Dear PPrune: Let's see:
WW>For what its worth, €yesterday during the NTSB hearing on AS261 John Clark of the NTSB, while illustrating the importance of correct procedural practices, used a comparison and made the comment that poor maintenance years ago on the damaged tail, and then the repair being overlooked during maintenance periods, caused the cracks which most likely led to the Air China accident. The conversation was quickly changed away from the Air China incident.
Could one now say the cargo door theory is mute
Firehorse>But don't forget guys that we are still missing a fair chunk of the door in question.
JBS>The aft cargo door is shattered, in pieces, left very early, and a 'fair chunk' still missing and will remain so. The pieces match other open cargo door events.
The repair doubler is intact with 'cracks' around it.
Now which is more likely to be the initial structural failure event from the NTSB point of view while making conclusions two years ahead of the final report?
NTSB continues to also wishfully believe TWA 800 was an initial event of center tank explosion by issuing ADs to protect those fuel tanks from exploding. If they say it enough, maybe it will become true...like praying.
And no, one can not now say the cargo door theory is mute. I will always speak out. They even made a movie about it, "Rough Air" 2001 with Eric Roberts.
The wiring/cargo door explanation is not moot either.
Cheers,
Barry Smith
To:
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
From: John Barry Smith <
[email protected]>
Subject: AD on Fuel Tanks
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
Dear Aviation Safety Officials:
Regarding the latest AD from USA FAA on onboard inerting: Good idea.
Regarding the statement "like the one that downed a TWA Boeing 747 in 1996:
That is TWA 800 and the hardest evidence in the world says engine number 3 of TWA 800 became uncontained: a piece of jet engine made of the hardest substance in the world, a stator blade.
That hard evidence refute center fuel tank explosion as initial event and supports the wiring/cargo door explanation with number three becoming fodded and spitting out blades.
China 611 may have had aft cargo door pop so would not have the same evidence as TWA 800. There will be no engine blade stuck in the right horizontal stabilizer as was discovered in TWA 800.
Regardless of which door explosively decompressed the interior fuselage, the probable cause may well have been the same, faulty polyX wiring shorting on the door unlatch motor.
Below is email I've sent before on the earlier ADs to attempt to solve a problem that may or may not exist in other planes but did not exist in TWA 800.
The AD that needs to be written is all poly x wiring be removed or planes grounded.
The military did it. The civilians should to.
Sincerely,
John Barry Smith
And all the opinions of Loeb and Wildey will not change the location or discovery of that stator blade directly aft of engine three.
12 DEC 2002 The DFAA unveiled plans for adding an onboard system to make commercial airliners' fuel tanks safer and reduce the chance of catastrophic explosions like the one that downed a TWA Boeing 747 in 1996. Inexpensive and lightweight, the onboard inerting system works by pumping nitrogen-enriched air into fuel tanks, thereby reducing the oxygen in fuel vapors and reducing flammability. (AP)
At 9:43 PM -0700 9/3/02, John Barry Smith wrote:
To:
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
From: John Barry Smith <
[email protected]>
Subject: China Airlines Flight 611 cargo door strange areas...
Cc:
Bcc:
Dear FAA: 3 Sep 02
All the ADs in the world trying to make Trans World Airlines Flight 800 a center tank explosion as the initial event will not make that stator blade in the right horizontal stabilizer go away which shows engine 3 uncontainment and therefore makes the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation a plausible, reasonable explanation with precedent of United Airlines Flight 811.
'Ron Wojnar, the FAA's deputy director of aircraft certification services, explained that submersion would prevent any sparks from igniting fuel vapors.'
"The Paris-bound Boeing 747 exploded in a fireball at 13,700 feet, minutes after leaving John F. Kennedy International Airport. All 230 people on board were killed. "All of our pumps that were on Flight 800 were recovered and not found to be contributors to the crash," Ward said."
Let's see, the NTSB says center tank exploded as initial event with undetermined ignition source, FAA says check wiring around center tank and wiring for fuel pumps: but Trans World Airlines Flight 800 fuel pumps were OK. And FAA and NTSB never suggested checking wiring to cargo door although the photographs show shattered and torn door with precedent of United Airlines Flight 811.
Now it appears another cargo door in an early model Boeing 747 has ruptured in flight, China Airlines Flight 611.
It appears that Kay Yong of ASC, Neil Schalekamp of FAA, and Ken Smart of AAIB were open to apparently admit that the cargo door ruptured open inflight and the reasons may be a repair doubler failure, or a bomb, or a center tank explosion. I offer the United Airlines Flight 811 reason, wiring.
MICHAEL A. DORNHEIM
MD>Investigators have recovered the upper and lower parts of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611 still connected to the surrounding fuselage. A middle portion of the door hasn't been recovered yet.
JBS>That is assuming the missing piece(s) are only one; the middle may be in more than one piece.
MD>Aft cargo door is located on the lower right fuselage behind the wing, and was recovered in several pieces. The upper part (top photo) is still hinged to the fuselage, and the lower part (green structure, below) is latched in place next to cargo rollers.
