China Airlines B747 Crash (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cargo doors are clearly visible in the Section 46 in this photo of the accident a/c. (hows this for a long link? 
)
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...tic=yes&size=L
)http://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...tic=yes&size=L
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotdog> I do not see any vertical skin tears above the aft cargo door but there is evidence of vertical tears below the top of the door.
JBS>The lines of the skin tears are vertical and jagged, as if it were torn in flight..
Hotdog> Don't you think the official and professional investigators are looking at the very same areas that you are seeking answers to?
JBS>So? I would hope in areas I would never think of also.
Hotdog>Have a few beers, go play golf, it will lower your blood pressure.
JBS>You know nothing of my habits or health status. I am trivial, my discovery is not.
Hotdog>Your theories will not unfortunately prevent a similar accident until the conclusion of the official investigation.
JBS> Untrue. But you could be right and that would be a tragedy.
The point is: Encourage thought, conjecture, reasoning, conclusions, not discourage. For you, go hide your head in the sand until the ‘officials’ tell you it’s OK to take your head out of your...out of your.....box of sand.
The unearned respect and trust you have for the’ official and professional investigators’ is heartwarming to those who have never understood the constant errors and biased conclusions that all political organizations make when it comes to science. And ASC, TSB, NTSB, AAIB, are all political organizations headed by political appointees.
Did you note that Don Phillips of the Washington Post got a leak on the few items of interest the ASC was looking at and reported at length on one, the repair doubler.
The repair doubler on the fuselage (not the aft pressure bulkhead) has never failed in such a manner as to cause fatalities. yet it got full press play.
The other item of interest was a fractured, torn, and shattered aft cargo door. That item was ignored by the Post. An identically sized, shaped, and functional cargo door on an early model Boeing 747 has officially failed before and caused fatalities.
Now why would a reporter seize on a potential problem that makes China Airlines Flight 611 a one of kind event and ignore the more obvious potential problem that is industry wide?
One word: Bias. Not conspiracy. Everyone is acting in their own perceived best interest. Not the passenger’s best interest but their own.
There is perceived best interest by the Taiwanese who buy billions of dollars of Boeing planes and want to remain on good terms with its protector, the USA, and do not want to risk wrath by buying Airbus. Boeing of course wants China Airlines Flight 611 to be a one off event, so sorry. So do the crews. So do the passengers. So do the investigators who have said for years that cargo doors on Boeing 747s do not open on their own....and rarely mention United Airlines Flight 811 and when they do, say that was fixed.
No one wants the answer to be faulty wiring in all early model Boeing 747s and also exposing a serious design defect of outward opening non plug cargo doors in all modern airliners.
No conspiracy, just perceived best interest by the major parties which in this case, is contrary to safety.
They want to put their heads in the sand and wait and wait for years for the ‘official’ version to come out and then years and years for the ‘fix’ to be put in place.
I did not make up the picture of the shattered piece of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611 which matches in many respects the shattered piece of cargo door of four other Boeing 747s that come apart in flight leading to fatalities, after leaving a sudden sound on the CVR followed by a power cut to the FDR.
You can close your eyes to the picture of the shattered door, apparently Don Phillips of the Post did too, but not the ASC investigators and that means hope for a detailed objective examination of the suspect area.
By the way, the ruptured open cargo door is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is probably wiring but that needs further evidence whilst considering all other causes too.
I shall continue to drink beer when I feel like it, play golf, relax...(ha! Getting into action and stop relaxing is my problem) and take care of my health. Thank you for your concern.
I will continue to write the ‘official and professional investigators’ and assist them in their search for the probable cause of China Airlines Flight 611.
You could too.
Cheers,
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]
JBS>The lines of the skin tears are vertical and jagged, as if it were torn in flight..
Hotdog> Don't you think the official and professional investigators are looking at the very same areas that you are seeking answers to?
JBS>So? I would hope in areas I would never think of also.
Hotdog>Have a few beers, go play golf, it will lower your blood pressure.
JBS>You know nothing of my habits or health status. I am trivial, my discovery is not.
Hotdog>Your theories will not unfortunately prevent a similar accident until the conclusion of the official investigation.
JBS> Untrue. But you could be right and that would be a tragedy.
The point is: Encourage thought, conjecture, reasoning, conclusions, not discourage. For you, go hide your head in the sand until the ‘officials’ tell you it’s OK to take your head out of your...out of your.....box of sand.
