TWA-800 ANNIVERSARY
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TWA-800 ANNIVERSARY
The media seems to be coming around to address the problems in the TWA-800 disaster investigation. Several USA programs are airing specials tonight, on the sugject.
The NTSB is now essentially saying, "Read the report carefully. We didn't say a center tank explosion caused the event, we only said it was possible. There was zero forensic evidence in the debris to say that an electrical spark caused the explosion; we didn't say there was. Just read carefully."
Another interesting account is at -
http://www.webpak.net/~skydream/twa800.htm
The NTSB is now essentially saying, "Read the report carefully. We didn't say a center tank explosion caused the event, we only said it was possible. There was zero forensic evidence in the debris to say that an electrical spark caused the explosion; we didn't say there was. Just read carefully."
Another interesting account is at -
http://www.webpak.net/~skydream/twa800.htm
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Seattle,WA USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good coverage of the disaster. Something is too wierd in the American society.
I know a couple of the references to be all-too-true.
I ran across one article which has the NTSB openly saying - 'we didn't say that.'
"American" is getting to be increasingly synonymous with "self-serving" and "corrupt." I thought Clinton was bad enough, by himself.
I know a couple of the references to be all-too-true.
I ran across one article which has the NTSB openly saying - 'we didn't say that.'
"American" is getting to be increasingly synonymous with "self-serving" and "corrupt." I thought Clinton was bad enough, by himself.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The story is also covered at -
www.airlinebiz.com/wire/
I guess the U.S. media backed out on promises of coverage at the last minute. Seems that they wanted to present the 'other' side.
Par for the course in America, these days.
www.airlinebiz.com/wire/
I guess the U.S. media backed out on promises of coverage at the last minute. Seems that they wanted to present the 'other' side.
Par for the course in America, these days.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: wales (new south)
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hummm........ conspiricy theories also work on the plausable deniability principle, what we need here is the evidence eluded to.
Does anybody know where I could find the photographs the article referes to, and though I know that the last few seconds of CVR's can contain very personal messages and thoughts that should not be made public, if they point to the cause then obviously they should. Dont suppose anyone has heard the 'full' transcripts?
Govenments do cover things up, that is a fact, and as an aside I work with someone who got a briefing from the russians on the KAL007 incident (he used to design radars), sorry Latvia Calling he doesnt want to take part in this forum
Does anybody know where I could find the photographs the article referes to, and though I know that the last few seconds of CVR's can contain very personal messages and thoughts that should not be made public, if they point to the cause then obviously they should. Dont suppose anyone has heard the 'full' transcripts?
Govenments do cover things up, that is a fact, and as an aside I work with someone who got a briefing from the russians on the KAL007 incident (he used to design radars), sorry Latvia Calling he doesnt want to take part in this forum
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are a click away from a documented explanation for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 at www.corazon.com which details the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
Yes, controversial but then the facts, data, and evidence are there and irrefutable.
No conspiracy, yes center tank fire explosion but later after forward cargo door ruptured, just like United Airlines Flight 811, the model with its many similarities of evidence to make the match.
Factual rebuttal invited, personal attacks ignored.
John Barry Smith
(831) 659-3552 phone
551 Country Club Drive,
Carmel Valley, CA 93924 www.corazon.com
[email protected]
Yes, controversial but then the facts, data, and evidence are there and irrefutable.
No conspiracy, yes center tank fire explosion but later after forward cargo door ruptured, just like United Airlines Flight 811, the model with its many similarities of evidence to make the match.
Factual rebuttal invited, personal attacks ignored.
John Barry Smith
(831) 659-3552 phone
551 Country Club Drive,
Carmel Valley, CA 93924 www.corazon.com
[email protected]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On TWA-800, the cargo door hinge & door frame were found with no indication of an 'opening.' However, the cargo door did appear to have experienced an internal explosion, judging from the damage to the door.
On the United flight which caused the furor, the cargo door latches were later found to be in the 'open' position, due to a short in the actuator motor control circuit.
On the United aircraft, the cargo door ripped a huge chunk out of the overhead skin & sucked all sorts of debris - including a passenger - into No. 3 engine.
On TWA-800, clearly, the left wing was blown off.
If TWA-800 had been another cargo door incident, the aircraft would not have exploded. The recorders wouldn't have abruptly lost power, either.
If there's a valid connection, please illustrate it; I'm missing something.
On the United flight which caused the furor, the cargo door latches were later found to be in the 'open' position, due to a short in the actuator motor control circuit.
On the United aircraft, the cargo door ripped a huge chunk out of the overhead skin & sucked all sorts of debris - including a passenger - into No. 3 engine.
On TWA-800, clearly, the left wing was blown off.
If TWA-800 had been another cargo door incident, the aircraft would not have exploded. The recorders wouldn't have abruptly lost power, either.
If there's a valid connection, please illustrate it; I'm missing something.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Factual reply to factual resonse:
Request for connection between United Airlines Flight 811 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 is listed below. PDF file available upon request which documents the actual AAR from which the evidence match is taken: Formatting on PPRuNEe unknown:
Sincerely,
Barry
Significant Direct and Tangible Evidence Obtained for Four B747 Breakups in Flight
AI 182 PA103 UAL 811 TWA 800
Boeing 747 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Early model -100 or -200 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Polyimide wiring (Poly X type) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sudden airframe breakup in flight (partial or total) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Breakup occurs amidships Yes Yes Yes Yes
High flight time (over 55,000 flight hours) No Yes Yes Yes
Aged airframe (over 18 years of service) No Yes Yes Yes
Previous maintenance problems with forward cargo door Yes Maybe Yes Maybe
Initial event within an hour after takeoff No Yes Yes Yes
Initial event at about 300 knots
while proceeding normally in all parameters Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event has unusual radar contacts Maybe Yes Yes Yes
Initial event involves hull rupture in or near forward cargo door area Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event starts with sudden sound Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event sound is loud Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event sound is audible to humans Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event followed immediately by abrupt power cut to data recorders Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event sound matched to explosion of bomb sound No No No No
Initial event sound matched to explosive decompression sound
in wide body airliner Yes Yes Yes Yes
Torn off skin on fuselage above forward cargo door area Yes Yes Yes Yes
Unusual paint smears on and above forward cargo door Maybe Maybe Yes Yes
Evidence of explosion in forward cargo compartment Yes Yes Yes Yes
Foreign object damage to engine or cowling of engine number three Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fire/soot in engine number three Maybe Yes Yes Yes
Foreign object damage to engine or cowling of engine number four Yes Yes Yes Yes
Right wing leading edge damaged in flight Yes Maybe Yes Maybe
Vertical stabilizer damaged in flight Yes Yes Yes Maybe
Right horizontal stabilizer damaged in flight Yes Yes Yes Yes
More severe inflight damage on starboard side than port side Yes Yes Yes Yes
Port side relatively undamaged by inflight debris Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vertical fuselage tear lines just aft or forward of the forward cargo door Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fracture/tear/rupture at a midspan latch of forward cargo door Maybe Yes Yes Yes
Midspan latching status of forward cargo door reported as latched No No No No
Airworthiness Directive 88-12-04 implemented (stronger lock sectors) No No No Yes
Outwardly peeled skin on upper forward fuselage Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rectangular shape of shattered area around forward cargo door Yes Yes Yes Yes
Forward cargo door fractured in two longitudinally Yes Yes Yes Maybe
Status of aft cargo door as intact and latched Yes Yes Yes Maybe
Passengers suffered decompression type injuries Yes Yes Yes Yes
At least nine missing and never recovered passenger bodies Yes Yes Yes Yes
Wreckage debris field in two main areas,
forward and aft sections of aircraft Yes Yes No Yes
Initial official determination of probable cause as bomb explosion. Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial official determination modified from bomb explosion Yes Yes Yes Yes
Structural failure considered for probable cause Yes Yes Yes Yes
Inadvertently opened forward cargo door considered for probable cause Yes No Yes Yes
Official probable cause as bomb explosion Yes Yes No No
Official probable cause as 'improvised explosive device' No Yes No No
Official probable cause as explosion by unstated cause Yes No No No
Official probable cause as explosion in center fuel tank
with unknown ignition source No No No Yes
Official probable cause as improper latching of forward cargo door No No Yes No
Official probable cause as switch /wiring
inadvertently opening forward cargo door No No Yes No
"Bomb' allegedly loaded two flights previous to detonation flight Yes Yes N/A N/A
"Bomb' allegedly loaded one flight previous to detonation flight N/A N/A N/A Yes
Takeoff after sunset on fatal flight Yes Yes Yes Yes
Takeoff after scheduled takeoff time on fatal flight Yes Yes Yes Yes
"Bomb' allegedly goes off on ground after a flight N/A N/A N/A N/A
