Newsgroups: *rec.music.classical.guitar* From: *William D Clinger Do you know what signal "generated" to "being recorded" > means? If not... i'll help you. It means the buffer cannot exceed 0.5 > seconds. Returning the favor: You probably meant to say that the buffer size divided by the recording rate cannot exceed 0.5 seconds. You probably think that would establish a worst-case recording latency of 0.5 seconds, but it doesn't. To calculate the worst-case recording latency, you would have to add the full recording interval and write time to that 0.5 seconds. > As per DME (in the video below), the NTSB plot and NTSB data, > it is clear the FDR did not exceed that standard. You are blowing smoke. With the sole exception of loss of data at the end (which is controversial in this case so you cannot infer anything from it either), you cannot infer the latency with which FDR data was recorded by examining a readout of that data. Your video's interpretation of the DME data is not consistent with eyewitness accounts and with the approach established by the downed light poles, which makes the theory proposed by your video less than convincing. Using your video's interpretation to prove the interpretation of the FDR data on which the video's interpretation depends would be a circular argument anyway. Let's move on to your email exchange with Ed Sanata of L3 Communications. > "4: What would be a typical time lag between the sensor signal being > generated (for example aileron angle) and the data being logged to the > protected memory of the recorder? > L-3 Response: Per ED55, it shall not exceed 0.5 seconds, It looks like Ed was just telling you the recording interval divided by two. If he overlooked the word "protected", that would have been a reasonable answer to your question, but even then his answer doesn't mean what you have been saying it means. The worst-case (not typical) recording latency is the full recording interval plus buffer fill time plus write time. Furthermore the specified recording intervals vary with the type of sensor. I don't have a copy of ED55, but ICAO Annex 6 Part 1 says the recording interval for "DME 1 and 2 distance" is 4 seconds. Maybe I missed it, but ICAO Annex 6 Part 1 doesn't seem to mention "protected" or "nonvolatile" memory. It just specifies the recording intervals, which determines the time between samples but does not specify any required latency. I would be interested to know whether ED55 actually says anything about latency or protected memory. > 6: In the case of a major accident like CFIT (controlled flight into > terrain) how much data (in terms of seconds of flight) is typically > lost? (For example signals still being processed by the DFDAU). > L-3 Response: > With the use of the Solid State Flight Data Recorders, > typically, data is only lost at the point when power to the recorder > or FDAU is terminated." That's an oversimplification. If power is lost during a write to flash memory, then the data being written will be lost. That data will have been collected in the past and buffered (because flash memory can only be written in blocks), so you'll lose data for some interval preceding the loss of power. In the worst case, the interval of time preceding the loss of power for which you will have no data points is the sum of three things: the recording interval the buffer size divided by the recording rate the write time Rob Balsamo wrote: > And perhaps you know more than the manufacturer of the FDR? No, but he may not have fully understood your questions. Whether you want to blame that on him or on the way you asked your questions is up to you, but his answers can't bear the weight you've been putting on them. > The "other investigator" is a janitor. Farmer doesnt have a clue what > DME means. Nor has he consulted with pilots, L3, or Accident > Investigators as we have. I wrote "other investigators". Plural. Some janitors think and write better than some pilots. Farmer's papers are well-written and present the clearest and most convincing interpretations of the FDR data that I have seen. It's hard to argue against his use of radar data as a primary tool for adjustment of the FDR data. The fit is impressive, and he seems scrupulous about reporting the problems. Maybe I should explain why I should trust my technical judgment more than yours. Evaluating technical papers is part of what I do for a living. As for your ability to evaluate others' work, here is a small part of what we've seen from you so far: > Yes, some of these people may actually be paid > by the Pentagon as "Bloggers" in order to sow confusion, set up > strawmans and switch topics in order to discredit the original topic. > Case in point, Clinger switching to the cell phone topic due to the > fact he is unable to address the Flight Data Recorder/Press Release in > the original post. It appears there are about 2-4 "Govt loyalists" on > that thread who have an agenda. > Some people here really need to get better research skills. > The fact some of you are trying to turn a basic problem into something > it isnt shows your desperation and perhaps agenda to sow confusion... > The rest of your post i didnt bother to read as its clear your > strawmans are getting more desperate. > Let see what you got amature. > And you didnt "drag" me into this my friend. I have some free time > while rendering scenes for our latest production and i enjoy showing > the public how some people go out of their way to make excuses. > I love exposing these idiots. No worries MT... im having fun. :-) > MT, the people here are way behind the times with their > arguments.. .and WAY out of their league. Stick around folks.. .watch > them go down in flames... :-) > "Pentagon Bloggers" here? Or just extreme denial looking for any > opportinuty to confuse... let the reader decide. > All others with a brain, i suggest you dont waste your time with the > extreme bias shown here by some.. which apparently not only cloud > their judgement, but prove to have them remain in denial. Either > that.. or they are paid "bloggers" by the pentagon as described in > links above. I certainly hope they are getting paid, as it easier to > accept them actually spending their free time on such weak arguments > rather than actually being such losers. > Honestly Robert... i can care less what people "in this forum" think. > Robert (and others), we record the FBI. You are all out of your > league. > Get up to speed Clinger. > Richard, read the post above yours and get up to speed. > You're a fraud. > Capt, i suggest you get your money back from the Cracker Jack box that > gave you your flight decoder ring and Capt status. > You just dont have the apptitude and are nothing but a troll seeking > attention. Ie, a loser. > Will, you really need to get up to speed. > Its because he doesnt havbe a clue.. just like Slo, Andy and Will. > If you havent noticed (which is apparent you havent) This thread is > about True Altitude, pressure altitude (soon to be radar altitude) and > the Flight Data Recorder information provided by the NTSB which does > not support the govt story. It also has morphed into exposing those > who claim to be a pilot yet dont have a clue of the above even when > provided source links for study, yet continue to argue in circles. > Please quote one theory from http://pilotsfor911truth.org. Again, it > appears your lack of observation is shining through again. Please pay > particular attention to the underlined sentence atop our home page, > and the white bold letters atop our forum. Note the difference > Einstein. > I dont think you're a paid pentagon blogger Andy, your arguments are > too weak. You're just not very observant and use endless strawmans. > (in case you are too literal, that was sarcasm... again, you're not > too observant, so i felt the need for this disclaimer) > Its not surprising some will > attack our support structure when they run out of arguments and/or > dont understand the original topic. We seen it many times from the > weak minded. But keep trying! :-) > Ohhhh.. thats right. You buy whatever the govt tells you.. hook, line > and sinker... > The "other investigator" is a janitor. Farmer doesnt have a clue.... > Farmer used to consult with me for his work, but once his ego got to > be too much after i tried to explain DME to him, he kinda lost it. After all that, your opinion of the janitor and of Farmer don't count for much. Will