3292 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

The ACARS system works in a similar manner to the cell phone system.

That is, the machines are communicating with each other, as long as they are each powered up, working properly,  and within radio range of each other.

The machines are communicating with each other whether the human operators send messages OR NOT.  And the record reflects those little communications and "hand shakes".

Consistent with the rest of the circumstantial evidence regarding the events of the day,  the record shows that the unit described as United 93 was still in the air, apparently somewhere in Illinois, 30 minutes or more after the supposed crash time at Shanksville.

No surprise to me.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 03 December 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

The machines are communicating with each other whether the human operators send messages OR NOT.  And the record reflects those little communications and "hand shakes".

Consistent with the rest of the circumstantial evidence regarding the events of the day,  the record shows that the unit described as United 93 was still in the air, apparently somewhere in Illinois, 30 minutes or more after the supposed crash time at Shanksville.

When an aircraft stops communicating, ACARS will continue to attempt uplink based on customer configurable information, which in this case, I think we determined, was the flightplan, or predicted flight path, one or the other, I don’t remember.  And that is the record we see after the crash of the 9/11 aircraft.  There’s certainly no record of any of the 9/11 aircraft in the air after the crash times.

[Insaniac]

People are wasting their time trying to cover up the truth. If they haven't done it by now, they'll never do it.

Again, sorry you have to put up with this nonsense, Ruth.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 03 December 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

When an aircraft stops communicating, ACARS will continue to attempt uplink based on customer configurable information, which in this case, I think we determined, was the flightplan, or predicted flight path, one or the other, I don’t remember.  And that is the record we see after the crash of the 9/11 aircraft.  There’s certainly no record of any of the 9/11 aircraft in the air after the crash times.

Just as with cellphones, the computers are communicating and that is recorded.  IF the ground unit desires to send a message to the airborne unit, it must know where that unit is, so that the appropriate ground station can be employed.

If the airborne unit is powered down, or not operating properly, the record reflects that.  In this case, the record reflects that the hardware that was on that day Flight 93 was still communicating with the system, test messages notwithstanding.

When it comes time to send messages, the computer must know IF the airborne unit is communicating, and if it is, WHERE that unit is.  I'm certain there are customer options that can be incorporated, but before that the system must have its own internal integrity.

Cellphones operate in a very similar fashion.

Edited by Babe Ruth, 03 December 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Insaniac, on 03 December 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

People are wasting their time trying to cover up the truth. If they haven't done it by now, they'll never do it.

Again, sorry you have to put up with this nonsense, Ruth.

No problem, I rather enjoy it.

It's more fun in person, because then the body language is visible.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 03 December 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

Just as with cellphones, the computers are communicating and that is recorded.  IF the ground unit desires to send a message to the airborne unit, it must know where that unit is, so that the appropriate ground station can be employed.

This is correct.  The ground unit must know where the aircraft is to successfully uplink... or at least where it thinks the aircraft is.

Babe Ruth, on 03 December 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

If the airborne unit is powered down, or not operating properly, the record reflects that.  In this case, the record reflects that the hardware that was on that day Flight 93 was still communicating with the system, test messages notwithstanding.

This is incorrect.  There is no record that Flight 93 communicated with the system after the crash time.  The record we see is actually the ground unit attempting to uplink to the aircraft based upon flightplan or last known heading or was it last successful uplink (I really need to lookup the previous discussion).

Babe Ruth, on 03 December 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

When it comes time to send messages, the computer must know IF the airborne unit is communicating, and if it is, WHERE that unit is.  I'm certain there are customer options that can be incorporated, but before that the system must have its own internal integrity.

This is incorrect.  The ground unit does not require communication from the aircraft to attempt uplink.  This is specifically stated in ARINC documentation:  “If no messages have been delivered to/from aircraft within last twelve minutes then ARINC makes FANS uplink routing decision based on static information, which can be configurable by customer’s request.”  The record we see after the crash time and loss of communication is where the ground station predicted the aircraft should have been at that time.

Sorry Babe Ruth, you’re going nowhere with this one – advise you search and read previous discussion before you dig yourself a hole unnecessarily.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 03 December 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

When an aircraft stops communicating, ACARS will continue to attempt uplink based on customer configurable information, which in this case, I think we determined, was the flightplan, or predicted flight path, one or the other, I don’t remember.  And that is the record we see after the crash of the 9/11 aircraft.  There’s certainly no record of any of the 9/11 aircraft in the air after the crash times.