Significant Direct and Tangible Evidence Obtained for Four B747 Breakups in Flight
AI 182 PA103 UAL 811 TWA 800
Request for connection between United Airlines Flight 811 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 is listed below. PDF file available upon request which documents the actual AAR from which the evidence match is taken: Formatting on PPRuNEe unknown:
Sincerely,
Barry
Significant Direct and Tangible Evidence Obtained for Four B747 Breakups in Flight
AI 182 PA103 UAL 811 TWA 800
Boeing 747 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Early model -100 or -200 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Polyimide wiring (Poly X type) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sudden airframe breakup in flight (partial or total) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Breakup occurs amidships Yes Yes Yes Yes
High flight time (over 55,000 flight hours) No Yes Yes Yes
Aged airframe (over 18 years of service) No Yes Yes Yes
Previous maintenance problems with forward cargo door Yes Maybe Yes Maybe
Initial event within an hour after takeoff No Yes Yes Yes
Initial event at about 300 knots
while proceeding normally in all parameters Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event has unusual radar contacts Maybe Yes Yes Yes
Initial event involves hull rupture in or near forward cargo door area Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event starts with sudden sound Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event sound is loud Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event sound is audible to humans Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event followed immediately by abrupt power cut to data recorders Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial event sound matched to explosion of bomb sound No No No No
Initial event sound matched to explosive decompression sound
in wide body airliner Yes Yes Yes Yes
Torn off skin on fuselage above forward cargo door area Yes Yes Yes Yes
Unusual paint smears on and above forward cargo door Maybe Maybe Yes Yes
Evidence of explosion in forward cargo compartment Yes Yes Yes Yes
Foreign object damage to engine or cowling of engine number three Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fire/soot in engine number three Maybe Yes Yes Yes
Foreign object damage to engine or cowling of engine number four Yes Yes Yes Yes
Right wing leading edge damaged in flight Yes Maybe Yes Maybe
Vertical stabilizer damaged in flight Yes Yes Yes Maybe
Right horizontal stabilizer damaged in flight Yes Yes Yes Yes
More severe inflight damage on starboard side than port side Yes Yes Yes Yes
Port side relatively undamaged by inflight debris Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vertical fuselage tear lines just aft or forward of the forward cargo door Yes Yes Yes Yes
Fracture/tear/rupture at a midspan latch of forward cargo door Maybe Yes Yes Yes
Midspan latching status of forward cargo door reported as latched No No No No
Airworthiness Directive 88-12-04 implemented (stronger lock sectors) No No No Yes
Outwardly peeled skin on upper forward fuselage Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rectangular shape of shattered area around forward cargo door Yes Yes Yes Yes
Forward cargo door fractured in two longitudinally Yes Yes Yes Maybe
Status of aft cargo door as intact and latched Yes Yes Yes Maybe
Passengers suffered decompression type injuries Yes Yes Yes Yes
At least nine missing and never recovered passenger bodies Yes Yes Yes Yes
Wreckage debris field in two main areas,
forward and aft sections of aircraft Yes Yes No Yes
Initial official determination of probable cause as bomb explosion. Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial official determination modified from bomb explosion Yes Yes Yes Yes
Structural failure considered for probable cause Yes Yes Yes Yes
Inadvertently opened forward cargo door considered for probable cause Yes No Yes Yes
Official probable cause as bomb explosion Yes Yes No No
Official probable cause as 'improvised explosive device' No Yes No No
Official probable cause as explosion by unstated cause Yes No No No
Official probable cause as explosion in center fuel tank
with unknown ignition source No No No Yes
Official probable cause as improper latching of forward cargo door No No Yes No
Official probable cause as switch /wiring
inadvertently opening forward cargo door No No Yes No
"Bomb' allegedly loaded two flights previous to detonation flight Yes Yes N/A N/A
"Bomb' allegedly loaded one flight previous to detonation flight N/A N/A N/A Yes
Takeoff after sunset on fatal flight Yes Yes Yes Yes
Takeoff after scheduled takeoff time on fatal flight Yes Yes Yes Yes
"Bomb' allegedly goes off on ground after a flight N/A N/A N/A N/A
Significant Direct and Tangible Evidence Obtained for Four B747 Breakups in Flight
AI 182 PA103 UAL 811 TWA 800
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Bechuanaland
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oscar Mike off Tuskar Rock: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/9522/
plus an internet search or the Irish Civil Aviation site will turn up more. Access to more info on this page Also try this link
Have to admit that you put a persuasive case together JBS. Unfortunately nothing is ever provable. To eliminate this persistent doubt you need CCTV and/or RAFT or IRIDIAN
plus an internet search or the Irish Civil Aviation site will turn up more. Access to more info on this page Also try this link
Have to admit that you put a persuasive case together JBS. Unfortunately nothing is ever provable. To eliminate this persistent doubt you need CCTV and/or RAFT or IRIDIAN
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Dagger Dirk for lead to Oscar Mike, another conspiracy story airplane crash. I stay away from conspiracy story airplane crashes like the Italian DC 9 or the Ron Brown 737 etc, they make good movies but bad reality. I concentrate on JAL 123, China Wan Li, and El Al 1862 as potentially similar crashes.
I note with disgust that the only response to my factual exposition of a mechanical cause/non conspiracy explanation for several 747 accidents was a conspiracy explanation response, another missile shootdown by bad people, this time in 1968.
I asked for factual rebuttal; disagreement is not rebuttal. Incorrectly grouping me into the conspiracy nut category is not even disagreement, it’s personal attack on my mental state, even after I previously specifically disavowed any conspiracy connection to the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for four Boeing 747s.
The response of an explanation for mystery accidents as always bad guys with bombs or missiles reflects the state of the world today, always denying responsibility and blaming others. Outward opening non plug cargo doors are a design flaw and should be made plug type, anybody deny that? Polyimide insulation wiring in Kapton and Poly X is a menace and should be replaced, anybody deny that?
I say again, the explanation for four controversial, mysterious Boeing 747 crashes is mechanical which is wiring, has precedent which is United Airlines Flight 811, and is amply supported by actual evidence, data, and facts which are in AARs from Canadian, India, USA, and UK. I have done the research, analysis, and conclusions and make them freely available to those who care about aviation safety. There is no conspiracy, no cover up, and no foreign bad guys with bombs or missiles, just known bad Poly X wiring shorting on a motor when it shouldn’t and has done so before.
To say, “Have to admit that you put a persuasive case together JBS.” and then say it is not provable is not true; of course it is provable; it’s real metal and real CVR and real Fodded engines. Only conspiracy nonsense is non provable; events in which machines react in certain ways to physical laws are provable. I’ve done it.
The reason that Trans World Airlines Flight 800 draws a crowd five years later is the same reason Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 do also, they have been unsatisfactorily explained as conspiracies while not pursuing a mechanical explanation for human nature reasons.
For instance, no flight crew, and I specifically refer to the readers of this forum note, wants to believe that his aircraft can come apart in the air at any time and there is absolutely nothing he can do to save his craft, his passengers or his life. But, if the a cause is shown to be a one-off event and billions have been spent to prevent its reoccurrence in sniffing dogs, metal detectors, profile detentions, bugged emails, etc and on and on with the paranoia of sabotage prevention, (a very low cause of accidents) then the crew can relax somewhat. To believe that the faulty Kaptonized wiring can short on a door unlatch motor and cause a catastrophic explosive decompression at any time, and can not be prevented by a good preflight, or regular C checks, or making sure the forward cargo door is latched securely and properly, then that’s sleepless night time, and doubt, and fear, and whatever fun is left in flying nowadays totally goes out the just ruptured open forward cargo door. That is sooooooo not funny.
It’s human nature to deny horror if possible. Well, I’ve been there. I have been in a sudden night, fatal, jet airplane crash and I am talking about sudden, night, fatal, jet airplane crashes. I know whereof I speak from personal events, decades of education and experience, and from actually doing things like creating, flying, breaking, fixing and flying again, different types of airplanes.
It really bugs me to be tarred with the same brush as “OSCAR MIKE " off tuskar rock.
I offer sudden loud sounds on the CVR followed by an abrupt power cut to the FDRs on four fatal Boeing 747 accidents (very rare and very hard to replicate with four different causes) and the reply is sadly, “Bad guys with missiles.” with the implication the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup is another nutty idea by another nutty guy which is unprovable.
I again invite any factual rebuttal to the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup for four Boeing 747 accidents, Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, United Airlines Flight 811, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800. Don’t let the flight numbers scare you away.
The explanation is detailed with documentation at www.corazon.com
I appreciate your patience and the opportunity to post in this forum. I have taken the mood of slightly irreverent rumours and news to be more informal than usual.
Cheers,
Barry
John Barry Smith
(831) 659-3552 phone
551 Country Club Drive,
Carmel Valley, CA 93924 www.corazon.com
[email protected]
Commercial pilot, instrument rated, former FAA Part 135 certificate holder.
US Navy reconnaissance bombardier navigator, RA-5C 650 hours.
US Navy patrol crewman, P2V-5FS 2000 hours.
