China Airlines B747 Crash (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wes_wall Has anyone seen a map?
Well, I dont have a map, but out of curiosity I did try plotting the Mainland Chinese data in the pdf data originally pointed to by Peanut Butter on 27 May, 2002, and the position of the data recorders given in Aviation Week, 1 July, 2002, p. 43. The plot and some more words are on the following web-site:
http://home.infionline.net/~blueblue
Well, I dont have a map, but out of curiosity I did try plotting the Mainland Chinese data in the pdf data originally pointed to by Peanut Butter on 27 May, 2002, and the position of the data recorders given in Aviation Week, 1 July, 2002, p. 43. The plot and some more words are on the following web-site:
http://home.infionline.net/~blueblue
Last edited by PickyPerkins; 5th Jun 2005 at 19:12.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firehorse>Good work there John and I agree with your closing question.
Flattery will get you everywhere. And thank you very very much for your inputs.
Hull rupture in flight: Where, when, and how?
Each location has specific evidence revealed in the wreckage.
For China Airlines Flight 611:
Midspan latch areas of the two cargo doors (four latches) need to be examined for outward ruptures in a petal shape. Bottom eight latches may be attached to lower sill. If midspan latches are attached to latching cams then it is unlikely the cargo door ruptured open in flight. If outward twisted door skin is evident and midspan latches missing, it is likely that door may have ruptured open in flight.
Other helpful observations:
1. Request status of two midspan latches of forward cargo door: May be missing.
2. Request status of two pressure relief doors in forward cargo door: May be jammed open or missing.
3. Request number of pieces of forward cargo door retrieved so far: Door may be shattered and broken longitudinally.
4. Any paint transfers above hinge of forward cargo door?
5. Any inflight damage to right wing leading edge wing fillet?
6. Any FOD to engine number three?
7. Request status of aft cargo door: May have opened in flight.
Let us look at likely places for the balloon to pop from within:
Aft pressure bulkhead.
Forward cargo door.
Aft cargo door.
Side cargo door if present.
Passenger doors.
Windows.
Aft bulk cargo door
Permit me to lay out some history.;
1. Aft pressure bulkhead. (One failure in flight)
12 August 1985; Japan Air Lines 747SR-46 JA8119 JAL flight 123 en route from Tokyo-Haneda to Osaka experienced a rapid decompression which damaged the rear bulkhead, destroyed most of the fin and disabled the flight controls. After some 30 minutes of uncontrolled flight, the 747 crashed into Mt Ogura 100 kms west of Tokyo. Only four of 524 people onboard survived the disaster, which was due to a faulty bulkhead repair in 1979
From CASB report for Air India Flight 182: (Explosion in forward cargo compartment)
2.11.6.3 Target 35 - Portion of Rear Pressure Bulkhead
Looking forward from behind the aircraft, this segment of pressure bulkhead occupied the 9 to 1 o'clock position. The piece from 12 to 1 o'clock had the flange from the outer ring attached. The web below the outer ring flange had areas of buckling. From the 11 to 12 o'clock position, the outer edge showed sinusoidal buckling, and the edge sector at 9 o'clock was partially collapsed and its edge was turned under. Samples taken for optical stereomicroscope and SEM examination revealed that the fracture characteristics were consistent with an overload mode of failure. The examination suggested a general direction of failure from the aft to the forward edge of the rear pressure bulkhead panel.
3.4.2 Aft Pressure Bulkhead
The localized impact mark found on the leading edge of the right horizontal root leading edge is indicative of an object striking the stabilizer in flight before water impact. This suggests that the loss of the tail plane was not the first event. The horizontal and vertical stabilizers were found separated and each was intact and in good condition. Items from the aft cargo compartment were found further to the west of the tail plane. The absence of the type of damage to the tail plane as was found in the Japan Airlines (JAL) Boeing 747 accident where the aft pressure bulkhead failed and which took place shortly after this occurrence, and the rupture of the aft cargo compartment before the loss of the tail indicate that there was not an in-flight failure of the aft pressure bulkhead. In addition, examination of the recovered portions of the bulkhead shows evidence of overload failures from the rear to front only and no evidence of any pre-existing defect, premature cracking or pre-impact corrosion damage. The aircraft structure had a random scatter pattern. That is, items such as the aft pressure bulkhead were broken into several pieces, and these pieces were located throughout the pattern.
