China Airlines B747 Crash (Merged)
Mid-Span Latches
JBS, how many mid-span latches are in these doors? If only one per side, I can see how that would concentrate stress on a small part of the door frame.
That gives three possibilities:[list=1][*]The latch failed[*]The door frame failed or flexed excessively, perhaps because of nearby damage[*]The latch attachment failed[/list=1] Nearby failures may redirect load paths through a door frame and the resulting distortion may be too much for the latches.
That gives three possibilities:[list=1][*]The latch failed[*]The door frame failed or flexed excessively, perhaps because of nearby damage[*]The latch attachment failed[/list=1] Nearby failures may redirect load paths through a door frame and the resulting distortion may be too much for the latches.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been off for a while. I just got this. I hope it is not a repeat:
http://www.washingtonpost.com
JAL 123 (Gunma, 1985) also had a repair from a tailstrike on the runway...it was the aft pressure bulkhead that blew out and exploded the fin.
A bigger piece of tail seemed to come off of the CAL plane.
Amazing, nobody mentions JAL 123.
To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Jul25.html
Fatigue Signs Found in Crashed Taiwan 747
By Don Phillips
Investigators examining wreckage from China Airlines Flight 611, which flew apart at 35,000 feet over the Taiwan Strait, have discovered fatigue cracks in the rear fuselage near a 22-year-old repair, sources close to the investigation said yesterday.
The Boeing 747-200 suddenly broke up on May 25 about 20 minutes after taking off from Taipei for Hong Kong, killing all 225 people aboard. There was no distress call from the crew, and so far the plane's cockpit voice recording and flight data recording have revealed no definitive cause for the rare high-altitude disintegration.
The fatigue cracks are the first physical evidence pointing to a possible cause, and investigative sources said that area of the fuselage "is getting a lot of attention." But the sources stressed that much work remains before Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council can determine whether the fatigue cracks played a role in the crash or some other event caused the fuselage to crack apart at that point.
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? And second, are the cracks a one-time defect caused by a repair, or should all older 747s be inspected for hidden cracks?
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.
"We don't see a need to act yet," one official said.
The in-flight breakup does not appear to have been the result of an explosion or fire. Officials have said they do not see any telltale burns or blast damage. Nor does it appear to have been a fuel tank explosion, like the one that brought down Trans World Airlines Flight 800 in 1996.
A fatigue crack in metal grows over time, sometimes because of damage or flexing.
The cracks found in the rear fuselage of the China Airlines plane, at least one of which was 40 inches long, were all near a 2-by-10-foot "doubler," a metal patch used to repair damage caused in 1980 by a "tail strike." In a tail strike, the fuselage rubs along the runway, usually when an airplane takes off at too steep an angle.
The Taiwanese investigative agency is only now getting maintenance paperwork that will tell who performed the repairs and exactly what was done.
So far, salvage operations have located only one side of the fuselage at the fatigue crack that gave way. Investigators are eager to locate the mating piece.
The aircraft has been located on the ocean floor in roughly three large debris fields. The first field consists mostly of the tail section up to the area of the tail strike repair. The second field, about a mile away along the flight path, appears to contain most of the rest of the plane.
The third field appears to contain two engines. Sources said it appears the engines were not the cause of the crash but cracked off as the plane broke apart.
Kay Yong, managing director of Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council, said earlier that the cockpit voice recording contains a sound at the end that technicians have been unable to identify and that the flight data recording shows only small anomalies in the last 20 seconds.
Among other things, the 747 appears to have pitched up somewhat abruptly five seconds before the end of the recording. The cockpit voice recorder, which picks up the last 30 minutes of cockpit sounds and conversation, continued to operate for three seconds after the flight data recorder cut off.
Yong said that in the last second before the voice recorder cut off, there was "a not very loud 'chahhh' sound" that has not been identified. There are also a few other unidentified sounds during the last seven minutes of the recording that specialists find unusual for a 747, but they have been unable to identify them.
Fatigue cracks in older aircraft are not a new issue. The Federal Aviation Administration initiated an "aging aircraft" inspection program after part of the roof tore off of an older Aloha Airlines Boeing 737 in April 1988. The National Transportation Safety Board found that Aloha had failed to inspect the aircraft adequately for cracks.
The 747 also has experienced trouble with cracks in the area of its forward door, but not at the rear. The cracking around the forward door has been handled with regular inspections and repairs to tiny cracks before they can grow bigger.
http://www.washingtonpost.com
JAL 123 (Gunma, 1985) also had a repair from a tailstrike on the runway...it was the aft pressure bulkhead that blew out and exploded the fin.
A bigger piece of tail seemed to come off of the CAL plane.
Amazing, nobody mentions JAL 123.
To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Jul25.html
Fatigue Signs Found in Crashed Taiwan 747
By Don Phillips
Investigators examining wreckage from China Airlines Flight 611, which flew apart at 35,000 feet over the Taiwan Strait, have discovered fatigue cracks in the rear fuselage near a 22-year-old repair, sources close to the investigation said yesterday.
The Boeing 747-200 suddenly broke up on May 25 about 20 minutes after taking off from Taipei for Hong Kong, killing all 225 people aboard. There was no distress call from the crew, and so far the plane's cockpit voice recording and flight data recording have revealed no definitive cause for the rare high-altitude disintegration.
The fatigue cracks are the first physical evidence pointing to a possible cause, and investigative sources said that area of the fuselage "is getting a lot of attention." But the sources stressed that much work remains before Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council can determine whether the fatigue cracks played a role in the crash or some other event caused the fuselage to crack apart at that point.
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? And second, are the cracks a one-time defect caused by a repair, or should all older 747s be inspected for hidden cracks?
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.
"We don't see a need to act yet," one official said.
The in-flight breakup does not appear to have been the result of an explosion or fire. Officials have said they do not see any telltale burns or blast damage. Nor does it appear to have been a fuel tank explosion, like the one that brought down Trans World Airlines Flight 800 in 1996.
A fatigue crack in metal grows over time, sometimes because of damage or flexing.
The cracks found in the rear fuselage of the China Airlines plane, at least one of which was 40 inches long, were all near a 2-by-10-foot "doubler," a metal patch used to repair damage caused in 1980 by a "tail strike." In a tail strike, the fuselage rubs along the runway, usually when an airplane takes off at too steep an angle.
The Taiwanese investigative agency is only now getting maintenance paperwork that will tell who performed the repairs and exactly what was done.
So far, salvage operations have located only one side of the fuselage at the fatigue crack that gave way. Investigators are eager to locate the mating piece.
The aircraft has been located on the ocean floor in roughly three large debris fields. The first field consists mostly of the tail section up to the area of the tail strike repair. The second field, about a mile away along the flight path, appears to contain most of the rest of the plane.
The third field appears to contain two engines. Sources said it appears the engines were not the cause of the crash but cracked off as the plane broke apart.
Kay Yong, managing director of Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council, said earlier that the cockpit voice recording contains a sound at the end that technicians have been unable to identify and that the flight data recording shows only small anomalies in the last 20 seconds.
Among other things, the 747 appears to have pitched up somewhat abruptly five seconds before the end of the recording. The cockpit voice recorder, which picks up the last 30 minutes of cockpit sounds and conversation, continued to operate for three seconds after the flight data recorder cut off.
Yong said that in the last second before the voice recorder cut off, there was "a not very loud 'chahhh' sound" that has not been identified. There are also a few other unidentified sounds during the last seven minutes of the recording that specialists find unusual for a 747, but they have been unable to identify them.
