China Airlines B747 Crash (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have Major (?? pun intended ??) reservations about pouring additional incendiary material onto this forum, but here goes anyway -- in search of greater truth:
This topic has recently carried some comments about how a 20-inch hole in the fuselage should not bring mortal harm to a 747. A non-ATP aviation activist with some expertise in fluid dynamics has offered a plausible-seeming explanation in connection with Aloha 243 which speaks to this topic in a worrisome way:
for an overview:
http://www.pmengineer.com/CDA/Articl...,23763,00.html
and for the whole 9 yards:
http://www.disastercity.com/
This topic has recently carried some comments about how a 20-inch hole in the fuselage should not bring mortal harm to a 747. A non-ATP aviation activist with some expertise in fluid dynamics has offered a plausible-seeming explanation in connection with Aloha 243 which speaks to this topic in a worrisome way:
for an overview:
http://www.pmengineer.com/CDA/Articl...,23763,00.html
and for the whole 9 yards:
http://www.disastercity.com/
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been told privately that my detailed posts are causing concern at PRruNe Central.
I shall make like FireHorse.
It's been fun.
Bye,
Barry
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]
I shall make like FireHorse.
It's been fun.
Bye,
Barry
John Barry Smith
www.corazon.com
[email protected]
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS (I've been told privately that my detailed posts are causing concern at PRruNe Central. I shall make like FireHorse. )
That truly is too bad. After all your discussion, defending your position, now you cut and run. While I do not necessarily share your views, I do respect them and will support your right to air them. It is through discussion and examination that the truth often surfaces. I hope that you reconsider.
That truly is too bad. After all your discussion, defending your position, now you cut and run. While I do not necessarily share your views, I do respect them and will support your right to air them. It is through discussion and examination that the truth often surfaces. I hope that you reconsider.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I second wes_wall's comment!
One can understand that you might want to catch your breath, but don't give it up . Where else can you flock with such a mix of turkeys and eagles in the same piece of sky?
One can understand that you might want to catch your breath, but don't give it up . Where else can you flock with such a mix of turkeys and eagles in the same piece of sky?
jetsy
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One can understand that you might want to catch your breath, but don't give it up . Where else can you flock with such a mix of turkeys and eagles in the same piece of sky?
"I did not expect this much traffic"!
Be kind of funny, has he been right all along...
Yeah,
turkeys and eagles.
Do not give up now, ol' chap.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Received the following information.
Dear ....
ASC sent me a photo that shows the bottom part of the cargo door still attached to the fuselage, so I can confirm that is correct. Thus it seems they have recovered both the upper and lower part of the door. Am not sure if there is a middle strip missing, will check into that.
Dear ....
ASC sent me a photo that shows the bottom part of the cargo door still attached to the fuselage, so I can confirm that is correct. Thus it seems they have recovered both the upper and lower part of the door. Am not sure if there is a middle strip missing, will check into that.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM>Sorry if its already been posted but does anyone know the flight hours, cycles and date of manufacture of the aircraft
JBS>To be precise:
Date: 25 MAY 2002
Time: 15.30
Type: Boeing 747-209B
Operator: China Airlines
Registration: B-18255
C/n: 21843/386
Year built: 1979
Total airframe hrs: 64394 hours
Cycles: 21180 cycles
Engines: 4 Pratt & Whitney Canada JT9D-7AW
Crew: 19 fatalities / 19 on board
Passengers: 206 fatalities / 206 on board
Total: 225 fatalities / 225 on board
Location: 45km NE off Penghu islands (Taiwan)
Phase: Climb
Nature: Scheduled Passenger
Departure airport: Taipei-Chiang Kai Shek Airport (TPE)
Destination airport: Hong Kong-Chek Lap Kok International Airport (HKG)
Flightnumber: 611Remarks:
Boeing 747-209B B-18255 was scheduled to fly flight CI 611 Taipei-Hong Kong during it's last day in service for China Airlines before being sold to Orient Thai Airlines. Weather conditions at Taipei that afternoon where fine: sunny weather, a temperature of 28deg C and easterly winds at a speed of 9 knots. At 14.38h Taipei Delivery cleared Flight 611 to Hong Kong: "Dynasty six one one cleared to Hong Kong Airport via Jessy one departure after Jessy direct to Chali Makung alpha one maintain flight level two six zero expect flight level three five zero at Makung squawk two six six one". The gate closed around 14.50h, ten minutes after the scheduled departure time and the crew requested ground start and pushback from stand B2. At 14.57h pushback was completed and the aircraft taxied to runway 06. Ten minutes later the aircraft had taxied into position and was cleared for take off. While climbing through 1600 feet the crew contacted Taipei Approach and received clearance to climb to and maintain FL260 and proceed direct to Chali. At 15.16h, while climbing through FL187, Dynasty 611 contacted Taipei Control. The Flight was cleared to climb and maintain FL350 and proceed from Chali direct to Kadlo. Some 13 minutes later, while approaching 35,000 feet, the aircraft disappeared off radar screens. Wreckage and bodies were found at sea, about 45km Northeast off the Penghu islands. The flight probably disintegrated at high altitude since other debris was found near Changhua, about 45 kilometers from the crash site
Wes_Wall> now you cut and run.
