Audio files of statements by the NTSB "Not Found" on CNN anymore

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Audio files of statements from the NTSB about information from the FDR (flight data recorder) have been removed from CNN reports. This appears to be an intentional plan to dispel any suspicion of problems with the autopilot mentioned on the FDR, by shifting the focus to the jackscrew assembly and the possibility that it was poorly maintained, causing the airplane to simply fall apart.

In the first report on Jan. 31, the audio file of a spokesman for Alaska Airlines says that they lost contact with the crew at 4:36 PST. Later, it was disclosed that when the 31 minute tape from the FDR began, they were already discussing the problem with the stabilizer trim. This means that the problem could have started 5 minutes earlier, at exactly midnight GMT (Greenwhich mean time). The time and date would have appeared in the computers as 00 hours, 00 minutes, on Feb. 1, 2000, or digitally as 00:00 02-01-00. A statement from Jim Hall is still available on this page, even though it is from Jan. 31.

Airline spokesman says contact lost at 4:36

A few days later on Feb. 4, a spokesman for the NTSB made a brief statement, emphasizing that the crew had contacted the maintenance personell to discuss the problem. Statements previously available by Jim Hall on audio files are no longer available. Also removed are the files about the pilot's discussion with a mechanic.

NTSB statements about the FDR have been removed

A few days later on Feb. 8, Jim Hall makes more statements, putting emphasis on the idea that the plane may have broke apart. The audio files have since been removed. Also removed are the files about the pilot's discussion with a mechanic.

Another report, shifting focus to plane breaking apart, audio statements removed

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 12, 2000

Answers

Thanks for this excellent summary Hawk! It seems that because the average American's attention span is no longer than the average commercial, revisionist history can now be employed in days rather than decades.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), February 12, 2000.

Hawk, FWIW, I am a newsaholic. We do not have cable TV; so what I do is tape CBS, NBC, and ABC starting with our local 5 pm news on all three stations. Then at 7 pm, I tape PBS News Hour. Know this sounds like a lot to view, but it really goes fast. You can skip commercials, sports if you are not interested, weather after you've seen it once, and any other segment you don't want to see. Got the VCRs (used) for about $50 each. Pawn shops often have good deals. If it doesn't work, they will usually take it back; I only had this happen once, and they gave me a refund.

Then, if there is a subject important to us, I edit it to one tape; this involves having two VCRs hooked together.

Now, the point I really want to make is, IMHO, the TRUTH of any important issue usually comes out in the first minutes or hours after an event has happened. I can't tell you how many times I've seen things only once, and then to have them disappear forever. (Sure as heck didn't tape much on Y2K -- only took about half a tape.)

Got our illustrious Florida governor JEB Bush on tape recently saying about two black state officials sitting in his office, "KICK THEIR ASSES OUT." A real Mister Nice Guy. He wants to end affirmative action here in Florida. He had his security people poke the press in the back to get them out of the office too. A lot of people are very upset down here, and IMHO I can understand it. He seems to think he is the Florida Czar. Guess he gets it from his father and brother.

Anyway, enough said. Try to tape stuff -- audio or video -- then you'll have proof positive. Good Luck!

-- Lurkess (Lurkess@Lurking.XNet), February 12, 2000.


Hawk, forgot to mention audio taping. Got a small, hand-held micro tape recorder. This is good for taping internet audio stuff.

Recently I heard one guy on an internet talk show say how he connects his tv/VCR to his PC. This way he can get 8 hours of VCR taped audio. Don't know exactly how he does it. Think I've got enough going already! :)

-- Lurkess (Lurkess@Lurking.XNet), February 12, 2000.


Thanks folks. That is a good suggestion Lurkess, and I have been planning to get my computer upgraded for video out capability. Doesn't cost much and videotapes are very cheap.

I think the reason they took down the statements is because they don't want people to remember this part...

"Approximately 12 minutes before the end of the FDR recording, the data indicate the aircraft was cruising in straight and level flight at an altitude of 31,000 feet and airspeed of 301 knots calibrated air speed, with the autopilot engaged.

Simultaneous with autopilot disengagement, the stabilizer trim moved to the apparent full nose-down trim position in about 6 seconds, and remained that way until the final upset."

Now that they have decided to use metal filings as the reason that the stabilizer trim got stuck, they don't want people to think about these statements because they are very inconsistent with a stripped jackscrew. If it were stripped, it would not have taken 6 seconds to lock into full down position, and it wouldn't have happened simultaneous with switching off the autopilot. Hokie is right, most people these days have a very short attention span, and they are no longer interested, as long as they appear to have found the problem. The trouble is, they have found "a problem", but they didn't find "THE problem."

