New FDR Decode

reply to post by weedwhacker


This :

Anyway, they are flapping more than their lips over there, raving about the comparator values recorded on the FDR now

Like I said the last post in that thread was made by me last night.
( Although I did add an edit to it this morning )
And has nothing to do with a comparator.

Edit to add :

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/20b5a0ad2140.png[/atsimg]


[edit on 15-12-2009 by JFrickenK]

reply to post by JFrickenK


Looks like a very interesting topic, your American 77 stuff over there on the "site-which-must-not-be-named"...(I just finished reading a Harry Potter episode, so...Voldemort!!! !!! Hah! I said it!...)

Anyway, the thread, you must have done a lot of work on it, too bad I can't see it.

Why? You ask?

Well, der Fuhrer...(well, I guess he's really more Italian-esque, so 'Mussolini' might be better) has blocked my IP addy, apparently. Cannot even view the forums as a guest.

(Wonder what he's so afraid of....truth?) Besides, I find it especially creepy that he has time to sit there and monitor every one of his "members" who signs on to the site, watching where they go within. I mean, it makes my skin crawl.....
_____________________________________________________________

(edit)...However, had a friend look for me, over-there from another IP.

No, JFK. Per your last post, last night...the airplane most definitely had more than 10,100 lbs of fuel on board at impact.

6,000 lbs is what we consider a very, very low fuel state. (At around ~4,000 to 4,500, that is, less than or about 2,000 lbs per main tank the amber 'LOW FUEL' EICAS message appears, and there is an associated amber light on the instrument panel labeled "FUEL CONFIG". This is of course, accompanied by the 'MASTER CAUTION' amber alert, with the audible chime).

When we plan at dispatch we like to have a minimum of 6,000 lbs at the arrival gate. Usually we have more, though . . . "for Grandma" is the phrase (old school, I am).

Plus, of course, all necessary reserves and alternates that were loaded before takeoff, and weren't burned.

SO. . . American 77, fueled for a transcon flight from IAD to LAX would have a LOT more FOB than 10,100 lbs after only being in the air less than one hour.

I guarantee it.











[edit on 15 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK

 

too bad I can't see it.

So then you freely admit that this :

Anyway, they are flapping more than their lips over there, raving about the comparator values recorded on the FDR now

was a lie and fabrication of your overactive imagination ?

reply to post by JFrickenK


Ummmm......I was editing while you just responded.

The IP block occurred just about three days ago...over the weekend sometime.

I saw a LOT there, before that.

SO...NO!!!! I WAS NOT LYING!!!
_________________________________________________________

But, thank you for your concern, and ever so much for posting your accusation. We all like to see . . . oh, never mind.

[edit on 15 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK

 

No, JFK. Per your last post, last night...the airplane most definitely had more than 10,100 lbs of fuel on board at impact.

6,000 lbs is what we consider a very, very low fuel state. (At around ~4,000 to 4,500, that is, less than or about 2,000 lbs per main tank the amber 'LOW FUEL' EICAS message appears, and there is an associated amber light on the instrument panel labeled "FUEL CONFIG". This is of course, accompanied by the 'MASTER CAUTION' amber alert, with the audible chime).

When we plan at dispatch we like to have a minimum of 6,000 lbs at the arrival gate. Usually we have more, though . . . "for Grandma" is the phrase (old school, I am).

Plus, of course, all necessary reserves and alternates that were loaded before takeoff, and weren't burned.

SO. . . American 77, fueled for a transcon flight from IAD to LAX would have a LOT more FOB than 10,100 lbs after only being in the air less than one hour.

I guarantee it.

Well maybe you can perhaps shed some light on to why the FDR data is saying what it is ?

Never mind, I'll wait for a real expert ( Warren Stutt ) to address anything I may have done wrong calculationwise.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JFrickenK

 

Ummmm......I was editing while you just responded.

The IP block occurred just about three days ago...over the weekend sometime.

I saw a LOT there, before that.

SO...NO!!!! I WAS NOT LYING!!!
_________________________________________________________

But, thank you for your concern, and ever so much for posting your accusation. We all like to see . . . oh, never mind.

[edit on 15 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Obviously our definition of the word "now" differs.

reply to post by JFrickenK

Well maybe you can perhaps shed some light on to why the FDR data is saying what it is ?

Well...this "real expert" does not decode FDR data as a general rule.

