the listing I haven't seen anyone, on either side of the argument, seriously argue that the radio heights are not in fact in the data. You can always download the data yourself from Warren Stutt's website and check it out.

What our former (and oft returning) guest was referring to, of course, was directly from what the NTSB published, in that PDF. (Won't link it again. It's right here, or last page..).

All that it says is, some parameters were PLOTTED (as shown on the accompanying figures, in graphical form).

The category "Parameters Not Working or Unconfirmed" Is merely a "catch all" listing of those parameters NOT "plotted", for the purposes of that particular report.

I've never had the occasion to compare to other NTSB reported specific FDR parameters, in that sort of format before, from other accident investigations. Perhaps that is standard practice?? (Does anyone have something to compare??).

I don't know, seemed a bit "lazy" perhaps, not further separating out that grouping into simply "Unconfirmed" (which would mean, not verified for the report) and "Not Working" (which would mean either inoperative, or just "Not Used"....like, the actual Flight Deck Door open/closed status was not a recorded value, and "Not Working" in that sense. So, it had a default reading).

One would think, would one not, that the so-called "experts" and "professionals" at the P4T would research this more properly, rather than dropping innuendo and dis-info all over the place. But, actually seeking the "truth" (per their own name) doesn't seem to be the actual goal.....?

__________________________________________________________________

Just to clarify:

So, as of now, I am persuaded that a radio altimeter is more of a precision tool at low altitude.

THAT depends entirely on the nature of the surface immediatley below the RA transceiver antennas, for any reading. Hope that is clear? However, having said that...in actual use, the RA will usually continue to display, as it "hits" and takes readings.....so, in normal use, you can infer a sort of "average" as you travel over even irregular surface heights beneath you. If that makes sense....

Up to certain limits, of course.....the units will have certain situations where, if they "sense" that the data is "bad" enough, for long enough (how many seconds, or micro-seconds? turbofan can check the specs, its HIS expertise?) ...they will "flag" themselves, if they "think" they aren't within tolerances.

reply to post by weedwhacker

One would think, would one not, that the so-called "experts" and "professionals" at the P4T would research this more properly, rather than dropping innuendo and dis-info all over the place. But, actually seeking the "truth" (per their own name) doesn't seem to be the actual goal.....?

How can they, they keep getting banned..
As far as I've seen they have been the polite and civil posters..
Not sure why they get banned but then we are not permitted to ask.

Originally posted by backinblackSo has anyone else since extracted that extra data and why was it not viewable to start with??

Because the individual who first decoded the data (Undertow) went to a source that used official flight
investigation software. The software decoded the final flight, but was not able to read the last four seconds due
to an "End of File" (EOF) error, or missing frame sync/parity bits. (these are the parity and error checking issues I posted about earlier).

Warren through the help of many was able to obtain a data frame layout, and conversion parameters to "reverse
engineer" the .fdr file. He began by looking at the prior flights on the file, and then I suspect he found a
discrepency with the CRC Check and decided to decode further.

I would imagine his program output extra bits that were not converted properly and this gave him the clue to look further. If I'm not mistaken, it took about 12-16 months to interpret the last four seconds after his initial release...
which gives you an idea of how involved this process really is.

reply to post by turbofan


turbo, just to make sure I have got it right. You think the data released as the result of FOIA requests was fake, at least as regards the whole of the final flight on 9/11 ? This would make the National Transportation and Safety Board co-conspirators and their report on AA 77's FDR a phoney ? You also think the radar data was faked ?

You don't have any qualms about adding all these professionals to the alleged conspiracy ? Because it is not obvious why people who have dedicated their working lives to saving life should suddenly want to sign up to mass murder for poltical reasons.

Why not just say the FDR was too damaged to be readable, as with the CVR, and avoid all these other conspirators and attendant risks ? Or why not fly AA 77 into the Pentagon and avoid altogether the absurd and grotesque cover ups necessary to fake all ?

If the data relating to the last flight was faked, with great trouble and with people putting their lives on the line, why do you suppose it took FOIA requests to get the data and why were the last frames not used by the NTSB and had to await the appearance of a skilled and incredibly dedicated researcher ? Those last seconds might never have been decoded so what a waste.

Anyway, you will have gathered that I think the idea of AA 77's final flight data being faked is utterly and completely incredible. But what you are evidently seeking is agreement that it was physically possible.

You have assured me that a simulator could produce FDR type data recording all the parameters that were used on AA 77. That it would all correlate and be indistinguishable from real FDR data. Is that right ? If so, I would really like to hear confirmation of that from an FDR expert rather than a firm selling simulator time.

A couple of points do occur to me though. In the Legge/Stutt paper they refer to the generator trailer which was hit and moved towards the Pentagon. They conclude that it was hit by the right engine. From the data they say that the aircraft made a very rapid rotation to the left although the control wheel is close to central. They say the rotation was " not commanded and therefore must have been caused by the impact." In other words they are saying the planes orientation changed because of an external impact and the pilot did nothing to effect that change. Similarly, the final off the scale deceleration would be beyond the ability of the pilot whatever he did with the controls.

I cannot see how these situations can be faked by a simulator because they are caused by factors external to the aircraft. Any thoughts ?