China Airlines B747 Crash (Merged)

[Trash Hauler]

Volume said

Quote

Let´s hope for some new facts on the China Air accident before the last member leaves this JBS-cargo-door-topic ...

Unquote

Is Firehorse still around. Have they recovered any more of the aircraft or is the search been scaled down. More info desired.

Trash Hauler

[JohnBarrySmith]

Volume>The damage to the engine after sucking in a body must not be very large, and not even be detectable after the engine felt down 40000 ft from the sky.

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.

That broken top part of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611 will always be there also.

Volume>Of course the Airbus door post from JBS hat nothing to do with the China Airlines crash, but nevertheless some of your remarks are not quite correct :

JBS>Of course the Airbus door post from NTSB had a lot to do with China Airlines Flight 611 crash: A very slight pressure differential can cause an explosive decompression that kills. When the differential goes from .11 to 8.9 the explosive decompression is much more than the mild one on the ground for the Airbus but enough to cause the nose or tail of a 747 to come off. To the people next to the Airbus door, it was an explosion event enough to propel several hundred pounds of human many feet away.

The point is that most people have no idea of the power of explosive decompression in an aircraft at altitude. The Airbus events show a weak one is still powerful enough to toss much weight around. Many times I have received posts from those that think of bomb and see huge explosion and think of explosive decompression and think of a bang and everything goes on normally. For Pan Am Flight 103 small hole on port side, the bomb side, and yet perceived as huge explosion, while huge hole on starboard side at same time is ignored.

For China Airlines Flight 611, more missing fuselage on starboard side the door side and ignored, and less missing stuff on port side, the doubler side, and yet amplified.

The effects of explosive decompression are underestimated. Even by De Hav Comet, Boeing, and former McDonnell Douglas after all these years.

Regarding FOD by bodies: Of course the authorities would not comment on that event because of the emotional horror, but it is important. In the Navy the J57s were cleaned by throwing walnut shells into the intakes at full power, or so I was told. The story of civilian fatalities by ingesting is that it’s only happened twice, one was a midair over New York City in about 1962 and the other was United Airlines Flight 811.

One survivor of United Airlines Flight 811 emailed me that he saw blood on the vertical stabilizer after landing. Another email had the story that the engines were removed and tossed in the bay by the Honolulu airport.

We’ll never know because officially we will never be told for deference to the families. Vital evidence is ignored although the reference to ‘soft body impacts’ may be code for ingested bodies for Trans World Airlines Flight 800. Nothing is said about it in United Airlines Flight 811 report, just FOD.

The main point is at least nine bodies are never recovered when that cargo door pops in flight. They may be ingested in engines three and four as the FOD reaches that far. The unusual thing is not that the bodies were not recovered from the water but from land around Lockerbie. No belt buckles, no skulls, no leg bones and yet they scoured that area and found tiny pieces of plastic.

The conjecture from the 103 report is that the bodies were above the wing and were vaporized when the wing hit the ground.

Well, maybe, but facts show baggage was in the inlet cowl of engine number three and the passengers were sitting just above that baggage compartment and the hole in the wreckage distribution shows a huge hole appearing at initial event time that covers both the forward cargo compartment and the passenger cabin above it.

It would be interesting to match the recovered bodies of China Airlines Flight 611 to the seating plan and see if there are missing passenger bodies above the aft cargo door area.

TH>Is Firehorse still around. Have they recovered any more of the aircraft or is the search been scaled down. More info desired.

JBS>I second that, more facts please. Even more gruel. Or....can Kay Yong be persuaded to release another update on what’s going so everyone can know. As it stands now the repair doubler is the guilty party and the longer it stays guilty the harder it is to reverse if facts show that is the case.

Cheers,
Barry

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>’Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep.’ Buffalo Springfield.

Who’s watching?

I think and assume everyone and everybody that has an interest in a subject is checking it out. True power seeks answers; faux power avoids them.

When my stats gave me a breakdown of the computers that accessed corazon.com and their locations, I had dozens and dozens of requests every week from FAA, NASA, Boeing in two locations, Seattle and St. Louis, and NTSB. So I knew they they knew about the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for Boeing 747 accidents.

Search engines direct anyone to the site that just puts in Boeing 747 Crashes. After an accident the hits go way up.

Is PPRuNe being watched, monitored, and recorded? I would hope so as some of the information is very important.

So, the Secret Service thing about me is to weed out the wheat from the chaff. Those contributors who post slurs, bad information, and wrong conclusions to cause dissension while remaining anonymous will be deterred when they discover they may be held accountable for their comments and they usually disappear fast. I call them “Chatroom Anarchists” and are the chaff.

The contributors who care about aviation safety, see nothing unpatriotic or treasonous about posting in a forum discussing mechanical explanations for machines coming apart, and will certainly discuss who they are and their background if requested, will stay. They are the wheat.

Below are a small excerpt of my stats for corazon.com for last week:

(I don’t know what all the numbers mean but I do know that this PPRuNe forum is read by many who seek further information and go to corazon.com to try to find it. (I know the site is hard to navigate, it just grew over years and I’m afraid if I try to reorganize it the links will all be lost. The search engine helps and most of the conclusions are supported in the Smith AAR pdf files for download for later reading.)

Cheers,
Barry

Referrer Report
---------------
Listing referring URLs, sorted by the number of requests.

#reqs: URL
-----: ---
1257: http://www.corazon.com/
602: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php 78:http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54410&perpage=15&pagenumber=33
30: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=608516
27: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=608271
15: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=608332
11: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=610022
11: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=608232
11: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=609528
11: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=609852
10: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=608123
321: http://www.ntsb.org.futuresite.register.com/
320: http://www.ntsb.org.futuresite.register.com/?
313: http://www.corazon.com/nosepicts.html
308: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/crash.html
225: http://www.corazon.com/Boeing 747.html
179: http://www.google.com/search
153: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/teknik.html
150: http://www.corazon.com/crashcontentspagelinks.html
138: http://www.corazon.com/mountain.html
118: http://www.corazon.com/Page2.html
94: http://corazon.com/
89: http://www.corazon.com/AirIndiareportcontents.html
52: http://www.pprune.org/forums/newreply.php
44: http://www.pprune.org/forums/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&threadid=54410
11: http://www.pprune.org/go.php
11: http://www.pprune.org/go.php?go=intro.htm
2: http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthread.php
1: http://pprune.org/forums/showthread.php
1: http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php

[wes_wall]

JBS... Like so many, I have followed but basically refrained from entering the discussion. I say up front, with respect, that I do not agree with much of your reasoning, particularly regarding PA103.

The engines were examined by a number of very qualified entities and their reports published by the UK. Of note, the No 2 Engine had evidence of blade shingling in the area of the shrouds. This is consistent with damage occurring while the engines is delivering power. The airflow disruption would cause the shingling as fan blades failed and were ingested. The engine also had evidence of debris originating from the baggage
containers, and in fact, according to the report, a clear indentation produced by a length of cable from a container was observed.

The number 3 engine conversely, had no evidence of this type of shingling. This would indicate that the engine did not suffer a major intake disturbance while significant power was being delivered by the engine. The intake structure damage was mainly contributed to ground impact.

Had the cargo door failed in flight, then the number 3 engine would most certainly have been subjected to FOD while at power, and such would have been evidenced by similar shingling such as number 2.

Just a few facts.

[lomapaseo]

Wes_Wall < The number 3 engine conversely, had no evidence of this type of shingling. This would indicate that the engine did not suffer a major intake disturbance while significant power was being delivered by the engine. The intake structure damage was mainly contributed to ground impact. >

You got most of this right. No 2 engine also had blast damage to the side of the cowl facing the fuselage However the inlet cowl damage to No 3 engine occured in the air aiter the nose section pivoted off and directly into this engine knocking it off the wing to fall vertically to the ground tailpipe first.

Within the first 5-10 secs none of the engines were running under power having been disabled by gyroscopic loading due to the massive breakup of the aircraft.

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>There are many honorable and well intentioned men and women who believe Pan Am Flight 103 and Air India Flight 182 were caused by a bomb explosion. They do not cast slurs at those that don’t, nor fudge, lie, or misrepresent themselves. They do research and frame questions and ask them. I welcome those queries.

The ‘bomb’ proponents for Pan Am Flight 103 and Air India Flight 182 have had a combined 30 years to make their case and Air India Flight 182 is still trying. They have had millions of dollars and hundreds of staff to prosecute the case.

This Forum has had about a month from one guy with a 24 dollar website. And you know what they say about, “It was on the internet.”

From John Garstang to me early on about Air India Flight 182:
‘Thank you for your report expressing concern about the opening of cargo
doors on B-747 aircraft. During any aircraft crash, investigators examine
every piece of evidence, in order to determine cause. In the case of the
Air India flight, the cargo door was in fact retrieved from the bottom of
the ocean by the investigators. The latches were still in place, and there
was no evidence on the edges of the door to indicate in-flight opening of
that door.

On the other hand, there was other solid evidence indicating a bomb blast
had occurred. Aircraft accident investigators are trained people. Anybody
can say anything they want on the Internet. Put your money on the experts;
you will win more often.’

This is the same John Garstang mentioned by Bill Tucker of TSB. Garstang is the RCMP man from TSB seconded for his cause of the 182 accident.Garstang now says the explosion was in the aft cargo compartment of Air India Flight 182. Garstang is the guy how emailed me about a cargo door being retrieved and latched. I know this because he called me on the phone to correct his errors by confirming what I told him, the forward cargo door was not retrieved and it was not latched. He then got mad and slammed down the phone at me when I persisted with the other evidence Air India Flight 182 was not a bomb explosion. Note his arrogance as ‘expert’ against someone who said anything he wanted ‘on the internet.’

(“Put your money on the experts.”! Ha! And that is from one who just made a fool of himself with several factual errors. Now why would he try to deflect me from an alternate explanation other than bomb for Air India Flight 182?)

So I ask those in the forum to give an alternate point of view some consideration so that when you see a fact that seems to support the ‘bomb’ explanation; think if there is a benign alternative; such as shingling for the number two engine for Pan Am Flight 103, or twinning for Air India Flight 182, or streak for Trans World Airlines Flight 800, and missing pressure relief doors for China Airlines Flight 611.

For the shingling: Well, how about the metal (that is contained within a 20 inch diameter shape that was blown out of the port side of Pan Am Flight 103 by a very large shotgun discharge after a nearby powerful explosion decompression) ejecting outward and into the intake of engine number two at high power giving evidence of ‘shingling?”

Regarding the engine evidence for Pan Am Flight 103; after reading the actual breakdown reports from the mechanics who did the breakdown for Trans World Airlines Flight 800, and then reading the interpretation by the safety director which was 180 degrees opposite, I must see the actual breakdown reports for Pan Am Flight 103 before making any conclusions about FOD and where it came from.

For these five cases, I am like a defense attorney who is only allowed to see that selected evidence the prosecutor chooses to show me. There is so much stuff that has been kept hidden or restricted, such as photos of the forward cargo door side of the aircraft and the areas around it, and engine breakdown reports, and wreckage retrieval databases, that it is very hard to make conclusive statements about the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for the accidents.

The point is there is enough evidence presented to this forum and the authorities that warrants investigation updates for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 to rule in or rule out the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation.

Barry

[SaturnV]

When asked to expound on what happened at Narita airport as baggage from CP 003 was being unloaded and there was an explosion in the baggage room, JBS replied that the explanation for this could be found in the Smith AAR on his website. The explanation is indeed there; the crux of the explanation (p. 31 of the Smith AAR on Air India 182) being the following:
The confusion among authorities over the three 'bombs' as to where they came from, where they were going, what aircraft was targeted, and where they were located in the aircraft is understandable because the 'bombs' are phantoms. There were no bombs. The phantom 'bombs' existed only in the minds of those who wished them to exist.
Since there were phantom 'bombs', it is now unclear what killed the two baggage handlers that day, and the Canadian authorities, in conjunction with the Japanese police, clearly have perpetrated a grave miscarriage of justice by convicting a Sikh who confessed to making bombs but delivering them to someone else for purposes unknown. And how inconvenient for him (the Sikh) that the shipping carton for the consumer electronic device (I am not going to call it a boom box) that was destroyed by some unknown means or device at Narita was found in his home. It now seems only right that an investigation of the Narita incident should also be re-opened.

[wes_wall]

lomapaseo

Yes, I agree with you. The combination of the explosion and forward speed of the airplane would have had a significant effect on the engine closest to the area of failure. The fact that the
observed damage on the fan case of the number 2 engine is self evident which side of the airplane failed first. From the engine damage, ingestion by number 2 occured during high power output. As you point out, as power was subsiding, the number 3 engine was struck by debris, which I also point out, like number 2, was only 40 feet from the explosion.

The airplane began a nose down left roll attitude almost immediately. The combination of the roll to the left and the twisting of the fuselage to the right caused the front of the airplane to fail, striking the number 3 engine, and separating it from the wing. Damage indications to the number three engine were consistant with the nose down left roll attitude, again, indicating the timing for the damage to number 3 to be after then damage to number 2 engine, and obviously, seconds after the explosion.

The damage to the right side of the airplane was greater that the “shot gun blast” earlier indicated. In fact, the right side of the fuselage was initially blistered in a star-burst pattern approximating an area 5 feet by 17 feet. This large hole then continued to expand rearwards as far as the wing cut and forward totaling some 43 feet in length. Excessive floor buckeling was also present in this area.

Again, just some facts.

[JohnBarrySmith]

SUV>When asked to expound on what happened at Narita airport as baggage from CP 003 was being unloaded and there was an explosion in the baggage room,

JBS>Not in a baggage room but on a baggage cart in a concourse, but, hey, picky is inappropriate when replying to conspiracy guys. The Japanese airport authorities who have never made the data public and just give their ‘opinions’ and the main one is that it was not their fault but some foreigner with a bomb (sound familiar).

SUV>BS replied that the explanation for this could be found in the Smith AAR on his website. The explanation is indeed there; the crux of the explanation (p. 31 of the Smith AAR on Air India 182) being the following:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The confusion among authorities over the three 'bombs' as to where they came from, where they were going, what aircraft was targeted, and where they were located in the aircraft is understandable because the 'bombs' are phantoms. There were no bombs. The phantom 'bombs' existed only in the minds of those who wished them to exist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

JBS>I love it when you quote me; the excerpt does have the quality of poetry, don’t you think? Well, anyway, the crux of the explanation is that there is an alternate explanation available for an explosion on a baggage cart in one of the busiest and controversial airports in the world, Narita. Narita has had bombing and killings before by Japanese themselves who protested when, silly boys, they became upset when ancestral lands were taken away for new modern big noisy polluting airport by the Japanese government. Narita was hotbed of political actions by activists who hated it before 1985.

Technically, an explosion on a baggage cart on the ground in a busy airport is not a bomb explosion on an airplane 8000 miles away at 31000 feet, but it could be to a conspiracy guy trying to connects dots of reality into plots by foreigners.

SUV>Since there were phantom 'bombs', it is now unclear what killed the two baggage handlers that day, and the Canadian authorities, in conjunction with the Japanese police, clearly have perpetrated

JBS>Conspiracy talk again. I believe the Japanese authorities believe it was a bomb from foreigners on that baggage cart and did not perpetrate anything.

SUV>a grave miscarriage of justice by convicting a Sikh who confessed to making bombs but delivering them to someone else for purposes unknown. And how inconvenient for him (the Sikh) that the shipping carton for the consumer electronic device (I am not going to call it a boom box) that was destroyed by some unknown means or device at Narita was found in his home. It now seems only right that an investigation of the Narita incident should also be re-opened.

JBS>I love all this shipping carton talk, it makes me chortle just like when I read about ‘fragments’ of ‘pieces’ of plastic being turned into ‘timers’ for ‘bombs’.

What I’m reading here is: Attempts were made to discredit the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanations for early model Boeing 747 inflight breakups and the attempts were unsuccessful. So, now the attempt is made to support the bomb explanation. And the attempts are very thin.

My priority is not discrediting the bomb explanation but to support an alternate explanation that more closely fits the facts. An honest wiring/cargo door guy (that’s me) would say, “Yes, the cargo door ruptured open inflight for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 and the cause may have been a bomb.”

I will say that, “Yes, the cargo door ruptured open inflight for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 and the cause may have been a bomb.”

I will also say that “Yes, the cargo door ruptured open inflight for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and United Airlines Flight 811 and China Airlines Flight 611 and the cause may have been a bomb, or a missile, or a center tank explosion, or a repair doubler failure or a wiring short.”

(I vote for the United Airlines Flight 811 cause of electrical.)

Now, let me see any honest ‘bomb’ guys say the same thing:

“Yes, the cargo door ruptured open inflight for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and United Airlines Flight 811 and China Airlines Flight 611 and the cause may have been a bomb, or a missile, or a center tank explosion, or a repair doubler failure or a wiring short.”

Now it turns out that Neil Schalekamp of FAA was honest for a few days and said that the cargo door opened in flight for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and the cause was the center tank explosion. He quickly recanted.

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.

Anyway, Ken Smart is an honest bomb guy because he says essentially an open cargo door in flight for Pan Am Flight 103 was a secondary event to the bomb explosion.

The missile guys for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 would never admit that the cargo door ruptured open in flight and the missile caused it by striking the door and exploding.

The bomb guys for Air India Flight 182 are the RCMP and they won’t release any pictures of the nose on either side and never discuss any alternative to bomb.

The reason the bomb guys and missile guys and center tank guys rarely admit the cargo door opened in flight is that it brings United Airlines Flight 811 into play. That is the best evidence for a ruptured open cargo door in flight and its not a bomb or missile or center tank explosion or repair doubler failure.