3.2.9.10 The aft cargo and bulk cargo doors were found in place and intact, and 5L, 5R and 4R entry doors were identified. Four segments of the aft pressure bulkhead were positively identified (targets 35, 37, 73 and 296). Much of the fuselage which was forward of the number five door and above the passenger floor area was not located, or if located was not recognisable as having come from a specific area of the aircraft.
3.4.2.1 Kanishka was equipped with a Fairchild A-100 Cockpit Voice Recorder Serial No. 5809 and a Lockheed 209E Digital Flight Data Recorder Serial No. 1282. These were each equipped with Dukane Underwater Acoustic Beacons and were installed adjacent to each other in the cabin on the left side near the rear pressure bulkhead.
The conversations in the cockpit were normal, and there was no indication of an emergency situation prior to the loud noise heard on the CVR a fraction of a second before it stopped recording. The DFDR showed no abnormal variations in parameters recorded before it stopped functioning. The only unusual observation was the irregular signals recorded over the last 0.27 inches of the DFDR tape. Laboratory tests indicated the possibility that these signals resulted from the recorder being subjected to a sharp disturbance at the time it stopped recording. The other possibility for the irregular signals on the DFDR is that they were caused by a disturbance to the Flight Data Acquisition Unit in the main electronics bay. Since there was an almost simultaneous loss of the transponder signal, this indicates the possibility of an abrupt aircraft electrical failure. The millisecond noise on a CVR as observed in this case is usually, as described in the available literature, the result of the shock wave from detonation of an explosive device. However, in this case, certain characteristics of the noise indicate the possibility that the noise was the result of an explosive decompression.
2. Forward cargo door. (Two officially opened in flight)
On February 24, 1989, United Airlines flight 811, a Boeing 747-122, experienced an explosive decompression as it was climbing between 22,000 and 23,000 feet after taking off from Honolulu, Hawaii, en route to Sydney, Australia with 3 flightcrew, 15 flight attendants, and 337 passengers aboard.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the sudden opening of the forward lower lobe cargo door in flight and the subsequent explosive decompression.
1.17.1 Previous Cargo Door Incident
On March 10, 1987, a Pan American Airways B-747-122, N740PA, operating as flight 125 from London to New York, experienced an incident involving the forward cargo door.
Difficulty Date : 10/11/00
Operator Type : Air Carrier
ATA Code : 5210
Part Name : Controller
Aircraft Manufacturer : Boeing
Aircraft Group : 747
Aircraft Model : 747422
Flattery will get you everywhere. And thank you very very much for your inputs.
Hull rupture in flight: Where, when, and how?
Each location has specific evidence revealed in the wreckage.
For China Airlines Flight 611:
Midspan latch areas of the two cargo doors (four latches) need to be examined for outward ruptures in a petal shape. Bottom eight latches may be attached to lower sill. If midspan latches are attached to latching cams then it is unlikely the cargo door ruptured open in flight. If outward twisted door skin is evident and midspan latches missing, it is likely that door may have ruptured open in flight.
Other helpful observations:
1. Request status of two midspan latches of forward cargo door: May be missing.
2. Request status of two pressure relief doors in forward cargo door: May be jammed open or missing.
3. Request number of pieces of forward cargo door retrieved so far: Door may be shattered and broken longitudinally.
4. Any paint transfers above hinge of forward cargo door?
5. Any inflight damage to right wing leading edge wing fillet?
6. Any FOD to engine number three?
7. Request status of aft cargo door: May have opened in flight.
Let us look at likely places for the balloon to pop from within:
Aft pressure bulkhead.
Forward cargo door.
Aft cargo door.
Side cargo door if present.
Passenger doors.
Windows.
