China Airlines B747 Crash (Merged)
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)
For what reason would you want to operate the APU in cruise, just to burn off more fuel?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China Airlines B747 Crash
I suspect that the APU has been left on on many occasions as I too have seen the fifth contrail. It might be a limitation not to supply bleed air in flight above 15,000 ft but that doesn't stop the APU operating above this altitude.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trash Hauler, the APU is designed to provide electrics and pneumatics for ground operation. Electric supply, prior to engine driven generators being available. Pneumatic supply for airconditioning on the ground and for engine start. After start checklist action switches the Apu off. The only occasion you would keep the APU running after engine start, would be on a very hot day to enable the A/C packs to operate during takeoff when an engine no bleed (packs off) performance is called for. Apu is then switched off when climb thrust is set. APU generators can not be used in flight and the manufacturers limitation calls for APU off by 20,000ft. The fifth contrail you might see under certain atmospheric conditions is the warm cabin air from the outflow valves which are situated on the bottom of the aft fuselage section 46, just forward of doors 5. Donations for lecture gratefully accepted.
c.c.JBS
c.c.JBS
Fifth "Contrail"
The fifth "contrail" can sometimes be seen in non-contrail conditions.
Waste water from the wash basin and galley sinks vapourising from the fuselage drain masts?
Waste water from the wash basin and galley sinks vapourising from the fuselage drain masts?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD>The fifth contrail you might see under certain atmospheric conditions is the warm cabin air from the outflow valves which are situated on the bottom of the aft fuselage section 46, just forward of doors 5.
JBS>Hmmmm.....makes sense to me. Now that is really learning something. I'm going to take a picture if I get a chance next time I see the five contrails. Looking closely the middle contrail is not as pointed as the others; it is more diffuse. Are there two outflow valves bilaterally?
Love the chemtrail paranoia...connecting the dots and always creating outside controlling forces.
Last thoughts: the Pan Am Flight 103 photo of the forward cargo door has never been made public before, the AAIB report has two photos of the port side forward of the wing but none of the starboard cargo door side. It matches United Airlines Flight 811 in many ways with peeled back skin from the aft midspan latch.
There have been no photos ever released of the Air India Flight 182 forward cargo door area although the pictures exist in high quality 35 MM film and the forward cargo compartment is supposed to have held the 'bomb'.. I predict if those photos are made public at the trial, the forward cargo door of Air India Flight 182 will match that of China Airlines Flight 611 and others.
When and if the bottom part of the China Airlines Flight 611 aft cargo door is retrieved, I predict it will look like the bottom half of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and others.
Hold me to this prediction. 8 Aug 02
Barry
JBS>Hmmmm.....makes sense to me. Now that is really learning something. I'm going to take a picture if I get a chance next time I see the five contrails. Looking closely the middle contrail is not as pointed as the others; it is more diffuse. Are there two outflow valves bilaterally?
Love the chemtrail paranoia...connecting the dots and always creating outside controlling forces.
Last thoughts: the Pan Am Flight 103 photo of the forward cargo door has never been made public before, the AAIB report has two photos of the port side forward of the wing but none of the starboard cargo door side. It matches United Airlines Flight 811 in many ways with peeled back skin from the aft midspan latch.
There have been no photos ever released of the Air India Flight 182 forward cargo door area although the pictures exist in high quality 35 MM film and the forward cargo compartment is supposed to have held the 'bomb'.. I predict if those photos are made public at the trial, the forward cargo door of Air India Flight 182 will match that of China Airlines Flight 611 and others.
When and if the bottom part of the China Airlines Flight 611 aft cargo door is retrieved, I predict it will look like the bottom half of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and others.
Hold me to this prediction. 8 Aug 02
Barry
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct Barry, the two outflow valves are side by side.
You haven't made comment on Mechanical Man's post on the pressure relief door mechanism? He is absolutely correct you know and if you have a look at your website Figure 4- Boeing lower lobe forwrd cargo door schematic, you will see the mechanical linkage of the pressure relief door torque tube which rotates around the midspan latch torque tube.
You haven't made comment on Mechanical Man's post on the pressure relief door mechanism? He is absolutely correct you know and if you have a look at your website Figure 4- Boeing lower lobe forwrd cargo door schematic, you will see the mechanical linkage of the pressure relief door torque tube which rotates around the midspan latch torque tube.
From Air Transport World
Fatigue cracks found on crashed China Airlines 747
Dateline: Friday August 09, 2002
It has become clear that fatigue cracks up to 9 in. long in the rear fuselage, where a repair was done in 1980, were the cause of the disintegration of China Airlines Flight 611 on May 25, which killed all 225 onboard.
According to Taiwan Aviation Safety Council MD Kay Yong, the pieces of wreckage with the fatigue cracks were from Section 46. Of particular interest is a repair of damage caused by a tail strike in 1980. On the skin just adjacent to a skin doubler is a 40-in. section that has fracture cracks indicating metal fatigue, with the longest measuring 9 in. and another 6 in.
Another area of concern is cracks caused by fatigue in three places on stringers around the No. 5 left exit door of the 747-200. The repair doubler there was made of stainless steel, not aluminum as required.
Discovery of these cracks and repairs appears to support the assertion by Thai Orient Airlines, first revealed by ATWOnline just after the crash, that it had rejected the 747, which was set to be delivered after its last flight (ATWOnline, May 30). However, China Airlines denied at the time that Thai Orient had rejected the airplane.