JBS>Cut and run! I don’t think so. I was told by private email that PPruNe Central, whoever that is, was concerned about my long and detailed posts, whatever they were. I was advised to stop using “I’ and generally tone down the writing or the ‘whole thing’ would come apart, whatever that meant. I thought it meant shut down the forum topic. Rather than cause that I decided to depart. But now...I’m thinking. Let PPRuNe Central tell me in a post for all to read if ‘things’ are getting out of hand’ and need to be shorter, less detailed, and less controversial.
So I got to thinking about this whole PPRuNe thing. So hip with the capitals here and there. And what’s this “Report this post to the Moderator?” Who is the Moderator? I would love to have as my anonymous nickname, “Moderator’ and then post. Ha! Can I report my own Post to the Moderator?
FAQ>What Are Moderators?
Moderators oversee specific forums. They generally have the ability to edit and delete posts, move topics, and perform other manipulations. Becoming a moderator for a specific forum is usually rewarded to users who are particularly helpful and knowledgable in the subject of the forum they are moderating.
knowl•edge•able "na-li-je-bel\ adj : having or showing knowledge or intelligence
JBS>Questions for the Moderator, Sir or Madam or Ms:
1. Is talking about Pan Am Flight 103 or Air India Flight 182 or Trans World Airlines Flight 800 or United Airlines Flight 811 OK as within topic “China Airlines B747 Crash?’
2. Is it OK to use “I” in posts?
3. Is it OK to quote from official and unofficial AARs as well as press reports?
4. Is it OK to speculate for reasons for above plane crashes?
5. Is it OK to be detailed while staying within the server limit on characters?
6. Is it OK to have a contrary opinion to that of the forum members, aviation authorities, press, and flying public?
7. Is it OK to make mistakes in posts in spelling, grammar, coherent thinking, and errors of fact?
8. What’s a rumour? (The Professional Pilots Rumour Network (PPRuNe))
9. Since you the moderator are particularly helpful and knowledgable in the subject of the forum you are moderating, China Airlines B747 Crash, what is your opinion of the probable cause of the accident?
10. What are the certain words which may have been censored by the administrator. If posts contain any censored words, they will be blanked-out like this: ****. The same words are censored for all users, and censoring is done by a computer simply searching and replacing words. It is in no way 'intelligent'.
What are the certain words?
11. Is it OK to spell "knowledgeable' -- "knowledgable' (in the Moderator FAQ) in other English speaking countries?
12. Is it OK to create a Poll such as the below?
A. What is the most likely probable cause for China Airlines Flight 611?
1. Repair doubler failure.
2. Ruptured open cargo door.
3. Missile.
4. Bomb explosion.
5. Center tank explosion with undetermined ignition source.
6. Aft pressure bulkhead failure.
I shall report this post to the Moderator and see what happens.
Cheers,
Barry
My favorite color is ‘Other.”
Creating a new poll
When you post a new topic, you may have the option to also create a poll.
This function allows you to ask a question and specify a number of possible responses. Other members will then be able to vote for the response they wish, and the results of the voting will be displayed in the topic.