The unearned respect and trust you have for the’ official and professional investigators’ is heartwarming to those who have never understood the constant errors and biased conclusions that all political organizations make when it comes to science. And ASC, TSB, NTSB, AAIB, are all political organizations headed by political appointees.
Did you note that Don Phillips of the Washington Post got a leak on the few items of interest the ASC was looking at and reported at length on one, the repair doubler.
The repair doubler on the fuselage (not the aft pressure bulkhead) has never failed in such a manner as to cause fatalities. yet it got full press play.
The other item of interest was a fractured, torn, and shattered aft cargo door. That item was ignored by the Post. An identically sized, shaped, and functional cargo door on an early model Boeing 747 has officially failed before and caused fatalities.
Now why would a reporter seize on a potential problem that makes China Airlines Flight 611 a one of kind event and ignore the more obvious potential problem that is industry wide?
One word: Bias. Not conspiracy. Everyone is acting in their own perceived best interest. Not the passenger’s best interest but their own.
There is perceived best interest by the Taiwanese who buy billions of dollars of Boeing planes and want to remain on good terms with its protector, the USA, and do not want to risk wrath by buying Airbus. Boeing of course wants China Airlines Flight 611 to be a one off event, so sorry. So do the crews. So do the passengers. So do the investigators who have said for years that cargo doors on Boeing 747s do not open on their own....and rarely mention United Airlines Flight 811 and when they do, say that was fixed.
No one wants the answer to be faulty wiring in all early model Boeing 747s and also exposing a serious design defect of outward opening non plug cargo doors in all modern airliners.
No conspiracy, just perceived best interest by the major parties which in this case, is contrary to safety.
They want to put their heads in the sand and wait and wait for years for the ‘official’ version to come out and then years and years for the ‘fix’ to be put in place.
I did not make up the picture of the shattered piece of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611 which matches in many respects the shattered piece of cargo door of four other Boeing 747s that come apart in flight leading to fatalities, after leaving a sudden sound on the CVR followed by a power cut to the FDR.
You can close your eyes to the picture of the shattered door, apparently Don Phillips of the Post did too, but not the ASC investigators and that means hope for a detailed objective examination of the suspect area.
By the way, the ruptured open cargo door is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is probably wiring but that needs further evidence whilst considering all other causes too.
I shall continue to drink beer when I feel like it, play golf, relax...(ha! Getting into action and stop relaxing is my problem) and take care of my health. Thank you for your concern.
I will continue to write the ‘official and professional investigators’ and assist them in their search for the probable cause of China Airlines Flight 611.
You could too.
Cheers,
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atakacs Folks, In the lattest ASC report there is a mention of a "fracture surface near repair doubler". What is the "repair doubler" ? --alex
http://pickyperkins.home.infionline....08-04-2002.gif
Its from page 21 of:
http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc/_file/200...d/CI6110730.pdf
first pointed to by Peanut Butter on Aug. 2nd.
Last edited by PickyPerkins; 5th Jun 2005 at 19:51.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In plain language, a repair doubler is an overlay of material (most often, but not always metal) which strengthens the underlying structure...like scotch tape over a tear in paper.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: STL
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cpt U, An overlay doubler would be used in an edge-to-edge joint but
other types of doublers are commonly used for other joints. The ASC
sketch doesn't reveal the type here.
Here is how a typical lap joint doubler might go. Imagine
a lap joint that is effected by a double row of rivets (or in other
applications the joint might be welded, bolted, or otherwise bonded).
To repair such a joint a doubler plate is inserted between the two
overlapping sheets. A row of rivets then connects the upper sheet
to the doubler plate, a middle row of rivets connects the three
pieces, and a third row of rivets connects the doubler plate to
the sheet underneath. With this type of repair the transfer of loads
and the stress on the rivets has been exhaustively studied. In the
botched JAL 123 repair mentioned much earlier in this thread a lap
joint was repaired with two non-stacked plates. One doubler was used
to attach the upper sheet to a stiffener and a second doubler was
used with two rows of rivets, one to attach the two sheets to the
doubler and another row that attached the doubler to the sheet
underneath.
other types of doublers are commonly used for other joints. The ASC
sketch doesn't reveal the type here.
Here is how a typical lap joint doubler might go. Imagine
a lap joint that is effected by a double row of rivets (or in other
applications the joint might be welded, bolted, or otherwise bonded).