JBS>Conjecture: can’t be sure about ‘latched in place’ until see it latched in place.
MD>Even though both pieces are attached, Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council (ASC) has not ruled out the door as a cause, and in fact "we are paying more attention to it now than before," said Kay Yong, ASC managing director.
JBS>The cat is out of the bag. If and when they follow the evidence of what ruptured open cargo doors in flight do to Boeing 747s, it will become apparent it has happened at least four times before. Not ruling out the cargo door as a cause is to imply it could be the cause; such an obvious deduction but many are loathe to admit it.
MD> "There are some strange areas that we can't explain right now; we need more evidence." ASC officials believe the aft fuselage of the Boeing 747-200, also known as Section 46, was the first area to come apart, and the aft cargo door is on the aft fuselage ( AW&ST Aug. 5, p. 41).
JBS>Yes, strange areas. Yes, need more evidence.
MD>The main thrust of the investigation is still a 21.7 X 16.7-ft. segment of Section 46 that includes the bulk cargo door, which is to the rear of the aft cargo door. Laboratory analysis has confirmed there are fatigue cracks up to 9 in. long around a doubler. The doubler was used to repair tail-strike damage in 1980. The preliminary lab report needs further discussion before it is released, Yong said.
JBS>Lets’ see: The cracks did not crack, the doubler did not fail: The cargo door is shattered...and the main thrust is the.....doubler? Of course. Note that it is Mike Dornhiem saying main thrust, not the actual thruster: ASC.
MD>Recovery efforts are focusing on trying to find the right side of Section 46, including the aftmost passenger doors 4R and 5R. The aircraft did not have a passenger deck cargo door. Most of the left side has already been recovered. The ASC has started moving wreckage from the Penghu Islands to Tao Yuan AFB near Taipei, and plans to make a two-dimensional reconstruction of the rear fuselage and perhaps part of the forward fuselage. A 3D reconstruction may then be made to better explain findings to the public, Yong said.
JBS>Looking for the right side, the starboard side, the aft cargo door side, the shattered side, the side with precedent. They are on the right track. At least a 2D and maybe a 3D, that's very good.
Now, to the examination of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611:
Items identified:
Top hinge.
Outline of pressure relief doors.
Jagged metal at tear area about one third down.
Door actuator motor.
Pull in hook mechanism.
Bottom sill.
Cargo floor ball mats.
Torque tubes.
Thin fiberglass internal skin of door.
Non parallel lines of bottom of door and sill.
Some wiring inside door.
Cargo rollers.
Top: Vertical tear lines at aft and forward leading edge of the cargo door.
Missing pressure relief doors.
Longitudinal split about one third down from top.
Intact hinge and door attached to top fuselage skin.
Bottom:
Straight torque tubes apparently
Leading edge of door missing.
Edge of door and edge of fuselage sill not parallel.
Latches not seen in photo.
Some internal door cover missing and bent.
Analysis:
Top of aft cargo door matches other ruptured open cargo doors in flight, such as United Airlines Flight 811 and Pan Am Flight 103, in having vertical tear lines at aft and forward leading edge of the cargo door, missing pressure relief doors, longitudinal split about one third down from top and intact hinge and door attached to top fuselage skin.
Bottom of door with its attachment to sill and locked latches (if confirmed) matches Trans World Airlines Flight 800.
Conclusion: Can not yet rule in or rule out the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation explanation for China Airlines Flight 611. Need more evidence, such as the actual middle parts with its latching hardware, before determination can be made.
JBS>For Trans World Airlines Flight 800:
Exhibit 8A, Page 11, paragraph 3, discussing results of engine 3 disassembly, "Of the 46 fan blades in the fan rotor, 21 blades with complete or partial airfoils and 6 root sections were recovered. All of the fan blades had sooting on the convex airfoil surfaces. Most of the full length airfoils were bent rearward and the tips outboard of the outer midspan shroud were bent forward slightly. About half of the fan blades had impact damage to the leading and trailing edges. Almost all of the impact damage to the airfoils could be matched to contact with the midspan shroud on an adjacent blade. One full length blade had four soft body impacts along the leading edge and a partial airfoil had a soft body impact, which had some streaking extending rearward."
Docket No. SA-516, Exhibit No. 7A, Structures Group Report, page 33: "5.1 Horizontal Stabilizer, "Some of the items found in the horizontal stabilizer are sections of seat track, a stator blade from turbine section, and glitter." On 5.1.1 Right Horizontal Stabilizer, page 34, "An engine stator blade from turbine section penetrated the upper honeycomb surface near the outboard trailing edge.
From AAR 00/03 for Trans World Airlines Flight 800:
1.12.4 Engines ‘No evidence of uncontainment, case rupture, fire, penetration of an object from outside into the engine, or preimpact damage was found in any of the engines.’
JBS>The engine obviously came apart in the air throwing the broken from FOD blades everywhere including the right horizontal stabilizer just aft of number three, there is nothing ‘soft’ inside the engine so the ‘soft body impacts’ came from without, and sooting means abnormal fire inside the engine.