Aft bulk cargo door
Permit me to lay out some history.;
1. Aft pressure bulkhead. (One failure in flight)
12 August 1985; Japan Air Lines 747SR-46 JA8119 JAL flight 123 en route from Tokyo-Haneda to Osaka experienced a rapid decompression which damaged the rear bulkhead, destroyed most of the fin and disabled the flight controls. After some 30 minutes of uncontrolled flight, the 747 crashed into Mt Ogura 100 kms west of Tokyo. Only four of 524 people onboard survived the disaster, which was due to a faulty bulkhead repair in 1979
From CASB report for Air India Flight 182: (Explosion in forward cargo compartment)
2.11.6.3 Target 35 - Portion of Rear Pressure Bulkhead
Looking forward from behind the aircraft, this segment of pressure bulkhead occupied the 9 to 1 o'clock position. The piece from 12 to 1 o'clock had the flange from the outer ring attached. The web below the outer ring flange had areas of buckling. From the 11 to 12 o'clock position, the outer edge showed sinusoidal buckling, and the edge sector at 9 o'clock was partially collapsed and its edge was turned under. Samples taken for optical stereomicroscope and SEM examination revealed that the fracture characteristics were consistent with an overload mode of failure. The examination suggested a general direction of failure from the aft to the forward edge of the rear pressure bulkhead panel.
3.4.2 Aft Pressure Bulkhead
The localized impact mark found on the leading edge of the right horizontal root leading edge is indicative of an object striking the stabilizer in flight before water impact. This suggests that the loss of the tail plane was not the first event. The horizontal and vertical stabilizers were found separated and each was intact and in good condition. Items from the aft cargo compartment were found further to the west of the tail plane. The absence of the type of damage to the tail plane as was found in the Japan Airlines (JAL) Boeing 747 accident where the aft pressure bulkhead failed and which took place shortly after this occurrence, and the rupture of the aft cargo compartment before the loss of the tail indicate that there was not an in-flight failure of the aft pressure bulkhead. In addition, examination of the recovered portions of the bulkhead shows evidence of overload failures from the rear to front only and no evidence of any pre-existing defect, premature cracking or pre-impact corrosion damage. The aircraft structure had a random scatter pattern. That is, items such as the aft pressure bulkhead were broken into several pieces, and these pieces were located throughout the pattern.
3.2.9.10 The aft cargo and bulk cargo doors were found in place and intact, and 5L, 5R and 4R entry doors were identified. Four segments of the aft pressure bulkhead were positively identified (targets 35, 37, 73 and 296). Much of the fuselage which was forward of the number five door and above the passenger floor area was not located, or if located was not recognisable as having come from a specific area of the aircraft.
3.4.2.1 Kanishka was equipped with a Fairchild A-100 Cockpit Voice Recorder Serial No. 5809 and a Lockheed 209E Digital Flight Data Recorder Serial No. 1282. These were each equipped with Dukane Underwater Acoustic Beacons and were installed adjacent to each other in the cabin on the left side near the rear pressure bulkhead.
The conversations in the cockpit were normal, and there was no indication of an emergency situation prior to the loud noise heard on the CVR a fraction of a second before it stopped recording. The DFDR showed no abnormal variations in parameters recorded before it stopped functioning. The only unusual observation was the irregular signals recorded over the last 0.27 inches of the DFDR tape. Laboratory tests indicated the possibility that these signals resulted from the recorder being subjected to a sharp disturbance at the time it stopped recording. The other possibility for the irregular signals on the DFDR is that they were caused by a disturbance to the Flight Data Acquisition Unit in the main electronics bay. Since there was an almost simultaneous loss of the transponder signal, this indicates the possibility of an abrupt aircraft electrical failure. The millisecond noise on a CVR as observed in this case is usually, as described in the available literature, the result of the shock wave from detonation of an explosive device. However, in this case, certain characteristics of the noise indicate the possibility that the noise was the result of an explosive decompression.
