Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Scott G

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

2,524 posts in this topic

Hi Czero,

sorry, but I don't think I have any "fundamental misconception" about ACARS. What I did at post #1089 and and #1091 was actually playing the part of devil's advocate, that is assume that your theory (not mine) is correct. I think that I proved that, even assuming that ACARS are sent based on the flight route, your theory fails to explain why at least one ACARS sent by Jerry Tsen at 8:59 was received. That is was received is not opinion. It's clearly written in the Commission's document you quoted many times as reference.

So even though it is flatly contradicted by documentation from ARINC and Boeing, you still say that this statement of yours

Therefore, Ballinger switched to the static information option to try to reach the aircraft and sent an ACARS through the Pittsburgh's RGS (PIT) based on the flight route

is correct...?

ETA...

You have also not indicated any reasoning why the 1303Z Rogers message that Knerr states was not received by UA175 shows no difference in formatting from the 1259Z Tsen message that he reports was received.

Thank you, but you don't need to convince me about what I stated and posted so many times before you.

Convince? No... but showing you a blatant misconception that you have used as the basis of your argument should at least get you to have a closer look at what you have said.

If you agree with me that ACARS are sent based on the media advisory information downlinked by the aircraft to the RGS with the strongest signal, as I always believed and as you seem to admit in your last post, then you must necessarily conclude that MDT was in no way the RGS with the strongest signal.

Perhaps you missed the information from ARINC I posted that clearly states that the 3 RGS locations with the strongest signals are stored and used by the DSP to attempt communication?

If you disagree with me and support skyeagle's theory that ACARS are sent based on the flight route (which is completely false, but that I admit for the purposes of our debate), then you must explain how an uplink routed from a station at 140 miles could possibly be received by United 175 at 8:59 when the aircraft was knowingly losing altitude (what reduces further the chances that an uplink is received, as Knerr himself hints).

Until we have details of the DSP's algorithms used to determin which RGS is used to attempt communications when no transmission from an aircr4aft has been received for more than 12 minutes, you are incorrect to say that the utilization of the "flight route" is false. You have nothing to back that assertion up.

We have provided documentation that shows that the DSP will use client configured information in the case that no transmissions have been received in more than 12 minutes. Admittedly, it doesn't say what that information is, but what would that information be,m if not the flight route?

Either way your theory is wrong.

That's your opinion - which is fine - that you haven't substantiated yet.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False.

ACARS is not routed based on flight plan (or static information) when there are multiple RGS stations within range. They are routed based on Category A and Category B ACARS Flight Tracking protocol. The airlines use a Category B type protocol in which the aircraft must monitor (interrogate) all stations nearby selecting the best routing, Cat A is mainly used by Charter Airlines and corporate aviation as they do not need to communicate as often as the Airlines. Although Category A protocol also would not select MDT for routing purposes with so many other RGS stations much closer.

The reason for this type of protocol (which has been in use since the inception of ACARS) is so the aircraft can continue to communicate with the company via ACARS if diverted.

It is all very simple. The routing was based on the flight plan of United 175, not on its actual location, which is impossible because United Airlines confirmed in a public announcment at 11:53 AM, that United 175 had crashed in New York City at 9:03 AM, which is supported by radar time-line data and by terminal air traffic controllers and others who saw United 175 decend into Manhattan at 9:03 AM. There is no radar data nor anything else that places United 175 in the sky after 9:03 AM nor anywhere near Pittsburg or Harrisburg and there is nothing in the ACARS messages that supports United 175 as airborne. Those messages are uplinks, not downlinks.

11:53 a.m. September 11, 2001: United Airlines Publicly Confirms that Flight 175 Has Crashed

United Airlines finally issues a press release confirming that Flight 175 has crashed, nearly three hours after this aircraft hit the World Trade Center

My link

The public announcement by United Airlines confirming the loss of United 175 in New York City at 9:03 AM, underlines the point that the provider routed the messages where it thought that United 175 would be, not where it actually was. As it actually was, United 175 was already down by the time addtional ACARS messages were sent.

In addition, American Airlines issued a public announcement, which confirmed the loss of American 11, and American 77.

Statement issued by American Airlines on the crash of Flights 11 and 77: American Airlines confirmed today that it lost two aircraft in tragic incidents this morning. American said the flights were Flight 11, a Boeing 767 enroute from Boston to Los Angeles with 81 passengers, nine flight attendants and two pilots; and Flight 77, a Boeing 757 operating from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles with 58 passengers, four flight attendants and two pilots.