To repair such a joint a doubler plate is inserted between the two
overlapping sheets. A row of rivets then connects the upper sheet
to the doubler plate, a middle row of rivets connects the three
pieces, and a third row of rivets connects the doubler plate to
the sheet underneath. With this type of repair the transfer of loads
and the stress on the rivets has been exhaustively studied. In the
botched JAL 123 repair mentioned much earlier in this thread a lap
joint was repaired with two non-stacked plates. One doubler was used
to attach the upper sheet to a stiffener and a second doubler was
used with two rows of rivets, one to attach the two sheets to the
doubler and another row that attached the doubler to the sheet
underneath.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's hard to have a sense of humor about plane crashes if you've ever been in one and seen a dead body.
And by the way, China Airlines Flight 611 could have been shot down, ASC reported a strange area that may have had a high speed impact.
Open minds consider all possiblities and don't make fun of those that do.
Grain of salt taken. I'll tell you something funny. I emailed the Washington Post webmaster with article to forward to Don Phillips, a reporter. Nowhere on the Post webiste is a'Contact Us' section. That's funny to me, a newspaper that makes its reporters unavailable. Then the webmaster emails me back with a URL of a list of reporters who 'make themselves available for comment'. I click on the URL and half the page comes up and then my computer crashes and freezes. Now that's really funny.
Barry
And by the way, China Airlines Flight 611 could have been shot down, ASC reported a strange area that may have had a high speed impact.
Open minds consider all possiblities and don't make fun of those that do.
Grain of salt taken. I'll tell you something funny. I emailed the Washington Post webmaster with article to forward to Don Phillips, a reporter. Nowhere on the Post webiste is a'Contact Us' section. That's funny to me, a newspaper that makes its reporters unavailable. Then the webmaster emails me back with a URL of a list of reporters who 'make themselves available for comment'. I click on the URL and half the page comes up and then my computer crashes and freezes. Now that's really funny.
Barry
I was just playing into your ueventful bantering about what when and why conversation. How are you going to analyze a crash when you can't even see a joke coming?
jetsy
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight 611 Probe Finds Likely Rear Fuselage Fatigue Cracks
By Michael A. Dornheim/Aviation Week & Space Technology
06-Aug-2002 10:16 AM U.S. EDT
The China Airlines Boeing 747-200 that disintegrated in midair appears to have fatigue cracks up to 9 in. long in the rear fuselage section where the aircraft may have come apart, according to Taiwanese investigators.
China Airlines Flight 611 crashed in the Taiwan Strait near the top-of-climb on May 25, killing all 225 on board ( AW&ST July 1, p. 42).
Since the suspicious pieces of wreckage were mostly from Section 46, it is very likely that the aircraft first broke up there, said Kay Yong, managing director of Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council (ASC). Section 46 is Boeing's nomenclature for the rear part of the fuselage from aft of the wheel well to the rear pressure bulkhead. It includes the fourth and fifth passenger exits on the left and right sides, and the large aft cargo door on the lower right side and the smaller bulk cargo door behind it.
Investigators have categorized the wreckage as coming from four fields. The first field is before the point of last radar contact and contains relatively small and widely scattered pieces primarily from Section 46. If one were to reconstruct Section 46 with the pieces found so far, there would be large amounts missing from the rear part of the right side and the center part of the left side, Yong said. Another sonar scan of Field 1 was being conducted last week to try to find more pieces--less than 50% have been found so far.
The second field is closest to the last radar contact and contains the empennage and some cargo containers. About a mile farther to the southwest is the third field, which contains the greatest amount of wreckage--the cockpit, forward and center fuselage, and both wings. It appears this section hit the water intact and broke somewhat upon impact, Yong said. They are very large pieces and connected.
The fourth field is farther along and is the one most directly under the projected flight path. It contains heavier objects such as all four engines and the body landing gear. Inspection of the engines shows they were producing little or no power at impact and they probably came off the airframe from the gyrations of the inflight breakup, Yong said. The engines are less than 0.5-1 mi. apart.
