China Airlines B747 Crash (Merged)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That trail of best evidence leads to explosive decompression in a ruptured open cargo door event in a wide body airliner ...says Major Barry.
Major: Based on CVR spectrum analysis, you keep alleging that TW800 suffered explosive decompression from the forward belly door rupture.
Sir, at 13000 feet the cabin pressure differental is insufficient to effect "explosive" decompression. At such low altitude you'd get non violent rapid depressurization with some ear popping discomfort. Needless to say, the only "explosive" event was the center tank explosion.
Major: Based on CVR spectrum analysis, you keep alleging that TW800 suffered explosive decompression from the forward belly door rupture.
Sir, at 13000 feet the cabin pressure differental is insufficient to effect "explosive" decompression. At such low altitude you'd get non violent rapid depressurization with some ear popping discomfort. Needless to say, the only "explosive" event was the center tank explosion.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Smith:
You're not part of the circle.
Go away and don't contradict the inner circle members.
They know best.
They will tell you what to think and when to say it.
Your thoughts are inconvenient and don't fit the model which is handed down by the inner circle, therefore what you say is heresy and must be discounted.
Wire fires are not significant to air safety unless the inner sanctum declares that they are.
Understand?
===================================
Jesus Saves; most other Jews invest
===================================
You're not part of the circle.
Go away and don't contradict the inner circle members.
They know best.
They will tell you what to think and when to say it.
Your thoughts are inconvenient and don't fit the model which is handed down by the inner circle, therefore what you say is heresy and must be discounted.
Wire fires are not significant to air safety unless the inner sanctum declares that they are.
Understand?
===================================
Jesus Saves; most other Jews invest
===================================
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: london
Age: 53
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS> 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.
Again NO, If the lower eight latches remain locked, the two midspan cannot turn. The Actuator drives all eight lower and the two midspan latches at the same time, The midspan will not get a seperate signal to open.
The system is connected lile this, Actuator drives a torque tube which drives the eight lower latches. from this pushrods go up to the midspan latch torque tubes to drive the two midspan latches. If the eight Lower are locked, that torque tube cannot turn, hence impossible for the pushrods to drive the midspan latch torque tubes etc. Even if the lower torque tube failed the actuator could not drive the midspans.
simple terms, Actuator drives the eight lower & the two midspan. If the eight lower cant turn - the two midspan cant turn.
My sympathies Hotdog
Again NO, If the lower eight latches remain locked, the two midspan cannot turn. The Actuator drives all eight lower and the two midspan latches at the same time, The midspan will not get a seperate signal to open.
The system is connected lile this, Actuator drives a torque tube which drives the eight lower latches. from this pushrods go up to the midspan latch torque tubes to drive the two midspan latches. If the eight Lower are locked, that torque tube cannot turn, hence impossible for the pushrods to drive the midspan latch torque tubes etc. Even if the lower torque tube failed the actuator could not drive the midspans.
simple terms, Actuator drives the eight lower & the two midspan. If the eight lower cant turn - the two midspan cant turn.
My sympathies Hotdog
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That pesky wiring in the forward cargo compartment of Boeing 747s...
Barry
Sun, Aug 11 2002 12:17 AM AEST
Fire forces emergency landing in Sydney
A British Airways flight was forced to make an emergency landing at Sydney
airport yesterday afternoon, when a fire broke out on board just after it took
off.
A spokesman for Airservices Australia says no-one was injured during the
incident, which occurred just minutes after BA Flight 16 left Sydney for
Singapore with 270 people onboard.
"At about 4:10pm, having literally gone about five nautical miles north of
Sydney, the captain) declared a Mayday and sought to return immediately to
Sydney airport," the spokesman said.
Airport emergency services closed runways to all other traffic and called in
police, fire brigade and ambulance services to back up the airport's response
team.
The jumbo jet landed without incident and passengers were evacuated safely down
mobile stairways after the plane came to a halt on the tarmac.
One of the passengers, Mike Souter, says the cabin was very warm before
take-off but the pilot said the temperature would drop after take-off.
Mr Souter says passengers were informed shortly after take-off that there was a
fire in the plane's hold.
"There was quite a strong smell of smoke and quite visibly the cabin crew were
alarmed by the situation," he said.
Officials have confirmed an alarm in the forward cargo hold of the Boeing
747-400 alerted cockpit crew to the fire and emergency staff on the ground
later said a small electrical fire had broken out.
"Fire crews say there was a small electrical wiring fire in the forward cargo
hold which was extinguished by the onboard extinguisher system," the
Airservices
Australia spokesman said.
He added that there was "about a metre-square of fire damage."
BA said in a statement that the problem appeared to have been caused by faulty
wiring to a refrigerator in one of the plane's galleys.
An airline spokeswoman says company officials are assessing whether the
aircraft will be able to continue its
journey.
Barry
Sun, Aug 11 2002 12:17 AM AEST
Fire forces emergency landing in Sydney
A British Airways flight was forced to make an emergency landing at Sydney
airport yesterday afternoon, when a fire broke out on board just after it took
off.
A spokesman for Airservices Australia says no-one was injured during the
incident, which occurred just minutes after BA Flight 16 left Sydney for
Singapore with 270 people onboard.
"At about 4:10pm, having literally gone about five nautical miles north of
Sydney, the captain) declared a Mayday and sought to return immediately to
Sydney airport," the spokesman said.
Airport emergency services closed runways to all other traffic and called in
police, fire brigade and ambulance services to back up the airport's response
team.
The jumbo jet landed without incident and passengers were evacuated safely down
mobile stairways after the plane came to a halt on the tarmac.
One of the passengers, Mike Souter, says the cabin was very warm before
take-off but the pilot said the temperature would drop after take-off.
Mr Souter says passengers were informed shortly after take-off that there was a
fire in the plane's hold.
"There was quite a strong smell of smoke and quite visibly the cabin crew were
alarmed by the situation," he said.
Officials have confirmed an alarm in the forward cargo hold of the Boeing
747-400 alerted cockpit crew to the fire and emergency staff on the ground
later said a small electrical fire had broken out.
"Fire crews say there was a small electrical wiring fire in the forward cargo
hold which was extinguished by the onboard extinguisher system," the
Airservices
Australia spokesman said.
He added that there was "about a metre-square of fire damage."
BA said in a statement that the problem appeared to have been caused by faulty
wiring to a refrigerator in one of the plane's galleys.
An airline spokeswoman says company officials are assessing whether the
aircraft will be able to continue its
journey.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lomap>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.
JBS>Your faith in that small percentage is heartwarming. If only there were not so many instances when they proved human and wrong.
LM>Jim Wildey does not work in a closet, he works as a team of experts.
JBS>Except for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 in which he was the sole member of two ‘teams.’
LM>Finally when the detective work is done the CAA/FAA ensure that the Boeings and AirBus develop and implement fixes to problems identified.
JBS>You are similar to sheep knowing the coyotes are taking a few sheep now and then and bleat to each other, “Hey, it’s OK, the sheepherder is an expert sheepherder, and he got sheepherder friends who can help, and our sheepherder really knows what he is doing, right? He really cares about us, right? We’re safe, right?”
LM>I don't see how all your pontificating on this forum is going to change this if you're not part of the circle.
JBS> I am part of the circle, you might even call me ‘loopy.’ Ha!
LM>It seems to me that if you really have a case you could always petition for a hearing directly to the investigators in charge.
JBS>Ah, showing ignorance about politics and the intricate workings of the authorities. You know nothing of my attempts for ‘a hearing directly to the investigators in charge’
Some are listed on corazon.com. For instance, Senator John McCain, a guy who ejected from a jet in the Navy, like me, suggested in writing to Chairman Jim Hall that NTSB meet with me to listen to my ‘concerns’ about Trans World Airlines Flight 800. Hall flat refused to meet with me or even discuss by email the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup for Trans World Airlines Flight 800. Of course, NTSB gave full investigation into Electro magnetic cause, meteor, missile cause, bomb cause, and fuel tank cause, but only one line of investigation, by Wildey, for the forward cargo door, all latched and locked until water impact, based upon examining only the bottom eight latches and ignoring the two large rupture holes at the missing midspan latches of the forward cargo door and all the other missing stuff like the manual locking handle, pressure relief doors, bellcranks etc. But you could look at the pictures of the actual door yourself and make your own mind up....but then sheep usually don’t make their own minds up, do they? They go ask the sheepherder what he thinks and when the sheep hears reassuring platitudes, back to eating the grass in peace.
