China Airlines B747 Crash (Merged)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are certainly not reporting on the examination of the evidence as it is retrieved from the ocean. It's as if the accident never happened. Not a word anywhere. Not on the China Post, not on ETwaiwannews, not on SCMP, not from the Aviation Safety Council, not from NTSB, Boeing, China Airlines, nor anywhere else that I can find. What is going on?
Firehorse was the one with the eyes who spoke and he went blind and mute.
Firehorse was the one with the eyes who spoke and he went blind and mute.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They obviously have better things to do than feeding piecemeal information to the media. I'm sure you will hear if a significant discovery is made that points to the cause of the breakup.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And ASC is threating legal action against anyone talking:
[Kay Yong is the chief investigator at Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council: Yong also said that confidential information from the investigation had been leaked to the local media over the past few days. This is something I would never allow," Yong said.
--- Start quote ------
If someone from the ASC leaked the information, I, as the director of the council, will resign right away. However, if the information was released by other non-ASC investigators, I would ask them to leave the team,
--- End quote ---
he said, warning that he might take legal action against those who continue to leak information to the press.]
[Kay Yong is the chief investigator at Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council: Yong also said that confidential information from the investigation had been leaked to the local media over the past few days. This is something I would never allow," Yong said.
--- Start quote ------
If someone from the ASC leaked the information, I, as the director of the council, will resign right away. However, if the information was released by other non-ASC investigators, I would ask them to leave the team,
--- End quote ---
he said, warning that he might take legal action against those who continue to leak information to the press.]
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Firehorse, welcome back. Any descriptions available of the wreckage of China Airlines Flight 611 in the forward, aft, and bulk cargo doors, specifically the midspan latch areas? Are outward petal shaped ruptured skin areas seen in the doors? Are the pressure relief doors in the cargo doors open, missing or jammed? Engine number three fodded?
All factual information received is greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
Barry
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]
All factual information received is greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
Barry
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the absence of firehorse our thanks to the PPRuNer who sent in this link from the Washington Post:
Fatigue Cracks Found on Wreckage of Flight 611
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Jul25.html
Fatigue Cracks Found on Wreckage of Flight 611
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Jul25.html
""We don't see a need to act yet," said one official.
"
It's way too early to write this off to common fatigue cracking.
These aircraft have enormous redundancy to most fatigue cracking within their inspection intervals.
"
It's way too early to write this off to common fatigue cracking.
These aircraft have enormous redundancy to most fatigue cracking within their inspection intervals.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Post Article:
‘so far the plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder have revealed no definitive cause for the rare high-altitude disintegration.’
The cracks raise two questions for investigative and regulatory agencies from Taiwan and the United States: First, were they the initiating event in the crash?
So far, several sources said, the cracks appear to be a one-time event, but not enough wreckage has been recovered from the ocean floor yet to make a final determination.
The 747 also has experienced trouble with cracks in the area of its forward door, but not at the rear of the aircraft. The cracking around the forward door has been handled with regular inspections and repairs to tiny cracks before they can grow bigger.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
Hot dog> So much for your theory of cargo door midspan latch failure fixation Barry. Back to the drawing board!
Well, that attitude of writing off the cargo door without evidence is what has happened for 17 years, starting with Air India Flight 182, a ‘rare high-altitude disintegration” a phrase which should send chills through crews and passengers. And not so rare, six of these solo breakups have occurred out of about 35 hull losses.
Anyway, the door information in the Post article is ambiguous, as always, when it comes to doors. Is the article referring specifically to China Airlines Flight 611 and its ‘cracking around the forward cargo door?’ When Firehorse referred to the bulk cargo door missing, which door did he mean? Which door was found floating?
This article specifically states that the cracks may have been not the initiating event.
As it turns out, based on this new evidence, it appears the initial hull rupture occurred aft of the wing. China Airlines Flight 611 had a previous tail strike repaired which mimics JAL 123, an aft pressure hull rupture event. The sudden sound was not loud. And there is no reports of hull ruptures forward of the wing.