Air Intelligence Officer, US Navy
Retired US Army Major MSC
Owner Mooney M-20C, 1000 hours.
Survivor of sudden night fiery fatal jet plane crash in RA-5C
March 24th 1968: 61 passengers and crew were lost aboard Aer Lingus EI-AOM Vickers Viscount 803 "St. Phelim" Flight 712 from Cork to London when it crashed into the sea off Tuskar Rock, Co. Wexford.
Despite a lenghty investigation, the cause of the tragedy remains unknown. However, numerous questions continue to be asked about the possibility that Flight 712 was brought down by a British missile or drone, resulting in continued prevarication by both Governments.
Latest information coming to light through various investigations by the media reveal an intricate web of deception, denial, officially sanctioned file shredding, record removal and dubious practices that have only confirmed latent suspicions on the Tuskar Rock tragedy.
I note with disgust that the only response to my factual exposition of a mechanical cause/non conspiracy explanation for several 747 accidents was a conspiracy explanation response, another missile shootdown by bad people, this time in 1968.
I asked for factual rebuttal; disagreement is not rebuttal. Incorrectly grouping me into the conspiracy nut category is not even disagreement, it’s personal attack on my mental state, even after I previously specifically disavowed any conspiracy connection to the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for four Boeing 747s.
The response of an explanation for mystery accidents as always bad guys with bombs or missiles reflects the state of the world today, always denying responsibility and blaming others. Outward opening non plug cargo doors are a design flaw and should be made plug type, anybody deny that? Polyimide insulation wiring in Kapton and Poly X is a menace and should be replaced, anybody deny that?
I say again, the explanation for four controversial, mysterious Boeing 747 crashes is mechanical which is wiring, has precedent which is United Airlines Flight 811, and is amply supported by actual evidence, data, and facts which are in AARs from Canadian, India, USA, and UK. I have done the research, analysis, and conclusions and make them freely available to those who care about aviation safety. There is no conspiracy, no cover up, and no foreign bad guys with bombs or missiles, just known bad Poly X wiring shorting on a motor when it shouldn’t and has done so before.
To say, “Have to admit that you put a persuasive case together JBS.” and then say it is not provable is not true; of course it is provable; it’s real metal and real CVR and real Fodded engines. Only conspiracy nonsense is non provable; events in which machines react in certain ways to physical laws are provable. I’ve done it.
The reason that Trans World Airlines Flight 800 draws a crowd five years later is the same reason Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 do also, they have been unsatisfactorily explained as conspiracies while not pursuing a mechanical explanation for human nature reasons.
For instance, no flight crew, and I specifically refer to the readers of this forum note, wants to believe that his aircraft can come apart in the air at any time and there is absolutely nothing he can do to save his craft, his passengers or his life. But, if the a cause is shown to be a one-off event and billions have been spent to prevent its reoccurrence in sniffing dogs, metal detectors, profile detentions, bugged emails, etc and on and on with the paranoia of sabotage prevention, (a very low cause of accidents) then the crew can relax somewhat. To believe that the faulty Kaptonized wiring can short on a door unlatch motor and cause a catastrophic explosive decompression at any time, and can not be prevented by a good preflight, or regular C checks, or making sure the forward cargo door is latched securely and properly, then that’s sleepless night time, and doubt, and fear, and whatever fun is left in flying nowadays totally goes out the just ruptured open forward cargo door. That is sooooooo not funny.
It’s human nature to deny horror if possible. Well, I’ve been there. I have been in a sudden night, fatal, jet airplane crash and I am talking about sudden, night, fatal, jet airplane crashes. I know whereof I speak from personal events, decades of education and experience, and from actually doing things like creating, flying, breaking, fixing and flying again, different types of airplanes.
It really bugs me to be tarred with the same brush as “OSCAR MIKE " off tuskar rock.
I offer sudden loud sounds on the CVR followed by an abrupt power cut to the FDRs on four fatal Boeing 747 accidents (very rare and very hard to replicate with four different causes) and the reply is sadly, “Bad guys with missiles.” with the implication the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup is another nutty idea by another nutty guy which is unprovable.
I again invite any factual rebuttal to the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup for four Boeing 747 accidents, Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, United Airlines Flight 811, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800. Don’t let the flight numbers scare you away.
The explanation is detailed with documentation at www.corazon.com
I appreciate your patience and the opportunity to post in this forum. I have taken the mood of slightly irreverent rumours and news to be more informal than usual.
Cheers,
Barry
John Barry Smith
(831) 659-3552 phone
551 Country Club Drive,
Carmel Valley, CA 93924 www.corazon.com
[email protected]
Commercial pilot, instrument rated, former FAA Part 135 certificate holder.
US Navy reconnaissance bombardier navigator, RA-5C 650 hours.
US Navy patrol crewman, P2V-5FS 2000 hours.
Air Intelligence Officer, US Navy
Retired US Army Major MSC
Owner Mooney M-20C, 1000 hours.
Survivor of sudden night fiery fatal jet plane crash in RA-5C
March 24th 1968: 61 passengers and crew were lost aboard Aer Lingus EI-AOM Vickers Viscount 803 "St. Phelim" Flight 712 from Cork to London when it crashed into the sea off Tuskar Rock, Co. Wexford.
Despite a lenghty investigation, the cause of the tragedy remains unknown. However, numerous questions continue to be asked about the possibility that Flight 712 was brought down by a British missile or drone, resulting in continued prevarication by both Governments.
Latest information coming to light through various investigations by the media reveal an intricate web of deception, denial, officially sanctioned file shredding, record removal and dubious practices that have only confirmed latent suspicions on the Tuskar Rock tragedy.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JB Smith: Just as Skydrifter, I am missing something here too. The UA 74 nose didn't get ripped off when the cargo door and its attached fuselage panel peeled off. The evidence of the TW 74 explosion points to the INSIDE of the nearly empty center tank. No sign of external penetration. And we know a lot about Boeing center wing tank explosions from a KC135 and from two B737s.
Under the weight of such evidence your belly door connection is impractical reality.
But I agree with you that all airplane doors should be plug type.
Under the weight of such evidence your belly door connection is impractical reality.
But I agree with you that all airplane doors should be plug type.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS,
This is not a case of "my mind is made up - please dont confuse me with facts"!
I have just watched a 1 hour documentary made by a US writer and movie maker( I will find his name if anyone I interested) I thought it was very well done although I am easily impressed!
One of the comment was made about Jim Hall the NTSB chairman, which after his background as a crony of Clinton and big man in Arkansas, his most impressive qualification ( according to the film) was his driving licence!
There were over 700 yes 700 independant eye witness to the missile theory. Not all were cranks, one civil engineer made a very explicit drawing of what he saw including the missile tracks - as did several others.
The mystery boat which was seen on radar ( and thus over 50 feet long) has never been denied - it couldnt as it was on radar - but the official line is it cannot be traced.
The NASA flight profile reconstruction shown the explosion of the center tank, the nose comimg off and then the aircraft CLIMBING 3,000 ft ! Even Boeing's official statemnt to this reconstruction was that they had no part of it and do not know how the data was assessed!
If the center tank had been the cause there would have been one almighty explosion and then good night nurse. Most of the witness report at least three explosions the last one being massive and lower.
The Coast guard pilot who was on the film was an Vietnam Medal of Honour with 48 combat missions saw the "missile" trails and two warhead explosions before the final large fuel explosion.
He was NEVER interviewed by the NTSB.
After the crash was announced, Congress provides that the NTSB has jurisdiction - This did not happen on the TWA - the FBI took on the investigation immediatley and the NTSB people were not allowed at the crash site and did not even see the wreckage until it was all in the hangar.
The Washington Post reporter who got into the hangar early on, helped by people on the inside, removed piece of structure and seat fabric with orange residue on it. This was sent to a Lab in California and a copy of their report was shown on the program stating that the residue was a rocket propellant residue. He was arrested and convicted for stealing evidence. At the congressional hearing it was stated that the pieces were sent to NASA and Professor Joe Blow had analysed them and found it was adhesive used on the seat material ( on the skin of the aircraft !!!!)
The program then showned a sworn affidavit from Professor Joe Blow at NASA stating that he had never examined any samples !!
Some of the eye witness took out a Full page ad in the Washington Post stating what they had seen. At the congressional hearing evy one of these witness were rebuffed by the NTSB. On the program all of these witness confirmed everything they had stated and said that at no time was any one of them contacted or intereviewed by the NTSB !
Well JBS there is quite a lot to think about there but personally my thoughts are
1.
Watergate and Monica were both inconcievable to the American people until the very end.
2. The B747 fuel tank is the same construction, the same systems and carries the same electrics as most aircraft flying today. How many more fuel tank explosions of the type predicated can you categorical confirm ??
3. I find it difficult to believe that electrical spark sufficient to cause the ignition ( bearing in mind all the fuel gauging is millivolts) cannot be identified.