Fatigue cracks found on crashed China Airlines 747
Dateline: Friday August 09, 2002
It has become clear that fatigue cracks up to 9 in. long in the rear fuselage, where a repair was done in 1980, were the cause of the disintegration of China Airlines Flight 611 on May 25, which killed all 225 onboard.
According to Taiwan Aviation Safety Council MD Kay Yong, the pieces of wreckage with the fatigue cracks were from Section 46. Of particular interest is a repair of damage caused by a tail strike in 1980. On the skin just adjacent to a skin doubler is a 40-in. section that has fracture cracks indicating metal fatigue, with the longest measuring 9 in. and another 6 in.
Another area of concern is cracks caused by fatigue in three places on stringers around the No. 5 left exit door of the 747-200. The repair doubler there was made of stainless steel, not aluminum as required.
Discovery of these cracks and repairs appears to support the assertion by Thai Orient Airlines, first revealed by ATWOnline just after the crash, that it had rejected the 747, which was set to be delivered after its last flight (ATWOnline, May 30). However, China Airlines denied at the time that Thai Orient had rejected the airplane.
If Thai Orient wouldn't touch it , what was it doing in the air!!
Saw a Thai Orient 200 on the ramp at Incheon the other day..my dad looks in better nick!!
HD is right ...the fifth contrail is only p*ss and hot air!!...but hey, so are a lot of other things one sees and reads.
HD ..keep up the charity work... you are wasted in retirement.
Saw a Thai Orient 200 on the ramp at Incheon the other day..my dad looks in better nick!!
HD is right ...the fifth contrail is only p*ss and hot air!!...but hey, so are a lot of other things one sees and reads.
HD ..keep up the charity work... you are wasted in retirement.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USofA
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotdog, JBS and others. Keep it coming lads. Never has learning been so much fun.
My only sadness: that the official accident report will 'close the book.'
My biggest happiness: that the thread will continue on, regardless.
Tenacious turkeys everywhere, I salute you.
My only sadness: that the official accident report will 'close the book.'
My biggest happiness: that the thread will continue on, regardless.
Tenacious turkeys everywhere, I salute you.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>You haven't made comment on Mechanical Man's post on the pressure relief door mechanism? He is absolutely correct you know and if you have a look at your website Figure 4- Boeing lower lobe forwrd cargo door schematic, you will see the mechanical linkage of the pressure relief door torque tube which rotates around the midspan latch torque tube.
JBS>The point about the pressure relief doors is that they don’t blow out when overpressure occurs. They are not designed to blow out for safety in flight or other reasons. They are there to relieve inside pressure when opening the door on the ground so that it does not pop suddenly and injure the ground crew.
And yet the pressure relief doors jam open, are missing, and shattered for five cargo doors on Boeing 747s. That’s ten pressure relief doors in five cargo doors that are found in the wreckage. One would think those small doors would remain in place in some of the large cargo doors.
The pressure relief doors are supposed to open with mechanical linkage when the door is attempting to open. That is supposed to be on the ground but if in the air, one can see that big door fracturing at the midspan latches and the little doors in the door blowing out, jamming, or remain missing, as the evidence shows, as the torque tubes turn. As the midspan latches are the first to rupture open and those latch torque tubes are connected to the pressure relief door torque tubes, there is a non coincidental connection there.
To say the ground handling bus can not supply power to the cargo door is to say when normal things happen we land safely. NTSB refused to blame electrical for United Airlines Flight 811 but instead accused an incompetent ground crew for improperly latching the door.
But, after non expert civilian’s family victims got the Navy and NTSB to retrieve the door pieces over a year later, it was properly latched and the electrical explanation came into play after frayed wires were found. NTSB now accuses switch S2 and/or faulty wiring for getting power to that cargo door to cause it to inadvertently open in flight.
Note that so far, I have not read that the doubler failed, just cracks emanating from it. Would not that stainless steel doubler be shattered and broken if it had failed? Isn't stainless steel stronger than aluminum? If cracks around the doubler failed then the failure was in fuselage with the doubler possibly aiding in that failure.
The cargo door is shattered and broken and has cracks from it also, as ASC states, and yet? Little suspicion. One newspaper article and two aviation magazines and all three point to the ‘poor’ repair by China Airlines on a plane of theirs. Boeing is exonerated, it’s not their fault, sighs of relief all around....except for those who see the match of the actual broken metal that matches other broken metal in planes that had no repair doublers.
Where is Firehorse to give descriptions of wreckage? Where is the press asking for clarification for the conflicting stories about the parts of the aft cargo door that are or were not found or were locked or not locked?
It makes more sense to me that the aft cargo door failed for the same reason it failed for United Airlines Flight 811 since they are identical in function, and then the fuselage cracked around a repair doubler...and less sense for cracks around a repair doubler to fail the integrity of the hull leading to an aft cargo door shattering which matches other cargo door shattering with no repair doublers present.
Need more evidence, as usual.
Barry
JBS>The point about the pressure relief doors is that they don’t blow out when overpressure occurs. They are not designed to blow out for safety in flight or other reasons. They are there to relieve inside pressure when opening the door on the ground so that it does not pop suddenly and injure the ground crew.
And yet the pressure relief doors jam open, are missing, and shattered for five cargo doors on Boeing 747s. That’s ten pressure relief doors in five cargo doors that are found in the wreckage. One would think those small doors would remain in place in some of the large cargo doors.