This notion that these planes will now be safe because they found a few with metal shavings is ludicrous, but I guess they figure what the public doesn't know can't hurt them (except the unlucky ones). I also forgot to point out that the NTSB now says that contact was lost at 4:21, even thought this contradicts original statements from Alaska Airlines that they were told by the FAA air traffic control it went down at 4:36. This change would be sufficient to remove suspicions of any glitch coinciding exactly with the rollover into February (GMT).

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 12, 2000.


Here's proof positive that the phegm-hawker looks for the most sinister explanation in every event. Could there be another explanation for the removal of the audio file from the CNN site, like a technical problem or a screwup by some intern helping to maintain their website? No, it couldn't be something that simple -- must be part of a coverup by TPTB.

So if the NTSB caused CNN to take down the audio files, why didn't they make them take down the hyperlink?

Further, if the NTSB wanted to hide the statement, then why didn't their statement down from their own web page? Guess what, they've left the exact same sentences about the autopilot on their site, about halfway down the linked page.

Are we going to be treated with an actual explantion for this contradiction, or will we be treated to the birdbrain exercising his limited vocabulary of swear words?

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 12, 2000.



According to the Freedom of Information Act, the NTSB is required to post that page on their site. However, they also have the freedom to request that CNN remove them, since they are not required to be posted by the media. This would limit the visibility substantially, since there are a hell of a lot more people reading CNN than there are visiting the NTSB site. The average sheeple briefly checks the news media and then goes back to watching the boob tube or shopping at Walmart and having lunch at McDonalds and forgets all about it.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 12, 2000.

Hello again, Hawk. In the thread "The Truth Part II...", I asked you some questions, and you responded, then asked me a few questions....well, that thread is getting buried quickly amidst other threads, so I'll respond here.

You asked what my aviation background is. I have none, other than flying all over the country the past two years attending and speaking at Y2k conferences :).

Having said that, I do have extensive background in Y2k testing of embedded systems used in the power industry. I personally tested dozens of device types. From my experiences there, and in meetings with those who design, build, manufacture and sell these products, I found that date functions are not used in the most critical functions of devices. Very few devices tested had any Y2k problems, and those that did, failed in a cosmetic, not a catastrophic way.

I've asked the same kinds of questions of those in the oil and communications industry, and the answers confirm that those industries also are essentially immune to date-caused serious problems.

There were many on this forum last year who predicted or implied that there would be catastrophic failures in these industries. There has yet to be a single substantiated y2k-caused power outage, refinery outage, or telecommunications outage. Because of this, the burden of proof has, IMO, shifted to those who claim serious y2k- caused problems have occurred or are occurring.

Then along you come, saying that "the truth" is that a particular flight disaster was a date-caused catastrophe. This is a much more serious charge than those who predicted the possibility of problems. Because the burden of proof rests on you, I asked for your credentials. Now I know three things:

1) You have no collegiate training in the aerospace industry

2) You have never worked on any systems used on an MD-80 aircraft.

3) You have never Y2k tested any systems used on the MD-80.

Based upon these facts, I frankly dismiss your hypothesis that the crash was date-caused. Your case is further eroded when those who have actual experience in the industry, Gordon, Cherri and others, refute your claims. The final straw is your ad hominem attacks on MikeY2k and others who ask many legitimate questions about your hypothesis.

Therefore, unless you can get some real expert opinions that share your hypothesis, it is to be disregarded.

-- Dan the Power Man (dgman19938@aol.com), February 12, 2000.


Dan,

Who is going to "substantiate" a refinery problem was Y2K for us? The oil company? That's a funny one. You see, they would have a large economic responsibility if they should have known of a problem (Y2K), but didn't get it fixed. So, no oil company is going to come out and tell us that their refinery problem is due to Y2K. Why don't we just waltz down to the refinery, and have them let us investigate the problem. I'm sure they would be happy to let us in.

At least with a plane crash, we have an overseeing body (NTSB) that might be able to tell us the truth. Of course, after so many politicians told us that planes would NOT fall from the sky, maybe the NTSB might have a conflict of interest in telling us if the plane DID crash from Y2K.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), February 12, 2000.

Well, the garbage rattling around in your birdbrain between your two neurons you call "thouhts" is very insultable. Even fewer bad words this time, you're slipping.

No, I grasped that earlier statements by Jim Hall were still available while a later statement was removed.

