posted 7th August 2002 22:09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that JohnBerrySmith really is a tenacious little turkey with regard to cargo doors...does he have a patent (or an axe to grind) or what?
posted 8th August 2002 00:56
------------------------------------------------------------------------
411A
"Ax to grind." I think not, to me it appears just a strong conviction that he is correct, and that safety may be compromised. As far as I am concerned, nothing at all wrong with that position, and even if he is wrong, at least attention is focused on other possibilities. Surely you do not have a problem with that too????
wes_wall
No indeed, no problem at all. But I just wondered, noticing that he is so adament...where is his vested interest?
Cast-off Boeing perhaps?
Or, just an interested party.
JBS>
http://www.corazon.com/ejection.html
Read URL above and know motive. Tenacious little turkey? I shall take that as a compliment. Patent? On what? Perseverance? No. I have it but not a patent. Ax to grind? Yeah, I do, aviation safety. Prevent death. Stop airplane destruction.
I love it when you talk about me....Know this: I am trivial but my discovery is not. Cargo doors on Boeing 747s have a design weakness that is exploited by faulty wiring. How bad is it? Well, 329 dead for Air India Flight 182, 270 dead for Pan Am Flight 103, 9 dead for United Airlines Flight 811, 230 dead for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and 225 dead for China Airlines Flight 611. None dead for Pan Am 125 or UAL preflight when the door opened uncommanded.
Here’s the rub, no one in authority is willing to talk about it. And I know why. No one wants to hear unpleasant truths but will pay to hear pleasant lies.
I note that whenever someone questions me personally, such as ‘ax to grind’, Boeing cast off, etc, it is an effort to disparage me to make me or my opinions discredited. You type are the conspiracy guys, only interested in personalities and not interested in evidence. You think as politicians do. What is the best thing for you and then if said enough times it is supposed to come true.
Well, as pilot, navigator, mechanic, aircrewman, owner, bombardier, radar operator, plane captain, and refueler, I can say wishful thinking does not hack it in aviation, only reality matters and that changes all the time.
Reality is that photograph of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611 and it looks similar to other cargo doors of Boeing 747s that are important enough to be stored in hangars for 17 years, 13 years, 8 years, and now about a month for a new one. The cargo door is always at or near the scene of the first parts to leave five Boeing 747s that suffer an inflight breakup. And yes, Air India Flight 182 was not a bomb, and yes, Pan Am Flight 103 was not a bomb, and yes, Trans World Airlines Flight 800 had center tank fire/explosion but after the nose came off and bomb considered for 17 months, and yes United Airlines Flight 811 was said by the crew to the tower that a bomb had gone off in it and they were returning to land. No bombs on any of them but the explosion of explosive decompression that mimics a bomb explosion but isn’t.
And honest investigator would look at the shattered ruptured open cargo doors inflight and say, yes, that cargo door ruptured open in flight and the reason it did was B, or B, or FT, or M, or BR, or E: or Bomb, bomb, fuel tank, or missile, or bad repair, or electrical. Each proponent gets to say why they think their cause is just. Mine is the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation based upon the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for United Airlines Flight 811, the only incontrovertible ruptured cargo door event and that was electrical.
But the biased investigators never admit the obvious shattered door opened in flight because it leads to United Airlines Flight 811 and electrical so they match it to Pan Am Flight 103 for bomb, or Air India Flight 182 for bomb, or Trans World Airlines Flight 800 for fuel tank explosion or missile, and JAL 123 for bad repair but never United Airlines Flight 811.
For China Airlines Flight 611 it could have been a bad repair that caused the shattered aft cargo door. Or lots of other reasons. All my explanation has for support is reality, United Airlines Flight 811 and its large amount of evidence that matches China Airlines Flight 611.
By the way, another thought occurred to me this evening as I was reminded of my new humbleness at being corrected about basic things about the Boeing 747, was the APU on during the event times for China Airlines Flight 611, Air India Flight 182, United Airlines Flight 811, Pan Am Flight 103, Trans World Airlines Flight 800? Is there a way to tell by the FDR if the APU was on? I often see the APU contrail between the engine contrails as the 747s fly overhead.
This whole cargo door thing has been a humbling experience and also a learning one too. And who would have thought after all these years of pursuing the forward cargo door ruptures in flight for 747s, that the aft would pop too. Even if the cause is not electrical, that cargo door’s weaknesses should be exposed and fixed.
Suspicious of me and my motives, that’s funny. I’m the one with a real name and not anonymous. Ha! It is not important to me 'who' you are but 'what' you are thinking is. The ideas are what counts.
Well, the forum does make me think and that’s a step in the right direction for finding out why the aft cargo door looks like it does for China Airlines Flight 611.
Barry
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]