Fatigue cracks in older aircraft are not a new issue. The Federal Aviation Administration initiated an "aging aircraft" inspection program after part of the roof tore off of an older Aloha Airlines Boeing 737 in April 1988. The National Transportation Safety Board found that Aloha had failed to inspect the aircraft adequately for cracks.
The 747 also has experienced trouble with cracks in the area of its forward door, but not at the rear. The cracking around the forward door has been handled with regular inspections and repairs to tiny cracks before they can grow bigger.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Distorted ViewPoint
My gut feeling on the question of the CI-611 aft cargo door is essentially this:
a. If it had been "just" a section 46 fracture-site giving way (as the various fracture lines eventually comingled), there would have been (the same) rapid decompression but some fuselage distortion, controllability issues, crew comment, metal-tearing (and flapping in the breeze) prior to tail detachment (i.e. not an instantaneous breakup). Now, primarily because of the quite simultaneous power loss to the CVR and DFDR (and nil crew comment) it's apparent that it was a more or less quick (and very progressive) breakup.
b. The failure of a cargo door (per UA811) does create that sudden "there one moment and gone the next" quite cataclysmic event, particularly if the latches are faulty or an electrical event allows the unsectored mid-span latches to let go and the door (suddenly unlatched and unconstrained at mid-span) just blows out (or half blows out as appears to be the case here) - because of the higher pressure differential at top of climb. In other words, either the top or bottom latches held and they held half the door in place. Pictures are to be seen here by clicking the thumbnails.
c. But the finding of section 46 fractures (and the fact that the domed aft pressure bulkhead is intact) lends a new perspective to what happened. Under the higher pressurisation differentials there are very significant (i.e. potentially distorting) pressures upon all areas of the pressure vessel at height. If you have a few fatigue fracture-lines alongside some strengthening doublers, it's like having a balloon with a weak spot that "blisters". How much localised airframe distortion (blistering) can the non-plug door's (inplace and serviceable) latches take, before they will let go?
Because it all happened at top of climb, I feel that the effect of the higher pressurisation differential is the key to what happened.
a. If it had been "just" a section 46 fracture-site giving way (as the various fracture lines eventually comingled), there would have been (the same) rapid decompression but some fuselage distortion, controllability issues, crew comment, metal-tearing (and flapping in the breeze) prior to tail detachment (i.e. not an instantaneous breakup). Now, primarily because of the quite simultaneous power loss to the CVR and DFDR (and nil crew comment) it's apparent that it was a more or less quick (and very progressive) breakup.
b. The failure of a cargo door (per UA811) does create that sudden "there one moment and gone the next" quite cataclysmic event, particularly if the latches are faulty or an electrical event allows the unsectored mid-span latches to let go and the door (suddenly unlatched and unconstrained at mid-span) just blows out (or half blows out as appears to be the case here) - because of the higher pressure differential at top of climb. In other words, either the top or bottom latches held and they held half the door in place. Pictures are to be seen here by clicking the thumbnails.
c. But the finding of section 46 fractures (and the fact that the domed aft pressure bulkhead is intact) lends a new perspective to what happened. Under the higher pressurisation differentials there are very significant (i.e. potentially distorting) pressures upon all areas of the pressure vessel at height. If you have a few fatigue fracture-lines alongside some strengthening doublers, it's like having a balloon with a weak spot that "blisters". How much localised airframe distortion (blistering) can the non-plug door's (inplace and serviceable) latches take, before they will let go?
Because it all happened at top of climb, I feel that the effect of the higher pressurisation differential is the key to what happened.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
======== Quote ========
Airbus is expected to win an order for 16 A330-300s (12 firm with 4 options) from China Airlines to replace its aging fleet of 12 A300-600s. Delivery is to start late this year and run through 2005. The A330 would be a good fit with the carriers A340 fleet, officials familiar with the deal report.
==== End of Quote =======
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Return to yesteryear:
Posted to PPruNe 22 July 2001 by me regarding the anniversary of Trans World Airlines Flight 800:
There has to be a group out there that does not want missile (media and exciting story), center tank with unknown ignition source (NTSB), totally unknown (Boeing), bomb (FBI) and is willing to consider faulty wiring, (very serious and expensive to correct,) and outward opening non plug doors, (very serious and expensive to correct.)
If not the flight crews whose lives are on the line, who else? What to do? Well, just check out the explanation on www.corazon.com. If reasonable enough to warrant further investigation, say so to your safety persons in your profession whose responsibility it is to check out these alerts/warnings. Have them contact me. Refer them to www.corazon.com after you have reviewed it to confirm it is just full of facts, data, and evidence.
To do nothing when given a reasonable explanation of a potential serious problem is not right; as pilots we check these things out, we rule them out or rule them in. Every flight has dozens of false warnings, false fears, false problems, and every flight has a few small problems which if left unattended become very serious very fast.
I ask that you check out the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for four early model Boeing 747s accidents which has relevance for the 547 planes still in service.
If you believe the explanation is worthy of further investigation refer it to your safety people, they will know what to do to rule it in or rule it out. And ask them to report back to you with their findings. They are there to protect you.
Sincerely,
Barry
Posted approximately 22 July 01
Dear PPRuNe,
For those of you who tell me it can't happen, read below about how it did... and did. These two uncommanded openings happened on the ground and thus are not eligible for the center tank explosion or bomb or missile explanation.
You guys are in denial denial denial. And still you will not check out the straightforward easily understandable mechanical explanation with precedent and documentation.
I speak to you as pilot to pilot, check out this alert, electrical problems are causing Boeing 747 cargo doors to open when they shouldn't. It's happened before in 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1996 and now 2000. Some on the ground and some in the air. I say to you as navigator to pilot, we may be supposed to be over there, but we are over here, defer to reality, tell your safety people to check out www.corazon.com and contact me for further clarification.
Trust in your instruments when the seat of your pants says otherwise. The instruments that say explosive decompression are the CVR and the FDR, the seat of your pants says hey, the NTSB and AAIB and TSB can't be wrong, now can they?
Sincerely,
Barry
Return to the present for China Airlines Flight 611 7 Aug 02: (Change above to 546 planes still in service.)
RatherBeFlying posted 7th August 2002 13:02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Span Latches
JBS, how many mid-span latches are in these doors?
If only one per side, I can see how that would concentrate stress on a small part of the door frame.
JBS>One unsectored latch per eight foot slice of fuselage on the aft and forward vertical edges. Eight sectored latches on bottom nine feet and hinge entire length of top nine feet. (99 inches up and 110 across.) Midspan latch is identical in size and function to the bottom eight. 8.9 PSI at 34000 feet on the door makes for 96921 pounds of pressure on that door, on each cargo door, all the time at cruise.
From NTSB AAR 92.02 for United Airlines Flight 811: ‘1.6.2 Cargo Door Description and Operation
Both the forward and aft lower cargo doors are similar in appearance and operation. They are located on the lower right side of the fuselage and are outward-opening. The door opening is approximately 110 inches wide by 99 inches high, as measured along the fuselage.’
BeFlying>That gives three possibilities:
1. The latch failed
2. The door frame failed or flexed excessively, perhaps because of nearby damage
3. The latch attachment failed
Nearby failures may redirect load paths through a door frame and the resulting distortion may be too much for the latches.
JBS>Yes.
Belgique
osted 7th August 2002 15:12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Distorted ViewPoint
BEL>My gut feeling on the question of the CI-611 aft cargo door is essentially this:
a. If it had been "just" a section 46 fracture-site giving way (as the various fracture lines eventually comingled), there would have been (the same) rapid decompression but some fuselage distortion, controllability issues, crew comment, metal-tearing (and flapping in the breeze) prior to tail detachment (i.e. not an instantaneous breakup).