Again, support for bomb explanation has had 30 years, millions of dollars, ten of thousands of man hours, billions of words, and it still does not hold together against one hour of facts, data, and evidence.

The bomb guys can support bomb all they want. The focus of this forum member is supporting the wiring/cargo door explanation for China Airlines Flight 611 and others.

I say it may be a bomb cause for all of those ruptured open cargo doors at the midspan latches.

Can you bomb guys say it could have been wiring?

Weswall>lomapaseo The fact that the
observed damage on the fan case of the number 2 engine is self evident which side of the airplane failed first.

JBS>Huh? Starboard side engine has FOD from baggage compartment and Port side engines had shingling from unknown and port side failed first? Small hole in fuselage on port side and big hole on starboard side at same time and small hole failed first?

Weswall>From the engine damage, ingestion by number 2 occurred during high power output. As you point out, as power was subsiding, the number 3 engine was struck by debris, which I also point out, like number 2, was only 40 feet from the explosion.

The damage to the right side of the airplane was greater that the “shot gun blast” earlier indicated.

JBS>You mean ‘left side’ or ‘port side’ but not ‘right side’.

Weswall>In fact, the right side (sic) of the fuselage was initially blistered in a star-burst pattern approximating an area 5 feet by 17 feet. This large hole then continued to expand rearwards as far as the wing cut and forward totaling some 43 feet in length. Excessive floor buckeling was also present in this area.

JBS>Of course the holes got bigger as the nose disintegrated. The starboard cargo door hole started big and got bigger, always remaining much larger than the expanding port side hole. The initial hole was 20 inches as shown by photos, diagrams, drawings, wreckage distribution, and fuselage reconstruction.

WesWall>Again, just some facts.
JBS>Again, just some facts.

It’s impossible to disabuse conspiracy believers from their fantasies because by definition conspiracy stories can not be disproved. There is always another coverup, another mystery man, another mystery event that fills in the gaps.

Sooner or later, the conspiracy guys will start to think that I am a foreign government agent or why else would I be putting this out? What are my motives, who’s paying me, what is my ‘real’ motive?

I would hope that the rational person would consider the wiring/cargo door explanation for the five Boeing 747 accidents, find ways to rebut it if possible, and if persuaded that the mechanical explanation has merit, to pursue in your own manner to get the wiring problem fixed and the design error of nonplug cargo doors with inadequate latching corrected.

Cheers,
Barry

John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]

[wes_wall]

JBS, please excuse the mistake. I did in fact mean the left side when refering to the fuselage damage. Got my hands mixed up when typing, I guess I was concerned about the spelling.

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>At 0541 GMT, 23 June 1985, CP Air Flight 003 arrived at Narita Airport, Tokyo, Japan, from Vancouver. At 0619 GMT a bag from this flight exploded on a baggage cart in the transit area of the airport within an hour of the Air India occurrence. Two persons were killed and four were injured. From the day of the occurrences, there have been questions about a possible linkage between the events.

”Questions, yes, questions.” Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty, Bladerunner.


Regarding left, right, and all around:
I understand: seriously here is what I have to keep straight:
Aft/forward. (Cargo doors)
Bulk/cargo/passenger/crew/maintenance/access (doors)
Left/right (Horizontal stabilizers)
Port/Starboard (wings)
611/182/811/103/800/123/181/1862/46/003/086/060(flight numbers)
1/2/3/4 (engines)
Nose/tail (nose tail)
Bomb/missile/fuel tank/wiring/doubler (causes)
Vertical/horizontal (aft stabilizers)
AAIB/TSB/CASB/NTSB/FBI/CIA/FAA/ASC
TWA/PanAm/United/Air India/China Airlines/Japan Airlines/CP
Vancouver/Montreal/Toronto/Tokyo/Malta/Frankfurt/London/New York/Delhi/Honolulu/Bangkok/Paris/Los Angeles/Sydney/Taipei/Hong Kong/Athens (Departures and destinations and layovers.)
Up/down and all around.

See, the 103 bomb guys have only one crash to explain away and any inconsistencies are greeted with, “Well, strange things happen when a bomb goes off.”

I have four and maybe five accidents that the facts all have to hold together with the same common cause, ruptured cargo door in flight.

Well, it’s tough all over, the Chaplain will be here in ten minutes and we can tell somebody who gives a damn.

Cheers,
Barry

[whauet]

You know...

No matter which 'side of the fence' people are on this issue, there are a few facts that none of us can dispute.

We're all 'connecting the dots' here, unfortunately those dots don't always have numbers to guide us to the same complete picture. We connect them based on our own beliefs and perceptions. We are also all human and facts can be interpreted based on those same beliefs and perceptions while we strive for the perfect answer, and we all share the same desire to discover why these accidents happen and try to prevent them from happening again.

Some of us have posed questions to try and see things from your point of view, but we are nevertheless labeled as 'bomb guys' or spoken down to simply because we do not immediately jump up and agree with you. Some of us have questioned your interpretation of the facts just as you question the interpretation of the facts by the investigators.

I do not wish to engage in the back and forth banter that has taken over this thread and apologize if you read this as such. I am not 'running away' from this thread, but to be frank, I am disappointed to be generally labeled as an uncaring moron simply because my perceptions and interpretation of the facts differ from yours. I am not qualified to say whether you are right or wrong just as I am not qualified to say whether the investigators or right or wrong. But with all due respect, chiding those who do not necessarily see things the same way you do simply because of that fact is not the way to persuade others to listen to what you have to say.

In any case, best of luck with your research and I think I can speak for everyone when I say that we all hope we don't see another cargo door incident take lives.

William Hauet
Seattle, WA

[JohnBarrySmith]

Whatuet>Some of us have posed questions to try and see things from your point of view, but we are nevertheless labeled as 'bomb guys' or spoken down to simply because we do not immediately jump up and agree with you.

JBS>Posted earlier below:

JBS>There are many honorable and well intentioned men and women who believe Pan Am Flight 103 and Air India Flight 182 were caused by a bomb explosion. They do not cast slurs at those that don’t, nor fudge, lie, or misrepresent themselves. They do research and frame questions and ask them. I welcome those queries.

JBS> I shall have to repeat the above to the allegation that you are ‘spoken down to simply because we do not immediately jump up and agree with you.’

Well, this is good, you don’t like me. That gets rid of the “I don’t know whether he’s right or not, but since I like him, I’ll go along with him.” It voids the nice guy bias you might have had, had I been cool, charming, persuasive, and oh, so friendly. I bear no ill will towards anyone on this forum...except the stupid bomb guys, just joking. We all have our interpretations of evidence to connect the dots. The bomb guys and the missile guys and the repair doubler guys all get to laugh at me, that's fair. I mean, come on, I am in the minority here, about 100 million to one.

You have never personally insulted me and I do not mean to insult you, Mr. Hauet. I just mean to insult the stupid bomb guys who made fun of me by calling me names such as turkey (oh how dastardly) and apparently can give it, but they can't take it.

We are not important as personalities in this forum, the goal is to find out why a flying machine failed in flight. Our skin tone or vocal tone or any tone is trivial, only the ideas are important. The bomb explanation is an idea and is important.

But I never seem to hear that admission from the bomb or missile guys.

Mr. Hauet, you have not been getting flames from the bomb guys for Pan Am Flight 103 for six years as I have done. You have not had to withstand the onslaught of the missile conspiracy guys for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 or hear responses to what I say about the bomb explanation for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103. If the bomb explanation as I describe it sounds ‘funny’ and ‘crazy’ to you, it does to me, too. Every time I start the logic for bomb explanation, my voice rises and I start to laugh in derision. I am not laughing at you personally, only on the absurd stretches of imagination the bomb guys make in order to keep the bomb fantasy alive.

If you lay it out in writing you will see how impossible the whole scenario is for a bomb on Air India Flight 182 for 17 years or Pan Am Flight 103 for 13 years or Trans World Airlines Flight 800 for seventeen months.

I am laughing at the concept of bombs exploding in Boeing 747s with the evidence provided. I should not be laughing at those that believe the concept based on the evidence. But I do and I’m a lesser man for it. I shouldn’t make fun of paranoia of plots and evil schemes for airplane crashes but I do. The humor is a tension release when the mind sees the conflict of the way it should be and the way it is.

A person either laughs, gets angry, or cries to release the cognitive dissonance.

I laugh....ready....these terrorists manage to place their bombs in the same place although there are many places to put them and the placement is done randomly independent of the bombers wishes. The luggage can go in the bulk hold, the aft hold, the forward hold, or even the passenger cabin. But no, they always seem to end up on the forward cargo compartment. That’s funny to me. The bombs are about the same for explosive power also, knocking off the nose of a 747 but not vaporizing it, and yet they were made by different terrorist groups over many years apart. That's funny to me. All those coincidences.

Also, the explanation for the FOD for engine 3 of Pan Am Flight 103 is given in the AAIB report as the material is ejected on the port bomb side and goes over or under the fuselage and into the intake. That is of course ignoring the direct path from forward cargo compartment that has a huge hole at initial event time to the adjacent engine number three, as has happened before with United Airlines Flight 811. That’s funny to me as I see fast ejected pieces from the 20 inch shatter hole go towards port wing, then stop, back up, and go under the fuselage and into engine three on the starboard wing.

Or I could get angry at the convoluted reasoning and false conclusion or I could cry knowing that irrational thinking like that will and has probably led to another plane lost with 225 aboard. So I laugh. Ha, ha ha.

I am not laughing at bomb guys who say the cargo door ruptured and it may have been a bomb that did it because I say it could have a bomb that blew out the forward cargo door of Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103.

Can you say that?

Can you also say the cargo door ruptured inflight in those planes and it may have been wiring caused?

I have it by email that the lower cargo door picture will be published in Aviation Week in the September 2 issue. It will show the lower part of the aft cargo door still latched to the sill frame with cargo rollers still attached. The center part of the door is still missing.

I shall be looking for the aft peeled back skin from the aft midspan latch position. This is very exciting news as more real evidence is becoming public.

Can we agree on this statement?
China Airlines Flight 611:
1. Was a Boeing 747 that was:
a. early model
b. high flight time
c. aged
d. high flight cycles.
2. Was flying normally for an hour or less and was normally pressurized
3. And within a few seconds had a sudden audible sound on the CVR
4. And had a sudden power cut to the FDR.
5. And had a hull rupture,
6. And had an inflight breakup
7. And had a retrieved cargo door in the wreckage that showed:
a. intact hinge.
b. vertical tear lines above the door ends.
c. missing pressure relief door
d. shattered in two longitudinally into more than one piece.
e. missing bottom section and missing midspan latches.
e. was considered as a initial probable cause.
8. And had at least nine never recovered bodies.
9. And had a bomb suspected as the cause for the accident in the first few days of the event.

Pan Am Flight 103 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 also:

1. Were a Boeing 747 that was:
a. early model
b. high flight time
c. aged
d. high flight cycles.
2. Were flying normally for an hour or less and was normally pressurized
3. And within a few seconds had a sudden audible sound on the CVR
4. And had a sudden power cut to the FDR.
5. And had a hull rupture,
6. And had an inflight breakup
7. And had a retrieved cargo door in the wreckage that showed:
a. intact hinge.
b. vertical tear lines above the door ends.
c. missing pressure relief door
d. shattered in two longitudinally into more than one piece.
e. missing midspan latches.
e. was considered as a initial probable cause.
8. And had at least nine never recovered bodies.
9. And had a bomb suspected as the cause for the accident in the first few days of the event.

The above is correct for Pan Am Flight 103 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800. It almost fits for Air India Flight 182 except the door was not retrieved and the event happened five hours into flight. It almost fits United Airlines Flight 811 except they did retrieve entire door except for midspan latches.

But for three early model Boeing 747 inflight breakups the above evidence matches fit. The significance is that the cause of the door rupture may be a common one. Either they are all bombs, or missiles, all fuel tank explosions, all repair doubler failures, or all wiring caused. And there could be three different causes.

But....in my humble opinion and based upon the available evidence, I believe the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation deserves full suspect status warranting a complete investigation into cargo doors of Boeing 747s in particular their known faulty Poly X wiring and the design defect of inadequately latched non plug cargo doors with no locking sectors at the midspan latches.

John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]

[SaturnV]

My previous post on the explosion at Narita airport had been composed from memory, and contained several mis-statements. To set the facts straight, and to minimize, if not extinguish, the possibility that any such bomb could have been the work of still-disgruntled farmers over Narita construction, the evidentiary record is as follows.

Singh Reyat was a Sikh auto mechanic and electrician living in Duncan, a community near Vancouver, British Columbia. The bomb at Narita had been placed in a Sanyo model FMT 611K AM-FM stereo tuner, measuring 16 by 14 by 5 inches. Sanyo had produced only 2000 of this particular model; all had been shipped to its warehouse in Vancouver. Sanyo had ceased production of this model in 1982, and most had long been sold, and no longer stocked in stores. However, police discovered that one of these Sanyo tuners had been sold on June 5, 1985 (17 days before the bombing) in the F. W. Woolworth store in Duncan to two Sikhs.

The tuner that exploded at Narita was packed in the original carton complete with styrofoam packaging and the original manual. Other components of the bomb were a Micronta car clock as a timer, an electrical relay, an Eveready 12-volt lantern battery, Liquid Fire brand engine starting fluid, single-base smokeless gunpowder, dynamite and a blasting cap. According to the explosive experts, the use of gunpowder and starting fluid was an unusual feature of the bomb, because neither would have added in any way to its explosive force. (The amount of dynamite in the Narita bomb is estimated to be eight sticks.) When Reyat's home was searched, the police found a receipt for a Sanyo FMT 611K tuner, but could not find the tuner or any of its packaging. (The police were eventually able to establish that the tuner used in the bombing was not only the same model as that purchased by Reyat, but was in fact the very same tuner.)

The evidence also established that during the months prior to the bombing, Reyat had purchased two Micronta car clocks, two Eveready 12-volt lantern batteries, three electrical relays, two or three blasting caps, single-base smokeless gunpowder and a quantity of dynamite. Liquid Fire starting fluid would have been available to Reyat at his place of work, and a can of it was in fact found in his toolbox. Reyat did not have a blasting permit, nor was there any evidence of blasting activity around his property.

Reyat was arrested in November 1985 and questioned by the police. Reyat denied having made the Narita bomb. He did however make the following admissions:
- that he had been approached by one Talwinder Singh Parmar, who had asked the accused to make him a large explosive device for use in India ;
- that he had tried to make an explosive device for Parmar, but that when he and Parmar had tried to detonate it on 4 June 1985 it had failed to detonate;
- that he had tried to detonate another device, but had again failed; and
- that he had therefore been unable to help Parmar.

Reyat was convicted of indirect manslaughter in the Narita bombing, and has been re-arrested in the bombing of Air India 182. The evidentiary record to date does not show the purchase of a second piece of audio or video equipment by Reyat for potential use on Air India 182, but it does show that two or more parts of all the Narita bomb components (other than the cabinet) were in Reyat's possession.

[wes_wall]

JBS, let me see if I can keep my right and left sides in correct order. What I tried to illustrate was the damage to the number 2 engine was consistent to a failure occurring on the LEFT side of the airplane. The star burst pattern of destruction which was present on the LEFT side of the airplane was the source of debris which was ingested by the number 2 engine. The number 3 engine did not ingest debris until later, most likely during or milliseconds prior to the nose of the airplane separating and making contact with it. Suffice it to say, no ingestion occurred until well into the accident sequence.

The destruction to the left side of the airplane clearly indicated a directional force from inside to outside. The investigation also clearly validated the likely cause, which I think you will agree, to
be an explosive action. Two, which are simple to understand. Examination of the cargo container revealed that internal explosive forces ordinating there produced the shatter zone on
the left side of the airplane. The floor beams in the region of the container were extensively broken, and displayed clear indications of overload failure due to upward buckling. The buckling of the floor beams was the result of explosive over pressure, gases emerging from the explosion, and not contact by debris.

To me, the report is quite clear and adequately documented on the likely cause of the destruction of N739PA. I do not consider myself a “bomb guy” but rather a retired aviator who had and still
has more than a passing interest in this terrible tradegy. I consider myself to be both literate and rational, and willing to accept what is realistically proven. If we cannot have trust, and accept the best judgement and integrity of those responsible, educated, and trained to investigate and provide likely causes, then it will be Katy bar the door. I find no fault with your keen pursuit in what you believe to be potential causes, and I am in no means indicating you have tunnel vision, but I feel you may be wrongly ignoring findings which support the conclusion found by the UK in its investigation.

Accident comparisons certainly have a place in ones consideration, and I agree, often call for attention. But comparisons are only as good as they relate specifically to the event. One could say that N739PA operated the LAX - HNL - PPG- AKL - SYD - MEL and return line of flying many times, and additionally, the flight numbers were PA811 and PA812, both carriers crew bid the line out of the west coast based personnel, and UA took over the flying when it purchased the Pacific Division from Pan Am, but does that make it a likely candidate that should be compared with UA811? You continue to compare incidents with one another, but there is one very large and obvious variance between PA103 and UA811.

Can you see it?

Just a few facts.

Edited for spelling

[PickyPerkins]

Please do not misunderstand this post - I am all for working from facts, and sticking to them as closely as possible. Nearly every post on this thread brings new information to light. However, the silent majority of viewers of the vigorous exchanges on this thread (109,748 views vs. 517 posts at the last count) may be amused to see from p. 35 of the forthcoming Sept. 2002 issue of Scientific American that simply providing more facts and/or repeating old facts generally (and not just on this thread) does little to change mind-sets which are already established. Here are some extracts:
------- Start quotes ---------
……… Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.

Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational explanation, regardless of what we previously believed. Most of us, most of the time, come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Rather, such variables as genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experience and life impressions all shape the personality preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to our beliefs. We then sort through the body of data and select those that most confirm what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that do not.

This phenomenon, called the confirmation bias, helps to explain the findings published in the National Science Foundation biennial report (April 2002) on the state of science understanding:
30% of adult Americans believe that UFOs are space vehicles from other civilizations
60% believe in ESP
40% believe astrology is scientific
32% believe in lucky numbers
70% accept magnetic therapy as scientific, and
88% accept alternative medicine.

Education by itself by itself is no paranormal prophylactic. Although belief in ESP decreased from 65% among high school graduates to 60% among college graduates, and belief in magnetic therapy dropped from 71% among high school graduates to 55% among college graduates, that still leaves more than half fully endorsing such claims! ……….

……… We can glean a deeper cause of this problem in another statistic: 70% of Americans still do not understand the scientific process, defined as comprehending probability, the experimental method and hypothesis testing. ……………….(only) 53% of Americans with a high level of science education (nine or more high school and college science/math courses) understand the scientific process, ……… a study that found no correlation between science knowledge (facts about the world) and paranormal beliefs. ……..
------- End quote ------

Seems like getting together over some beers might be more effective than piling up the facts in changing minds. Politicians kiss the baby and otherwise press the flesh. And I have probably fallen into the same trap by imagining that I might affect existing mind-sets by presenting the above facts.:D :D :D

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>I’ve just had a paranormal experience:

Fifteen minutes ago, I was reading Scientific American on page 35 in a section called the Skeptic.

It was a good article; I thought the information refers to the forum members and decided to tear it out and print it in a post.

I tore the page out, it’s right beside me and the computer and I prepared to type it in my word processor prior to posting.

But first, I got an email saying Picky Perkins had replied to the topic. So, I checked it out, and as the screen appeared, I read the exact words I was going to type in!

Now is that weird or what?

Apparently Picky Perkins read the same article, thought the same thoughts, and posted a few hours ahead of me.

Incredible. ESP?

Well, for the record, I don’t believe any of that stuff but do believe in coincidence and “Confirmation Theory’ as detailed in Scientific American and quoted by Picky.

The article is so true.

Cheers,
Barry

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>I’m still shuddering from the coincidence of PickyPerkins posting something that I was going to post. A moment in time to be never forgotten. The words in my mind appeared on the screen as the PPRuNe page loaded. My referenced article was in print and I had torn it out of the magazine, I don’t know if it is available online. The article is from a theme issue of Time. And a very good issue it is.

Time is everything for the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for 4 Boeing 747s and the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation for one, China Airlines Flight 611.

The doubler never did break as I understand it, just cracks around it which may or may not have cracked.

The aft cargo door did break into at least three parts, Top retrieved, bottom retrieved, middle missing.

Which came first, the broken in three at least aft cargo door or the cracks around an intact repair doubler?

I vote for door first at this time but can change to cracks pending further evidence.

Am I suffering from Confirmation Bias?

My turn to quote from Article on page 35 of Scientific American:

“Most of us, most of the time, come to our beliefs for a variety of reasons having little to do with empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Rather, such variables as genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experiences and life impressions all shape the personality preferences that, in conjunction with numerous social and cultural influences, lead us to our beliefs. We then sort through the body of data and select those that most confirm what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that do not.

Ah ha! Truth. It’s neutral. It works both ways.

Let us look at a contrary truth for Pan Am Flight 103 that deals with time and yet is rationalized or ignored by those that believe a bomb blew apart the aircraft.

The sudden loud sound on the CVR for Pan Am Flight 103 is not a bomb sound. The authorities have tried very very hard to make it so and have even staged a real bomb explosion in a real airplane with real microphones to try for a sound match.

The sound has been matched to something else and that something is not a bomb sound but it is the sound of an explosion.

If the sudden loud sound is not a bomb sound, how did the bomb explode and not be heard on the CVR? Timing is everything. There had to be a first sound that was different from the normal sound and that sound was not a bomb sound. A bomb explosion sound would be the first thing to be heard on the CVR when it exploded. It was not heard at all.

If the sudden loud sound was part of the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup sequence, it would be heard on the CVR and was heard on the CVR and on Chart 12 of NTSB Public Docket that matches the sound to other events.

The sound on the CVR of Pan Am Flight 103 is the sound of a explosive decompression.

There was no bomb. There was no bomb explosion. There were no sneaky foreign spies trying to blow up our planes.

There was explosive decompression from lots of causes, most mechanical.And it happened before and documented in NTSB AAR 90/01 and the corrected NTSB AAR 92/02 for the same event with United Airlines Flight 811.

Where is my confirmation bias? I see none. I see confirmation accuracy. My explanation holds true with the evidence presented by the CVR, the best evidence existing.

Where is the bomb guys confirmation bias? Ignoring that logic of sound first is the initial event and bomb sound was never heard so no bomb explosion is very very possible reality.

Let's look at the engine evidence scientifically:

Engine number two had shingling whatever that is:

AAIB>(i) No 2 engine (situated closest to the site of the explosion) had evidence of blade "shingling" in the area of the shrouds consistent with the results of major airflow disturbance whilst delivering power. (This effect is produced when random bending and torsional deflection occurs, permitting the mid-span shrouds to disengage and repeatedly strike the adjacent aerofoil surfaces of the blades). The interior of the air intake contained paint smears and other evidence suggesting the passage of items of debris.

(ii) No 3 engine, identified on site as containing ingested debris from within the aircraft, nonetheless had no evidence of the type of shingling seen on the blades of No 2 engine. Such evidence is usually unmistakable and its absence is a clear indication that No 3 engine did not suffer a major intake airflow disturbance whilst delivering significant power. The intake structure was found to have been crushed longitudinally by an impact on the front face although, as stated earlier, it had struck the ground on its rear face whilst falling vertically.
(iii) All 3 engines had evidence of blade tip rubs on the fan cases having a combination of circumference and depth greater than hitherto seen on any investigation witnessed on Boeing 747 aircraft by the Pratt and Whitney specialists. Subsequent examination of No 4 engine confirmed that it had a similar deep, large circumference tip rub. These tip-rubs on the four engines were centred at slightly different clock positions around their respective fan cases.

JBS>OK, shingling on engine number two which means what?

Random bending and torsional deflection occurred. What does that mean? FOD? Not really as FOD using breaks blades, starts fire and throws out blades. This could be extreme airflow disruption over the intake of engine number two after forward cargo door blows out at 31000 feet at 300 knots.

Or it could be shift in airflow from FOD from bomb explosion nearby which tossed out a 20 inch hole of fuselage skin into the intake of engine number two.

Let’s look at engine number two and number three for Pan Am Flight 103: The two vacuum cleaners next to the port and starboard side of the nose at high power at event time.

Number three had ‘ingested debris from within the aircraft,’ and ‘contained a number of lose items originating from within the cabin or baggage hold’ an evaluation which is not mentioned for engine number two, which implies engine two did not ingest debris from within the aircraft, just paint smears and other evidence suggesting the passage of items of debris. “Debris’ is not really baggage from within the baggage hold as was said for engine three and ‘suggested’ is not for certain and ‘other evidence’ is oh so vague.

AAIB>“All four engines had struck the ground in Lockerbie with considerable velocity and therefore sustained major damage, in particular to most of the fan blades. The No 3 engine had fallen 1,100 metres north of the other three engines, striking the ground on its rear face, penetrating a road surface and coming to rest without any further change of orientation i.e. with the front face remaining uppermost. The intake area contained a number of lose items originating from within the cabin or baggage hold. It was not possible initially to determine whether any of the general damage to any of the engine fans or the ingestion noted in No 3 engine intake occurred whilst the relevant engines were delivering power or at a later stage.”

JBS>The confirmation bias for the bomb guys is ignoring the timing for the sudden loud sound presenting no bomb and the engine evidence which says shingling and maybe FOD and it could from the 20 inch hole nearby when very large shotgun went in off in forward cargo compartment after explosive decompression had occurred when the forward cargo.....midspan.....locking sectors......manual locking... pressure.....sequence of timing succinctly stated as the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, United Airlines Flight 811, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800, in chronological sequence. The shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation explanation for China Airlines Flight 611 is the very preliminary, tentative, conjecture, wild speculation, imaginative conclusion made on 29 August 2002 awaiting the picture of the bottom of the aft cargo door.

Let’s look for peeled back skin from the midspan latches, latched bottom eight held tight by the strengthened locking sectors done after AD 88-12-04. Or outward petal shaped twisted metal, frozen in time like a drop of milk in high speed camera work. Sadly, the middle of the door is missing which shall contain those clue matches. But there is still a lot to work with. For instance, has the rectangular fuselage frame been recovered? The rupture outward twist the frame too at those mid points. Are there hinge overtravel markings on the hinges? NTSB AAR 92/02 talks all about hinge overtravel. Paint smears from top of aft cargo door to the fuselage skin directly above the door? It happened with United Airlines Flight 811. www.corazon.com has the pdf of that report.

The manual locking handle, if retrieved, shall show in normal stowed and locked position. The midspan latch pins, which are in the fuselage frames, shall show bluing of stress.

So, the point? We are not stupid. We are not dumb. We may be wrong in our thinking conclusions.

Am I wrong? Is there anything I said above which defies logic, facts, and evidence?

Are you wrong?

We both say each other is wrong. I give evidence the bomb guys are wrong for Pan Am Flight 103 and others.

The bomb guys do not give me evidence the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup is wrong for Pan Am Flight 103.

Even more evidence is presented if I will not be accused for kicking a bad idea while it is down: The same reasons that a bomb explosion was ruled out in the forward cargo compartment of an early model Boeing 747 called Trans World Airlines Flight 800 are the very same reasons to rule out a bomb explosion in the forward cargo compartment for an early model Boeing 747 called Pan Am Flight 103; here they are:

NTSB>The NTSB states in AAR 00/03 regarding Trans World Airlines Flight 800: Page 180, footnote 368: ‘Evidence of a bomb explosion included deformation of materials away from a location at the height of the passenger seat pan, hot-gas pitting damage on multiple pieces of wreckage that formed a pattern radiating from the same location (including into the CWT), punctures radiating from the same location, and shrapnel. Further, according to the FBI's laboratory report, No. 91204034 S YQ YB/91207052 S YQ YB, dated January 30, 1990, chemical analysis of a piece of wreckage from the right side of the CWT identified the presence of RDX and PETN high explosive. These two explosives comprise about 86 percent of the composition of SEMTEX, which is a rubberlike material manufactured by Synthesia Corporation of Semtin, Czechoslovakia, primarily for use in mining and other civil engineering activities. According to the FBI, SEMTEX has been used by criminal and terrorist elements in Europe since 1966. (SEMTEX was identified as the material used in the bomb placed on Pan Am flight 103. For additional information, see section 1.11.1.2.)’

Page 257 to page 259 of NTSB AAR 00/03 for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 ‘2.2.1.2 Consideration of a High-Energy Explosive Device Detonation (Bomb or Missile Warhead) Several factors led to speculation that the accident might have been caused by a bomb or missile strike. These factors included heightened safety and security concerns because of the 1996 Olympics then being held in the United States, the fact that TWA flight 800 was an international flight, and the sudden and catastrophic nature of the in-flight breakup. In addition, numerous witnesses to the accident reported seeing a streak of light and then a fireball, which some people believed represented a missile destroying the airplane. Further, some anomalous primary radar targets were recorded by the Islip, New York, radar site in the general vicinity of TWA flight 800 at the time of the accident that apparently could not be explained. Accordingly, the Safety Board considered the possibility that a bomb exploded inside the airplane or that a missile warhead from a shoulder-launched missile exploded upon impact with the airplane. Testing performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) found trace amounts of explosives on three separate pieces of airplane wreckage (described by the FBI as a piece of canvaslike material and two pieces of floor panel). However, none of the damage characteristics typically associated with a high-energy explosion of a bomb or missile warhead (such as severe pitting, cratering, petalling, or hot gas washing) were found on any portion of the recovered airplane structure, including the pieces on which the trace amounts of explosives were found. Only about 5 percent of the airplane's fuselage was not recovered, and none of the areas of missing fuselage were large enough to have encompassed all of the damage that would have been caused by the detonation of a bomb or missile. Although several large holes are visible in the reconstructed portion of the airplane fuselage, almost all of the structure that originally filled in these holes is attached to the remaining structure but is folded either inward or outward. No area of structure in the reconstructed portion of the airplane contained any unexplained holes large enough to represent the entry point of a missile. Further, the victims remains showed no evidence of injuries that could have been caused by high-energy explosives, nor was there any damage to the airplane seats and other interior components consistent with a high-energy explosion. Investigators considered several scenarios to determine how the trace amounts of explosive residue might have gotten on the wreckage from the accident airplane. Trace amounts of explosive residue could have been transferred to the contaminated pieces from the military personnel (and their associated clothing, boots, and equipment) that were on board the accident airplane when it was used to transport troops during the Gulf War in 1991. In addition, explosives were placed and then removed from several locations in the accident airplane during a dog-training explosive detection exercise about 1 month before the accident. Despite being unable to determine the exact source of the trace amounts of explosive residue found on the wreckage, the lack of any corroborating evidence associated with a high-energy explosion indicates that these trace amounts did not result from the detonation of a high-energy explosive device on TWA flight 800. Accordingly, the Safety Board concludes that the in-flight breakup of TWA flight 800 was not initiated by a bomb or a missile strike.”

Repeat NTSB>Although several large holes are visible in the reconstructed portion of the airplane fuselage, almost all of the structure that originally filled in these holes is attached to the remaining structure but is folded either inward or outward.

JBS>The same above for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 can be said for the reconstruction of Pan Am Flight 103, all holes accounted for sir, on the port side, but there are missing pieces on the starboard side, in and around the forward cargo door. Both Pan Am Flight 103 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 had, relative to their starboard sides, smooth undisrupted skin or folded back by airstream skin on the port sides. Not the tiny pieces of shattered skin as a bomb or fuel tank explosion would do on the port side, but the tiny pieces were recovered for the cargo door starboard side. So the port bomb side should not have most of its pieces accounted for on Pan Am Flight 103 but does. It’s only the starboard side that has large missing pieces. The larger explosion was on the starboard side.

The point? Ruling out a bomb for an inflight breakup of an early model Boeing 747 is not that hard. Check the metal for certain things, check the victims for certain things and if the required real non wishful thinking clear headed things like evidence of injuries that could have been caused by a high energy explosive are not there, then bomb is probably not there. The evidence keeps on adding up there was no bomb explosion but there was an explosion but on the starboard side near the forward cargo door.

Is there a reasonable plausible alternative to the bomb explanation for Pan Am Flight 103 and others? If not, then the bomb explanation becomes the default explanation.

There is a plausible reasonable explanation for Pan Am Flight 103 and you bomb guys know it and I know you know it.

If you continue to believe in the bomb explanation for Pan Am Flight 103 you will be suffering/experiencing the phenomenon called ‘confirmation bias.’ as stated in the issue of Scientific American on page 35 in section called the Skeptic. It's OK, it's human, it just means you are not being objective and thus may have a wrong conclusion in an objective airplane crash investigation which relies on science, not genetic predisposition, parental predilection, sibling influence, peer pressure, educational experiences and life impressions to make a conclusion as to why China Airlines Flight 611, Air India Flight 182, United Airlines Flight 811, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 suffered a hull rupture in flight.

Cheers,
Skeptic John Barry Smith

[GlueBall]

Major:
...so then in the case of PA103, Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi also may be suffering from an overdose of confirmation bias by offering compensation...for an apparent Boeing design flaw that had caused the forward belly door to open inflight and rip the fuselage apart?
:confused:

[wes_wall]

JBS.. When you recover from the shuddering from the coincedence of the Picky Perkins posting, perhaps you could repost the following in english that I can understand...

quote JBS>The confirmation bias for the bomb guys is ignoring the timing for the sudden loud sound presenting no bomb and the engine evidence which says shingling and maybe FOD and it could from the 20 inch hole nearby when very large shotgun went in off in forward cargo compartment after explosive decompression had occurred when the forward cargo.....midspan.....locking sectors......manual locking... pressure.....sequence of timing succinctly stated as the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, United Airlines Flight 811, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800, in chronological sequence. unquote

Aside from this, you continue to completely discount the facts re PA103, Talk about confirmation bias.

[JohnBarrySmith]

Wes Wall>Accident comparisons certainly have a place in ones consideration, and I agree, often call for attention. But comparisons are only as good as they relate specifically to the event. One could say that N739PA operated the LAX - HNL - PPG- AKL - SYD - MEL and return line of flying many times, and additionally, the flight numbers were PA811 and PA812, both carriers crew bid the line out of the west coast based personnel, and UA took over the flying when it purchased the Pacific Division from Pan Am, but does that make it a likely candidate that should be compared with UA811?

JBS>By gosh, I think you’ve got it. You are using the technique of differential diagnosis to find a common cause. You use similarities which appear trivial for a sarcastic point, but there is truth there in principle. It’s called seeing the forest for the trees. There was many trivial similarities for the five events which I have discounted and included a few for which I have no explanation but are too unusual to ignore.

The Smith Table of dozens of evidence matches for the five accidents which specifically relate to the event is at www.corazon.com. I welcome more similarities which may or may not be relevant. The now five trees make up the forest of early model Boeing 747s that suffered solo inflight breakups. (and add JAL 123 too)

WesWall>You continue to compare incidents with one another, but there is one very large and obvious variance between PA103 and UA811.

Can you see it?

JBS> They both have the letter ‘A’ missing in the name of the air carrier? No, wait, they do have that letter. I give up. Please don’t tell me the difference is the nose stayed on United Airlines Flight 811 but came off the others.

