DD>Remain focussed on the facts and try and place the burden of proof upon the investigating authorities and manufacturer - to disprove your theories.
JBS>Roger dodger. Hard to do when they refuse to engage in conversation or discussion via email.
DD>But always be sure to take on board and acknowledge any proof (or just evidence) to the contrary - even to the point of pursuing it - and its veracity - with the same vigour you have for your theories.
JBS>Well spoken DD and it is an attitude that I try to follow: Give equal consideration to all plausible possibilities. In my Smith AARs, I have laid out and examined all the possibilities and given the for and against evidence. I had to rule out bomb and missile for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 as well as center tank as initial event. Ruling in causes is very difficult when the actual evidence is absent such as compressed air or a fraction of an inch of burnt wiring in literally miles of the stuff. All the Smith AARs have as much space given for and against the bombs, missile, center tank explosions and others. Each AAR has all the premises listed, discussion, conclusions and sources given. It’s very unwieldy, specific, and long but that’s what scientific documents are supposed to be. They are not a novels. I did not want to do what the authorities are doing, making a prosecutorial case for a villain and omitting any contrary evidence that points to another. Pan Am Flight 103 omits any discussion or pictures of the starboard side of the nose. Trans World Airlines Flight 800 omits any discussion of a hull rupture in flight. Air India Flight 182 omits all pictures of the agreed upon explosion location point in the forward cargo compartment. China Airlines Flight 611 is so far objective but the press is doing the prosecution of the repair doubler and omitting any discussion of the shattered aft cargo door. Not even a whisper about the door although the ASC has specifically pointed out the strange evidence of the door.
Zealots always defeat their cause by lies, cheats, exaggerations, and fudges. I have to constantly fight the temptation to use those techniques to get my point across. For instance, a contributor asked where the 3.5 PSI came from for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and it took me an hour of so looking for it. I was tempted to ignore it or just say it’s true and leave out the source. It turns out in the thousands of page of NTSB documents for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 it’s one line in one exhibit of a public docket while absent in the actual AAR and its appendices.
I’m tempted to say that engine number three fell apart from the other engines for Air India Flight 182 because one engine did fall apart and that engine was found near the engine number three strut, but...that does not make that engine the number three so I have to say probably engine number three.
So, I ask for evidence to the contrary for China Airlines Flight 611 that the aft cargo door ruptured in flight. So far, the evidence is that it did. Why it did is another mystery. I offer United Airlines Flight 811 as a precedent but will listen of course to others such as JAL 123.
I still leave open missile or bomb or repair doubler failure for China Airlines Flight 611. Any more plausible explanations for an inflight breakup of an early model Boeing 747 that leaves a sudden sound on the CVR followed by an abrupt power cut? I don’t pick the flight numbers, the evidence does. If anyone knows of another early model Boeing 747 that fits the above evidence, let me know and I will examine it carefully.
The larger issue is wiring. The symptoms are being blamed when the initial cause of shorted wiring occurs. Fires start, yaw dampers oscillate, cargo doors open, autopilots disconnect, attitude gyros spin down, and engines fall off, all actual symptoms of plane crashes which were blamed on oxygen cannisters starting on fire, sticky rudder valves, bombs, missiles suicidal pilots, fuel tank explosions, pilot error, and corroded fuse pins, symptoms which may have been caused by shorted wiring based on other similar accidents in which the aircraft returned more or less safely and the actual cause could be determined by the evidence and not guessed at with wishful thinking.
HD>Barry, I have drawn the attention of the Boeing Company to your theories. Hope this will be helpful to your cause. They might even send you a picture of the aft cargo door from CA611.
JBS>Well, thank you sir, I would be glad to talk to any Boeing engineers or safety personnel. I have been emailing them with my research for years to no response. I’ve even written to their attorneys, Perkins and Coie in Seattle. No response. Boeing is a wall.
The goal is to get the actual problem fixed so that it does not reoccur. That means an actual mechanic actually tears out or replaces the known faulty Poly X wiring and that the cargo doors become plug like all the other doors. For Boeing personnel to do that they have to be authorized by FAA. For FAA to order that, NTSB has to show a safety issue. For NTSB to do that, the accident investigators have to make findings as to probable cause. For the investigators to do that they have to have documentation by the senior metallurgist who is James Wildey II who has been in on these events since 1985 with Air India Flight 182. He has consistently said the cargo door for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was normal, all latched, and locked until water impact, even though that finding is very clearly contrary to the actual evidence of blown out and shattered metal in the wreckage reconstruction. And for China Airlines Flight 611, another shattered cargo door goes to Wildey for his conclusions.
But this time is different. Kay Yong is there. ASC looks pretty good so far. I think he will be open minded and really wants to retrieve all those missing pieces of that aft cargo door as well as well as every other piece of metal aft of the wing of China Airlines Flight 611. I predict the NTSB report on the top part of the aft cargo door for China Airlines Flight 611 will come back saying that no preexisting cracks were present, no corrosion was present, and the hinge was intact giving the impression the cargo door was normal while omitting all the matches to other ruptured cargo door events such as vertical tears, missing pressure relief doors, and intact hinge. Again, no plot, no conspiracy, just reports from someone who is doing what he perceives to be in the best interest for all and that interest is not leading investigators into an industry wide problem that affects the number one export of his country but does imply that the problem could be sloppy repair work done by foreign airline personnel. There is probably no way to prove that the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611 opened in flight with just the top part. The midspan latches (if retrieved) might show evidence of bluing which indicates extreme pressure; gouging on the locking sectors would indicate the cams tried to open; evidence which is not conclusive but is indicative of an open cargo door in flight. For NTSB to say that there is no evidence that the aft cargo door ruptured open in flight is correct since the evidence is missing. It would be another case of why travel down a path that leads to potential disaster when this other path of poor repair doubler failure leads to peace and quiet and there where cracks around the doubler, right? so there you are, case closed. But, no plot to hide the ‘truth’, just prosecuting a suspect that eases everyone’s mind except the poor saps who made that repair 22 years ago.
The fact that two of the victims of China Airlines Flight 611 were permanent residents of the USA and thus able to sue is interesting in that it allows somewhere along the line the give and take of court proceedings. This time there is no bomb terrorist hate hysteria going on and objective analysis of mechanical causes may be considered although these things are usually settled out of court.
Regardless of the cause of China Airlines Flight 611, the forward cargo door has ruptured in flight for Air India Flight 182, United Airlines Flight 811, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800. I again suggest the cause is a common one, the same as United Airlines Flight 811, electrical.
I’ve thought of some more reasons why errors of history should be corrected: Justice. DNA is clearing up many errors of history. And I know that the Libyan guy in jail and the three accused for Air India Flight 182 are innocent because there were no crimes. They may have done crimes before of after the airplane crash but they did not do a crime on that day, nobody did.
Cheers,
Barry