JBS>JAL 123, the referenced accident in the AV Week article, flew around for 32 minutes after hull rupture from aft pressure bulkhead repair failure.
Bel> Now, primarily because of the quite simultaneous power loss to the CVR and DFDR (and nil crew comment) it's apparent that it was a more or less quick (and very progressive) breakup.
b. The failure of a cargo door (per UA811) does create that sudden "there one moment and gone the next" quite cataclysmic event, particularly if the latches are faulty or an electrical event allows the unsectored mid-span latches to let go and the door (suddenly unlatched and unconstrained at mid-span) just blows out (or half blows out as appears to be the case here) - because of the higher pressure differential at top of climb. In other words, either the top or bottom latches held and they held half the door in place. Pictures are to be seen here by clicking the thumbnails.
JBS>Yes. The middle goes first, then the bottom, then the top, according to wreckage debris patterns and reconstructions in hangars.
Bel>c. But the finding of section 46 fractures (and the fact that the domed aft pressure bulkhead is intact) lends a new perspective to what happened. Under the higher pressurisation differentials there are very significant (i.e. potentially distorting) pressures upon all areas of the pressure vessel at height. If you have a few fatigue fracture-lines alongside some strengthening doublers, it's like having a balloon with a weak spot that "blisters". How much localised airframe distortion (blistering) can the non-plug door's (inplace and serviceable) latches take, before they will let go?
JBS>That is one explanation. The balloon called the hull of China Airlines Flight 611 has patches on it and the patches are the likely places to rupture of course. And that means the cargo doors since they are the only confirmed solo hull rupture cause, United Airlines Flight 811, after ruling out the aft pressure bulkhead, as they have done.
Bel>Because it all happened at top of climb, I feel that the effect of the higher pressurisation differential is the key to what happened.
JBS>Yes. The repair doubler may have failed leading to the aft cargo door rupture, or vice versa, the answer will be in the evidence of the latches and surrounding material. If it matches the analysis of United Airlines Flight 811, then the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation is most likely. If the evidence of China Airlines Flight 611 is not similar to United Airlines Flight 811, but similar to JAL 123, then the repair doubler failure is likely first. It’s always the evidence that speaks the truest.
At this stage, based on separation of pieces of aft cargo door, the sudden sound on the CVR and power cut to FDR, the missing pieces on aft right side and center left side, and the close match of vertical tears lines, missing pressure relief doors, and fractured and shattered appearance of the recovered piece of door, as seen in the ASC photograph, to matches of other Boeing 747 ruptured cargo doors in flight, I’m leaning toward the door rupture first, then the repair doubler failure, if it failed at all.
The photographs available at corazon.com of various cargo doors, ruptured and intact, will show you the matches. If the issue is cargo doors on Boeing 747s, then there are photos and text and diagrams and drawings of doors that work normally and doors that don’t. The PDF files for the AAR for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 have the most data and can be downloaded.
The best explanation about normal cargo doors is in the AAR for United Airlines Flight 811, 92/02 and also available for download at corazon.com. It always comes back to United Airlines Flight 811. That is the solid tree in the forest of six Boeing 747s that suffered solo large hull ruptures in flight, JAL 123, Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, Trans World Airlines Flight 800, and China Airlines Flight 611.
Barry Smith
Posted to PPruNe 22 July 2001 by me regarding the anniversary of Trans World Airlines Flight 800:
There has to be a group out there that does not want missile (media and exciting story), center tank with unknown ignition source (NTSB), totally unknown (Boeing), bomb (FBI) and is willing to consider faulty wiring, (very serious and expensive to correct,) and outward opening non plug doors, (very serious and expensive to correct.)
If not the flight crews whose lives are on the line, who else? What to do? Well, just check out the explanation on www.corazon.com. If reasonable enough to warrant further investigation, say so to your safety persons in your profession whose responsibility it is to check out these alerts/warnings. Have them contact me. Refer them to www.corazon.com after you have reviewed it to confirm it is just full of facts, data, and evidence.
To do nothing when given a reasonable explanation of a potential serious problem is not right; as pilots we check these things out, we rule them out or rule them in. Every flight has dozens of false warnings, false fears, false problems, and every flight has a few small problems which if left unattended become very serious very fast.
I ask that you check out the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for four early model Boeing 747s accidents which has relevance for the 547 planes still in service.
If you believe the explanation is worthy of further investigation refer it to your safety people, they will know what to do to rule it in or rule it out. And ask them to report back to you with their findings. They are there to protect you.
Sincerely,
Barry
Posted approximately 22 July 01
Dear PPRuNe,
For those of you who tell me it can't happen, read below about how it did... and did. These two uncommanded openings happened on the ground and thus are not eligible for the center tank explosion or bomb or missile explanation.
You guys are in denial denial denial. And still you will not check out the straightforward easily understandable mechanical explanation with precedent and documentation.
I speak to you as pilot to pilot, check out this alert, electrical problems are causing Boeing 747 cargo doors to open when they shouldn't. It's happened before in 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1996 and now 2000. Some on the ground and some in the air. I say to you as navigator to pilot, we may be supposed to be over there, but we are over here, defer to reality, tell your safety people to check out www.corazon.com and contact me for further clarification.
Trust in your instruments when the seat of your pants says otherwise. The instruments that say explosive decompression are the CVR and the FDR, the seat of your pants says hey, the NTSB and AAIB and TSB can't be wrong, now can they?
Sincerely,
Barry
Return to the present for China Airlines Flight 611 7 Aug 02: (Change above to 546 planes still in service.)
RatherBeFlying posted 7th August 2002 13:02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Span Latches
JBS, how many mid-span latches are in these doors?
If only one per side, I can see how that would concentrate stress on a small part of the door frame.
JBS>One unsectored latch per eight foot slice of fuselage on the aft and forward vertical edges. Eight sectored latches on bottom nine feet and hinge entire length of top nine feet. (99 inches up and 110 across.) Midspan latch is identical in size and function to the bottom eight. 8.9 PSI at 34000 feet on the door makes for 96921 pounds of pressure on that door, on each cargo door, all the time at cruise.
From NTSB AAR 92.02 for United Airlines Flight 811: ‘1.6.2 Cargo Door Description and Operation
Both the forward and aft lower cargo doors are similar in appearance and operation. They are located on the lower right side of the fuselage and are outward-opening. The door opening is approximately 110 inches wide by 99 inches high, as measured along the fuselage.’
BeFlying>That gives three possibilities:
1. The latch failed
2. The door frame failed or flexed excessively, perhaps because of nearby damage
3. The latch attachment failed
Nearby failures may redirect load paths through a door frame and the resulting distortion may be too much for the latches.
JBS>Yes.
Belgique
osted 7th August 2002 15:12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Distorted ViewPoint
BEL>My gut feeling on the question of the CI-611 aft cargo door is essentially this:
a. If it had been "just" a section 46 fracture-site giving way (as the various fracture lines eventually comingled), there would have been (the same) rapid decompression but some fuselage distortion, controllability issues, crew comment, metal-tearing (and flapping in the breeze) prior to tail detachment (i.e. not an instantaneous breakup).
JBS>JAL 123, the referenced accident in the AV Week article, flew around for 32 minutes after hull rupture from aft pressure bulkhead repair failure.
Bel> Now, primarily because of the quite simultaneous power loss to the CVR and DFDR (and nil crew comment) it's apparent that it was a more or less quick (and very progressive) breakup.
b. The failure of a cargo door (per UA811) does create that sudden "there one moment and gone the next" quite cataclysmic event, particularly if the latches are faulty or an electrical event allows the unsectored mid-span latches to let go and the door (suddenly unlatched and unconstrained at mid-span) just blows out (or half blows out as appears to be the case here) - because of the higher pressure differential at top of climb. In other words, either the top or bottom latches held and they held half the door in place. Pictures are to be seen here by clicking the thumbnails.