LM>Lacking that, your arguments are falling on ears that are either ineffective or are not going to champion your beliefs.
JBS>Speak for yourself. I’m not writing to you or for you. I’m writing to those who have an open mind, do the research on corazon.com, download the Smith AAR, read them, take notes of questions or errors, and write back here with corrections, suggestions, and alternate explanations to explain the facts. And one big thing is to ask for them to tell their safety people in their airline or business to check out the explanation and see if it warrants further investigation by the other authorities. It’s easy to grasp, lightning strikes, balloon pops, tornado takes off nose.
GB>That trail of best evidence leads to explosive decompression in a ruptured open cargo door event in a wide body airliner ...says Major Barry.
GB>Major: Based on CVR spectrum analysis, you keep alleging that TW800 suffered explosive decompression from the forward belly door rupture. Sir, at 13000 feet the cabin pressure differential is insufficient to effect "explosive" decompression. At such low altitude you'd get non violent rapid depressurization with some ear popping discomfort. Needless to say, the only "explosive" event was the center tank explosion.
JBS>Needless to say you have not done your homework. 13700 feet is 3.5PSI for 38115 pounds against that door. When that balloon pops, ruptures occurred at the midspan latches and caused that sudden loud sound on the CVR...which in the NTSB AAR 00/03 specifically matches the TWA 800 sound to the sound of United Airlines Flight 811 and a Boeing 737 on the ground. The pictures of the ‘non violent rapid depressurization’ are shown by the wreckage reconstruction of the shattered door in pictures on corazon.com with the explosive decompression evident in twisted metal in outward petal shaped rupture holes. The excerpts and matches to United Airlines Flight 811 CVR are in Part IV or the Smith AAR on Trans World Airlines Flight 800, downloadable of course.
Tea Cass
John Smith:
You're not part of the circle.
Go away and don't contradict the inner circle members.
They know best.
They will tell you what to think and when to say it.
Your thoughts are inconvenient and don't fit the model which is handed down by the inner circle, therefore what you say is heresy and must be discounted.
Wire fires are not significant to air safety unless the inner sanctum declares that they are.
Understand?
JBS>Understand, Sir! Standing by to be told what to think and when to say it, sir! I’m sorry for any inconvenient thoughts, sir! Won’t happen again, sir!
MechanicalMan
JBS> 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.
MM>Again NO, If the lower eight latches remain locked, the two midspan cannot turn.
JBS> I love your certainty. (And capitals.) You say something can’t happen because it’s not supposed to happen. That’s fine about a plane that takes off and lands safely. With China Airlines Flight 611 you can’t say anything about that plane can’t happen because it’s not supposed to happen because the accident was not supposed to happen but it did. Something happened that was not supposed to happen. My offer to explain the actual photo of the actual top piece of the actual aft cargo door of the actual China Airlines Flight 611 is wiring shorted when it was not supposed to.
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.
JBS>Your faith in that small percentage is heartwarming. If only there were not so many instances when they proved human and wrong.
LM>Jim Wildey does not work in a closet, he works as a team of experts.
JBS>Except for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 in which he was the sole member of two ‘teams.’
LM>Finally when the detective work is done the CAA/FAA ensure that the Boeings and AirBus develop and implement fixes to problems identified.
JBS>You are similar to sheep knowing the coyotes are taking a few sheep now and then and bleat to each other, “Hey, it’s OK, the sheepherder is an expert sheepherder, and he got sheepherder friends who can help, and our sheepherder really knows what he is doing, right? He really cares about us, right? We’re safe, right?”
LM>I don't see how all your pontificating on this forum is going to change this if you're not part of the circle.
JBS> I am part of the circle, you might even call me ‘loopy.’ Ha!
LM>It seems to me that if you really have a case you could always petition for a hearing directly to the investigators in charge.
JBS>Ah, showing ignorance about politics and the intricate workings of the authorities. You know nothing of my attempts for ‘a hearing directly to the investigators in charge’
Some are listed on corazon.com. For instance, Senator John McCain, a guy who ejected from a jet in the Navy, like me, suggested in writing to Chairman Jim Hall that NTSB meet with me to listen to my ‘concerns’ about Trans World Airlines Flight 800. Hall flat refused to meet with me or even discuss by email the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup for Trans World Airlines Flight 800. Of course, NTSB gave full investigation into Electro magnetic cause, meteor, missile cause, bomb cause, and fuel tank cause, but only one line of investigation, by Wildey, for the forward cargo door, all latched and locked until water impact, based upon examining only the bottom eight latches and ignoring the two large rupture holes at the missing midspan latches of the forward cargo door and all the other missing stuff like the manual locking handle, pressure relief doors, bellcranks etc. But you could look at the pictures of the actual door yourself and make your own mind up....but then sheep usually don’t make their own minds up, do they? They go ask the sheepherder what he thinks and when the sheep hears reassuring platitudes, back to eating the grass in peace.
LM>Lacking that, your arguments are falling on ears that are either ineffective or are not going to champion your beliefs.
JBS>Speak for yourself. I’m not writing to you or for you. I’m writing to those who have an open mind, do the research on corazon.com, download the Smith AAR, read them, take notes of questions or errors, and write back here with corrections, suggestions, and alternate explanations to explain the facts. And one big thing is to ask for them to tell their safety people in their airline or business to check out the explanation and see if it warrants further investigation by the other authorities. It’s easy to grasp, lightning strikes, balloon pops, tornado takes off nose.
GB>That trail of best evidence leads to explosive decompression in a ruptured open cargo door event in a wide body airliner ...says Major Barry.
GB>Major: Based on CVR spectrum analysis, you keep alleging that TW800 suffered explosive decompression from the forward belly door rupture. Sir, at 13000 feet the cabin pressure differential is insufficient to effect "explosive" decompression. At such low altitude you'd get non violent rapid depressurization with some ear popping discomfort. Needless to say, the only "explosive" event was the center tank explosion.
JBS>Needless to say you have not done your homework. 13700 feet is 3.5PSI for 38115 pounds against that door. When that balloon pops, ruptures occurred at the midspan latches and caused that sudden loud sound on the CVR...which in the NTSB AAR 00/03 specifically matches the TWA 800 sound to the sound of United Airlines Flight 811 and a Boeing 737 on the ground. The pictures of the ‘non violent rapid depressurization’ are shown by the wreckage reconstruction of the shattered door in pictures on corazon.com with the explosive decompression evident in twisted metal in outward petal shaped rupture holes. The excerpts and matches to United Airlines Flight 811 CVR are in Part IV or the Smith AAR on Trans World Airlines Flight 800, downloadable of course.
Tea Cass
John Smith:
You're not part of the circle.
Go away and don't contradict the inner circle members.
They know best.
They will tell you what to think and when to say it.
Your thoughts are inconvenient and don't fit the model which is handed down by the inner circle, therefore what you say is heresy and must be discounted.
Wire fires are not significant to air safety unless the inner sanctum declares that they are.
Understand?
JBS>Understand, Sir! Standing by to be told what to think and when to say it, sir! I’m sorry for any inconvenient thoughts, sir! Won’t happen again, sir!
MechanicalMan
JBS> 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.
MM>Again NO, If the lower eight latches remain locked, the two midspan cannot turn.
JBS> I love your certainty. (And capitals.) You say something can’t happen because it’s not supposed to happen. That’s fine about a plane that takes off and lands safely. With China Airlines Flight 611 you can’t say anything about that plane can’t happen because it’s not supposed to happen because the accident was not supposed to happen but it did. Something happened that was not supposed to happen. My offer to explain the actual photo of the actual top piece of the actual aft cargo door of the actual China Airlines Flight 611 is wiring shorted when it was not supposed to.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM>The Actuator drives all eight lower and the two midspan latches at the same time, The midspan will not get a separate signal to open.
