Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ACARS Confirms 9/11 UA 175 Aircraft Was Airborne Long After Crash! Just WOW!

page: 8
70
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Then, you are very, very late to this "rodeo" if you Just learned:


In fact, I just learned (years later) how Flight 23 was a possible 5th lie. Errrr, I mean plane!



"lie". The ones who are so deluded on this topic, they lie to themselves, and to each other. Constantly.

Speaking of lies:


And we all know how Flight 93 was originally reported to have landed safely in Cleveland too, right?


Yet another desperate lie, that is feebly clung to, even after all these years. The Mayor of Cleveland misspoke, as he was ill-informed, and the rest is "truther" history.

And now, once more, the real TRUTH and facts are being twisted and lied about, in order to promulgate more of the same tired old nonsense.

Guess who is laughing, all the way to the bank, as "donations" keep rolling in to his ridiculous website?? He's proud of you all, and thankful for your support.

But, are youhappy to be taken for, and made fools of?




posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


This is a typical tactic from "you guys" -- smear, and lie.


FBI302, p. 2

Before speculating further and claiming to have debunked a subject that you completely ignore, please take the time to revise the official documentation.


You have been told, and caught in the lie once already. SO, apparently you completely ignore responses written to you, or prefer to accuse, accuse accuse and leave unsubstantiated propaganda claims out in the ether.

The document, above labeled "FBI302, p. 2" is the same one that has been brought up in the thread already. It has been read. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that once a person has read a document, it can then be referred back to, and does not have to be re-posted each time. But, accusing someone of not having "read" it in the first place is a wonderful way to duck responsibility, and avoid answering the direct questions that go to the meat of the matter.


This claim is thoroughly, and utterly devoid of value. It is shown clearly already, and apparently it is the "job" of some people to come here to ATS and keep spinning the plates balanced on top of the wobbly sticks, to keep the show going..........



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 



On the claim that the ACARS system was simply following the route the aircraft flew, why stop at Pittsburgh? Isn't the flightpath also delineated by the time of take off, speed, etc? Is it logical that the AIRINC system would call for the aircraft to be located by going though the entire proposed flightpath than a system where location is based on time of take off and speed?


Is this a serious question? Or, an attempted smokescreen?

No, ARINC doesn't "call for the aircraft" along the entire route of flight. This system is more sophisticated than that.

Apparently you may additionally be unaware of the range of VHF radio, especially to/from an airplane at cruise altitudes. Maybe you should actually read the documentation, instead of "brain storming" frivolously, and attempting to further complicate a rather simple concept.

More deception and obfuscation, when it is becoming clear that the premise of this claim, originally by "Woody Box" and now trumpeted by "PfT" is flat-out wrong??



......or better still contact Ballinger yourselves?


Why is the onus on "us"?? Seems in order to seal the deal, the "PfT" would want unequivocal confirmation, indisputable. But of course, deep down, the "PfT" know this is all hogwash, and they must rely on the misinterpretations of the old statements made by Mr Ballinger, in order to misrepresent them and continue this charade.

BTW....Mr. Ballinger started at United Airlines in 1958 (or, didn't you read the documentation???
) Chances are he's retired by now.

But, the "PfT" can contact anyone at the Chicago Dispatch office for United Airlines, and talk to any other Dispatcher who knows the systems. Doesn't have to be that same man.

I'm presuming that Dispatch remained in Chicago, after the merger. I will have to check....if the Houston offices closed, because they combined it all to ORD, then none of my phone numbers are any good any more.
edit on Mon 5 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
This is like all of his other "Blockbuster Claims" ....fraudulent BS. On it goes over and over again as long as there are gullible truthers to gather at the trough. He post lies, half truths, bad math, quote mined fragments, and poorly researched stuff that the gullible and ignorant swallow because it's fits their delusions. There is just enough techno babble and double talk that those who want to believe do so....



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I just wanted to remind everyone that I am not trying to prove or disprove anything about 9/11.

I saw on the front page of this site something about ACARS so i took an interest in it, as it's something that I use every day. When I read this thread I noticed something which I didn't think was right and then went about explaining why i didn't think it was right.