2. Forward cargo door. (Two officially opened in flight)
On February 24, 1989, United Airlines flight 811, a Boeing 747-122, experienced an explosive decompression as it was climbing between 22,000 and 23,000 feet after taking off from Honolulu, Hawaii, en route to Sydney, Australia with 3 flightcrew, 15 flight attendants, and 337 passengers aboard.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the sudden opening of the forward lower lobe cargo door in flight and the subsequent explosive decompression.
1.17.1 Previous Cargo Door Incident
On March 10, 1987, a Pan American Airways B-747-122, N740PA, operating as flight 125 from London to New York, experienced an incident involving the forward cargo door.
Difficulty Date : 10/11/00
Operator Type : Air Carrier
ATA Code : 5210
Part Name : Controller
Aircraft Manufacturer : Boeing
Aircraft Group : 747
Aircraft Model : 747422
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Difficulty Date : 10/11/00
Operator Type : Air Carrier
ATA Code : 5210
Part Name : Controller
Aircraft Manufacturer : Boeing
Aircraft Group : 747
Aircraft Model : 747422
Operator Type : Air Carrier
ATA Code : 5210
Part Name : Controller
Aircraft Manufacturer : Boeing
Aircraft Group : 747
Aircraft Model : 747422
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To continue possible locations for hull rupture China Airlines Flight 611: (Unknown location in China Airlines Flight 611 for FDR and CVR but probably the same as AI 182, another 747-200 series.)
What happens when nose comes off, from NTSB AAR 0003 for Trans World Airlines Flight 800:
Effect Of Nose Separation
The separation of the forward fuselage will result in large changes to the
aerodynamic and mass property characteristics of the aircraft. The center of gravity
will shift aft, the weight will go down, and the aircraft moments of inertia will be
reduced. The mass properties as estimated by Boeing are summarized in the
following table.
Parameter Before Nose Separation After Nose Separation
Gross Weight (lbs.) 574000 494606
C.G. %MAC 21.1 57.8
Iyy slug-ft2 27790000.0 15780000.0
Ixx slug-ft2 19110000.0 18970000.0
One aerodynamic effect of the loss of the forward fuselage is the loss of the
aerodynamic loads on the forward fuselage itself. A second aerodynamic effect will
be due to the replacement of the smooth forward fuselage with a blunt open front.
This will result in a direct increase in drag but will also effect the flow around the
inboard wing. The changes in the longitudinal aerodynamic coefficients (lift, drag
and pitching moment) due to the separation of the forward fuselage were estimated
by Boeing and are presented in figures 1, 2, and 3. Flight control positions are
assumed to remain at their pre nose-off positions.
3. Aft cargo door. (None opened in flight, yet)
1.17.6 Uncommanded Cargo Door Opening--UAL B-747, JFK Airport
On June 13, 1991, UAL maintenance personnel were unable to electrically open the aft cargo door on a Boeing 747-222B, N152UA, at JFK Airport, Jamaica, New York.
What happens when nose comes off, from NTSB AAR 0003 for Trans World Airlines Flight 800:
Effect Of Nose Separation
The separation of the forward fuselage will result in large changes to the
aerodynamic and mass property characteristics of the aircraft. The center of gravity
will shift aft, the weight will go down, and the aircraft moments of inertia will be
reduced. The mass properties as estimated by Boeing are summarized in the
following table.
Parameter Before Nose Separation After Nose Separation
Gross Weight (lbs.) 574000 494606
C.G. %MAC 21.1 57.8
Iyy slug-ft2 27790000.0 15780000.0
Ixx slug-ft2 19110000.0 18970000.0
One aerodynamic effect of the loss of the forward fuselage is the loss of the
aerodynamic loads on the forward fuselage itself. A second aerodynamic effect will
be due to the replacement of the smooth forward fuselage with a blunt open front.
This will result in a direct increase in drag but will also effect the flow around the
inboard wing. The changes in the longitudinal aerodynamic coefficients (lift, drag
and pitching moment) due to the separation of the forward fuselage were estimated
by Boeing and are presented in figures 1, 2, and 3. Flight control positions are
assumed to remain at their pre nose-off positions.