It works. It is required. If it fails, there is an indication of failure, we write it up in the logbook. Maintenance then deals with it.

There is no reason on Goober's Green Earth for any pilot to be required to know the binary Ones and Zeros that comprise the data stream of an FDR.

To disparage a person, no matter how slightly, in that way is just intellectual dishonesty.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
To disparage a person, no matter how slightly, in that way is just intellectual dishonesty.

You must mean like your posts to me since I began posting here, correct ?

I see from someone else's quote that First Officer Bob replied to myself and several other forum participants to the effect of: "You are wrong. Let's debate over the phone while I'm recording you".

Yeahh, thats not too creepy. First of all...as if I would give my personal information to a certifiable nut with a penchant for death threats. Secondly, I don't need what I say taken out of context, or perhaps even edited, in an attempt to discredit me.

Oh, and I can't help but notice that Robby couldn't pinpoint exactly what myself and weedwhacker were wrong about.

C'mon Rob, do your thing. I know you're itching. Razzle and dazzle us with all that airplaney talk. Baffle us with some more of your bullsh...technobabble.. and make your claim that the "failed" comparator proves the AA77 data is a farce. Or are you waiting for me to tell you whether or not Delta lets a 757 fly with the Captains Comparater inop? If so, you'll be waiting a while....so out with it. Make your claim.

I would also like to see their explanation of the CAPT side listed
as "DISABLED". If I'm not mistaken, this is a manual entry, or
perhaps an option?

reply to post by turbofan


Shhhhh...turbo.

Don't give him any hints.

He has to learn to work it out for himself, or else he'll never learn. Right?

Orrrrrrrrr.....I could drop one hint....nah! Tempting, but would be unfair to everyone else.

Am interested, however, in seeing in exactly what way this newest imbroglio ( do you like that word?? I think it's Italian... ) is going to play out. That is, just how this is going to finally be the "iron-clad proof" of fakery in the FDR data.

Can't wait!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
To disparage a person, no matter how slightly, in that way is just intellectual dishonesty.

Do as I say and not as I do. eh ? 3

reply to post by weedwhacker


I don't think that's going to be possible unless someone from his camp
relays the message.

Mr. Balsamo stepped out of line and will no longer be joining us unfortunately.

If anyone from "the other forum" is reading this, or Mr. Balsamo himself...
Forget about me quick. This is over. I don't agree with your
latest press release. You don't want me as part of your forum. That's it.

Don't let me find out you're talking smack, or slandering me. Mr. Balsamo
knows the next step; I've warned him in a private message, and I will
follow through. Go on with your life, I'll go on with mine.

If anyone cares to discuss why the Comparator function reads, "FAULT"
and the CAPT data column reads, "DISABLED" I'd be happy to contribute.

Sorry Weedwacker, the hint is obvious...it's right there in the CSV file
right next to the column of data they are questioning!

[edit on 16-12-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


hey, TF....regarding comparators. And, specifically, the value states from the FDR decode.

You might wish to examine how the data is recorded, by looking at it from a different perspective.

Hint: Some times people are taking what they think a label in the data means a bit too literally.

Hope you will understand what I mean. Think outside the box. (Hah!! A little unintentional pun!)


@JFK...

I just show, sometimes, that I can give as good as I've been given.

I've had my say, on that matter.

reply to post by turbofan

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

I don't think that's going to be possible unless someone from his camp
relays the message.

Mr. Balsamo stepped out of line and will no longer be joining us unfortunately.

Is this the rift I've heard of in PFT? As you may remember, I was banned for 3 months from Pilots for 9/11 Truth (ban expired December 10th I believe, I'm no longer banned at any rate), apparently because Rob Balsamo thought I was "lying" about something when, in fact, I'd only made a mistake (a rather trivial mistake at that I thought, but anyway). I understand if you don't want to elaborate as to what happened, either in the forum, or via U2U, but I must admit that I'm definitely interested if you want to share.

By the way, I live in Ontario myself; currently about 2 hours north of Toronto but should be heading back to Toronto come January.

Originally posted by 767doctor
I see from someone else's quote that First Officer Bob replied to myself and several other forum participants to the effect of: "You are wrong. Let's debate over the phone while I'm recording you".

Yeahh, thats not too creepy. First of all...as if I would give my personal information to a certifiable nut with a penchant for death threats. Secondly, I don't need what I say taken out of context, or perhaps even edited, in an attempt to discredit me.