Actually there is record, and that's the point.  Aeronautical Radio Incorporated, ARINC, has provided records that show it.  Exactly how those records were obtained I am not certain.  Perhaps by way of the 911 Commission, but I'm not sure.  And the United dispatcher and his supervisor have been deposed/interviewed, I think by FBI men.  Woody Box discusses all that, as previously linked here.

As for the flight plan or predicted flight path, that only goes so far.  I'm sure you are right on your point, but in day to day practice that only goes so far because of what they call "vectors".  Those are simply temporary instructions from ATC controllers which take a flight off of its flight plan/predicted flight path.  They are common, and can and do send any given aircraft miles off course, for a period of time.

The point is that the ground stations and the airborne units are always communicating, assuming both are powered up, working properly, and within range.  The ground units must know where, in which sector, the airborne units are operating SO THAT the appropriate transmitter can be used.  The ground units know where the airborne units are, and the record reflects that.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 04 December 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

The point is that the ground stations and the airborne units are always communicating, assuming both are powered up, working properly, and within range.  The ground units must know where, in which sector, the airborne units are operating SO THAT the appropriate transmitter can be used.  The ground units know where the airborne units are, and the record reflects that.

Yes assuming both are working properly – though obviously the ground station and airborne units are not communicating if the latter crashes and is destroyed.  What happens then when the ground unit later attempts to send a message to that aircraft?

Hint:  It’s quoted in bold in my last post (and it is this record of attempted uplink we see – God knows why you think this has any bearing on the aircraft location).  Though of course I’d be interested to hear your answer.

[RaptorBites]

Q24, on 04 December 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

Yes assuming both are working properly – though obviously the ground station and airborne units are not communicating if the latter crashes and is destroyed.  What happens then when the ground unit later attempts to send a message to that aircraft?

Hint:  It’s quoted in bold in my last post (and it is this record of attempted uplink we see – God knows why you think this has any bearing on the aircraft location).  Though of course I’d be interested to hear your answer.

The post you made regarding the ARINC documentation is correct.  I verified it myself.

BR, please do as what Q24 is asking of you.  Simple reading of the documentation would have caused you less problems in the future going off in this tangent.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 04 December 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

This is correct.  The ground unit must know where the aircraft is to successfully uplink... or at least where it thinks the aircraft is.




This is incorrect.  There is no record that Flight 93 communicated with the system after the crash time.  The record we see is actually the ground unit attempting to uplink to the aircraft based upon flightplan or last known heading or was it last successful uplink (I really need to lookup the previous discussion).




This is incorrect.  The ground unit does not require communication from the aircraft to attempt uplink.  This is specifically stated in ARINC documentation:  “If no messages have been delivered to/from aircraft within last twelve minutes then ARINC makes FANS uplink routing decision based on static information, which can be configurable by customer’s request.”  The record we see after the crash time and loss of communication is where the ground station predicted the aircraft should have been at that time.

Sorry Babe Ruth, you’re going nowhere with this one – advise you search and read previous discussion before you dig yourself a hole unnecessarily.

While you're at it Q, let's define what you mean by "uplink".  Specifically, do you mean mere communication between the units, or the exchange of human generated messages between the units?

Edited by Babe Ruth, 04 December 2012 - 07:26 PM.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 04 December 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

While you're at it Q, let's define what you mean by "uplink".  Specifically, do you mean mere communication between the units, or the exchange of human generated messages between the units?