The pressure relief doors are supposed to open with mechanical linkage when the door is attempting to open. That is supposed to be on the ground but if in the air, one can see that big door fracturing at the midspan latches and the little doors in the door blowing out, jamming, or remain missing, as the evidence shows, as the torque tubes turn. As the midspan latches are the first to rupture open and those latch torque tubes are connected to the pressure relief door torque tubes, there is a non coincidental connection there.
To say the ground handling bus can not supply power to the cargo door is to say when normal things happen we land safely. NTSB refused to blame electrical for United Airlines Flight 811 but instead accused an incompetent ground crew for improperly latching the door.
But, after non expert civilian’s family victims got the Navy and NTSB to retrieve the door pieces over a year later, it was properly latched and the electrical explanation came into play after frayed wires were found. NTSB now accuses switch S2 and/or faulty wiring for getting power to that cargo door to cause it to inadvertently open in flight.
Note that so far, I have not read that the doubler failed, just cracks emanating from it. Would not that stainless steel doubler be shattered and broken if it had failed? Isn't stainless steel stronger than aluminum? If cracks around the doubler failed then the failure was in fuselage with the doubler possibly aiding in that failure.
The cargo door is shattered and broken and has cracks from it also, as ASC states, and yet? Little suspicion. One newspaper article and two aviation magazines and all three point to the ‘poor’ repair by China Airlines on a plane of theirs. Boeing is exonerated, it’s not their fault, sighs of relief all around....except for those who see the match of the actual broken metal that matches other broken metal in planes that had no repair doublers.
Where is Firehorse to give descriptions of wreckage? Where is the press asking for clarification for the conflicting stories about the parts of the aft cargo door that are or were not found or were locked or not locked?
It makes more sense to me that the aft cargo door failed for the same reason it failed for United Airlines Flight 811 since they are identical in function, and then the fuselage cracked around a repair doubler...and less sense for cracks around a repair doubler to fail the integrity of the hull leading to an aft cargo door shattering which matches other cargo door shattering with no repair doublers present.
Need more evidence, as usual.
Barry
> It makes more sense to me that the aft cargo door failed for the same reason it failed for United Airlines Flight 811 since they are identical in function, and then the fuselage cracked around a repair doubler...and less sense for cracks around a repair doubler to fail the integrity of the hull leading to an aft cargo door shattering which matches other cargo door shattering with no repair doublers present.
<
Clarity at it's finest.
You should write the final accident reports, nobody would ever accuse you of being wrong with such articulate language.
<
Clarity at it's finest.
You should write the final accident reports, nobody would ever accuse you of being wrong with such articulate language.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: london
Age: 53
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry,
I repeat what i said before, the Torque tube for the pressure relief doors is NOT connected to the Midspan latch torque tubes.
The pressure relief doors are part of the manual Latch lock system (non electrical), that prevents the latchs turning. This is connected to the lower Latchs, NOT the midspan latches,
The Midspan latches are connected to two torque tubes (1 each side) which connect to the same torque tube that is connected to the latch actuator - This operates ALL latches Midspan & Lower.
There is probably some confusion here, there are two torque systems in the cargo doors,
1) The Latches, electrical driven by the latch actuator, ALL latches are driven at the same time by interconnected torque tubes , hence impossible for Midspan latches to turn on there own as they are connected to the lower latches and use the same actuator.
2) The Latch Lock system, Manually operated by the External Master Lock Handle, connected by Torque Tubes to the pressure relief doors and to locks that close around the lower latches (after they are fully closed) to prevent them from turning. (no electrics in this system apart from microswitch for door indication & sequencing) There is NO connection between the pressure relief doors and the midspan latches.
For the Midspan latches to turn & open, the lower latches would have to turn & open, This would require that the Manual system had been operated first by opening the external handle.
If the external handle had been left open before flight then the aircraft could not be pressurised due to the position of the pressure relief doors.
Also the pressure relief doors are small plug doors, attached by a spring hinge at the lower edge. The spring hinge is not very substanial as the door air loads are internal, the doors being held in by the positive pressure of the aircraft, If the Aircraft depressurised (for any reason not just door failure) then the doors could open inwards and the 600 mph + airspeed would probably cause them to break off. (as would complete fuselage breakup) The fact they are missing is probably due to whatever happened not the cause.
It has been a policy in many Airlines that the Ground Engineer / Flightcrew close the cargo doors and verify the latches are manually locked (Painted alignment stripes visible through view ports). This was due to the fact that it was possible to force the manual lock handle closed when the latches had not fully rotated, thus breaking the latch locks, the door would appear closed and the handle stowed. This was what was suspected with United, since then the system was altered, the view ports where added and the closing procedure passed to the Groundcrew, Not loaders. (the Handle cannot be forced closed now if the latches are unlocked)
Also if the Air /Ground switch had failed, there would be a lot of Relay Clicking, warning horns etc which would show up on the CVR & FDR (none) With the Switch in Air Mode - Gear off the ground, NO power available to Ground Handling Bus and therefore NO power to the cargo doors.
Hope all this helps
I repeat what i said before, the Torque tube for the pressure relief doors is NOT connected to the Midspan latch torque tubes.
The pressure relief doors are part of the manual Latch lock system (non electrical), that prevents the latchs turning. This is connected to the lower Latchs, NOT the midspan latches,
The Midspan latches are connected to two torque tubes (1 each side) which connect to the same torque tube that is connected to the latch actuator - This operates ALL latches Midspan & Lower.
There is probably some confusion here, there are two torque systems in the cargo doors,
1) The Latches, electrical driven by the latch actuator, ALL latches are driven at the same time by interconnected torque tubes , hence impossible for Midspan latches to turn on there own as they are connected to the lower latches and use the same actuator.
