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.

 

Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757

page: 14
83
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I've never seen a poll that suggests that. There are polls that ask whether the respondents believe there is anything at all remotely wrong with what the authorities have told us about 9/11, but they're usually designed to include people who think there may have been intelligence failures, and that the government has covered them up.


When the U.S. media is as BROKEN as it is, it's no wonder we can't get any poll results. However, if it happens to come up at a party, in a classroom, with neighbors I can tell you I only know a very small handful of people who think it happened as we saw on TV that day.


You realize that anyone can contract to have any poll conducted that they want to, correct? Yet in all these years I have yet to see this supposedly enormous "movement" ever bother to conduct one single, honest poll.

Yes or No - Do you think the events of 9/11 were conducted by secret government forces?
Yes or No - Do you think there were explosives planted in the World Trade Center buildings that caused their collapse.




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


I have found it to be far more efficient to let a (long...yes, it has to be, in order to be comprehensive) post of mine sit and cook for a while. I do my utmost best to explain, as accurately as possible, and to impart MY expertise and knowledge, in the limited means available in this online "Forum" format.

It encompasses a lot of very technical details, much that is innately learned, and intuitive from actual hands-on experience. To convey this sort of information, properly, to a group of laypeople is a Herculean task and challenge. As I have tried, also, to point out.....the blokes (all two of them, in my best guess) at the "Pilots" for "truth" club are incredibly clever at using the very circumstances of these technical issues, and deliberately clouding the "story" they put out, with each of their "earth-shattering press releases". Using terms like "overwhelming", or "smoking gun evidence" is just childish and tabloid, cringe-worthy hyperbole.


Now....I saw Thermo Klein's post from the 6th of March, page whatever-it-was....from just under 24 hours ago. A question was asked, and I am VERY glad he (she?) was able to screen-grab and post that page from the NTSB Flight Data Specialist's Report for AAL 77 (I have it on my hard-drive....the PDF won't let me copy....haven't figured out the technical details on THAT, yet....).


Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Does this IRS data show an inflight align?


I took the liberty of copying the image link, from your original post:



Answer = NO!

It was impossible then (as it is today) to do any in-flight alignments of the IRUs.

None of that data indicate any such thing happening.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I included that full image, again, in order to point something out. This relates to the "P4T" earlier claims RE: the flight deck door. The cockpit door status was a data input possibility that the FDR is capable of recording....IF it is hooked up. Since it was not a mandatory thing to record, it was not recorded. It was set to a default positon, that happened to correspond with what would read as "Closed" if actually hooked up to a physial door latch sensor.

I mention the door because, looking at the printout image portion above.....there is a listing for the "HUD-1".


A "HUD" is a heads-up display. It is a FACT that American Airlines Boeing 757s did not then (and, I dobt even today) have HUDs installed. Period. BUT, since the capability, as an option, exists for one to be added, the FDR has the appropriate ports to record its function.

"P4T", and their red-herring "cockpit door" fiasco is a busted, proven lie.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(continuing on post-edit):
Here, this is the IRU control panel, it is mounted on the overhead panel, and within easy reach by either pilot:




(When that photo was snapped, the "Test Lights" switch was selected "On"....this illuminates most of the various warning and status lights on the instrument panels...not all of them...and also certain of the digital numeral LED display segments. So, that is what you see, there....).

At the top is the numeric display....it will show whichever choice is selected for each IRU, as chosen, and per the desired data to view. The large rotary knob to left of the keypad selects options (the smaller concentric knob is the dimmer):


  • Ground Track (in degrees relative TRUE North) and Groundspeed
  • Present Position (Lat/Long)
  • Wind (calculated, imputed / calculated Direction/Velocity relative to TRUE North, in knots)
  • Airplane Heading (relative to TRUE North)


The small knob with three positions obviously chooses which IRU data to display.

The keypad is self-explanatory.

You have four status lights, for each IRU. And, the rotary knob to power up, and select modes, for each IRU.