Glue> ..so then in the case of PA103, Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi also may be suffering from an overdose of confirmation bias by offering compensation...for an apparent Boeing design flaw that had caused the forward belly door to open inflight and rip the fuselage apart?

JBS>Can you offer evidence of your allegation that Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi has offered compensation for Pan Am Flight 103? No, you can’t. You can offer spin doctor feelers from attorneys like Kriendler who would love to have a few billion dollars change hands in their direction, but then Kriendler is not Khaddafi....although....although close, they both start with ‘K’...maybe, maybe ‘q’, depends who has the most confirmation bias.

WesWall>When you recover from the shuddering from the coincedence of the Picky Perkins posting, perhaps you could repost the following in english that I can understand...

JBS>And who’s to say that I’m not using PickyPerkins as an anonymous Nom De Plume? So it’s me talking to me? Ha! Now that would be paranoia or schizo behaviour. I like the plot though, some guy has heated discussions in forum with himself but does not know it’s him. Then plots to get even with the other/himself. The two faces of Smith. (Actually the plot was sort of done in 'Fight Club' with Brad Pitt.)

The paragraph in question was in American English, you know what I’m saying, dude, it’s totally correct.

Wes Wall>Aside from this, you continue to completely discount the facts re PA103, Talk about confirmation bias.

JBS>Absence of facts that support your position noted....again....as usual..

Plethora of facts about Pan Am Flight 103 and others offered in my previous post to support shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation....again...as usual.

My previous experience with confirmation bias is the phenomenon noted after buying a new car. The new buyer reads all the advertising to confirm he made the right choice for spending all that cash for a machine that needs constant maintenance, washing, care, and protection. But pretty though! And the women in the commercials seem to like the driver......

Ah, the bomb guys, short of facts but long on connecting dots that don’t relate, like Narita explosion, attorney political maneuvering; time to bring in the Golden Temple invasion and Indira Ghandi assassination by a Sikh, and the shootdown by the Vincennes of an Iranian airliner, and eyewitnesses seeing streak go up in sky, and all those State department persons who cancelled flight at last minute, and the warning to the embassy, are you sure you can’t find a Bin Laden/Iraq/Taliban connection in there somewhere?

Here is a controversial political opinion from me:

The WTC plane crashes are directly linked to the confirmation bias of the Indians, the AAIB, and the NTSB (CASB omitted) who insisted bombs blew up passenger jets and thus caused all the grief and consternation in the world.

We, the good guys, told them, the bad guys, what hurt us and how to hurt us, so they did it again. And they will do it again. Never tell the attackers the results of their attacks and never give a damage assessment.

The desire to avoid the responsibility of causing the crashes of the three Boeing 747s by mechanical and thus preventable causes and thereby constructing mental malarkey of evil foreigners causing passenger planes to blowup has given the enemy the knowledge of what really terrifies the people who the terrorist wants to terrify.

So they did, and will again.

As a student of history I find it amusing to watch the authorities in the late 80’s calling every big plane crash a bomb explosion until proven otherwise to the early 00’s where a plane takes off out of New York and crashes but it’s not a bomb, it’s a tail coming off, and a Boeing 747 explodes in midair and it’s not a bomb but repair failure. Years ago both of them would have been bombs and villains sought.

Confirmation bias changes from one to the other based on the whims of the perceivers. First they are all bombs now they are not bombs. And the evidence stays the same.

As we banter, the picture of the bottom part of the China Airlines Flight 611 door should be available soon and we can get back to basics.

Cheers,
Barry

[wes_wall]

JBS, you say:

(JBS) Number three had ‘‘ingested debris from within the aircraft,’’ and ‘‘contained a number of lose items originating from within the cabin or baggage hold’’ an evaluation which is not
mentioned for engine number two, which implies engine two did not ingest debris from within the aircraft, just paint smears and other evidence suggesting the passage of items of debris. ““Debris’’ is not really baggage from within the baggage hold as was said for engine three and ‘‘suggested’’ is not for certain and ‘‘other evidence’’ is oh so vague.

I beg to differ Sir. From the UK Report, I quote verbatim from 1.17.4, which I am sure you have seen, but unfortunately did not completely or adequately quote.


(UK Report) No 2 engine (situated closest to the site of the explosion) had evidence of blade "shingling" in the area of the shrouds consistent with the results of major airflow disturbance
whilst delivering power. (This effect is produced when random bending and torsional deflection occurs, permitting the mid-span shrouds to disengage and repeatedly strike the adjacent aerofoil
surfaces of the blades). The interior of the air intake contained paint smears and other evidence suggesting the passage of items of debris. One such item of significance was a clear indentation produced by a length of cable of diameter and strand size similar to that typically attached to the closure curtains on the baggage containers.

Seems to me to be not oh so vague. Nor does the very detailed analysis of the container which housed the explosive. In fact, I find very little which is vague, considering the catastrophic break
up of the airplane.

This has been enough for me. Good luck with your continued search, be it right or wrong, it has to be helpful. To that end, you have my admiration.

[JohnBarrySmith]

http://www.corazon.com/611bottomdoorsplit.JPG

Should be the bottom part of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611.
Need evaluations by persons that can understand what we are looking at.

Cheers,
Barry

WesWall>I beg to differ Sir. From the UK Report, I quote verbatim from 1.17.4, which I am sure you have seen, but unfortunately did not completely or adequately quote.

(UK Report) No 2 engine (situated closest to the site of the explosion) had evidence of blade "shingling" in the area of the shrouds consistent with the results of major airflow disturbance
whilst delivering power. (This effect is produced when random bending and torsional deflection occurs, permitting the mid-span shrouds to disengage and repeatedly strike the adjacent aerofoil
surfaces of the blades). The interior of the air intake contained paint smears and other evidence suggesting the passage of items of debris. One such item of significance was a clear indentation produced by a length of cable of diameter and strand size similar to that typically attached to the closure curtains on the baggage containers.

JBS>Dear WesWall, please do your homework before criticizing others who do. On the previous page of this forum, page 35, is my post which has all the data on the engines for Pan Am Flight 103 which I must now repost to support my defense that I am not biased but do present all the facts impartially, contrary to your allegation of bias.

JBS repeat from page 35>

Let's look at the engine evidence scientifically:

Engine number two had shingling whatever that is:

AAIB>(i) No 2 engine (situated closest to the site of the explosion) had evidence of blade "shingling" in the area of the shrouds consistent with the results of major airflow disturbance whilst delivering power. (This effect is produced when random bending and torsional deflection occurs, permitting the mid-span shrouds to disengage and repeatedly strike the adjacent aerofoil surfaces of the blades). The interior of the air intake contained paint smears and other evidence suggesting the passage of items of debris.

(ii) No 3 engine, identified on site as containing ingested debris from within the aircraft, nonetheless had no evidence of the type of shingling seen on the blades of No 2 engine. Such evidence is usually unmistakable and its absence is a clear indication that No 3 engine did not suffer a major intake airflow disturbance whilst delivering significant power. The intake structure was found to have been crushed longitudinally by an impact on the front face although, as stated earlier, it had struck the ground on its rear face whilst falling vertically.
(iii) All 3 engines had evidence of blade tip rubs on the fan cases having a combination of circumference and depth greater than hitherto seen on any investigation witnessed on Boeing 747 aircraft by the Pratt and Whitney specialists. Subsequent examination of No 4 engine confirmed that it had a similar deep, large circumference tip rub. These tip-rubs on the four engines were centred at slightly different clock positions around their respective fan cases.

JBS>OK, shingling on engine number two which means what?

Random bending and torsional deflection occurred. What does that mean? FOD? Not really as FOD using breaks blades, starts fire and throws out blades. This could be extreme airflow disruption over the intake of engine number two after forward cargo door blows out at 31000 feet at 300 knots.

Let’s look at engine number two and number three for Pan Am Flight 103: The two vacuum cleaners next to the port and starboard side of the nose at high power at event time.

Number three had ‘ingested debris from within the aircraft,’ and ‘contained a number of lose items originating from within the cabin or baggage hold’ an evaluation which is not mentioned for engine number two, which implies engine two did not ingest debris from within the aircraft, just paint smears and other evidence suggesting the passage of items of debris. “Debris’ is not really baggage from within the baggage hold as was said for engine three and ‘suggested’ is not for certain and ‘other evidence’ is oh so vague.

AAIB>“All four engines had struck the ground in Lockerbie with considerable velocity and therefore sustained major damage, in particular to most of the fan blades. The No 3 engine had fallen 1,100 metres north of the other three engines, striking the ground on its rear face, penetrating a road surface and coming to rest without any further change of orientation i.e. with the front face remaining uppermost. The intake area contained a number of lose items originating from within the cabin or baggage hold. It was not possible initially to determine whether any of the general damage to any of the engine fans or the ingestion noted in No 3 engine intake occurred whilst the relevant engines were delivering power or at a later stage.”

WesWall today>This has been enough for me. Good luck with your continued search, be it right or wrong, it has to be helpful. To that end, you have my admiration.

JBS today>Goodbye to WesWall, HotDog, and SaturnV, valiant bomb guys all, retiring from the fray, bloodied and beaten...emotionally and mentally but still strong physically I’m sure. Come back when you are refreshed, your inputs are always welcome, zany as they are.

You’re leaving at a good time though, that aft door bottom is real evidence. You can slam the door on your way out.

Cheers,
Barry

JBS>Need help. Is Mechanicman here or others who can orient the picture on corazon.com that purports to be the bottom of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611?

Which way is up? Are we looking inside out at the unlatched latches?

Those latches look unlatched to me. The silver panels with bumps appear to be the aft cargo compartment decking. The green metal to bottom and left appear to be the actual bottom part of door seen from inside. There does appear to be some outward force damage on the stiffener and skin. The picture does not go up the midspan latches but how tantalizing. The nose could be to right. If so, the forward leading edge of the door is missing.

Need confirmation this is actually the aft cargo door and flooring and that the latches are the cargo door bottom eight latches.

If so, the unlatched latches are interesting in that they were previously reported to be latched.

Regardless, this is not a normal aft cargo door that was part of a hull rupture nearby.

This picture coupled with the top part means the middle is missing and that has the meat of the door.

All input, conjecture, guessing, and imaginative thoughts about this picture are welcomed. Please post here.

Cheers,
Barry

[MechanicalMan]

Barry,

Looking at the picture, the bottom left of the pic would be about the middle of the cargo door when viewed from inside, the silver panels with bumps are the lower cargo floor ballmats, the forward edge of the door is still present but the fusalage door frame and skin are missing. Looking at the pic the door does still look latched at the lower edge, the lower eight latch torque tube is still present (only just in view) and looks intact (no bending) the latch actuator is still present (the white object at the left of the pic 2/3's down) as is its torque tube which looks undamaged as does the pushrod from the lower eight latch torque tube to the midspan latches (lower edge of photo, 1/3 in from left). The rollers you can see just above the bottom edge of the door are cargo loading rollers on the floor lip, not part of the cargo door latches. There does not seem to be any structual damage to the door visible in the pic as far as i can see, the panel that is torn (1/2 way along, 1/3 up from the bottom of the pic) is made from gilliner, a fireproof fibreglass - easily torn. The pic does seem to show the rear floor are but i'me not 100% sure of that, same floor in both front and rear freight bays, but judging by the floor beams i'me fairly sure it is the rear.

Interesting to note though is the complete lack of fusalage skin on the left hand side and belly.

hope this helps


:p

[JohnBarrySmith]

SK from private email with permission>You mention the "pressure relief door" in this post and in previous ones. I am familiar only with the 747-400, but I suspect that this door has the same function in all models, in that it is a "negative pressure" relief door - or doors.

JBS>Negative/positive/sucked/blown/half empty/half full depends on reference.

Were the nine passengers of United Airlines Flight 811 sucked out or blown out? Depends if looking from inside or outside the ruptured hull.

The pressure relief doors are to relieve the pressure differential between on ground inside cargo compartment pressure and on ground outside hull pressure. The risk is internal high pressure and external low pressure at ground level is driving door open fast and hard injuring anyone in the outward opening upward swinging cargo door path.

SK> In normal operation, this door would remain closed in flight, and because it is in effect a "plug-type" door, I can't see how it could open if the aircraft performs a normal descent.

JBS>Right, probably impossible to manually open the pressure relief doors inflight while hull is pressurized. The doors are mechanically acutated, not pressure. When the bottom eight locking sectors start to turn by the manual locking handle, the mechanical linkage turns the pressure relief doors. The fact that one or more of the pressure relief doors is missing or jammed open on each of the five suspect cargo doors indicated to me those doors received a mechanical instruction to open inflight and once the pressure decreased enough, after the rupture of the door at the midspan latch, the pressure relief doors opened.

If the cargo door were normal and the hull had disintegrated for other reasons, it could be assumed the door might be intact or even fractured but those pressure relief doors would have remained intact in place in the upper part of the cargo door. But....one or more of the pressure relief doors is jammed or missing on all five aircraft cargo doors.

The sequence of the internal working of that complex device called a cargo door and the pressure relief doors as they open apart in flight is open for much more consideration. UAL 811 has a nice discussion in AAR 92/02.

SK>to prevent increases in atmospheric pressure from overpressurizing the aircraft if all doors are closed (e.g. a closed, depowered aircraft parked overnight with a rising barometer).

JBS>Interesting. The pressure relief doors are to protect the airplane and not the ground crew?

SK> The spring-loaded flapper door merely opens as needed to let air into the aircraft until inside and outside pressures are equalized.

JBS>Yes, for pressure actuated doors. The pressure relief doors in the cargo doors are not pressure actuated but mechanical.

SK>I cannot see how these negative pressure relief door(s) could open in flight;

JBS>Exactly, how did they open as the evidence shows for five aircraft?

SK>even if these door(s) did open or even somehow leave the aircraft in flight, I cannot see how it would be any more of an emergency than the blowing out of a cabin window,

JBS>Right, if only one door were to open, it is small and manageable, sort of like a 20 inch shatter hole in nose.

SK>I cannot see how it would cause a failure of the main cargo door itself.

JBS>It does not cause a failure, the midspan latches are the location of the failure, the pressure relief doors are a symptom, a clue after the event, not a cause.

SK>Your other comment which I find curious was:
"... flying normally for an hour or less and was normally pressurized"
I grant you that this was likely the case with the CI 747, but with TWA's? Did they routinely fly the 747 on short sectors? Not to my knowledge.

JBS>Ah, I meant "... flying normally for an hour or less {on a five hour flight} and was normally pressurized {for the altitude it was flying}"

SK>I think it was on the DHL/Russian midair thread that someone mentioned the incredible ratio of "views" to "posts."

JBS>That was interesting, the ratio of posts to viewer. Lurkers? Freeloaders? I think interested scanners. The human mind has an incredible ability to accumulate and sort through data. I think all the many viewers who don’t post are interested, accumulating information from this source and hundreds more, and sorting through it later. It’s the magic and power of the internet.

I would encourage all viewers to post, throw some grist into the mill, some wood on the fire, some bricks for the wall....some...Anyway, do not be deterred by the scornful degrading humiliating responses to them. The words are all puffs of air, the factual content is everything. The emotional response of hot cheeks when insulted quickly fades while the facts remain and can be referenced later.

The structure is not a chat room but a ‘Forum” which implies a person a more scientific approach with proper presentation and well thought out premises, not a chat room with a stream of consciousness going on.

Each of us here, each of us in the thousands has a little bit and maybe a big bit, of experience and knowledge that qualifies each as an ‘expert’ in that narrow area.

Do not be intimidated by rude responses, throw your hat in the ring with your opinions. The insults are intended to deter those who might offer contrary ideas. Well, don’t be growled off, the snide comments are a clue that the subject is worthy of discussion the growler is insecure in his facts and reasoning. And I could be talking about me, too.

http://www.corazon.com/611bottomdoorsplit.JPG

MM>Looking at the picture, the bottom left of the pic would be about the middle of the cargo door when viewed from inside, the silver panels with bumps are the lower cargo floor ballmats, the forward edge of the door is still present but the fusalage door frame and skin are missing.

JBS>OK, let me see if I get this right: The forward edge of the door is just to the left of the word “JUL”. The fuselage to which the door is attached (by latch cams and pins) is above the word “JUL 14 2002.” Tail to left.

MM>Looking at the pic the door does still look latched at the lower edge, the lower eight latch torque tube is still present (only just in view) and looks intact (no bending)

JBS>I do see a green tube running left to right and appears straight.

I don’t see any locking sectors or any latching hardware but will assume they are hidden. The bottom eight should be latched after AD 881204.

It still does not look right to me as I would expect the door to fit flush when latched but this looks like the door folds up while floor stays were it is but if the door were raised to vertical it would not be flush, there is about a six inch ledge/vertical step looking yellow in picture. The ledge/skin is above the door and below the white ballmats.

MM>the latch actuator is still present (the white object at the left of the pic 2/3's down)

JBS>Got it, white solid metal thing in door on left with green tube going inside it.

MM> as is its torque tube which looks undamaged as does the pushrod from the lower eight latch torque tube to the midspan latches (lower edge of photo, 1/3 in from left).

JBS>Torque tube to forward midspan latch green and mostly upper right to lower left in picture. Midspan latch picture missing because cropped out or actually missing. I am encouraged they have recovered this piece and thus able to intensively examine it. I hope more pictures will be released.

JBS>The rollers you can see just above the bottom edge of the door are cargo loading rollers on the floor lip, not part of the cargo door latches.

JBS>Got it, they are not door latches.