Investigators are focusing on wreckage found in Field 1. Of particular interest is a 21.7 X 16.7-ft. segment that includes the intact bulk cargo door and surrounding structure down to the belly. A 7 X 2-ft. skin doubler near the belly on this segment is from a February 1980 China Airlines repair of damage caused by a tail strike. On the skin just adjacent to the doubler there is a 40-in. section with several flat fracture cracks typical of metal fatigue. The longest crack is about 9 in., the next longest is 6 in., and the sum of the crack lengths is 20 in., Yong said. The doubler runs from fuselage station 2080-2160, while the bulk cargo door is at about station 2100. He couldn't say if the periphery of the segment had a fatigue crack along it. The segment has been sent to a Taiwanese laboratory for scanning electron microscope analysis to determine the failure mode ( click here for ASC's archive of Flight 611 releases ).
Fatigue cracks around a repair reminded Yong of the Japan Air Lines 747 crash on Aug. 12, 1985, in which a faulty Boeing repair of the rear pressure bulkhead following a tail strike caused it to blow out and disable the flight controls (AW&ST Sept. 9, 1985, p. 97). We are going to review that accident very closely, he said. The Flight 611 pressure bulkhead was recovered by itself in Field 2 and was complete, except for a missing 5-deg. sector at about the one o'clock position looking aft.
The larger aft cargo door was found still locked to its surrounding structure in an 8 X 10-ft. segment, but only the lower part of the door was found--it was torn along a diagonal line from the rest of the door. Separately, skin from the aft cargo door was found about 6 km. (3.7 mi.) east of the last radar point.
There were flat fracture cracks likely caused by fatigue in about three places on stringers around the aftmost No. 5 left exit door. A repair doubler there was made of stainless steel, not aluminum. The current structural repair manual forbids stainless steel, Yong said.
Mechanics have to be careful about blending a repair in with surrounding structure. It is possible to have a repair that is strong in itself but alters stress paths and overloads surrounding structure.
The No. 4 left exit door had a puncture hole about the size of an orange at about fuselage station 1580. The hole has sharp teeth and appears to be caused by a high-energy impact, but there are conflicting indications of the direction of the impact, Yong said. The No. 4 right door has not been found.
The NTSB did a spectrum analysis of the cockpit voice recorder, and NTSB, ASC and Boeing officials concluded that the final chahhh sound was more likely to be a rapid decompression than an explosive decompression or an explosive charge, Yong said. They were not able to identify heartbeat-like sounds that occurred 7 min. before the breakup, but other mysterious noises may be the crew turning knobs.
The 747-200 has a known fatigue weakness in the nose Section 41, but records show the accident aircraft had that area reinforced at least 10 years ago.
By Michael A. Dornheim/Aviation Week & Space Technology
06-Aug-2002 10:16 AM U.S. EDT
The China Airlines Boeing 747-200 that disintegrated in midair appears to have fatigue cracks up to 9 in. long in the rear fuselage section where the aircraft may have come apart, according to Taiwanese investigators.
China Airlines Flight 611 crashed in the Taiwan Strait near the top-of-climb on May 25, killing all 225 on board ( AW&ST July 1, p. 42).
Since the suspicious pieces of wreckage were mostly from Section 46, it is very likely that the aircraft first broke up there, said Kay Yong, managing director of Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council (ASC). Section 46 is Boeing's nomenclature for the rear part of the fuselage from aft of the wheel well to the rear pressure bulkhead. It includes the fourth and fifth passenger exits on the left and right sides, and the large aft cargo door on the lower right side and the smaller bulk cargo door behind it.
Investigators have categorized the wreckage as coming from four fields. The first field is before the point of last radar contact and contains relatively small and widely scattered pieces primarily from Section 46. If one were to reconstruct Section 46 with the pieces found so far, there would be large amounts missing from the rear part of the right side and the center part of the left side, Yong said. Another sonar scan of Field 1 was being conducted last week to try to find more pieces--less than 50% have been found so far.
The second field is closest to the last radar contact and contains the empennage and some cargo containers. About a mile farther to the southwest is the third field, which contains the greatest amount of wreckage--the cockpit, forward and center fuselage, and both wings. It appears this section hit the water intact and broke somewhat upon impact, Yong said. They are very large pieces and connected.
The fourth field is farther along and is the one most directly under the projected flight path. It contains heavier objects such as all four engines and the body landing gear. Inspection of the engines shows they were producing little or no power at impact and they probably came off the airframe from the gyrations of the inflight breakup, Yong said. The engines are less than 0.5-1 mi. apart.