JBS>Yes. The middle goes first, then the bottom, then the top, according to wreckage debris patterns and reconstructions in hangars.
Bel>c. But the finding of section 46 fractures (and the fact that the domed aft pressure bulkhead is intact) lends a new perspective to what happened. Under the higher pressurisation differentials there are very significant (i.e. potentially distorting) pressures upon all areas of the pressure vessel at height. If you have a few fatigue fracture-lines alongside some strengthening doublers, it's like having a balloon with a weak spot that "blisters". How much localised airframe distortion (blistering) can the non-plug door's (inplace and serviceable) latches take, before they will let go?
JBS>That is one explanation. The balloon called the hull of China Airlines Flight 611 has patches on it and the patches are the likely places to rupture of course. And that means the cargo doors since they are the only confirmed solo hull rupture cause, United Airlines Flight 811, after ruling out the aft pressure bulkhead, as they have done.
Bel>Because it all happened at top of climb, I feel that the effect of the higher pressurisation differential is the key to what happened.
JBS>Yes. The repair doubler may have failed leading to the aft cargo door rupture, or vice versa, the answer will be in the evidence of the latches and surrounding material. If it matches the analysis of United Airlines Flight 811, then the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation is most likely. If the evidence of China Airlines Flight 611 is not similar to United Airlines Flight 811, but similar to JAL 123, then the repair doubler failure is likely first. It’s always the evidence that speaks the truest.
At this stage, based on separation of pieces of aft cargo door, the sudden sound on the CVR and power cut to FDR, the missing pieces on aft right side and center left side, and the close match of vertical tears lines, missing pressure relief doors, and fractured and shattered appearance of the recovered piece of door, as seen in the ASC photograph, to matches of other Boeing 747 ruptured cargo doors in flight, I’m leaning toward the door rupture first, then the repair doubler failure, if it failed at all.
The photographs available at corazon.com of various cargo doors, ruptured and intact, will show you the matches. If the issue is cargo doors on Boeing 747s, then there are photos and text and diagrams and drawings of doors that work normally and doors that don’t. The PDF files for the AAR for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 have the most data and can be downloaded.
The best explanation about normal cargo doors is in the AAR for United Airlines Flight 811, 92/02 and also available for download at corazon.com. It always comes back to United Airlines Flight 811. That is the solid tree in the forest of six Boeing 747s that suffered solo large hull ruptures in flight, JAL 123, Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, Trans World Airlines Flight 800, and China Airlines Flight 611.
Barry Smith
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual, the post mortems continue.........
With the technology available today, surely the time has now come for cameras to be installed on every Boeing and Airbus.
They weigh very little, can be installed flush (or with little protusion) almost anywhere. A small fibre wire back to an FDR and you're done.
As a bolt on, they can be added cheaply to old aircraft, and easily integrated into new designs. This would also solve the issue of the woeful amount of data received by old FDR's which are next to useless in anything but the most "standard" of accidents.
Who ever said a picture paints a thousand words... could easily say today a picture paints a thousand instrument readings.
And whilst we are about it, why not put them in the cockpit as well.... I have never understood why the piloting fraternity feels under such threat when the rest of the commercial world is under much the same scrutiny. There are very few jobs where you are locked away to get on with it, and when things go wrong we need to know why!!
With the technology available today, surely the time has now come for cameras to be installed on every Boeing and Airbus.
They weigh very little, can be installed flush (or with little protusion) almost anywhere. A small fibre wire back to an FDR and you're done.
As a bolt on, they can be added cheaply to old aircraft, and easily integrated into new designs. This would also solve the issue of the woeful amount of data received by old FDR's which are next to useless in anything but the most "standard" of accidents.
Who ever said a picture paints a thousand words... could easily say today a picture paints a thousand instrument readings.
And whilst we are about it, why not put them in the cockpit as well.... I have never understood why the piloting fraternity feels under such threat when the rest of the commercial world is under much the same scrutiny. There are very few jobs where you are locked away to get on with it, and when things go wrong we need to know why!!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
"Ax to grind." I think not, to me it appears just a strong conviction that he is correct, and that safety may be compromised. As far as I am concerned, nothing at all wrong with that position, and even if he is wrong, at least attention is focused on other possibilities. Surely you do not have a problem with that too????
"Ax to grind." I think not, to me it appears just a strong conviction that he is correct, and that safety may be compromised. As far as I am concerned, nothing at all wrong with that position, and even if he is wrong, at least attention is focused on other possibilities. Surely you do not have a problem with that too????
Last edited by wes_wall; 8th Aug 2002 at 01:01.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wes_wall
No indeed, no problem at all. But I just wondered, noticing that he is so adament...where is his vested interest?
Cast-off Boeing perhaps?
Or, just an interested party.
No indeed, no problem at all. But I just wondered, noticing that he is so adament...where is his vested interest?
Cast-off Boeing perhaps?
Or, just an interested party.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air crash payout offer increased
ASSOCIATED PRESS 08/08/02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China Airlines, Taiwan's biggest carrier, offered additional compensation yesterday to the families of 53 victims whose bodies are still missing after a plane crash more than two months ago killed all 225 people on board.
Each family would be given an extra NT$1 million (HK$228,000) because of the mental anguish they have suffered, airline spokesman Roger Han said.
The airline has not reached an agreement for overall compensation with family members. Originally it had offered NT$12.5 million for each victim, but some family members rejected that figure as insufficient.
The cause of the crash is still a mystery. Investigators said the Boeing 747-200 broke apart about 20 minutes after taking off from Taipei for Hong Kong on May 25.
The pilots did not indicate any problems before Flight CI611 plunged into the Taiwan Strait near the Penghu island chain. The weather was clear and security officials doubt a bomb or a missile downed the plane.
While 60 per cent of the wreckage has been recovered, investigators say they need at least another 20 per cent before they will have a clear idea of what caused the crash.
Recovery efforts have been difficult as much of the plane lies about 60 metres underwater.
ASSOCIATED PRESS 08/08/02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China Airlines, Taiwan's biggest carrier, offered additional compensation yesterday to the families of 53 victims whose bodies are still missing after a plane crash more than two months ago killed all 225 people on board.
Each family would be given an extra NT$1 million (HK$228,000) because of the mental anguish they have suffered, airline spokesman Roger Han said.
The airline has not reached an agreement for overall compensation with family members. Originally it had offered NT$12.5 million for each victim, but some family members rejected that figure as insufficient.
The cause of the crash is still a mystery. Investigators said the Boeing 747-200 broke apart about 20 minutes after taking off from Taipei for Hong Kong on May 25.
The pilots did not indicate any problems before Flight CI611 plunged into the Taiwan Strait near the Penghu island chain. The weather was clear and security officials doubt a bomb or a missile downed the plane.
While 60 per cent of the wreckage has been recovered, investigators say they need at least another 20 per cent before they will have a clear idea of what caused the crash.
Recovery efforts have been difficult as much of the plane lies about 60 metres underwater.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: 22.5 parallel
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
You ask us if we also have noticed that JBS is a little turkey.
Well, I can not answer for the other readers, but my answer is NO, I did not notice that JBS is a little turkey.
What I did notice is that JBS believes he has a case related to aviation safety and presents it to us all with his very well documented research. He puts all his cards on the table for us to see and debate it with him. If it is pointed out to him by other specialists in the know that he is wrong on a certain aspect, he admits it and has learned something in the process.