It's unfortunate that it is tied to such an emotional topic, and I can understand why people feel so strongly about it. I have simply done my best to present my case on why I think there is something not right with this and am totally open to being proven wrong... I really have no attachment to the subject at all.

I know that one of the people reading here, or on the other site has a associate who is a dispatcher for DL, that's what I do too (different company of course) and that's how I get access to all this stuff that I showed you, not many people have access to this stuff at least where I work. Maybe he/she can do the same exercise that I did, present it in a similar way and prove me wrong. I would totally not be unhappy if someone did that and I would be happy to say, "hey how about that, I learned something today."

I have read the links and so forth, and the quotes from Steve ect, but I still think they are missing the fact that the messages they are referrencing are simply telex copies just like I demonstrated. But please prove me wrong, I would rather be reading stories about politics and metaphysics then defending myself on a forum which I rarely visit.

There is no scarcasm here, just my honesty.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by bubs49
 


You have been told, and caught in the lie once already. SO, apparently you completely ignore responses written to you, or prefer to accuse, accuse accuse and leave unsubstantiated propaganda claims out in the ether.

The document, above labeled "FBI302, p. 2" is the same one that has been brought up in the thread already. It has been read. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that once a person has read a document, it can then be referred back to, and does not have to be re-posted each time. But, accusing someone of not having "read" it in the first place is a wonderful way to duck responsibility, and avoid answering the direct questions that go to the meat of the matter.


The only reason why I quoted the above passage and linked the FBI302 document one more time was to prove that you were wrong as to logs do not come from ARINC. The document states the contrary. Sorry, but it's not me who was caught in lie.




This claim is thoroughly, and utterly devoid of value. It is shown clearly already, and apparently it is the "job" of some people to come here to ATS and keep spinning the plates balanced on top of the wobbly sticks, to keep the show going..........


So are you telling me that Michael J. Winter and David Knerr lied to the FBI? Can you disprove that United 93 was still airborne at more than 350 nm from the alleged crash site at 10:03 EDT? I asked you this question at least three times. Are you going to skirt around the issue for lots more pages?

Please resign to the fact that all you did so far to refute evidence backed by official documents was presenting personal assumptions and speculations. If this is your personal way of debunking theories, no problem, maybe you can impress someone. Not me.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   


The last message (1303:17Z) referenced in the MFR is claimed to not have been received by the aircraft according to the 9/11 Commission. However, all we have is their word, which contradicts the statement made by Ballinger and the Technical Acknowledgement time stamp.


pilotsfor911truth.org...

It's not "according to the 9/11 Commission", it's according to the data provided by Mr. Knerr. The 9/11 Commission is identified as the source as a straw man argument, while Ballinger is identified as the source directly when it suits the argument.

So what exactly are you saying about Mr. Knerr?
edit on 5-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911


The last message (1303:17Z) referenced in the MFR is claimed to not have been received by the aircraft according to the 9/11 Commission. However, all we have is their word, which contradicts the statement made by Ballinger and the Technical Acknowledgement time stamp.


pilotsfor911truth.org...

It's not "according to the 9/11 Commission", it's according to the data provided by Mr. Knerr. The 9/11 Commission is identified as the source as a straw man argument, while Ballinger is identified as the source directly when it suits the argument.

So what exactly are you saying about Mr. Knerr?
edit on 5-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)


This is not entirely correct.
The Memorandum for the Record is a document released by the 9/11 Commission, therefore it is not a straw man argument to identify the Commission as its source. Unlike FBI302, who contains interviews by the FBI to several people, among then David Knerr and Michael J Winter, the Memorandum for the Record is not a direct interview to Knerr. Also, the Commission focused only on "messages of interest" and, for whatever reason, decided to ignore others. Knerr was obviously present at that session and we may also speculate he was the source for "The last message (1303:17Z) was not received", however the MFR is not an affidavit or a document by David Knerr.

I remind you that Knerr declared to the FBI in 2002 that United 93 kept on receiving messages until 10:12 EDT and only after that time the ACARS uplinked by the airline were rejected. Yet all messages after 9:50 EDT were not mentioned in the MFR. Why? Was Knerr's decision to ignore them? Was he lying in 2002 when interviewed by the FBI? I strongly doubt.
edit on 5-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Proudbird, nice cherrypicking of my points. Particularly the section I clearly stated were "my 2cents".
There's no need for "us" to contact Ballinger regarding his claims that the timestamps refer to time sent/time received. You're claiming he is wrong. No if, no buts, he's simply wrong according to GLs.

