Whauet>First, what is your opinion on the destruction of UTA 772?
On September 19, 1989 - a DC 10 from the airline UTA (flight 772) disappeared from the radar monitors wile flying over the Sahara desert in Niger's. The cause of the sudden disappearance from the radar monitors, was a midair explosion - caused by a bomb - that killed all 171 passengers and crew onboard. The DC-10 was enroute Brazzaville - N'Djamena - to it's final destination in Paris (Charles-de-Gaulle airport (CDG)).
Accident description - Status: Final
Date: 19 SEP 1989 Time: 13.59 Type: <
http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/352.shtml>McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 Operator: Union de Transportes Aériens - UTA Registration: N54629 C/n: 46852/125 Year built: 1973 Total airframe hrs: 60276 hours Cycles: 14777 cycles Engines: 3 General Electric CF6-50C2R Crew: 15 fatalities / 15 on board Passengers: 156 fatalities / 156 on board Total: 171 fatalities / 171 on board Location: Ténéré desert, 16 54'N 11 59'E (<
http://aviation-safety.net/database/country/5U.shtml>Niger) Phase: Climb Nature: Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: N'Djamena Destination airport: Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG) Flightnumber: 772
Remarks:
The DC-10 was operating as UTA Flight 772 on the Brazzaville-N'Djamena-Paris route. The aircraft took off from N'Djamena at 13.13h and climbed to a cruising altitude of FL350. At 13.59 an explosion on board caused the aircraft to crash into the desert. The explosive device was located at location 13R in the cargo hold. The device was most probably hidden in baggage, placed aboard at Brazzaville. Possible groups responsible for the explosion are the Islamic Jihad group (demanding the freedom of a Shi'ite Muslim in Israel) or the Secret Chadian Resistance. Co-incidental on March 10, 1984 another UTA aircraft was destroyed when a bomb exploded; in this case the bomb exploded during embarkation at N'Djamena. CONCLUSIONS: "
DC-10 flight UTA 772, Brazzaville N'Djamena - Paris, was destroyed by an explosion on l9 September 1989, forty-six minutes after take-off from N'Djamena, while cruising at flight level 350 in totally normal conditions.
That destruction was due to an explosive charge placed in a container in location 13-R in the forward cargo hold.
The Investigation Commission assert that the most plausible hypothesis is that the explosive charge was inside baggage loaded at Brazzaville Airport.
Observations made shortly after the accident on Brazzaville Airport made it clear that, at that time, the airport security measures in force were not in accordance with the ICAO standards and recommended practices (Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and Civil Aviation Security Manual (DOC 8973))."
JBS>I need more evidence. I read in press reports that evidence of a bomb was found in a suitcase (sound familiar) in the forward cargo compartment and that Libya had accepted responsibility and paid compensation. When aft cargo doors rupture in DC10s they usually lose control or partial control but rarely come apart in the air so completely. I also read the cargo doors where intact. (Unlike China Airlines Flight 611) But, my specialty is the Boeing 747 inflight breakup events and only use others that have cargo door or metal fatigue problems. It’s amazing to me that this crash has generated so little interest or anger.
Whauet> Say the ignition source was near a corner of the center fuel tank - am I incorrect in thinking that the primary damage would be closer to the ignition source and not uniform?
JBS>Good question and the answer is hard to find in the NTSB AAR for Trans World Airlines Flight 800. Since they had no ignition source it was hard to start a fire and name a location without one so they muddied the water as stated below in excerpt: Note that this is Jim Wildey’s explanation, a metallurgist, not an accident investigator. Al Dickinson was the investigator in charge and he was invisible. Note that the wreckage distribution showed that the first pieces to depart the aircraft were from the forward cargo compartment and the trajectory study showed the first parts came from just forward of the wing: Docket Number SA-516, Exhibit No. 22A, Trajectory Study, page 3: "The wreckage distribution shows that parts were initially shed from the area just forward of the wing."
JBS>The center tank is in the wing, not forward of it.
So where in the center tank did the overpressure first occur?
I vote for “This initial fuselage skin crack at stringer 40 right propagated forward at an angle to the left (toward the bottom center of the airplane), then branched circumferentially left and right, and then (from the left branch) propagated back toward the front spar on the lower left side.”
This appears to put the outward force to the left side of the plane and the bottom center. Note the wreckage of the left side of the plane is smooth and the starboard side shattered which refutes this analysis as the initial event. The shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation agrees with the below but states the sequence started after the forward cargo door ruptured open giving the evidence as shown by the photographs.