In the earlier days of INS, some procedures required that you select "ALIGN", enter the present position, and then leave it there until each Inertial unit was completely finished with the alignment process. (This is indicated, to the pilots, by the erection of the primary flight instruments, as they stabilize to proper indicating positions, and all warning flags are biased out of view) and, also, on the INS control display units (CDUs), there was a "countdown" numeral to show the alignment progress). Once fully aligned, it was important to remember to then move the selectors to the "NAV" position, prior to moving the airplane. Or else, ALL alignments is lost, and must be started all over again.(**) This was a problem, occasionally, from poor checklist discipline, or what have you...so, when IRS units were introduced, the software was more automated, and the "NAV" position is selected, and the units switch into "Nav Mode" automatically, when they're ready.

But, again...only on the ground, and when stopped completely, for the full time of alignment.

On the mode selectors, the "ATT" position is Attitude. That gives you just a basic "gyroscope" platform, for the primary flight instruments that are fed by the respective unit. Left and Right, for Capt and F/O. Center is switchable, via instrument display switching controls, on the forward instrument panels, each side. In case either L/R IRU fails completely, the CTR can provide back-up.


One more thing, I believe the "P4T" are attempting to confuse and deceive with....this notion of in-flight "alignment". There is in-flight "updating"....but that ONLY affects the "triple mix" calculated position. It cannot alter what any of the individual IRU positions....where it "thinks" it is.

Also....on the ground, and stopped, there is an option for a "fast align". This, after a full align has occurred....you may select the knob to "ALIGN", and then re-input position coordinates. Then back to "NAV". It will update that IRU (you can do one, or any of them as desired) in about a minute .... usually less.

On occasion, I have done this many times....at the gate, when there is a long delay, unexpected. You've already aligned, but you are unexpectedly delayed....and the IRUs can "drift"....quite a bit, actually. It's just a fact that some are more "tight" than others....so, a fast align "cleans" them up a bit. Still, you must not be moving. Any time the selector is taken out of "NAV", position alignment....where it "thinks" it is, is lost.



(**)(There is a story, from many years ago....one of our DC-10 Captains (and the other two guys went along with it....MANY years ago, remember) decided to NOT wait to re-align....when they forgot, and had started the push-back, and messed up the INSs. He had flown Sydney-Honolulu for many years; the headings, winds and all the info he needed was on the flight plan print-out (he "reasoned") and, the routes hadn't changed for decades....he also figured, he could just follow any contrails from other airplanes, if he saw them, to "verify" his course. Used the flight plan, again....and the estimated times printed out on it, to make the ATC "position reports"....etc.

The Second Officer, some weeks after the fact, in a fit of conscious and guilt, turned them all in....and it was a big (internal) scandal, but sort of a "joke", since there were no incidents.....the Captain was forever teased by the rest who knew him....they called him "Magellan"....
He was retired soon afterwards.......

THAT was a story, BTW, from the so-called "good old days"....you wouldn't believe what used to go on, and what would be gotten away with. It isn't like that, any more...and the safety statistics prove it.



edit on 7 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


Your ranting is sorely misguided.

What a shame.

To accuse ME of using too many technical jargon??? Oh, the irony. Take a long, hard look at the junk posted by the "P4T" crowd. Over the many years. Not ONE of their claims has stood up to scrutiny...and this is exhibiting the same major fail.

Really, it is too bad that what I write is (apparently) incomprehensible to YOU. Because, to tell the truth (and I think the other pilots on this Board can see it) I struggle to "dumb it down" in many ways just for the layperson, like you.


You really should get off your high horse and take your head out of "P4T's" ...umm....armpit....and look at the real world, for a change. THEY have bamboozled you, and led you down the rabbit hole of nonsense, and misdirection.

To put it simply....they either LIE on purpose, or (if they believe the crap they put out) are sadly deluded, and divorced from reality.

Either / Or. I can't tell...(but I have my suspicions)...



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Lynda101
 




Happily following the discussion until I got to your 'dozens of socks' .


As most no doubt know, the "sock" slang term is just to describe someone who posts online under multiple user names. Refers to those names....and, for those of us "in the trenches" with a certain individual, covering a span of a few years, it is quite obvious, each time.

Ahhh.....my fault for including the sort of Internet lingo, not everyone is privy to (when I first began to read and post online, many such terms had me stumped at first, too). Sometimes you can figure out from context, what people mean (but that can go terribly wrong, if you guess incorrectly!!). The "urban dictionary" online has a lot of descriptions, to de-code just about anything, nowadays.