On L1011 aircraft the submerged electrical fuel boost pumps in the wing (115 volts !)are plug in units that mate a electrical plug and socket in the sump housing. I have seen these plugs blackened from arcing but no one has ever suggested a problem! Yes there is an AD aginst them but only to keep a minimum amount of fuel in the wing. Before that all L1011's were happily flying the tanks empty with no problem.
This is not a case of "my mind is made up - please dont confuse me with facts"!
I have just watched a 1 hour documentary made by a US writer and movie maker( I will find his name if anyone I interested) I thought it was very well done although I am easily impressed!
One of the comment was made about Jim Hall the NTSB chairman, which after his background as a crony of Clinton and big man in Arkansas, his most impressive qualification ( according to the film) was his driving licence!
There were over 700 yes 700 independant eye witness to the missile theory. Not all were cranks, one civil engineer made a very explicit drawing of what he saw including the missile tracks - as did several others.
The mystery boat which was seen on radar ( and thus over 50 feet long) has never been denied - it couldnt as it was on radar - but the official line is it cannot be traced.
The NASA flight profile reconstruction shown the explosion of the center tank, the nose comimg off and then the aircraft CLIMBING 3,000 ft ! Even Boeing's official statemnt to this reconstruction was that they had no part of it and do not know how the data was assessed!
If the center tank had been the cause there would have been one almighty explosion and then good night nurse. Most of the witness report at least three explosions the last one being massive and lower.
The Coast guard pilot who was on the film was an Vietnam Medal of Honour with 48 combat missions saw the "missile" trails and two warhead explosions before the final large fuel explosion.
He was NEVER interviewed by the NTSB.
After the crash was announced, Congress provides that the NTSB has jurisdiction - This did not happen on the TWA - the FBI took on the investigation immediatley and the NTSB people were not allowed at the crash site and did not even see the wreckage until it was all in the hangar.
The Washington Post reporter who got into the hangar early on, helped by people on the inside, removed piece of structure and seat fabric with orange residue on it. This was sent to a Lab in California and a copy of their report was shown on the program stating that the residue was a rocket propellant residue. He was arrested and convicted for stealing evidence. At the congressional hearing it was stated that the pieces were sent to NASA and Professor Joe Blow had analysed them and found it was adhesive used on the seat material ( on the skin of the aircraft !!!!)
The program then showned a sworn affidavit from Professor Joe Blow at NASA stating that he had never examined any samples !!
Some of the eye witness took out a Full page ad in the Washington Post stating what they had seen. At the congressional hearing evy one of these witness were rebuffed by the NTSB. On the program all of these witness confirmed everything they had stated and said that at no time was any one of them contacted or intereviewed by the NTSB !
Well JBS there is quite a lot to think about there but personally my thoughts are
1.
Watergate and Monica were both inconcievable to the American people until the very end.
2. The B747 fuel tank is the same construction, the same systems and carries the same electrics as most aircraft flying today. How many more fuel tank explosions of the type predicated can you categorical confirm ??
3. I find it difficult to believe that electrical spark sufficient to cause the ignition ( bearing in mind all the fuel gauging is millivolts) cannot be identified.
On L1011 aircraft the submerged electrical fuel boost pumps in the wing (115 volts !)are plug in units that mate a electrical plug and socket in the sump housing. I have seen these plugs blackened from arcing but no one has ever suggested a problem! Yes there is an AD aginst them but only to keep a minimum amount of fuel in the wing. Before that all L1011's were happily flying the tanks empty with no problem.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Glueball for your comment: ‘The UA 74 nose didn't get ripped off when the cargo door and its attached fuselage panel peeled off.’ You are a center tank as initial event guy. I am a wiring/cargo door guy.
That comment about why United Airlines Flight 811 nose stayed on is a revealing one because it is one of the dozen that open minded persons ask. A corollary is why didn’t the noses of Air India Flight 182 Pan Am Flight 103 Trans World Airlines Flight 800 stay on. Essentially the size of the open ruptured hole was larger for the three nose off planes. The holes were larger because the internal pressure differential was larger. The pressure differential was smaller for United Airlines Flight 811 because the door pull in hooks held the door for 1.5 seconds before the door finally totally went. The reconstruction photos’ drawings from the AARs clearly show the large rectangular shape for the three nose off planes and the smaller rectangular shape of United Airlines Flight 811. All photos on www.corazon.com. pdf of the AARs available upon request.
Over the years I have answered similar basic open minded questions and they are listed in Appendix I of my AAR for Air India Flight 182. I’ve listed part of the appendix below.
Dear GotTheTShirt, you are talking center tank explosion as initial event and missile, with emphasis on missile. You are a conspiracy guy. I can refute both but choose not to and instead present reality in documentation, photos, and CVR data that explain the mechanical alternative, shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup. If you want to talk missile, go to the missile guys; for center tank explosion, go to NTSB. I offer two short statements, I’ve been in aerial combat over Vietnam and ground to air missiles do not look like streaks. And, the starboard side of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 in the forward cargo door area is shattered, frayed and ruptured while the port side is smooth as a baby’s butt. Keyword on center tank explosion explanation is ‘center’.
Please note that disagreement is not rebuttal and the wiring/cargo door explanation has never been rebutted with any facts, data, or evidence. To say it was something else is not rebuttal.
Rebuttal would be saying that explosive decompression would not cause a sudden loud sound on the four CVR (it has). Rebuttal would be explosive decompression is not severe enough to knock out electrical power to the data recorders (it has). Rebuttal would be that all ten latches of the four forward cargo doors were found latched (only eight recovered with two midspan missing). Rebuttal would be Engine number three was not fodded (all four planes had fodded number three while number 1 and 2 were Fod free.) Rebuttal would be that United Airlines Flight 811 was a bomb (crew thought so and said so to tower).
United Airlines Flight 811 is the model, to understand that incontrovertible event is to understand Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800. The two AAR for United Airlines Flight 811 available upon request. Matches between 811 and others posted previously.
I also watched a show today about Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and the scavenger pump shorting and causing center tank explosion. Wishful thinking nonsense suggested by lawyers refuted by facts. The shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explains the ignition source as on fire number three spinning off the pylon after fuse pins severed and igniting the splintering wing tanks in flight seconds after the inflight breakup caused by the explosive decompression.
Look, every step of the way is documented, every statement confirmed by actual on scene investigators and stated in AAR, every conclusion is well reasoned and has precedent.
Why am I here? I’ve been everywhere else and Dagger Dirk has been very helpful over the past few years of correspondence and for which I am very thankful.
There has to be a group out there that does not want missile (media and exciting story), center tank with unknown ignition source (NTSB), totally unknown (Boeing), bomb (FBI) and is willing to consider faulty wiring, (very serious and expensive to correct,) and outward opening non plug doors, (very serious and expensive to correct.)
If not the flight crews whose lives are on the line, who else? What to do? Well, just check out the explanation on www.corazon.com. If reasonable enough to warrant further investigation, say so to your safety persons in your profession whose responsibility it is to check out these alerts/warnings. Have them contact me. Refer them to www.corazon.com after you have reviewed it to confirm it is just full of facts, data, and evidence.
To do nothing when given a reasonable explanation of a potential serious problem is not right; as pilots we check these things out, we rule them out or rule them in. Every flight has dozens of false warnings, false fears, false problems, and every flight has a few small problems which if left unattended become very serious very fast.
I ask that you check out the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for four early model Boeing 747s accidents which has relevance for the 547 planes still in service.
If you believe the explanation is worthy of further investigation refer it to your safety people, they will know what to do to rule it in or rule it out. And ask them to report back to you with their findings. They are there to protect you.
Sincerely,
Barry
There are many questions raised by the realization that four large commercial airliners were not attacked by terrorists detonating bombs but by a common mechanical problem of faulty wires which allow cargo doors to rupture open when they shouldn't. Listed below are some of the informal questions and partial answers that the wiring/cargo door/explosive decompression explanation creates regarding the four flights of Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, United Airlines Flight 811, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and all aircraft in general.
A. How and why does forward cargo door open in flight?
United Airlines Flight 811 door open cause was electrical short to door motor to unlatch position which overrode safety locking sectors and failed switch and door unlatched and opened. Pan Am Flight 103 and United Airlines Flight 811 had total forward cargo door openings while Air India Flight 182 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 had rupture at aft midspan latch with bottom eight latches holding tight. Door openings were probably a result of aging aircraft, out of rig door, chafed aging faulty Poly-X wiring, weakened Section 41 area, design weakness of no locking sectors for midspan latches, AAR 92/02, page 12, and only one latch per eight feet of vertical door. Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 had similar circumstances.
B. How does open door in flight cause nose to come off for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800?
Cargo door opens and huge ten by thirty foot hole appears in nose, structural members of door and frame are missing, floor beams are fractured, bent, and broken, aircraft direction is askew, flight control surfaces affected, engines damaged, and 300 knots, more than the fastest hurricane or force five tornado on earth, hits damaged area and tears nose off within three to five seconds.