His concern is aviation safety, a very genuine concern.
He may or may not be right in his derived conclusions but he is one of the very very few on these forums who presents his case so well documented and does not shy away from debating it with or accepting other peoples indepth knowledge on the matter.
He also tells you who he is, where he lives, where he came from and why he is doing all this.
NO, I do not think he is a little turkey, but maybe you are, with regard to Tristars, are they flying yet ??
As always, with best regards
A.V.
You ask us if we also have noticed that JBS is a little turkey.
Well, I can not answer for the other readers, but my answer is NO, I did not notice that JBS is a little turkey.
What I did notice is that JBS believes he has a case related to aviation safety and presents it to us all with his very well documented research. He puts all his cards on the table for us to see and debate it with him. If it is pointed out to him by other specialists in the know that he is wrong on a certain aspect, he admits it and has learned something in the process.
His concern is aviation safety, a very genuine concern.
He may or may not be right in his derived conclusions but he is one of the very very few on these forums who presents his case so well documented and does not shy away from debating it with or accepting other peoples indepth knowledge on the matter.
He also tells you who he is, where he lives, where he came from and why he is doing all this.
NO, I do not think he is a little turkey, but maybe you are, with regard to Tristars, are they flying yet ??
As always, with best regards
A.V.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a - nener nener
If JBSmith is a 'tenacious little turkey', then you're a 'disputatious old fahrt'. (It's fun talking like we're all 12 again, heh?)
He might be happy enough with 'tenacious turkey', but the 'little' part goes over the line. Not your first visit there. That bit is just gratuitously demeaning. For shame!
I would say he is quite a substantial turkey, if turkey at all.
People with a single-minded focus can be quite frightening - especially if one sees a crazed gleam in their eye. That does not seem to be the case here. Mr. Smith has presented himself and his ideas in a forthright and responsible manner. He clearly makes the effort to separate relevant objective facts from opinion and rumor, and to document it all for open discussion.
Some folks here appear to share his view that candor and factual reporting are not always top of the list for the authorities who are final arbiters of 'probable cause' in aircraft accidents. A bit more public controversy might increase the quality of result coming from the official side. Few people who are qualified to do it are inclined to speak out as openly and provocatively as he does, so why ding him for doing the commercial aviation community a service?
As for his personal perspective, he has politely and humbly explained his motives and qualifications in these very pages - you might consider reading them for the answer to your own haughty query.
If JBSmith is a 'tenacious little turkey', then you're a 'disputatious old fahrt'. (It's fun talking like we're all 12 again, heh?)
He might be happy enough with 'tenacious turkey', but the 'little' part goes over the line. Not your first visit there. That bit is just gratuitously demeaning. For shame!
I would say he is quite a substantial turkey, if turkey at all.
People with a single-minded focus can be quite frightening - especially if one sees a crazed gleam in their eye. That does not seem to be the case here. Mr. Smith has presented himself and his ideas in a forthright and responsible manner. He clearly makes the effort to separate relevant objective facts from opinion and rumor, and to document it all for open discussion.
Some folks here appear to share his view that candor and factual reporting are not always top of the list for the authorities who are final arbiters of 'probable cause' in aircraft accidents. A bit more public controversy might increase the quality of result coming from the official side. Few people who are qualified to do it are inclined to speak out as openly and provocatively as he does, so why ding him for doing the commercial aviation community a service?
As for his personal perspective, he has politely and humbly explained his motives and qualifications in these very pages - you might consider reading them for the answer to your own haughty query.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
posted 7th August 2002 22:09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that JohnBerrySmith really is a tenacious little turkey with regard to cargo doors...does he have a patent (or an axe to grind) or what?
posted 8th August 2002 00:56
------------------------------------------------------------------------
411A
"Ax to grind." I think not, to me it appears just a strong conviction that he is correct, and that safety may be compromised. As far as I am concerned, nothing at all wrong with that position, and even if he is wrong, at least attention is focused on other possibilities. Surely you do not have a problem with that too????
wes_wall
No indeed, no problem at all. But I just wondered, noticing that he is so adament...where is his vested interest?
Cast-off Boeing perhaps?
Or, just an interested party.
JBS>http://www.corazon.com/ejection.html
Read URL above and know motive. Tenacious little turkey? I shall take that as a compliment. Patent? On what? Perseverance? No. I have it but not a patent. Ax to grind? Yeah, I do, aviation safety. Prevent death. Stop airplane destruction.
I love it when you talk about me....Know this: I am trivial but my discovery is not. Cargo doors on Boeing 747s have a design weakness that is exploited by faulty wiring. How bad is it? Well, 329 dead for Air India Flight 182, 270 dead for Pan Am Flight 103, 9 dead for United Airlines Flight 811, 230 dead for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and 225 dead for China Airlines Flight 611. None dead for Pan Am 125 or UAL preflight when the door opened uncommanded.
Here’s the rub, no one in authority is willing to talk about it. And I know why. No one wants to hear unpleasant truths but will pay to hear pleasant lies.
I note that whenever someone questions me personally, such as ‘ax to grind’, Boeing cast off, etc, it is an effort to disparage me to make me or my opinions discredited. You type are the conspiracy guys, only interested in personalities and not interested in evidence. You think as politicians do. What is the best thing for you and then if said enough times it is supposed to come true.
Well, as pilot, navigator, mechanic, aircrewman, owner, bombardier, radar operator, plane captain, and refueler, I can say wishful thinking does not hack it in aviation, only reality matters and that changes all the time.
Reality is that photograph of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611 and it looks similar to other cargo doors of Boeing 747s that are important enough to be stored in hangars for 17 years, 13 years, 8 years, and now about a month for a new one. The cargo door is always at or near the scene of the first parts to leave five Boeing 747s that suffer an inflight breakup. And yes, Air India Flight 182 was not a bomb, and yes, Pan Am Flight 103 was not a bomb, and yes, Trans World Airlines Flight 800 had center tank fire/explosion but after the nose came off and bomb considered for 17 months, and yes United Airlines Flight 811 was said by the crew to the tower that a bomb had gone off in it and they were returning to land. No bombs on any of them but the explosion of explosive decompression that mimics a bomb explosion but isn’t.
And honest investigator would look at the shattered ruptured open cargo doors inflight and say, yes, that cargo door ruptured open in flight and the reason it did was B, or B, or FT, or M, or BR, or E: or Bomb, bomb, fuel tank, or missile, or bad repair, or electrical. Each proponent gets to say why they think their cause is just. Mine is the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation based upon the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for United Airlines Flight 811, the only incontrovertible ruptured cargo door event and that was electrical.
But the biased investigators never admit the obvious shattered door opened in flight because it leads to United Airlines Flight 811 and electrical so they match it to Pan Am Flight 103 for bomb, or Air India Flight 182 for bomb, or Trans World Airlines Flight 800 for fuel tank explosion or missile, and JAL 123 for bad repair but never United Airlines Flight 811.
For China Airlines Flight 611 it could have been a bad repair that caused the shattered aft cargo door. Or lots of other reasons. All my explanation has for support is reality, United Airlines Flight 811 and its large amount of evidence that matches China Airlines Flight 611.
By the way, another thought occurred to me this evening as I was reminded of my new humbleness at being corrected about basic things about the Boeing 747, was the APU on during the event times for China Airlines Flight 611, Air India Flight 182, United Airlines Flight 811, Pan Am Flight 103, Trans World Airlines Flight 800? Is there a way to tell by the FDR if the APU was on? I often see the APU contrail between the engine contrails as the 747s fly overhead.