Let's see if you can respond to the points that you omitted.

1. You say that Ballinger was merely stating "his opinion" in that the timestamps referred to time sent and time received, yet we should take your (still retracted?) "opinion" which is based on the latest most spinnable claims until the next one comes along?

Ballinger worked through the ACARS messages for the FBI as seen in the ACARS PDF. Are you really trying to tell us that this guy's "opinion" isn't worth taking into consideration over yours (whatever it is now) and gman's??

2. What's being said here? That a communications system which is used for many purposes which range from the relatively "mundane" to timesaving to possible life threatening situations such as weather fronts (the need to divert) or warnings such as "possible hijackings" is simply left to chance??

That a message sent from ground control is simply thrown into the ether? That ground control receive no digital confirmation that the message has been received?

3. Read the ACARS PDF notes show at 09:21AM

pilotsfor911truth.org...

There was no "backlog" or "delay" in the printer or whatever. The message was physically sent at @09:21AM according to the notes. End of story.

I'm not sure whether it was you or gman who made the "backlog" claim. Do you agree now that this wasn't the case?

4. The message was apparently received and recognized by the cockpit MU in Pittsburgh 20 minutes after UA175 allegedly impacted. The timestamps "sent/received" claim is backed up by Ballinger, And Ballinger's "opinion" logically makes sense (re: point 2) and obviously holds more weight than anything you say.

Why did the ACARS message specify Pittsburgh if as you say it was just following the flightpath? Why specifically "stop" there over an hour after it had taken off?

Deep breaths now...



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Can some one clear this up for me, because I don't really understand.

I was under the impression that the PFT folks and the thread title are saying that because the ACARS message has a time stamp on the bottom that that is confirmation that the ACARS was received by the airplane is that right? Or is it more complex than that and I am not understanding your stance fully?

Thanks



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bubs49
This is not entirely correct.


Not entirely? Nice.



Originally posted by bubs49
The Memorandum for the Record is a document released by the 9/11 Commission, therefore it is not a straw man argument to identify the Commission as its source.


Oh. Well in that case, when you cite Ballinger from the same document, you should "identify the Commission as its source" as well. Why the double standard?


Originally posted by bubs49
Unlike FBI302, who contains interviews by the FBI to several people, among then David Knerr and Michael J Winter, the Memorandum for the Record is not a direct interview to Knerr.


There is no difference. In both cases, there is an interviewer and an interviewee, wherein the interviewee is referred to in the third person by the interviewer.


Originally posted by bubs49
Also, the Commission focused only on "messages of interest" and, for whatever reason, decided to ignore others. Knerr was obviously present at that session and we may also speculate he was the source for "The last message (1303:17Z) was not received"


False. There is no speculation. Knerr is the source. Knerr is identified as the provider of the data and the briefing. I quote:


David Knerr, Manager, Flight Data Automation, provided the briefing. Knerr stated that he accomplished an "ACARS audit" on 9-11 on both UA 175, and UA 93 "by noon." He verbally certified that he presented to Mr. Kara in compiled form all of the ACARS information relevant to both flights that day.


Source

Period.


Originally posted by bubs49
however the MFR is not an affidavit or a document by David Knerr.


Neither is an FBI 302.

I quote:


An FD-302 form is used by FBI agents to "report or summarize the interviews that they conduct" [3][4] and contains information from the notes taken during the interview by the non-primary agent.

It consists of information taken from the subject, rather than details about the subject themselves.

A forms list from an internal FBI Website lists the FD-302 as Form for Reporting Information That May Become Testimony.


Source


Originally posted by bubs49
I remind you that Knerr declared to the FBI in 2002 that United 93 kept on receiving messages until 10:12 EDT and only after that time the ACARS uplinked by the airline were rejected.


