Qantas 744 Depressurisation
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wood's Hole (N4131.0 W07041.5)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And Who Makes Who The Sole Arbiter of This Thread?
I have viewed the posts to this this thread. Many have been informative, albeit speculative, as to what occurred on the subject flight. Generally, I have been both informed and educated as to what, why, when, how, and (lesser importance) who.
Many, in their posts have considered their view to be "fact", when in fact, there was a lack of fact.
One poster in his many posts has considered this domain, to be the sole domain of "professionals" and should, upon his insistence, banish any one less perfect/"professional" (sic?) than he.
Now I see that the "Moderator" is deleting posts considered by him/her not to be worthy/relevant to this thread. This in itself smacks either of intolerance or secular interests; both a bane on free speech, and certainly manifested by "Removed by Moderator".
Perhaps it is time for the Moderator to exercise moderation.
I say: let everyone have his/her say. I can easily sort "chaff from wheat", but let me first have a full bushel.
Many, in their posts have considered their view to be "fact", when in fact, there was a lack of fact.
One poster in his many posts has considered this domain, to be the sole domain of "professionals" and should, upon his insistence, banish any one less perfect/"professional" (sic?) than he.
Now I see that the "Moderator" is deleting posts considered by him/her not to be worthy/relevant to this thread. This in itself smacks either of intolerance or secular interests; both a bane on free speech, and certainly manifested by "Removed by Moderator".
Perhaps it is time for the Moderator to exercise moderation.
I say: let everyone have his/her say. I can easily sort "chaff from wheat", but let me first have a full bushel.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few quick comments
1. Yeah - I wondered if it was one of the ugly sisters too. Apparently from Malaysian and took over a year to iron out all the "squawks" after purchase. Mainly though I heard they have lower rated engines than other -400s so runways apparently look shorter from the pointy end on take off! 
2. Re censorship of forums - agree that getting the full drum is better but I haven't been around here long enough to know what is likely to be "moderated" - might be offensive or unhelpfully negative stuff maybe?
3. I was unimpressed with the reporting on this incident, even on ABC (Australia) and wrote to ABC about it. They actually have run my email on their online opinion page and you can read it here if you care...
Opinion. ABC News Online
Dunno how long they stay up but it went up this morning, 29th July 08. I am an enthusiast and a mature-age student pilot on a 150 hour course so sorry to any pros who don't agree with my email - tried to keep it as factual as my experience allows. cheer John
2. Re censorship of forums - agree that getting the full drum is better but I haven't been around here long enough to know what is likely to be "moderated" - might be offensive or unhelpfully negative stuff maybe?
3. I was unimpressed with the reporting on this incident, even on ABC (Australia) and wrote to ABC about it. They actually have run my email on their online opinion page and you can read it here if you care...
Opinion. ABC News Online
Dunno how long they stay up but it went up this morning, 29th July 08. I am an enthusiast and a mature-age student pilot on a 150 hour course so sorry to any pros who don't agree with my email - tried to keep it as factual as my experience allows. cheer John
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London, U.K.
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would your recommendations be?
Not a professional pilot (yet). Not an engineer either. A few thoughts straight from the armchair at the risk of being censored out of hand by the totalitarian 20,000-hour-on-type forum masters…
Given all previous facts, info & speculation, what would your recommendations be for systems and procedural improvement?
Here a few shots from the hip - some (or many?) of which were mentioned before:
A. Systems Design
1. Location of onboard bombs: Can anyone clarify why pressurised bottles (apart from fire extinguishers & mobile O2 for crew) would knowingly/willingly be kept in the pressure vessel? Is it feasible to carry them on the a/c outside the pressure compartment such that depressurisation or structural damage are unlikely if they fail?
2. O2 for crew:
- There should be 2 indicators for each pilot: one indicating flow (and pressure) and the other indicating content (O2 vs. nitrogen for Qantas I guess, but you could have other contaminants as we know from scuba/technical diving).
- There should be at least one independent back-up: mobile O2 bottle for each pilot within reach of their seats if everything else fails. Again, look at scuba divers. They actually have several back-ups (Main bottle(s): regulator 1, regulator 2, some 3rd regulator; buddy: 1 or 2 spares plus buddy’s main to share; separate independent bottle as last resort giving a few minutes or if buddy is MIA. Yes they take compressed air or nitrox instead of O2 but principle is the same.)