From AAR 00/03>
As discussed in section 1.16.3, the Metallurgy Structures/Sequencing Group’s sequencing study concluded (in part because pieces from inside the CWT were among the first pieces to depart the airplane) that the initial event in the breakup sequence was an overpressure event543 within the CWT and that the earliest piece of the airplane to be disturbed was SWB3. Specifically, the Sequencing Group concluded that SWB3 fractured at its upper end and that overpressure within the CWT caused it to rotate forward about its lower end. As the upper end of SWB3 rotated forward, it impacted the aft surface of the front spar, leaving distinct witness marks across most of the front spar. Analysis of the wreckage further indicated that when SWB3 impacted the front spar, it initiated multiple fractures along the upper chord of the front spar. Overpressure escaping from the CWT caused the front spar to bulge forward on either side of the two potable water bottles attached next to each other at the center of the front spar. The upper end of the front spar then completely separated from the upper skin of the WCS. After the upper end of the front spar was completely separated from the upper skin, the overpressure remaining within the CWT forced the WCS lower skin and the forward end of the keel beam downward. Downward loading of the forward end of the keel beam greatly increased the stress in the ring chord and in the fuselage skin adjacent to the front spar. As the keel beam was forced downward, cracking propagated down through the lower pressure bulkhead and ring chord and immediately entered the fuselage skin at stringer 40 right. This initial fuselage skin crack at stringer 40 right propagated forward at an angle to the left (toward the bottom center of the airplane), then branched circumferentially left and right, and then (from the left branch) propagated back toward the front spar on the lower left side. Thus, at this point, the fuselage skin had cracked 541 The remainder of SWB2 was found in the green zone (the wreckage zone farthest from JFK along the airplanes flightpath, and, therefore, containing the last pieces to depart the airplane). The manufacturing door was only lightly sooted, whereas the sooting on the remainder of SWB2 was moderate to heavy, indicating that the remaining portion of the WCS was subjected to a more substantial fire after the early departure of the manufacturing door.
Therefore, the large fireball described by some witnesses could not have been caused by the initial destruction of the CWT. For additional discussion about the nature of the reported fireball, see section 2.2.2.1.
As previously mentioned, the Sequencing Group defined an overpressure event as one that would create sufficient pressure in a relatively short time to a level at which the structural integrity of the CWT is compromised.
Analysis 261 Aircraft Accident Report
around three sides of a large piece of fuselage structure (including the piece identified after recovery operations as iLF6Ai); only the side adjacent to the lower pressure bulkhead (beneath the front spar) remained attached to the other structure. Downward loading (from normal cabin pressurization and vented CWT overpressure) on this weakened fuselage piece was transmitted to the forward end of the keel beam, which caused it to separate from the WCS lower skin panel and fracture about 22 inches aft of the mid spar. The separation of the large piece of fuselage created a large opening in the fuselage, just forward of the front spar, through which pieces of the front spar, SWB3, and the manufacturing access door from SWB2 exited the airplane. (The apparent forward and upward motion of the manufacturing access door after it separated from SWB2 at its lower edge indicates that, at that time, the pressure on the aft surface of the door was greater than on the forward surface, consistent with venting of the overpressure forward of SWB2 through the large opening in the bottom of the fuselage.) The sequencing study determined that the breakup sequence was initiated by an overpressure inside the CWT. Because there was no evidence that a high-energy explosive device detonated in this (or any other) area of the airplane, this overpressure could only have been caused by a fuel/air explosion in the CWT.
JBS>Below from NTSB AAR 00/03. This section is again written by the metallurgist, Jim Wildey. Note that most of the door hardware is still missing and therefore could not be examined for mechanical damage. Note that there are ten latches, not eight, and without the other two latches having status confirmed, an open cargo door at the midspans can not be ruled out. The absence of the manual locking handle and two latches coupled with the photograph of the outward petal shaped rupture holes at the midspan latch certainly refute the conclusion of: ‘This evidence indicates that the door was closed and locked at impact.’
AAR 00/03>2.2.1.1 Consideration of a Structural Failure and Decompression Close examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of preexisting airplane structural faults (such as fatigue, corrosion, or mechanical damage) that could have contributed to the in-flight breakup. The examination revealed that the structure did have minimal preexisting corrosion damage, none of which could have led to or affected the breakup of the airplane. Small fatigue cracks were found in some parts of the airplane, including in the lower chord of the front spar and in the shear ties for the floor beams and stiffeners at the front spar; however, none of these cracks had coalesced into a propagating crack that could have led to the in-flight breakup. Further, although the joint between fuselage sections 41 and 42 on some 747s purportedly had been subject to manufacturing assembly problems, there was no evidence that it had separated in any locations before impact.
It was also suggested that the breakup could have been initiated by the in-flight separation of the forward cargo door. However, all eight of the latching cams along the bottom of the door (and some pieces of the cargo door itself) remained attached to the pins along the lower door sill, and there were no indications of preimpact failure of the hinge at the top of the door. This evidence indicates that the door was closed and locked at impact. Further, deformation and fracture patterns on the door matched damage to the adjacent fuselage structure, confirming that the door was in the closed position at the time of impact. Therefore, the Safety Board concludes that the in-flight breakup of TWA flight 800 was not initiated by a preexisting condition resulting in a structural failure and decompression.
HotDog?>
Well Barry, you have finally convinced me, like the rest of the world. Adieu, mon ami.
JBS>Have I not heard this before? Am I having a deja vu? HotDog saying good bye...hmmm. that rings a bell, let me check the ole archives...
HD>Well Barry, I give up. It is obvious that no amount of sense will ever shake your convictions and theories about the 747 cargo doors and correcting your mistakes and misconceptions about aircraft systems, is a complete waste of time. As I really don't want to shatter your dreams, I bow out. Have a good day Major.