JBS> I understand that. I also know that bent torque tubes were found in United Airlines Flight 811. I think for China Airlines Flight 611 the bottom eight did not open but the midspan tried to and I think the tubes bent or there was slack from long time wear, and the midspan just turned a bit past center and popped. They did not have to move much and there were no locking sectors to stop the slight movement as the bottom eight locking sectors successfully stopped the bottom eight latches from turning around the eight latch pins. And the whole locking the barn door solution sucks too. United Airlines Flight 811 had the door rupture open because wiring caused the door unlatch motor to turn on and that power overrode locking sectors. Instead of fixing the wiring to prevent a reoccurrence, NTSB and FAA and Boeing made the locking sectors stronger so that when the thing that was not supposed to happen, power to door unlatch motor, happened again, the door could not rupture because now the power of the motor could not override the strengthened locking sectors. And it worked! The bandaid held! Except the midspan had no locking sectors to strengthen so the weakness remained and when the thing that was not supposed to happen happened again, the midspans ruptured. The barn door was not all closed and the horse got lose again, and again.
MM>The system is connected like this, Actuator drives a torque tube which drives the eight lower latches. from this pushrods go up to the midspan latch torque tubes to drive the two midspan latches. If the eight Lower are locked, that torque tube cannot turn, hence impossible for the pushrods to drive the midspan latch torque tubes etc. Even if the lower torque tube failed the actuator could not drive the midspans.
JBS> Sounds complicated to me and plenty of room for bending, slack, or breakage. (Careful of the word, “impossible’ when referring to an unexplained plane crash, it’s like the word, ‘truth’.)
MM>simple terms, Actuator drives the eight lower & the two midspan. If the eight lower cant turn - the two midspan cant turn.
JBS> So certain. You would make a good politician, actor, or lawyer. We are talking about an unexplained crash, nothing is impossible at this time. Anything ‘can’ happen.
Why have eight locking sectors? Why not only one that keeps the other seven from turning which keeps the midspan from turning? My real question is why not having locking sectors on the midspan latches if they are such a good safety device?
MM>My sympathies Hotdog
JBS>Well, my turn:
The pattern is similar over the past six years. Those who disagree with the wiring/cargo door explanation for early model Boeing 747s get really upset at me and then tell why it can not happen because it is not supposed to happen. They know little of the explanation, use profanity, capitals, and arrogant disparagement. They are usually anonymous.
Those that have an open mind; do the research, are polite, offer corrections, ideas, and often supplement the wiring/cargo door explanation. They are usually not anonymous.
I think the flamers are those that scour newsgroups or forums or chat rooms looking for earnest fellows who may have a few technical errors that can be corrected with great bombast, thereby making the flamer feel good about himself and how sharp he is and how he straightened out that idiot’s sails for him and loves letting everyone know about it.
This wiring/cargo door explanation is not trivial. Over a thousand have died, five aircraft totally lost, billions of dollars have shifted hands and continue to change hands. High levels at all governments are involved, Libya, USA, Canada, UK, China, Taiwan, India, New Zealand, and Australia. Syria and Iran were involved as they were blamed for Pan Am Flight 103 for a few years until a more satisfactory villain could be found.
To prove me wrong, correction, to prove the hypothesis wrong or invalid, use evidence of real wreckage. Don’t use wishful thinking or logic that says something is not supposed to happen and therefore it didn’t. There’s reasons why millions are spent on retrieval and reconstruction. The answers are in the metal and recorders not in reciting the way normal things work normally.
I can tell those that have not looked at the pictures, who have not read my AARs and the government’s AARs, who have not understood the reasoning based on the specific evidence, and who really really do not want the hypothesis to be correct. Somehow they always end up talking about me and who am I and what an idiot I am.
You see, an honest contributor would be saying that aft cargo door China Airlines Flight 611 is fractured and shattered and that’s not supposed to happen and here’s some potential answers to explain the evidence. I offer repair doubler failure, aft pressure bulkhead failure, and wiring for ways to make that piece of aft cargo door look the way it really does, not the way it is supposed to look.
There are those reading and contributing and I look forward to their opinions.
I have been told many times to leave Pan Am Flight 103 out of it. I understand why. Most people believe what they want to believe and Pan Am Flight 103 was a bomb...end story. Thus is the power of the authorities and thus explained is the need to get the right ‘spin’ early on in any investigation. Once set, public opinion is hard to change. Part IV of the Smith AAR will answer many questions of why it was not a bomb. A reading of AAIB 2/90 for Pan Am Flight 103 would be a prerequisite. Downloadable at corazon.com of course.
I can’t leave any Boeing 747 out of it if that accident has the evidence required to be included in the wiring/cargo door explanation. Any more sudden loud sounds on the CVR followed by an abrupt power cut for inflight breakups for early model Boeing 747s? There are only five solo events. With about ten possible official explanations (they keep changing all the time) and my only one that matches and includes all five.
Spin on China Airlines Flight 611 is failed repair doubler by China Airlines personnel. And maybe it is. But until the other logical candidates are ruled out conclusively, that spin is just a spin. Wishful thinking by everybody but China Airlines and they are a discredited airline already. How about China Airlines going bankrupt, like TWA after Trans World Airlines Flight 800, Pan Am after Pan Am Flight 103, and Air India trying to sell itself to KLM after Air India Flight 182. Only United is OK, maybe not so OK but then United Airlines Flight 811 was proven to be the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
There are those in the forum who have no responsibility toward crew and passengers and there are those that do. If you are one who feels a responsibility to those who fly with you, then refer your safety department to corazon.com. I welcome criticism by those that care, have patience, and know about aviation safety and the many ways things fail that are not supposed to fail. Have the safety persons dispel the explanation if they can. If they can’t then they may know who to contact for followup.
Telling me it can’t happen because it can’t happen is not good enough.
Somebody is going to corazon.com
Program started on Sun, Aug 11 2002 at 12:01 AM.
Analyzed requests from Sun, Aug 04 2002 at 12:10 AM to Sat, Aug 10 2002 at
11:59 PM (6.99 days).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Summary
---------------
Successful requests: 9,593
Average successful requests per day: 1,371
Successful requests for pages: 4,145
Average successful requests for pages per day: 592
Failed requests: 857
Distinct files requested: 1,028
Distinct hosts served: 2,129
Corrupt logfile lines: 504
Data transferred: 324.364 Mbytes
Average data transferred per day: 46.388 Mbytes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
74: http://www.corazon.com/PDF182and103SmithAAR.html
8: http://www.corazon.com/SmithAAR103.pdf
File Type Report
----------------
Listing extensions with at least 0.1% of the traffic, sorted by the amount
of traffic.
-----: ------: ---------
2037: 40.87%: .JPG
3206: 31.89%: .html [Hypertext Markup Language]
1292: 12.18%: .pdf [Adobe Portable Document Format]
654: 6.54%: .jpg [JPEG graphics]
939: 3.66%: [directories]
337: 2.31%: .gif [GIF graphics]
11: 1.47%: .pdf
73: 0.72%: .GIF
93: 0.20%: .html
947: 0.12%: .cgi [CGI scripts]
4: 0.05%: [not listed: 2 extensions]
Cheers,
Barry
JBS> I understand that. I also know that bent torque tubes were found in United Airlines Flight 811. I think for China Airlines Flight 611 the bottom eight did not open but the midspan tried to and I think the tubes bent or there was slack from long time wear, and the midspan just turned a bit past center and popped. They did not have to move much and there were no locking sectors to stop the slight movement as the bottom eight locking sectors successfully stopped the bottom eight latches from turning around the eight latch pins. And the whole locking the barn door solution sucks too. United Airlines Flight 811 had the door rupture open because wiring caused the door unlatch motor to turn on and that power overrode locking sectors. Instead of fixing the wiring to prevent a reoccurrence, NTSB and FAA and Boeing made the locking sectors stronger so that when the thing that was not supposed to happen, power to door unlatch motor, happened again, the door could not rupture because now the power of the motor could not override the strengthened locking sectors. And it worked! The bandaid held! Except the midspan had no locking sectors to strengthen so the weakness remained and when the thing that was not supposed to happen happened again, the midspans ruptured. The barn door was not all closed and the horse got lose again, and again.
MM>The system is connected like this, Actuator drives a torque tube which drives the eight lower latches. from this pushrods go up to the midspan latch torque tubes to drive the two midspan latches. If the eight Lower are locked, that torque tube cannot turn, hence impossible for the pushrods to drive the midspan latch torque tubes etc. Even if the lower torque tube failed the actuator could not drive the midspans.
JBS> Sounds complicated to me and plenty of room for bending, slack, or breakage. (Careful of the word, “impossible’ when referring to an unexplained plane crash, it’s like the word, ‘truth’.)
MM>simple terms, Actuator drives the eight lower & the two midspan. If the eight lower cant turn - the two midspan cant turn.