2) The Latch Lock system, Manually operated by the External Master Lock Handle, connected by Torque Tubes to the pressure relief doors and to locks that close around the lower latches (after they are fully closed) to prevent them from turning. (no electrics in this system apart from microswitch for door indication & sequencing) There is NO connection between the pressure relief doors and the midspan latches.
For the Midspan latches to turn & open, the lower latches would have to turn & open, This would require that the Manual system had been operated first by opening the external handle.
If the external handle had been left open before flight then the aircraft could not be pressurised due to the position of the pressure relief doors.
Also the pressure relief doors are small plug doors, attached by a spring hinge at the lower edge. The spring hinge is not very substanial as the door air loads are internal, the doors being held in by the positive pressure of the aircraft, If the Aircraft depressurised (for any reason not just door failure) then the doors could open inwards and the 600 mph + airspeed would probably cause them to break off. (as would complete fuselage breakup) The fact they are missing is probably due to whatever happened not the cause.
It has been a policy in many Airlines that the Ground Engineer / Flightcrew close the cargo doors and verify the latches are manually locked (Painted alignment stripes visible through view ports). This was due to the fact that it was possible to force the manual lock handle closed when the latches had not fully rotated, thus breaking the latch locks, the door would appear closed and the handle stowed. This was what was suspected with United, since then the system was altered, the view ports where added and the closing procedure passed to the Groundcrew, Not loaders. (the Handle cannot be forced closed now if the latches are unlocked)
Also if the Air /Ground switch had failed, there would be a lot of Relay Clicking, warning horns etc which would show up on the CVR & FDR (none) With the Switch in Air Mode - Gear off the ground, NO power available to Ground Handling Bus and therefore NO power to the cargo doors.
Hope all this helps
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Barry, I give up. It is obvious that no amount of sense will ever shake your convictions and theories about the 747 cargo doors and correcting your mistakes and misconceptions about aircraft systems, is a complete waste of time. As I really don't want to shatter your dreams, I bow out. Have a good day Major.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
posted 9th August 2002 20:32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JBS> It makes more sense to me that the aft cargo door failed for the same reason it failed for United Airlines Flight 811 since they are identical in function, and then the fuselage cracked around a repair doubler...and less sense for cracks around a repair doubler to fail the integrity of the hull leading to an aft cargo door shattering which matches other cargo door shattering with no repair doublers present.
LMP>Clarity at it's finest. You should write the final accident reports, nobody would ever accuse you of being wrong with such articulate language.
JBS>Thank you for being polite, not. This is a forum, not a chat room. Or is it? If you have trouble reading the logic, then don’t blame it on the writer but try to figure it out or ask for clarification. The sentence was long and and had independent clauses, I agree. Let me break it up and feed just a little at at time:
More sense: Door ruptured then fuselage cracked.
Less sense: Fuselage cracked then door ruptured.
Why, because of explanations embedded in sentence: The evidence shows a precedent with a match for the more sense explanation and not for the less sense.
Precedents provide solid reasoning steps.
posted 9th August 2002 22:29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM>Also if the Air /Ground switch had failed, there would be a lot of Relay Clicking, warning horns etc which would show up on the CVR & FDR (none) With the Switch in Air Mode - Gear off the ground, NO power available to Ground Handling Bus and therefore NO power to the cargo doors.
Thank you for you description of the pressure relief doors. My essential point is there is mechanical linkage between all the latches and locking sectors via torque tubes. If one moves, they all move or try to move when told to. I understand that the pressure relief doors are not connected mechanically to the midspan latches. The gap is jumped by the midspan latches connected to the lower eight by torque tubes and the lower eight latches are ‘connected’ “protected” by the eight locking sectors controlled by the master lock handle which also opens and connected to the pressure relief doors.
If the bottom eight latches were latched and the locking sectors were in place, and pressure relief doors closed, the master lock handle would lock and stow.....independent of the status of the midspan latches. They could be missing. The assumption is if the bottom eight are latched then the midspan are latched because they are connected by torque tubes. Wrong assumption. The midspans could be gone, bent, open, yet door would close, bottom eight latched around their pins, bottom locking sectors in place, pressure doors closed, and external master lock handle locked and stowed. Everything looks normal but isn't.
Likewise, the handle can be stowed, bottom locking sectors in place, bottom eight latch cams around their pins, pressure relief doors closed, and the midspan can get a signal to open and succeed because of no locking sectors while the bottom eight stay latched and handle stowed correctly.
For PA 125 and United Airlines Flight 811 the sequence happened above but the bottom eight latches overrode the eight weak locking sectors and thus all latches unlatched, not just the midspan. They unlatched because electrical power got to the door unlatch motor, and it was not supposed to.
I know the cargo door is not supposed to get power and really really appreciate you using capitals above telling me ‘..therefore NO power to the cargo doors.’ I might have missed the emphasis.
You choose to ignore United Airlines Flight 811 in which sadly enough, YES, power got to the cargo door. NTSB tells you how in AAR 92/02. Now that explanation is difficult to understand. Try to figure that one out and that’s written by experts. It’s an easy download at corazon.com.
I’ve heard over and over again how it is impossible for electrical power to get to the cargo doors inflight and over and over again, the speaker refuses to admit to United Airlines Flight 811 or says, It’s fixed and can never happen again which is said after every AD on that door and there are lots of ADs.