My link

And, the location of United 175 near Harrisburg or Pittsburg after 9:03 AM, is not supported by radar data., but in fact, radar data tracks United 175 into New York City right up to 9:03 AM, which makes it impossible for United 175 to have been anywhere else after 9:03 AM.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... the DSP then consults its tracking history for that particular aircraft. The tracking history will show the last three RGS locations with the best signal strength to receive the aircraft's last transmission. The DSP then chooses the best RGS of those 3 based on signal strength, not proximity. Most times, though, close proximity will equate to a stronger signal, but if the closest RGS was busy at the time - remember, CSMA VHF systems in place at the time could ONLY transmit OR receive at any one given time - then that RGS would not be in the DSP's tracking history since it did not receive a message from the aircraft and would not be used.

It is entirely possible that MDT was the location with the strongest signal at the time due to message congestion in the closer vicinity.

Cz

You're almost there, but not quite. At least you no longer question auto flight tracking using your old excuse that the "flight plan" determines best RGS routing... as skyeagle seems to continue to use. lol.

First, it is called a CPS, not DSP (you should really use better sources than Wiki). CPS is the Central Processor System which routes the data/messages. It's right in the document you provided for flight tracking protocol. Saying DSP is like saying ISP. Sure, it routes the internet to your home, but it is not the name of the actual system which does the actual routing. This is the difference between a layman interpretation and those who know what they're talking about.

Secondly, you are describing Category A protocol, although your interpretation is a bit skewed.

In Category A, the CPS designates routing based on automatic downlinks from the aircraft (typically intervals of 10 mins) for tracking and routing purposes. The CPS then selects the 3 best stations for routing and updates every 11 mins (tossing out the old RGS routing information, replacing it with new stations). Considering that there were 8 RGS stations closer to "UA175" than MDT (one which was less than 15 miles away) within the last 10 mins before the crash, and the fact that the first message received from MDT (according to the 9/11 Commission) was at a point where the aircraft was allegedly at a position where 10+ stations are now MUCH closer than MDT, combined with the fact that MDT probably couldnt even send a successful message at 0859 at that distance and altitude, combined with the statments made by experts from ARINC, you are grasping at straws.

Secondly, and rendering your argument moot, Commercial Airlines use Category B protocol in which the aircraft monitor all nearby stations and select one for best use (exactly as I have been stating all this time, and confirmed by the experts). MDT was not the best station for use when it was 113 miles away, with perhaps 10 other stations much closer at 0859.

Third, and the final nail in the coffin, even if the MDT ground station were considered due to the numerous other closer stations being "congested" (cannot happen under Cat B protocol anyway, but lets just assume), there is no possible way PIT would have been chosen for routing purposes. Just like the expert from ARINC in SFO has stated.

You may want to re-read your Global Link Newsletter. It's all right in there. I'm glad I took the time to read it today. Thanks for providing it.

What does this all boil down to?

There is more than good reason for a new and thorough investigation into the events of 9/11 with subpoena power. The mountain of evidence which conflicts with the govt story grows by the day.

People like skyeagle, booN, and Cz are basically trying to tell you, nothing to see here folks, move along.

It is up to you who you will let influence your opinions on the matter. But before you form any opinion, and if you have been following the topic, please call an ARINC/ACARS specialist first, otherwise, you are only partially informed, which some would describe as confirmation bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So even though it is flatly contradicted by documentation from ARINC and Boeing, you still say that this statement of yours is correct...?

Czero,

I never thought that Ballinger sent an ACARS at 9:23 based on the flight route using static information. This is skyeagle's and others' theory. Again: I was playing the devil's advocate. I always considered you a serious and respectful poster. While I don't ask you to agree with me, I expect at least some respect from you. Please don't play with me and don't try to attribute to me things that you know I never wrote or thought.

You have also not indicated any reasoning why the 1303Z Rogers message that Knerr states was not received by UA175 shows no difference in formatting from the 1259Z Tsen message that he reports was received.

OK, let's assume that Rogers' message at 9:03 was not received and that I am wrong about the format. Still you owe me an explanation for the message sent by Jerry Tsen at 8:59 and received by United 175, which is not my opinion, but comes from the same document you used so far against me. Please read carefully my previous posts.

That's your opinion - which is fine - that you haven't substantiated yet.

You'd better try to substantiate your opinion that MDT was the RGS with the strongest signal at 8:59, what you are far from having done so far.

Regards

bubs

EDIT: one minor (typo) change

Edited by bubs49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd better try to substantiate your opinion that MDT was the RGS with the strongest signal at 8:59, what you are far from having done so far.

So, this is what Cz, booN and skyeagle would have to believe in order to hold onto their theory...