You fail to grasp -- no are deliberately ignoring my point that the statements about the autopilot which you claim that they are trying to hide are on the NTSB website at the link I provided in my earlier post to this thread.

Your second answer doesn't fly either. The Freedom of Information Act does not require that a government agency publicize the status of current investigations. It does not require that they be put on web sites. If you say the NTSB has to respect the FOIA as you think it requires (and I use the term "think" in your regard loosely), then they certainly have to respect the 1st Amendment when CNN tells them to shove their request back up their ass. As you point out, the "sheeple" aren't interested so if they heard it once what difference does it make if CNN later removed it. No, I don't think that someone interested in this case is going to limit their search to CNN. And if CNN did respond to the NTSB's request to cover it, they sure didn't do a very good job of it by leaving that dead link there, did they?

No your answer doesn't fly. So either prove that the FOIA requires the NTSB leave their press release on their website, or answer the contradiction: if the NTSB doesn't want the people to remember the part about the autopilot, then why was it left up on their own website ?

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 12, 2000.


Good point J, I am not implying that their motives are necessarily sinister, but rather the standard operating procedure of covering their asses, as the government has done so may times before. After Jane Garvey and Koskinen assured us that all these planes had been checked out and were 100% safe, it seems they would of course try to avoid having to eat those words if possible.

Dan,

Since I am an extremely open-minded person, I do not require any particular type of experience to post on my threads. If I wanted that, I would go to an avaition forum. You may not have noticed, but on this thread, it was proven that just because people claim to have experience doesn't mean that their contributions are more valuable. You mentioned Cherri, Gordon, and others who you seem to believe know more than the rest of us, yet as you will see, it is proven that there are several computers controls and servo drives on the MD-80, even though Cherri and others adamantly denied this. Gordon claims to be an experienced commercial pilot, yet he didn't even know that there were trim tabs on the Md-80 stabilizer. I believe these people may have some experience, but perhaps just not very recent. BTW, I never asked you to prove your background in avaition, but again, as I replied to your post yesterday, it isn't required, because I do not choose to limit this discussion. I've always believed that anything is possible, and have not yet been proven wrong on that assumption.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 12, 2000.



You say you've "always believed that anything is possible". Yep, you probably think that because you call yourself a hawk, you can fly by flapping your arms. But I'm not like elskon and am not going to suggest that you go to the nearest cliff and try to fly. Yes you are an extremely open- minded person -- when it comes to anything you think might fulfill your desire for a negative Y2k outcome.

Phlegm-hawker, you don't know enough about aircraft to tell Gordon he's wrong when he says that there are not any trim tabs on the MD-80 stabilizer.

There are no tabs on the stabilizer as shown on the diagram you posted and also on another page at the same site. Each one shows tabs on the elevator but none on the stabilizer, but you are too ignorant to know the difference and too stupid to realize it.

Back to the questions you'd like to ignore: where in the Freedom of Information Act does it require that the NTSB leave the press release on their web site? No where. So what's the answer to the contradiction in your assertion that the NTSB made the CNN remove the audio file from their web site?

There is no answer. Proof positive that your a paranoid doomer idiot.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 12, 2000.


Could this have something to do with why it was removed? National Transportation Safety Board
Washington, DC 20594
January 19, 2000

STATEMENT BY NTSB CHAIRMAN JIM HALL ON BROADCASTING OF COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER TAPE



National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Jim Hall today issued the following statement following the broadcast yesterday on Dateline NBC of portions of the audio from the cockpit voice recorder of a fatal airliner accident that occurred near Cali, Colombia in 1995.

 As everyone associated with the business of air safety knows, cockpit voice recorders are an invaluable tool in determining the causes of aircraft accidents and, therefore, invaluable in promoting air safety worldwide.  In an effort to keep those recordings from being used for any purposes other than the advancement of air safety, Congress has placed strictures on the use of CVRs, and prohibited the government from ever releasing the audio portions of the recordings.

 I was therefore dismayed to hear the recorded voices of the pilots of  American Airlines flight 965, which crashed near Cali, Colombia on December 20, 1995, broadcast on network television last night.  The use of such a recording--however it was obtained--for such a purpose is inappropriate.  It does nothing to advance the cause of aviation safety, and only serves to sensationalize a tragedy.  It is imperative that the privacy of these recordings be preserved as dictated by law.

- 30 -

NTSB Press Contact:  Ted Lopatkiewicz, (202) 314-6100
 
 

Link:http://www.ntsb.gov/speeches/jhc000208.htm

-- Steve (sron123@aol.com), February 12, 2000.