I know that when the motor turns on and it’s not supposed to, the latches all turn, and they are not supposed to, and the bottom eight latches do not turn much because they have locking sectors to keep the cam from turning around the latch pin, and the aft and forward midspan latches try to open and do since they have no locking sectors, and the door ruptures in the middle of the door, as it is not supposed to...but did officially with United Airlines Flight 811 and PA 125, and did by me for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and now it’s looking like the aft cargo door did the same thing for China Airlines Flight 611.
And it was not supposed to. But it did. I feel like asking you in exasperation (but will not because it’s silly) to yell at the nine passengers who were sucked out at 23000 feet and are flailing away and you yell, ‘impossible to get electrical power to the cargo doors, it must have been something else.’ And yet, as NTSB AAR 92/02 describes, power did get to the forward cargo door and the latches did unlatch and much of the evidence which followed that action has produced a piece of the door which matches China Airlines Flight 611 in addition to the match of the sudden sound on the CVR and quick power cut to the FDR, a very rare event and difficult thing to do to a Boeing 747 in flight.
By the way, the cargo door is an arch which is a very strong structure...if pressure is applied at the top of the arch down. But it is very weak when the pressure is applied inside the top of the arch up/out. In a sense the cargo door is curved into a slightly open position already, it’s not flat. That’s another reason why the ruptures are always in the middle of the door and not the top or bottom.
So, I am learning the mechanical and electrical details on cargo doors on Boeing 747s in the normal mode. Very interesting and I thank you for the time and effort to put it down on screen It’s work to express ourselves via writing. There are a lot of very sharp fellows in this forum.
Too bad the cargo doors are not plug type, most of these safety features would not be necessary.
HD>posted 10th August 2002 01:51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Barry, I give up.
JBS> Quite all right, I understand.
HD>It is obvious that no amount of sense will ever shake your convictions and theories about the 747 cargo doors and correcting your mistakes and misconceptions about aircraft systems, is a complete waste of time. As I really don't want to shatter your dreams, I bow out.
JBS>Good bye. Thanks for not shattering my dreams.
HD>Have a good day Major.
JBS>You too.
Barry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JBS> It makes more sense to me that the aft cargo door failed for the same reason it failed for United Airlines Flight 811 since they are identical in function, and then the fuselage cracked around a repair doubler...and less sense for cracks around a repair doubler to fail the integrity of the hull leading to an aft cargo door shattering which matches other cargo door shattering with no repair doublers present.
LMP>Clarity at it's finest. You should write the final accident reports, nobody would ever accuse you of being wrong with such articulate language.
JBS>Thank you for being polite, not. This is a forum, not a chat room. Or is it? If you have trouble reading the logic, then don’t blame it on the writer but try to figure it out or ask for clarification. The sentence was long and and had independent clauses, I agree. Let me break it up and feed just a little at at time:
More sense: Door ruptured then fuselage cracked.
Less sense: Fuselage cracked then door ruptured.
Why, because of explanations embedded in sentence: The evidence shows a precedent with a match for the more sense explanation and not for the less sense.
Precedents provide solid reasoning steps.
posted 9th August 2002 22:29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM>Also if the Air /Ground switch had failed, there would be a lot of Relay Clicking, warning horns etc which would show up on the CVR & FDR (none) With the Switch in Air Mode - Gear off the ground, NO power available to Ground Handling Bus and therefore NO power to the cargo doors.
Thank you for you description of the pressure relief doors. My essential point is there is mechanical linkage between all the latches and locking sectors via torque tubes. If one moves, they all move or try to move when told to. I understand that the pressure relief doors are not connected mechanically to the midspan latches. The gap is jumped by the midspan latches connected to the lower eight by torque tubes and the lower eight latches are ‘connected’ “protected” by the eight locking sectors controlled by the master lock handle which also opens and connected to the pressure relief doors.
If the bottom eight latches were latched and the locking sectors were in place, and pressure relief doors closed, the master lock handle would lock and stow.....independent of the status of the midspan latches. They could be missing. The assumption is if the bottom eight are latched then the midspan are latched because they are connected by torque tubes. Wrong assumption. The midspans could be gone, bent, open, yet door would close, bottom eight latched around their pins, bottom locking sectors in place, pressure doors closed, and external master lock handle locked and stowed. Everything looks normal but isn't.
Likewise, the handle can be stowed, bottom locking sectors in place, bottom eight latch cams around their pins, pressure relief doors closed, and the midspan can get a signal to open and succeed because of no locking sectors while the bottom eight stay latched and handle stowed correctly.
For PA 125 and United Airlines Flight 811 the sequence happened above but the bottom eight latches overrode the eight weak locking sectors and thus all latches unlatched, not just the midspan. They unlatched because electrical power got to the door unlatch motor, and it was not supposed to.
I know the cargo door is not supposed to get power and really really appreciate you using capitals above telling me ‘..therefore NO power to the cargo doors.’ I might have missed the emphasis.
You choose to ignore United Airlines Flight 811 in which sadly enough, YES, power got to the cargo door. NTSB tells you how in AAR 92/02. Now that explanation is difficult to understand. Try to figure that one out and that’s written by experts. It’s an easy download at corazon.com.
I’ve heard over and over again how it is impossible for electrical power to get to the cargo doors inflight and over and over again, the speaker refuses to admit to United Airlines Flight 811 or says, It’s fixed and can never happen again which is said after every AD on that door and there are lots of ADs.