3. Aft cargo door. (None opened in flight, yet)
1.17.6 Uncommanded Cargo Door Opening--UAL B-747, JFK Airport
On June 13, 1991, UAL maintenance personnel were unable to electrically open the aft cargo door on a Boeing 747-222B, N152UA, at JFK Airport, Jamaica, New York.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To summarize possible locations of known rupture points in 747 hulls.
1. Aft pressure bulkhead. One officially, JAL 123, bad repair
2. Forward cargo door. Two officially, PA 125 and United Airlines Flight 811, wiring.
3. Aft cargo door. 3. (None opened in flight, yet)
Uncommanded Cargo Door Opening--UAL B-747, JFK Airport
On June 13, 1991, UAL maintenance personnel were unable to electrically open the aft cargo door on a Boeing 747-222B, N152UA, at JFK Airport, Jamaica, New York. It opened when CB pushed in.
4. Side cargo door if present. (One almost opened inflight, 11 of 12 latches had unlatched) Not present in China Airlines Flight 611apparently.
5. Passenger doors. Boeing 747 could withstand a hole the size of a passenger door in flight according to design.
6. Windows.Comet ADF window metal fatigue
7. Aft bulk cargo door DC 10 (Three confirmed events, two in flight) Improperly latched
1. Aft pressure bulkhead. One officially, JAL 123, bad repair
2. Forward cargo door. Two officially, PA 125 and United Airlines Flight 811, wiring.
3. Aft cargo door. 3. (None opened in flight, yet)
Uncommanded Cargo Door Opening--UAL B-747, JFK Airport
On June 13, 1991, UAL maintenance personnel were unable to electrically open the aft cargo door on a Boeing 747-222B, N152UA, at JFK Airport, Jamaica, New York. It opened when CB pushed in.
4. Side cargo door if present. (One almost opened inflight, 11 of 12 latches had unlatched) Not present in China Airlines Flight 611apparently.
5. Passenger doors. Boeing 747 could withstand a hole the size of a passenger door in flight according to design.
6. Windows.Comet ADF window metal fatigue
7. Aft bulk cargo door DC 10 (Three confirmed events, two in flight) Improperly latched
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: To: From: To: From:
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVR and FDR are located on the stbd side of the fusilage aft of door R5 outside the pressure bulkhead.
An approximate location is in this schematic:
An approximate location is in this schematic:
Last edited by Kubota; 4th Jul 2002 at 03:52.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Minneapolis, MN,USA.
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On older 747 Classics, the CVR and FDR are generally mounted on the P83 panel aft of the L5 door above the left hand side ceiling - and inside the pressure vessel, i.e.forward of the aft bulkhead.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FDR and CVR on the 747 Classics is located in the aft equipment center E8, above and aft of L5 door as tinyrice pointed out. I think Kubota's diagram is of an Airbus type
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: To: From: To: From:
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it is an Airbus type, I did say "approximate" (having failed to find anything like a Boeing 747 on the 'web). "Lunk" isn't a flyer, I think.
This
seemed far too generic.
This
seemed far too generic.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tiny rice said on 3rd July 2002 23:04
On older 747 Classics, the CVR and FDR are generally mounted on the P83 panel aft of the L5 door above the left hand side ceiling - and inside the pressure vessel, i.e.forward of the aft bulkhead.
HotDog said on 3rd July 2002 23:38
FDR and CVR on the 747 Classics is located in the aft equipment center E8, above and aft of L5 door as tinyrice pointed out.
Question for JohnBarrySmith (and anyone else):
Do you think that it would be possible for a hull rupture to the allow data recorders to depart the a/c and yet allow the a/c to continue on from Point 2 to Point 5 in the plots in the link below?
http://home.infionline.net/~blueblue
On older 747 Classics, the CVR and FDR are generally mounted on the P83 panel aft of the L5 door above the left hand side ceiling - and inside the pressure vessel, i.e.forward of the aft bulkhead.