Both/either – I mean any attempted communication from the ground to the aircraft.  There are rules in place for these attempted uplinks to take place even when the aircraft is unresponsive.  So answer my question?  If the aircraft stops communicating, how do ARINC decide which ground station to route attempted communications to the aircraft?  It is based upon predicted data supplied by the airline (and these are the records we see), which is not necessarily a match to the actual aircraft physical location as you believe.  Again, this is all described in ACARS documentation and has been discussed here previously.  Please see link for example and quote from ACARS manual regarding process when aircraft tracking information is unavailable: -

http://www.unexplain...75#entry4153612

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 04 December 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Both/either – I mean any attempted communication from the ground to the aircraft.  There are rules in place for these attempted uplinks to take place even when the aircraft is unresponsive.  So answer my question?  If the aircraft stops communicating, how do ARINC decide which ground station to route attempted communications to the aircraft?  It is based upon predicted data supplied by the airline (and these are the records we see), which is not necessarily a match to the actual aircraft physical location as you believe.  Again, this is all described in ACARS documentation and has been discussed here previously.  Please see link for example and quote from ACARS manual regarding process when aircraft tracking information is unavailable: -

http://www.unexplain...75#entry4153612

There are 2 types of communications performed by the ACARS system, just as with the cellphone system.

The first is the ongoing and basically silent communication between the computers at the ground station and the computer on the airborne (mobile) units.

The second is the communications between the humans at dispatch (ground stations) and the humans in the cockpit.

Both/either is rather an ambiguous choice, but let's go with it.

If  you mean by "uplink" the exchange of messages between the humans, then your statement regarding no commo after the time of the alleged crash is correct.

If we also count the communications between the 2 sets of computers, then the records show that the unit identified as Flight 93 was still "in the loop" 30 minutes later, somewhere in Illinois.

It was that distinction that was revealed by the work done by Stutts and the further examination done by Woody.

[Kludge808]

This is just ludicrous.  I mean really, guys.  Boony, Cz, Sky, Frenat ... (Did I miss anyone?) ... 2800+ messages and no progress.  Brer Rabbit (Sorry but I have too much respect for the original Babe Ruth to attach that name to BR.) couldn't get a clue if he were in the middle of a clue field during the height of clue mating season.  I see he's still trying to pass himself as an aeronautical god who taught the Wright Brothers how to fly even though he's been caught out so many times it's not funny.  Actually, it is funny since every time he tries, he just gets himself in deeper.

Anyway, I just buzzed through to see what condition the thread's condition was in expecting to find it long dead and overgrown with weeds and icky stuff.  Maybe I'll join the fun for a while since it looks like the gang's pretty much all here.  

[RaptorBites]

Kludge808, on 05 December 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

This is just ludicrous.  I mean really, guys.  Boony, Cz, Sky, Frenat ... (Did I miss anyone?) ... 2800+ messages and no progress.  Brer Rabbit (Sorry but I have too much respect for the original Babe Ruth to attach that name to BR.) couldn't get a clue if he were in the middle of a clue field during the height of clue mating season.  I see he's still trying to pass himself as an aeronautical god who taught the Wright Brothers how to fly even though he's been caught out so many times it's not funny.  Actually, it is funny since every time he tries, he just gets himself in deeper.

Anyway, I just buzzed through to see what condition the thread's condition was in expecting to find it long dead and overgrown with weeds and icky stuff.  Maybe I'll join the fun for a while since it looks like the gang's pretty much all here.  

Welcome back Kludge.

Glad to have you back!

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 05 December 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

There are 2 types of communications performed by the ACARS system, just as with the cellphone system.

The first is the ongoing and basically silent communication between the computers at the ground station and the computer on the airborne (mobile) units.

The second is the communications between the humans at dispatch (ground stations) and the humans in the cockpit.

Both/either is rather an ambiguous choice, but let's go with it.

If  you mean by "uplink" the exchange of messages between the humans, then your statement regarding no commo after the time of the alleged crash is correct.

If we also count the communications between the 2 sets of computers, then the records show that the unit identified as Flight 93 was still "in the loop" 30 minutes later, somewhere in Illinois.

It was that distinction that was revealed by the work done by Stutts and the further examination done by Woody.

BR,

Can you tell me where the intended flight path of flight UA 93 was supposed to be if *hypothetically* the plane did not meet its demise in Shanksville?

I saw the map of the intended flight path and it shows UA 93 passing through Illinois.

Now given the situation presented by Q24, regarding the ACARS communication, if the system was still trying to get in contact with UA 93 even after the crash, it would try to continue contacting the flight based on its intended path.

Wouldn't 30 minutes put flight 93 around Illinois (its intended flight path)?

Makes me wonder where your entire argument is going at this point.

*removed*

Edited by RaptorBites, 05 December 2012 - 11:57 PM.