- O2 for crew seems to have failed in previous emergencies. (1st officer on BA w/ 4 engines out due to volcanic ash – any others from the old folks?)
3. O2 for pax:
- Systems need to be designed such that pax need to do nothing apart from putting masks on. If they need to pull to trigger generator, 95% will not know or have forgotten and 5% will pull so hard that the hose separates from the system.
B. Procedures Design
1. Depressurisation crew: Great potential for refinement I think. IMHO the item ‘Establish communication’ is grand BS and wastes precious time. What if PF does not get mask working or O2 flowing? What if both pilots don’t? Their best course of action would still be to initiate immediate descent (possibly at a speed assuming structural failure) – with or without communication. Unless they have an O2 back-up in reach. But maybe not even in that case. Procedures should generally assume that 1st O2 supply does not work and comms cannot be established. How about using hand signs? What about an emergency descent button on the flight control deck that will do exactly that (taking into account GPWS and TCAS)?
2. Ground checks: Good scuba divers check their regulators/air flow/bottle pressure&contents 3 times: once when setting up their systems, once when putting them on, once when doing buddy checks. How come airline crew forget or only do it once?
3. Pax briefing: If strap has to be pulled on rubber jungle than it must be emphasised. (“Pull on strap until you feel flow or you will die.”) Also it has to be shown how hard to pull. Better to eliminate that necessity altogether as above. As mentioned by others before, the rapid descent should be described as standard emergency procedure in briefing.
Corrections & your own additions appreciated! We can then compare the pprune wish list with what the ATSB come up…
Happy landings!
Given all previous facts, info & speculation, what would your recommendations be for systems and procedural improvement?
Here a few shots from the hip - some (or many?) of which were mentioned before:
A. Systems Design
1. Location of onboard bombs: Can anyone clarify why pressurised bottles (apart from fire extinguishers & mobile O2 for crew) would knowingly/willingly be kept in the pressure vessel? Is it feasible to carry them on the a/c outside the pressure compartment such that depressurisation or structural damage are unlikely if they fail?
2. O2 for crew:
- There should be 2 indicators for each pilot: one indicating flow (and pressure) and the other indicating content (O2 vs. nitrogen for Qantas I guess, but you could have other contaminants as we know from scuba/technical diving).
- There should be at least one independent back-up: mobile O2 bottle for each pilot within reach of their seats if everything else fails. Again, look at scuba divers. They actually have several back-ups (Main bottle(s): regulator 1, regulator 2, some 3rd regulator; buddy: 1 or 2 spares plus buddy’s main to share; separate independent bottle as last resort giving a few minutes or if buddy is MIA. Yes they take compressed air or nitrox instead of O2 but principle is the same.)
- O2 for crew seems to have failed in previous emergencies. (1st officer on BA w/ 4 engines out due to volcanic ash – any others from the old folks?)
3. O2 for pax:
- Systems need to be designed such that pax need to do nothing apart from putting masks on. If they need to pull to trigger generator, 95% will not know or have forgotten and 5% will pull so hard that the hose separates from the system.
B. Procedures Design
1. Depressurisation crew: Great potential for refinement I think. IMHO the item ‘Establish communication’ is grand BS and wastes precious time. What if PF does not get mask working or O2 flowing? What if both pilots don’t? Their best course of action would still be to initiate immediate descent (possibly at a speed assuming structural failure) – with or without communication. Unless they have an O2 back-up in reach. But maybe not even in that case. Procedures should generally assume that 1st O2 supply does not work and comms cannot be established. How about using hand signs? What about an emergency descent button on the flight control deck that will do exactly that (taking into account GPWS and TCAS)?
2. Ground checks: Good scuba divers check their regulators/air flow/bottle pressure&contents 3 times: once when setting up their systems, once when putting them on, once when doing buddy checks. How come airline crew forget or only do it once?
3. Pax briefing: If strap has to be pulled on rubber jungle than it must be emphasised. (“Pull on strap until you feel flow or you will die.”) Also it has to be shown how hard to pull. Better to eliminate that necessity altogether as above. As mentioned by others before, the rapid descent should be described as standard emergency procedure in briefing.