An example poll might be:
What is your favorite color?
1. Red
2. Blue
3. Yellow
4. Green
5. Sky-blue pink with yellow spots
To create a poll when you post a new topic, simply click the 'Yes! post a poll' checkbox at the bottom of the page, and set the number of possible responses you want to include.
When you click the submit button, you will be taken to the poll creation page, where you can specify the question and the list of responses you want to include.
You may also want to specify a time limit for the poll, so that (for example) it only stays open for voting for a week.
JBS>To be precise:
Date: 25 MAY 2002
Time: 15.30
Type: Boeing 747-209B
Operator: China Airlines
Registration: B-18255
C/n: 21843/386
Year built: 1979
Total airframe hrs: 64394 hours
Cycles: 21180 cycles
Engines: 4 Pratt & Whitney Canada JT9D-7AW
Crew: 19 fatalities / 19 on board
Passengers: 206 fatalities / 206 on board
Total: 225 fatalities / 225 on board
Location: 45km NE off Penghu islands (Taiwan)
Phase: Climb
Nature: Scheduled Passenger
Departure airport: Taipei-Chiang Kai Shek Airport (TPE)
Destination airport: Hong Kong-Chek Lap Kok International Airport (HKG)
Flightnumber: 611Remarks:
Boeing 747-209B B-18255 was scheduled to fly flight CI 611 Taipei-Hong Kong during it's last day in service for China Airlines before being sold to Orient Thai Airlines. Weather conditions at Taipei that afternoon where fine: sunny weather, a temperature of 28deg C and easterly winds at a speed of 9 knots. At 14.38h Taipei Delivery cleared Flight 611 to Hong Kong: "Dynasty six one one cleared to Hong Kong Airport via Jessy one departure after Jessy direct to Chali Makung alpha one maintain flight level two six zero expect flight level three five zero at Makung squawk two six six one". The gate closed around 14.50h, ten minutes after the scheduled departure time and the crew requested ground start and pushback from stand B2. At 14.57h pushback was completed and the aircraft taxied to runway 06. Ten minutes later the aircraft had taxied into position and was cleared for take off. While climbing through 1600 feet the crew contacted Taipei Approach and received clearance to climb to and maintain FL260 and proceed direct to Chali. At 15.16h, while climbing through FL187, Dynasty 611 contacted Taipei Control. The Flight was cleared to climb and maintain FL350 and proceed from Chali direct to Kadlo. Some 13 minutes later, while approaching 35,000 feet, the aircraft disappeared off radar screens. Wreckage and bodies were found at sea, about 45km Northeast off the Penghu islands. The flight probably disintegrated at high altitude since other debris was found near Changhua, about 45 kilometers from the crash site
Wes_Wall> now you cut and run.
JBS>Cut and run! I don’t think so. I was told by private email that PPruNe Central, whoever that is, was concerned about my long and detailed posts, whatever they were. I was advised to stop using “I’ and generally tone down the writing or the ‘whole thing’ would come apart, whatever that meant. I thought it meant shut down the forum topic. Rather than cause that I decided to depart. But now...I’m thinking. Let PPRuNe Central tell me in a post for all to read if ‘things’ are getting out of hand’ and need to be shorter, less detailed, and less controversial.
So I got to thinking about this whole PPRuNe thing. So hip with the capitals here and there. And what’s this “Report this post to the Moderator?” Who is the Moderator? I would love to have as my anonymous nickname, “Moderator’ and then post. Ha! Can I report my own Post to the Moderator?
FAQ>What Are Moderators?
Moderators oversee specific forums. They generally have the ability to edit and delete posts, move topics, and perform other manipulations. Becoming a moderator for a specific forum is usually rewarded to users who are particularly helpful and knowledgable in the subject of the forum they are moderating.
knowl•edge•able "na-li-je-bel\ adj : having or showing knowledge or intelligence
JBS>Questions for the Moderator, Sir or Madam or Ms:
1. Is talking about Pan Am Flight 103 or Air India Flight 182 or Trans World Airlines Flight 800 or United Airlines Flight 811 OK as within topic “China Airlines B747 Crash?’