JBS> So certain. You would make a good politician, actor, or lawyer. We are talking about an unexplained crash, nothing is impossible at this time. Anything ‘can’ happen.
Why have eight locking sectors? Why not only one that keeps the other seven from turning which keeps the midspan from turning? My real question is why not having locking sectors on the midspan latches if they are such a good safety device?
MM>My sympathies Hotdog
JBS>Well, my turn:
The pattern is similar over the past six years. Those who disagree with the wiring/cargo door explanation for early model Boeing 747s get really upset at me and then tell why it can not happen because it is not supposed to happen. They know little of the explanation, use profanity, capitals, and arrogant disparagement. They are usually anonymous.
Those that have an open mind; do the research, are polite, offer corrections, ideas, and often supplement the wiring/cargo door explanation. They are usually not anonymous.
I think the flamers are those that scour newsgroups or forums or chat rooms looking for earnest fellows who may have a few technical errors that can be corrected with great bombast, thereby making the flamer feel good about himself and how sharp he is and how he straightened out that idiot’s sails for him and loves letting everyone know about it.
This wiring/cargo door explanation is not trivial. Over a thousand have died, five aircraft totally lost, billions of dollars have shifted hands and continue to change hands. High levels at all governments are involved, Libya, USA, Canada, UK, China, Taiwan, India, New Zealand, and Australia. Syria and Iran were involved as they were blamed for Pan Am Flight 103 for a few years until a more satisfactory villain could be found.
To prove me wrong, correction, to prove the hypothesis wrong or invalid, use evidence of real wreckage. Don’t use wishful thinking or logic that says something is not supposed to happen and therefore it didn’t. There’s reasons why millions are spent on retrieval and reconstruction. The answers are in the metal and recorders not in reciting the way normal things work normally.
I can tell those that have not looked at the pictures, who have not read my AARs and the government’s AARs, who have not understood the reasoning based on the specific evidence, and who really really do not want the hypothesis to be correct. Somehow they always end up talking about me and who am I and what an idiot I am.
You see, an honest contributor would be saying that aft cargo door China Airlines Flight 611 is fractured and shattered and that’s not supposed to happen and here’s some potential answers to explain the evidence. I offer repair doubler failure, aft pressure bulkhead failure, and wiring for ways to make that piece of aft cargo door look the way it really does, not the way it is supposed to look.
There are those reading and contributing and I look forward to their opinions.
I have been told many times to leave Pan Am Flight 103 out of it. I understand why. Most people believe what they want to believe and Pan Am Flight 103 was a bomb...end story. Thus is the power of the authorities and thus explained is the need to get the right ‘spin’ early on in any investigation. Once set, public opinion is hard to change. Part IV of the Smith AAR will answer many questions of why it was not a bomb. A reading of AAIB 2/90 for Pan Am Flight 103 would be a prerequisite. Downloadable at corazon.com of course.
I can’t leave any Boeing 747 out of it if that accident has the evidence required to be included in the wiring/cargo door explanation. Any more sudden loud sounds on the CVR followed by an abrupt power cut for inflight breakups for early model Boeing 747s? There are only five solo events. With about ten possible official explanations (they keep changing all the time) and my only one that matches and includes all five.
Spin on China Airlines Flight 611 is failed repair doubler by China Airlines personnel. And maybe it is. But until the other logical candidates are ruled out conclusively, that spin is just a spin. Wishful thinking by everybody but China Airlines and they are a discredited airline already. How about China Airlines going bankrupt, like TWA after Trans World Airlines Flight 800, Pan Am after Pan Am Flight 103, and Air India trying to sell itself to KLM after Air India Flight 182. Only United is OK, maybe not so OK but then United Airlines Flight 811 was proven to be the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
There are those in the forum who have no responsibility toward crew and passengers and there are those that do. If you are one who feels a responsibility to those who fly with you, then refer your safety department to corazon.com. I welcome criticism by those that care, have patience, and know about aviation safety and the many ways things fail that are not supposed to fail. Have the safety persons dispel the explanation if they can. If they can’t then they may know who to contact for followup.
Telling me it can’t happen because it can’t happen is not good enough.
Somebody is going to corazon.com
Program started on Sun, Aug 11 2002 at 12:01 AM.
Analyzed requests from Sun, Aug 04 2002 at 12:10 AM to Sat, Aug 10 2002 at
11:59 PM (6.99 days).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Summary
---------------
Successful requests: 9,593
Average successful requests per day: 1,371
Successful requests for pages: 4,145
Average successful requests for pages per day: 592
Failed requests: 857
Distinct files requested: 1,028
Distinct hosts served: 2,129
Corrupt logfile lines: 504
Data transferred: 324.364 Mbytes
Average data transferred per day: 46.388 Mbytes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
74: http://www.corazon.com/PDF182and103SmithAAR.html
8: http://www.corazon.com/SmithAAR103.pdf
File Type Report
----------------
Listing extensions with at least 0.1% of the traffic, sorted by the amount
of traffic.
-----: ------: ---------
2037: 40.87%: .JPG
3206: 31.89%: .html [Hypertext Markup Language]
1292: 12.18%: .pdf [Adobe Portable Document Format]
654: 6.54%: .jpg [JPEG graphics]
939: 3.66%: [directories]
337: 2.31%: .gif [GIF graphics]
11: 1.47%: .pdf
73: 0.72%: .GIF
93: 0.20%: .html
947: 0.12%: .cgi [CGI scripts]
4: 0.05%: [not listed: 2 extensions]
Cheers,
Barry
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: london
Age: 53
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS>So certain. You would make a good politician, actor, or lawyer. We are talking about an unexplained crash, nothing is impossible at this time. Anything ‘can’ happen.
Thanks for the insult! As it is Barry i work in the industry, i fly Twice a week as a flightcrew member on 747's. I am a qualified certifying Engineer (Airframe / Engine & Avionic) on 747's
I remain Anonymous because that is my right too & i dont want to be pestered by idiots with crackpot theories.
JBS>Why have eight locking sectors? Why not only one that keeps the other seven from turning which keeps the midspan from turning? My real question is why not having locking sectors on the midspan latches if they are such a good safety device?
So you want one lock to lock the other seven. We now have eight that lock the lower and also due to the basics of geometric locks prevent drive being transferred to the two midspan.
I dont say someting cannot happen because its not supposed to, i say in this case it cannot
I have my own theories on why this Aircraft broke up, but i will wait until i know more of the facts being i make a judgement. You on the other hand jump to conclusions before all the facts are known and do not listen to other peoples opinions. I know about the mechanism of a 747 cargo door as i have had the components in my hand, i have fixed, rigged and repaired the Aft Cargo Door, not just read about it from my armchair. i disagree completely with your Cargo Door theories. You jump to conclusions before all the facts are known, example proved by your post about the BA aircraft having cargo door wiring fire. The facts so far point to a galley chiller but lets wait and find out before speculating.
TWA, It would be a lot cheaper and easier to re-wire the cargo doors then fit The Tank Suppresion Units, Fuel Harness replacement etc to all 747 classics that followed the TWA crash, but then its all a big conspiracy to hide the cargo door fault!
I hear the X files are looking for a new writer!
Thanks for the insult! As it is Barry i work in the industry, i fly Twice a week as a flightcrew member on 747's. I am a qualified certifying Engineer (Airframe / Engine & Avionic) on 747's
I remain Anonymous because that is my right too & i dont want to be pestered by idiots with crackpot theories.
JBS>Why have eight locking sectors? Why not only one that keeps the other seven from turning which keeps the midspan from turning? My real question is why not having locking sectors on the midspan latches if they are such a good safety device?
So you want one lock to lock the other seven. We now have eight that lock the lower and also due to the basics of geometric locks prevent drive being transferred to the two midspan.
I dont say someting cannot happen because its not supposed to, i say in this case it cannot
I have my own theories on why this Aircraft broke up, but i will wait until i know more of the facts being i make a judgement. You on the other hand jump to conclusions before all the facts are known and do not listen to other peoples opinions. I know about the mechanism of a 747 cargo door as i have had the components in my hand, i have fixed, rigged and repaired the Aft Cargo Door, not just read about it from my armchair. i disagree completely with your Cargo Door theories. You jump to conclusions before all the facts are known, example proved by your post about the BA aircraft having cargo door wiring fire. The facts so far point to a galley chiller but lets wait and find out before speculating.