Too soon to rule in metal fatigue, the new boss same as the old boss starting with Comet, and too soon to rule out aft cargo door rupture or aft pressure bulkhead failure.
Note that the 747 is designed to withstand many cracks, small holes, and small ruptures such as have been described.
Also note the insult of term ‘fixation’ directed at me by Hotdog, another typical response by the arrogant and uninformed.
‘so far the plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder have revealed no definitive cause for the rare high-altitude disintegration.’
The cracks raise two questions for investigative and regulatory agencies from Taiwan and the United States: First, were they the initiating event in the crash?
So far, several sources said, the cracks appear to be a one-time event, but not enough wreckage has been recovered from the ocean floor yet to make a final determination.
The 747 also has experienced trouble with cracks in the area of its forward door, but not at the rear of the aircraft. The cracking around the forward door has been handled with regular inspections and repairs to tiny cracks before they can grow bigger.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
Hot dog> So much for your theory of cargo door midspan latch failure fixation Barry. Back to the drawing board!
Well, that attitude of writing off the cargo door without evidence is what has happened for 17 years, starting with Air India Flight 182, a ‘rare high-altitude disintegration” a phrase which should send chills through crews and passengers. And not so rare, six of these solo breakups have occurred out of about 35 hull losses.
Anyway, the door information in the Post article is ambiguous, as always, when it comes to doors. Is the article referring specifically to China Airlines Flight 611 and its ‘cracking around the forward cargo door?’ When Firehorse referred to the bulk cargo door missing, which door did he mean? Which door was found floating?
This article specifically states that the cracks may have been not the initiating event.
As it turns out, based on this new evidence, it appears the initial hull rupture occurred aft of the wing. China Airlines Flight 611 had a previous tail strike repaired which mimics JAL 123, an aft pressure hull rupture event. The sudden sound was not loud. And there is no reports of hull ruptures forward of the wing.
Too soon to rule in metal fatigue, the new boss same as the old boss starting with Comet, and too soon to rule out aft cargo door rupture or aft pressure bulkhead failure.
Note that the 747 is designed to withstand many cracks, small holes, and small ruptures such as have been described.
Also note the insult of term ‘fixation’ directed at me by Hotdog, another typical response by the arrogant and uninformed.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry, I don't mean to insult you. I have looked at your website and formed the opinion that your Holy Grail is to disprove every official investigation report conclusion of 747 accidents. What are your technical qualifications in regard to the B747? You have amply demonstrated your lack of knowledge and understanding of aircraft structure and systems. Remember altitude alert for instance? Or Firehorse quoting the bulk cargo door that you seem to doubt. The Bulk Cargo door is the bulk cargo door, not to be mistaken for the Aft Cargo door. In the B747 QRH for instance, the only two types of door warnings in the air that you do not have to depressurise the airplane for, are the cabin doors and the bulk cargo door, as they are all plug type doors and not likely to open uncommanded. However a faulty microswitch can still present a false door open warning. I am certain that your government's regulatory authorities and the Boeing company are well aware of your existence and would have long ago elected you as head of air accident investigations, had they seen any merit in that step. I don't want to argue with you Barry as anybody who has put so much effort to prove a point, can in truth not be argued with successfully. I am not uninformed as you claim, I have thousands of hours as a professional flight engineer check and training airman on the B747 and know the systems intimately. Have a good day, Sir.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: STL
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Post's headline is
"Fatigue Cracks Found on Wreckage of Flight 611"
and then continues
"Investigators probing wreckage from China Airlines Flight 611 ... have
discovered a series of fatigue cracks in the rear fuselage area near a
22-year-old repair."
At least three ASC members went public yesterday to downplay the Post's
article. ASC spokeswoman Tracy Jen said that 37 pieces of wreckage would
be sent for testing to a laboratory in Taiwan, to the NTSB, and to Boeing.
She concluded "Everything awaits the result of the analysis."
ASC investigator Phil Tai also said that there are no lab reports yet.
"Cracks are everywhere. What we need to do is to determine if any cracks
had existed before the crash."
Meanwhile Hsu Yung-hao of the CAA suggested that attention was drawn to
the suspect section because of what was found in the repair log rather
than what was seen in the inspection of the pieces.