To say ‘No evidence of uncontainment, case rupture, fire, penetration of an object from outside into the engine, or preimpact damage was found in any of the engines.’ is as close to a lie as NTSB can come and still not be laughed out of the room.
But then, having one engine have FOD and the others not would conflict with the center tank as initial event explanation. Because, how could engine three have FOD and the others not? They were four huge vacuum cleaners up three nearby a mystery explosion. To say they had nothing negates the whole explosion explanation, especially a center tank explosion while engines at full climb power.
That stator blade in the right horizontal stabilizer of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 will always be there and it will always mean uncontainment of engine three and that will always mean ruptured open nearby cargo door inflight.
And all the opinions of Loeb and Wildey will not change the location or discovery of that stator blade directly aft of engine three.
Regardless, an explanation is needed for the two rupture holes at the midspans of the forward cargo door of Trans World Airlines Flight 800. An honest person would say the center fuel tank explosion blew it open. But they never do. Except one guy, Neil Schalekamp of FAA who quickly recanted and stated the NTSB point of view:
Manager in the Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, dated 30 January 98. Neil Schalekamp:
"While no one scenario has been categorically proven to the the cause, it is believed, based upon available data, that the center tank (CWT) explosion preceded any separation of the forward cargo door. The paint markings and structural deformation that you cite, do indicate an outward explosion, generally accepted to be caused by the explosion of the CWT. Furthermore, you mentioned that the forward cargo door was recovered a considerable distance from the rest of the structure. This could be due to its aerodynamic characteristics and prevailing winds at the time of the accident, rather than attributing this as the primary cause of the accident."
JBS>Shortly thereafter, nine days later, he changed his tune after I emailed his response to NTSB: Note his suddenly changed attitude.
NS>"It appears that you are determined to impose your theory about the events that led to this unfortunate accident upon the official investigators."
"Please take note that this office will no longer be responding to your further inquires about these same concerns, including your February 6 and February 9 letters that I just received."
"The evidence from the reconstructed 747 airplane reveals that the forward cargo door was attached to the forward section of the airplane and was latched in the closed position when this section of the airplane impacted the ocean."
JBS>Well, an honest man even if only for a few days.
Ken Smart, the current head of AAIB, has said about Pan Am Flight 103,
X-From_:
[email protected] Thu Apr 18 09:41:49 2002
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:41:27 +0100
To: John Barry Smith <
[email protected]>
From: Ken Smart <
[email protected]>
Subject: Mr. Bill Tucker/wiring/cargo door for PA 103 message!
Cc: "Tucker, Bill" <
[email protected]>
Dear Mr Smith
Thank you for your hypothesis on the immediate cause of the PanAm 103.
During the first five days of the investigation into PanAm 103 the AAIB were pursuing two general lines of inquiry. The first was that the aircraft had suffered a structural failure in-flight as a result of a defect or induced structural overload, the second was that an improvised explosive devise was responsible.
When the evidence of an improvised explosive device was found, the investigation nevertheless concentrated on discovering whether there was any evidence that a structural weakness had been exploited. In that respect the fwd. cargo door was the subject of very detailed examination. All the specialists involved were satisfied that the fwd. cargo door was correctly latched when the device detonated and that the subsequent structural failures where secondary events.
All structures by nature of their design have paths of least resistance when subjected to abnormal loading. The structure in the vacinity of large strengthened apertures such as the fwd. cargo door provide very good examples of this. The window belt on pressurised aircraft provides another and similar example. You should not be surprised to find similar patterns of breakup in structural failures that emanate from very different causes. The important differences lie in the detailed examination rather than the macro features.
I'm sorry to be the one to pour cold water on your hypothesis, but the scenario that you suggest was the subject of very considerable examination in the early stages of the Lockerbie investigation.
Ken Smart
Chief Inspector of Air Accidents
JBS>I evaluated this letter at length and responded to him pointing out that essentially he said the cargo door structural failure occurred in flight but was secondary. I then argued that the only difference of opinion we had was ‘when’ it occurred. I pointed out the at initial event time the large hole where the forward cargo door used to be appeared as well as the 20 inch shatter hole on the port side (According to AAIB report itself). So, by the evidence, holes on both side of nose occurred at the same time. He never replied, most bomb guys never do when confronted with the evidence. Note how quick the AAIB rushed to judgment, five days. The NTSB narrative has the ‘go’ team thinking bomb before they took off from Andrews AFB that same night of the event.
KS>'All the specialists involved were satisfied that the fwd. cargo door was correctly latched when the device detonated and that the subsequent structural failures where secondary events.'
JBS>Another assumption that once assumed, it's bomb forever. 'When the device detonated...' It's like assuming from day one that JFK was killed by two or more people and then all the conspiracy 'facts' make sense. It's a false initial premise.
Dear FAA , it's never too late to pursue safety related items when presented to you with evidence:
shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for early model Boeing 747s.
Cheers,
John Barry Smith
(831) 659 3552
541 Country Club Drive,
Carmel Valley, CA 93924
www.corazon.com
[email protected]