MM> There does not seem to be any structual damage to the door visible in the pic as far as i can see, the panel that is torn (1/2 way along, 1/3 up from the bottom of the pic) is made from gilliner, a fireproof fibreglass - easily torn.

JBS>This bottom door piece we see does seem to be in solid condition in contrast with the top piece and the missing middle.

MM>The pic does seem to show the rear floor are but i'me not 100% sure of that, same floor in both front and rear freight bays, but judging by the floor beams i'me fairly sure it is the rear.

JBS>Very good, need to always rule out the other twin door.

MM>Interesting to note though is the complete lack of fusalage skin on the left hand side and belly.

JBS>Yes, this looks like the hull rupture area, aft of the wing. It also appears the bottom of the door has its external skin still attached. I see no evidence of an outward force pressing on the door.

All of the above is fairly consistent with a premise of ruptures at the midspan latches with bottom eight holding firm. The leading edge of the door frame which is missing in photo needs to be examined for petal shaped opening. It appears the forward leading edge should be there but isn’t, or is it?

Note how the bottom part of the door is not exactly parallel with the yellow fuselage skin. If bottom eight latches still latched, the door would have a constant six inch difference but it’s six inches on the right side of the picture and dwindles to about two inches on left side of the picture. Why is that?

Nose to right, tail to left.

The inner strength of this door is apparent. For it to break into several pieces as the evidence shows would be unusual if the hull fracture open elsewhere. The door might be intact in a big square door but not split in two or three longitudinally. It appears the floor ballmats end abruptly about where the aft edge of the door would end. Why a sharp cut there?

But, normal is in the eye of the beholder here.

What is that big metal thing behind the word “JUL” and ends before ‘14’? It looks like part of the door yet can’t be as it looks permanently attached. That object intrigues me.

I assume the paired ridges, five of which are barely seen out of eight installed, all in middle left in picture, are the supports for the latching cams. What are they for sure?

Well, thank you very very much MM, this now enables us to get our bearings once more photos are released. The white actuator is a good reference point as well as the gilliner panel.

Cheers,
Barry

[gas path]

What is that big metal thing behind the word “JUL” and ends before ‘14’? It looks like part of the door yet can’t be as it looks permanently attached. That object intrigues me.

That piece I believe is part of the pull-in hook pin structure, I think that the hook is just visible (I did try to 'blow up' the image (no pun intended) in photoshop but it didn't get any clearer!
Due to the tapering shape of the fuselage the door and the fuselage frame shown does not lie parallel therefore I agree with Mechanical Man that it is indeed the aft cargo door area.

[JohnBarrySmith]

CAL Cargo Door Under Study

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.

Cheers,
Barry

[MechanicalMan]

Barry

The Leading edge of the door is still present in the photo, the ballmats ending abruptly is by design, built and installed like that.

:p

[JohnBarrySmith]

MM>The Leading edge of the door is still present in the photo, the ballmats ending abruptly is by design, built and installed like that.
JBS>I based the leading edge is missing because of the opinion that the pull in hook mechanism is seen and that mechanism is in the door, not out in front of the leading edge.
That whole lower piece is weird. The non parallel lines need to be explained as well as not being flush with fuselage and now exposed pull in hook mechanism and still hidden lower eight latches.
Barry

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>From a knowledgeable correspondent below:

Hi! I can see about 4 C locks in the fully closed and locked position. The portion of the door is lying down from its normal position but it has just rotated on the locking pins as there is nothing to support it. The RH fwd pull in hook looks to be still locked as well and the Rh fwd door frame has broken just above the pull in hook pin. The pull in hook has a section above and below it and you can only see the lower section in the photo.
I dont think that the fact that it is not parallel is_significant, I think the bottom sill is bent.
The forward edge of the door appears intact but_the photo only shows about a quarter of the way up the door.
I am pretty sure that the door would have had an interior covering either aluminium or fibreglass but it would be easily removeable and tear off on the way down.
The tube closest to the rollers is the tube with the C locks and you can see the backs of them next to the supports for the tube
The latches are not visible but the position of the C locks tells me that they are locked in the fully closed position.
I cant see anything that gives me cause for concern with these photos.I think the door could well break in the middle on the way down.
If the door had had a catastrophic failure of the mid span latches I would expect to see severe deformation downwards of the attachment points for the bottom pins and at the pull in hooks but these all seem unstressed. Likewise I would expect to see damage to the top hinge but this also appears to be ok It does however appear to have slammed against the section of fuselage attached to it but again this could have happened on the way down not at the point of initial failure.
Regards

[atakacs]

Folks,

What's going one here ? No more solid info for quite some time...

The ASC seemed quite open to communication at the early stages of the investigation. Any updates on their site (I do not read Chinese) ? Firehouse, can you give us some info (nothing confidential, just let us know if the recovery effort is still in place, for instance) ?

Seems that even JBS gave up on this thread... Still mysterious crash, in my book.

--alex

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>Give up? I don't think so, not while I have breath to breathe. At 0 PSI differential of course.

Since the bomb guys left, it has been sort of lonely.

Well, facts will provoke discussion. Here's an interesting item to me from an informed source:

(I call it another band aid to close the barn door after the cow has run away.)

Cheers,
Barry

]Docket No. 89-NM-148-AD; Amendment 39-6581; AD 90-09-06

Airworthiness Directives; BOEING Model 747 Series Airplanes

This amendment supersedes Amendment 39-6166, AD 89-05-54.

This amendment (39-6581, AD 90-09-06) becomes effective on May 29, 1990.


Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52A2206,

Revision 3, Revision 4, or Revision 5, paragraphs III.A. and B. Airplanes which fail mechanical and/or

electrical tests must be repaired prior to further flight, in accordance with FAA-approved procedures.

Repeat these tests at intervals not to exceed 30 days and repeat the electrical test after restoration of

electrical power following manual operation.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-52A2206, Revision 3, dated August

27, 1987, Revision 4, dated April 14, 1988, or Revision 5, dated March 30, 1989: Modify the doors in

accordance with paragraphs III.H. through III.O. of the applicable revision of the service bulletin.


Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-52A2209, dated August 27, 1987,

Revision 1, dated April 14, 1988, or Revision 2, dated March 30, 1989: Modify the doors in accordance

with paragraphs III.E. through III.L. of the applicable revision of the service bulletin.



Number: 747-52-2242 Service Bulletin

Date: August 26, 1993

Aft Lower Lobe Cargo Door Wire Bundle Inspection and Flexible Conduit Replacement

THE BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE GROUP RECOMMENDS THAT EACH OPERATOR

EXAMINE THIS SERVICE BULLETIN IMMEDIATELY.

BACKGROUND

This modification revises the cargo door warning

system for the lower lobe forward and aft and main

deck side cargo doors.

The existing system consists of a "door warning"

switch that monitors the position of the pressure

relief doors which are at the end of the master latch

lock mechanism operating sequence. When the

manual master latch lock handle is closed after the

latch cams have rotated to the latched position, the

pressure relief doors close. Closure of the pressure

relief doors actuates the switch which extinguishes

the cargo door caution message on the Engine

Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS)

display.

The modification adds a new "door latched" switch

to one of the latch cam bellcranks to separately

sense and indicate the position of the latch cams.

The current single pole "door closed" sequence

switch is also replaced by a double pole switch. The

additional pole is used to separately sense the

position of the door. If any of these switches are not

actuated, the cargo door caution message appears

in the upper EICAS display. A latches closed

indication light is also added to the forward and aft

lower lobe exterior door control panels. The light

indicates when the powered latching sequence is

completed and the door may be locked.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airworthiness

Directive 90-09-06, Amendment 39-6581, is related

to this service bulletin.

ACTION (PRR 82334-1)

On the forward, aft and, if equipped, main deck side

cargo doors, replace the current single pole "door

closed" switch with a double pole switch and add the

new "door latched" switch to the latch bellcrank.

Replace the current single pole "door up" switch on

the forward and aft doors with a double pole switch.

Install markers for the new system. Add the latches

closed indicator lights to the cargo door control

panels for the forward and aft doors. Modify the P59

and P86 cargo door equipment panels. If equipped

with a side door, modify the cargo door equipment

module on the main deck side door. Install a new

Signal Collection/Tail Identification (SCID) card in

the Modularized Avionics Warning and Electronics

Assembly (MAWEA) card file. Adjust the rigging

and perform the necessary functional tests.

COMPLIANCE

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airworthiness

Directive 90-09-06, Amendment 39-6581, is related

to this service bulletin.

EFFECTIVITY

All 747-400 airplanes line position 696 through 820.

MANPOWER

See service bulletin for manpower estimates.

MATERIAL INFORMATION

Boeing Supplied Kits

Refer to Paragraph I.F., Material - Price and

Availability.



CHINA AIR LINES, INC. (CHI)

6 RT631-RT632

CHINA AIR LINES, INC. (CHI)

1 RD081

3 RD551

5 RD082-RD083 RR521-RR522

8 RG171-RG174

9 RT631-RT634



I imagine CI-611 was one of these a/c



B. Reason

This modification revises the cargo door warning system for the lower lobe forward and aft and main

deck side cargo doors.

The existing system consists of a "door warning" switch that monitors the position of the pressure

relief doors which are at the end of the master latch lock mechanism operating sequence. When the

manual master latch lock handle is closed after the latch cams have rotated to the latched position,

the pressure relief doors close. Closure of the pressure relief doors actuates the switch which

extinguishes the cargo door caution message on the Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System

(EICAS) display.

The modification adds a new "door latched" switch to one of the latch cam bellcranks to separately

sense and indicate the position of the latch cams. The current single pole "door closed" sequence

switch is also replaced by a double pole switch. The additional pole is used to separately sense the

position of the door. If any of these switches are not actuated, the cargo door caution message

appears in the upper EICAS display. A latches closed indication light is also added to the forward

and aft lower lobe exterior door control panels. The light indicates when the powered latching

sequence is completed and the door may be locked.

Revision 1 is sent to update the set of retrofit drawings necessary to perform this modification.

Revision 2 is sent to make minor changes to the service bulletin with no more work added for affected

airplanes. The changes include:

- Revision of Paragraph I.A. by the addition of airplanes RT407 - RT410, RT506 - RT507 to Group 6.

These airplanes were in the original release but not included in Revision 1

- The latest revision level for the list of drawings in Paragraph I.J

- The parts accountablity information for the Bellcrank assembly to Paragraph II.D

- Change of system functional test in Paragraph III.T, to allow the system to be functionally tested

by 747 Maintenance Manual.

[MechanicalMan]

EFFECTIVITY

All 747-400 airplanes line position 696 through 820.


JBS>I imagine CI-611 was one of these a/c

no

The mod was for 747-400 series , i think you will find it was a 200 series that crashed, (EICAS is only fitted to the 400 series)

:p

[firehorse]

It's over guys n' gals!

The recovery ship "Jan Steen" departed Kaoshiung waters last night at 1700hrs to return home via HKG. The vessel was on location from June 13th - Sep 17th.
A good effort by all and after being on the vessel for over 100days in some cases much steam was vented at a certain bar known as the Pig & Whistle the other night. So now 53 weary souls including myself can go back to our homes and resume our semi-normal lives. Fishing boats are planning to conduct dragging ops of some sort on the location for a few weeks or so, perhaps that will work or not...
As for me, well I think a well deserved beer or 3 will be in order at the Kangaroo pub tonite in honkers, look for the chap on the window observing the scenary walking by outside and you could be in for a story or two...

later.

[arcniz]

Bottoms up!

[atakacs]

firehorse,

Thanks for the update ! So the recovery effort is mostly over.

We obviously have quite some questions for you but I gather you are the best placed to know what / when to say !

--alex

[PickyPerkins]

The ISASI 33rd annual Air Safety Seminar (http://en-asc.asc.gov.tw/asc/_file/2217/upload/news/910922e.htm) was due to be held at the Grand Formosa Regent Taipei, Taipei, Taiwan, Sept.30 through Oct. 3. 2002, with more than 200 worldwide aviation specialists attending. Did anyone attending pick up any futher info re. CI611 which they can share with us?

[firehorse]

PickyP,

CI611 was meant to be talked about briefly but not to the level of "what happened" during the conference.

There was a large Technical Review Meeting held in Taipei Sat before and the operation to date was summarised. The investigation is still very much alive and moving along as quickly as it can be. It's a very lengthy process as I am sure you can imagine and the results of the investigation may take a couple of years before they are made public.

Cheers.

[PickyPerkins]

Firehorse, Thanks for the update!

[PickyPerkins]

I came across a curious thing in Section 1.10.1 "Cockpit Voice Recorder" of a RTO report (http://www.bst.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1995/a95h0015/a95h0015.asp). It seems that a loud sound clearly heard by several cockpit crew can be missing on the CVR record. Here is a quote from the report:
---------- Start quote ----------
The loud bang heard by the crew and other witnesses was not evident on the CVR. The only unusual sounds recorded occurred two seconds after the V1 call, when the first of a series of 21 "thuds" was heard. A loud bang would certainly contain significant frequency components well within the CVR bandwidth (200-5,000 hertz). The lack of a pronounced loud bang on the CVR was likely the result of the wave transmitted through the aircraft structure causing the automatic gain control on the CVR to squelch the structure-borne signal, thereby masking the slower-travelling airborne sound. The series of thuds was considered similar to the sound of repeated compressor stalls.
---------- End of quote ----------

This may not be significant wrt CI611, but I am posting this because people may assume that if it isn't on the CVR then it didn't happen, and that the human witnesses may be wrong. Also, there have been questions as to whether CVRs pick up structure-bourne noise.

[atakacs]

"The Aviation Safety Council announced yesterday that salvage operations for a China Airlines crash in May this year is finished, with 175 bodies and about 80 percent of the wreckage from the plane being recovered.

But so far, the council said, it still cannot determine the cause of the crash of Flight CI611 near the Penghu island chain, off Taiwan's southwestern coast, on May 25. "

http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/2002/10/30/1035940330.htm

Any comments ?

[PickyPerkins]

According to an update (http://en-asc.asc.gov.tw/asc/_file/2006/upload/news/CI6111029e.htm) with many photographs on the ASC web-site, the final draft report is expected to be released "on Sep, 2003".

However, the Taiwan News.com article linked to by atakacs above says, "Yong said the ASC, a Cabinet-level agency responsible for investigating aviation accidents, is scheduled to deliver a comprehensive investigative report in September 2004. Before such a report is finalized, all findings are factual information which cannot be lightly used to judge the cause of the flight disaster".

So a factual report will be released in 2003, but not until 2004 will we get the conclusions as to the cause of the crash.

Cheers, http://pickyperkins.home.infionline.net/pi.gif

[atakacs]

Most insterresting update... still digesting it !

That being said I really wonder how they came up with this Sept 03 date ? Either the cause is identifed, and it's a long time to finalise a report, or it is not, in which case who knows how much effort is still needed ?!

[HotDog]

The factual collection phase will complete on April 2003 after the factual verification meeting and followed by a 6 months’ of the analysis phase.

Alex, most accident investigation final reports take about two years to produce and that's how long it takes to eliminate conjecture from facts, not unlike a complicated criminal procedure in law. However rest assured, the manufacturer and regulatory authorities would be right now, well aware of the necessity of any issues of ADs if warranted to avoid a repeat of this accident.

[lomapaseo]

>However rest assured, the manufacturer and regulatory authorities would be right now, well aware of the necessity of any issues of ADs if warranted to avoid a repeat of this accident.<

Agree

For All

So what are the other operators of similar equipment doing different?

Service bulletins?
Airworthiness directives?

[atakacs]

most accident investigation final reports take about two years to produce and that's how long it takes to eliminate conjecture from facts Well, if you say so...

I am still really surprised that they can forecast when this one will be complete !

--alex

[PickyPerkins]

I have edited my last post above.

I guess it takes another year to eliminate the politically unacceptable facts from the overall facts. However, the time that this will take is apparently accurately known two years in advance.

Seriously, this investigation does seem to be meticulously detailed with many photos, maps, and records published from the start, and with many agencies and companies involved from both Asia and the USA, as well as with good cooperation with mainland China. But the slowness of it all leaves the ASC and their government open to speculation as to why its all so slow.

http://pickyperkins.home.infionline.net/pi.gif

[wes_wall]

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.

[JohnBarrySmith]

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]

[lomapaseo]

BS>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."


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.

For the benefit of those in this forum who have open minds. The description of damage to engine pos 3 correlates with an engine that was intact, but no longer running as it fell face first towards the ocean. During this fall it was still attached to the wing for a period of time and as such it ingested a good deal of flames into the inlet. The wing surface on this side of the aircraft also showed the same sort of sooting asymetric to the normal fore to aft wing flow. (presumably the wing was no longer operating as intended).

Subsequently the no 3 engine separated and continued its free fall into the sea where it struck the inlet cowl first causing the inlet cowl to fold into the fiberglas nose spinner and thence into the fan rotor itself. The hydraulic loading of the water was of such force that it folded the blades which had survived the impact of the inlet cowl and nose spinner aft in a reverse spiral folding action causing the blades to close the gaps between them and to crush the blade shrouds out of the way.

No mysteries here to the trained investigators, just food for conspiracy folks who like to get their name in print.

[JohnBarrySmith]

Lomapaseo>For the benefit of those in this forum who have open minds. The description of damage to engine pos 3 correlates with an engine that was intact....

No mysteries here to the trained investigators, just food for conspiracy folks who like to get their name in print.

JBS>One of the many things I have learned during this last decade of discussing the wiring/cargo door explanation is that people who always toss out personal insults always makes unsupported statements contrary to the facts and attempt to distract from their inaccuracies with emotion. Thus it is again above.

Enough to say again that I am a non conspiracy person but a mechanical explanation with precedent person.