Thanks for the reminder. I read the document. Here's what Knerr said, I quote:


In the final moments, at 10:12 AM EST, of UA FLIGHT 93's flight, ACARS messages were being sent from ground communications but were not being received. This was causing the ACARS messages to be rejected. KNERR advised that FLIGHT 93's low altitude may have caused this dilemma or the fact that FLIGHT 93 had already crashed at the time the messages were sent.


Source

Nowhere in there does Knerr "declare" anything you say he did, except if you allow yourself some creative interpretation, which, clearly you do. Not only is 10:12 erroneously referred to by the FBI as Flight UA 93's "final moments", all Knerr is stating is that at that time, messages were to UA 93 were being rejected, not that they had successfully arrived before that. FBI gets the time wrong, and Knerr doesn't say what you claim he does.


Originally posted by bubs49
Yet all messages after 9:50 EDT were not mentioned in the MFR. Why? Was Knerr's decision to ignore them? Was he lying in 2002 when interviewed by the FBI? I strongly doubt.


The FBI 302 says the following:


Messages #20 to #24 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD. (Chicago Dispatch - SC) However, all of the messages were rejected indicating the aircraft did not receive them.

Also present during this part of the interview was David Knerr, Manager Flight Dispatch Automation, UAL, WHQ.


Source

I'm not sure what your point is. Since you guys claimed in the past, using the flight explorer video from MSNBC, that UA 175 flew northeast of NYC after its crash, have you figured out yet which data set you'd prefer to mislead your supporters with?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Ballinger worked through the ACARS messages for the FBI as seen in the ACARS PDF. Are you really trying to tell us that this guy's "opinion" isn't worth taking into consideration over yours (whatever it is now) and gman's??



I don't have an opinion examiner, I am sharing my knowledge on the subject and my access to be able to share it. I invited people to teach me something that I may not know. Not sure why you guys keep dragging me though the mud, I haven't said one bad, condescending, aggressive, or otherwise remark this whole time.

Geese even when i was misquoted I didn't come out with, "obviously you can't read" or "Please reread what I wrote you obviously didn't pay attention." or any of the other common remarks.

Can you guys just calm down a bit so we can have a rational discussion on this?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by gman1972
Can some one clear this up for me, because I don't really understand.

I was under the impression that the PFT folks and the thread title are saying that because the ACARS message has a time stamp on the bottom that that is confirmation that the ACARS was received by the airplane is that right? Or is it more complex than that and I am not understanding your stance fully?

Thanks


What they're saying, is that because some messages to UA 175, which were not received, were routed through Harrisburg International Airport and Pittsburgh International Airport, that UA 175 must have still been flying in the vicinity, since P4T claims that's how the ACARS routing algorithm works: it continuously detects where the aircraft is flying and selects the ground station for uplink messages based on VHF signal strength from the airplane. If UA 175 (or UA 93) actually gave any "technical confirmation" of ACARS message reception after their official crash time, that's considered a bonus by P4T. They falsely maintain that the reports of messages being rejected originate with the "9/11 commission" so that such information can be rejected through guilt by association. (Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus) In other words, when it suits P4T, the source is identified as the 9/11 commission, and when the claim supports their argument, they look up the actual primary source in the same document and attempt to force their detractors to call the credibility of a specific witness into question.

By the way, your input is very welcome as far as I'm concerned.
edit on 5-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by gman1972



What they're saying, is that because some messages to UA 175, which were not received, were routed through Harrisburg International Airport and Pittsburgh International Airport, that UA 175 must have still been flying in the vicinity, since P4T claims that's how the ACARS routing algorithm works: it continuously detects where the aircraft is flying and selects the ground station for uplink messages based on VHF signal strength from the airplane.


Is that was is considered the flight tracking cat a and b the guy mentioned that I don't know about?

Thanks for filling in the blank parts for me



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by gman1972
Is that was is considered the flight tracking cat a and b the guy mentioned that I don't know about?

Thanks for filling in the blank parts for me


You're welcome, although you and ProudBird are the ACARS specialists here, not me. I'm just reading the documents carefully.

Here's a quote from the relevant portion of the article on P4T's website:


ACARS networks track the aircraft in flight and know where the aircraft is in order to route messages to the aircraft (or vice versa) through the best remote stations on the ground. When a message is sent from the ground or in flight, it is routed through a Central Processing System. This system determines the best routing to a ground station based on the aircraft location. Two types of flight tracking (or flight following) protocols are used for this process. Category A and B.