C. Why did nose of United Airlines Flight 811 stay on?
Nose of United Airlines Flight 811 may have stayed on because the pilot said he had just come off autopilot and did not fight plane as it gyrated, or plane was younger than others, or the time from door opening to tearing off was 1.5 seconds and allowed the pressurization to be relieved somewhat and six less feet of width of hole was torn off.
D. Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 not a bomb?
Yes, not a bomb for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 as initial event. Evidence refutes bomb explanation and is in government accident reports which careful analysis will reveal and documented on www.corazon.com. Those accident investigators did not have the benefit of hindsight, the internet, or several subsequent similar accidents to compare and draw different conclusions.
E. Trans World Airlines Flight 800 not center tank as initial event?
Center tank exploded yes, but after door ruptured/opened, hole appeared in nose, nose torn off in wind, fuselage falling with disintegrating fuel tanks and ignited by fodded and on fire engine number 3 or 4 at 7500 feet thereby explaining the Chairman's question, "Why so few bodies burned?" The answer is they were not there to be burned. The nose came off with the passengers inside cabin and descended to ocean alone.
F. Is explosive decompression enough to tear nose and forward part of aircraft off?
Explosive decompression is enough to rupture a pressurized hull at weak spot, one latch for eight feet of door, in a weak area, Section 41, but not enough to tear nose off. The ultimate destructive force is the 300 knots of slipstream, more powerful than any wind on earth. If cargo door popped in balloon, the large hole would appear but the nose would stay on. In a tornado, nose comes off within three to five seconds.
G. When forward cargo door opens does it always result in deaths?
No, with United Airlines preflight in 1991 the aft door opened electrically inadvertently and nothing happened because it was on the ground and no pressure differential. So no damage. Then Pan Am Flight 125 in 1987 had forward door open partially and plane could not pressurize adequately and turned around and landed, so no damage with slight pressure differential except expense of fuel and risk to life. Then 811 happened with smaller hole and 1.5 second delay in opening and nine dead with larger pressure differential. Then 103, 800, and 182 had explosive decompression up high with maximum differential and door ruptured and shattered and took skin to the left and right and above with it exposing huge hole and forward part of aircraft came off and all died. When the forward cargo door ruptures or fully opens or partially opens, different consequences occur from minor to severe depending on pressure differential which depends on altitude and speed at which door ruptures/opens.
H. Is there a conspiracy to keep cargo door explanation quiet?
There is no conspiracy, no plot, no coverup by agencies involved with the cargo door explanation:
1. No conspiracy of Sikh terrorists named Singh to put a bomb on Air India Flight 182; the door ruptured in flight.
2. No conspiracy of Libyan terrorists or whoever to put a bomb on Pan Am Flight 103; the door ruptured in flight.
3. No conspiracy to detonate a bomb on United Airlines Flight 811 as the passengers thought, as the crew thought and told the tower who told the Coast Guard and crash crews on the ground as they prepared for a wounded 747 coming in after a bomb blast; the door ruptured in flight.
4. No conspiracy to put a bomb on Trans World Airlines Flight 800,
5. No conspiracy of terrorists to shoot a missile,
6. No coverup by US Navy to hide accidental shootdown,
7. No coverup by Boeing, NTSB, FAA, or TWA who are hiding the knowledge the door ruptured in flight.
I. Why the huge hole on starboard side in cargo door area while port side smooth?
That's where the forward cargo door is located on all the aircraft, forward of the wing on the right side. The rectangular shattered zone around the forward cargo door is apparent on all the wreckage reconstruction photographs and drawings. The unilateral damage on TWA Flight 800 refutes the center tank explosion as the initial event.
J. Are passengers at risk right now?
Yes, all passengers currently flying in early model Boeing 747s with Poly X wiring are at risk of the faulty wiring shorting on the door unlatch motor causing the ruptured opening of the midspan latches of the cargo door leading to explosive decompression and fatalities.The fault has unofficially occurred in 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, and 1996.
K. What is the sudden loud sound on the CVR on all four aircraft at the initial event time of the inflight breakup?
The sound is the rush of air molecules to the outside to equalize the high pressure air in the cabin with the low pressure air outside at altitude. Explosive decompression is a very loud event.
L. Why the almost immediate power cut to the recorders?
The main equipment compartment (MEC) is immediately adjacent and in front of the forward cargo compartment. The MEC has the wiring power to the recorders and the explosion of decompression nearby cuts off power.
M. Why the right side inflight airframe damage?
The starboard (right) side is where the forward cargo door opens in flight and material from inside the compartment and cabin above are ejected into the slipstream. Engine number three and the right horizontal stabilizer are close to and aft of the forward cargo compartment. The objects are ingested into the nearby engine number three, strike the leading edge of the right wing, and continue aft and strike the right horizontal stabilizer. The port side is relatively unscathed from inflight debris.
N. Why the shattered area around the forward cargo door?
When the explosion of decompression occurs, the door is flung open if all the latches unlock and shattered if the bottom eight latches hold but rupture at the midspan latches. In any case the top part of the door opens outward and upward and away taking much fuselage skin above the door with it.
O. Why the streak for Trans World Airlines Flight 800?
The streak is the reflection of the evening sun of shiny metal skin from the forward cargo door area coming off in flight during the explosive decompression and seen by ground observers in darkness to the east as the objects quickly decelerate from 300 knots in a horizontal direction to straight down from 13700 feet.
P. What is the ignition source for the center fuel tank explosion of Trans World Airlines Flight 800?
The ignition source for the center fuel tank explosion is the on fire engine number three which ingested foreign objects from the forward cargo compartment after the ruptured opening of the forward cargo door. The falling and disintegrating fuselage and fuel tanks were ignited by the fiery exhaust and caused the explosion well after the initial event.
That comment about why United Airlines Flight 811 nose stayed on is a revealing one because it is one of the dozen that open minded persons ask. A corollary is why didn’t the noses of Air India Flight 182 Pan Am Flight 103 Trans World Airlines Flight 800 stay on. Essentially the size of the open ruptured hole was larger for the three nose off planes. The holes were larger because the internal pressure differential was larger. The pressure differential was smaller for United Airlines Flight 811 because the door pull in hooks held the door for 1.5 seconds before the door finally totally went. The reconstruction photos’ drawings from the AARs clearly show the large rectangular shape for the three nose off planes and the smaller rectangular shape of United Airlines Flight 811. All photos on www.corazon.com. pdf of the AARs available upon request.
Over the years I have answered similar basic open minded questions and they are listed in Appendix I of my AAR for Air India Flight 182. I’ve listed part of the appendix below.
Dear GotTheTShirt, you are talking center tank explosion as initial event and missile, with emphasis on missile. You are a conspiracy guy. I can refute both but choose not to and instead present reality in documentation, photos, and CVR data that explain the mechanical alternative, shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup. If you want to talk missile, go to the missile guys; for center tank explosion, go to NTSB. I offer two short statements, I’ve been in aerial combat over Vietnam and ground to air missiles do not look like streaks. And, the starboard side of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 in the forward cargo door area is shattered, frayed and ruptured while the port side is smooth as a baby’s butt. Keyword on center tank explosion explanation is ‘center’.
Please note that disagreement is not rebuttal and the wiring/cargo door explanation has never been rebutted with any facts, data, or evidence. To say it was something else is not rebuttal.
Rebuttal would be saying that explosive decompression would not cause a sudden loud sound on the four CVR (it has). Rebuttal would be explosive decompression is not severe enough to knock out electrical power to the data recorders (it has). Rebuttal would be that all ten latches of the four forward cargo doors were found latched (only eight recovered with two midspan missing). Rebuttal would be Engine number three was not fodded (all four planes had fodded number three while number 1 and 2 were Fod free.) Rebuttal would be that United Airlines Flight 811 was a bomb (crew thought so and said so to tower).
United Airlines Flight 811 is the model, to understand that incontrovertible event is to understand Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800. The two AAR for United Airlines Flight 811 available upon request. Matches between 811 and others posted previously.
I also watched a show today about Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and the scavenger pump shorting and causing center tank explosion. Wishful thinking nonsense suggested by lawyers refuted by facts. The shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explains the ignition source as on fire number three spinning off the pylon after fuse pins severed and igniting the splintering wing tanks in flight seconds after the inflight breakup caused by the explosive decompression.
Look, every step of the way is documented, every statement confirmed by actual on scene investigators and stated in AAR, every conclusion is well reasoned and has precedent.
Why am I here? I’ve been everywhere else and Dagger Dirk has been very helpful over the past few years of correspondence and for which I am very thankful.
There has to be a group out there that does not want missile (media and exciting story), center tank with unknown ignition source (NTSB), totally unknown (Boeing), bomb (FBI) and is willing to consider faulty wiring, (very serious and expensive to correct,) and outward opening non plug doors, (very serious and expensive to correct.)
