HD>To have offically investigatet, analysed and prosecuted in the case of PanAm and pending with Air India and the reconstruction of TWA accidents, which have cost millions of dollars, do you really believe that there is a commercial plot by the Boeing company to hide a possible design fault in their B747 cargo door design?
JBS>I run into this all the time: Conspiracy thinking. I say again for the thousandth time over 13 years: There is no plot, there is no conspiracy, there is no group of manufacturers, attorneys, agencies, airlines, law enforcement or anyone else that ‘knows’ that wiring is causing cargo doors to rupture in flight and are trying to keep it secret. All of the persons involved are acting in their own perceived best interest. They do not go down the path of investigation that may lead them to disaster; they do go down the path of investigation that exonerates them, that exults them, that gives them promotions and respect of their colleagues. No one wants unpleasant truths and will try to avoid them, that’s human nature. It’s called denial.
A clue to the correct side of an argument is if one person attacks the other instead of the issue. The attacker is on the wrong side. If the attacker had truth or facts to demolish the other foolish side, he would use them, but since he does not, he resorts to name calling. There's a lawyer saying something like this: If you have truth and facts, talk quietly in court, if you have neither, bang loudly on the table.
Bill Tucker of TSB tried to get photographs of the forward cargo door area of Air India Flight 182 for me and failed. And he was the Director General of TSB before retiring a few months ago. None of the reasons given below for denying the request make sense if one knows about all the high quality 35 MM film and video shot at the time. And a fuzzy picture is better than no picture.
From Bill Tucker below:
"Now to the matter of your request for photos of the forward right side of
the AI 182 B747.
I spoke with John Garstang about your request. He advised that there are
both photos and videos from the AI 182 investigation. However, with respect
to the forward right side and the cargo door in particular, he is only
certain about the video. They have pictures showing where the cargo door
was in the debris field, and they also have a picture of the door at the
ocean surface when it broke free during the recovery attempt; he is just not
sure how much was video, or still frame from video, versus photographs..
To complicate matters, the video was deteriorating as time went by. Some
years ago (estimate: around 1995), the RCMP took the magnetic tape video
(which would be of even poorer quality by now) and made a digitized version.
The former is ours, the latter is theirs; however they need both for trial
purposes (continuity of evidence, I assume). Moreover, they have advised
that the matter is before the courts, that a publication ban is in effect,
and that they do not want anything to be released that could be prejudicial
to the court process. Both the TSB's General Counsel and I have been
notified that the RCMP Legal Services group believes that release of Air
India wreckage photographs could be injurious to the RCMP's work and that,
as such, release is exempted under Sec. 16(1) of Canada's Access to
Information Act.
There may (far from certain) be some form of photo/video info that is still
in the TSB's possession and that may (also far from certain) be releasable
to you. To determine that will take considerable effort and, to be at all
manageable, it will require the personal involvement of John Garstang. With
his heavy workload, as we try to complete the report on the SWR111
investigation, we just can't give him any more tasks for the next few
months. However, I have obtained a personal commitment from both the
Director of Engineering and the Director of Air Investigations that they
will follow-up on this at the end of the summer and see if there is anything
that can be made available to you. To that end, I shall send both of them a
copy of this message so that they can create a "bring forward" reminder to
follow up. At the very worst, the TSB's photos/videos can certainly be made
available after the trial."
JBS>And by the way, NTSB excoriated Boeing and MD for their confirmed design fault for B747 cargo door design already. No one wants to read another AAR like NTSB AAR 92/02 in which everybody got blamed. Why work very hard in one direction to find out that there are very serious problems when easy work in another direction will produce compliments?
That is why I can see the forest of the four or five trees. I am objective, independent, and motivated. My job is not on the line nor my reputation.
I can read in the AAIB report of a 20 inch hole and read that it may have caused a relatively mild blast by a very large shotgun discharge at close range to the fuselage and I can imagine a very large shotgun discharging at close range to the fuselage giving a relatively mild blast whereas others imagine a very powerful semtex bomb blowing the nose of Pan Am Flight 103 to smithereens.