I know that when the motor turns on and it’s not supposed to, the latches all turn, and they are not supposed to, and the bottom eight latches do not turn much because they have locking sectors to keep the cam from turning around the latch pin, and the aft and forward midspan latches try to open and do since they have no locking sectors, and the door ruptures in the middle of the door, as it is not supposed to...but did officially with United Airlines Flight 811 and PA 125, and did by me for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and now it’s looking like the aft cargo door did the same thing for China Airlines Flight 611.
And it was not supposed to. But it did. I feel like asking you in exasperation (but will not because it’s silly) to yell at the nine passengers who were sucked out at 23000 feet and are flailing away and you yell, ‘impossible to get electrical power to the cargo doors, it must have been something else.’ And yet, as NTSB AAR 92/02 describes, power did get to the forward cargo door and the latches did unlatch and much of the evidence which followed that action has produced a piece of the door which matches China Airlines Flight 611 in addition to the match of the sudden sound on the CVR and quick power cut to the FDR, a very rare event and difficult thing to do to a Boeing 747 in flight.
By the way, the cargo door is an arch which is a very strong structure...if pressure is applied at the top of the arch down. But it is very weak when the pressure is applied inside the top of the arch up/out. In a sense the cargo door is curved into a slightly open position already, it’s not flat. That’s another reason why the ruptures are always in the middle of the door and not the top or bottom.
So, I am learning the mechanical and electrical details on cargo doors on Boeing 747s in the normal mode. Very interesting and I thank you for the time and effort to put it down on screen It’s work to express ourselves via writing. There are a lot of very sharp fellows in this forum.
Too bad the cargo doors are not plug type, most of these safety features would not be necessary.
HD>posted 10th August 2002 01:51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Barry, I give up.
JBS> Quite all right, I understand.
HD>It is obvious that no amount of sense will ever shake your convictions and theories about the 747 cargo doors and correcting your mistakes and misconceptions about aircraft systems, is a complete waste of time. As I really don't want to shatter your dreams, I bow out.
JBS>Good bye. Thanks for not shattering my dreams.
HD>Have a good day Major.
JBS>You too.
Barry
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: 22.5 parallel
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot Dog.
What is this, I give up, good bye, have a nice day major.??
Please do not bow out now, it is not a matter of you educating JBS but the debate between you and JBS is educating a lot more people including me. I have learned a lot on certain 747 systems in a few weeks time than ever before and although I realise that I am gaining knowledge by riding piggy back, it is with intense professional interest that I am following this thread.
Maybe one of these days Firehorse will be back on line and we all will get nearer to the "truth", that being the main excercise I think and you are contributing substantially.
Hot Dog, come back to the table, and as for "donations on your lectures", email me when you are in Dubai and I buy you a few Fosters.
With best regards
A.V.
What is this, I give up, good bye, have a nice day major.??
Please do not bow out now, it is not a matter of you educating JBS but the debate between you and JBS is educating a lot more people including me. I have learned a lot on certain 747 systems in a few weeks time than ever before and although I realise that I am gaining knowledge by riding piggy back, it is with intense professional interest that I am following this thread.
Maybe one of these days Firehorse will be back on line and we all will get nearer to the "truth", that being the main excercise I think and you are contributing substantially.
Hot Dog, come back to the table, and as for "donations on your lectures", email me when you are in Dubai and I buy you a few Fosters.
With best regards
A.V.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the kind words AV. Fact is I'm tired of banging my head into the wall with the Moonie pilot. I actually feel sorry for him and don't want to embarrass him any further. Firehorse may be of a similar inclination. However, I will take you up on the offer of a coldie in Dubai, a place I spent a lot of nightstops in and fondly remember. Do you happen to know Dave Warburton and Greg Todd from Airwing by any chance? Cheers, HD.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD> Fact is I'm tired of banging my head into the wall with the Moonie pilot. I actually feel sorry for him and don't want to embarrass him any further. Firehorse may be of a similar inclination.
JBS>Please, oh, please, HotDog, please don’t go. ‘Please don’t go down to New Orleans, baby, please don’t go.” Van Morrison.
JBS>Look, if it’s banging your head into the wall with the Moonie (sic) pilot, there is a satisfactory solution to your problem...remove the wall. When you do your research on why cargo doors fail in flight, that will supplement your knowledge of why they shouldn’t fail in flight and you will know more than most, you will understand, the pain will go away, and your opinions will carry weight.
Can you trace the trail of the best and only direct evidence available for China Airlines Flight 611, Air India Flight 182, United Airlines Flight 811, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800? The only direct evidence is the sudden sound on the CVR. That is as if a person were there and told us what he/she heard. It’s direct, it’s not circumstantial, it’s not deductive, and it’s not hearsay.
That trail of best evidence leads to explosive decompression in a ruptured open cargo door event in a wide body airliner. That trail specifically veers away from a bomb explosion in a wide body airliner.
As you understand the links in the torque tubes of the door, or the wiring in the unlatch motor sequence, follow the links from DC 10 ruptured open cargo doors to Boeing 747 Air India Flight 182 to Pan Am Flight 103 to Trans World Airlines Flight 800 to United Airlines Flight 811 to China Airlines Flight 611.
(One of the SmithAAR appendices has the AAR for a Comet accident, Yoke Peter, which, for Boeing 747s, is 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss', explosive decompression when pressurized hull ruptures inflight.)