If not the flight crews whose lives are on the line, who else? What to do? Well, just check out the explanation on www.corazon.com. If reasonable enough to warrant further investigation, say so to your safety persons in your profession whose responsibility it is to check out these alerts/warnings. Have them contact me. Refer them to www.corazon.com after you have reviewed it to confirm it is just full of facts, data, and evidence.
To do nothing when given a reasonable explanation of a potential serious problem is not right; as pilots we check these things out, we rule them out or rule them in. Every flight has dozens of false warnings, false fears, false problems, and every flight has a few small problems which if left unattended become very serious very fast.
I ask that you check out the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for four early model Boeing 747s accidents which has relevance for the 547 planes still in service.
If you believe the explanation is worthy of further investigation refer it to your safety people, they will know what to do to rule it in or rule it out. And ask them to report back to you with their findings. They are there to protect you.
Sincerely,
Barry
There are many questions raised by the realization that four large commercial airliners were not attacked by terrorists detonating bombs but by a common mechanical problem of faulty wires which allow cargo doors to rupture open when they shouldn't. Listed below are some of the informal questions and partial answers that the wiring/cargo door/explosive decompression explanation creates regarding the four flights of Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, United Airlines Flight 811, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and all aircraft in general.
A. How and why does forward cargo door open in flight?
United Airlines Flight 811 door open cause was electrical short to door motor to unlatch position which overrode safety locking sectors and failed switch and door unlatched and opened. Pan Am Flight 103 and United Airlines Flight 811 had total forward cargo door openings while Air India Flight 182 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 had rupture at aft midspan latch with bottom eight latches holding tight. Door openings were probably a result of aging aircraft, out of rig door, chafed aging faulty Poly-X wiring, weakened Section 41 area, design weakness of no locking sectors for midspan latches, AAR 92/02, page 12, and only one latch per eight feet of vertical door. Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 had similar circumstances.
B. How does open door in flight cause nose to come off for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800?
Cargo door opens and huge ten by thirty foot hole appears in nose, structural members of door and frame are missing, floor beams are fractured, bent, and broken, aircraft direction is askew, flight control surfaces affected, engines damaged, and 300 knots, more than the fastest hurricane or force five tornado on earth, hits damaged area and tears nose off within three to five seconds.
C. Why did nose of United Airlines Flight 811 stay on?
Nose of United Airlines Flight 811 may have stayed on because the pilot said he had just come off autopilot and did not fight plane as it gyrated, or plane was younger than others, or the time from door opening to tearing off was 1.5 seconds and allowed the pressurization to be relieved somewhat and six less feet of width of hole was torn off.
D. Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 not a bomb?
Yes, not a bomb for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 as initial event. Evidence refutes bomb explanation and is in government accident reports which careful analysis will reveal and documented on www.corazon.com. Those accident investigators did not have the benefit of hindsight, the internet, or several subsequent similar accidents to compare and draw different conclusions.
E. Trans World Airlines Flight 800 not center tank as initial event?
Center tank exploded yes, but after door ruptured/opened, hole appeared in nose, nose torn off in wind, fuselage falling with disintegrating fuel tanks and ignited by fodded and on fire engine number 3 or 4 at 7500 feet thereby explaining the Chairman's question, "Why so few bodies burned?" The answer is they were not there to be burned. The nose came off with the passengers inside cabin and descended to ocean alone.
F. Is explosive decompression enough to tear nose and forward part of aircraft off?
Explosive decompression is enough to rupture a pressurized hull at weak spot, one latch for eight feet of door, in a weak area, Section 41, but not enough to tear nose off. The ultimate destructive force is the 300 knots of slipstream, more powerful than any wind on earth. If cargo door popped in balloon, the large hole would appear but the nose would stay on. In a tornado, nose comes off within three to five seconds.
G. When forward cargo door opens does it always result in deaths?
No, with United Airlines preflight in 1991 the aft door opened electrically inadvertently and nothing happened because it was on the ground and no pressure differential. So no damage. Then Pan Am Flight 125 in 1987 had forward door open partially and plane could not pressurize adequately and turned around and landed, so no damage with slight pressure differential except expense of fuel and risk to life. Then 811 happened with smaller hole and 1.5 second delay in opening and nine dead with larger pressure differential. Then 103, 800, and 182 had explosive decompression up high with maximum differential and door ruptured and shattered and took skin to the left and right and above with it exposing huge hole and forward part of aircraft came off and all died. When the forward cargo door ruptures or fully opens or partially opens, different consequences occur from minor to severe depending on pressure differential which depends on altitude and speed at which door ruptures/opens.
H. Is there a conspiracy to keep cargo door explanation quiet?
There is no conspiracy, no plot, no coverup by agencies involved with the cargo door explanation:
1. No conspiracy of Sikh terrorists named Singh to put a bomb on Air India Flight 182; the door ruptured in flight.
2. No conspiracy of Libyan terrorists or whoever to put a bomb on Pan Am Flight 103; the door ruptured in flight.
3. No conspiracy to detonate a bomb on United Airlines Flight 811 as the passengers thought, as the crew thought and told the tower who told the Coast Guard and crash crews on the ground as they prepared for a wounded 747 coming in after a bomb blast; the door ruptured in flight.
4. No conspiracy to put a bomb on Trans World Airlines Flight 800,
5. No conspiracy of terrorists to shoot a missile,
6. No coverup by US Navy to hide accidental shootdown,
7. No coverup by Boeing, NTSB, FAA, or TWA who are hiding the knowledge the door ruptured in flight.
I. Why the huge hole on starboard side in cargo door area while port side smooth?
That's where the forward cargo door is located on all the aircraft, forward of the wing on the right side. The rectangular shattered zone around the forward cargo door is apparent on all the wreckage reconstruction photographs and drawings. The unilateral damage on TWA Flight 800 refutes the center tank explosion as the initial event.
J. Are passengers at risk right now?
Yes, all passengers currently flying in early model Boeing 747s with Poly X wiring are at risk of the faulty wiring shorting on the door unlatch motor causing the ruptured opening of the midspan latches of the cargo door leading to explosive decompression and fatalities.The fault has unofficially occurred in 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, and 1996.
K. What is the sudden loud sound on the CVR on all four aircraft at the initial event time of the inflight breakup?
The sound is the rush of air molecules to the outside to equalize the high pressure air in the cabin with the low pressure air outside at altitude. Explosive decompression is a very loud event.
L. Why the almost immediate power cut to the recorders?
The main equipment compartment (MEC) is immediately adjacent and in front of the forward cargo compartment. The MEC has the wiring power to the recorders and the explosion of decompression nearby cuts off power.
M. Why the right side inflight airframe damage?
The starboard (right) side is where the forward cargo door opens in flight and material from inside the compartment and cabin above are ejected into the slipstream. Engine number three and the right horizontal stabilizer are close to and aft of the forward cargo compartment. The objects are ingested into the nearby engine number three, strike the leading edge of the right wing, and continue aft and strike the right horizontal stabilizer. The port side is relatively unscathed from inflight debris.
N. Why the shattered area around the forward cargo door?
When the explosion of decompression occurs, the door is flung open if all the latches unlock and shattered if the bottom eight latches hold but rupture at the midspan latches. In any case the top part of the door opens outward and upward and away taking much fuselage skin above the door with it.
O. Why the streak for Trans World Airlines Flight 800?
The streak is the reflection of the evening sun of shiny metal skin from the forward cargo door area coming off in flight during the explosive decompression and seen by ground observers in darkness to the east as the objects quickly decelerate from 300 knots in a horizontal direction to straight down from 13700 feet.
P. What is the ignition source for the center fuel tank explosion of Trans World Airlines Flight 800?
The ignition source for the center fuel tank explosion is the on fire engine number three which ingested foreign objects from the forward cargo compartment after the ruptured opening of the forward cargo door. The falling and disintegrating fuselage and fuel tanks were ignited by the fiery exhaust and caused the explosion well after the initial event.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The investigation on TWA-800 is nothing less than bizarre.
To start with, the head of the NTSB - under oath - admitted that there was zero forensic evidence of an electrical cause to the center-tank theory.
The bodies were laced with shrapnel; all were killed by whiplash. The pathologist took only single-axis x-rays, when a bomb / missile was initially suspect. The FBI siezed all the schrapnel taken from the bodies and will not release it, nor account for any examination of it.
The shattering of the cockpit should be contrasted with the 'whole' condition of PA-103, which impacted hard ground.
One photo in the New York Times shows distinct 'combat' holes on the lower-forward port side of TWA-800, yet the skin is clearly altered in the warehouse reconstruction.
A known terrorist, Ramzi Yousef, from "Project Bojinka" claimed the TWA takedown - on behalf of a terrorist group. Yet the FBI dismissed his claim, while prosecuting him for the New York World Trade Center bombing.
But then again, the New York Times documented an FBI 'informant' as assisting the WTC bombing - undenied by the FBI.