HotDog said on 3rd July 2002 23:38
FDR and CVR on the 747 Classics is located in the aft equipment center E8, above and aft of L5 door as tinyrice pointed out.
Question for JohnBarrySmith (and anyone else):
Do you think that it would be possible for a hull rupture to the allow data recorders to depart the a/c and yet allow the a/c to continue on from Point 2 to Point 5 in the plots in the link below?
http://home.infionline.net/~blueblue
Last edited by PickyPerkins; 5th Jun 2005 at 19:18.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Number not up yet
Dear Picky Perkins...
Picky, picky, picky...and that’s exactly what it takes to sort out airplane crashes. Thanks for making up charts. The facts from authorities are confusing about what happened to China Airlines Flight 611 in the last few seconds.
“Do you think that it would be possible for a hull rupture to the allow data recorders to depart the a/c and yet allow the a/c to continue on from Point 2 to Point 5 in the plots in the link below? “
Good question. My first thought is no, once the FDR and CVR leave a Boeing 747 in flight, it’s all over as any hull rupture of that size in that vulnerable spot in the tail is bound to sever tail entirely. But, who knows? The aerodynamics of a 747 nose less has been studied in detail but not for tailless. (JAL 123 was vertical stab less and that AAR is not available.)
For AAR of the three previous hull ruptures in flight which had a sudden sound on CVR followed by an abrupt power cut, see www.corazon.com. The aircraft were Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800. My controversial conclusion is all are the same probable cause: shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup. Regardless of the initial cause, the aircraft lost their forward section of the fuselage in flight and followed approximately the same flight pattern; exploded area just forward of the wing landed first and closest, then nose, then wings and aft section.
Details are in the AARs based on trajectory patterns and wreckage debris.
China Airlines Flight 611 is different in significant aspects: sound not loud bang and a thud/chaaa, power cut not immediate but four seconds later, tail landed first not last.
So, could be tail off and that puts suspicion on three places: aft pressure bulkhead, aft main cargo door, and aft bulk cargo door. The aft cargo door is huge and same size as forward, 99 inches by 110 inches. The aft bulk cargo door is one third that size. Aft bulk cargo doors have never opened in flight on a 747 but have for DC 10. Aft main cargo door has never opened inflight for 747 but has on the ground and leaked in the air.
(For 747 251B: During climb, the aft cargo door illuminated and aircraft failed to pressurize. Flight returned to BKK after dumping 5000 lbs of fuel and landed without further incident. Maintenance found the aft cargo door
handle out of position. Adjusted latch and lock. Operational check ok.)
Aft pressure bulkhead has failed once in flight for 747.
It comes down to actual evidence. Firehorse has access to the answers by observing these things: Right wing leading edge for inflight damage, particularly in the right wing fillet. Midspan latches for both cargo doors for presence or absence. Any outward petal shaped holes on right side of fuselage. Fractures in aft pressure bulkhead. Engine number three for FOD.
Firehorse reported: ‘ fwd cargo door intact and locks in place’ and ‘The tail section is impressive and nearly complete less most of the vertical stab’ and ‘The aft bulk cargo door is intact but the bulk cargo door is still missing.’
The vertical stab missing could be the aft pressure bulkhead cause as that is what happened to JAL 123.
The locks in places could be the lower eight but the midspan have no ‘locks’ or locking sectors, just cams and pins.
The ‘bulk cargo door’ missing could be the aft main cargo door and if that is missing, that could be the aft cargo door open/rupture explanation.
Note that FDR data could be skewed by abrupt movement of the FDR itself and not the aircraft or the parameters.
Need for reports on actual observation of evidence. If one knows where to look the answers are there and probably there with the recovered wreckage so far.
Midspan latch status for the two main cargo doors is most important. If those are confirmed latched and attached to fuselage latch pins, then suspicion falls on aft pressure bulkhead failure.
By the way, a bomb went off in a 747 twice and the planes landed safely.
In 1992 a Greek court found Rashid guilty of premeditated murder in the 1982 bombing of a Pan American airliner which exploded over Hawaii, killing a Japanese teen-ager and wounding 15 other passengers. The plane managed to land safely.
