Philthy...Explanation Please
 

You just panned the findings of qualified and experienced accident investigators.
Yet you fail to offer an alternative explanation.
Criticism is not valid if it is made just for the sake of making criticism.

I don't think Philthy has to offer an alternative explanation as his criticism raises sufficient reasonable doubt...

Besides which in the post before his I did offer an alternative suggestion that the bottle rupture did not cause the fuselage to split.

Rather the fuselage split first and the cargo, including the ULD banged into aforementioned bottle cracking off the valve head which went ballistic upwards and the bottle itself got shunted sideways through the hole.

Ockham's Razor seems to favour that explanation more than a bottle going upwards and then returning downwards again before turning through 90- degrees to exit the hole.

The flight attendants in the first class section, ahead of the hole, reported hearing the explosion and seeing a pressure wave of dust and condensation coming forward through the cabin. The pressure wave then reversed direction as the the air left the cabin.
I would be interested to know how the proponents of "the fuselage failed first" theory explain that phenomenon?

Hey Kiwi Guy
 

What are the qualifications you posess that lead you to make these assertions.?
Have you been up close and personal with OJK?
It is suspected that you are playing devils advocate

Hi Folks,
I suggest you download the full report for more details, rather than just read the abstract. Heaps of good photos and the in-depth story so far.

It was the guy on the knoll.... behind the tree!!!
Are we really going to have all this BS?
The report has the 'evidence' in it. Its a good report that shows/tells what happened. It may never know why.
Actually...go ahead its good for a laugh

I have in a previous incarnation worked on collision repair of cars and have seen how metal deforms in relation to various impacts. The kind of blow from inside by a downwards descending bottle would leave downwards stretch marks in the skin from above which are absent in photos posted on PPRuNe to date.

If the fuselage rupture was caused after the bottle went upstairs then how could suction have pulled the tank back down through the deck as Captain Kremin suggests ?

As Philthy notes by this time the hole was plugged by cargo.

For the accident investigator's theories to be correct requires the oxygen bottle to have performed several actions which defy the laws of physics.

They have approached the investigation having already made up their minds that the oxygen bottle flew around in the cabin and then directed their efforts to trying to make the facts fit their theory.

The energy required to make an oxygen bottle of such weight reverse course would have in fact been sufficient to shatter the bottle in which case the splintered fragments would have stayed inside the cabin.

Had the bottle propelled upwards through the hole and struck the door handle, the act of deflecting off the handle would have changed the bottle's attitude with respect to the hole.

If the bottle did not explode, but traveled upwards as an intact bottle then what caused the rupture at the wing root ?

Had the rupture at the wing root been caused by the bottle returning downwards how do you explain the suggestion that it was sucked back down before the wing root rupture ?

The energy required to make any massive object not only exactly reverse course are beyond the force which collision with a door handle could impart.

On the other hand photos posted previously on another thread here have show part of the lap joint where a whole row of rivets were bisected by a split fracture along the length of that row of holes. In other words the rivet line unzipped by part of the skin fracturing lengthwise along the rivet line. It is self evident in photos.

Had the rupture at the wing root been caused by the bottle returning downwards there would be vertical stretch marks on the skin. There were none where the rupture occurred. :ugh:

So...KiwiGuy
 

A vehicle smash repairer who has virtually no experience regarding aircraft incidents and has not had a first hand view of OJK refutes the ATSB findings.
Son...you are punching way above your weight.
Have you sent a copy of your thoughts to the ATSB?
On your suppositions they may wish to review their findings.
Send a copy to Boeing while you are at it...it appears they got it wrong as well.

C'mon guys, it's time for a reality check. A large number of investigators from a variety of organisations have independently examined the evidence and come to identical conclusions. We now have armchair experts using conspiracy theories to come up with entirely different conclusions and they are totally convinced that they are right. I suggest guys that you clear your mind of any prejudices and thoroughly read the interim report - it is an interesting read and comes with slides etc to make the visualisation of the events much easier. The "What" part of the question has been answered and is clear. We now wait for the final report which should tell us the answer to the "Why" part of the question. I'm certainly interested in what caused the oxygen bottle to split the way that it did.

What do you guys think about TWA 800 now? I'm just wondering where the bottles are on the old 747-100 and if one could have let loose and gone on a rampage near the centre tank?