TWA, It would be a lot cheaper and easier to re-wire the cargo doors then fit The Tank Suppresion Units, Fuel Harness replacement etc to all 747 classics that followed the TWA crash, but then its all a big conspiracy to hide the cargo door fault!
I hear the X files are looking for a new writer!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS, I heartedly agree with what Mechanical Man said about your already having concluded that China Airlines 611 was caused by a failure of a cargo door. I don't think any amount of future argument or evidence will persuade you otherwise. You certainly haven't been persuaded by the great preponderance of the evidence indicating that the losses of PA 103, TW 800, and Air India 182 were caused by something other than an in-flight failure of a cargo door.
The British, American, and Canadian governments have spent millions of dollars (or pounds) and many thousands of hours in investigating these three accidents. And yet it seems they have gotten it all wrong, and you have it all right. It seems to be a matter of credulity versus credibility.
The distance between a quixotic quest and fixation, or, ultimately, mania, can be quite short. When the weight of the evidence points to something other than a cargo door mishap, the evidence must be explained away. Thus, in the case of PA 103, in a most remarkable set of coincidences, there is a catastrophic structural failure of the plane which also prematurely sets off a bomb onboard.
In the case of Air India 182, two sequentially numbered tickets are issued in Vancouver to gentlemen named Singh. One ticket is for a westbound flight to India through Tokyo. The other is for an eatbound flight to India through London. The luggage of both passengers is checked onto the respective planes but neither passenger boards. The westbound Mr. Singh's baggage explodes on a carousel at Tokyo airport as it is being transferred to Air India. Less than an hour later, Air India 182 crashes into the sea off Ireland. I daresay that if the first bomb had succeeded in crashing the other Air India plane, we would be offered an even more remarkable coincidence: the near simultaneous failure of cargo doors on two Air India 747's while in flight.
The British, American, and Canadian governments have spent millions of dollars (or pounds) and many thousands of hours in investigating these three accidents. And yet it seems they have gotten it all wrong, and you have it all right. It seems to be a matter of credulity versus credibility.
The distance between a quixotic quest and fixation, or, ultimately, mania, can be quite short. When the weight of the evidence points to something other than a cargo door mishap, the evidence must be explained away. Thus, in the case of PA 103, in a most remarkable set of coincidences, there is a catastrophic structural failure of the plane which also prematurely sets off a bomb onboard.
In the case of Air India 182, two sequentially numbered tickets are issued in Vancouver to gentlemen named Singh. One ticket is for a westbound flight to India through Tokyo. The other is for an eatbound flight to India through London. The luggage of both passengers is checked onto the respective planes but neither passenger boards. The westbound Mr. Singh's baggage explodes on a carousel at Tokyo airport as it is being transferred to Air India. Less than an hour later, Air India 182 crashes into the sea off Ireland. I daresay that if the first bomb had succeeded in crashing the other Air India plane, we would be offered an even more remarkable coincidence: the near simultaneous failure of cargo doors on two Air India 747's while in flight.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JOhn
I like to think of myself as one of those with an open mind, and have followed your contributions to this thread with interest.
In reply to MM, you said
Now, I understand what you are saying about the aircraft at 13,700 feet, but surely the air pressure internally and externally in the 737 incident were both ambient, and therefore any failure of the door would not cause the same type of sound as decompression would not occur? Hence if the sound in the 737 incident and the various 747 ones IS the same, explosive decompression cannot be the cause.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood.
I like to think of myself as one of those with an open mind, and have followed your contributions to this thread with interest.
In reply to MM, you said
13700 feet is 3.5PSI for 38115 pounds against that door. When that balloon pops, ruptures occurred at the midspan latches and caused that sudden loud sound on the CVR...which in the NTSB AAR 00/03 specifically matches the TWA 800 sound to the sound of United Airlines Flight 811 and a Boeing 737 on the ground
Please correct me if I have misunderstood.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...And then in the case of PA103, the Libyan agent in a Scottish court was convicted in error....because it was the cargo door that had caused the crash.
...And the Libyan government has formally offered compensation for....the cargo door failure that had caused the inflight breakup?
...And the Libyan government has formally offered compensation for....the cargo door failure that had caused the inflight breakup?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, these weren’t supposed to happen!
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A United Airlines jet bound for Honolulu from Los Angeles landed safely at San Francisco International Airport after a warning light indicated a fire was burning in the rear cargo pit. Officials kept the Boeing 777 away from the airport's terminals Sunday until officials confirmed no fire existed and a mechanical malfunction had triggered the indicator light, said Jeff Green, a United Airlines spokesman. None of the 363 passengers and crew aboard were injured.
The crew of Flight 55 activated fire extinguishers in the aircraft's cargo section as a safety measure before landing just before 3 p.m., Green said. United Airlines is investigating the incident, though there was no indication Sunday of suspicious activity, Green said.
‘NEW YORK (AP) -- An engine fire forced a Spanish jumbo jet with 386 people aboard to return to Kennedy Airport, and seven passengers were injured during the emergency evacuation. One man said the evacuation was hampered by difficulty opening two exit doors.
Pilots turned the Madrid-bound Iberia Air Lines plane Sunday around "due to a fire warning light for the No. 2 engine," said Arlene Salac, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration.
All passengers and crew were evacuated after the Boeing 747 landed at about 7:20 p.m., Salac said.’
JBS>An insidious consequence of the insults against contributors from the non contributors is that potential contributors will be afraid to contribute for fear of ridicule. That may be the intention of the hecklers; to stifle free exchange of ideas. I am picky on punctuation, spelling, meanings, and grammar as they are the expression of important ideas and need to be precise.
JBS>So certain. You would make a good politician, actor, or lawyer. We are talking about an unexplained crash, nothing is impossible at this time. Anything ‘can’ happen.
MM> Thanks for the insult!
JBS>Actor, lawyer, and politician...which one of those careers is an insult? They are the most highly paid and respected persons in society, and when told you speak like them you are insulted? You speak like them because they are able to persuade convincingly without the need for data to support the smooth assurances.
MM> I remain Anonymous because that is my right too & i dont want to be pestered by idiots with crackpot theories.
JBS> You might have to reply, identify yourself, and then be criticized for your grammar and punctuation errors.
MM> I have my own theories on why this Aircraft broke up, but i will wait until i know more of the facts being i make a judgement.
JBS>Of course, if you contribute you might be ridiculed and called bad names. (And not for your spelling errors.)
MM>You on the other hand jump to conclusions before all the facts are known and do not listen to other peoples opinions.
JBS>Well, there you have proof of your misunderstandings. I have consistently stated the possible causes of the inflight breakup for China Airlines Flight 611 and have not ‘jumped to the conclusion’ it was the a shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation. I listen to everyone’s opinions and usually comment.
MM> i disagree completely with your Cargo Door theories.
JBS> But you never say why except to say it can’t happen because it’s not supposed to happen because of tubes, bellcranks, and locking sectors. You know a lot about how they are supposed to work but little of when they don’t work.
MM> You jump to conclusions before all the facts are known, example proved by your post about the BA aircraft having cargo door wiring fire. The facts so far point to a galley chiller but lets wait and find out before speculating.
JBS> Absolutely incorrect. I wrote, ‘That pesky wiring in the forward cargo compartment of Boeing 747s... ‘ and ‘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.’ Nowhere in there is anything about cargo door wiring nor conclusions.
Are you not upset at a 'galley chiller' causing a fire? Or are fires in forward cargo holds so normal they are to be expected? And why wait for the opinions of those on the ground before trying to figure out the problem. You think they have a priority? The crews have the priority. The opinions of the crews should be first, then everyone else.
MM> but then its all a big conspiracy to hide the cargo door fault!
JBS> As many times as I write there is no conspiracy, there are those that wish it so and try to put the words in my mouth.
You have completely destroyed any credibility or value of your opinions with your above quotes. They reveal you do not research the subject (failed cargo doors), you do not read the posts accurately to which you reply, you are partially illiterate, and you are insolent.
MM> I hear the X files are looking for a new writer!
Add sarcastic. It's an upside down world when a person suggests mechanical problem such as wiring to explain an accident and is accused of conspiracy explanations while the authorities blame foreign bombers from Libya, Syria, Iran, unknown, or Sikhs (take your pick) and are considered to be 'normal.'
SaturnV>JBS, I heartedly agree with what Mechanical Man said about your already having concluded that China Airlines 611 was caused by a failure of a cargo door.