This whole cargo door thing has been a humbling experience and also a learning one too. And who would have thought after all these years of pursuing the forward cargo door ruptures in flight for 747s, that the aft would pop too. Even if the cause is not electrical, that cargo door’s weaknesses should be exposed and fixed.
Suspicious of me and my motives, that’s funny. I’m the one with a real name and not anonymous. Ha! It is not important to me 'who' you are but 'what' you are thinking is. The ideas are what counts.
Well, the forum does make me think and that’s a step in the right direction for finding out why the aft cargo door looks like it does for China Airlines Flight 611.
Barry
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that JohnBerrySmith really is a tenacious little turkey with regard to cargo doors...does he have a patent (or an axe to grind) or what?
posted 8th August 2002 00:56
------------------------------------------------------------------------
411A
"Ax to grind." I think not, to me it appears just a strong conviction that he is correct, and that safety may be compromised. As far as I am concerned, nothing at all wrong with that position, and even if he is wrong, at least attention is focused on other possibilities. Surely you do not have a problem with that too????
wes_wall
No indeed, no problem at all. But I just wondered, noticing that he is so adament...where is his vested interest?
Cast-off Boeing perhaps?
Or, just an interested party.
JBS>http://www.corazon.com/ejection.html
Read URL above and know motive. Tenacious little turkey? I shall take that as a compliment. Patent? On what? Perseverance? No. I have it but not a patent. Ax to grind? Yeah, I do, aviation safety. Prevent death. Stop airplane destruction.
I love it when you talk about me....Know this: I am trivial but my discovery is not. Cargo doors on Boeing 747s have a design weakness that is exploited by faulty wiring. How bad is it? Well, 329 dead for Air India Flight 182, 270 dead for Pan Am Flight 103, 9 dead for United Airlines Flight 811, 230 dead for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and 225 dead for China Airlines Flight 611. None dead for Pan Am 125 or UAL preflight when the door opened uncommanded.
Here’s the rub, no one in authority is willing to talk about it. And I know why. No one wants to hear unpleasant truths but will pay to hear pleasant lies.
I note that whenever someone questions me personally, such as ‘ax to grind’, Boeing cast off, etc, it is an effort to disparage me to make me or my opinions discredited. You type are the conspiracy guys, only interested in personalities and not interested in evidence. You think as politicians do. What is the best thing for you and then if said enough times it is supposed to come true.
Well, as pilot, navigator, mechanic, aircrewman, owner, bombardier, radar operator, plane captain, and refueler, I can say wishful thinking does not hack it in aviation, only reality matters and that changes all the time.
Reality is that photograph of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611 and it looks similar to other cargo doors of Boeing 747s that are important enough to be stored in hangars for 17 years, 13 years, 8 years, and now about a month for a new one. The cargo door is always at or near the scene of the first parts to leave five Boeing 747s that suffer an inflight breakup. And yes, Air India Flight 182 was not a bomb, and yes, Pan Am Flight 103 was not a bomb, and yes, Trans World Airlines Flight 800 had center tank fire/explosion but after the nose came off and bomb considered for 17 months, and yes United Airlines Flight 811 was said by the crew to the tower that a bomb had gone off in it and they were returning to land. No bombs on any of them but the explosion of explosive decompression that mimics a bomb explosion but isn’t.
And honest investigator would look at the shattered ruptured open cargo doors inflight and say, yes, that cargo door ruptured open in flight and the reason it did was B, or B, or FT, or M, or BR, or E: or Bomb, bomb, fuel tank, or missile, or bad repair, or electrical. Each proponent gets to say why they think their cause is just. Mine is the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation based upon the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for United Airlines Flight 811, the only incontrovertible ruptured cargo door event and that was electrical.
But the biased investigators never admit the obvious shattered door opened in flight because it leads to United Airlines Flight 811 and electrical so they match it to Pan Am Flight 103 for bomb, or Air India Flight 182 for bomb, or Trans World Airlines Flight 800 for fuel tank explosion or missile, and JAL 123 for bad repair but never United Airlines Flight 811.
For China Airlines Flight 611 it could have been a bad repair that caused the shattered aft cargo door. Or lots of other reasons. All my explanation has for support is reality, United Airlines Flight 811 and its large amount of evidence that matches China Airlines Flight 611.
By the way, another thought occurred to me this evening as I was reminded of my new humbleness at being corrected about basic things about the Boeing 747, was the APU on during the event times for China Airlines Flight 611, Air India Flight 182, United Airlines Flight 811, Pan Am Flight 103, Trans World Airlines Flight 800? Is there a way to tell by the FDR if the APU was on? I often see the APU contrail between the engine contrails as the 747s fly overhead.
This whole cargo door thing has been a humbling experience and also a learning one too. And who would have thought after all these years of pursuing the forward cargo door ruptures in flight for 747s, that the aft would pop too. Even if the cause is not electrical, that cargo door’s weaknesses should be exposed and fixed.
Suspicious of me and my motives, that’s funny. I’m the one with a real name and not anonymous. Ha! It is not important to me 'who' you are but 'what' you are thinking is. The ideas are what counts.
Well, the forum does make me think and that’s a step in the right direction for finding out why the aft cargo door looks like it does for China Airlines Flight 611.
Barry
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Members, Forgive any belligerence I may exhibit as I am not used to support and am spring loaded to the defensive position. I am therefore prone to over reaction. And thanks for kind words.
IASA is an independent aviation safety association and you might want to check out the below:
<http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...eryCI-611.html>http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...eryCI-611.html
<http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...-6111-asc4.jpg>http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...-6111-asc4.jpg = bulk cargo door
<http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...-6111-asc9.jpg>http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...-6111-asc9.jpg aft cargo door
IASA is an independent aviation safety association and you might want to check out the below:
<http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...eryCI-611.html>http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...eryCI-611.html
<http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...-6111-asc4.jpg>http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...-6111-asc4.jpg = bulk cargo door
<http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...-6111-asc9.jpg>http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safet...-6111-asc9.jpg aft cargo door
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, another thought occurred to me this evening as I was reminded of my new humbleness at being corrected about basic things about the Boeing 747, was the APU on during the event times for China Airlines Flight 611, Air India Flight 182, United Airlines Flight 811, Pan Am Flight 103, Trans World Airlines Flight 800? Is there a way to tell by the FDR if the APU was on? I often see the APU contrail between the engine contrails as the 747s fly overhead.
APU bleed air can be used during takoff and to a maximum altitude of 15,000ft . However in normal operational practice, the APU is switched off after engine start. If I were you, I would stick to your hobbyhorse of midspan latch failures, it's getting a bit embarrasing old chap.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As JBS wrote:
>> And yes, Air India Flight 182 was not a bomb, and yes, Pan Am Flight 103 was not a bomb, and yes, Trans World Airlines Flight 800 had center tank fire/explosion but after the nose came off and bomb considered for 17 months.<<
There are a small number of individuals who are convinced that the loss of these three particular hulls resulted from a sudden and massive structural failure. In the case of PanAm 103, the trial was a sham, the Libyans had nothing to do with it, the Malta suitcase is a red herring, and if there was a bomb, it was a small bomb placed by a seat at LHR, and there was an antecedent structural failure causing the bomb to explode prematurely.
In the case of Air India 182, there will be a trial in Canada next summer of several Sikhs who are charged with the bombing of Air India 182. Perhaps JBS is offering his expert services to the defendants' counsel to support an argument that there was no bomb, and the plane is the 'guilty' party, and not the Sikhs. I would hope he would do so, both to stand up for his conclusions and convictions, and thereby prevent a miscarriage of justice.