2. Is it OK to use “I” in posts?
3. Is it OK to quote from official and unofficial AARs as well as press reports?
4. Is it OK to speculate for reasons for above plane crashes?
5. Is it OK to be detailed while staying within the server limit on characters?
6. Is it OK to have a contrary opinion to that of the forum members, aviation authorities, press, and flying public?
7. Is it OK to make mistakes in posts in spelling, grammar, coherent thinking, and errors of fact?
8. What’s a rumour? (The Professional Pilots Rumour Network (PPRuNe))
9. Since you the moderator are particularly helpful and knowledgable in the subject of the forum you are moderating, China Airlines B747 Crash, what is your opinion of the probable cause of the accident?
10. What are the certain words which may have been censored by the administrator. If posts contain any censored words, they will be blanked-out like this: ****. The same words are censored for all users, and censoring is done by a computer simply searching and replacing words. It is in no way 'intelligent'.
What are the certain words?
11. Is it OK to spell "knowledgeable' -- "knowledgable' (in the Moderator FAQ) in other English speaking countries?
12. Is it OK to create a Poll such as the below?
A. What is the most likely probable cause for China Airlines Flight 611?
1. Repair doubler failure.
2. Ruptured open cargo door.
3. Missile.
4. Bomb explosion.
5. Center tank explosion with undetermined ignition source.
6. Aft pressure bulkhead failure.
I shall report this post to the Moderator and see what happens.
Cheers,
Barry
My favorite color is ‘Other.”
Creating a new poll
When you post a new topic, you may have the option to also create a poll.
This function allows you to ask a question and specify a number of possible responses. Other members will then be able to vote for the response they wish, and the results of the voting will be displayed in the topic.
An example poll might be:
What is your favorite color?
1. Red
2. Blue
3. Yellow
4. Green
5. Sky-blue pink with yellow spots
To create a poll when you post a new topic, simply click the 'Yes! post a poll' checkbox at the bottom of the page, and set the number of possible responses you want to include.
When you click the submit button, you will be taken to the poll creation page, where you can specify the question and the list of responses you want to include.
You may also want to specify a time limit for the poll, so that (for example) it only stays open for voting for a week.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS, with respect:
Your last remarks could probably best be left unstated. To date, I have followed your reasoning with interest and an opened mind. I have learned things that I did not know, or had little knowledge despite having made my living flying 747 100/200 and SPs. One would hope that you continued in that vain, and leave the poor me attitude for another topic. Keep on point, Sir, and I would think that the powers that be would have no problem.
Your last remarks could probably best be left unstated. To date, I have followed your reasoning with interest and an opened mind. I have learned things that I did not know, or had little knowledge despite having made my living flying 747 100/200 and SPs. One would hope that you continued in that vain, and leave the poor me attitude for another topic. Keep on point, Sir, and I would think that the powers that be would have no problem.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD>ASC sent me a photo that shows the bottom part of the cargo door still attached to the fuselage, so I can confirm that is correct. Thus it seems they have recovered both the upper and lower part of the door. Am not sure if there is a middle strip missing, will check into that.
JBS>May I see a copy of that picture?
Barry
JBS>May I see a copy of that picture?
Barry
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS>Regarding the previous private email in which the anonymous author told me that those in PPRuNe Central were upset at my posting and then he gave me several ways to placate them by altering my posts: It was a ruse and I fell for it. I am so gullible, so naive, so trusting. It’s one reason why I always go to the evidence source for the best evidence. I fell for the cheat and acted on it. What a fool I was. Human nature was never my best understanding. Why do people lie?
I did report my previous post (the one that was deemed so disappointing) to the moderator and here was his/her prompt reply:
X-From_: [email protected] Fri Aug 16 09:39:42 2002
Reply-To: [email protected]
X-Originating-IP: 213.122.71.5
X-URL: http://mail2web.com/
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Reported post from PPRuNe Forums
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:39:40 -0400
Someone is playing you along Barry,
Absolutely no-one from the Towers has written to you. We don't want you to stop writing and we are entirely happy for the aviation professionals on this site to consider and judge your thoughts and theories for themselves.