First is Category A. This type of flight following uses Flight Tracking messages automatically sent from the aircraft, typically every 10 minutes. These messages are a data link and do not contain any text, therefore the customer airline does not receive these messages, they are used for Flight Tracking purposes only. When the Flight Tracking message is sent, the Central Processing System (CPS) recognizes which stations it has been sent through and picks the three best stations for routing messages to and from the aircraft. After roughly 10 minutes, another Flight Tracking message is sent from the aircraft, through a new set of ground stations in the vicinity of it's new location, and the Central Processing System dumps the old stations and replaces it with new stations better for routing messages to the aircraft. This process continues throughout the flight automatically.

The second type of Flight Tracking, Category B, is a bit more simple. The aircraft continuously monitors all stations as it travels on it's course. The Central Processing System continuously chooses the best station for routing purposes while the aircraft is in flight. If the flight plan route is amended in flight, and a diversion is necessary, the Central Processing System chooses a new remote ground station along the diverted flight path based on this flight tracking protocol, tracking the aircraft.

The reason for this type of flight tracking, Category A and B, is due to the fact aircraft divert from their flight plans all the time, daily. Some have argued that MDT and PIT were chosen for ground station routing due to the original planned route of flight, BOS to LAX. However, if ACARS routing was based on original flight planned route, aircraft diverting from their original route of flight would not be able to communicate via ACARS as they would quickly leave the areas in which remote ground stations have been chosen, rendering the network useless for the airline, and most importantly, the aircraft. On 9/11 especially, many aircraft were diverted from their original flight plans. If the ACARS network was solely based on flight planned route, 100's if not thousands of aircraft, would not have been able to communicate with their company and/or ATC via ACARS. Chaos would have ensued as ACARS communication is a valuable asset to facilitate aircraft operations and flight safety, and the skies would never have been cleared as quickly as reported.


Source

Please be advised that this is P4T's opinion, not fact. Usually, you should expect these opinions to be shrewdly misleading. This is something most of us who have been dealing with P4T and its members have learned over time. You may have seen several ATS members commenting that P4T's complex arguments, crippled by fatal flaws, are cloaked in elaborate technobabble to obscure these flaws and discourage scrutiny. Unfortunately, this is the truth. It would be best if you asked someone in your vicinity how ACARS routing works and if P4T's opinion has any relationship to reality, rather than rely on the treatise linked.

We know UA 175 crashed into WTC 2 from passenger DNA evidence, and because UA 175 never switched off its transponder, just scrambled the code (twice), ATC personnel were able to track UA 175 all the way into the South Tower. Therefore, we know whatever anomaly presented by P4T, its cause is probably not related to any sort of "plane swap" scenario. The frustration lies in cutting through the technical clutter and clearing up misunderstandings, opportunistically used to promote baseless theories rooted in the well-known "Northwoods Document" rejected by John F. Kennedy, which proposed false flag terror attacks (with plane swaps) to be blamed on Cuba to justify an invasion.

Since most of us don't have access to explicit documentation and/or on the ground specific ACARS expertise, we can't verify P4T's claims, which is why your contributions (you and ProudBird's) are very welcome indeed.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Ahhhhhhh now I get it. Turns out I knew what Cat A and B are the whole time ha ha. Although for me I just call it the automatic position reports as that's what the ACARS downlink calls it on the message page. I'll have to give it some thought, they are correct about the time and the fact that it isn't printed or anything, just an automatic position downlink. But I'm not so sure that it's used to pick the closest tower as I get those from aircraft which are in the middle of the ocean, but then again it's automatic so I guess it transmits all the time regardless of where it is.

That would be a good way to find out if there is any reality to the claim, too bad no one thought to do a message scan to check if there were any automatic position report messages sent from the aircraft after it had crashed into the tower. Because even though they aren't printed, you can still see them in the actual ACARS program… oh well can't do much about it now.

And I assume there is a good explanation as to why there was no plane on radar? Or guessing that it was flying low to avoid the radar… assume theres a good explanation why there are no witnesses that saw a big airplane flying a few hundred feet off the ground after the most serious attack on American mainland soil?