The Boeing 747s all have that sudden sound on the CVR which has been extensively analyzed and it all comes back to the CVR sudden sound on a ruptured open cargo door event in a wide body airliner. Details in corazon.com
The evidence in photos and text of the wreckage shows those Boeing 747 cargo doors ruptured open in flight; How and why and when is very difficult to understand and hard to prove, as study of the official and unofficial AARs of those accidents will show. An explosive decompression leaves no evidence of itself, it’s invisible...but it does make a sound that gives it away. Faulty wiring is very hard to prove because the short to bare wire can be a very small chafe hole in the miles of wiring which is scattered all over the ground or ocean.
HD>I actually feel sorry for him and don't want to embarrass him any further
JBS>Your false sympathy is understood as an excuse to hide your eyes and ears of the enormity of the implications about wiring and cargo doors in all these thousands of airliners. My reply is don’t worry about embarrassing me in this forum, I would rather make a fool of myself here among fellow pilots, crewmembers, and aviation enthusiasts, then on national TV or in front of professional accident investigators. One humbling thing I have learned about aviation safety is there is no embarrassment, shame, pride, or fear when it comes time to make life and death decisions. Staying alive is the thing and all that other human emotion stuff is for later in the ready room over a cup of coffee during the debrief.
And let Firehorse speak for him/herself. I have found that anonymous contributors have good reasons to be anonymous and that is that they never have to back up their claims or accusations. They can fade away. It’s also fear driven; fear for their job, or their reputation, or their promotion, or ‘embarrassment.’
Now for me, I’m working on my SmithAAR for China Airlines Flight 611 in the same format as the Smith AARs for Air India Flight 182, Trans World Airlines Flight 800, and Pan Am Flight 103: Four parts with appendices. At this time there is a dearth of information so I can dilly dally about with idle chitchat about ‘feelings’ of ‘feeling sorry’ ‘embarrassment’, ‘pain in head from head banging’ and deflecting scornful arrogant insults from those that wish to appear ‘superior’ in some way.
It’s a luxury to waste the time with bantering but at this time for me, I wait for more photos and text of the aft end of China Airlines Flight 611. You might use the time to better advantage if you would actually do your homework and read about the early model Boeing 747 accidents which have produced evidence in the form of photographs, text, drawings, recordings, and twisted metal which point to a ruptured cargo door inflight.
Why, how, when, how much, and what exactly ruptured in and around that cargo door of early model
Boeing 747s is open for speculation, guessing, hoping, thinking, and concluding, always keeping the option to modify pending further evidence.
For China Airlines Flight 611, it will the chicken or the egg: Door rupture then repair doubler failure, or repair doubler then door. The senior metallurgist at NTSB will determine that and that leads to James Wildey II, the metallurgist for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800.
It’s a small circular world.
Barry
JBS>Please, oh, please, HotDog, please don’t go. ‘Please don’t go down to New Orleans, baby, please don’t go.” Van Morrison.
JBS>Look, if it’s banging your head into the wall with the Moonie (sic) pilot, there is a satisfactory solution to your problem...remove the wall. When you do your research on why cargo doors fail in flight, that will supplement your knowledge of why they shouldn’t fail in flight and you will know more than most, you will understand, the pain will go away, and your opinions will carry weight.
Can you trace the trail of the best and only direct evidence available for China Airlines Flight 611, Air India Flight 182, United Airlines Flight 811, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800? The only direct evidence is the sudden sound on the CVR. That is as if a person were there and told us what he/she heard. It’s direct, it’s not circumstantial, it’s not deductive, and it’s not hearsay.
That trail of best evidence leads to explosive decompression in a ruptured open cargo door event in a wide body airliner. That trail specifically veers away from a bomb explosion in a wide body airliner.
As you understand the links in the torque tubes of the door, or the wiring in the unlatch motor sequence, follow the links from DC 10 ruptured open cargo doors to Boeing 747 Air India Flight 182 to Pan Am Flight 103 to Trans World Airlines Flight 800 to United Airlines Flight 811 to China Airlines Flight 611.
(One of the SmithAAR appendices has the AAR for a Comet accident, Yoke Peter, which, for Boeing 747s, is 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss', explosive decompression when pressurized hull ruptures inflight.)
The Boeing 747s all have that sudden sound on the CVR which has been extensively analyzed and it all comes back to the CVR sudden sound on a ruptured open cargo door event in a wide body airliner. Details in corazon.com
The evidence in photos and text of the wreckage shows those Boeing 747 cargo doors ruptured open in flight; How and why and when is very difficult to understand and hard to prove, as study of the official and unofficial AARs of those accidents will show. An explosive decompression leaves no evidence of itself, it’s invisible...but it does make a sound that gives it away. Faulty wiring is very hard to prove because the short to bare wire can be a very small chafe hole in the miles of wiring which is scattered all over the ground or ocean.
HD>I actually feel sorry for him and don't want to embarrass him any further
JBS>Your false sympathy is understood as an excuse to hide your eyes and ears of the enormity of the implications about wiring and cargo doors in all these thousands of airliners. My reply is don’t worry about embarrassing me in this forum, I would rather make a fool of myself here among fellow pilots, crewmembers, and aviation enthusiasts, then on national TV or in front of professional accident investigators. One humbling thing I have learned about aviation safety is there is no embarrassment, shame, pride, or fear when it comes time to make life and death decisions. Staying alive is the thing and all that other human emotion stuff is for later in the ready room over a cup of coffee during the debrief.
And let Firehorse speak for him/herself. I have found that anonymous contributors have good reasons to be anonymous and that is that they never have to back up their claims or accusations. They can fade away. It’s also fear driven; fear for their job, or their reputation, or their promotion, or ‘embarrassment.’