Oh, and I can't help but notice that Robby couldn't pinpoint exactly what myself and weedwhacker were wrong about.

C'mon Rob, do your thing. I know you're itching. Razzle and dazzle us with all that airplaney talk. Baffle us with some more of your bullsh...technobabble.. and make your claim that the "failed" comparator proves the AA77 data is a farce. Or are you waiting for me to tell you whether or not Delta lets a 757 fly with the Captains Comparater inop? If so, you'll be waiting a while....so out with it. Make your claim.

Bobby's such a chump.

He has run away from here, after having his butt exposed, time after time, for making mistake after mistake.

Now, he comes over once a week, paste's his usual steaming pile, and runs back into the shelter of his own little world.

A world from which he has banished everyone who disagree with him...!

And THEN he has the nerve to claim, in abject isolation, that "nobody has the guts to debate him".

Robby, we have a perfectly functional debating forum right here.

YOU, Robby, are the one that ran away like a little girl.

And left JFrickenK to attempt (and fail) to clean up the god-forsaken mess you've created. If you weren't such a petulant little child, you'd still be posting here. And taking one beating after another, of course.

If you had any huevos, you'd go back over to JREF or to Pprune. You know, someplace where you have to face challenges to your ideas.

Like I came over to into your home-court. You are such an insecure little charlatan that you couldn't even tolerate me when you had me outnumbered 10-1.

(That is, if 10 people still bother to post over there. It's looking pretty bleak. You've got you, warren & a grand total of about 10 posters on the Super-Duper Super-Serial Important, "blow the lid off the conspiracy", new FDR data thread.

Is this the "Giant Bump" in membership & DVD sales that you've been bragging about???

LMAO.)

Face it, Rob. Nobody's gonna debate you on the phone.

Nobody's stupid enough to give you their phone number. Nobody's likely stupid enough to give you the credibility that would come with debating someone knowledgeable.

Your years of ignorance, garbage & outright lying have consigned you to the Garbage Heap of the Inconsequential.

Get used to the view...
You're gonn abe down there for a long, Looooooong time.

LoL.

TomK

[edit on 16-12-2009 by thomk]

reply to post by thomk

Originally posted by thomk
Now, he comes over once a week, paste's his usual... and runs back into the shelter of his own little world.

A world from which he has banished everyone who disagree with him...!


And THEN he has the nerve to claim, in abject isolation, that "nobody has the guts to debate him".

Robby, we have a perfectly functional debating forum right here.

His penchant for banning people who disagree with him is well known (I myself was banned from there for 3 months), and you're right that he can certainly come over here to debate things if he wants to take on someone without using the "golden rule" (basically that he's got the power over in his forum so he doesn't have to play fair). To top this off, it seems he's now had a problem with turbofan, someone who I've found to be quite well informed. However, despite all of this, I still respect much of the work he's done. Hopefully one day he'll realize that at times, he's jumped to false conclusions and doing so has cost him.

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by thomk

 

Originally posted by thomk
Now, he comes over once a week, paste's his usual... and runs back into the shelter of his own little world.

A world from which he has banished everyone who disagree with him...!


And THEN he has the nerve to claim, in abject isolation, that "nobody has the guts to debate him".

Robby, we have a perfectly functional debating forum right here.

His penchant for banning people who disagree with him is well known (I myself was banned from there for 3 months), and you're right that he can certainly come over here to debate things if he wants to take on someone without using the "golden rule" (basically that he's got the power over in his forum so he doesn't have to play fair). To top this off, it seems he's now had a problem with turbofan, someone who I've found to be quite well informed. However, despite all of this, I still respect much of the work he's done. Hopefully one day he'll realize that at times, he's jumped to false conclusions and doing so has cost him.

Just out of curiosity, what work of Balsamo's do you find deserving of respect.

You'll have to forgive me. I'm an engineer. There's only one thing that we respect: being right.

By that criteria, I'm at a total loss to see what he's done that stands up to the slightest informed scrutiny.

Tom

[edit on 16-12-2009 by thomk]

In all fairness Scott, I doubt you were banned because you disagree with Rob.

It is because you are a nuisance for asking the same question over and over and over and over and over and over when it has been already answered the first time you asked.

No disrespect intended, but that is my observation of your posts on 3 forums other than here.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
@JFK...

I just show, sometimes, that I can give as good as I've been given.

I've had my say, on that matter.

OK. ROTFLMAO @ "sometimes".