Thank you Steve, that is one possibility. Everything is not just a "screwup" like Mickey would have us believe. I suppose there was no real reason for this crash, just a screwup, so forget about it. With regard to the transcript posted on the NTSB page, I believe that the government is required to post all documents unless they are classified.

Mickey Mouse,

Why do you insist on the childish name-calling? I started a perfectly unoffensive thread and you come out here calling me a phlegm-hawker, birdbrain, and a paranoid doomer idiot. Are you incapabale of having a discussion without insulting those who have a different view, you cocksucking asskissing dweeb? I will continue to reflect your rudeness right back in your face, but we could save a lot of wasted time if you would knock it off and tell us what your theory is on this crash.

Also, the elevator and trim tabs are considered to be a part of the overall horizontal stabilizer system. This is verified in numerous reports, as they are referred to as "stabilizer trim".



Your nitpicking about details which are consistently proven wrong is not going to detract from my theory. Unless you show us why it is not possible, and offer a more plausible scenario, you continue to prove nothing more than the fact that you are an antagonistic troll that should be added to the permanently banned list.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 12, 2000.

Steve:

The audio that no longer appears on the CNN site is NOT the cockpit voice recording, it was of a briefing by Jim Hall of the NTSB. Not the same thing.

Birdbrai:

You are the one who started with the name calling and have called me much worse. YOU are the troll who should be banned.

I do not need to advance my own theory to dispute yours. But I did post some speculation which I clearly identified as such over a week ago on another thread , even before the analysis of the CVR and FDR was even started. My speculations are much more accurate than your "theory".

You accused me of nitpicking about details, when I'm responding to a detail that YOU just posting nitpicking Gordon. As far as Gordon or me being wrong about trim tabs on the stabilizer.....

The following image was taken from this page " on the same site that you got your "Proof positive" of digital computers on the MD-80.

This contradicts the picture you just posted from CNN, which has been criticised on other forums as wrong.

So which site has the correct diagram: clouddancer.de or cnn.com? If you say that it's CNN, then the credibility of the other diagram you posted is in doubt. And hey, isn't CNN a tool of TPTB?

You have yet to prove that the FOIA requires that the NTSB leave their press release on their web site.

You have yet to satisfactorily explain why the absence of the audio file from CNN is a coverup in light of the press release on the NTSB site.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 12, 2000.


My dear Mikey,

I'm sorry. But after viewing the stabalizer (with trim tabs). I can only say that you are boxing with your shadow.And losing the match. But you did get an interesting catch with the aluminum nut thread. That one should really be looked into by TPTB.

"As for me....I shall finish the game"!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), February 13, 2000.



One more try

Of course if doesn't work, you can always go directly to the clouddancer.de site at this page ", unless you prefer to be deluded by the inaccurate CNN picture. Well, of course you do.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 13, 2000.


OK, it worked this time. Seems that the server at clouddancer.de is picky about capital letters in URLs.

Note the arrows pointing to the various tabs which are at the back of the elevator. The stabilizer is the larger surface area in front. A subtle but nevertheless important distinction that the hawker has no concept of. Now if you say that the CNN picture is correct and that this is wrong, then you also have to say that the other diagram that the hawker put up is wrong, because they came from the very same site, and what does that do to the hawker's "proof positive"?

The fact is that CNN screwed up and has been criticized for this error even on their own message board (look at message #273).

And the hawker has yet to prove his statement about the Freedom of Information Act. And despite his statements that Y2k was definitely the cause of the the AS261 crash, he has yet to provide any specifics such as the identification of the non-compliant chips. Just a bunch of ducking, bobbing, weaving, and evading.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 13, 2000.


I know goddamn well the difference between the elevator and the trim tabs, and if you'll look a little closer I think you'll find that ALL of these pictures are correct.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 13, 2000.

If you look closely at all the pictures you will that there are differences. The hawker calls others liars based on his own ignorance of aviation terms.

And now the hawker uses the f-word. That pretty much answers my questions about the Freedom of Information Act and the contracdiction I've been asking about. He doens't have an answer so he uses profanity hoping that cursing will make me forget.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 13, 2000.


The CNN picture shows an MD-83, and the one from Clouddancr.de shows an MD-80, perhaps there's a difference in both models? Just wondering, I know nothing about plane systems and designs.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 13, 2000.

Gentlemen, no more fighting. It`s time to kiss and make up. Gentle conflicting discussions are acceptable according to the FOIA.

-- NoJo (RSKeiper@aol.com), February 13, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