Maybe the cracks will turn out to be fatigue cracks but it seems premature
to call them that.
Kay Yong said that about 60% of the wreckage has been salvaged so far. AP
interpreted his statement "The tail section came in one single piece"
as a contradiction of the Post's paragraph
"So far, salvage operations have located only one side of the fuselage
at the fatigue crack that gave way. Investigators are anxious to locate
the mating piece."
It seems to me that the Post didn't mean "side of the fuselage" in the
usual way but meant "forward section of the fuselage that adjoined
the suspect pieces". Maybe the AP reporter was confused by the Post's
wording.
"Fatigue Cracks Found on Wreckage of Flight 611"
and then continues
"Investigators probing wreckage from China Airlines Flight 611 ... have
discovered a series of fatigue cracks in the rear fuselage area near a
22-year-old repair."
At least three ASC members went public yesterday to downplay the Post's
article. ASC spokeswoman Tracy Jen said that 37 pieces of wreckage would
be sent for testing to a laboratory in Taiwan, to the NTSB, and to Boeing.
She concluded "Everything awaits the result of the analysis."
ASC investigator Phil Tai also said that there are no lab reports yet.
"Cracks are everywhere. What we need to do is to determine if any cracks
had existed before the crash."
Meanwhile Hsu Yung-hao of the CAA suggested that attention was drawn to
the suspect section because of what was found in the repair log rather
than what was seen in the inspection of the pieces.
Maybe the cracks will turn out to be fatigue cracks but it seems premature
to call them that.
Kay Yong said that about 60% of the wreckage has been salvaged so far. AP
interpreted his statement "The tail section came in one single piece"
as a contradiction of the Post's paragraph
"So far, salvage operations have located only one side of the fuselage
at the fatigue crack that gave way. Investigators are anxious to locate
the mating piece."
It seems to me that the Post didn't mean "side of the fuselage" in the
usual way but meant "forward section of the fuselage that adjoined
the suspect pieces". Maybe the AP reporter was confused by the Post's
wording.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry, I don't mean to insult you.
"Fixation’ is a dirty word to pilots because it implies staring at one instrument and ignoring the others while danger increase. You insulted me. I don't fixate, I scan.
I have looked at your website and formed the opinion that your Holy Grail is to disprove every official investigation report conclusion of 747 accidents.
A perusal of my website reveals only four of about 30 hull losses are the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation. I had to rule out all the rest. There are two possible other ones but need more real evidence to call them probable.
What are your technical qualifications in regard to the B747?
Ah, another person who respects titles and degrees and ignores the evidence. For your purposes, consider me as an unemployed vagrant living under a freeway overpass typing in data at a free library internet connection. My clothes are haggard and I smell. My long hair is dirty and tangled. I mumble a lot.
You have amply demonstrated your lack of knowledge and understanding of aircraft structure and systems.
Ah, sarcasm. So distracting and irrelevant. But fun.
Remember altitude alert for instance? Or Firehorse quoting the bulk cargo door that you seem to doubt.
Firehorse>The aft bulk cargo door is intact but the bulk cargo door is still missing.
The above is ambiguous and worthy of doubt. He does says, 'aft bulk cargo door'. Which door is that?
The Bulk Cargo door is the bulk cargo door, not to be mistaken for the Aft Cargo door. In the B747 QRH for instance, the only two types of door warnings in the air that you do not have to depressurise the airplane for, are the cabin doors and the bulk cargo door, as they are all plug type doors and not likely to open uncommanded. However a faulty microswitch can still present a false door open warning. I am certain that your government's regulatory authorities and the Boeing company are well aware of your existence and would have long ago elected you as head of air accident investigations, had they seen any merit in that step.
More sarcasm. Your respect for Boeing to investigate itself objectively is heartwarming (poor sarcasm.)
I don't want to argue with you Barry
Then why do it? Are you conflicted?
as anybody who has put so much effort to prove a point, can in truth not be argued with successfully.
So you give up, just as well.