Why would I bother packrat ?
They apparently have closed minds just like you.

...and since you raise the subject what experience have you got on the subject that would lead you to suggest that the ductile qualities of sheet metal in cars deforms in any way differently than that of an aircraft ?

By trading insults you've simply sidestepped answering the justified points which I raise.

Changing the subject with personal abuse is the first refuge of those who have no weight to their argument. :{

Abuse?
 

You are a bit thin skinned old chum.
I am agreeing with the findings of both Boeing and the ATSB who have far greater resources and experience than both you and I.
It is noted that you neglected to mention that Boeing concurred with the findings of the ATSB in your quotation of my previous post.
Send your concerns to the ATSB...they may learn something from you.

Flawed Floor theory
 

Even if one accepts that the oxygen bottle returned back down through the hole in the floor and then punched out through the fuselage, there would have been metal deformation typical of stretching at the point of failure.

At the point of failure however the fracture is along the rivet lines.

In a stretch caused by impact from inside you would expect the rivet holes to have elongated not laterally, but longitudinally.

You have expected each individual rivet to have torn away from the frame or stinger beneath, but instead the metal has cracked along the line of rivets.

The accident investigation report appears to have been a political response to exonerate Qantas from engineering faults rather than based in physics or fact.

Another point is why if the oxygen bottle as investigators suggest punched a hole out from the inside did the stringers or frames not deform. It is clear in the picture that the skin tore away from frames beneath, but the frames underneath were not themselves deformed.

Packrat, it's called Ockaham's Razor ... Look it up sonny. :8



http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/h...linesQF744.jpg

Messenger for the KiwiGuy
 

Would you like me to forward your concerns to the ATSB for you?.
You seem reluctant to do it.
Perhaps you dont like being laughed at or are not fully convinced of your own musings.

Kiwiguy, what you are offering as evidence talks about the expected deformation from the bottom part of the oxy bottle punching through the skin. What I see in that photo is subsequent damage caused by the massive volume of air flowing out through the hole plus possible further damage caused by airflow during the diversion to Manila.

Like I said earlier, it's best to clear your mind of any biased opinions and simply look at the facts reported by independent experts.

Assumptions of Philthy and Kiwiguy
 

Figures 14, 15, 16 and 17 show damage in the ceiling ABOVE the R2 door which match the size and shape of oxygen cylinder #4.

Just because the hole is the same size and shape as the cylinder does not mean that the entire cylinder must have passed through the hole. You can make a pencil shaped hole in a piece of paper without the entire pencil passing through the hole.

You have made an assumption that the outward moving cargo would have formed a plug before the falling cylinders reached the fuselage hole. On what evidentiary basis have you determined the time frame for this to take place? Surely this would depend on the size of the articles closest to the rupture, the orientation of the articles with respect to each other and the rupture, together with the rigidity of the articles, to name but a few variables.

You have made an assumption that the point of failure is along the rivet line. What evidence do you have that the point of failure was not somewhere else in the skin?

Kiwiguy you are claiming the report to be politically motivated. This is an immense slur on the professionalism of every single investigator involved. By claiming that the report is politically motivated you are saying that the report is the result of a conspiracy amongst the investigators to cover up the true cause of the accident. To claim that those who dedicate themselves to finding the cause of accidents so as to prevent them from occurring again in the future would hide true findings in order to protect a company is ridiculous slander. Where was Ockham's razor when you came up with this theory?

You are making your assumptions on the basis of the 'high resolution' photos available over the internet. The investigators are examining the actual damage with their own eyes and instruments.

obira

Is it usual for a 744 S/O to have 2290 hrs on type?

It's around three years of worth of flying on the 744 for an SO. Some would have even more than that after three years.

I'm not sure how a bouncing oxy bottle makes Qantas look any better or worse from an engineering point of view than any other cause for a hole in the side of one of their aircraft? It all the responsibility of the owner! Maybe if they said it was a birdstrike with no evidence you might have a case but I'm confused as to how you think this is a good excuse(or cover up) for what happened.

OK...firstly, I'm not panning the report in general. Secondly, I'm not proposing conspiracy theories or anything silly like that.

I find the explanation of the sequence of events perfectly plausible right up until the bit where the cylinder (or bits of it) retraces its steps and exits the aircraft. That's all I'm saying.