For 747 283B: On a flight from Manila to Tokyo via Cebu, a bomb exploded in the passenger cabin beneath seat 26K. A successful emergency landing at Okinawa was made at 12.45h. The muslim group Abu Sayyaf claimed responsibility.
Picky, picky, picky...and that’s exactly what it takes to sort out airplane crashes. Thanks for making up charts. The facts from authorities are confusing about what happened to China Airlines Flight 611 in the last few seconds.
“Do you think that it would be possible for a hull rupture to the allow data recorders to depart the a/c and yet allow the a/c to continue on from Point 2 to Point 5 in the plots in the link below? “
Good question. My first thought is no, once the FDR and CVR leave a Boeing 747 in flight, it’s all over as any hull rupture of that size in that vulnerable spot in the tail is bound to sever tail entirely. But, who knows? The aerodynamics of a 747 nose less has been studied in detail but not for tailless. (JAL 123 was vertical stab less and that AAR is not available.)
For AAR of the three previous hull ruptures in flight which had a sudden sound on CVR followed by an abrupt power cut, see www.corazon.com. The aircraft were Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800. My controversial conclusion is all are the same probable cause: shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup. Regardless of the initial cause, the aircraft lost their forward section of the fuselage in flight and followed approximately the same flight pattern; exploded area just forward of the wing landed first and closest, then nose, then wings and aft section.
Details are in the AARs based on trajectory patterns and wreckage debris.
China Airlines Flight 611 is different in significant aspects: sound not loud bang and a thud/chaaa, power cut not immediate but four seconds later, tail landed first not last.
So, could be tail off and that puts suspicion on three places: aft pressure bulkhead, aft main cargo door, and aft bulk cargo door. The aft cargo door is huge and same size as forward, 99 inches by 110 inches. The aft bulk cargo door is one third that size. Aft bulk cargo doors have never opened in flight on a 747 but have for DC 10. Aft main cargo door has never opened inflight for 747 but has on the ground and leaked in the air.
(For 747 251B: During climb, the aft cargo door illuminated and aircraft failed to pressurize. Flight returned to BKK after dumping 5000 lbs of fuel and landed without further incident. Maintenance found the aft cargo door
handle out of position. Adjusted latch and lock. Operational check ok.)
Aft pressure bulkhead has failed once in flight for 747.
It comes down to actual evidence. Firehorse has access to the answers by observing these things: Right wing leading edge for inflight damage, particularly in the right wing fillet. Midspan latches for both cargo doors for presence or absence. Any outward petal shaped holes on right side of fuselage. Fractures in aft pressure bulkhead. Engine number three for FOD.
Firehorse reported: ‘ fwd cargo door intact and locks in place’ and ‘The tail section is impressive and nearly complete less most of the vertical stab’ and ‘The aft bulk cargo door is intact but the bulk cargo door is still missing.’
The vertical stab missing could be the aft pressure bulkhead cause as that is what happened to JAL 123.
The locks in places could be the lower eight but the midspan have no ‘locks’ or locking sectors, just cams and pins.
The ‘bulk cargo door’ missing could be the aft main cargo door and if that is missing, that could be the aft cargo door open/rupture explanation.
Note that FDR data could be skewed by abrupt movement of the FDR itself and not the aircraft or the parameters.
Need for reports on actual observation of evidence. If one knows where to look the answers are there and probably there with the recovered wreckage so far.
Midspan latch status for the two main cargo doors is most important. If those are confirmed latched and attached to fuselage latch pins, then suspicion falls on aft pressure bulkhead failure.
By the way, a bomb went off in a 747 twice and the planes landed safely.
In 1992 a Greek court found Rashid guilty of premeditated murder in the 1982 bombing of a Pan American airliner which exploded over Hawaii, killing a Japanese teen-ager and wounding 15 other passengers. The plane managed to land safely.