Some may want to write you off as a whacko but you at least you do it with considerably more dignity than a proportion of your critics.
Regards from the Towers
PPRuNe admin
JBS>My reply to Towers:
Dear Towers,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
I shall continue to post and will try to do it with dignity. My only explanation for my subtle flames is that people like me who (think) know they have discovered a great truth that is contrary to conventional wisdom are not charmers and are often anti authoritarian.
The false authorities are insecure and respond to style, often obsequious, and are not to be trusted. True authority always goes for the facts and asks for confirmation if in doubt and does not care about the demeanor of the fact giver. You have shown yourself to be the confident authority, the secure authority, and the true one by being open, fair, and forthright.
ob•se•qui•ous \eb-"se-kwe-es\ adj : humbly or excessively attentive (as to a person in authority) : fawning, sycophantic syn menial, servile, slavish, subservient ó ob•se•qui•ous•ly adv ó ob•se•qui•ous•ness n
PPRuNe has shown itself to be invaluable by obtaining and disseminating crucial information in aviation safety not generally available to the uncaring public. I just hope I get the pictures of the bottom of that aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611.
Cheers,
Barry
JBS>Regarding the existing photo of the bottom half of the aft cargo door for China Airlines Flight 611:
I did indeed email Mr. Yong a few days ago for a picture but he has not yet replied and may not ever.
I then asked HotDog for a copy of the picture. He told me to email Mr. Yong. Thank you HotDog for your advice and it had already been taken. You are so kind to take the time to give me some advice.
I now ask that the photo be posted in this forum for all to see. The key part for examination for the bottom part of the split door is to see if there is unpeeled skin from the aft midspan latch or outward petal shaped ruptures around the midspan latches which is the pattern for the other four 747 events of ruptured open cargo doors.The manual locking handle and midspan pins, cams, and latches may be missing as well as entire middle part of door. If so, that is a good clue that door ruptured open in flight and the parts are out there very early in the debris field. I'd like to know how far apart the top and bottom pieces of that aft cargo door were found in the ocean.
I had previously sent Mr. Yong China Airlines Flight 611 Door Story which is full of pictures of normal and ruptured open cargo doors on Boeing 747s with analysis. (At corazon.com)
He replied:
Hello John,
Thank you very much of your opinion and analysis re. the probable causes of
the CI611 accident. At this time, we are still trying as hard as possible
to recover as many pieces of the wreckages, especially section 46.
Your letter and attached file are most informative and greatly appreciated.
Kay Yong
Managing Director and IIC of CI611 Investigation
Aviation Safety Council, Taiwan
JBS> Well, at least he did not go the ‘Whacko’ point of view with me. He was probably looking at the top part of that 611 cargo door and seeing in my material the matches to other ruptured open cargo doors in flight that had the same torn shapes and missing pressure relief doors.
His email gave me great hope for these reasons:
1. He is not arrogant and aloof from public input.
2. He actuallly glanced or read the submitted material.
3. He is open minded and has not yet declared the probable cause.
4. He is polite.
5. His english is good while my Chinese is lower than poor.
6. He is internet literate.
Hope springs eternal for a fair, open, objective aircraft accident investigation, that rare political event nowadays.
Two replies from 'authority' and both were polite and encouraging. Hmmmmm......
Cheers,
Barry
HotDog>JBS=SOG
I do not know what "SOG" means and mentioned it to a friend of mine who is familiar with the forum personalities. He told me it was probably a misspelling of "SOB", an acronym I am familiar with.
I did report my previous post (the one that was deemed so disappointing) to the moderator and here was his/her prompt reply:
X-From_: [email protected] Fri Aug 16 09:39:42 2002
Reply-To: [email protected]
X-Originating-IP: 213.122.71.5
X-URL: http://mail2web.com/
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Reported post from PPRuNe Forums
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:39:40 -0400
Someone is playing you along Barry,
Absolutely no-one from the Towers has written to you. We don't want you to stop writing and we are entirely happy for the aviation professionals on this site to consider and judge your thoughts and theories for themselves.
Some may want to write you off as a whacko but you at least you do it with considerably more dignity than a proportion of your critics.