...does BS mean .......


Yes.....but to keep it more "G-rated", (and ATS forums cleaner) ....let's say that "BS" means 'baloney sandwich'....



Or, perhaps.....:

'bogus statement' (?)

'big sham' (?)

'bull slop' (?)

'balsamic salad' (?)

Just five I made up, off the top of my head....I tend to use 'colorful' language (all too often) in normal conversation, and my self-filtering mode has a few faults....my "auto censor" doesn't always catch everything......



edit on 7 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now....I saw Thermo Klein's post from the 6th of March, page whatever-it-was....from just under 24 hours ago. A question was asked, and I am VERY glad [he] was able to screen-grab and post that page from the NTSB Flight Data Specialist's Report for AAL 77 (I have it on my hard-drive....the PDF won't let me copy....haven't figured out the technical details on THAT, yet....).


Weedwhacker, thanks a lot for taking the time to write all that! I screen-grabbed the first thing I saw that looked like it was associated with IRS but honestly have 13 double-column pages of similar info (as is on your hardrive), so I wonder if your "No" statement holds true for the whole data file. I did a little more research on the data points map (top pic on page 12 I believe) and it is alleged to show an airborne full auto-align, but I get differing answers from both sides...

btw, the way I was able to post that was as follows (for Microsoft products):
* screen grab using function+print screen [fn] + [prt sc]
* open Microsoft paint program and click paste
* select the portion you want, save it
* then use a photoserver (I use imageshack) to get the link to post it here on ats
* for others who have never posted pics, you need to change the IMG to "ats", and if you use imageshack remove the URL link to keep your identity private.

by the way Weed - great story about Magellan :p



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker



...does BS mean .......



Or, perhaps.....:

'bogus statement' (?)

'big sham' (?)

'bull slop' (?)


I would have went with:'Balsamo's Stupidity'



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Here's my question.....

After all this time, why are there members on here who still argue with the likes of Dereks and Hooper? Just curious. It's obvious who they are and what they are trying to do. Time to ignore...........then maybe, just maybe.....if there IS a God, they will slither away never to return.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now....I saw Thermo Klein's post from the 6th of March, page whatever-it-was....from just under 24 hours ago. A question was asked, and I am VERY glad [he] was able to screen-grab and post that page from the NTSB Flight Data Specialist's Report for AAL 77 (I have it on my hard-drive....the PDF won't let me copy....haven't figured out the technical details on THAT, yet....).


Weedwhacker, thanks a lot for taking the time to write all that! I screen-grabbed the first thing I saw that looked like it was associated with IRS but honestly have 13 double-column pages of similar info (as is on your hardrive), so I wonder if your "No" statement holds true for the whole data file. I did a little more research on the data points map (top pic on page 12 I believe) and it is alleged to show an airborne full auto-align, but I get differing answers from both sides...


I'm sure weekwhacker is composing a full reply. Since you appear to be sincere in the meantime I'll try to help you understand. As you already realize this is a very technical issue and those who are attempting to deceive capitalize on that by telling half truths/distortions/or outright lies. That being said the background is that with the publication of the Dr. Legg/Warren Stutt document at the Journal of 911 Studies (a truther oriented site) (It's posted earlier) Balsamo of Pilots for 911 Truth is left with few options now to continue his agenda. He needs to show the FDR Data is fake.

He obviously believes by showing what appears to be a large position error on the ground at Dulles IAP and then a more accurate position during flight that the IRU was realigned during flight. The equipment in Airline use are not capable of alignment during flight. Some military type units are. Therefore, he's implying there was a substitute aircraft (aircraft swap) at Dulles. It is all poppycock, pure and simple.

I will address the military units as I have considerable experience with them. Weedwhacker will address the Airline units. There is no such thing as auto-align during flight. Military unit capable of alignment in-flight take hours, not minutes to align. Even then they will be miles in error after a long MANAGED alignment procedure. They need very precise updates during this process usually provided by high resolution Attack Radar. It takes considerable time to do this and the results are not very accurate if it will even complete successfully.

AA 77 automatically updated the IRU during flight as it's designed to do becoming more accurate as the flight progressed. By the time the aircraft reached the Pentagon it was in the vicinity of some 200' in error. There is NO WAY in hell that unit was aligned in flight, period. Those in use by the Airlines are not capable and those high quality units in use by the military would not be capable during that period of time and they would not be even close to 200' to the actual position at the end. I hope this helps.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
Here's my question.....