"UA175" approached NYC on 9/11/2001. At 0859, "UA175" communicated with several RGS stations within about a 30 mile radius... Easton, PA, PHL, ILG, Sandy Hook, JFK, LGA, EWR, NYC, while also communicating with MDT 113 miles away. The CPS locks down the location of the aircraft through flight tracking protocol, determines the track it is heading based on last set of data (which under Cat B is automatic) but determines that Easton, PA, PHL, ILG, Sandy Hook, JFK, LGA, EWR, NYC are all congested. Although 113 miles away, the CPS then chooses MDT as it's best chance for routing messages to the aircraft, and rolls the dice at the slim chance it may be received at that distance. The Commission claims it was received by the airplane.

Now, the aircraft hits the south tower, a message is sent from dispatch 20 mins later, the CPS then looks for best routing again. Again it looks at Easton, PA, PHL, ILG, Sandy Hook, JFK, LGA, EWR, NYC, and also HPN and DPK. Instead of trying to route the message through these locations based on last known fix through flight tracking protocol, it doesn't try MDT again, no, it goes 200 miles west and tries to route through PIT!

So, i guess all stations within a 200 miles radius of "UA175" were "congested" and the CPS now tries to route the message through a station in which it knows the aircraft cannot receive?

This is what you would have to believe if you believe in the govt version of events.

LMAO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought that Ballinger sent an ACARS at 9:23 based on the flight route using static information. This is skyeagle's and others' theory.

Ed Ballinger sent out an ACARS message at 9:03 AM, and again at 9:23 AM, according to the log, but he was unaware that United 175 had already crashed.

Ed Ballinger, and his ACARS Messages to United 175

At 9:03, he sends an ACARS message to Flight 175: "How is the ride. Anything dispatch can do for you." (ACARS is an e-mail system that enables personnel on the ground to rapidly communicate with those in the cockpit of an aircraft.) At the same time, the United Airlines air traffic control coordinator also sends an ACARS message to the flight: "NY approach lookin for ya on [frequency] 127.4." Just after 9:03, unaware it has now crashed into the World Trade Center, Ballinger and the air traffic control coordinator re-send these ACARS messages to Flight 175.

Twenty minutes later, Ballinger will remain unaware that Flight 175 has crashed and still be trying to contact it by ACARS.

My link

9:23 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Cockpit intrusion warning sent to Flight 175. Ballinger sent out his "cockpit intrusion" message to Flight 175. At this time, while the dispatcher was aware that two large aircraft (including one United airliner) had crashed into the World Trade Center and that Flight 175 had been hijacked, he was not aware that Flight 175 had crashed.

My link

So, here is where Ed Ballinger, who was unaware that United 175 had crashed at 9:03 AM, was still trying to send ACARS messages to United 175, twenty minutes later, which simply means that United 175 was nowhere near Pittsburg, Harrisburg, nor even airborne after 9:03 AM, and once again, the ACARS messages were not based on the actual location of United 175, but where United 175 was thought to have been.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what the air traffic controllers had to say about United 175, check out the video between time-line between 24:50 and 29:00, which will explain why there was no way that United 175 received any ACARS messages after 9:03 AM.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5373490407014986726#

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed Ballinger sent out an ACARS message at 9:03 AM,

You're right, he did. And that message was also routed through MDT.

So according to Cz, and if the aircraft which hit the south tower was truly UA175, not only would Easton, PA, PHL, ILG, Sandy Hook, JFK, LGA, EWR, NYC are all have to be congested AGAIN, but also DPK, HPN, and BDL would have to be "congested" as well, in order for the CPS to route through MDT, now at 140+ miles away.

And then when the 0923 message came through, all of the above including MDT are now "congested", and the CPS decides to route through PIT, more than 300+ miles away.

I mean, I know the aircraft was traveling really fast, more than a standard 767 can handle, but surely it could not be within range of PIT in such a short amount of time in order for the CPS to choose such routing through PIT based on flight tracking protocol... lol... how ridiculous can this get?

The reason the CPS chose MDT and PIT for routing purposes based on flight tracking protocol, is because the aircraft was in the vicinity of those stations when the messages were sent. It's just that simple. If you don't prefer documents and expert statements, choose Occams Razor folks.

And by the way Cz, messages are put in a queue when stations are "congested". If a message is sent two or three seconds later due to congestion, it is better than rolling the dice trying to route through a station much further away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False.

ACARS is not routed based on flight plan (or static information) when there are multiple RGS stations within range. They are routed based on Category A and Category B ACARS Flight Tracking protocol. The airlines use a Category B type protocol in which the aircraft must monitor (interrogate) all stations nearby selecting the best routing, Cat A is mainly used by Charter Airlines and corporate aviation as they do not need to communicate as often as the Airlines. Although Category A protocol also would not select MDT for routing purposes with so many other RGS stations much closer.

The reason for this type of protocol (which has been in use since the inception of ACARS) is so the aircraft can continue to communicate with the company via ACARS if diverted.

For the record, the routing of the ACARS uplink to United 175 was not based on the location of that aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, the routing of the ACARS uplink to United 175 was not based on the location of that aircraft.