Regards from the Towers
PPRuNe admin
JBS>My reply to Towers:
Dear Towers,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
I shall continue to post and will try to do it with dignity. My only explanation for my subtle flames is that people like me who (think) know they have discovered a great truth that is contrary to conventional wisdom are not charmers and are often anti authoritarian.
The false authorities are insecure and respond to style, often obsequious, and are not to be trusted. True authority always goes for the facts and asks for confirmation if in doubt and does not care about the demeanor of the fact giver. You have shown yourself to be the confident authority, the secure authority, and the true one by being open, fair, and forthright.
ob•se•qui•ous \eb-"se-kwe-es\ adj : humbly or excessively attentive (as to a person in authority) : fawning, sycophantic syn menial, servile, slavish, subservient ó ob•se•qui•ous•ly adv ó ob•se•qui•ous•ness n
PPRuNe has shown itself to be invaluable by obtaining and disseminating crucial information in aviation safety not generally available to the uncaring public. I just hope I get the pictures of the bottom of that aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611.
Cheers,
Barry
JBS>Regarding the existing photo of the bottom half of the aft cargo door for China Airlines Flight 611:
I did indeed email Mr. Yong a few days ago for a picture but he has not yet replied and may not ever.
I then asked HotDog for a copy of the picture. He told me to email Mr. Yong. Thank you HotDog for your advice and it had already been taken. You are so kind to take the time to give me some advice.
I now ask that the photo be posted in this forum for all to see. The key part for examination for the bottom part of the split door is to see if there is unpeeled skin from the aft midspan latch or outward petal shaped ruptures around the midspan latches which is the pattern for the other four 747 events of ruptured open cargo doors.The manual locking handle and midspan pins, cams, and latches may be missing as well as entire middle part of door. If so, that is a good clue that door ruptured open in flight and the parts are out there very early in the debris field. I'd like to know how far apart the top and bottom pieces of that aft cargo door were found in the ocean.
I had previously sent Mr. Yong China Airlines Flight 611 Door Story which is full of pictures of normal and ruptured open cargo doors on Boeing 747s with analysis. (At corazon.com)
He replied:
Hello John,
Thank you very much of your opinion and analysis re. the probable causes of
the CI611 accident. At this time, we are still trying as hard as possible
to recover as many pieces of the wreckages, especially section 46.
Your letter and attached file are most informative and greatly appreciated.
Kay Yong
Managing Director and IIC of CI611 Investigation
Aviation Safety Council, Taiwan
JBS> Well, at least he did not go the ‘Whacko’ point of view with me. He was probably looking at the top part of that 611 cargo door and seeing in my material the matches to other ruptured open cargo doors in flight that had the same torn shapes and missing pressure relief doors.
His email gave me great hope for these reasons:
1. He is not arrogant and aloof from public input.
2. He actuallly glanced or read the submitted material.
3. He is open minded and has not yet declared the probable cause.
4. He is polite.
5. His english is good while my Chinese is lower than poor.
6. He is internet literate.
Hope springs eternal for a fair, open, objective aircraft accident investigation, that rare political event nowadays.
Two replies from 'authority' and both were polite and encouraging. Hmmmmm......
Cheers,
Barry
HotDog>JBS=SOG
I do not know what "SOG" means and mentioned it to a friend of mine who is familiar with the forum personalities. He told me it was probably a misspelling of "SOB", an acronym I am familiar with.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I second wes_wall's comment! (encouraging JBS)
Enough! The JBS rendition of petulant child egomania is a right
PITA.
My second is hereby withdrawn.....
(tho an unheralded post-editing some days after the second post puts it much more in the realm worth respect, ex post facxto)
Last edited by arcniz; 19th Aug 2002 at 00:15.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS>It now appears that I probably was lied to again in that there was no picture of the bottom half of the aft cargo door sent by a contributor to this forum.
Mr. Yong probably does not send out pictures to single persons as he hates leaks.
So why would someone say they have a crucial piece of evidence and then withhold it from view of those best to evaluate it?
Why would someone lie and say they have crucial piece when they don’t have it?
The two persons who misrepresented themselves both:
1. Use strange acronyms in name calling such as PITA, SOG, and disguised profanity: (I was expecting "BOF" for "Bloody Old Fool," a favorite of my English father.)