After all this time, why are there members on here who still argue with the likes of Dereks and Hooper? Just curious. It's obvious who they are and what they are trying to do. Time to ignore...........then maybe, just maybe.....if there IS a God, they will slither away never to return.


This is obviously the truther definition of "searching for the truth".

edit on 7-3-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Some of what I've read about in-flight "whatever" is that lasers are used to get extremely precise readings instantaneously, precise because the flight crew signals the laser to align while in close proximity to a specific beacon. We also have GPS now which allegedly wasn't available to commercial planes at that time but was available on military planes. Do you know anything about this?

And, if there was no auto-align how did the readings come into coallescence in the Flt 77 data?

thanks



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Reheat
 


Some of what I've read about in-flight "whatever" is that lasers are used to get extremely precise readings instantaneously, precise because the flight crew signals the laser to align while in close proximity to a specific beacon. We also have GPS now which allegedly wasn't available to commercial planes at that time but was available on military planes. Do you know anything about this?

And, if there was no auto-align how did the readings come into coallescence in the Flt 77 data?

thanks


You still are not understanding an ALIGNMENT versus UPDATES. They are two different things altogether. An alignment occurs on the ground and initializes the unit to a location/position on the surface of the earth. Then accelerometers and gyros detect movement and display that as a position from the original aligned position.

After airborne the units UPDATE their position automatically with either VOR/DME or DME/DME (look up these via google) to control drift and refine the position already present in the units. In other words, the UPDATES cause them to be more precise over time.

Read this:en.wikipedia.org...

If you can recall GPS was not in wide use in 2001. I believe only B-1's and B-2's did have GPS in the aircraft for use in programming precision guided GPS type bombs. I do know of any other aircraft who had GPS at that time. Selective Availability (SA) was removed in 2000, but to my knowledge no airline had GPS in use by 2001. Also, there were no WAAS satellites at that time, so it was not practical for the airlines to spend the huge cost in implementing GPS until WAAS was turned on in 2003.

Read about SA here: en.wikipedia.org...

Read about WAAS here: en.wikipedia.org...

Don't despair. If you still don't understand after this and after reading those articles we'll try again. As Weedhacker said it's difficult to "dumb down" this stuff for the layman.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


'Don't despair. If you still don't understand after this and after reading those articles we'll try again. As Weedhacker said it's difficult to "dumb down" this stuff for the layman. '

Exactly. I admit I don't have the fortitude and/or analytical skills to try and unravel half of the technical aspects of this argument, even though it's written in my mother tongue and on THAT note we are supposed to believe that Hani Hanour not only managed to pull-off a near-impossible flight manouevre PLUS do all that aligning stuff PLUS fly unaided for hundreds of miles before singling out the very office space that was home to an internal investigation to the tune of 2.3 trillion dollars and all while screaming allahu akbar I suppose..

Such a smart cookie that boy was, much too smart for a Cessna...I mean he DID have that genius-level spark of intelligence gleaming in his eye, right?

The mind boggles that someone who flies professionally and is therefore in full control of 300+ people's lives could credit the OS as fact. I would expect more discernment from a person in such an elevated position in life.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by nexusferox
reply to post by Reheat
 


'Don't despair. If you still don't understand after this and after reading those articles we'll try again. As Weedhacker said it's difficult to "dumb down" this stuff for the layman. '

Exactly. I admit I don't have the fortitude and/or analytical skills to try and unravel half of the technical aspects of this argument, even though it's written in my mother tongue and on THAT note we are supposed to believe that Hani Hanour not only managed to pull-off a near-impossible flight manouevre PLUS do all that aligning stuff PLUS fly unaided for hundreds of miles before singling out the very office space that was home to an internal investigation to the tune of 2.3 trillion dollars and all while screaming allahu akbar I suppose..

Such a smart cookie that boy was, much too smart for a Cessna...I mean he DID have that genius-level spark of intelligence gleaming in his eye, right?

The mind boggles that someone who flies professionally and is therefore in full control of 300+ people's lives could credit the OS as fact. I would expect more discernment from a person in such an elevated position in life.