Sorry if my questions are old and outdated, but this is the first I heard of this conspiracy theory. Inside job and all that is interesting, but I never heard of this.. sorry for my ignorance on that side.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


You are correct, it is in the narrative as written by P4T, and highlighted by the repeated paragraph below, where "they" strive to insert editorial opinions, under the guise of "facts".


The reason for this type of flight tracking, Category A and B, is due to the fact aircraft divert from their flight plans all the time, daily. Some have argued that MDT and PIT were chosen for ground station routing due to the original planned route of flight, BOS to LAX. However, if ACARS routing was based on original flight planned route, aircraft diverting from their original route of flight would not be able to communicate via ACARS as they would quickly leave the areas in which remote ground stations have been chosen, rendering the network useless for the airline, and most importantly, the aircraft. On 9/11 especially, many aircraft were diverted from their original flight plans. If the ACARS network was solely based on flight planned route, 100's if not thousands of aircraft, would not have been able to communicate with their company and/or ATC via ACARS. Chaos would have ensued as ACARS communication is a valuable asset to facilitate aircraft operations and flight safety, and the skies would never have been cleared as quickly as reported.


Now, let's study those claims in more depth, especially sentence #3 (This goes out to ALL, not just to the Member being replied to!!:

" However, if ACARS routing was based on original flight planned route, aircraft diverting from their original route of flight would not be able to communicate via ACARS as they would quickly leave the areas in which remote ground stations have been chosen, rendering the network useless for the airline, and most importantly, the aircraft."

This is rubbish. Firstly, at typical cruise altitudes (I mentioned this early, by posing the challenge, and none of the "P4T" believers rose to it) the range of VHF radio is quite extensive. Line-of-sight is at least 200 NM, when at or above 30,000 feet AGL. So, this is a 400-NM radius. At an airspeed of 400 to 480 knots, well....that's about one hour.

So, when Rob Ba.......I mean, "P4T" wrote "...as they would quickly leave the area....", once again we see the inherently deceptive tactics employed by these people. Or, the author in particular, who "shall not be named". (
)

Furthermore, any diversion to an Alternate Airport is (as I've clearly stated previously in this thread) coordinated with Dispatch, either verbally on the radio, or via "Free Text" messages via ACARS.

Besides that, for normal and routine diversions, they usually occur as a result of weather being inclement at the planned destination. So, the flight is generally "In Range" already, and can also simply call the Operations at that airport, and tell them when they need to divert, to "get the ball rolling" so the airline can anticipate all the passenger and scheduling problems that will ensue.


And, while it's not really a "norm" to burden the Controller, as a last resort a Flight Crew can simply request he/she to contact the Company Dispatch for them, but that is only an option to use if all other methods fail. Most likely scenario there that I can envision would be some emergency situation that demanded the Flight Crew's attention, and/or accompanied with systems malfunctions (such as electrical failures), and the Crew simply asked for assistance in communicating their situation to their Company.

The other thing that the "P4T" fail to bring up, in terms of ARINC and "diversions".....because they wish to leave their readers with the impression that the ACARS is the "only" way....is a "radio patch" feature, that ARINC also offers.

There are several VHF frequencies in the USA (and in other regions) that ARINC does monitor, which can be used to arrange a patch to Dispatch. (We have them handy in the manuals provided by the airline Company, according to region). The Crew calls ARINC, on the radio, with the Dispatch Desk# (it's on the Flight Paperwork, in the Dispatch Release and also usually on the Flight Plan). ARINC calls Dispatch on the land line, and then "patches" that land line phone to the radio. There is a hefty fee per call, or a large airline will usually pay a flat fee per month.

In addition, though not common in 2001, it is more and more likely to see the "Sat Comm" capability too, which is even MORE expensive (naturally), but sets up a two-way phone call, using the CDU that also (nowadays) controls the FMS interface, and the ACARS entries. This capability is up to each individual airline to purchase for its fleet, and is purely optional. It's great for the International flying, especially when you're out over the middle of the ocean.

Finally, there is the "Air Fone". At my airline, not only is Sat COM installed on most of the airplanes, there is a phone in the cockpit too.

So, once Dispatch is made aware of any extensive deviations from the Flight Plan, the airplane will always be in contact, in some way....and its position known.