For 747 283B: On a flight from Manila to Tokyo via Cebu, a bomb exploded in the passenger cabin beneath seat 26K. A successful emergency landing at Okinawa was made at 12.45h. The muslim group Abu Sayyaf claimed responsibility.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: STL
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picky: Your web page refers to "Mainland Chinese data" but the data you
are using came from Taiwanese military radar. (The data from mainland
China was not turned over until around 5 June, more than a week after
the data you plotted became available).
Also, it is useful to have a synchronization between the times of
the CVR/FDR, CAA radar, Taiwan mil radar, and Chinese radar. Page 14
of the FDR pdf has such a synchronization. With that synchronization
in mind the point that you plotted as point 5 is the point at which
the CVR stopped. The working hypothesis seems to be that the a/c did
not break up until 26 seconds after your point 5. Again bearing in
mind the synchronization, point 2 occured during what seems to have
been normal flight according to the FDR. That point was reached 31
seconds before the FDR stopped working and 19 seconds before the
acceleration anomalies began.
If your question is based on the location of the recovery of the
data recorders near point 8 then remember that part of the skin
after the break-up was tracked with a heading of around 53 degrees.
are using came from Taiwanese military radar. (The data from mainland
China was not turned over until around 5 June, more than a week after
the data you plotted became available).
Also, it is useful to have a synchronization between the times of
the CVR/FDR, CAA radar, Taiwan mil radar, and Chinese radar. Page 14
of the FDR pdf has such a synchronization. With that synchronization
in mind the point that you plotted as point 5 is the point at which
the CVR stopped. The working hypothesis seems to be that the a/c did
not break up until 26 seconds after your point 5. Again bearing in
mind the synchronization, point 2 occured during what seems to have
been normal flight according to the FDR. That point was reached 31
seconds before the FDR stopped working and 19 seconds before the
acceleration anomalies began.
If your question is based on the location of the recovery of the
data recorders near point 8 then remember that part of the skin
after the break-up was tracked with a heading of around 53 degrees.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bblank
Thanks for your correction. My mistake. It was Taiwanese radar data. I will correct the linked page.
I have not been able to read the FDR pdf (due to not having a Traditional Chinese font - dont know how to install it). I got my FDR data out of Aviation Week. Could you post the synchonization data? Or better still, is the a pdf which does not need a Traditional Chinese font? I get the impression that all the data can be reconciled if I take accout of the synchronization as you suggest. Apart from the correction mentioned above, I will leave the web page as it is for now, so that other people can follow, and possibly add more pages later if I can factor in synchronized timings.
Where is the 53 degree drift data? Firehorses estimated that the wind was towards the SE.
Thanks for your correction. My mistake. It was Taiwanese radar data. I will correct the linked page.
I have not been able to read the FDR pdf (due to not having a Traditional Chinese font - dont know how to install it). I got my FDR data out of Aviation Week. Could you post the synchonization data? Or better still, is the a pdf which does not need a Traditional Chinese font? I get the impression that all the data can be reconciled if I take accout of the synchronization as you suggest. Apart from the correction mentioned above, I will leave the web page as it is for now, so that other people can follow, and possibly add more pages later if I can factor in synchronized timings.
Where is the 53 degree drift data? Firehorses estimated that the wind was towards the SE.
CVR Content
Folks,
I might have missed it but it seems that there is so far no mention of the pilots conversastion, as recorded by the CVR.
We know that there are some unusual noises but what about the pilots ? Just routine talk ? Any clue that they might have themselves picked up those noises ?
Comments welcome !
--alex
I might have missed it but it seems that there is so far no mention of the pilots conversastion, as recorded by the CVR.
We know that there are some unusual noises but what about the pilots ? Just routine talk ? Any clue that they might have themselves picked up those noises ?
Comments welcome !
--alex
CVR Content
The lack of release about pilot coments should be interpreted that there was nothing pertinent. BTDT. Which in itself is significant (they might never have heard the noises pick uped on the CVR)
Where's Firehorse??
The lack of release about pilot coments should be interpreted that there was nothing pertinent. BTDT. Which in itself is significant (they might never have heard the noises pick uped on the CVR)
Where's Firehorse??