Investigators are focusing on wreckage found in Field 1. Of particular interest is a 21.7 X 16.7-ft. segment that includes the intact bulk cargo door and surrounding structure down to the belly. A 7 X 2-ft. skin doubler near the belly on this segment is from a February 1980 China Airlines repair of damage caused by a tail strike. On the skin just adjacent to the doubler there is a 40-in. section with several flat fracture cracks typical of metal fatigue. The longest crack is about 9 in., the next longest is 6 in., and the sum of the crack lengths is 20 in., Yong said. The doubler runs from fuselage station 2080-2160, while the bulk cargo door is at about station 2100. He couldn't say if the periphery of the segment had a fatigue crack along it. The segment has been sent to a Taiwanese laboratory for scanning electron microscope analysis to determine the failure mode ( click here for ASC's archive of Flight 611 releases ).
Fatigue cracks around a repair reminded Yong of the Japan Air Lines 747 crash on Aug. 12, 1985, in which a faulty Boeing repair of the rear pressure bulkhead following a tail strike caused it to blow out and disable the flight controls (AW&ST Sept. 9, 1985, p. 97). We are going to review that accident very closely, he said. The Flight 611 pressure bulkhead was recovered by itself in Field 2 and was complete, except for a missing 5-deg. sector at about the one o'clock position looking aft.
The larger aft cargo door was found still locked to its surrounding structure in an 8 X 10-ft. segment, but only the lower part of the door was found--it was torn along a diagonal line from the rest of the door. Separately, skin from the aft cargo door was found about 6 km. (3.7 mi.) east of the last radar point.
There were flat fracture cracks likely caused by fatigue in about three places on stringers around the aftmost No. 5 left exit door. A repair doubler there was made of stainless steel, not aluminum. The current structural repair manual forbids stainless steel, Yong said.
Mechanics have to be careful about blending a repair in with surrounding structure. It is possible to have a repair that is strong in itself but alters stress paths and overloads surrounding structure.
The No. 4 left exit door had a puncture hole about the size of an orange at about fuselage station 1580. The hole has sharp teeth and appears to be caused by a high-energy impact, but there are conflicting indications of the direction of the impact, Yong said. The No. 4 right door has not been found.
The NTSB did a spectrum analysis of the cockpit voice recorder, and NTSB, ASC and Boeing officials concluded that the final chahhh sound was more likely to be a rapid decompression than an explosive decompression or an explosive charge, Yong said. They were not able to identify heartbeat-like sounds that occurred 7 min. before the breakup, but other mysterious noises may be the crew turning knobs.
The 747-200 has a known fatigue weakness in the nose Section 41, but records show the accident aircraft had that area reinforced at least 10 years ago.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AV Week>The larger aft cargo door was found still locked to its surrounding structure in an 8 X 10-ft. segment, but only the lower part of the door was found--it was torn along a diagonal line from the rest of the door. Separately, skin from the aft cargo door was found about 6 km. (3.7 mi.) east of the last radar point.
The above is wrong. The top part was found, we can see the picture from ASC. The pieces of the door were found far apart indicating inflight breakup. The bottom part, if found, has no picture. This information is very significant and only rates two lines.
The spin is on to make China Airlines Flight 611 a one time repair fault and not the industry wide problem of wiring.
United Airlines Flight 811 was never mentioned as usual.
The bottom eight latches latched (still locked) is the same as the usual doors that rupture in the middle. Another match. And the one picture shows that the midspan latches are missing so may be unlocked.
8 by 10 foot segment is almost entire door, yet it says only the lower part was found and we know that's wrong. Door is 99 inches by 110 inches.
So what we have is wrong information while the obvious culprit is ignored.
And of course the failed repair could have caused the aft cargo door to rupture but then everyone gets to suggest why the door ruptured and mine is the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
These reporters are being fed by NTSB.
Barry
The above is wrong. The top part was found, we can see the picture from ASC. The pieces of the door were found far apart indicating inflight breakup. The bottom part, if found, has no picture. This information is very significant and only rates two lines.
The spin is on to make China Airlines Flight 611 a one time repair fault and not the industry wide problem of wiring.
United Airlines Flight 811 was never mentioned as usual.
The bottom eight latches latched (still locked) is the same as the usual doors that rupture in the middle. Another match. And the one picture shows that the midspan latches are missing so may be unlocked.
8 by 10 foot segment is almost entire door, yet it says only the lower part was found and we know that's wrong. Door is 99 inches by 110 inches.