JBS>You guys know my mind better than I do? Ha! And I have not made my mind up as stated often in this forum. Could be lots of things, down to two in my mind, repair doubler failure or aft cargo door rupture. Still could be aft pressure bulkhead failure, missile, or bomb.
SaturnV> I don't think any amount of future argument or evidence will persuade you otherwise.
JBS>You think wrong. I changed from forward cargo door to aft hull rupture right away after I learned of the debris field, sound on the CVR and now the picture of the shattered cargo door.
SaturnV>You certainly haven't been persuaded by the great preponderance of the evidence indicating that the losses of PA 103, TW 800, and Air India 182 were caused by something other than an in-flight failure of a cargo door.
JBS>You know nothing of the’ great preponderance of the evidence indicating that the losses of PA 103, TW 800, and Air India 182 were caused by something other than an in-flight failure of a cargo door. ‘
You do know a lot about what the newspapers, the police authorities, and the lawyers say about the causes of those accidents but you do not know the evidence one way or the other. You have not read all the government AARs for those accidents, you have not read my AARs for them, you have not read the Public Docket or the appendices, you have not had private correspondence with victims who survived and families of those that did not, nor the addendums on those accidents.
But you do know the absurd scenarios put forth by the police about bombs in planes that get loaded two or three flights prior and blow up to produce a 20 inch shatter hole on the port side for Pan Am Flight 103 and no evidence of a bomb for the Canadians to call Air India Flight 182 a bomb explosion.
You see, I trust the evidence, not the massaged explanations which you so readily believe...because you want to believe. I understand how flight crews and mechanics really really really want to believe those cargo doors will not pop in flight and how anybody that says they might is a <bad name>.
A massaged explanation is not a conspiracy. It is a massaged explanation.
Nobody wants to do research which might lead to very unpleasant news. Better to repeat opinions of the authorities that everything is all right, the problems have been fixed, everybody go home, the excitement is over.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A United Airlines jet bound for Honolulu from Los Angeles landed safely at San Francisco International Airport after a warning light indicated a fire was burning in the rear cargo pit. Officials kept the Boeing 777 away from the airport's terminals Sunday until officials confirmed no fire existed and a mechanical malfunction had triggered the indicator light, said Jeff Green, a United Airlines spokesman. None of the 363 passengers and crew aboard were injured.
The crew of Flight 55 activated fire extinguishers in the aircraft's cargo section as a safety measure before landing just before 3 p.m., Green said. United Airlines is investigating the incident, though there was no indication Sunday of suspicious activity, Green said.
‘NEW YORK (AP) -- An engine fire forced a Spanish jumbo jet with 386 people aboard to return to Kennedy Airport, and seven passengers were injured during the emergency evacuation. One man said the evacuation was hampered by difficulty opening two exit doors.
Pilots turned the Madrid-bound Iberia Air Lines plane Sunday around "due to a fire warning light for the No. 2 engine," said Arlene Salac, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration.
All passengers and crew were evacuated after the Boeing 747 landed at about 7:20 p.m., Salac said.’
JBS>An insidious consequence of the insults against contributors from the non contributors is that potential contributors will be afraid to contribute for fear of ridicule. That may be the intention of the hecklers; to stifle free exchange of ideas. I am picky on punctuation, spelling, meanings, and grammar as they are the expression of important ideas and need to be precise.
JBS>So certain. You would make a good politician, actor, or lawyer. We are talking about an unexplained crash, nothing is impossible at this time. Anything ‘can’ happen.
MM> Thanks for the insult!
JBS>Actor, lawyer, and politician...which one of those careers is an insult? They are the most highly paid and respected persons in society, and when told you speak like them you are insulted? You speak like them because they are able to persuade convincingly without the need for data to support the smooth assurances.
MM> I remain Anonymous because that is my right too & i dont want to be pestered by idiots with crackpot theories.
JBS> You might have to reply, identify yourself, and then be criticized for your grammar and punctuation errors.
MM> I have my own theories on why this Aircraft broke up, but i will wait until i know more of the facts being i make a judgement.
JBS>Of course, if you contribute you might be ridiculed and called bad names. (And not for your spelling errors.)
MM>You on the other hand jump to conclusions before all the facts are known and do not listen to other peoples opinions.
JBS>Well, there you have proof of your misunderstandings. I have consistently stated the possible causes of the inflight breakup for China Airlines Flight 611 and have not ‘jumped to the conclusion’ it was the a shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation. I listen to everyone’s opinions and usually comment.
MM> i disagree completely with your Cargo Door theories.
JBS> But you never say why except to say it can’t happen because it’s not supposed to happen because of tubes, bellcranks, and locking sectors. You know a lot about how they are supposed to work but little of when they don’t work.
MM> You jump to conclusions before all the facts are known, example proved by your post about the BA aircraft having cargo door wiring fire. The facts so far point to a galley chiller but lets wait and find out before speculating.
JBS> Absolutely incorrect. I wrote, ‘That pesky wiring in the forward cargo compartment of Boeing 747s... ‘ and ‘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.’ Nowhere in there is anything about cargo door wiring nor conclusions.
Are you not upset at a 'galley chiller' causing a fire? Or are fires in forward cargo holds so normal they are to be expected? And why wait for the opinions of those on the ground before trying to figure out the problem. You think they have a priority? The crews have the priority. The opinions of the crews should be first, then everyone else.
MM> but then its all a big conspiracy to hide the cargo door fault!
JBS> As many times as I write there is no conspiracy, there are those that wish it so and try to put the words in my mouth.
You have completely destroyed any credibility or value of your opinions with your above quotes. They reveal you do not research the subject (failed cargo doors), you do not read the posts accurately to which you reply, you are partially illiterate, and you are insolent.
MM> I hear the X files are looking for a new writer!
Add sarcastic. It's an upside down world when a person suggests mechanical problem such as wiring to explain an accident and is accused of conspiracy explanations while the authorities blame foreign bombers from Libya, Syria, Iran, unknown, or Sikhs (take your pick) and are considered to be 'normal.'
SaturnV>JBS, I heartedly agree with what Mechanical Man said about your already having concluded that China Airlines 611 was caused by a failure of a cargo door.
JBS>You guys know my mind better than I do? Ha! And I have not made my mind up as stated often in this forum. Could be lots of things, down to two in my mind, repair doubler failure or aft cargo door rupture. Still could be aft pressure bulkhead failure, missile, or bomb.
SaturnV> I don't think any amount of future argument or evidence will persuade you otherwise.
JBS>You think wrong. I changed from forward cargo door to aft hull rupture right away after I learned of the debris field, sound on the CVR and now the picture of the shattered cargo door.
SaturnV>You certainly haven't been persuaded by the great preponderance of the evidence indicating that the losses of PA 103, TW 800, and Air India 182 were caused by something other than an in-flight failure of a cargo door.
JBS>You know nothing of the’ great preponderance of the evidence indicating that the losses of PA 103, TW 800, and Air India 182 were caused by something other than an in-flight failure of a cargo door. ‘
You do know a lot about what the newspapers, the police authorities, and the lawyers say about the causes of those accidents but you do not know the evidence one way or the other. You have not read all the government AARs for those accidents, you have not read my AARs for them, you have not read the Public Docket or the appendices, you have not had private correspondence with victims who survived and families of those that did not, nor the addendums on those accidents.
But you do know the absurd scenarios put forth by the police about bombs in planes that get loaded two or three flights prior and blow up to produce a 20 inch shatter hole on the port side for Pan Am Flight 103 and no evidence of a bomb for the Canadians to call Air India Flight 182 a bomb explosion.
You see, I trust the evidence, not the massaged explanations which you so readily believe...because you want to believe. I understand how flight crews and mechanics really really really want to believe those cargo doors will not pop in flight and how anybody that says they might is a <bad name>.
A massaged explanation is not a conspiracy. It is a massaged explanation.
Nobody wants to do research which might lead to very unpleasant news. Better to repeat opinions of the authorities that everything is all right, the problems have been fixed, everybody go home, the excitement is over.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glueball>And then in the case of PA103, the Libyan agent in a Scottish court was convicted in error....because it was the cargo door that had caused the crash.
...And the Libyan government has formally offered compensation for....the cargo door failure that had caused the inflight breakup?