In the case of TW 800, the argument, nay, conclusion, is that there was a massive and catastrophic structural rupture of the hull which then lead to the ensuing mid-tank explosion. For all three flights, JBS faults the civil authorities for not assessing whether there was a latch failure of the forward cargo door (recovered as he notes for PA 103 and TW 800). The hoist broke as the Canadians were lifting that section of Air India fuselage containing the forward cargo door, and it fell back to a depth of 6-7000 feet. JBS seems to believe that further effort should have been made at recovery of that piece.
It seems to me that one's analyses gain credence if they are not seen through the prism of a priori convictions, in which facts and circumstances are selectively sifted and those not fitting the conviction are discarded. As JBS was in army military intelligence, perhaps he has read the story of how a few photographs of SS panzer division tanks were shown to General Browning just before Market Garden, and Browning dismissed them. He did so perhaps because they did not fit with the strategic and tactical planning that postulated the British airborne would not encounter much in the way of German resistance landing near Arnhem. Let the evidence and facts drive the conclusion, and not the other way round.
>> And yes, Air India Flight 182 was not a bomb, and yes, Pan Am Flight 103 was not a bomb, and yes, Trans World Airlines Flight 800 had center tank fire/explosion but after the nose came off and bomb considered for 17 months.<<
There are a small number of individuals who are convinced that the loss of these three particular hulls resulted from a sudden and massive structural failure. In the case of PanAm 103, the trial was a sham, the Libyans had nothing to do with it, the Malta suitcase is a red herring, and if there was a bomb, it was a small bomb placed by a seat at LHR, and there was an antecedent structural failure causing the bomb to explode prematurely.
In the case of Air India 182, there will be a trial in Canada next summer of several Sikhs who are charged with the bombing of Air India 182. Perhaps JBS is offering his expert services to the defendants' counsel to support an argument that there was no bomb, and the plane is the 'guilty' party, and not the Sikhs. I would hope he would do so, both to stand up for his conclusions and convictions, and thereby prevent a miscarriage of justice.
In the case of TW 800, the argument, nay, conclusion, is that there was a massive and catastrophic structural rupture of the hull which then lead to the ensuing mid-tank explosion. For all three flights, JBS faults the civil authorities for not assessing whether there was a latch failure of the forward cargo door (recovered as he notes for PA 103 and TW 800). The hoist broke as the Canadians were lifting that section of Air India fuselage containing the forward cargo door, and it fell back to a depth of 6-7000 feet. JBS seems to believe that further effort should have been made at recovery of that piece.
It seems to me that one's analyses gain credence if they are not seen through the prism of a priori convictions, in which facts and circumstances are selectively sifted and those not fitting the conviction are discarded. As JBS was in army military intelligence, perhaps he has read the story of how a few photographs of SS panzer division tanks were shown to General Browning just before Market Garden, and Browning dismissed them. He did so perhaps because they did not fit with the strategic and tactical planning that postulated the British airborne would not encounter much in the way of German resistance landing near Arnhem. Let the evidence and facts drive the conclusion, and not the other way round.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SaturnV …….. few photographs of SS panzer division tanks were shown to General Browning just before Market Garden, and Browning dismissed them. ………….
======== Quote =========
………. But Browning, when [the 25 year old intelligence officer] showed him the photographs of the tanks [near the drop and landing zones of the 1st Airborne Division], played down the evidence and arranged for the intelligence officer to be sent on sick leave on the grounds of nervous exhaustion.”. …….. “In no way an emotional individual, in post-war years he [the intelligence officer] established a high reputation in a very senior post in the United Nations.” …….
===== End of Quote ======
One of the tasks of leadership is the keep the show (whether military or commercial) on the road. The means of doing that are sometimes somewhat underhand. Sometimes they are later considered to be “justified”, sometimes not.
In the case of Market Garden, 1 in 7 died (1,400 in 10,000). Amongst 747 passengers, the 1.063 deaths JBS quotes amounts to something like 1 in about 1,300,000 souls on board, (1063 in about 1,500,000,000 S.O.B., I’m guessing). In comparison, the chances of being killed in a road accident in the USA in a single year are more than 200 times higher (about 1 in 6,250). Maybe we should be agitating about that too. But not here.
Last edited by PickyPerkins; 8th Aug 2002 at 17:52.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HotDog>Well Barry, here is another 747 lesson for you:
JBS> Standing by, Sir!
HotDog>APU bleed air can be used during takoff and to a maximum altitude of 15,000ft. However in normal operational practice, the APU is switched off after engine start.
JBS>Thanks for information. In normal operating practice a cargo door does not open in flight and suck nine passengers out at 22000 feet to zero. Anyway, I have seen several times in the last few months the middle contrail of Boeing 747s that has to be the APU on. The planes are above 15000 feet and are arriving from Japan going to LA. I live under the flightpath 300 NM from LA. I also see the flash of evening sunlight glint of the engines and fuselage that is the source of the ‘Streak’ for Trans World Airlines Flight 800.
HotDog>If I were you, I would stick to your hobbyhorse of midspan latch failures, it's getting a bit embarrassing old chap.
JBS>I love it when you talk about me, old chap...but how irrelevant. The reason the question was asked was how to explain how power got to the door unlatch motor in flight. NTSB has a fine time of it in NTSB AAR 92/02.
SaturnV> Let the evidence and facts drive the conclusion, and not the other way round.
JBS>First you have to look at it and I note the comments about the other accidents reveal a lack of knowledge of the evidence and facts but a good knowledge of the conspiracy wonderful stories about the accident. (Not from SaturnV who talks evidence and history, like me.)
‘Let the evidence and facts drive the conclusion, and not the other way round’....and they are available for review at corazon.com in the Smith AAR and appendices for all three of the controversial accidents..
If were to talk facts here, as I have often, I would be accused of being tenacious, or on a hobbyhorse or whatever. So be it.
Again I look at the upside down world of 2002 where myth and superstition rule and conspiracy theories are used to deflect responsibility for airplane crashes whilst an explanation with precedent, is mechanical, has happened several times, and is offered as repeating, but is considered nutty and it’s discoverer worse.
I have photographs and wreckage reconstruction which shows twisted metal and fodded engines with breakdown analysis for evidence which is rejected while overhead conversations in late night bars by drunks are given full credence.
I can tell the conspiracy guys from the science guys. Maybe some day the science guys will rule, until then, it’s suicidal Egyptian pilot, Libyan terrorists, Sikh terrorist, Unknown terrorist with missile, a sloppy ground crew, and now with China Airlines Flight 611, trying to make China Airlines into a poor repair facility, but never never, known faulty Poly X wiring exploiting a known design weakness of a nonplug cargo door with inadequate latches and locking sectors. (NTSB excoriates FAA, Boeing and United Airlines over the United Airlines Flight 811 fiasco of ADs and implementation times in NTSB AAR 92/02 written in 1990 only after the two halves of the door were retrieved from the ocean floor and the previous AAR which said the door was improperly latched but was found to be properly latched.)
Conspiracy thinking rules! Foreigners are trying to kill us! Bombers are everywhere!
Hysteria and panic are in the air. The passengers are afraid of drunken or suicidal pilots or each other, the crew is afraid of the passengers as air rage candidates of killers in disguise, the ground personnel see terrorists everywhere as they screen the people. Lawsuits appear daily about every aspect of aviation travel.
It’s all very very sad to this aviation lover.
However, hope survives by this forum which is stimulating and has led to further deductions about China Airlines Flight 611.