To the facts: Engines number 1, 2, and 4 of TWA 800, as described in Exhibit 8A Powerplant report, show none of the sooting, impact damage, missing blades, or soft body impacts which are evident to engine number three.

The right horizontal stab is directly aft of engine number three and had an 'engine stator blade' embedded in it. The blade in the stabilizer and engine number three were found some distance apart on the ocean floor as all the engines separated from their pylons during the free fall.

There is evidence of uncontainment and fire in engine number three of TWA 800 which matches UAL 811 engine number three after the cargo door opened and ejected debris fodded nearby number three and caused the uncontainment and fire.

Spit out blades, missing blades, and soot are contrary to an engine(s) this is operating normally and falls into the sea, as the other three engines reveal in their breakdown report.

Again, that solid, hard alloy of engine blade is not going to disappear because it is said over and over again there was no uncontainment of engine number three and everything was normal.

TWA 800 blown out cargo door showing the ruptures and missing pieces was not normal, CI 611 with its missing cargo door pieces and spread out door pieces in the debris field is not normal either.

The cargo doors of all five early model Boeing 747s are rupturing open in flight and the cause I offer for the blow outs is the one confirmed and solid mechanical reason, wiring/cargo door explanation.

It's not the explanation that blames Libyan terrorists, Sikh terrorists, dumb groundhandlers that improperly latch, dumb repair mechanics for a foreign airline, or spontaneous fuel tank explosion with no ignition source. There is a common cause for the uncommon event with common evidence.

I've also learned in the past years there are some things so horrible to believe that humans just refuse to believe them and substitute alternative more pleasing explanations, regardless of facts, data, and evidence. They are not being conspirators but just human.

Cheers,
Barry Smith

BS>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 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."
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.

[HotDog]

JBS, I suppose you refuse to fly on Boeing airplanes, especially 747 types, since you are convinced they have defective wiring and unsafe cargo doors. I am sure that in your homeland of frivolous litigation you could find an ambulance chasing attorney to plead your case in a civil suit against the Boeing Company for endangering life and limb; in spite of your timely warnings, based on your expert knowledge of airplane design and your proof of the cause of past disasters.:rolleyes:

[epc]

TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) -- Investigators analyzing the wreckage of a China Airlines' jumbo jet that broke apart over the Taiwan Strait in a crash that killed all 225 people on board last May have found a crack seen as evidence of metal fatigue, a Taiwanese official has said.

But the official declined to speculate whether metal fatigue was the cause of the crash, saying only that it was "one of the risk factors" related to the incident.

Findings by Taiwan's Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology were recently confirmed by the aircraft's maker, Seattle-based Boeing, said Kay Yong, Taiwan's chief crash investigator.

"We can only say that metal fatigue was one of the risk factors," Yong told The Associated Press.

It is still unknown why the Boeing 747-200 broke apart about 20 minutes into a flight from Taipei to Hong Kong on May 25, said Yong, managing director of Hong Kong's Aviation Safety Council.

Investigators discovered a crack several inches (centimeters) long in the rear of the plane.

It was later determined that the crack was not caused by the impact of the crash but had grown out of a smaller crack that was previously documented and related to a minor accident in 1980, when the plane's tail hit the ground during takeoff.

The part of the aircraft damaged in that accident was covered by a metal patch measuring 23 inches (half a meter) by 125 inches (3 meters).

The findings indicated that all airlines need to conduct a more thorough inspection for signs of metal fatigue on any Boeing jets that have undergone a major repair, he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/25/taiwan.jet.ap/index.html (From CNN)

[JohnBarrySmith]

Repair Doubler/patch intact. It's been intact for 20 years.
Cargo door shattered and critical pieces missing. Pieces missing are in the middle area where ruptures occur.
Probable cause?
Oh, the thing that didn't break caused it and the thing that did break did not cause it.
The thing that gets me is the lack of pursuit for the obvious mechanical answer with precedent, wiring/cargo door problem, and the too anxious claims of officials that it was a 'crack' while making comments like, 'It is still unknown why the Boeing 747-200 broke apart about 20 minutes into a flight from Taipei to Hong Kong on May 25', said Yong,
Genuine pursuit of probable cause of 611 means getting all the parts to the shattered cargo door, all those missing big parts, all the special parts tthat have the area of midspan rupture such as pins, latches, cams, torque tubes, and manual locking handle, all missing.
They are missing for a reason. I don't know the reason but they should have been recovered. The aft area debris field was extensively searched.
Until the mysterey of those missing pieces is answered there can be no probable cause that excludes a wiring/cargo door fault....like UAL 811 except it was the identical aft cargo door with identical known faulty poly x wiring instead of the forward cargo door.

[firehorse]

JBS,

There are numerous reasons why some items still remain unrecovered off Taiwan, none of those reasons being devious. For example try sea currents up to 4.3 knts, seas up to 8m, winds up to 75knts, typhoon season, 64sq mile search area, limited assets, the list goes on. Keep in mind that there was only one specialist diving vessel with 2 divers in the bell at any one time. The seabed in that area is covered with sand waves which tend to trap objects between them, in very short time sand fills the wave and it tends to "move" on. Even some large objects were nearly completely buried and only luck enabled them to be discovered. The bottom line here is that nature doesn't descriminate based on importance of objects when it comes to what gets buried and what doesn't. Some objects will remain buried forever, the only way to find buried objects is by searching with sub-bottom profilers which is expensive and time consuming to say the least!

Not everthing is a conspiracy mate, the best people tried for nearly 4mths and simply missed certain parts. End of story.

Cheers.

[Volume]

Boeing released Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2489 on November 26th.

This SB recommends visual inspection for doubler repairs in the aft lower fuselage area (typical tail strike area) and, if doublers are found, eddy curent inspection for scratches and cracks with subsequent repair depending on flight cycle number and extent of damage found.
The SB is applicable to all 747 models, including the -200B, -200C and -200F models.

´...will make shure that skin cracks or scratches that could cause skin cracks are found and repaired in the aft lower body skin. Fatigue cracks originating from unremoved damage that are not detected can affect the structural integrity of the airplane.´

´Existing maintenance program may not be sufficient for external doubler repairs that conceal unremoved damage.´

Seems the Boeing guys are really worried about the findings on China Airlines 611 wreakage, do they know much more than we do ?

[PickyPerkins]

Volume said
---- Start quote ---------
…….. do they know much more than we do ? …………..Boeing released Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2489 on November 26th. ……….
---- End quote ---------
Yes, I am sure they do. And not only Boeing. The ASC in Taiwan and the NTSB in the USA probably know as much.

But I am puzzled as to why, when so many Ppruners must see Service Bulletins, it took 44 days for anyone to post this info here and comment on it. While the ASC has threatened to take legal action against leaking unpublished info, there can hardly be any risk in noting and discussing Service Bulletins.

Question: Do the majority of Ppruners who read SBs think this SB is NOT related to CI611?

Cheers, http://pickyperkins.home.infionline.net/pi.gif

[OVERTALK]

The Alert Service Bulletin that was put up on a web-site in 1999 about a Kapton wiring fire that had caused IFE-related in-seat fires on 747-400's was made subject of a Boeing Legal Team DMCA approach to my ISP (who then promptly killed the website).

DMCA = Digital Millenium Copyright Act

And of course the DMCA is now spreading internationally so the subject matter may soon come down, under a new national DMCA, yet again, from its new position.

Service Bulletins and Alert Service Bulletins are couched in specific terms whereas the AD's that they sometimes give rise to are couched in more harmlessly unalarming and innocuous terms.....but refer the reader back to the SB/ASB for actual implementation details. The reasoning is that some (in fact most) SB/ASB are non-mandatory and anyone reading them might ask embarrassing questions about just why that was.

In the case of the Kapton wiring pax-seat fires, the sensitivity was related to the fact that Kapton wiring was mentioned by name throughout as the cause and the ASB had it being replaced due to it having caused fire(s). That is a very very sensitive subject as far as Boeing, FAA, NTSB and theATA/airlines are concerned. Why? Because the official line is that Kapton is not a problem and has no events officially attributable to it and need not therefore be replaced. The same sensitivity was accorded Kapton by Airline Q when they sent out a MEMO instructing that all inventory-held stocks of Kapton wiring and its aromatic polyimide variants were to be destroyed.

If you really need to read up on ASB's or SB's just go to the dungeons of the Federal Repository and they are all there. You can read them, but if you try to copy or disseminate them or publish them, Mr Boeing has a whole team that will descend upon you like a ton of bricks. They closely husband their sensitive secrets.

DMCA action is unilateral. You have no right of appeal (and neither does the ISP).

No need to wonder any more about ASB/SB's.

[lomapaseo]

Overtalk

I realize my post is going slightly off topic, but I suspect Boeing's concern was that of publication out of context.

It's important for those that folow and implement SBs that they are aware of all previous SBs relating to the issue as well as those that supercede.

Publication of any one SB out of this context could be misleading.

[PickyPerkins]

---------------------
OVERTALK => Is Boeing Concerned about ASB's getting to be Public Knowledge?
-----------------
Many thanks for your eye-opening post. I had not understood extent to which manufacturers, as well as safety organizations such as ASC, use legalities to suppress the publication of safety bulletins and information. I had no idea that "we, the people" had authorized (via Congress and the DMCA) the withholding of safety documents from the public.

I assume that one can discuss an ASB in public without being threatened? However, if one or more parties in the discussion do not have the actual text available, they may finish up talking apples and oranges. Particularly if you need previously published ASBs to put it all in context. There is probably no better way of creating misunderstanding than suppressing the actual text of current and past ASB texts.

P.S. And off subject, I found the following (rather old) summary (http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=1000&file=safety.htm) of the electrical fire situation on a Delta Airlines L-1011 interesting:
-------- Start quote ---------
As the crew’s report to the Aviation Safety Reporting System recounted, the captain "had a sea of inoperative flags on his panel...with random electrical items giving warnings, it became evident that the airplane thought it was on the ground and in the air simultaneously." Even after the crew completed an emergency landing, they could not turn off the engines by cutting the fuel ignition switches. Pulling the fire handles got the engines to finally stop.

The problem was attributed to an improperly installed clamp, which, over time, wore through wiring insulation and caused a short circuit.
-------- End quote ---------

Thanks again for your valuable (to me) post.

Cheers, http://pickyperkins.home.infionline.net/pi.gif

[smandkjc]

We have just viewed an advance copy of "Unlocking Disaster"a tv documentry on UA811 and our investigation of its cause. The film is the first in a series of 6 on air disasters and was produced by Stone City Films UK. It is a Cineflix production for 5 in association with Discovery Canada,France 5 and Canal d.
We found it very well produced and it should be screened in the Uk,Canada and France later this year. It will be interesting to see if it also screens in USA!!!

[JohnBarrySmith]

Firehorse:>JBS, There are numerous reasons why some items still remain unrecovered off Taiwan, none of those reasons being devious.

JBS>I never said they were.

FH>For example try sea currents up to 4.3 knts, seas up to 8m,

JBS> Yes, those midspan latches and the middle pieces of the door are missing because of sea currents for CI 611...and for TWA 800, and UAL 811, and AI 182, and PA 103...oh wait a minute, Lockerbie is on dry land and they still can't find those same pesky latches and the middle of the door although they did find fingernail pieces of other stuff. There is no conspiracy, the obvious answer is they are not looking early enough in the debris field because they do not speculate of the door rupturing open as the first event.

FH>The bottom line here is that nature doesn't descriminate based on importance of objects when it comes to what gets buried and what doesn't.

JBS>Still looking at the tree of CI 611 and not the forest of five early model Boeing 747s that come apart in the air with shattered cargo door and the same missing essential locking mechanisms.

FH>Not everthing is a conspiracy mate, the best people tried for nearly 4mths and simply missed certain parts. End of story.

JBS> The conspiracy thought is in your head, mate, not mine. If you read conspiracy when confronted with facts which give alternative to official line, you thought of it, not me. Nowhere in the TWA 800 thread or this one will you ever see me say there is a coverup or conspiracy, just wishful thinking on everyone's part that the problem on those five 747s is a one off deal and not a serious problem that demands expensive repairs and modifications.

But I smile as usual that when I bring up facts, the reply is usually that I am nuts, such as a crank that sees conspiracies and coverups. The facts are that that aft cargo door was found in several pieces far apart in the debris field with important parts missing. That door shattered in flight. Why? Well, the precedent is aft repair bulkhead failure and wiring. The aft bulkhead failure has been ruled out but not the wiring causing inadvertent rupturing open in flight.

Now it appears that tail strike repair doubler repairs are common. That CI 611 repair doubler was intact with cracks. Cracks are always discovered on all these 747 after they crash. Are they relevant? Well, are they as relevant as a shattered cargo door for CI 611 that has similarities to UAL 811?

The authorities will bring out their electronic microscopes and make the granules move back and forth in those cracks while ignoring the huge shattered pieces of metal nearby.

Why, because of wishful thinking that a known problem of polyimide wiring did not happen again since the authorities said it would not happen, wishful thinking by the crews that they are flying something that can come apart in an instant with no emergency checklist to help, wishful thinking that the planes do not need to be grounded (as the military planes with that wiring have been), and wishful thinking that all that blame and hatred towards foreigners with bombs was misplaced.

To not admit that that aft cargo door shattered open in flight and scattered the pieces far and wide, such as an explosive decompression, is to ignore an obvious problem with obvious links to UAL 811.

Again, why? It's no conspiracy, no coverup, just wishful thinking, the kind of thinking that rules nowadays but has no place in scientific aircraft accident investigation.

Firehorse, you wish I would go away as just another conspiracy nut but I am not the problem; the problem is the debris field plot and the pieces of the door that indicate that aft cargo door of CI 611 shattered open in flight high up with tremendous force. The conclusion is not that the reporter, me, is a conspiracy nut, but that explosive decompression occurred which has a confirmed precedent, UAL 811.

Well, the conspiracy accusation was made against me in the TWA 800 thread of years ago in PPrune when I showed photographs of the shattered door. It is made now with CI 611 and it will be made again when the next early model Boeing 747 suffers an inflight breakup within an hour of takeoff leaving a sudden sound on the CVR followed by a complete power failure to the FDR and the cargo door will be found shattered and scattered and the midspan latches and other locking mechanisms in the middle of the door will be missing and unrecovered and I report same with pictures to this forum.


Cheers,
John Barry Smith

[Techman]

I AM impressed!. After six months this thread is still running, I say running what I really mean is going on and on and on and...........

38 pages, or is 39?, of repetion after repetition after.......
We must be getting close to a PPRuNe record here.

Anyway JBS, just because the horizontal stab is situated behind a certain engine, doesn't mean that whatever whas embedde in it came from that engine.
I have seen a small access door embedded in the very top of the horizontal stab of a DC-10. Care to guess from which engine it fell off?.

[JohnBarrySmith]

TM>Care to guess from which engine it fell off?
JBS>Number nine? Number nine...number nine...number nine.

Anyway, the point is that the NTSB said no uncontained engines for TWA 800 but that engine blade was found embedded in the right horiz stab, (which was found far from fallen engines), had to come from some engine, and engine number three did have broken and missing blades, according to the public docket breakdown report (which was missing in the final report).

Talk about hard evidence, nut much harder than a jet engine blade.

JBS

[Volume]

JBS
Now it appears that tail strike repair doubler repairs are common. That CI 611 repair doubler was intact with cracks. Cracks are always discovered on all these 747 after they crash. Are they relevant? Well, are they as relevant as a shattered cargo door for CI 611 that has similarities to UAL 811?
The authorities will bring out their electronic microscopes and make the granules move back and forth in those cracks while ignoring the huge shattered pieces of metal nearby.


The authorities already brought ther microscopes !

As you can see in the ASC Investigation Update (http://en-asc.asc.gov.tw/asc/_file/2006/upload/news/CI6111029e.htm), the doubler looks like it had played a role in the breakup.
This does not necesarily mean, it was the initial point.

The Boeing SB wording ´can affect the structural integrity of the airplane´ is quite a strong one, normally Boeing speaks only of ´can lead to loss of pressurisation´ ore similar if fuselage cracks are adresed.
So this area of the 747 fuselage must be a verry critical one.
Let´s wait for further news, ASC still seems to work intensively on the wreakage examination.

[spagiola]

More on the possible role of the doubler: Crash prompts US to order new jumbo jet inspections (http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030205/airlines_faa_1.html)

[JohnBarrySmith]

The point about this shuttle door thing is:

If the shorted wiring/open cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for Boeing 747s had been accepted and acted upon earlier, NASA would not have been so blase about a piece of foam/ice striking the underside of the left wing where the door is located. They would have known about the danger/Achilles heel of doors in aviation hulls and acted differently.

Any cut in a hull is dangerous. Every patched cut is prone to fail or susceptible to further damage.

Ferries, space capsules, planes, cars, and now a shuttle have shown the vulnerability to failure at the door when an unusual event occurs such as freak wave, leak in seal, electrical short, or impact from usually benign foam.

But, denial that a simple but necessary thing such as a door could cause such catastrophe has again proven that wishful thinking sometimes kills.

Small world: yesterday I spent an hour fixing a door. My tenant in a rental house was complaining a door knob would not turn. I had to take it all apart, lubricate it, and fix it. She wanted the lock part to be on the other side of the door so I put it in 'backwards'. All was fine except now to close the door into its place, the knob has to be first turned to retract the latch pin to close the door instead of pulling the door closed and letting the sill push the pin to the retract position.

So, doors are not that simple after all, even an internal house door.

Well, maybe some attention will be put on to the shorted wiring/open cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation as a door failing in an airliner may not seem so weird now.

Barry.