I am not uninformed as you claim, I have thousands of hours as a professional flight engineer check and training airman on the B747 and know the systems intimately. Have a good day, Sir.
Dear Anonymous above: Please examine your emotional response to a scientific problem: Hull ruptures in flight for early model Boeing 747s. Let the evidence speak for itself without an interpreter with title and degree. For China Airlines Flight 611 the tail landed first in the debris field, we are led to believe, which leads to the observation the hull rupture occurred near the tail. That would rule out forward cargo door at this time pending further evidence retrieval and examination. Engine number three needs to be broken down and examined for full power FOD ingestion. At this stage I am ruling in aft location hull rupture for China Airlines Flight 611. Apparently so has ASC and they are pursuing the interesting question of 'why.'
Or apparently not and it was another leap of conclusion by Reporter Don Phillips of the Post who somehow got leaks about the investigation and nobody was fired or asked to leave the team.
Who did the tail strike repair for China Airlines Flight 611? Notice I ask real questions.
Every Boeing 747 accident and depressurization event has been examined for evidence matching the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation. There have been four with two possible ones. I do not pick the flight numbers, the evidence does. I have written three Smith AAR for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800. They are available for download or viewing via PDF at
http://www.corazon.com/PDF182and103SmithAAR.html%20
They are several hundred pages each of science with no conspiracy nonsense. Nor emotional insulting tirades of personality clash.
As a crewman on a 747 I understand your emotional reluctance to believe, as you fly along, that your beloved aircraft could come apart at any second and there is nothing you can do about it. So you deny the obvious pattern of sudden loud sound on the CVR and abrupt power cut to the FDR immediately after leading to fatalities for four hull ruptures in flight. You prefer to pretend United Airlines Flight 811 never existed.
You should ask more questions instead of insulting a messenger with a contrary point of view.
I ask questions: What is the status of the four midspan latches of the cargo doors? A hull rupture has occurred there before. What is the status of the aft pressure bulkhead? Are the engines fodded? Any inflight damage from debris to the wing leading edges?
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]
"Fixation’ is a dirty word to pilots because it implies staring at one instrument and ignoring the others while danger increase. You insulted me. I don't fixate, I scan.
I have looked at your website and formed the opinion that your Holy Grail is to disprove every official investigation report conclusion of 747 accidents.
A perusal of my website reveals only four of about 30 hull losses are the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation. I had to rule out all the rest. There are two possible other ones but need more real evidence to call them probable.
What are your technical qualifications in regard to the B747?
Ah, another person who respects titles and degrees and ignores the evidence. For your purposes, consider me as an unemployed vagrant living under a freeway overpass typing in data at a free library internet connection. My clothes are haggard and I smell. My long hair is dirty and tangled. I mumble a lot.
You have amply demonstrated your lack of knowledge and understanding of aircraft structure and systems.
Ah, sarcasm. So distracting and irrelevant. But fun.
Remember altitude alert for instance? Or Firehorse quoting the bulk cargo door that you seem to doubt.
Firehorse>The aft bulk cargo door is intact but the bulk cargo door is still missing.
The above is ambiguous and worthy of doubt. He does says, 'aft bulk cargo door'. Which door is that?
The Bulk Cargo door is the bulk cargo door, not to be mistaken for the Aft Cargo door. In the B747 QRH for instance, the only two types of door warnings in the air that you do not have to depressurise the airplane for, are the cabin doors and the bulk cargo door, as they are all plug type doors and not likely to open uncommanded. However a faulty microswitch can still present a false door open warning. I am certain that your government's regulatory authorities and the Boeing company are well aware of your existence and would have long ago elected you as head of air accident investigations, had they seen any merit in that step.
More sarcasm. Your respect for Boeing to investigate itself objectively is heartwarming (poor sarcasm.)
I don't want to argue with you Barry
Then why do it? Are you conflicted?
as anybody who has put so much effort to prove a point, can in truth not be argued with successfully.
So you give up, just as well.
I am not uninformed as you claim, I have thousands of hours as a professional flight engineer check and training airman on the B747 and know the systems intimately. Have a good day, Sir.