JBS>Absence of discussion of evidence noted. Excerpt from the judgment of the court: '[2] It is not disputed, and was amply proved, that the cause of the disaster was indeed the explosion of a device within the aircraft. '
JBS>No, they have not accepted responsibility for Pan Am Flight 103. And the defence never disputed a bomb, only that their clients did not plant it.
From High Court judgment for Pan Am Flight 103>[2] It is not disputed, and was amply proved, that the cause of the disaster was
indeed the explosion of a device within the aircraft. The matter at issue in this trial
therefore is whether or not the Crown have proved beyond reasonable doubt that one
or other or both of the accused was responsible, actor or art and part, for the deliberate
introduction of the device.
Techman>I'm just curious as to where JBS gets the 3.5 psi diff from.
JBS>Exhibit 2A of the Public Docket SA 516 for Trans World Airlines Flight 800:
‘VI . FLIGHT 800 INFORMATION
Normal operation of the air conditioning packs on the ground
in accordance with TWA procedures is two of the three packs.
According to information gathered during the investigation, two
packs were operated on the ground at JFK. On this ground
operation, the packs were being operated by the APU.
Investigation provided information that three packs were in
operation at the time the accident.
Based on a first segment cruise altitude of 37,000 feet
(flight level 370), the calculated differential pressure at the
time of the accident was 3.5 psi.’
At the time of the accident, Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was at 13700 feet MSL. The 3.5 PSI figure for 13700 feet for 800 as given in Exhibit 2A may be low. Based on a source with access to Boeing manuals and DC 10 information, they indicate that a more accurate figure for widebody airliner at 13700 feet is 4.5 PSI for 49005 pounds on door, not 38115, a significant difference.
Below is from AAR 00/03 for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and describes the damage done to an aft pressure bulkhead from a hull rupture in the forward part of the aircraft. Note how it is in many pieces whereas a hull rupture in the aft end of China Airlines Flight 611 only gave a small break which indicates to me that the aft pressure bulkhead did not fail. Even the doors were in small pieces and they were far from the initial event. This shows that just because a thing is broken, it does not mean it started the sequence.
.3 Aft Fuselage (Section 46)
The fuselage section 46 structure, from STA 1480 to STA 2360, was recovered
from the Green debris area. The upper fuselage structure broke into relatively large
sections and the lower fuselage structure, including the aft main and bulk cargo doors,
fragmented into smaller pieces. The longitudinal boundaries between these two levels of
damage were approximately located along the window belt on the right side and stringers
28L-31 L on the left side. The upper fuselage structure sections generally had pieces of
frames either totally or partially detached from skin and stringers (RF9A). Skin panels
bounded by the area of S-22L to S-28L, between STA 1800 and STA 2100, are
practically void of all frames and stringers. The lower fuselage structure sections (LF41)
typically exhibited inboard bulging of the skin bays (i.e., the area between adjacent
stringers and adj scent frames) similar to the forward lower lobe of Section 42. This area
is generally devoid of frame segments below the main deck floor. These segments often
included stringers broken in two or damaged at each frame station, with this characteristic
being most common toward the aft of Section 46 (LF52).
The aft pressure bulkhead at STA 2360 broke into several small and large
sections, which were recovered from the Green debris area. The lower portion of the
bulkhead exhibits evidence of compression damage sustained in the radial direction as
demonstrated by web and stiffener buckling (LF 10 F). Side segments of the pressure
bulkhead exhibited evidence of compression damage in a circumferential direction, with
web and stiffeners accordioned together (LF 10A & LF 10E). The majority of the bulkhead
pieces separated from the “Y” shaped ring chord, which attaches the bulkhead to the
fuselage, along the bulkhead’s inner row of web splice fasteners. The bulkhead’s lower
region (LF 10F), however, remained attached to the ring chord, with failure occurring in
the monocoque along a circumferential line passing through the forward fasteners of the
stringer splice fittings.
Kilted>Now, I understand what you are saying about the aircraft at 13,700 feet, but surely the air pressure internally and externally in the 737 incident were both ambient,
JBS> The 737 was on the ground in the Philippines on a hot day and it is said the center fuel tank exploded. The NTSB tried to match all fuel tank explosions of any airplane to get a match for Trans World Airlines Flight 800. They even staged one. None of the confirmed fuel tank fires matched Trans World Airlines Flight 800 in significant values. The 747 that matched Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was also in flight shortly after takeoff and was United Airlines Flight 811.
The air pressure for the 737 was ambient, it was on the ground; the Pressure per square inch (PSI differential) for Air India Flight 182 was 8.9, for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was 3.5, for United Airlines Flight 811 was 6.5, for China Airlines Flight 611 8.9, for Pan Am Flight 103 was 8.9. Multiply those numbers times 110 times 99 inches to get the total weight against that large squarish door with hinge on top, eight latches below and lone midspans with no locking sectors and you see the inexorable force on those doors. 96921 pounds is a lot of weight and so is 38115.
Kilted>and therefore any failure of the door would not cause the same type of sound as decompression would not occur? Hence if the sound in the 737 incident and the various 747 ones IS the same, explosive decompression cannot be the cause.
JBS> The sound of the 737 was not the same as the 747s. It was similar and would match China Airlines Flight 611 CVR since it was sudden and without warning.It was the closest NTSB could find but never stated that the fuel tank explosion for the 737 was the same as Trans World Airlines Flight 800. The large point is the best evidence for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was the CVR and that matched a Boeing 747 event, United Airlines Flight 811, which was not a center fuel tank explosion.
All the detailed explanations of why Air India Flight 182 was not a bomb, why Pan Am Flight 103 was not a bomb, why Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was not a center fuel tank explosion as a primary event are found in the Smith AARs.
And it’s very hard to debunk conspiracy nonsense, the believers always have mysterious shadowy men and plotters everywhere with faked evidence and coverups everywhere. Well, look at the pictures of the cargo doors of those five aircraft and see the matches for yourself. They all could have been all ten locked, locking handle stowed, hinge intact with no overtravel. no paint smears, no missing parts like torque tubes or bellcranks, pressure relief doors in place, and no vertical tears in the skin around the door.
But they weren’t now, were they? And I offer that one cause did the same damage on all five: the shorted wiring/cargo door rupture/explosive-rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
Kilted>Moderation in all things - including moderation! Polonius
Who was Polonius? In Hamlet? And what does that mean? It seems to imply that excess is OK once in a while.
Excess in all things-except excess.
I hope this is not all the stuff dreams are made of.
Cheers,
Barry
...And the Libyan government has formally offered compensation for....the cargo door failure that had caused the inflight breakup?
JBS>Absence of discussion of evidence noted. Excerpt from the judgment of the court: '[2] It is not disputed, and was amply proved, that the cause of the disaster was indeed the explosion of a device within the aircraft. '
JBS>No, they have not accepted responsibility for Pan Am Flight 103. And the defence never disputed a bomb, only that their clients did not plant it.
From High Court judgment for Pan Am Flight 103>[2] It is not disputed, and was amply proved, that the cause of the disaster was
indeed the explosion of a device within the aircraft. The matter at issue in this trial
therefore is whether or not the Crown have proved beyond reasonable doubt that one
or other or both of the accused was responsible, actor or art and part, for the deliberate
introduction of the device.
Techman>I'm just curious as to where JBS gets the 3.5 psi diff from.
JBS>Exhibit 2A of the Public Docket SA 516 for Trans World Airlines Flight 800:
‘VI . FLIGHT 800 INFORMATION
Normal operation of the air conditioning packs on the ground
in accordance with TWA procedures is two of the three packs.
According to information gathered during the investigation, two
packs were operated on the ground at JFK. On this ground
operation, the packs were being operated by the APU.
Investigation provided information that three packs were in
operation at the time the accident.
Based on a first segment cruise altitude of 37,000 feet
(flight level 370), the calculated differential pressure at the
time of the accident was 3.5 psi.’
At the time of the accident, Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was at 13700 feet MSL. The 3.5 PSI figure for 13700 feet for 800 as given in Exhibit 2A may be low. Based on a source with access to Boeing manuals and DC 10 information, they indicate that a more accurate figure for widebody airliner at 13700 feet is 4.5 PSI for 49005 pounds on door, not 38115, a significant difference.
Below is from AAR 00/03 for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and describes the damage done to an aft pressure bulkhead from a hull rupture in the forward part of the aircraft. Note how it is in many pieces whereas a hull rupture in the aft end of China Airlines Flight 611 only gave a small break which indicates to me that the aft pressure bulkhead did not fail. Even the doors were in small pieces and they were far from the initial event. This shows that just because a thing is broken, it does not mean it started the sequence.