So what we have is wrong information while the obvious culprit is ignored.
And of course the failed repair could have caused the aft cargo door to rupture but then everyone gets to suggest why the door ruptured and mine is the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
These reporters are being fed by NTSB.
Barry
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the first pieces to fall off the a/c may not be the piece which failed first, it is likely that they came from near the failure. Therefore, it would seem profitable to look for these first pieces which are likely not in a large debris field. They are likely to be near the radar returns which are furthest back along the track of the a/c, i.e. furthest to the NE, e.g. Points 14, 17, and 18 in this plot.
http://home.infionline.net/~blueblue...7-01-2002e.jpg
These points are about 12 km NE of Point 5 which I believe is the last radar point of the intact a/c. Points 14, 17, and 18 are thus more than twice as far to the NE of Point 5 than Field 1 is east from the ASC’s [last radar point]. So they are looking where there are lots of pieces, but not looking where the significant pieces may be.
However there is another curious feature in the data. My plot above uses published latitudes and longitudes for both the radar data and the position of the data recorders. The plot shows the last radar return (Point 5) to be SW of the position of the recorders. In contrast, the ASC is consistently showing the last radar return to be NE of the position of the recorders,
http://pickyperkins.home.infionline....08-03-2002.jpg
http://home.infionline.net/~blueblue...Point_Zoom.gif
Two of many possible explanations of this might be:
It could be that ASC considers Point 2 to be the last radar return (the logic for this escapes me) rather than my Point 5. If so, the Points 14, 17 and 18 are still 5 km NE of Point 2 and outside debris Field 1.
Alternatively, just as time synchronization was needed when merging FDR, CVR, and transponder data, so it may be a co-ordinate shift is required when merging radar plots on one hand with debris and recorder positions which are probably based on GPS and very accurate on the other. If one assumes that Point 5 and the [ASC last radar point} ARE the same, then all my points need to be shifted about 4.5 km to the NE, and Points 14, 17, and 18 will then be more like 12 km NE of Point 5 and about 7 km N of the nearest part of debris Field 1.
In either case, judging from statements in the press, they don’t seem to be looking where the significant pieces may be. They are looking in the debris field, but the significant pieces may off by themselves.
======== ASC quote ========
If one were to reconstruct Section 46 with the pieces found so far, there would be large amounts missing from the rear part of the right side and the center part of the left side, Yong said. Another sonar scan of Field 1 was being conducted last week to try to find more pieces--less than 50% have been found so far.
====== End of ASC quote =====
Overall, there are so many conflicting/changing statements that its difficult to know what to conclude.
e.g
A 10 feet X 2 feet doubler [Washington Post] is now 7 feet X 2 feet [ASC]
A fatigue crack at least 40 inches long [Washington Post] is now 9 inches long [ASC]
Erroneous statements about the door referred to by JBS above.
Conflicts in the stated position of the last radar contact.
ASC disinformation (see bblanks post on 28 July 2002).
http://home.infionline.net/~blueblue...7-01-2002e.jpg
These points are about 12 km NE of Point 5 which I believe is the last radar point of the intact a/c. Points 14, 17, and 18 are thus more than twice as far to the NE of Point 5 than Field 1 is east from the ASC’s [last radar point]. So they are looking where there are lots of pieces, but not looking where the significant pieces may be.
However there is another curious feature in the data. My plot above uses published latitudes and longitudes for both the radar data and the position of the data recorders. The plot shows the last radar return (Point 5) to be SW of the position of the recorders. In contrast, the ASC is consistently showing the last radar return to be NE of the position of the recorders,
http://pickyperkins.home.infionline....08-03-2002.jpg
http://home.infionline.net/~blueblue...Point_Zoom.gif
Two of many possible explanations of this might be:
It could be that ASC considers Point 2 to be the last radar return (the logic for this escapes me) rather than my Point 5. If so, the Points 14, 17 and 18 are still 5 km NE of Point 2 and outside debris Field 1.
Alternatively, just as time synchronization was needed when merging FDR, CVR, and transponder data, so it may be a co-ordinate shift is required when merging radar plots on one hand with debris and recorder positions which are probably based on GPS and very accurate on the other. If one assumes that Point 5 and the [ASC last radar point} ARE the same, then all my points need to be shifted about 4.5 km to the NE, and Points 14, 17, and 18 will then be more like 12 km NE of Point 5 and about 7 km N of the nearest part of debris Field 1.