Yet, the FBI clams zero evidence of a bomb or missile in the TWA-800 case, despite hundreds of witnesses. The typical witness interview was four minutes. All of these described a missile of some type; no one claimed a unique explosion, without the missile description.
The list goes on. Highly suspect, to say the least.
The latest update on the
www.webpak.net/~skydream
"TWA-800" Web site makes some interesting observations about the strange CIA role in the investigation.
In a sentence, the damage to TWA-800 cannot rationally be attributed to a cargo door opening. The argument does make for an interesting detraction from the far more probable facts, however.
To start with, the head of the NTSB - under oath - admitted that there was zero forensic evidence of an electrical cause to the center-tank theory.
The bodies were laced with shrapnel; all were killed by whiplash. The pathologist took only single-axis x-rays, when a bomb / missile was initially suspect. The FBI siezed all the schrapnel taken from the bodies and will not release it, nor account for any examination of it.
The shattering of the cockpit should be contrasted with the 'whole' condition of PA-103, which impacted hard ground.
One photo in the New York Times shows distinct 'combat' holes on the lower-forward port side of TWA-800, yet the skin is clearly altered in the warehouse reconstruction.
A known terrorist, Ramzi Yousef, from "Project Bojinka" claimed the TWA takedown - on behalf of a terrorist group. Yet the FBI dismissed his claim, while prosecuting him for the New York World Trade Center bombing.
But then again, the New York Times documented an FBI 'informant' as assisting the WTC bombing - undenied by the FBI.
Yet, the FBI clams zero evidence of a bomb or missile in the TWA-800 case, despite hundreds of witnesses. The typical witness interview was four minutes. All of these described a missile of some type; no one claimed a unique explosion, without the missile description.
The list goes on. Highly suspect, to say the least.
The latest update on the
www.webpak.net/~skydream
"TWA-800" Web site makes some interesting observations about the strange CIA role in the investigation.
In a sentence, the damage to TWA-800 cannot rationally be attributed to a cargo door opening. The argument does make for an interesting detraction from the far more probable facts, however.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to the Center Tank theory. It is known that Boeing has had three violent center tank explosions on the ground. KC-135 and two 73s. On the 8+ year old Thai bird (no old wiring here) it was found that the airplane was at the gate 40+ minutes with center tank empty, tank pump running, all packs running on max with OAT at 93F.
The Philippine 73 tank exploded during pushback under same circumstances, except that many passengers seated overwing received fatal injuries.
Of course the exact ignition source is not known. Could have been arcing of pump wires, or arcing of fuel probes or from instantaneous combustion of fumes from heat and pressure buildup inside the tank. We don't know too much about tank pressures under all conditions but we know that ignition isn't always required, the diesel engine principle is a crude example.
Interesting to note that Douglas put the DC-8 center tank pump inside No2 main tank. A thoughtful design.
But we KNOW that the tanks had exploded on their own! The TW800 74 was at JFK under similar ambient conditions, empty center tank upon arrival from Athens, packs running max (maybe a center tank pump left running two hours at the gate)? Add to that ageing, chaffed, wiring inside, near or near the tank or its vent, etc and therefore a center tank explosion all on its own IS conceivable.
As to the missile theory I can only say that it would have required a massive organized government conspiracy to keep all those sailors aboard ship, all personnel with access to defense and civil recorded radar info quiet for so long.
Meanwhile, to all you Boeing drivers: Keep some fuel in your center tank and make doubly sure that the center tank pump is switched off in a near empty tank.
Cheers.
The Philippine 73 tank exploded during pushback under same circumstances, except that many passengers seated overwing received fatal injuries.
Of course the exact ignition source is not known. Could have been arcing of pump wires, or arcing of fuel probes or from instantaneous combustion of fumes from heat and pressure buildup inside the tank. We don't know too much about tank pressures under all conditions but we know that ignition isn't always required, the diesel engine principle is a crude example.
Interesting to note that Douglas put the DC-8 center tank pump inside No2 main tank. A thoughtful design.
But we KNOW that the tanks had exploded on their own! The TW800 74 was at JFK under similar ambient conditions, empty center tank upon arrival from Athens, packs running max (maybe a center tank pump left running two hours at the gate)? Add to that ageing, chaffed, wiring inside, near or near the tank or its vent, etc and therefore a center tank explosion all on its own IS conceivable.
As to the missile theory I can only say that it would have required a massive organized government conspiracy to keep all those sailors aboard ship, all personnel with access to defense and civil recorded radar info quiet for so long.
Meanwhile, to all you Boeing drivers: Keep some fuel in your center tank and make doubly sure that the center tank pump is switched off in a near empty tank.
Cheers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 737 center tank fires are also suspect. The cause of the Manila event was never isolated, leaving open a terrorist possibility. The Thai 737 pictures show that there was far too much fuel burned to be attributed to the NTSB conclusion.
Clinton issued a Presidential Executive Order which silenced a certain navy unit in the area, containing 'sub-units' which could achieve the achieve needed silencing. There's plenty of history to support that possibility.
However, the Ramzi Yousef claim leaves open the possibility that an extremely lucky Stinger (or two) could have done the damage.
The damning and maddening part is the magnitude and complexity of the obvious cover-up.
The fundamental fact is that if there was any 'logical' explanation, the existence and extreme of the government silencing / fabrication efforts wouldn't exist.
To borrow from the famous attorney, Gerry Spence, "I'm not going to guess whether there's a live bird or a dead bird in your hand; I'm telling you to open your hand!"
Clinton issued a Presidential Executive Order which silenced a certain navy unit in the area, containing 'sub-units' which could achieve the achieve needed silencing. There's plenty of history to support that possibility.
However, the Ramzi Yousef claim leaves open the possibility that an extremely lucky Stinger (or two) could have done the damage.
The damning and maddening part is the magnitude and complexity of the obvious cover-up.
The fundamental fact is that if there was any 'logical' explanation, the existence and extreme of the government silencing / fabrication efforts wouldn't exist.
To borrow from the famous attorney, Gerry Spence, "I'm not going to guess whether there's a live bird or a dead bird in your hand; I'm telling you to open your hand!"
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skydrifter:
In the Thai incident, within 20 minutes of the center tank explosion the No.2 main tank in the starboard wing had caught fire and exploded, therefore the excessive fire and smoke.
The Philippine B737-3YO, manufactured in 1989, leased from GPAG, EI-BZG, s/n 24466, was less than a year old. So no case of old wiring. No bomb residue was found. The empty center tank had exploded on its own during pushback.
As to a "Stinger" theory on TW800, I don't believe that it has an effective range over 2.5 miles. A person firing a Stinger would have had to be on a boat directly underneath the jet. 13000 feet would be at the extreme range limit.
[ 23 July 2001: Message edited by: GlueBall ]
In the Thai incident, within 20 minutes of the center tank explosion the No.2 main tank in the starboard wing had caught fire and exploded, therefore the excessive fire and smoke.
The Philippine B737-3YO, manufactured in 1989, leased from GPAG, EI-BZG, s/n 24466, was less than a year old. So no case of old wiring. No bomb residue was found. The empty center tank had exploded on its own during pushback.
As to a "Stinger" theory on TW800, I don't believe that it has an effective range over 2.5 miles. A person firing a Stinger would have had to be on a boat directly underneath the jet. 13000 feet would be at the extreme range limit.
[ 23 July 2001: Message edited by: GlueBall ]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prior to the torching of the Thai 737 No.2 wing tank, the fire was already hot & furious, as illustrated in ALPA's magazine. The flames were coming from the aft-bottom of the center-wing section; not the top. At the time-frame of the ALPA picture, the fuselage was still intact. With 20 minutes of burning, we may be certain that a lot of fuel was in the center tank.
As to the TWA-800 Stinger idea, you're quite correct as to the limited probability and the ideal location need. That's only an educated guess.
The brownish-red PETN traces are the major clue as to the missile and U.S. military type. The Stinger is a 2.75" rocket, so I'm guessing that the final motor stage was PETN-fueled. "Janes" isn't specific as to the fuel type.
As to the TWA-800 Stinger idea, you're quite correct as to the limited probability and the ideal location need. That's only an educated guess.
The brownish-red PETN traces are the major clue as to the missile and U.S. military type. The Stinger is a 2.75" rocket, so I'm guessing that the final motor stage was PETN-fueled. "Janes" isn't specific as to the fuel type.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some talk conspiracy and coverup and informants and terrorists: I talk facts, data, and evidence about mechanical events with precedent, who is more ‘rational’?
The subject is Trans World Airlines Flight 800, a Boeing 747, not a KC 135 or a Boeing 737.
I just did research this evening and found this startling SDR in the FAA database: Capitals in original.