Dear Anonymous above: Please examine your emotional response to a scientific problem: Hull ruptures in flight for early model Boeing 747s. Let the evidence speak for itself without an interpreter with title and degree. For China Airlines Flight 611 the tail landed first in the debris field, we are led to believe, which leads to the observation the hull rupture occurred near the tail. That would rule out forward cargo door at this time pending further evidence retrieval and examination. Engine number three needs to be broken down and examined for full power FOD ingestion. At this stage I am ruling in aft location hull rupture for China Airlines Flight 611. Apparently so has ASC and they are pursuing the interesting question of 'why.'
Or apparently not and it was another leap of conclusion by Reporter Don Phillips of the Post who somehow got leaks about the investigation and nobody was fired or asked to leave the team.
Who did the tail strike repair for China Airlines Flight 611? Notice I ask real questions.
Every Boeing 747 accident and depressurization event has been examined for evidence matching the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation. There have been four with two possible ones. I do not pick the flight numbers, the evidence does. I have written three Smith AAR for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800. They are available for download or viewing via PDF at
http://www.corazon.com/PDF182and103SmithAAR.html%20
They are several hundred pages each of science with no conspiracy nonsense. Nor emotional insulting tirades of personality clash.
As a crewman on a 747 I understand your emotional reluctance to believe, as you fly along, that your beloved aircraft could come apart at any second and there is nothing you can do about it. So you deny the obvious pattern of sudden loud sound on the CVR and abrupt power cut to the FDR immediately after leading to fatalities for four hull ruptures in flight. You prefer to pretend United Airlines Flight 811 never existed.
You should ask more questions instead of insulting a messenger with a contrary point of view.
I ask questions: What is the status of the four midspan latches of the cargo doors? A hull rupture has occurred there before. What is the status of the aft pressure bulkhead? Are the engines fodded? Any inflight damage from debris to the wing leading edges?
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: STL
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like I quoted some disinformation two posts above.
Not sure what he gained by sending out two of the troops to blow
smoke about the disclosures in Friday's Post if he was going to
confirm the Post's story one day later but according to today's
Taipei Times that is what Kay Yong has done. They say that he has
confirmed the existence of fatigue cracks and quote him as saying
"According to our records, the repair was done on Feb. 7, 1980.
We knew that already but there is no sign linking the repair to
the crash." You may draw your own inferences about the leak and
the various responses.
Not sure what he gained by sending out two of the troops to blow
smoke about the disclosures in Friday's Post if he was going to
confirm the Post's story one day later but according to today's
Taipei Times that is what Kay Yong has done. They say that he has
confirmed the existence of fatigue cracks and quote him as saying
"According to our records, the repair was done on Feb. 7, 1980.
We knew that already but there is no sign linking the repair to
the crash." You may draw your own inferences about the leak and
the various responses.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USofA
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith, I have followed this thread with great interest and do not doubt for a minute that you have a sincere commitment to your subject matter. I think your web site demonstrates this. I have respect, too, for Hotdog whose professional knowledge and experience I think should be acknowledged.
I am curious, though; would you be prepared to share anything about your relevant (or irrelevant, for that matter) background or training... or even just how and why you became interested in the particular type of accident cause?
I seem to recall reading that you lost a friend in an air accident (which would give anyone an interest in these matters, I am sure) but, again, my curiosity rather gets the better of me and I thought I might venture to ask.
Incidentally, I am not qualified in the aviation field whatsoever, just your average fascinated pax!
I am curious, though; would you be prepared to share anything about your relevant (or irrelevant, for that matter) background or training... or even just how and why you became interested in the particular type of accident cause?
I seem to recall reading that you lost a friend in an air accident (which would give anyone an interest in these matters, I am sure) but, again, my curiosity rather gets the better of me and I thought I might venture to ask.
Incidentally, I am not qualified in the aviation field whatsoever, just your average fascinated pax!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>I am curious, though; would you be prepared to share anything about your relevant (or irrelevant, for that matter) background or training... or even just how and why you became interested in the particular type of accident cause?
JBS>USA FAA Commercial licensed pilot, instrument rated, former FAA Part 135 certificate holder.