You may want to read through the Flight Tracking section of document provided by Cz.

Do you ever wonder why you are the only one still pushing the theory that ACARS messages are routed based on flight plan?

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love the way you and bubs twist things around to represent details of an argument that nobody here has presented. That is what is known as constructing a straw man; apparently one of your favorite pastimes Valkyrie.

The actual hypothesis presented is very simple and you are over complicating it in order to make it seem like it is something that it isn't.

Cz gave a very good summary of how the routing decision appears to work and how MDT could have been selected. You should take some time to actually understand his points instead of focusing on a typo. You'd much rather attack the messenger than the message though, wouldn't you?

At any rate, consider that you yourself have quoted the key points which make this hypothesis possible and even begrudgingly gave me a little credit for possibly getting something right...

Note parts of booN's "theory" (of which this is perhaps the only time he has been correct in interpretation, except for the "12 min intervals", but we'll play along)

A routing algorithm is built into ACARS which attempts to send messages through the best possible RGS in the event that the aircraft has not communicated its position; which would be the case if the aircraft had crashed into the WTC 20 minutes earlier.

and...

It is not implausible that the MDT RGS was used for communication with UA175 as a result of some kind of load balancing and/or specific condition in which MDT had the
strongest signal
to the aircraft when the initial routing decision was made for MDT by ACARS.

and...

The MDT routing makes perfect sense when you understand that media advisory information isn't constantly updated, but updated on intervals of up to 12 minutes.

Good points. :tu::P

Now, my question - which has been asked perhaps 5 times now and ignored repeatedly. Why exactly would ACARS select MDT as it's "strongest signal" when Easton RGS is virtually under the airplane with many other RGS stations in PHL and NYC closer to the target aircraft during that "12 minute interval" {the foundation of booN's whole theory)?

298q6d.jpg

In a way, you sort of answered that question when you quoted me above. There is the potential that MDT was in fact selected as the strongest signal even if it was NOT the closest RGS around. Even you can't deny this possibility. MDT most definitely WAS selected as such at some point PRIOR TO 8:59 when JERRY TSEN sent his message, but we don't know exactly at which point because that isn't included in the data. This means that MDT could very easily have been selected as the best RGS location somewhere between 8:51 while the aircraft was still relatively on track with its original flight plan and 8:54 or so when the aircraft was still roughly 80-85 miles away from MDT, or even I suppose after that up until 8:58.

Why would ACARS possibly select MDT instead of RGS stations in the NY area? Oh, I don't know, maybe because the routing algorithm could be smart enough to recognize that picking an RGS that the aircraft should (or was, depending on when MDT was initially acquired) be moving away from according to its registered flight plan would be less favorable than the one that it should (or was, depending on when MDT was initially acquired) be getting closer to.

And as for other RGS stations that you state would have been closer, were all of those RGS stations active in September of 2001? The reason for my question is that when I went looking for a reference showing the active RGS stations circa 2001 I came up completely empty. I couldn't find one, but I did find a list of active RGS stations circa 1st quarter of 2000 and I noticed that several of the RGS stations you have in that picture up there weren't listed. It is possible that the list I found was incomplete, that they went live between then and September 2001, or perhaps after September 2001; I'm not sure which. The list I'm referring to is near the end of Getting to Grips With Fans, starting on page 100. And if you compare the RGS locations in that list with the position of UA175 at about 8:51 MDT is one of 3 nearby RGS locations along its current heading and registered flight plan path; UNV and ABE being the other two. At 8:54 it is one of four between it and its registered flight plan path, though obviously not along its current heading.

Side question: Is your "Easton PA RGS" supposed to be ABE? This RGS is located north of and between Allentown and Bethlehem at Lehigh Valley Int'l (Decimal Latitude and Longitude 40.6530 -75.4400), almost 12 miles from Easton. I'm just curious, with you being such a stickler for details and all. Is there an undocumented RGS station on the border as your picture suggests? :hmm:

I'm not saying that the hypothesis I've presented is most definitely the case here, nor am I claiming that it is the only possible answer; but it does make sense and it does offer a possible explanation for the routing decisions made. We won't know the actual logic behind the routing decisions unless we can somehow obtain the data related to the actual decisions made on that day.

I'm completely open to the possibility that this hypothesis is wrong, but I'll need a reasonable and plausible explanation in order to toss it out if it is indeed wrong. If you can provide the documentation for that, I'm willing to review it. If you'd rather just display some more hand waving I won't stop you, but so far you haven't managed to falsify it.

I don't fault you for being inclined to falsify it, and by all means knock yourself out trying.

"...there [is] no way that an ACARS message would have been routed through Pittsburgh [or MDT] if UA 175 had crashed.... in New York City." - SFO ARINC Expert

Keyword here is "routed".