Achil•les tendon \e-'ki-lez-\ n : the tendon joining the muscles in the calf of the leg to the bone of the heel
John Barry Smith
541 Country Club Drive
Carmel Valley, California 93924
831 659 3552
[email protected]
http://www.corazon.com

News>Investigators recovered the repaired fuselage section from the ocean and found a series of scratches, which could have been caused by the tail strike, and a 15-inch crack underneath the doubler.

Further examination of the same area revealed other damage that may have caused fatigue cracking over time, regulators said.

JBS>Let's see, scratches that did not crack and cracks that did not break and other damage that may crack.

And that is the avenue of research....

And nearby is shattered into several pieces large door which has failed before in another same model plane causing a similar inflight breakup after takeoff.....

And that is not the avenue of research.

China Airlines Flight 611 investigation follows the logic of why USA is invading Iraq...wishful thinking unlated to facts, data, evidence.

Barry

[whauet]

I SO saw this coming... :rolleyes:

[JohnBarrySmith]

When it was first mentioned at conference about landing gear door strike by foam, NASA refused to discuss it. Then they called it wheel well or recess.

Why not call a door a door?

Here's my best guess. There are some things that go wrong with a plane that can be fixed with minimum amount of problems and get back flying and there are some things that ground the plane just about forever.

The easy things are pilot error and weather. Blame the pilot or god and get back to work.

The middle things are one off problems like repair doublers or jackscrew grease or oxygen cannisters.

The hard things are those which mean the plane can't fly again without big design changes that make it impractical to fly again.

Wiring is one such problem with Boeing airliners. The wiring is known to be faulty and causes bad things to happen like autopilot disconnect, fires, and cargo doors to open. To replace faulty wiring is so expensive and disruptive to interior that the military just grounded the planes but the airlines didn't and keep on flying them...all the while trying as best they can to minimize the problem in their minds...by not going down any investigative path that leads to the identification of the problem which means something must be done...and that would be grounding them. It's not a conspiracy, it's just not working real hard to discover a terrible truth especially when working less leads to an easier answer, suicidal foreign pilot, or foreign bomber, or act of god with static electricity.

So, wiring goes unreported and always evaded as root cause of Boeing 747 accidents.

Now to the shuttle. The tiles have to be there or plane burns up. Shuttle is plane when landing, the first accident was in the rocket phase. The tiles have to stay. So the tiles can not be a problem because if they are, the plane gets grounded.

The landing gear doors have to be there or the plane can't land. So the doors can't be a problem.

So, any discussion about tiles and doors is played down, evaded, passed off, and dismissed.

The two real problems met with the shuttle crash. So, they have to be dismissed and replaced with an act of god meteorite. If accepted that tiles are vulnerable and landing gear doors can never be completely sealed because they have to open to get gear down to land, then the problem is so great the shuttles have to be grounded.

No shuttles flying, no jobs. No jobs, no high life, no status for the Shuttle Program Director. So, no problems with tiles and doors.

No conspiracy, just real interest in the problem being something else that lets everyone keep their jobs and status and the only ones losing their lives are the crew...once in a while, like passengers in airliners.

That's why when I heard the code phrase 'no stone unturned' I said, uh oh, denial mode is happening. The search for political easy satisfying explanation is on, and no stone unturned to find one.

They found one. For planes it's called re-entry thing as in Pan American World Airways Flight 103

1.17.4 Space debris Four items of space debris were known to have re-entered the Earth's atmosphere on 21 December 1988. Three of these items were fragments of debris which would not have survived re-entry, although their burn up in the upper atmosphere might have been visible from the Earth's surface. The fourth item landed in the USSR at 09.50 hrs UTC.

So for shuttle, they are finding all sorts of things that could hit it and destroy it and make everyone blameless but god.

NASA>In his briefing Mr Dittemore said investigators had studied video of the launch and the moment the foam hit the wing and were now trying to improve the quality of the pictures. But he said from what they could see already, there were "no gross, large areas of damage" to the wing.

JBS>The problem is under the wing which can't be seen by any camera or person. Of course there was no visible damage to the top of visible wing, the foam/ice struck underneath it as shown by the camera footage.

Boeing 747s need cargo doors even though outward opening non plug type doors and poly X wiring are known to be faulty. To fix those known problems is to ground them and that is unacceptable.

So, we have investigations that lead to crazy pilots or bombers or static electricity or scratches and cracks. No conspiracy, just wishful thinking by all involved that the problems are one off type events, not fleet wide.

Barry

[I. M. Esperto]

Previous shuttles had lost several tiles on/before re-entry, and were not affected by this.

Much to learn yet.

[jet_noseover]

Metal fatigue cracks found in downed CAL jet

2003-03-26 / Agence France-Presse /
Taiwan's flight safety authorities said they have found metal fatigue cracks and damage on a China Airlines' Boeing 747-200 which ploughed into waters off the island last year killing 225 passengers and crew, officials said yesterday.

The ill-fated plane disappeared from radar screens at an altitude of 35,000 feet (10,050 meters) 20 minutes after taking off from Taipei for Hong Kong on May 25 last year.

The Aviation Safety Council (ASC), which is in charge of Taiwan's flight safety investigation, said in its bulletin that it had found "multi-site fatigue damage" and "fatigue cracks" on the repaired fuselage while examining the wreckage of the plane.

China Airlines records showed the plane had undergone repair on its fuselage after its tail scoured the ground.

[FlexibleResponse]

Taiwan’s China Airlines, which has had a series of maintenance issues, including a suspected fatigue-related failure of a cargo door in the loss of a Boeing 747-200 last year, has named Singapore Airlines Engineering Co. to restructure its engineering maintenance division.

AW&ST March 24,2003

This report indicates that the investigation has already determined the cause or probable cause of the accident. If the cause has been determined, can anyone tell us if the “fatigue related failure of a cargo door” was a result of a failure of the tail-strike repaired area or a result of something else?

[JohnBarrySmith]

'failure of a cargo door in the loss of a Boeing 747-200'

Hello? This is the first time ever that anyone has said that cargo door 'failed.' Where did that come from? ASC? AVWeek? Not me who has been saying check out that cargo door all along. It looks like somebody checked it out and it 'failed.' Fatigue related? Is that like old wiring gets tired and shorts? Just joking. The prejudgment is in so far and the answer for CI 611 is a one off problem caused by bad mantenance years ago. It's not an industry wide problem of faulty wiring. Too bad about Swiss Air 111, another one off anomaly and United Airlines Flight 811 and I say, Air India Flight 182 and Pan American World Airways Flight 103 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800.

At least ASC or whoever said the cargo door failed, for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 it was damaged on 'water impact', for Pan American World Airways Flight 103 there is silence, and for Air India Flight 182 it was for a 'cause yet to be determined.' The photos for all show the obvious inflight rupturing and shattering and the wreckage debris fields show the scattering of the pieces of the cargo door indicating the inflight disintegration.

Available at www.corazon.com.

Cheers
Tuesday, April 8, 2003 7:54 AM
John Barry Smith
541 Country Club Drive
Carmel Valley, California 93924
831 659 3552
[email protected]
http://www.corazon.com

[FlexibleResponse]

AW&ST = Aviation Week & Space Technology

[UNCTUOUS]

Re Article below:
Well I find nothing at all strange in the investigators having found (say) the outflow valves in a non-auto electro-manually closed position (see “puzzlement” below). If you are losing differential and the cabin is climbing much faster than it should be (because air is leaking though widening (and lengthening) fuselage pressure-vessel cracks), a really dopey FE would just eventually close the outflow valves as a prelude to getting out his handbook and looking at the drill to establish reasons “why” (and what to do about it) . And I’m betting that the Boeing standard drill doesn’t include any possible cause as “there are possible large fatigue cracks in the fuselage, so minimize manoeuvre, reduce differential and descend immediately - as a large pressure differential may cause cracks to propagate quickly and compromise structural integrity.” Yes I’ll bet the house on that not being in there. The FE would instead be urgently looking for ways to sustain the differential – of which manual closure of outflow valves is the most obvious. Unfortunately as they climbed and the output (at climb power) of all engines’ bleeds being directed at pressurizing the closed-off fuselage, any marginality in a fatigue crack would soon become a catastrophically propagated failure. The natural and instinctive thing to do becomes a fatal decision. Why?

The strange sounds on the CVR just prior to the breakup might have been metal tearing as accelerated by the added stresses of the FE’s pressn sustainment actions. Think of the outflow valves under normal aspiration as a pressure relief valve. Close off that pressure relief valve because of the FE’s primary initial concern (cabin altitude climbing towards a point where the pax rubber jungle of masks would drop) – and you have then placed a much greater pressure upon the fuselage’s progressively ripping rents and tears. Eventually sufficient metal strength is lost until the point where propagation of the crack is very fast (and the tail then blows off like an exploding balloon). It’s a fairly straightforward process – based on elementary physics.

Why would those metal-tearing noises down near the tail be heard clearly on the CAMs? (cockpit area mikes). Well sound is propagated through the air but also through other mediums (such as the aircraft’s metal structure, wiring, ducting and hydraulic piping). Because the CAMS are attached to that structure they would pick up the low frequencies of metal tearing and metal flapping in the breeze –overlaid upon the sibilance of pressurized air escaping overboard (heard via the fuselage structure as a higher frequency vibratory resonance). However those sounds, although heard clearly at the CAMs, would not be evident to (i.e. remain unheard by) the aircrew on the flight-deck – in fact the usual responses of an FE to this scenario might be non-urgent and might be related to his knowledge of that particular airframe being “a real bitch to maintain differential in”. In other words the problem was likely to have been developing over many prior flights. As long as he could control it (the cabin altitude) by closing the outflow valves, there was no reason for mentioning it to the pilots (particularly if it was a known gripe on that airframe amongst the Company’s FE’s).

As the aircraft had just reached its cruising flight level of 35,000ft (and climb power being then retained for acceln to cruise mach no), the situation is akin to that of a balloon with a weakened section just having reached maximum inflation (but the balloon blower continuing to “blow it up”). The leaking cracks would have widened but the FE would have just left the outflow valves closed – as the system appeared to be coping with keeping the cabin at an acceptable 8000ft pressure altitude. In fact if he’d left the Outflow valve switch in AUTO, the system would have itself closed the outflow valves. In this latter case the FE would have had no awareness of the valves being physically closed off completely and thus have no cause for any alarm or concern.

Cruise level-off is exactly the climactic point where you would expect a fatigue failure to eventually reach (and ultimately then quickly pass) its propagating failure point of no return. The increased airspeed at level-off might also be expected to quicken the process if the tearing had produced any protuberances (sharp edges projecting into the slipstream). The flapping of such metal would also be heard as a drumming at the CAMs (via the airframe).

I doubt that outflow valve or overpressure relief valve positions are recorded on FDR’s – or for that matter even the outflow valve selection or cabin altitude/pressn differential - so confirmation of the above scenario would likely need to be established via other means.

“It’s very very strange.” said Yong Kay (see below). But any puzzlement on the part of the TW ASC investigators seems to me in turn to be very puzzling indeed. It’s not rocket science.
Perhaps these questions/postulations should be put to Yong Kay…….

UNC



Subject: Pesky pressurization....

Yong said that one strange finding of the investigation was that many knobs on the flight engineer's panel were in unusual positions.

For example, he said that some of the air conditioning pressurization knobs were in the closed position when they should not have been.
"It's very, very strange," said Yong, but he declined to say what he thought happened or how this might have affected the flight.


Metal fatigue brought down flight: ASC

2003/6/4
TAIPEI, Taiwan, The China Post staff

After a year of investigation into the crash of a China Airlines Boeing 747-200 that killed 225 people aboard, aviation authorities confirmed yesterday they found metal fatigue cracks on the debris of plane that fell apart in mid-air.

The cracks and corrosion were in a rear area that was patched up after the plane was damaged when its tail smacked the runway during a 1980 takeoff in Hong Kong, investigators from the Aviation Safety Council said.

The Hong Kong-bound CAL Flight 611 disintegrated and plunged into Taiwan Strait near Penghu on May 25, 2002 20 minutes after takeoff from Chiang Kai-shek International Airport, they said.

Chief investigator Yong Kay said that weather, pilot error, terrorist attacks and other external causes have been ruled out.

"After examining wreckage, victims' remains (including clothes), and cargo goods, the investigation team has found no evidence in the area of fire, smoke and explosives," the ASC said in its "factual data report."

The council was only releasing factual findings, saying it would take another year to complete the probe by determining the cause of the crash.

Yong said one key focus of the probe is the aluminum patch, or "doubler," used to fix the plane's rear near a cargo door. The patch ‹ one of 31 on the plane that flew for 23 years ‹ was designed to reinforce the damaged area.

But cracks and corrosion were found beneath the patch ‹ indicating that it might have not been providing enough support, Yong said.

"Whether corrosion led to the weakening of the metal structure, that is something we need to analyze," Yong said.

Paint deposits were also found under the patch, a possible sign that the patch wasn't tight enough and allowed paint to seep in, he said.

"This is something we have to think about," Yong added.

Workmen also apparently neglected to sand away some of the scratches on the plane's skin created when the tail struck the runway. "Scratches weaken the strength of the material," Yong said.

China Airlines spokesman Roger Han maintained that the plane's maintenance and repairs had been done according to Boeing's manuals and under the supervision of Boeing's engineers.

"Whether metal fatigue was the cause of the crash or the result of it still needs further investigation," Han said.

Early in the investigation, officials said that another patch near a rear door might have been problematic. The patch was made of stainless steel, and Boeing has warned against using such material to repair aluminum alloy planes. Blending the two metals can cause corrosion and structural weakness.

But on Tuesday, Yong said that the stainless steel patch didn't appear to be a major problem.

Investigators had great difficulty recovering parts of the jet that sank in the rough waters of the Taiwan Strait, off Taiwan's western coast and near the Penghu Island chain.

The council said that 175 bodies and only 75 percent to 80 percent of the aircraft were recovered.
Yong said that one strange finding of the investigation was that many knobs on the flight engineer's panel were in unusual positions.

For example, he said that some of the air conditioning pressurization knobs were in the closed position when they should not have been.
"It's very, very strange," said Yong, but he declined to say what he thought happened or how this might have affected the flight.

[HotDog]

In fact if he’d left the Outflow valve switch in AUTO, the system would have itself closed the outflow valves. In this latter case the FE would have had no awareness of the valves being physically closed off completely and thus have no cause for any alarm or concern.

You have brought up some god points Unctious but I doubt if the FE would not have noticed both outflow valve indicators showing closed in Auto. Those indications would have certainly aroused my concern, not that it mattered at that stage anymore unfortunately.

[firehorse]

Hey there J.B.S,

Been in the wop wops for a while and only just logged in and had a read of your latest post. Mateeeeeee, I never infered you were a conspiracy nut at all, it is people like you that take an interest in these things that get things changed at the end of the day, bravo I say.

Ref the salvage of the AC from the sea floor I was only being factual that's all, we got what we could get. Maybe one day I can show you the plots of debris loc's and you will then see the mammoth effort (126,816 man hrs to be exact) that was put in. Believe me not many other people on the planet were as involved in this salvage operation as I was so I know what I am talking about there. Ref aircraft I am no expert and bow out! (but I can make a pav!)

Keep up the work and if there is anything that you want to know about what went on under the waves let me know and I will see if I can help.

Cheers,

FH.

[JohnBarrySmith]

There are no conspiracies regarding China Airlines Flight 611. Thank you Firehorse for your info.

There have been six inflight breakups of early model Boeing 747s out of the approximately 37 hull losses. All six accidents were pressurized hull ruptures in flight at altitude and cruising speed.

CI 611 is the last one of the six and is still a mystery. JAL 123 and United Airlines Flight 811 have little controversy and were mechanical problems: JAL 123 was a failure of the aft pressure bulkhead failure and United Airlines Flight 811 was an electrical problem causing the cargo door to rupture open in flight.

The other three inflight breakups were and are still controversial. The disputed causes have been attributed to a missile, bombs, center tank explosion, unknown cause, and structural failure.

To summarize official explanations for the six inflight breakups for early model Boeing 747s:
1. CI 611: Mystery.
2. United Airlines Flight 811: electrical/ruptured forward cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
3. JAL 123: Aft pressure bulkhead repair failure.
4. Air India Flight 182: Canadian Safety Board states explosion of unknown cause, Indians state bomb explosion. Both state explosion occurred in forward cargo compartment.
5. Pan American World Airways Flight 103: Bomb in forward cargo compartment.
6. Trans World Airlines Flight 800: Spontaneous center fuel tank explosion in wing with undetermined ignition source.

Research by this investigator leads to the conclusion that five of the six have the same probable cause which is the same cause as United Airlines Flight 811, the shorted wiring/ruptured open cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation. JAL 123 is the exception.

1. There was an inflight breakup at high altitude at cruising speed caused by a pressurized hull rupture.
2. The hull rupture occurred aft of the wing.
3. The aft pressure bulkhead broke into several parts.
4. The aft cargo door broke into several parts scattered far apart in the debris field.
5. The repair doubler and the local area had scratches and cracks.

Assume that the closer location of the hull rupture aft of the wing was probably the aft pressure bulkhead, or the aft cargo door, or the repair doubler. Each location needs to be closely examined for matches to other similar events in similar aircraft.

For faulty doubler repairs and aft pressure bulkhead failure, JAL 123 is the model.
For cargo door rupturing open, United Airlines Flight 811 is the model.

The large pieces of that aft cargo door were found in the debris field far apart, according to the ASC report. That would indicate the door fractured high up and the pieces drifted down depending on their gross aerodynamic qualities.

How high up? May we assume the aft cargo door shattered open at about 35000 feet along with the entire aft end of CI 611 with the aft cargo door, aft pressure bulkhead, and repair doubler included?