Corrections & your own additions appreciated! We can then compare the pprune wish list with what the ATSB come up…
Happy landings!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pacplyer,
It was a long distant memory trying to chase leaks on a B747. It is hard enough finding them on a B757! I would fire toolbox up now, to look for leak rates, but if any of my mates were reading this thread from work, it would be the biggest flame in history on my return!
I was called back to top up crew O2 the other day, that was 80psi above min dispatch, because of the possibility of flying over high terrain, so I find it hard that QANTAS would release a leaky aircraft on a long sector. Unless, because of the leak, they filled the tanks upto max. In my previous life, 1750 to 1800psi was max and now we will top up at 1300ish to about 1700psi. If they had a known problem and it was on a long sector, you would be inclined to get as much as you could in, which, if there was a problem somewhere in the system, would increase the chance of a failure to a weak point.
I still find it hard to believe that a bottle would let go without some external force, other than dropping from its mount, influencing a rupture of the bottle.
As I have said before, they are solid lumps!
******DISCLAIMER******** something within the cargo pallet went off and through the sidewall panel, hit the bottle/regulator at speed and caused the rupture.*********SPECULATION OVER**********
It was a long distant memory trying to chase leaks on a B747. It is hard enough finding them on a B757! I would fire toolbox up now, to look for leak rates, but if any of my mates were reading this thread from work, it would be the biggest flame in history on my return!
I was called back to top up crew O2 the other day, that was 80psi above min dispatch, because of the possibility of flying over high terrain, so I find it hard that QANTAS would release a leaky aircraft on a long sector. Unless, because of the leak, they filled the tanks upto max. In my previous life, 1750 to 1800psi was max and now we will top up at 1300ish to about 1700psi. If they had a known problem and it was on a long sector, you would be inclined to get as much as you could in, which, if there was a problem somewhere in the system, would increase the chance of a failure to a weak point.
I still find it hard to believe that a bottle would let go without some external force, other than dropping from its mount, influencing a rupture of the bottle.
As I have said before, they are solid lumps!
******DISCLAIMER******** something within the cargo pallet went off and through the sidewall panel, hit the bottle/regulator at speed and caused the rupture.*********SPECULATION OVER**********
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great post Litebulbs, and thanks.
My thoughts exactly, this one's a real head-banger. Bulbs, I was just speaking hypothetically. I'm sure Qantas is not going to dispatch a bad leaker on a long segment. But assuming that leak rates will remain constant is an iffy business.
We did the same thing with "oil burner" engines. Put an extention pipe on the oil fill so that the sucker wouldn't run out of oil before getting there!
Could one of you SLF's check and google NTSB oxygen bottle accidents for me? I don't think it's ever happened. Do something useful for a change while Vortas and Bulbs think about this some more....
I was called back to top up crew O2 the other day, that was 80psi above min dispatch, because of the possibility of flying over high terrain, so I find it hard that QANTAS would release a leaky aircraft on a long sector. Unless, because of the leak, they filled the tanks upto max. In my previous life, 1750 to 1800psi was max and now we will top up at 1300ish to about 1700psi. If they had a known problem and it was on a long sector, you would be inclined to get as much as you could in, which, if there was a problem somewhere in the system, would increase the chance of a failure to a weak point.
I still find it hard to believe that a bottle would let go without some external force, other than dropping from its mount, influencing a rupture of the bottle.
As I have said before, they are solid lumps!
******DISCLAIMER******** something within the cargo pallet went off and through the sidewall panel, hit the bottle/regulator at speed and caused the rupture.*********SPECULATION OVER**********
I still find it hard to believe that a bottle would let go without some external force, other than dropping from its mount, influencing a rupture of the bottle.
As I have said before, they are solid lumps!
******DISCLAIMER******** something within the cargo pallet went off and through the sidewall panel, hit the bottle/regulator at speed and caused the rupture.*********SPECULATION OVER**********
My thoughts exactly, this one's a real head-banger. Bulbs, I was just speaking hypothetically. I'm sure Qantas is not going to dispatch a bad leaker on a long segment. But assuming that leak rates will remain constant is an iffy business.
We did the same thing with "oil burner" engines. Put an extention pipe on the oil fill so that the sucker wouldn't run out of oil before getting there!Could one of you SLF's check and google NTSB oxygen bottle accidents for me? I don't think it's ever happened. Do something useful for a change while Vortas and Bulbs think about this some more....