For instance, the pressure relief doors are not ‘overpressure’ activated but mechanically linked to the torque tubes which turn to unlatch the latches when the door is opened intentionally. Both pressure relief doors are missing from China Airlines Flight 611 while the outline of where they used to be is seen. In addition the midspan latches are missing also. That is evidence right there that the door attempted to unlatch itself inflight with the pressure relief doors turning and bursting open, the midspan with no locking sectors turning and bursting open and the bottom eight latches with strengthened locking sectors after AD 88 12 04 holding tight and staying latched and locked. But, too late, the middle has ruptured open and the balloon popped starting the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation sequence for China Airlines Flight 611.
Barry
JBS> Standing by, Sir!
HotDog>APU bleed air can be used during takoff and to a maximum altitude of 15,000ft. However in normal operational practice, the APU is switched off after engine start.
JBS>Thanks for information. In normal operating practice a cargo door does not open in flight and suck nine passengers out at 22000 feet to zero. Anyway, I have seen several times in the last few months the middle contrail of Boeing 747s that has to be the APU on. The planes are above 15000 feet and are arriving from Japan going to LA. I live under the flightpath 300 NM from LA. I also see the flash of evening sunlight glint of the engines and fuselage that is the source of the ‘Streak’ for Trans World Airlines Flight 800.
HotDog>If I were you, I would stick to your hobbyhorse of midspan latch failures, it's getting a bit embarrassing old chap.
JBS>I love it when you talk about me, old chap...but how irrelevant. The reason the question was asked was how to explain how power got to the door unlatch motor in flight. NTSB has a fine time of it in NTSB AAR 92/02.
SaturnV> Let the evidence and facts drive the conclusion, and not the other way round.
JBS>First you have to look at it and I note the comments about the other accidents reveal a lack of knowledge of the evidence and facts but a good knowledge of the conspiracy wonderful stories about the accident. (Not from SaturnV who talks evidence and history, like me.)
‘Let the evidence and facts drive the conclusion, and not the other way round’....and they are available for review at corazon.com in the Smith AAR and appendices for all three of the controversial accidents..
If were to talk facts here, as I have often, I would be accused of being tenacious, or on a hobbyhorse or whatever. So be it.
Again I look at the upside down world of 2002 where myth and superstition rule and conspiracy theories are used to deflect responsibility for airplane crashes whilst an explanation with precedent, is mechanical, has happened several times, and is offered as repeating, but is considered nutty and it’s discoverer worse.
I have photographs and wreckage reconstruction which shows twisted metal and fodded engines with breakdown analysis for evidence which is rejected while overhead conversations in late night bars by drunks are given full credence.
I can tell the conspiracy guys from the science guys. Maybe some day the science guys will rule, until then, it’s suicidal Egyptian pilot, Libyan terrorists, Sikh terrorist, Unknown terrorist with missile, a sloppy ground crew, and now with China Airlines Flight 611, trying to make China Airlines into a poor repair facility, but never never, known faulty Poly X wiring exploiting a known design weakness of a nonplug cargo door with inadequate latches and locking sectors. (NTSB excoriates FAA, Boeing and United Airlines over the United Airlines Flight 811 fiasco of ADs and implementation times in NTSB AAR 92/02 written in 1990 only after the two halves of the door were retrieved from the ocean floor and the previous AAR which said the door was improperly latched but was found to be properly latched.)
Conspiracy thinking rules! Foreigners are trying to kill us! Bombers are everywhere!
Hysteria and panic are in the air. The passengers are afraid of drunken or suicidal pilots or each other, the crew is afraid of the passengers as air rage candidates of killers in disguise, the ground personnel see terrorists everywhere as they screen the people. Lawsuits appear daily about every aspect of aviation travel.
It’s all very very sad to this aviation lover.
However, hope survives by this forum which is stimulating and has led to further deductions about China Airlines Flight 611.
For instance, the pressure relief doors are not ‘overpressure’ activated but mechanically linked to the torque tubes which turn to unlatch the latches when the door is opened intentionally. Both pressure relief doors are missing from China Airlines Flight 611 while the outline of where they used to be is seen. In addition the midspan latches are missing also. That is evidence right there that the door attempted to unlatch itself inflight with the pressure relief doors turning and bursting open, the midspan with no locking sectors turning and bursting open and the bottom eight latches with strengthened locking sectors after AD 88 12 04 holding tight and staying latched and locked. But, too late, the middle has ruptured open and the balloon popped starting the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation sequence for China Airlines Flight 611.
Barry
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: london
Age: 53
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry
A few Real facts about Cargo Doors!
The Pressure relief doors are not 'overpressure' but are in fact Negative Pressure Relief Doors, (they are sprung loaded plug doors). They can operate indepently of the torque tube but only if the external atmospheric pressure is greater than the internal fuselage pressure.The Door then opens inwards.
The Doors are attached to a Torque Tube which is 'operated' by the External Master Lock Handle, and which in turn is connected to the Lower Latch lock torque tube - NOT the Midspan latch torque tubes (2 of)
There are no electrical components in this part of the system except for the microswitch that gives door warning & sequences power to the latch actuators ie any electrical fault here would not drive the doors open. The mechanical Master Lock handle would have to be operated before the microswitch is made.
If the External Master lock Handle is in, the doors are closed (1/2 inch gap if the aircraft is on the ground & un-pressurised) & Electrical Power to the door is disabled.
The Eletrical power for the cargo doors comes from the Ground Handling Bus, which in turn is controlled by an Air / Ground switch on the Undercarriage. As soon as the Aircraft takes off, all Electrical power to the cargo doors is disabled, (regardless of Handle/Latch position)
If the external handle is left out (pressure doors open)and the aircraft takes off, the position of the pressure doors makes it impossible for the aircraft to pressurise.
Also i thought United was caused by fatigue cracking of the section 41 fuselage frames, not by Cargo Door wiring, If it was then very crafty of Boeing to make all 747 classic operators replace all the forward fuselage frames instead of re-wire the cargo doors! Thats what you call a cover up!
A few Real facts about Cargo Doors!
The Pressure relief doors are not 'overpressure' but are in fact Negative Pressure Relief Doors, (they are sprung loaded plug doors). They can operate indepently of the torque tube but only if the external atmospheric pressure is greater than the internal fuselage pressure.The Door then opens inwards.
The Doors are attached to a Torque Tube which is 'operated' by the External Master Lock Handle, and which in turn is connected to the Lower Latch lock torque tube - NOT the Midspan latch torque tubes (2 of)
There are no electrical components in this part of the system except for the microswitch that gives door warning & sequences power to the latch actuators ie any electrical fault here would not drive the doors open. The mechanical Master Lock handle would have to be operated before the microswitch is made.
If the External Master lock Handle is in, the doors are closed (1/2 inch gap if the aircraft is on the ground & un-pressurised) & Electrical Power to the door is disabled.
The Eletrical power for the cargo doors comes from the Ground Handling Bus, which in turn is controlled by an Air / Ground switch on the Undercarriage. As soon as the Aircraft takes off, all Electrical power to the cargo doors is disabled, (regardless of Handle/Latch position)
If the external handle is left out (pressure doors open)and the aircraft takes off, the position of the pressure doors makes it impossible for the aircraft to pressurise.
Also i thought United was caused by fatigue cracking of the section 41 fuselage frames, not by Cargo Door wiring, If it was then very crafty of Boeing to make all 747 classic operators replace all the forward fuselage frames instead of re-wire the cargo doors! Thats what you call a cover up!
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry, believe me. The APU is not operated ever above 15,000ft. This is a placarded limitation dictated by the manufacturer. For what reason would you want to operate the APU in cruise, just to burn off more fuel?
Chemtrails? 
Anyway, I have seen several times in the last few months the middle contrail of Boeing 747s that has to be the APU on.