I will make a one post attempt to address this off topic issue. Any more of your impertinent BS crap and you can talk to yourself. Perhaps you don't care. Be advised I don't either, so "knock it off" and act like a reasonable person if you want to discuss this.

You'll need to tell me in your own words why the perfectly normal descending right turn to lose altitude was "impossible".

Next, all of this "magic stuff" that you think is so difficult is AUTOMATIC. Are you admitting that some Arab who lived in a cave was smarter than you?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
Here's my question.....

After all this time, why are there members on here who still argue with the likes of Dereks and Hooper? Just curious. It's obvious who they are and what they are trying to do. Time to ignore...........then maybe, just maybe.....if there IS a God, they will slither away never to return.


Well it does keep the debate alive right?

If we ignore these people then a lot of the threads would die, and that is exactly what they want.

To me the real point is not the person being debated, but the people who read the thread who's minds are opened, and maybe changed, hopefully.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
You still are not understanding an ALIGNMENT versus UPDATES. They are two different things altogether. An alignment occurs on the ground and initializes the unit to a location/position on the surface of the earth. Then accelerometers and gyros detect movement and display that as a position from the original aligned position.

After airborne the units UPDATE their position automatically with either VOR/DME or DME/DME (look up these via google) to control drift and refine the position already present in the units. In other words, the UPDATES cause them to be more precise over time.


I have a pretty good understanding of the two now (and thank you for your contribution in that), the issue is that you say an airborne alignment is not possible, yet others say it was possible and give a map of coordinates that clearly show the airplane position CHANGING to match the radar location - if updates are ascertained by accelerometer and gyro comparisons from the initial location, how did the aircraft suddenly change and start matching the radar designation?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat
You still are not understanding an ALIGNMENT versus UPDATES. They are two different things altogether. An alignment occurs on the ground and initializes the unit to a location/position on the surface of the earth. Then accelerometers and gyros detect movement and display that as a position from the original aligned position.

After airborne the units UPDATE their position automatically with either VOR/DME or DME/DME (look up these via google) to control drift and refine the position already present in the units. In other words, the UPDATES cause them to be more precise over time.


I have a pretty good understanding of the two now (and thank you for your contribution in that), the issue is that you say an airborne alignment is not possible, yet others say it was possible and give a map of coordinates that clearly show the airplane position CHANGING to match the radar location - if updates are ascertained by accelerometer and gyro comparisons from the initial location, how did the aircraft suddenly change and start matching the radar designation?


I know of no one who says an airborne alignment was/is possible in the type in use by Commercial Airlines. You still seem to be confused. It is simply not possible for the airline type to align in a position other than stationary, period.

Again an ALIGNMENT is different from an UPDATE. The unit is aligned on the ground and updated beginning on the Take-Off roll via ground based Navigation Aids. The position DID NOT suddenly change to match radar, it changed over time. The ground based Navigation Aids update the unit by merely telling it where it is located at that instant. That REFINES the position and makes it more accurate. Understand now?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 


You mentioned this older post from Page 12, that I'm replying to, in one of your posts on Page 14. So, referring to that image that comes from the (holding in laughter, sorry...) "Pilots" for "Truth":


Can someone please explain how this picture indicates an inflight alignment?


That picture seems to indicate a hot mess of a fertile imagination....rather par for the course, in past dealings and rantings from that group, on these topics. I think it is done like that on purpose, to "look" like they really put a lot of hard "work" into their "investigation"....bunch of eyewash.....


Honestly, I'm a bit dumbfounded at it...because, although I know that Balsamo lacks large jet experience --- it's listed on his site. Darn! Last thing I should do is point out his site more, it just strokes his ego, every "hit" it gets....oh, well.... (I also know from PMs, years ago....and YES, he knows who I am, where I worked, because I told him.....he once worked briefly for one airline I used to commute, as a back up when I got in too late, and missed the last Mainline flight home. It was an outfit that flew the little 19-seat Jetstream turboprops. Of course, in his "online" persona and many socks, he shoots arrows at me, just as do his loyal "fans"...), but (allegedly) this guy Ralph Kolstad is "onboard" too (I say "allegedly", a bit tongue in cheek. I know that RK was featured in that segment from the Jesse Ventura TV show....another tragi-comedy of misinformation, BTW.....).