Which part of the pressurized hull ruptured first? Did the repair doubler fail causing a rupture which led to the breakup of the aft cargo door and aft pressure bulkhead? Did the aft pressure bulkhead fail causing a rupture which led to the breakup of the aft cargo door and repair doubler? Did the aft cargo door fail causing a rupture which led to the breakup of the aft pressure bulkhead and the repair doubler?

Is there evidence of an explosive decompression in the repair doubler and the skin around it? Explosive decompression leaves tell tale marks or outward opening petal shaped metal skin. So far in the reports, there has been no mention of that evidence in or around the repair doubler. Is there evidence of catastrophic tearing or shattering of the doubler that would indicate it occurred first? There is no evidence in the record. The corroborating evidence of a repair doubler failure as the initial event is missing.

Furthermore, JAL 123 and the recent Ilyushin 76 clam shell cargo door accident show that an aft centerline explosive decompression does not cause a total inflight breakup. The force is exerted aft and not to the starboard or port, putting less strain on the airframe. Those two aircraft which have suffered an inflight explosive decompression in the aft centerline continued to fly for almost an hour after the event. They did not totally come apart in the air and float down in thousands of pieces. Based on precedent, if CI 611 had the repair doubler fail as the initial event, it is reasonable to assume that the centerline explosive decompression would have allowed the aircraft to continue to fly for some minutes at least, not a few seconds. The CVR and FDR would have continued for a few minutes at least, not the few seconds it did continue before abruptly stopping. The damage to the aft section horizontal and vertical stabilizer would be bilateral, not unilateral on the right side as the evidence shows it to be.

In the opinion of this investigator, based upon the evidence at this time, it's possible but unlikely that an initial fracture in the skin of the hull at a repair doubler on centerline would have caused the evidence recovered for CI 611.

Is there another more plausible and reasonable explanation that fits the facts, data, and evidence better? Is there evidence of an explosive decompression at the aft cargo door and the skin around it? According to the ASC reports, (in quotation marks) there is evidence of an explosive decompression:

1. 'The lower portion of the door skin was bent outboard approximately 45 degrees,' indicating a strong and sudden outward force from within the aft cargo compartment. 'CI 611 wreckage model There were 161 pieces of wreckage digitized and modeled into 3D SWRPS. All pieces less-than-1-meter, including the cargo floor beam pieces were ignored,' indicates a large explosion occurred nearby in the cargo compartment to make the pieces so small.

2. 'The RHS horizontal stabilizer is considerably more damaged than the LHS. The inboard portion of the RHS leading edge is deformed upwards. At the RHS horizontal stabilizer root, the inboard 10 feet showed considerable impact damage along with upwards deformation of the compromised structure,' which indicates more debris from starboard/right hand side/aft cargo door side striking right hand side stabilizer than debris from underneath fuselage on centerline.

3. 'Vertical Fin (See Figure 1.12-45) The majority of the upper portion of the vertical fin (item 2035) was found separate from the remaining section 48 debris, but also in the red zone. The forward edges of item 2035 were deformed to the left side indicating the leading edge portion was struck by a large object on the right side. The lower edge of this piece exhibited signs of bending and separation to the left side. At the upper forward edge of item 2035, there was significant tearing damage from fore to aft and right to left. The fractures and adjoining skin on item 630C1 contained deformation consistent with the upper portion of the vertical fin bending to the left. The lower portion of the fin (item 630C1), the upper portion of the fin (item 2035), and several of the floating pieces (item 22) show similar evidence of impact damage on the right side. This evidence indicates more ejected debris from starboard/right hand side/aft cargo door side than from debris from underneath fuselage at centerline.

4. United Airlines Flight 811 after landing shows what happens when a cargo door opens in flight and the nose does not come off. The aft cargo door is of identical size and shape as the forward cargo door. "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the sudden opening of the forward lower lobe cargo door in flight and the subsequent explosive decompression. The door opening was attributed to a faulty switch or wiring in the door control system which permitted electrical actuation of the door latches toward the unlatched position after initial door closure and before takeoff."

It is apparent the entire tail of CI 611 came off suddenly inflight. It can be seen that if a hole of the above size occurs near the aft cargo door, the tail would come off almost immediately.

5. CVR and FDR data: United Airlines Flight 811: "The CVR revealed normal communication before the decompression. At 0209:09:2 HST, a loud bang could be heard on the CVR."
The CVR report of CI 611 details the sudden louder sound after a period of normal sounds and the sudden cutoff of the FDR. There is no explanation in the report for the causes. The softer sudden sound for CI 611 might be attributed to the further distance between the aft cargo door to the microphones in the cockpit compared to the distance of the forward cargo door. The key fact is the sudden, without warning, sound on the CVR that matches United Airlines Flight 811 in style.
6. 'The upper portion of the door (item 723 [Figure 1.12-36 (a)]) was recovered with the hinge intact and the actuators in the closed position' is evidence that supports the rupturing open in flight explanation for two reasons:
a. When the cargo door opens inflight, it peels up and backwards taking fuselage skin as well as the hinge with it. The hinge stays attached to the top of the door when it ruptures open inflight.
b. The 'actuators' referred to in the ASC report must refer to the bottom eight latches as they do remain latched but the rupture occurs in the midspan latches which have no locking sectors to prevent inadvertent opening in flight. The two midspan actuators need to be recovered and examined as well as the manual locking handle, the overpressure relief doors, the torque tubes, the wiring in the door, and the midspan latches and pins. Absence of those parts is also evidence of a cargo door rupturing open in flight, because those parts are not recovered, even after extensive searches on land and sea bottom.

In the ASC factual report there was much consideration and thoughtful evaluation of the overpressure relief doors in the cabin. Extensive and excellent tests were done. The aft cargo door has overpressure relief doors also, and apparently, they are missing. The overpressure relief doors are mechanical and only open when the manual locking handle is turned open on the ground. Those small doors in the big door should have been closed and were not.

Aft cargo doors on Boeing 747s have opened inadvertently before but on the ground.
From NTSB AAR 92/02 United Airlines Flight 811
'1.17.6 Uncommanded Cargo Door Opening--UAL B-747, JFK Airport On June 13, 1991, UAL maintenance personnel were unable to electrically open the aft cargo door on a Boeing 747-222B, N152UA, at JFK Airport, Jamaica, New York. This particular airplane had accumulated 19,053 hours and 1,547 cycles at the time of the occurrence. 'Fluctuations in electrical resistance were noted. When the plug was reattached to the J-4 junction box, the door began to open with no activation of the electrical door open switches. The C-288 circuit breaker was pulled, and the door operation ceased.'
To summarize:
1. There is scant evidence to support the repair doubler failing first and much to consider it a later event.
2. There is ample evidence to support the possibility that the aft cargo door ruptured open inflight as the initial event of the hull rupture.
3. The causes of the initial hull rupture at the aft cargo door location can then be considered. An electrical problem causing the aft cargo door to open in flight is a first thought because of the precedent of United Airlines Flight 811.
4. The circumstances of faulty wiring and non plug cargo doors with no locking sectors in the midspan latches exist to this day which might warrant inspecting active early model Boeing 747s in the fleet for any frayed wiring in the cargo door activation circuits.
John Barry Smith

[HotDog]

BBC news, August 16.

Libya admits Lockerbie blame
Libya formally accepts responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, paving the way for sanctions to be lifted.

Back to the drawing board JBS.:rolleyes:

[Trash Hauler]

Libya have a lot to gain financially through the lifting of sanctions which is the next step in the process for them now they have 'admitted' to the bombing.

I wonder how much it must have cost them over the years with the santions in place.

Trash Hauler

[Peanut Butter]

So, 1 year after the CI611 crash, you guys are still debating about what happened. This must be the longest thread ever on pprune. :E

Don't you guys ever run out of breath? ;)


Trash hauler:

Gaddafi always had a vast amount of oil reserves to play with and he's very active in the diamond trade, so I can't see how much the UN sanction had 'cost' him.

Libya, though, is a different story. He basically sucked the country dry. :{

[atakacs]

So, 1 year after the CI611 crash, you guys are still debating about what happened. This must be the longest thread ever on pprune
As far as I know the official report isn't out. So why not debate ?

:p

--alex

[Trash Hauler]

Re Gadaffi and what he can gain: Having trade embargos lifted will greatly assist his country and therefore shore up his position and those of his immediate supporters within Libya. Having all the oil and diamonds is worth more if he can trade them freely.

Cheers

[JohnBarrySmith]

>Don't you guys ever run out of breath?

Uh, no. But I am huffing and puffing.

For Air India Flight 182, Pan American World Airways Flight 103, United Airlines Flight 811, Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and possibly China Airlines Flight 611 the probable cause is the shorted wiring/ruptured open cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation. Details at www.corazon.com

Cheers,
John Barry Smith
541 Country Club Drive
Carmel Valley, California 93924
831 659 3552
[email protected]
http://www.corazon.com

[OVERTALK]

I would imagine that this new Taiwanese Law is related to the cover-up over CI-611 (the temporary tail-strike repair being pencil-whipped into becoming the "permanent repair").......and the attempted cover-up of that during the ASC investigation.

See the portion in red below.

Cabinet considers new aviation law
By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER

Monday, Oct 06, 2003
The government would pay for the investigation and salvage expenses of aircraft accidents involving commercial airlines, public aircraft and ultralights under a new law the Cabinet will consider this week.

The aviation accident investigation law would also impose fines on those refusing or failing to cooperate in the government's efforts to investigate aircraft accidents.Those providing false information or leaking investigation information would also be punished.

According to a Cabinet official who asked not to be named, the draft is designed to separate the supervision of the civil aviation industry from the investigation of aircraft accidents.

In addition to approving the draft aviation accident investigation law, the Cabinet is set to approve a draft amendment to Article 84 of the Civil Aviation Law on Wednesday during the weekly closed-door Cabinet meeting.

Under the draft aviation accident investigation law, the Aviation Safety Council would become the aviation safety investigation board. It would be responsible for investigating "aviation occurrences" involving commercial or public aircraft or ultralights other than an those operated by Taiwanese armed forces or intelligence agencies.

"Aviation occurrence" is defined as any accident or incident associated with the operation of an aircraft, and any situation or condition that the board has reasonable grounds to believe could, if left unattended, induce an accident or incident.

The draft also stipulates that the board must shoulder expenses related to the investigation of an aviation occurrence, salvage and transportation of the aviation data recording devices and wreckage of the aircraft. The board would also be empowered to request information, interviews or assistance from certain people or agencies.

Those refusing to provide information or providing false information would face a fine of between NT$600,000 and NT$3 million. The fine would continue to be issued until the party complied with demands for information.

Those dodging, refusing or providing false information during an interview would receive a fine of between NT$60,000 and NT$300,000. The fine would continue to be issued until the person complied.

While the aviation safety investigation board would be the sole party responsible for making public the investigation information, unauthorized personnel leaking information could face a fine of between NT$60,000 and NT$300,000.

Besides the aviation accident investigation law, the Cabinet is also set to approve the draft bill of the organic law of the aviation safety investigation board on Wednesday to elevate the legal status of the independent entity.

from this link (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2003/10/06/2003070563)

[Trash Hauler]

The (economic) developments for Libya are happenning quicker than I imagined previously. Great economic benifits come to Libya and Gadaffi for 'admitting' to Lockerbie.

Trash Hauler.

[Trash Hauler]

Is there any more information on the cause of the accident?
Trash Hauler

[hobie]

China Airlines 747 crash report issued re Reuters .....

"February 25, 2005
A structural failure that was not properly repaired was the most probable cause of the 2002 crash of a China Airlines 747 that killed all 225 people on board, Taiwan investigators said on Friday.

After a near 3 year long investigation, Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council (ASC) issued its final report on Friday on the Boeing 747-200 that disintegrated in mid-air and crashed into the sea near Taiwan's Penghu islands on May 25, 2002.

The 23 year old aircraft had been on its way to Hong Kong and the crash was the Taiwan carrier's fourth fatal accident since 1994.

"A continuous crack of at least 71 inches (180 cm) in length, a crack length considered long enough to cause structural separation of the fuselage, was present before the inflight break-up of the aircraft," said the ASC in the report.

"The ASC concludes that the inflight break-up of the CI611, as it approached its cruising altitude, was highly likely due to the structural failure in the aft lower lobe of the fuselage."

The ASC said the crack on the back half of the fuselage was caused in a tail strike incident in 1980, and China Airlines had failed to repair the crack in accordance with Boeing's maintenance procedures.

It said the strength of a fuselage would be compromised with a continuous crack of 58 inches or longer.

"From the report it's clear the aircraft was poorly repaired and maintained and the negligence took away 225 human lives," said Victor Huang, whose wife was one of the plane's 19 crew.

"They should take responsibility. We deserve justice," said Huang, one of 92 relatives who have refused to settle with China Airlines, which offered each victim TWD$14.2 million (USD$455,000) in compensation.

Investigators also found poor communications between China Airlines and Boeing about how to repair the damage after the 1980 incident, and urged Boeing to take a more pro-active approach in its field service.

Metal fatigue cracks that penetrated the skin of the aircraft -- as well as signs of metal corrosion -- had been covered by a patch called a "repair doubler", which was added as reinforcement to the plane after its tail struck a runway in Hong Kong.

China Airlines said the available information was not conclusive enough to determine the exact cause of the accident and disagreed with part of the official finding.

"Now it seems the repair work might not be thorough, but that was the practice of many companies at that time. We did follow Boeing's procedures," said Roger Han, a spokesman for China Airlines.

The ASC said its finding was based on data collected from 1,500 pieces of wreckage, or about 75 percent of the whole structure recovered.

Since 1997, the aging plane had had a total of 29 delayed or overdue inspections, which were supposed to prevent corrosion or deterioration of parts, the report said.

"The aircraft had been operated with unresolved safety deficiencies from November 1997 onward," the ASC said.

The China airlines crash spurred the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to require US airlines flying 747s to report if they had placed covers over repaired cracks or scratches on the underside of aircraft near the tail.

(Reuters)"

what can one say :( .....

[Spotlight]

As suspected by many at the time the aft pressure bulkhead failed. Poor souls!

The resulting litigation will, I am sure provide a salutary lesson to Boeing of their potential exposure.

[RatherBeFlying]

TASC Executive Summary and Report Index (http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc_en/accident_list_2.asp?accident_no=83)

Not the fastest connection at 27Kb. The Report is 11Mb and the Appendices 25Mb.

[Globaliser]

Spotlight: As suspected by many at the time the aft pressure bulkhead failed. Poor souls!

The resulting litigation will, I am sure provide a salutary lesson to Boeing of their potential exposure.Spotlight, are you possibly confusing this one with the JAL accident in which a Boeing-repaired aft pressure bulkhead failed?

[Frangible]

Yep. JAL 123 all over again. That's deja vu for you.
May not have been a pressure bulkhead in CI611's case, but damage did result from a tailstrike, and a doubler was put in incorrectly. So much for "one in a billion".

[WindSheer]

Come on, lets hold it all together!!!


The thing that really, really bugs me about this is that this has happened more than once as we all know - but the aircraft are still flying.

Concorde was a victim of a freak set of events - and it was grounded, would this happen to any Boeing aircraft NO! The FAA will keep them up there as it will have serious impact on America's economy.

Its all a disgrace to me, because this kind of thing will happen again - you just bet it will!!:mad:

[Frangible]

Oops. Just scanned the report. The crack in the fuselage under the doubler was in the pressurised area. Identical to JAL 123, therefore, except in the consequences of the failure.
Report recommendations include improving testing procedures for areas like this where no damage would be visible. Same rec as the Japanese after JAL 123. Plus ca change...

[RatherBeFlying]

I've spent considerable time going through the minutiae of the report. There are the usual lessons for the maintainers and managers as a temporary repair became "permanent".

Pilots doing walkarounds and finding old tailstrike repair doublers on pressurised structures may want to have a look at the pictures on page 185 of the report (perhaps somebody could host these photos). Description follows:2.2.5 RAP Preparation Data Collection during 6C Check

In November 2001, CAL performed a structure patch survey to collect the data for B-18255 RAP, and the following photo was taken as shown in Figures 2.2-5.

The photograph was taken from underneath the aircraft looking up towards the fuselage. This area of the aircraft belly slopes upward towards the rear of the aircraft. When the aircraft is parked, the forward end of the doubler is closer tothe ground then the aft end. There were several traces observed on the doublers and the skin around STA 2100. Traces 1, 2,and 3 are brown in color and straight toward the aft of the aircraft, suggesting that the traces were induced by the relative wind during flight. Trace 4 shows several curved lines of transparent condensate liquid that flowed from STA 2090 toward the forward (lower) end of the doubler, consistent with flow due to gravity when the aircraft was parked. The traces seen in the November 2001 photographs were not evident on the wreckage when it was recovered.

Traces 2 and 4 began at the same origin but went in different directions. It suggests that trace 2 occurred as the aircraft was in the air, but trace 4 occurred when the aircraft was on the ground. The darkness of the traces shows the accumulated time and quantity of the flow. The color of trace 2 is the darker, which suggests a larger quantity of flow escaped into the air stream in flight.

This phenomenon, discovered during the accident investigation upon examination of photographs of the 1980 repair doubler, showed that there was possibility hidden skin damage beneath the doubler in the vicinity of STA 2100, at the time when the photographs were taken.

[PickyPerkins]

Here are two versions of the photo referred to above by RatherBeFlying:

http://pickyperkins.home.infionline.net/Trace4a_06-05-2005.gif
http://pickyperkins.home.infionline.net/Trace4b_06-05-2005.gif

Cheers, http://pickyperkins.home.infionline.net/pi.gif