HD>posted 10th August 2002 01:51 _
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Barry, I give up.
JBS> Quite all right, I understand.
HD>It is obvious that no amount of sense will ever shake your convictions and theories about the 747 cargo doors and correcting your mistakes and misconceptions about aircraft systems, is a complete waste of time. As I really don't want to shatter your dreams, I bow out.
JBS>Good bye. Thanks for not shattering my dreams.
HD>Have a good day Major.
JBS>You too
JBS Today>Well, Hotdog, I understand. Come back after you are refreshed. I’m just getting started. Good questions from Whatuet and others are invigorating, that’s for sure.
But while I dilly dally, dawdle, and debate with myself, I think about ‘being crazy’. I think about being called paranoid. It’s not every day one is called a serious mental illness.
HD>Stagger, you misunderstand me. I'm not having a shot at you, I'm offering you and everyone else ammunition to debunk that eccentric gentleman suffering from Paranoia.
JBS>Eccentric too! Well, let me consider the saneness or the insanity of the two positions: Bomb or cargo door.
Cargo door is the mechanical explanation with a solid precedent of United Airlines Flight 811. I say no plots, no conspiracy, no money changing hands, and no boom boxes that go boom. Mechanical causes are most common for airplane accidents. I would call that the down to earth explanation, the feet on the ground explanation. I would call that the sane explanation.
The bomb explanation has flimsy precedent of Air India Flight 182 and required plots, conspiracy, money changing, and boom boxes that go boom. Sabotage is a most rare cause of airplane accidents. I would call that the paranoia explanation, the looney explanation. It requires belief that strangers are out to kill the person and do it by talking behind their backs in secret hideouts using codes. I would call that the insane explanation.
What’s interesting to me is that the person who believes in the mechanical explanation is called ‘eccentric’ or suffering from paranoia by the person who believes in conspiracy and plots from strangers, yet the mechanical person does not call the conspiracy plot believer nuts, just misguided and afraid.
A person who believes in conspiracy plots calls someone who doesn’t, nuts. Hmmm..
I have come to realize that if most everyone is crazy, a sane man will be called nuts because he will be different, he will be alone, he will be saying contrary things to the agreed upon crazy truth. History is full of persons like that. In fact every new idea that supplants an old one starts with one person and he will be alone and that starts the sequence. No, wrong, crazy, ignore, go away, attack, ask questions.
If I were ever persuaded that bombs blew Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky, then you can call me crazy and I will be guilty as charged. To believe any bomb scenario is an exercise in suspended disbelief. I love the mach stem theory in AAIB 2.90. It has a mild bit of energy going though a suitcase, through a container, out the 20 inch hole in the fuselage and the rest of the energy bouncing through ducts, off walls and into a compartment gaining energy all the time so that it eventually blows the nose of the plane. The theory refutes basic energy laws of nature. Energy decreases as it travels and is absorbed the air or material usually giving off heat. All aspects of the bomb explanation are looney like that to me and yet the gullible, that’s just about everybody, just grins and nods. Every aspect falls apart under scrutiny. Here in this forum a member said the trial and the conclusion was not based on solid reasoning. I pick apart the actual forensic evidence.
And a person who believes it was a bomb involving conspirators, plots, several countries, improvised explosive devices from cassette audio players, three flights in two planes, etc, is calling me eccentric and suffering from paranoia because I believe a machine did what machines do, break. And it's happened before and since.
But just for a second, let me think like a bomb guy, let’s see, these one or two Libyans who are smart enough to acquire a timer from Switzerland, a cassette player from someplace, make a bomb, sneak it past one set of security people, fly it to another large airport with another set of security people, dogs, etc, and change planes and fly again to another large airport with another set of security people, change planes, and take off and an hour later the bomb goes off. Whoa, I would think that any terrorists smart enough to plan and execute all that would certainly be able to detonate the bomb when and where they wanted. The timer/fuze would not be altitude because it went high and did not go off but timed.
So when to detonate is the question a bomb guy would ask himself of the terrorist. Dozens of hours later when the planes might be on the ground for servicing or held for delays and thus negate the whole misty motive for the bombing? No, most real bombs in real airplanes go off on the very next flight, the only exception that comes to mind is Air India Flight 182 which had another miraculous three flights before that ‘bomb’ went off. The terrorists who put bombs on planes want them to go off right away to avoid any unforeseen events, such as going over land instead of water because of the weather, or engine problems and the plane turns back.
So, I’m laughing at these smooth smart terrorists who suddenly turn into Keystone Kops when it comes to the payoff, the detonation. It just doesn’t make sense, which about sums up the whole bomb explanation. But I don’t call those that believe in that nonsense crazy, just misguided by believing without evidence and scared and looking for reassurance that it can’t happen to them because security has been ‘beefed up’ to stop those evil foreign terrorists.
And tell me again the motive? Ha!
Bomb thinking always make me snort with derision. I get real serious with mechanical explanations that follow the basic laws of nature, the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
Cheers,
Barry