In either case, judging from statements in the press, they don’t seem to be looking where the significant pieces may be. They are looking in the debris field, but the significant pieces may off by themselves.
======== ASC quote ========
If one were to reconstruct Section 46 with the pieces found so far, there would be large amounts missing from the rear part of the right side and the center part of the left side, Yong said. Another sonar scan of Field 1 was being conducted last week to try to find more pieces--less than 50% have been found so far.
====== End of ASC quote =====
Overall, there are so many conflicting/changing statements that its difficult to know what to conclude.
e.g
A 10 feet X 2 feet doubler [Washington Post] is now 7 feet X 2 feet [ASC]
A fatigue crack at least 40 inches long [Washington Post] is now 9 inches long [ASC]
Erroneous statements about the door referred to by JBS above.
Conflicts in the stated position of the last radar contact.
ASC disinformation (see bblanks post on 28 July 2002).
Last edited by PickyPerkins; 5th Jun 2005 at 20:04.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PP>So they are looking where there are lots of pieces, but not looking where the significant pieces may be.
So true. I believe this is the reason why the midspan latches are never found on all four of the Boeing 747 hull rupture events and now on the China Airlines Flight 611. They may be the first to go, are small, and are way way back in the trail of debris. Plus nobody wants to find them as the implications are very unwanted.
Note that if the doubler repair, which is centered because that’s where the tail skid is located, failed, then logically one would assume the damage would be centered and have lesser damage outward bilaterally. But no, the damage is on the right and left with the right side where the aft cargo door is located and if that ruptured it would be like cutting a can open with big damage on the left also. That evidence is present.
The pieces of the cargo door were found far apart and that means inflight separation and disintegration of the door. A rupture of the door inflight has many implications and is evident by the photo of the top part yet that significance is not even referred to in the leaked press reports.
The exaggerations of the size of things is to play down the shattered door and play up the repair doubler. The aft cargo door may have ruptured and caused the cracks around the doubler and vice versa. It does not state the status of the doubler, is it intact? It does state cracks around it but that does not mean it failed. And what about the status of the large port side combi cargo door?
I believe the spin is on to make China Airliners, the repair people, the scapegoat. It would be a one time event on a one time airplane by an already discredited airline and everything can go back to normal and certainly not faulty wiring exploiting an industry wide problem with non plug doors and not enough latches with no locking sectors in a very big door.
As a pilot I feel a great displeasure at being lied to about aviation safety matters (But not by the Chinese). The conflicting information about the aft cargo door is very very suspicious. The top of the door is real and there is the photograph, yet one respected aviation journal denies it exists and reports about the bottom part which is nowhere to be seen...but it’s locked.
It appears to me that they want the readers to believe that the bottom was found and locked so that makes the ruptured cargo cargo door theory go away when the bottom latches can be latched and yet the door ruptures in the middle, as the photographs show.
With the scant information revealed which is conflicting and wrong at that, hope for an open objective investigation is waning.
If this sounds like whining...it is.
Poor China Airlines. The victim may again be victimized.
So true. I believe this is the reason why the midspan latches are never found on all four of the Boeing 747 hull rupture events and now on the China Airlines Flight 611. They may be the first to go, are small, and are way way back in the trail of debris. Plus nobody wants to find them as the implications are very unwanted.
Note that if the doubler repair, which is centered because that’s where the tail skid is located, failed, then logically one would assume the damage would be centered and have lesser damage outward bilaterally. But no, the damage is on the right and left with the right side where the aft cargo door is located and if that ruptured it would be like cutting a can open with big damage on the left also. That evidence is present.
The pieces of the cargo door were found far apart and that means inflight separation and disintegration of the door. A rupture of the door inflight has many implications and is evident by the photo of the top part yet that significance is not even referred to in the leaked press reports.
The exaggerations of the size of things is to play down the shattered door and play up the repair doubler. The aft cargo door may have ruptured and caused the cracks around the doubler and vice versa. It does not state the status of the doubler, is it intact? It does state cracks around it but that does not mean it failed. And what about the status of the large port side combi cargo door?
I believe the spin is on to make China Airliners, the repair people, the scapegoat. It would be a one time event on a one time airplane by an already discredited airline and everything can go back to normal and certainly not faulty wiring exploiting an industry wide problem with non plug doors and not enough latches with no locking sectors in a very big door.