On the contrary, there is at least one way that an ACARS message would have been routed through Pittsburgh or MDT if UA 175 had crashed in New York City; but at least we agree that the key word is indeed "routed."

Edit: Typo of instead of or.

Edited by booNyzarC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may want to read through the Flight Tracking section of document provided by Cz.

Do you ever wonder why you are the only one still pushing the theory that ACARS messages are routed based on flight plan?

LOL

He isn't the only one. In my opinion this is probably the reason that the PIT RGS was used on that message 20 minutes after the crash.

But perhaps you can answer the question that Q24 posed to Scott G previously, which he hasn't taken the time to respond to yet...

If in theory Flight 175 did crash at 09:03, and a dispatcher attempted to send an ACARS message after that time, how would the system in 2001 decide where to route it from?

Tell us Valkyrie, how would you or your ACARS expert respond to that question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If in theory Flight 175 did crash at 09:03, and a dispatcher attempted to send an ACARS message after that time, how would the system in 2001 decide where to route it from?"

It would have been routed through the many RGS stations within a 200 mile range of the aircraft based on Flight Tracking protocol, of course using the closest station as 200 miles is only guaranteed above 29,000 feet, and if all of them were congested (as now theorized by Cz), it would have been placed into a queue and sent perhaps 500 milliseconds later.

"There is no way a message could have been routed through PIT if UA175 crashed into the south tower" - SFO ARINC Expert (paraphrased)

I'll add to that by saying there is no way a message could have been routed through MDT based on Category A and B flight tracking protocol as specified in the document provided by Cz and the numerous experts consulted, if "Ua175" was in the NYC area.

The only way to explain ACARS Central Processing System routing is due to the fact UA175 was swapped with a drone which could outperform a standard 757 by a wide margin and the real UA175 was in fact in the vicinity of MDT and later, PIT.

When are you going to call an ARINC expert?

Edited by ValkyrieWings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side question: Is your "Easton PA RGS" supposed to be ABE? This RGS is located north of and between Allentown and Bethlehem at Lehigh Valley Int'l (Decimal Latitude and Longitude 40.6530 -75.4400), almost 12 miles from Easton.

Is it 12 miles rom Easton, or 12 miles from the center of Easton? Details, huh? lol.

However...

Excellent. Thanks for doing the legwork. You're right, I should have stated "nearby Easton" each and every time as I was going by the illustration provided way back in this thread, and I believe at one point, I did specify "nearby". I also said the same for, what looks like, the Sandy Hook, NJ RGS. It's actually nearby Sandy Hook.

So, if you can provide source for both with lat/long, I'd appreciate it. :)

Thanks!

Edited by ValkyrieWings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He isn't the only one. In my opinion this is probably the reason that the PIT RGS was used on that message 20 minutes after the crash.

But perhaps you can answer the question that Q24 posed to Scott G previously, which he hasn't taken the time to respond to yet...

If in theory Flight 175 did crash at 09:03, and a dispatcher attempted to send an ACARS message after that time, how would the system in 2001 decide where to route it from?

Tell us Valkyrie, how would you or your ACARS expert respond to that question?

It would have been routed through the many RGS stations within a 200 mile range of the aircraft based on Flight Tracking protcol, of course using the closest station as 200 miles is only guaranteed above 29,000 feet, and if all of them were congested (as now theorized by Cz), it would have been placed into a queue and sent perhaps 500 milliseconds later.

So according to you it would have routed through every RGS station within a 200 mile range of the aircraft? And then it would have been placed into a queue? And perhaps sent 500 milliseconds later? Well, I guess after all that running around it would want to sit in a queue for a bit to rest, but then ultimately you still need to answer the question.

Sent perhaps 500 milliseconds later through which one?

By the way, you know how I mentioned how you seem to really enjoy tossing out strawman arguments? Your statement that Cz has theorized that all of the RGS stations within a 200 mile radius were congested is a prime example of that. He made no such claim. He offered no such theory. What's worse is that your strawman is clearly an attempt to mock him. In all honesty, you have got to be one of the most belligerent and nasty people I've run into around here in a very long time.

"There is no way a message could have been routed through PIT if UA175 crashed into the south tower" - SFO ARINC Expert (paraphrased)

I'll add to that by saying there is no way a message could have been routed through MDT based on Category A and B flight tracking protocol as specified in the document provided by Cz and the numerous experts consulted, if "Ua175" was in the NYC area.

You keep on saying that but we've documented precisely how it could be possible.

The only way to explain ACARS Central Processing System routing is due to the fact UA175 was swapped with a drone which could outperform a standard 757 by a wide margin.

It is one possible (extremely far fetched and unlikely) way I suppose, but it isn't the only way.