Charter pilot, 200 hours.
US Navy reconnaissance navigator, RA-5C, 650 hours. 1966-1969
US Navy patrol crewman, P2V-5FS, 2000 hours 1962-1965
Air Intelligence Officer, US Navy, 1970-1974
Retired US Army Major MSC, 1975-1984
Owner Mooney M-20C, 1000 hours 1989-1993
Survivor of sudden night fiery fatal jet plane crash in RA-5C, June 14, 1967
The main reason for my interest in aviation safety is my pilot lost his life while saving mine. Details at http://www.corazon.com/ejection.html
The main issue is this, the messenger can be wrong while the evidence is always right. Interpretations vary but the evidence remains the same. For hull ruptures in Boeing 747 all the reader has to know is why balloons pop, why lightning works, and why tornados do so much damage. That is basic stuff.
Cheers,
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]
JBS>USA FAA Commercial licensed pilot, instrument rated, former FAA Part 135 certificate holder.
Charter pilot, 200 hours.
US Navy reconnaissance navigator, RA-5C, 650 hours. 1966-1969
US Navy patrol crewman, P2V-5FS, 2000 hours 1962-1965
Air Intelligence Officer, US Navy, 1970-1974
Retired US Army Major MSC, 1975-1984
Owner Mooney M-20C, 1000 hours 1989-1993
Survivor of sudden night fiery fatal jet plane crash in RA-5C, June 14, 1967
The main reason for my interest in aviation safety is my pilot lost his life while saving mine. Details at http://www.corazon.com/ejection.html
The main issue is this, the messenger can be wrong while the evidence is always right. Interpretations vary but the evidence remains the same. For hull ruptures in Boeing 747 all the reader has to know is why balloons pop, why lightning works, and why tornados do so much damage. That is basic stuff.
Cheers,
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China Airlines B747 Crash
For a post crash topic this has proved to be well balanced.
My thanks to Firehorse for the inside info and to Barry for the probing questions. Keep it coming.
By the number of views on this thread we all have a huge interest in the cause and are not just snatching at rumours.
Cheers
Trash Hauler
My thanks to Firehorse for the inside info and to Barry for the probing questions. Keep it coming.
By the number of views on this thread we all have a huge interest in the cause and are not just snatching at rumours.
Cheers
Trash Hauler
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: STL
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a Taipei Times Report:
"Since the suspicious pieces of wreckage were mostly from section 46,
it is very likely that it was where the aircraft first broke-up," said
Kay Yong, managing director of the ASC.
There are four main pieces of wreckage from the mid-rear portion of
the airliner, and one of the four sections, section 46, is the main
focus of attention.
Yong showed a photograph of a 20.3-inch-long flat non-destructive
fracture in the bulk cargo door panel, saying "This is the one you
guys are interested in."
Yong said investigators also found "spiked-tooth shaped" damage on the
lower portion of the fourth exit on the left side of the aircraft which
"might be the result of a strike with high energy impact."
He said that the fourth piece of wreckage included, "a piece of the aft
cargo door which seemed to have been ripped off by strong force."
Yong said it was too early to say what happened to the door, but
he told reporters that it was "very likely that the portion [of the
plane] near the cargo door was the first part to break off."
"Since the suspicious pieces of wreckage were mostly from section 46,
it is very likely that it was where the aircraft first broke-up," said
Kay Yong, managing director of the ASC.
There are four main pieces of wreckage from the mid-rear portion of
the airliner, and one of the four sections, section 46, is the main
focus of attention.
Yong showed a photograph of a 20.3-inch-long flat non-destructive
fracture in the bulk cargo door panel, saying "This is the one you
guys are interested in."
Yong said investigators also found "spiked-tooth shaped" damage on the
lower portion of the fourth exit on the left side of the aircraft which
"might be the result of a strike with high energy impact."
He said that the fourth piece of wreckage included, "a piece of the aft
cargo door which seemed to have been ripped off by strong force."
Yong said it was too early to say what happened to the door, but
he told reporters that it was "very likely that the portion [of the
plane] near the cargo door was the first part to break off."