That is the reason and mandate, after all, for the regulations which dictate the Flight Following requirements for Part 121 air carrier operations.......

edit on Mon 5 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by gman1972
That would be a good way to find out if there is any reality to the claim, too bad no one thought to do a message scan to check if there were any automatic position report messages sent from the aircraft after it had crashed into the tower. Because even though they aren't printed, you can still see them in the actual ACARS program… oh well can't do much about it now.


Hmmm, yeah, I know this though, from the MFR (Check out the bolded sentence):


Aircraft Situation Display (ASD)

Dispatchers and other persons who sit positions in the System Operations Centers (SOC)
at both American and United Airlines have access to an aircraft situation display that can
be tailored to meet specific needs. For example, any individual with access to the system
can focus strictly on company planes, a specific plane, or all planes in the system.
Military planes are not displayed. The ASD at each of the two SOCs is tailored to the
needs of each airline and is a subset of the TSD (Time Sensitive Display) commonly used
by FAA, in that the ASD is based on FAA radar feed.

The ASD is not time sensitive and refreshes each minute or more. Nevertheless its
sensitivity allowed United to maintain continuity on UA93 and to have post-facto
awareness that UA175 impacted the second tower.
Its sensitivity and data input,
however, was not sufficient to allow American to gain any situational awareness of
AA 77, but did allow some situational awareness of AA 11.


Source


Originally posted by gman1972
And I assume there is a good explanation as to why there was no plane on radar? Or guessing that it was flying low to avoid the radar… assume theres a good explanation why there are no witnesses that saw a big airplane flying a few hundred feet off the ground after the most serious attack on American mainland soil?


Are you talking about AA 77? AA 11 and UA 175 were observed by many witnesses and filmed, while AA 77 was only filmed by the Pentagon gate cam and a shadow was caught by the CITGO gas station camera, which P4T and its sister crew CIT are unsatisfied with. There are, however, reams of witnesses who saw AA 77 approach the Pentagon, and some of them actually saw it go in (E.g. Mike Walter, Penny Elgas, Father McGraw, Albert Hemphill) while others had to duck to get out of the way (E.g. firefighter Alan Wallace, who was near the helicopter platform that morning) There also was radar data for all four, although I believe there was a coverage gap for AA 77. For UA 93, the FDR and the CVR were recovered, and for AA 77, the FDR. In the cases of all four aircraft, DNA evidence was recovered from the scene. There's much to say about that but it's sorta off-topic
edit on 5-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: Fix external content quoting



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Very interesting, thanks!

I believe P4T were inspired by this section of the FBI 302, quoting from the interview with Michael J. Winter:


Mr. Winter explained the Aircraft Condition and Reporting System ACARS uses radio ground stations RGS at various locations throughout the United States for communication. The messages from the aircraft utilize the RGS in a downlink operating system. A central router determines the strongest signal received from the aircraft and routes the signal/message to UAL flight dispatch.


Source: FBI 302, PDF page 55

The thing is, that describes downlink, not uplink.

Knerr, however, says the following:


Knerr advised that when an aircraft downlinks data to communication towers it does so by sending out messages over a large geographic area that it is flying. Depending on the area of the country, more than one communication tower may receive the aircraft's message. KNERR pointed this out to be the case during FLIGHT 93's flight over New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio on 09/11/2001.


Source: FBI 302, PDF page 37

Knerr also says:


KNERR related that data is either uplinked to the aircraft from fixed communication centers or downlinked from the aircraft to receiving communication centers. KNERR explained the uplink and downlink references on an ACARS message. DLBLK refers to downlink while ULBLK refers to uplink.

These references also identify that an ACARS message has been received by its sender, either ground communications or the aircraft.


Source: FBI 302, PDF page 36

That last sentence is confusing: it doesn't actually mean "confirmation", it connotes the origin of the message, but it can be (deliberately) misconstrued to mean "confirmation", and that's what I think happened.

I think what I'm on to here is the anatomy and the genesis of P4T's article.
edit on 5-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: Fix external content quoting



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Never mind what I put in this post, pointless and off topic

Sorry, back on track
edit on 5-12-2011 by gman1972 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join