When are you going to call an ARINC expert?

Maybe you should just add that to your signature. If I decide to call ARINC, I'll be sure to let you know what they say.

Edit: Removed Ad Hom.

Edited by booNyzarC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to you it would have routed through every RGS station within a 200 mile range of the aircraft?

Do you understand Category A and B flight tracking protocol yet?

Let me know when you do. Then you will come up with the same theory that Cz has, that they must have been all congested.

Cz seems to be the most up to speed with booN not far behind, and skyeagle a far third still pushing his "ACARS routing is based on flight plan" theory.

lol.

We should start a pool as to who will get to the truth first or call an ARINC expert first.. .for that matter.

Edited by ValkyrieWings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least he called an expert. Have you? If not, why not?

You did such a great job of it already, I figured… why bother? That is, a great job showing it’s a waste of time if supposed expert does not have all facts to hand.

So if it only looks at the arrival and departure airports, what happens when two aircraft take different routes from the east coast to the west coast?

Then obviously the aircraft would have different flight plans which ACARS might utilise.

It would have been routed through the many RGS stations within a 200 mile range of the aircraft based on Flight Tracking protocol, of course using the closest station as 200 miles is only guaranteed above 29,000 feet, and if all of them were congested (as now theorized by Cz), it would have been placed into a queue and sent perhaps 500 milliseconds later.

I see, so if communication is lost, rather than looking along the projected flight path, ACARS assumes the aircraft is flying in circles.

Q24, I know you have a stick up your butt for Pilots For 9/11 Truth, but that is no reason to subvert the truth. When are you going to call ARINC? It's been what, 4 days since I have provided the contact information and instead of speaking with an expert, those who blindly support the govt or have a specific hatred for Pilots For 9/11 Truth prefer to go round and round on a forum instead of speaking with an expert. Hilarious.

Not so much as I know you have “a stick up your butt” about me knowing their game. In fact, you have such “a stick up your butt” about it, that's the reason you registered here in the first place.

But hey, as you follow those guys, when you get a moment do you reckon you could tell us that story about the agents that planted light poles in the road in broad daylight, blamed it on the plane knocking them over and then flagged down the random taxi diver to support the plan? You do follow that one? It’s one of their favourites! Hilarious indeed.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you understand Category A and B flight tracking protocol yet?

Let me know when you do. Then you will come up with the same theory that Cz has, that they must have been all congested.

Cz seems to be the most up to speed with booN not far behind, and skyeagle a far third still pushing his "ACARS routing is based on flight plan" theory.

lol.

We should start a pool as to who will get to the truth first or call an ARINC expert first.. .for that matter.

By all means of respect, but what is the deal with ARINC? They don't set the standards, nor are they the monitoring entity.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By all means of respect, but what is the deal with ARINC? They don't set the standards, nor are they the monitoring entity.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Click

You were saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it 12 miles rom Easton, or 12 miles from the center of Easton? Details, huh? lol.

About 12 and a half miles from the border where you pinned it. I was being generous. Yeah, details. :rolleyes:

However...

Excellent. Thanks for doing the legwork. You're right, I should have stated "nearby Easton" each and every time as I was going by the illustration provided way back in this thread, and I believe at one point, I did specify "nearby". I also said the same for, what looks like, the Sandy Hook, NJ RGS. It's actually nearby Sandy Hook.

You're welcome.

So, if you can provide source for both with lat/long, I'd appreciate it. :)

Thanks!

I've already provided a source for ABE. As for Sandy Hook I don't think you'll need it because it probably wasn't active at the time and I don't see which RGS you even mean to be suggesting. I don't think that ILG was active either for that matter. Or DPK... unless you meant ISP... And then there's NYC RGS? WTH is NYC RGS? Not even on the map as of 2010... :unsure2:

Maybe you should just use the ones that show up in the NTSB Flight Path Study. Skyeagle posted a link to the image a while back. Here you go:

ua175_ground_track.png

Details... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About 12 and a half miles from the border where you pinned it. I was being generous. Yeah, details.

Geee, does that make MDT RGS closer to the Target aircraft than ABE RGS? LMAO!

This is my source.

10s7nr5.jpg

And you are right, I didnt bother with all the legwork for the stations nearby Easton, DPK, NYC, and Sandy Hook. I figured you guys would provide it eventually.

Can you now please provide your source for those stations?

Thanks.

Maybe you should just use the ones that show up in the NTSB Flight Path Study. Skyeagle posted a link to the image a while back. Here you go:

Anything that has a "K" in front of the 3 letter Identifier designates an airport in the good ol' USA under ICAO, not an ACARS RGS. You would think "skyeagle" would know this, being that he claims to be a pilot... But nice try.