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle M, I have been in an emergency descent when I was a copilot on a B737 with a cracked windshield. The captain started an emergency descent between SFO and LAX from FL330 to FL240 but had initiated it before I got my mask on. He tried to talk to me through the interphone but when he pulled his oxygen mask down he pulled out the mike jack. The communicate part was done by taking my mask off to tell him what I was doing getting the descent clearance and shutting off the windshield heat that was arcing and adjusting standby pressurisation. It was an outer pane so the checklist said no restrictions, maintain 250 knots max below 10,000 ft. I guaranty you no pilot is going to maintain level flight in an explosive depressurisation if communications can't be established. The FAA likes to make everything just like you would do in a simulator.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF, but engineer in an unrelated field -- means I see some interesting clues that have not been assembled in one post yet.
Perhaps I may not accurately recall what I have seen in the past 500 or so posts, so feel free to correct. But I think I've seen the following claims:
Best Regards,
T.
Perhaps I may not accurately recall what I have seen in the past 500 or so posts, so feel free to correct. But I think I've seen the following claims:
- If valve is detached from the bottle, the bottle is unlikely to have room to accelerate enough to have sufficient momentum to puncture the hull.
- Escaping O2 will be quite cold due to the expansion from extreme high pressure in the bottle.
- Passenger O2 bottles are mounted inverted (valve at the bottom) (This is the one of which I'm most unsure. Of course now as I search back through the thread I cannot find this)
- Therefore very cold, high-speed gas will be impinging on the inward-curving fuselage below the bottle mounting.
Best Regards,
T.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
leak theory
Plenty of oxy systems leak.Never seen bottle explode (until now maybe) If there was no sign of fire it sounds like a rupture/mech cylinder failure.
Blown the reg out of the end of it or a cracked cylinder serhaps?
I've avoided endless speculation but given they've found bits and pieces it seems pretty clear, it just remains as to why.
If a leak is noted ie more px drop than what would be expected or a history of too regular top ups it must be investigated.
There are no allowable leaks that I am aware of.
Sure gas escapes over time, it must, but real leaks are no go.
I'd say that 98% or more of leaks are the lines, joins, and charge fittings an maybe 2% or less regulator on the bottle.Never seen a leaky bottle ever.Just my experience speaking, others may have differing view.
Testing around 5 years hydrostatic that is depending if regulator or hydro date expires first.Not sure what internal inspections are carried out or if cylinders are x-rayed or other NDT carried out.
I have seen oxy bottles rejected for fitment by LAME's due to scratching or scores in the cylinder wall ex stores.
The cylinder in question may have been dropped or knocked hard to precipitate a failure long term.Not necessarily in service either.Transport, stores, overhaul are all possible areas.
I just hope there are enough clues not at the bottom of the sea to get a grip on the cause.
Blown the reg out of the end of it or a cracked cylinder serhaps?
I've avoided endless speculation but given they've found bits and pieces it seems pretty clear, it just remains as to why.
If a leak is noted ie more px drop than what would be expected or a history of too regular top ups it must be investigated.
There are no allowable leaks that I am aware of.
Sure gas escapes over time, it must, but real leaks are no go.
I'd say that 98% or more of leaks are the lines, joins, and charge fittings an maybe 2% or less regulator on the bottle.Never seen a leaky bottle ever.Just my experience speaking, others may have differing view.
Testing around 5 years hydrostatic that is depending if regulator or hydro date expires first.Not sure what internal inspections are carried out or if cylinders are x-rayed or other NDT carried out.
I have seen oxy bottles rejected for fitment by LAME's due to scratching or scores in the cylinder wall ex stores.
The cylinder in question may have been dropped or knocked hard to precipitate a failure long term.Not necessarily in service either.Transport, stores, overhaul are all possible areas.
I just hope there are enough clues not at the bottom of the sea to get a grip on the cause.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gods Country
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Food for thought.
