MM>The Actuator drives all eight lower and the two midspan latches at the same time, The midspan will not get a separate signal to open.
JBS> I understand that. I also know that bent torque tubes were found in United Airlines Flight 811. I think for China Airlines Flight 611 the bottom eight did not open but the midspan tried to and I think the tubes bent or there was slack from long time wear, and the midspan just turned a bit past center and popped. They did not have to move much and there were no locking sectors to stop the slight movement as the bottom eight locking sectors successfully stopped the bottom eight latches from turning around the eight latch pins. And the whole locking the barn door solution sucks too. United Airlines Flight 811 had the door rupture open because wiring caused the door unlatch motor to turn on and that power overrode locking sectors. Instead of fixing the wiring to prevent a reoccurrence, NTSB and FAA and Boeing made the locking sectors stronger so that when the thing that was not supposed to happen, power to door unlatch motor, happened again, the door could not rupture because now the power of the motor could not override the strengthened locking sectors. And it worked! The bandaid held! Except the midspan had no locking sectors to strengthen so the weakness remained and when the thing that was not supposed to happen happened again, the midspans ruptured. The barn door was not all closed and the horse got lose again, and again.
MM>The system is connected like this, Actuator drives a torque tube which drives the eight lower latches. from this pushrods go up to the midspan latch torque tubes to drive the two midspan latches. If the eight Lower are locked, that torque tube cannot turn, hence impossible for the pushrods to drive the midspan latch torque tubes etc. Even if the lower torque tube failed the actuator could not drive the midspans.
JBS> Sounds complicated to me and plenty of room for bending, slack, or breakage. (Careful of the word, “impossible’ when referring to an unexplained plane crash, it’s like the word, ‘truth’.)
MM>simple terms, Actuator drives the eight lower & the two midspan. If the eight lower cant turn - the two midspan cant turn.
JBS> So certain. You would make a good politician, actor, or lawyer. We are talking about an unexplained crash, nothing is impossible at this time. Anything ‘can’ happen.
Why have eight locking sectors? Why not only one that keeps the other seven from turning which keeps the midspan from turning? My real question is why not having locking sectors on the midspan latches if they are such a good safety device?
MM>My sympathies Hotdog
JBS>Well, my turn:
The pattern is similar over the past six years. Those who disagree with the wiring/cargo door explanation for early model Boeing 747s get really upset at me and then tell why it can not happen because it is not supposed to happen. They know little of the explanation, use profanity, capitals, and arrogant disparagement. They are usually anonymous.
Those that have an open mind; do the research, are polite, offer corrections, ideas, and often supplement the wiring/cargo door explanation. They are usually not anonymous.
I think the flamers are those that scour newsgroups or forums or chat rooms looking for earnest fellows who may have a few technical errors that can be corrected with great bombast, thereby making the flamer feel good about himself and how sharp he is and how he straightened out that idiot’s sails for him and loves letting everyone know about it.
This wiring/cargo door explanation is not trivial. Over a thousand have died, five aircraft totally lost, billions of dollars have shifted hands and continue to change hands. High levels at all governments are involved, Libya, USA, Canada, UK, China, Taiwan, India, New Zealand, and Australia. Syria and Iran were involved as they were blamed for Pan Am Flight 103 for a few years until a more satisfactory villain could be found.
To prove me wrong, correction, to prove the hypothesis wrong or invalid, use evidence of real wreckage. Don’t use wishful thinking or logic that says something is not supposed to happen and therefore it didn’t. There’s reasons why millions are spent on retrieval and reconstruction. The answers are in the metal and recorders not in reciting the way normal things work normally.
I can tell those that have not looked at the pictures, who have not read my AARs and the government’s AARs, who have not understood the reasoning based on the specific evidence, and who really really do not want the hypothesis to be correct. Somehow they always end up talking about me and who am I and what an idiot I am.
You see, an honest contributor would be saying that aft cargo door China Airlines Flight 611 is fractured and shattered and that’s not supposed to happen and here’s some potential answers to explain the evidence. I offer repair doubler failure, aft pressure bulkhead failure, and wiring for ways to make that piece of aft cargo door look the way it really does, not the way it is supposed to look.
There are those reading and contributing and I look forward to their opinions.
I have been told many times to leave Pan Am Flight 103 out of it. I understand why. Most people believe what they want to believe and Pan Am Flight 103 was a bomb...end story. Thus is the power of the authorities and thus explained is the need to get the right ‘spin’ early on in any investigation. Once set, public opinion is hard to change. Part IV of the Smith AAR will answer many questions of why it was not a bomb. A reading of AAIB 2/90 for Pan Am Flight 103 would be a prerequisite. Downloadable at corazon.com of course.
I can’t leave any Boeing 747 out of it if that accident has the evidence required to be included in the wiring/cargo door explanation. Any more sudden loud sounds on the CVR followed by an abrupt power cut for inflight breakups for early model Boeing 747s? There are only five solo events. With about ten possible official explanations (they keep changing all the time) and my only one that matches and includes all five.
Spin on China Airlines Flight 611 is failed repair doubler by China Airlines personnel. And maybe it is. But until the other logical candidates are ruled out conclusively, that spin is just a spin. Wishful thinking by everybody but China Airlines and they are a discredited airline already. How about China Airlines going bankrupt, like TWA after Trans World Airlines Flight 800, Pan Am after Pan Am Flight 103, and Air India trying to sell itself to KLM after Air India Flight 182. Only United is OK, maybe not so OK but then United Airlines Flight 811 was proven to be the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
There are those in the forum who have no responsibility toward crew and passengers and there are those that do. If you are one who feels a responsibility to those who fly with you, then refer your safety department to corazon.com. I welcome criticism by those that care, have patience, and know about aviation safety and the many ways things fail that are not supposed to fail. Have the safety persons dispel the explanation if they can. If they can’t then they may know who to contact for followup.
Telling me it can’t happen because it can’t happen is not good enough.
Somebody is going to corazon.com
Program started on Sun, Aug 11 2002 at 12:01 AM.
Analyzed requests from Sun, Aug 04 2002 at 12:10 AM to Sat, Aug 10 2002 at
11:59 PM (6.99 days).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Summary
---------------
Successful requests: 9,593
Average successful requests per day: 1,371
Successful requests for pages: 4,145
Average successful requests for pages per day: 592
Failed requests: 857
Distinct files requested: 1,028
Distinct hosts served: 2,129
Corrupt logfile lines: 504
Data transferred: 324.364 Mbytes
Average data transferred per day: 46.388 Mbytes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:
http://www.corazon.com/PDF182and103SmithAAR.html
8:
http://www.corazon.com/SmithAAR103.pdf
File Type Report
----------------
Listing extensions with at least 0.1% of the traffic, sorted by the amount
of traffic.
-----: ------: ---------
2037: 40.87%: .JPG
3206: 31.89%: .html [Hypertext Markup Language]
1292: 12.18%: .pdf [Adobe Portable Document Format]
654: 6.54%: .jpg [JPEG graphics]
939: 3.66%: [directories]
337: 2.31%: .gif [GIF graphics]
11: 1.47%: .pdf
73: 0.72%: .GIF
93: 0.20%: .html
947: 0.12%: .cgi [CGI scripts]
4: 0.05%: [not listed: 2 extensions]
Cheers,
Barry