This is yet another reason why 'skyeagle' refuses to put his name to his claims while a growing list of aviators with experience 'skyeagle' can only dream of... continues to grow.

Do you understand Category A and B flight tracking protocol yet? Second time asked.

Edited by ValkyrieWings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geee, does that make MDT RGS closer to the Target aircraft than ABE RGS? LMAO!

It doesn't need to be and that wasn't the reason I pointed it out to you.

This is my source.

10s7nr5.jpg

Good for you, keep on using detailed source material like that and your conspiracy theory is sure to go far.

And you are right, I didnt bother with all the legwork for the stations nearby Easton, DPK, NYC, and Sandy Hook. I figured you guys would provide it eventually.

I see.

Can you now please provide your source for those stations?

I already have, and I already told you that. If you can't figure out the source based on what I've already given you, try to find a source yourself; or you could also go jump off a bridge. I don't really care which.

Anything that has a "K" in front of the 3 letter Identifier designates an airport in the good ol' USA under ICAO, not an ACARS RGS. You would think "skyeagle" would know this, being that he claims to be a pilot... But nice try.

This is yet another reason why 'skyeagle' refuses to put his name to his claims while a growing list of aviators with experience 'skyeagle' can only dream of... continues to grow.

Skyeagle didn't post it as a list of RGS stations. He posted it to show the RADAR track.

Do you understand Category A and B flight tracking protocol yet? Second time asked.

Do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO... clearly booN is getting frustrated.

I asked, "Do you understand Category A and B flight tracking protocol yet? Second time asked."

booN replied -

Do you?

My reply... yes, I do, and so does Cz. This is why Cz is now offering the theory that all the stations that were much closer to "UA175" must have been "congested" in order for the "DSP" (in reality, it is a CPS) to route messages through MDT. He still has yet to give his theory based on Cat A and Cat B flight tracking protocol as to why messages would then later be routed through PIT

I have also offered, in my own words, what Category A and B Flight Tracking protocol means, for the average layman to interpret.

I already have, and I already told you that.

You provided a source for the lat/long coordinates of the stations near Easton, DPK, NYC, and Sandy Hook? Really?

Sorry, I must have missed it. All i saw was you posting a lat/long for the station near Easton (ABE RGS) without any source, nor any lat/long or source for the other stations mentioned. Maybe I missed it?

Or is this perhaps the same game 'skyeagle' was playing with his 'new picture of Flight 77 just prior to impact', which he claims was scrubbed from his post... LMAO!

or you could also go jump off a bridge. I don't really care which.

Careful, your frustration is showing....lol

Unfortunately for you, I won't be jumping off a bridge anytime soon. I will continue to show you and the others here.. .the Truth.

When are you going to call an ARINC expert?

Better yet, perhaps you should spend a few hours (or days) playing Skyrim or Red Dead. Seems you need to relieve a bit of stress. lol

Skyeagle didn't post it as a list of RGS stations. He posted it to show the RADAR track.

Wow, ok.. .so when you said in reference to skyeagle's image...

"Maybe you should just use the ones that show up in the NTSB Flight Path Study. Skyeagle posted a link to the image a while back. Here you go:"

(bolding above mine)

What exactly were the "ones" you were referring to? When you were referencing RGS stations immediately prior on the conversation? The more than one radar tracks? Where?

How stupid do you think the readers are here?

Let us know when you understand Cat A and B flight tracking protocol. As of now, you clearly do not....

Edited by ValkyrieWings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO... clearly booN is getting frustrated.

Annoyed by your juvenile and belligerent behavior, yes.

My reply... yes, I do, and so does Cz. This is why Cz is now offering the theory that all the stations that were much closer to "UA175" must have been "congested" in order for the "DSP" (in reality, it is a CPS) to route messages through MDT. He still has yet to give his theory based on Cat A and Cat B flight tracking protocol as to why messages would then later be routed through PIT

I have also offered, in my own words, what Category A and B Flight Tracking protocol means, for the average layman to interpret.

Good for you.

You provided a source for the lat/long coordinates of the stations near Easton, DPK, NYC, and Sandy Hook? Really?

Sorry, I must have missed it. All i saw was you posting a lat/long for the station near Easton (ABE RGS) without any source, nor any lat/long or source for the other stations mentioned. Maybe I missed it?

Or is this perhaps the same game 'skyeagle' was playing with his 'new picture of Flight 77 just prior to impact', which he claims was scrubbed from his post... LMAO!

I provided a source with lat/long coordinates of all the RGS stations in North America circa first quarter of 2000. It has coordinate data for a huge number of stations worldwide actually. But I'm sure you just skipped over that like you do with many of my posts; quoting and responding to a single sentence here and there.

Careful, your frustration is showing....lol

Unfortunately for you, I won't be jumping off a bridge anytime soon. I will continue to show you and the others here.. .the Truth.

