Machinbird;
Just because a point is plotted on a DFDR chart does not mean it is not an interpolated or smoothed point seems to be a key element of your message.
No, I would specifically wish to avoid this interpretation of my note. "Filtering" can be used to smooth data as we know, but I don't see how it can be so smoothed when "the strobe is off", so to speak. Notwithstanding your very reasonable statement regarding logical assumptions (which I do not necessarily disagree with), the issue is decideability...by what means and by what justifications in data work is smoothing decided and for what parameters, some, all, none? I have seen both the raw, (very lumpy) data and smoothed data and both work for various purposes, but the only way to resolve the issues raised by AA587 are, as the FAA has indicated, finer granularity, (higher sample rates, larger storage capacity). A variation on the issue trivially arises when using lossy JPG formats in digital photography, which is why so many who know what they're doing prefer a form of RAW; - the information in the spaces in between is real, not derived.
Meanwhile, does anyone have knowledge of the sampling rates on the Air Canada A319 aircraft we were just discussing?
I believe the places where the symbols are placed on each parameter's line represents each sample point for that parameter.
I don't think there is anything in the A319 event that relates to the AF447 event. The AC event was wake turbulence...quite different than TCu's.