1. Did the decompression passenger announcement trigger?
2. Why were the passenger video screens still running after the descent as shown by amateur video?
3. Passengers have reported there was no oxygen supply to their masks. Then how did the passenger oxygen masks deploy?
1. Did the decompression passenger announcement trigger?
2. Why were the passenger video screens still running after the descent as shown by amateur video?
3. Passengers have reported there was no oxygen supply to their masks. Then how did the passenger oxygen masks deploy?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some oxygen masks require the passenger to tug on the line to pull out the guarding pin.
if you listen during the safety briefing, you know this.
and anyone who is looking for their passport instead of keeping their oxygen mask on their face has an odd set of priority.
if you listen during the safety briefing, you know this.
and anyone who is looking for their passport instead of keeping their oxygen mask on their face has an odd set of priority.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<3. Passengers have reported there was no oxygen supply to their masks. Then how did the passenger oxygen masks deploy?>
It is quite possible that they didn't hear (or chose to ignore) the bits in the safety briefing about :
'Pull the mask down to turn on the oxygen supply'
and
'Note that the mask does not inflate'
If they didn't pull them down firmly, no oxygen.
If they didn't see the transparent 'balloon' bit inflating, perceived lack of oxygen !
It is quite possible that they didn't hear (or chose to ignore) the bits in the safety briefing about :
'Pull the mask down to turn on the oxygen supply'
and
'Note that the mask does not inflate'
If they didn't pull them down firmly, no oxygen.
If they didn't see the transparent 'balloon' bit inflating, perceived lack of oxygen !
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: YVR
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passenger masks are deployed automatically by an aneroid switch in the cabin ceiling. Once the cabin altitude climbs through a preset limit (on the 767 it's 14,000 feet) the switch activates and drops the masks. Should the switch fail or the captain think it's warrented - the crew can deploy the masks by pushing a switch in the cockpit.
Now - some people didn't get oxygen probably because 1 bottle was missing and I WOULD GUESS at least some of the other bottles and parts of the system were most likely damaged.
It has been confirmed by investigators that the #4 O2 bottle was missing and that pieces of it were found in the aircraft. One piece, identified as part of the valve assy, was found in the passenger cabin after making a 20cm hole in the floor.
They still don't know if this was a cause or after effect.
Now - some people didn't get oxygen probably because 1 bottle was missing and I WOULD GUESS at least some of the other bottles and parts of the system were most likely damaged.
It has been confirmed by investigators that the #4 O2 bottle was missing and that pieces of it were found in the aircraft. One piece, identified as part of the valve assy, was found in the passenger cabin after making a 20cm hole in the floor.
They still don't know if this was a cause or after effect.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Omokoroa, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passports
In one of the (hundreds of) previous posts was a quote from a SLF stating that passengers put their passports in their pocket in case of a crash! 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: still in bed
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A gas bottled explosion? I'm doubt, too little damage, but also can't be a rocket..
BTW can somebody kindly expalin me haw simply post a photo ? I have one quite interesting about the location of the Oxygen Bottles in the A 330 ER.
regards
BTW can somebody kindly expalin me haw simply post a photo ? I have one quite interesting about the location of the Oxygen Bottles in the A 330 ER.
regards
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
zagorfly
Too little damage? you are kidding surely? If they've found the reg in the cabin (via the floor) and bits elsewhere I think the cylinder letting go has a fair bit of credibility.
Having a filthy great hole in your fuselage without signs of fire or explosives gives the cylinder theory more weight.
Having a filthy great hole in your fuselage without signs of fire or explosives gives the cylinder theory more weight.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
annullus filler
Luv the nick AF.
I would guess the altitude s/w worked as advertised, deployed the masks set off the emerg announcements.Having gone less than trip altitude (11,000 to maybe 13,000 ft) or there-abouts the s/w likely reset to normal and PES prob back to normal also.
Pax complaining of no oxy may expect a gushing air supply in their faces, not pulled the lanyard or indeed not had any due to nil supply from non existent cylinder or low flow due to rupture.
We'll find out soon enough.
I would guess the altitude s/w worked as advertised, deployed the masks set off the emerg announcements.Having gone less than trip altitude (11,000 to maybe 13,000 ft) or there-abouts the s/w likely reset to normal and PES prob back to normal also.
Pax complaining of no oxy may expect a gushing air supply in their faces, not pulled the lanyard or indeed not had any due to nil supply from non existent cylinder or low flow due to rupture.
We'll find out soon enough.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Email from ATSB
Qantas Boeing 747-400 accident and diversion to Manila on 25 July 2008
29 July 2008
A media conference discussing the progress of the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Qantas Boeing 747-400 depressurisation and diversion to Manila on 25 July 2008 will be held in Manila today, Tuesday 29 July 2008.