Now for me, I’m working on my SmithAAR for China Airlines Flight 611 in the same format as the Smith AARs for Air India Flight 182, Trans World Airlines Flight 800, and Pan Am Flight 103: Four parts with appendices. At this time there is a dearth of information so I can dilly dally about with idle chitchat about ‘feelings’ of ‘feeling sorry’ ‘embarrassment’, ‘pain in head from head banging’ and deflecting scornful arrogant insults from those that wish to appear ‘superior’ in some way.
It’s a luxury to waste the time with bantering but at this time for me, I wait for more photos and text of the aft end of China Airlines Flight 611. You might use the time to better advantage if you would actually do your homework and read about the early model Boeing 747 accidents which have produced evidence in the form of photographs, text, drawings, recordings, and twisted metal which point to a ruptured cargo door inflight.
Why, how, when, how much, and what exactly ruptured in and around that cargo door of early model
Boeing 747s is open for speculation, guessing, hoping, thinking, and concluding, always keeping the option to modify pending further evidence.
For China Airlines Flight 611, it will the chicken or the egg: Door rupture then repair doubler failure, or repair doubler then door. The senior metallurgist at NTSB will determine that and that leads to James Wildey II, the metallurgist for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800.
It’s a small circular world.
Barry
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 AUG 2002 A British Airways Boeing 747 bound for London from Sidney, via Singapore, returned after takeoff and made an emergency landing. Fire in forward cargo hold was detected. The landing was without incident and the fire was quickly stood down. (Reuters)
From corazon.com archives from TWA 800 public docket SA 516:
1. Exhibit 9C, Attachments to the Systems Group Factual Report page 44 45 46:
A. 1996, burning smell in forward cargo compartment, found damaged wiring
shorted to ground, charring found.
B. Oct 12, 1996, Wire bundle arcing and resultant fire at aft bulkhead of
forward lower lobe cargo hold on 747-200 freighter.
C. Nov 1, 1997 Identical problem reported as A above. The fire from shorted
wires in chafed wiring bundle in forward cargo compartment either happened
twice, once in 1996 and once in 1997, as the report states, or it's the
same event reported twice with a wrong date. Probably wrong date and right dates are both 1996.
Was the source of the new fire wiring? We'll never know except through a FAA incident report filed months and months later. Can somebody from BA find out?
Significance is if fire was wiring caused then the bad wiring does more than short on a on door unlatch motor occasionally. It's starting fires.
As pilot I know the jolt of adrenalin that crew got when the fire warning light came on. They may have smelled it and that smell provokes fear in flight.
Fire in flight, sudden hull ruptures in flight, it's a scary 747 world up there. Each person with a responsibility and the authority to do something to make it non scary, should do something. Goal is aviation safety without accidents because the cause of past ones has been found (wiring) so the cause can be fixed (removed and replaced with 'wireless') without repeating and repeating the symptoms of fires and shorts.
Barry
From corazon.com archives from TWA 800 public docket SA 516:
1. Exhibit 9C, Attachments to the Systems Group Factual Report page 44 45 46:
A. 1996, burning smell in forward cargo compartment, found damaged wiring
shorted to ground, charring found.
B. Oct 12, 1996, Wire bundle arcing and resultant fire at aft bulkhead of
forward lower lobe cargo hold on 747-200 freighter.
C. Nov 1, 1997 Identical problem reported as A above. The fire from shorted
wires in chafed wiring bundle in forward cargo compartment either happened
twice, once in 1996 and once in 1997, as the report states, or it's the
same event reported twice with a wrong date. Probably wrong date and right dates are both 1996.
Was the source of the new fire wiring? We'll never know except through a FAA incident report filed months and months later. Can somebody from BA find out?
Significance is if fire was wiring caused then the bad wiring does more than short on a on door unlatch motor occasionally. It's starting fires.
As pilot I know the jolt of adrenalin that crew got when the fire warning light came on. They may have smelled it and that smell provokes fear in flight.
Fire in flight, sudden hull ruptures in flight, it's a scary 747 world up there. Each person with a responsibility and the authority to do something to make it non scary, should do something. Goal is aviation safety without accidents because the cause of past ones has been found (wiring) so the cause can be fixed (removed and replaced with 'wireless') without repeating and repeating the symptoms of fires and shorts.
Barry
>It?s a small circular world.<
By golly it sure is. It's made up of only an extremely small percentage of qualified investigators and safety experts, including the parties to these accident investigations which of course include the AAIB, CTSB, ATSB, BEA and the NTSB.
Jim Wildey does not work in a closet, he works as a team of experts. Finally when the detective work is done the CAA/FAA ensure that the Boeings and AirBus develop and implement fixes to problems identified.
I don't see how all your pontificating on this forum is going to change this if you're not part of the circle. It seems to me that if you really have a case you could always petition for a hearing directly to the investigators in charge.
Lacking that, your arguments are falling on ears that are either ineffective or are not going to champion your beliefs.
By golly it sure is. It's made up of only an extremely small percentage of qualified investigators and safety experts, including the parties to these accident investigations which of course include the AAIB, CTSB, ATSB, BEA and the NTSB.
Jim Wildey does not work in a closet, he works as a team of experts. Finally when the detective work is done the CAA/FAA ensure that the Boeings and AirBus develop and implement fixes to problems identified.
I don't see how all your pontificating on this forum is going to change this if you're not part of the circle. It seems to me that if you really have a case you could always petition for a hearing directly to the investigators in charge.
Lacking that, your arguments are falling on ears that are either ineffective or are not going to champion your beliefs.