RK IS (was, retired now I think) a pilot for AAL. He ought to know better!! I am puzzled as to what angle he is getting out of this. I can only think that we do have a precedent, in John Lear, of guys who don't seem to care about their reputations, credibility, or anything else....it's a mindset that I just can't get my mind wrapped around.....because, these silly, concocted "NON-conspiracy" conspiracies are so fringe.

IT should be apparent to people who will just stop and think logically, for half a second....tens of thousands of professional airline pilots, and only a tiny handful spout this tripe. That, in itself, ought to tell you something......



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhackerIT should be apparent to people who will just stop and think logically, for half a second....tens of thousands of professional airline pilots, and only a tiny handful spout this tripe. That, in itself, ought to tell you something......


The Flat Earth Society has more members than pfffft!

theflatearthsociety.org...



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Minor quibble, and a reiteration to clarify:


...and updated beginning on the Take-Off roll via ground based Navigation Aids.


The position update at the start of the takeoff roll is accomplished from the runway that is being used having been input into the "box" (the IRS, via the CDU) and the fact that ITS Lat/Long coordinates are stored in the computer's database. The TOGA ** button (Take-Off / Go-Around) is the trigger to tell the system to take a "snapshot" a that moment, and use it to, as you rightly said, gradually refine the "mixed" position....the average of all three.

** The TOGA has a dual purpose....for the takeoff it engages the autothrottles. A/T are operated by a switch, with two positions..."OFF" and "ARM"...when armed, the A/T will engage into various modes, per the way its been programmed....there are a whole host of various conditions that are looked at, by the computer, and those are taken into account.

The proper procedure, BTW, for the takeoff is: The thrust levers are slowly and evenly crept forward....it is important to have equal power from both sides (whether a two-engine or four-engine jet)....and the engine instruments monitored, even as you are already beginning to roll forward, from the thrust being applied. You look for approximately 70% to 80% N1 (fan rotor speed) and stabilized readings, then push TOGA....the A/T clutch takes over, and brings the thrust levers up to the computed Take-Off Power setting....also one of the functions of the Air Data Computer, in combination with the Thrust Computer. (Next time you fly, you might feel it, when that happens,,,depending on pilot technique, and airplane. Often the A/T are aggressive, and while YOU push them up smoothly and slowly, once you TOGA they will move at their programmed rate of travel....so it can be a kick in the pants).

(The "GA" function is airborne only, of course,,,it is for the missed approach / rejected landing situations, and not only engages the A/T [as long as they are armed] but does a whole bunch of other things, instrument-wise.....).



I my earlier post, some complain is "too long", I left a lot out....even though I alluded to it, might have been buried in the text.

The IRS won't "update" (that version of unit, for AAL 77) when the EHSI selectors are in VOR or ILS positions. (Unless at leas tone is in "MAP" or "PLAN"). Depending on the Departure Procedure used (if it is not an RNAV) one EHSI may be in VOR as a "double check" using what's called "raw data" reference...this is typically the NFP (non-flying pilot). Some companies refer to it as the "monitoring pilot".

Years ago, in the early days of the Boeing 737-300, we had to actually do a check, using the IRS reference, and an actual VOR reference, to compare bearing and distance....for each takeoff, after departure. (The IRS as a "primary" means of navigation was somewhat novel, then....and for safety concerns, the Powers That Be in the Flight Operations Departments thought it was prudent to always have that check...the requirement faded away sometime in the early 1990s...[except for extended over-water trips] as confidence grew with the systems. And, newer software was developed, and will alert automatically, if they detect any major errors, compared to ground-based Nav Aids.).

Of course, ALL of the above were procedures and thinking that pre-dated GPS updating. THAT was only beginning to become common post-2001 or so. It wasn't required equipment...it was "nice to have"...but, expensive to retro-fit. Our company was getting so many new, factory deliveries, they came already equipped...compared to airlines like American, United, Delta, etc...they would have had to spend a lot of time and money upgrading their equipment....and, that has been done, by now, I presume, nearly all companies. Wave of the future, and all ......



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Another poster "reheat" says the INS corrected itself by the end of the flight to an accuracy of 200'..
Can you tell me how it did that ???



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join