Bummer, I guess it was worth a shot. :rolleyes:

Wow, ok.. .so when you said in reference to skyeagle's image...

"Maybe you should just use the ones that show up in the NTSB Flight Path Study. Skyeagle posted a link to the image a while back. Here you go:"

(bolding above mine)

What exactly were the "ones" you were referring to? When you were referencing RGS stations immediately prior on the conversation? The more than one radar tracks? Where?

I'm not playing your game. The point is that Skyeagle didn't post it as a list of RGS stations so you were wrong to personally attack him (yet again) based on the picture.

Let us know when you understand Cat A and B flight tracking protocol. As of now, you clearly do not....

I have read about Category A and Category B transmissions/networks. I'd like to see you provide a source for the claim that "The airlines use a Category B type protocol" in post 1096.

At any rate, here is some source material I've read.

ACARS communications are divided into Category A and Category B. An aircraft uses a Category A transmission to broadcast its messages to all listening ground stations. This is denoted by an ASCII 2 (Hex32) in the Mode field of the downlink message. When using Category B, an aircraft transmits its message to a single ground station.

(source)

ACARS communications are divided in Category A and Category B.

Using Category A, an aircraft may broadcast its messages to all ground stations. This is denoted by an ASCII "2" in the Mode field of the downlink message. The WAVECOM software translates this character to "A".

Using Category B an aircraft transmits its message to a single ground station. This is denoted by an ASCII character in the range "@" to "]" in the Mode field of the downlink message.

(source)

And from the July 2002 Global Link Newsletter which Cz drew our attention to:

Category B Networks and Tracker Messages

In a Category B network, the traditional tracker message is considered optional because the tracker message function is covered elsewhere in the air/ground protocol. This would lead some to believe that a Category B network operates more efficiently by not using traditional trackers.

In a Category B network, aircraft must monitor all the stations available and then select a single station to establish a connection to the ground. During the connection process, the first action of the avionics is to send a Link Test to establish a connection with the RGS. This Link Test has a format that is identical to the Category A tracker message.
Once the connection is established, messages to the aircraft are handled by this single RGS.

With Category B, the aircraft can only connect to one RGS at a time
;
therefore, during flight the avionics must change RGS connections and repeat the connection process every few minutes
. As a result, while the traditional tracker function is not needed, Link Test messages are still transmitted at frequencies that are at least the same or greater than those used in a Category A network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I provided a source with lat/long coordinates of all the RGS stations in North America circa first quarter of 2000.

You provided lat/long coordinates for ABE, but you failed to provide any source for the RGS lat/long, not to mention you never provided any lat/long for the stations near Sandy Hook, DPK, NYC.. .etc, nor any source.

This is what you said in case you forgot -

Side question: Is your "Easton PA RGS" supposed to be ABE? This RGS is located north of and between Allentown and Bethlehem at Lehigh Valley Int'l (Decimal Latitude and Longitude 40.6530 -75.4400), almost 12 miles from Easton. I'm just curious, with you being such a stickler for details and all. Is there an undocumented RGS station on the border as your picture suggests?

No source for anything.

Bummer, I guess it was worth a shot. :rolleyes:

So, those who you debate with for more than a few days and back you into a corner, you wish for them to eventually jump of a bridge?

Based on my experience with you so far, it fits your character. Readers will understand, you won't, surely.

I'm not playing your game. The point is that Skyeagle didn't post it as a list of RGS stations so you were wrong to personally attack him (yet again) based on the picture.

So, skyeagle didn't post it as a list of RGS stations, but you felt the need to post it as a source when discussing RGS stations as "...the ones that show up in the NTSB Flight Path Study. Skyeagle posted a link to the image a while back. Here you go:"

Got it.

My apologies to skyeagle for the assumption based on booN's misleading context.

I have read about Category A and Category B transmissions/networks. I'd like to see you provide a source for the claim that "The airlines use a Category B type protocol" in post 1096.

If they use Cat A or B, neither would be routed through MDT (not to mention PIT) based on Flight Tracking protocol.

Read this again, Read slowly this time without thinking that I should "jump off a bridge".

At any rate, here is some source material I've read.

Yes, now read the Global Link Newsletter provided by Cz. You should already have the link as you quoted it several times. Let me know if you need it again. Then quote the Cat A and B protocol for Flight Tracking within that newsletter.

You got the B here, allow me to bold the operative word...

In a Category B network, aircraft
must
monitor all the stations available and then select a single station to establish a connection to the ground.

This is the same thing I been saying since day one and confirmed by experts. Now quote the Cat A protocol.

When are you going to call ARINC?

Remember when you once thought routing was based on Flight planned route? You've come a long way since then booN. Only a bit more to go... :)

Edited by ValkyrieWings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.