If one were objective and view all the official AARs it can be seen that a forward cargo door rupturing in flight answers the questions the evidence raises and they match United Airlines Flight 811, the uncontested shorted wiring/switch/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
If one wants to read into those AAR mysterious foreigners planting bombs that go off three or so flights later or mysterious fuel tank explosions with no ignition source, then their imagination is a wonderful thing. But it does not fit the facts.
If anyone has access to a photograph of the bottom half of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611, it would be welcomed an evaluated by a guy who has studied ruptured cargo doors in Boeing 747 for years. AvWeek needs a subscription I don’t have so I can’t contact the reporter.
The hole in the port side passenger door of China Airlines Flight 611 could be soda can being expelled as the fuselage disintegrates. Trans World Airlines Flight 800 had similar type indentations and holes in the seat backs. Right now, I would say it’s a mystery and gives support for any missile guys lurking around.
The missing passenger door on the starboard side is interesting too. When something is missing and is being searched for intently in an area where nearby fuselage material was already found, that’s a clue that part of the fuselage was not normal.
More stuff is missing from starboard side aft of the wing that port side. More stuff is shattered on starboard side than port side. The hull rupture occurred for China Airlines Flight 611 and it appears to be from starboard side based upon skimpy reports of missing and shattered pieces of wreckage.
That repair doubler did not fail, apparently, just cracks around it. To conclude the probable cause of China Airlines Flight 611 was repair doubler failure and exclude any discussion of a possible initial event of a ruptured open aft cargo door is biased reporting. It’s not a plot, just reporting pleasant interpretations to an industry that really wants to believe China Airlines Flight 611 and others were random acts of violence or one off bad repair jobs and that all the rest of the planes are safe and there is no industry wide mechanical problem of faulty wiring causing non plug cargo doors to rupture open in flight.
I’ve been actively on this cargo door thing since summer of 1995 when the internet gave me research access and the matches between Pan Am Flight 103 and United Airlines Flight 811 became very clear. I was not surprised when Trans World Airlines Flight 800 happened and matched it right away to United Airlines Flight 811. Then I learned about Air India Flight 182 many years earlier. And now China Airlines Flight 611.
Five early model Boeing 747s that had inflight breakups with many many evidence matches all centering around a cargo door that has characteristics similar to the China Airlines Flight 611 aft cargo door top piece.
Why has this discovery not become acknowledged? It’s wishful thinking by those involved it not be true.
Well, it is true.
Why have not aviation professionals reported the discovery to their safety personnel for their review and consideration? The evidence is there to read about and see.
But...everyone stands around and waits and I see Trans World Airlines Flight 800 happening, and then the other cargo door openings that don’t cause fatalities so are ignored, and now China Airlines Flight 611. And in about two more years, another early model Boeing 747 is reported to have disintegrated in flight with no warning leaving a sudden sound on the CVR followed by an abrupt power cut and one of the cargo doors will be shattered and split longitudinally with most of the door latching hardware missing. And it will be again be a bomb, or a missile, or improperly latched, or a fuel tank explosion with no ignition source but never known faulty Poly X wiring rupturing open a known poor design of a non plug cargo door.
It’s not a plot, there is no conspiracy, it’s just everyone wishing something which does not blame them caused the accident and trying hard to avoid doing any hard work that might point a finger of responsibility at them.
JBS>I repeat: Can anyone say why they believe bombs and center tank explosions were involved without telling me someone else’s opinion as proof? Can anyone show me my facts are wrong which lead to the wiring/cargo door conclusion for various Boeing 747 accidents? Can anyone get pictures of the bottom half of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611? Can anyone get a text description of the aft cargo door total pieces? Can anyone refer a member of the aviation press to me or corazon.com?
Cheers,
Barry