.3 Aft Fuselage (Section 46)
The fuselage section 46 structure, from STA 1480 to STA 2360, was recovered
from the Green debris area. The upper fuselage structure broke into relatively large
sections and the lower fuselage structure, including the aft main and bulk cargo doors,
fragmented into smaller pieces. The longitudinal boundaries between these two levels of
damage were approximately located along the window belt on the right side and stringers
28L-31 L on the left side. The upper fuselage structure sections generally had pieces of
frames either totally or partially detached from skin and stringers (RF9A). Skin panels
bounded by the area of S-22L to S-28L, between STA 1800 and STA 2100, are
practically void of all frames and stringers. The lower fuselage structure sections (LF41)
typically exhibited inboard bulging of the skin bays (i.e., the area between adjacent
stringers and adj scent frames) similar to the forward lower lobe of Section 42. This area
is generally devoid of frame segments below the main deck floor. These segments often
included stringers broken in two or damaged at each frame station, with this characteristic
being most common toward the aft of Section 46 (LF52).
The aft pressure bulkhead at STA 2360 broke into several small and large
sections, which were recovered from the Green debris area. The lower portion of the
bulkhead exhibits evidence of compression damage sustained in the radial direction as
demonstrated by web and stiffener buckling (LF 10 F). Side segments of the pressure
bulkhead exhibited evidence of compression damage in a circumferential direction, with
web and stiffeners accordioned together (LF 10A & LF 10E). The majority of the bulkhead
pieces separated from the “Y” shaped ring chord, which attaches the bulkhead to the
fuselage, along the bulkhead’s inner row of web splice fasteners. The bulkhead’s lower
region (LF 10F), however, remained attached to the ring chord, with failure occurring in
the monocoque along a circumferential line passing through the forward fasteners of the
stringer splice fittings.
Kilted>Now, I understand what you are saying about the aircraft at 13,700 feet, but surely the air pressure internally and externally in the 737 incident were both ambient,
JBS> The 737 was on the ground in the Philippines on a hot day and it is said the center fuel tank exploded. The NTSB tried to match all fuel tank explosions of any airplane to get a match for Trans World Airlines Flight 800. They even staged one. None of the confirmed fuel tank fires matched Trans World Airlines Flight 800 in significant values. The 747 that matched Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was also in flight shortly after takeoff and was United Airlines Flight 811.
The air pressure for the 737 was ambient, it was on the ground; the Pressure per square inch (PSI differential) for Air India Flight 182 was 8.9, for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was 3.5, for United Airlines Flight 811 was 6.5, for China Airlines Flight 611 8.9, for Pan Am Flight 103 was 8.9. Multiply those numbers times 110 times 99 inches to get the total weight against that large squarish door with hinge on top, eight latches below and lone midspans with no locking sectors and you see the inexorable force on those doors. 96921 pounds is a lot of weight and so is 38115.
Kilted>and therefore any failure of the door would not cause the same type of sound as decompression would not occur? Hence if the sound in the 737 incident and the various 747 ones IS the same, explosive decompression cannot be the cause.
JBS> The sound of the 737 was not the same as the 747s. It was similar and would match China Airlines Flight 611 CVR since it was sudden and without warning.It was the closest NTSB could find but never stated that the fuel tank explosion for the 737 was the same as Trans World Airlines Flight 800. The large point is the best evidence for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was the CVR and that matched a Boeing 747 event, United Airlines Flight 811, which was not a center fuel tank explosion.
All the detailed explanations of why Air India Flight 182 was not a bomb, why Pan Am Flight 103 was not a bomb, why Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was not a center fuel tank explosion as a primary event are found in the Smith AARs.
And it’s very hard to debunk conspiracy nonsense, the believers always have mysterious shadowy men and plotters everywhere with faked evidence and coverups everywhere. Well, look at the pictures of the cargo doors of those five aircraft and see the matches for yourself. They all could have been all ten locked, locking handle stowed, hinge intact with no overtravel. no paint smears, no missing parts like torque tubes or bellcranks, pressure relief doors in place, and no vertical tears in the skin around the door.
But they weren’t now, were they? And I offer that one cause did the same damage on all five: the shorted wiring/cargo door rupture/explosive-rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
Kilted>Moderation in all things - including moderation! Polonius
Who was Polonius? In Hamlet? And what does that mean? It seems to imply that excess is OK once in a while.
Excess in all things-except excess.
I hope this is not all the stuff dreams are made of.
Cheers,
Barry
Having had a quick look at JBS' webpage, and having read the Lockerbie trial judgment in full, I'm not sure which requires the most credulity – the idea that JBS’ cargo door theory accounts for all the 747 incidents he refers to, or the idea that the prosecution case was sufficient to justify Megrahi’s conviction at Camp Zeist.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: EGLD
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS
The AAIB report into 103 (Appendix F), documents forensic and physical evidence of an inside-out destruction of a baggage container. How does a cargo door blow out lead to such deformation of a baggage container ?
Interested in your thoughts - in laymans terms, physics not one of my better subjects.
Regards
-S
The AAIB report into 103 (Appendix F), documents forensic and physical evidence of an inside-out destruction of a baggage container. How does a cargo door blow out lead to such deformation of a baggage container ?
Interested in your thoughts - in laymans terms, physics not one of my better subjects.
Regards
-S
Before JBS responds...
I don't think there's much doubt that PA 103 was brought down by an explosive device. The evidence presented at the trial in support of this view was convincing. However, the prosecution theory about how this device came to be on the aircraft is full of holes.
If anyone doubts this - just read the judgement for yourself.
I don't think there's much doubt that PA 103 was brought down by an explosive device. The evidence presented at the trial in support of this view was convincing. However, the prosecution theory about how this device came to be on the aircraft is full of holes.
If anyone doubts this - just read the judgement for yourself.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stagger, whilst you are at it, have a look at NTSB Docket No. SA-516. Metallurgy/Structure Group Chairman factual report sequencing study (57 pages). You'll find it at www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA 800/exhibits/Ex_18A.pdf
Hotdog,
I didn't question the cause of the TWA 800 crash! Nor did I question that PA 103 was brought down by bomb!
I was simply trying to draw a provocative parallel between the theory presented by JBS and the theory presented by the prosecution in the Lockerbie trial to explain how the bomb came to be on PA 103.
In order to believe both theories you have to ignore huge amounts of inconsistencies and contradictory evidence.
I didn't question the cause of the TWA 800 crash! Nor did I question that PA 103 was brought down by bomb!
I was simply trying to draw a provocative parallel between the theory presented by JBS and the theory presented by the prosecution in the Lockerbie trial to explain how the bomb came to be on PA 103.
In order to believe both theories you have to ignore huge amounts of inconsistencies and contradictory evidence.
Last edited by stagger; 12th Aug 2002 at 23:25.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stagger, you misunderstand me. I'm not having a shot at you, I'm offering you and everyone else ammunition to debunk that eccentric gentleman suffering from Paranoia.
Ok - sorry - my misunderstanding!
And I should add that my concerns regarding the Lockerbie verdict simply concern how the bomb came to be on the aircraft - i.e. the Malta > Frankfurt > Heathrow theory which is full of holes. Personally, I find it worrying that it has not been satisfactorily established how the bomb did get into the hold.
I don't want to drag this thread off-topic with too many details but the bottom line is that there was no direct evidence at all presented at the trial that a suitcase carrying the bomb was ever introduced into the baggage system in Malta. The judges agreed that it was "not established" how that this had happened and the Crown "accepted that they could not point to any specific route by which the primary suitcase could have been loaded."
And I should add that my concerns regarding the Lockerbie verdict simply concern how the bomb came to be on the aircraft - i.e. the Malta > Frankfurt > Heathrow theory which is full of holes. Personally, I find it worrying that it has not been satisfactorily established how the bomb did get into the hold.
I don't want to drag this thread off-topic with too many details but the bottom line is that there was no direct evidence at all presented at the trial that a suitcase carrying the bomb was ever introduced into the baggage system in Malta. The judges agreed that it was "not established" how that this had happened and the Crown "accepted that they could not point to any specific route by which the primary suitcase could have been loaded."
Last edited by stagger; 12th Aug 2002 at 23:46.