As a pilot I feel a great displeasure at being lied to about aviation safety matters (But not by the Chinese). The conflicting information about the aft cargo door is very very suspicious. The top of the door is real and there is the photograph, yet one respected aviation journal denies it exists and reports about the bottom part which is nowhere to be seen...but it’s locked.
It appears to me that they want the readers to believe that the bottom was found and locked so that makes the ruptured cargo cargo door theory go away when the bottom latches can be latched and yet the door ruptures in the middle, as the photographs show.
With the scant information revealed which is conflicting and wrong at that, hope for an open objective investigation is waning.
If this sounds like whining...it is.
Poor China Airlines. The victim may again be victimized.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another couple of gems from our expert B747 investigator JBS.
. There is no tailskid on the B747-200.
.
This aircraft was not a Combi, hence no port side cargo door.
I don't think Michael A. Dornheim/Aviation Week & Space Technology was fed misleading information by the NTSB, he just got it plain wrong. So what are your chances?
Note that if the doubler repair, which is centered because that’s where the tail skid is located,
And what about the status of the large port side combi cargo door?
This aircraft was not a Combi, hence no port side cargo door.
I don't think Michael A. Dornheim/Aviation Week & Space Technology was fed misleading information by the NTSB, he just got it plain wrong. So what are your chances?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further clarification: 'Tail skid' should read 'tail strike area where tail skid would be if it had one, which it doesn't.'
And, silly me, I thought all -200B were combi making China Airlines Flight 611 a Boeing 747-209B a combi, but on rereading my text, it reveals that "...the side cargo door almost became a standard fitment on the C/F models..."
One less door to worry about.
And...politics, talk about pressure, literally hundreds of millions of dollars lie in the balance for the probable cause for China Airlines Flight 611. If it's repair doubler failure, Boeing will probably get contract, if ruptured cargo door, then Airbus.
CAL's evaluation of jet purchase now in government hands
By Richard Dobson
STAFF REPORTER
China Airlines Co (µØ¯è) has handed its evaluation of a purchase order of between 12 to 16 jet aircraft to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.
China Airlines spokesman Roger Han (Áú±ç??) said the company handed over its report detailing the offers from Airbus SAS and Boeing Co last Friday.
The report contained no final conclusions on the company's choice, Han said. Chang Kuo-cheng (±i°ê¬F), director general of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, has already read the report, he said.
Once the CAA completes its appraisal, they will meet with China Airlines and then brief Minister of Transportation and Communications Ling Ling-san (ªL?®?T), local Chinese-language media reports said.
The minister has requested that the government be kept abreast of the sale to ensure everything had been conducted in a fair and professional manner, but that it would respect the independent and final decision of China Airlines.
He denied reports that Boeing had offered larger discounts to match the Airbus offer.
Airbus reportedly offered a 35 percent discount on the deal.
And, silly me, I thought all -200B were combi making China Airlines Flight 611 a Boeing 747-209B a combi, but on rereading my text, it reveals that "...the side cargo door almost became a standard fitment on the C/F models..."
One less door to worry about.
And...politics, talk about pressure, literally hundreds of millions of dollars lie in the balance for the probable cause for China Airlines Flight 611. If it's repair doubler failure, Boeing will probably get contract, if ruptured cargo door, then Airbus.
CAL's evaluation of jet purchase now in government hands
By Richard Dobson
STAFF REPORTER
China Airlines Co (µØ¯è) has handed its evaluation of a purchase order of between 12 to 16 jet aircraft to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.
China Airlines spokesman Roger Han (Áú±ç??) said the company handed over its report detailing the offers from Airbus SAS and Boeing Co last Friday.
The report contained no final conclusions on the company's choice, Han said. Chang Kuo-cheng (±i°ê¬F), director general of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, has already read the report, he said.
Once the CAA completes its appraisal, they will meet with China Airlines and then brief Minister of Transportation and Communications Ling Ling-san (ªL?®?T), local Chinese-language media reports said.
The minister has requested that the government be kept abreast of the sale to ensure everything had been conducted in a fair and professional manner, but that it would respect the independent and final decision of China Airlines.
He denied reports that Boeing had offered larger discounts to match the Airbus offer.
Airbus reportedly offered a 35 percent discount on the deal.