Difficulty Date : 10/11/00
Operator Type : Air Carrier
ATA Code : 5210
Part Name : CONTROLLER
Aircraft Manufacturer : BOEING
Aircraft Group : 747
Aircraft Model : 747422
Engine Manufacturer : PWA
Engine Group : 4056
Engine Model : PW4056
Part/Defect Location : CARGO DOOR
Part Condition : MALFUNCTIONED
Submitter Code : Carrier
Operator Desig. : UALA
Precautionary Procedure : NONE
Nature : OTHER
Stage of Flight : INSP/MAINT
District Office Region : Western/Pacific US office #29
A/C N Number : 199UA
Aircraft Serial No. : 28717
Discrepancy/Corrective Action:FWD CARGO DOOR OPENED BY ITSELF WHEN CB PUSHED IN. ON ARRIVAL, CIRCUIT BREAKERS WERE PUSHED IN, WHEN PRESSURE RELIEF DOOR HANDLE WAS OPENED THE DOOR LATCHES OPENED AND THEN THE DOOR OPENED ON ITS OWN. COULD NOT DUPLICATE PROBLEM AFTER INITIAL OPENING.
Dear PPRuNe:
This is very very scary knowing what we know about forward cargo doors opening in flight from electrical causes. If that CB had been pushed in (why was it out) during flight, that forward cargo door would have ruptured/opened with known catastrophic results. What is a 'controller' and what 'malfunctioned'? UAL, above incident airline and well familiar with UAL 811, had habit of pulling door CB out and were told to stop, order 8300.10 below. They are apparently still pulling the door CB and it may have saved their ass.
Have your safety officers in your airlines contact me for futher clarification, it may save your ass.
“Door opened on its own’ should send chills down your back, it did mine.
Sincerely,
Barry
ORDER: 8300.10
APPENDIX: 4
BULLETIN TYPE: Flight Standards Information Bulletin (FSIB)
for Airworthiness (FSAW)
BULLETIN NUMBER: FSAW 93-50
BULLETIN TITLE: Inappropriate Use of Circuit Breakers
During B-747 Lower Lobe Cargo Door Operation
EFFECTIVE DATE: 06-02-94
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. SUBJECT. This FSIB informs inspectors of unsafe procedures
being used by some operators to close and lock the lower lobe
cargo doors of the Boeing 747 (B-747) series aircraft.
2. BACKGROUND.
A. This bulletin was developed after an inquiry by a foreign
airworthiness authority into the special procedures used by a
specific operator to close and lock the lower lobe cargo doors of
B-747 series aircraft. The special procedure included in the
operator's maintenance manual called for manual tripping of the
cargo door control circuit breakers and the section 2 ground
handling bus circuit breaker in order to further remove the
possibility of power being applied accidentally to the cargo door
control circuitry.
B. The manual tripping of the circuit breakers in special cargo
door lock procedures is unnecessary and decreases the reliability
of the circuit breakers to perform their intended function.
Frequent switching of the breakers could cause them to trip
before the point of rated voltage or not to trip at all. Both
cases could have adverse effects (such as the following) in
relation to the safe operation of the cargo doors:
(1) Circuit breakers that trip before the point of rated voltage
would cause increased manual operation of the cargo doors.
(2) Manual operation could introduce additional failure
conditions, such as out-of-sequence operation and overdriving of
the cargo door mechanisms.
(3) Service history has shown that manual operation of the cargo
doors is more prone to cause damage; for example, the failure of
a breaker to trip at the point of rated voltage could lead to
failed components and fire.
2
C. The revision to the B-747 cargo door lock sectors warning
system, in airplanes compliant with Airworthiness Directive (AD)
90-09-06, provides an increased level of integrity so that manual
tripping of the circuit breakers is not necessary to prevent the
possibility of an uncommanded opening of the cargo doors.
Furthermore, power to the cargo door is automatically removed by
the Master Latch Lock System upon first motion of the Master
Latch Lock Switch away from the fully unlocked position.
3. ACTION. Principal maintenance inspectors (PMI) having
certificate management responsibilities for operators of Boeing
747 series aircraft should ensure that this information is
brought to the attention of their respective operators. Any
operators using this procedure should be discouraged from its
continued use.
4. INQUIRIES. This FSIB was developed by SEA.AEG. Any
questions regarding this information should be directed to
AFS-510 at (703) 661-0333, extension 5018.
5. EXPIRATION. This FSIB will expire on 05-31-95.
/s/
Edgar C. Fell
The subject is Trans World Airlines Flight 800, a Boeing 747, not a KC 135 or a Boeing 737.
I just did research this evening and found this startling SDR in the FAA database: Capitals in original.
Difficulty Date : 10/11/00
Operator Type : Air Carrier
ATA Code : 5210
Part Name : CONTROLLER
Aircraft Manufacturer : BOEING
Aircraft Group : 747
Aircraft Model : 747422
Engine Manufacturer : PWA
Engine Group : 4056
Engine Model : PW4056
Part/Defect Location : CARGO DOOR
Part Condition : MALFUNCTIONED
Submitter Code : Carrier
Operator Desig. : UALA
Precautionary Procedure : NONE
Nature : OTHER
Stage of Flight : INSP/MAINT
District Office Region : Western/Pacific US office #29
A/C N Number : 199UA
Aircraft Serial No. : 28717
Discrepancy/Corrective Action:FWD CARGO DOOR OPENED BY ITSELF WHEN CB PUSHED IN. ON ARRIVAL, CIRCUIT BREAKERS WERE PUSHED IN, WHEN PRESSURE RELIEF DOOR HANDLE WAS OPENED THE DOOR LATCHES OPENED AND THEN THE DOOR OPENED ON ITS OWN. COULD NOT DUPLICATE PROBLEM AFTER INITIAL OPENING.
Dear PPRuNe:
This is very very scary knowing what we know about forward cargo doors opening in flight from electrical causes. If that CB had been pushed in (why was it out) during flight, that forward cargo door would have ruptured/opened with known catastrophic results. What is a 'controller' and what 'malfunctioned'? UAL, above incident airline and well familiar with UAL 811, had habit of pulling door CB out and were told to stop, order 8300.10 below. They are apparently still pulling the door CB and it may have saved their ass.
Have your safety officers in your airlines contact me for futher clarification, it may save your ass.
“Door opened on its own’ should send chills down your back, it did mine.
Sincerely,
Barry
ORDER: 8300.10
APPENDIX: 4
BULLETIN TYPE: Flight Standards Information Bulletin (FSIB)
for Airworthiness (FSAW)
BULLETIN NUMBER: FSAW 93-50
BULLETIN TITLE: Inappropriate Use of Circuit Breakers
During B-747 Lower Lobe Cargo Door Operation
EFFECTIVE DATE: 06-02-94
---------------------------------------------------------------
1. SUBJECT. This FSIB informs inspectors of unsafe procedures
being used by some operators to close and lock the lower lobe
cargo doors of the Boeing 747 (B-747) series aircraft.
2. BACKGROUND.
A. This bulletin was developed after an inquiry by a foreign
airworthiness authority into the special procedures used by a
specific operator to close and lock the lower lobe cargo doors of
B-747 series aircraft. The special procedure included in the
operator's maintenance manual called for manual tripping of the
cargo door control circuit breakers and the section 2 ground
handling bus circuit breaker in order to further remove the
possibility of power being applied accidentally to the cargo door
control circuitry.
B. The manual tripping of the circuit breakers in special cargo
door lock procedures is unnecessary and decreases the reliability
of the circuit breakers to perform their intended function.
Frequent switching of the breakers could cause them to trip
before the point of rated voltage or not to trip at all. Both
cases could have adverse effects (such as the following) in
relation to the safe operation of the cargo doors:
(1) Circuit breakers that trip before the point of rated voltage
would cause increased manual operation of the cargo doors.
(2) Manual operation could introduce additional failure
conditions, such as out-of-sequence operation and overdriving of
the cargo door mechanisms.
(3) Service history has shown that manual operation of the cargo
doors is more prone to cause damage; for example, the failure of
a breaker to trip at the point of rated voltage could lead to
failed components and fire.
2
C. The revision to the B-747 cargo door lock sectors warning
system, in airplanes compliant with Airworthiness Directive (AD)
90-09-06, provides an increased level of integrity so that manual
tripping of the circuit breakers is not necessary to prevent the
possibility of an uncommanded opening of the cargo doors.
Furthermore, power to the cargo door is automatically removed by
the Master Latch Lock System upon first motion of the Master
Latch Lock Switch away from the fully unlocked position.
3. ACTION. Principal maintenance inspectors (PMI) having
certificate management responsibilities for operators of Boeing
747 series aircraft should ensure that this information is
brought to the attention of their respective operators. Any
operators using this procedure should be discouraged from its
continued use.
4. INQUIRIES. This FSIB was developed by SEA.AEG. Any
questions regarding this information should be directed to
AFS-510 at (703) 661-0333, extension 5018.
5. EXPIRATION. This FSIB will expire on 05-31-95.
/s/
Edgar C. Fell