Where: Lufthansa Technik Offices Boardroom, Manila Airport
Time: 2:00 pm Manila time, (4:00 pm AEST)
Mr Neville Blyth, Investigator in Charge (IIC) will discuss factual information known to the investigation team at this time and will outline the investigation process.
Any person/witness with information about the accident is encouraged to contact the ATSB at [email protected]
No further media briefings will be conducted by the on-site team. After this briefing, all media enquiries must be directed to the media contact listed below.
Media Contact: George Nadal
29 July 2008
A media conference discussing the progress of the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Qantas Boeing 747-400 depressurisation and diversion to Manila on 25 July 2008 will be held in Manila today, Tuesday 29 July 2008.
Where: Lufthansa Technik Offices Boardroom, Manila Airport
Time: 2:00 pm Manila time, (4:00 pm AEST)
Mr Neville Blyth, Investigator in Charge (IIC) will discuss factual information known to the investigation team at this time and will outline the investigation process.
Any person/witness with information about the accident is encouraged to contact the ATSB at [email protected]
No further media briefings will be conducted by the on-site team. After this briefing, all media enquiries must be directed to the media contact listed below.
Media Contact: George Nadal
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The daily rags just keep getting worse....
Today, the Daily Telegraph used the pics of the potable water bottles in Post #521 to show what oxygen bottles look like! No doubt, I could have posted a pic of a fire bottles and they wouldn't have known any better
Here's a typical installation of passenger bottles in the right hand sidewall of the Forward Cargo (looking slightly towards the aft of the aircraft).
As mentioned previously, the 4th bottle along "gave way".
Rumour has it that half (exact percentage not known) the bottle went up through the cargo ceiling (into the cabin), and the other half went through the side of the fuselage.
The tech crew bottles are mounted horizontally, forward of the pax bottles (adjacent to the cargo door). The cargo fire bottles are mounted aft of the last bottle shown here (behind the panel labelled "5".
There are six more passenger bottles mounted in the cargo ceiling on this particular aircraft.
On this particular aircraft, the fabric panels are secured with press studs and velcro. These are shown hanging down. The ceiling panels are zippered and have velcro.
The bottles shown here are not of the Aluminium/Kevlar variety. They appeared to be of the steel(?) type
Regarding the comments about the ILS.... The Localiser system uses the VOR antenna on the top of the vertical stabiliser (fin) until LOCaliser or APProach mode is selected on the Autopilot Mode Control Panel. The coaxial cables must run down the fuselage somehow, but, from memory, I don't know if they run in the ceiling or in the sidewalls. I have seen quite a few coaxes in the ceiling, but they could have been HF.
Rgds.
NSEU
Today, the Daily Telegraph used the pics of the potable water bottles in Post #521 to show what oxygen bottles look like! No doubt, I could have posted a pic of a fire bottles and they wouldn't have known any better
Here's a typical installation of passenger bottles in the right hand sidewall of the Forward Cargo (looking slightly towards the aft of the aircraft).
As mentioned previously, the 4th bottle along "gave way".
Rumour has it that half (exact percentage not known) the bottle went up through the cargo ceiling (into the cabin), and the other half went through the side of the fuselage.
The tech crew bottles are mounted horizontally, forward of the pax bottles (adjacent to the cargo door). The cargo fire bottles are mounted aft of the last bottle shown here (behind the panel labelled "5".
There are six more passenger bottles mounted in the cargo ceiling on this particular aircraft.
On this particular aircraft, the fabric panels are secured with press studs and velcro. These are shown hanging down. The ceiling panels are zippered and have velcro.
The bottles shown here are not of the Aluminium/Kevlar variety. They appeared to be of the steel(?) type
Regarding the comments about the ILS.... The Localiser system uses the VOR antenna on the top of the vertical stabiliser (fin) until LOCaliser or APProach mode is selected on the Autopilot Mode Control Panel. The coaxial cables must run down the fuselage somehow, but, from memory, I don't know if they run in the ceiling or in the sidewalls. I have seen quite a few coaxes in the ceiling, but they could have been HF.
Rgds.
NSEU
Last edited by NSEU; 29th Jul 2008 at 07:26.