2. Are adamantly opposed to the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation for China Airlines Flight 611.
I now understand the difficulties of the official investigators sorting through the lies and biased opinions from interested parties.
Back to the issue of the probable cause of China Airlines Flight 611 based upon matches to other similar events:
To review the previous posts about facts.
1. The pressure differential before the hull rupture of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was 3.5 PSI. Nowhere in the entire NTSB AAR 00/03 is that figure or any other given for the differential. That number is a very important one in any hull rupture and yet was omitted. The Differential was given in the AAR for the other 3 hull breakup accidents. That omission of differential is another indication of the prosecution of the center tank fire explosion with undetermined ignition source to the exclusion of an objective investigation. By the way. A fuel tank fire/explosion needs three things or it does not happen; fuel, air, and ignition source.It’s like a three legged stool. The NTSB has a stool with two legs and expects it to stand up. The ignition source is absent in their explanation and therefore invalid. The shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation does have all three for that center tank explosion.
2. There is no mechanical linkage between the manual locking handle and the midspan latches. There is a mechanical linkage between the door unlatch motor and the latching cams on all ten latches. If the bottom eight latches are not permitted to unlatch (because of strong locking sectors) the midspans are not supposed to turn to the unlatch position even though they have no locking sectors.
3. The top part of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611 has vertical tear lines in the fuselage skin above the door, the pressure relief doors (which are mechanical driven to open by the manual locking handle which also unlocks the locking sectors) are missing, and the aft cargo door was split somewhat longitudinally. All of the above evidence matches generally those cargo doors in 747s that rupture open in flight for whatever reasons.
4. Apparently the repair doubler did not fail or split but there were cracks emanating from the solid steel doubler.
5. Leaks from the investigation to the American press support the failed repair doubler as the initial event while omitting any discussion of the shattered aft cargo door.
Any information about the aft end of China Airlines Flight 611 is welcomed. There is so much evidence to match with other events that even the slightest bit of information about the floor beams, metal skin, bent tubes, paint transfers, distorted cams or latches, is very important.
Please tell me of any information released by the ASC or Taiwan press about China Airlines Flight 611. You have better access to the data than I do and any information is appreciated.
Cheers,
Barry
Mr. Yong probably does not send out pictures to single persons as he hates leaks.
So why would someone say they have a crucial piece of evidence and then withhold it from view of those best to evaluate it?
Why would someone lie and say they have crucial piece when they don’t have it?
The two persons who misrepresented themselves both:
1. Use strange acronyms in name calling such as PITA, SOG, and disguised profanity: (I was expecting "BOF" for "Bloody Old Fool," a favorite of my English father.)
2. Are adamantly opposed to the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation for China Airlines Flight 611.
I now understand the difficulties of the official investigators sorting through the lies and biased opinions from interested parties.
Back to the issue of the probable cause of China Airlines Flight 611 based upon matches to other similar events:
To review the previous posts about facts.
1. The pressure differential before the hull rupture of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was 3.5 PSI. Nowhere in the entire NTSB AAR 00/03 is that figure or any other given for the differential. That number is a very important one in any hull rupture and yet was omitted. The Differential was given in the AAR for the other 3 hull breakup accidents. That omission of differential is another indication of the prosecution of the center tank fire explosion with undetermined ignition source to the exclusion of an objective investigation. By the way. A fuel tank fire/explosion needs three things or it does not happen; fuel, air, and ignition source.It’s like a three legged stool. The NTSB has a stool with two legs and expects it to stand up. The ignition source is absent in their explanation and therefore invalid. The shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation does have all three for that center tank explosion.
2. There is no mechanical linkage between the manual locking handle and the midspan latches. There is a mechanical linkage between the door unlatch motor and the latching cams on all ten latches. If the bottom eight latches are not permitted to unlatch (because of strong locking sectors) the midspans are not supposed to turn to the unlatch position even though they have no locking sectors.
3. The top part of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611 has vertical tear lines in the fuselage skin above the door, the pressure relief doors (which are mechanical driven to open by the manual locking handle which also unlocks the locking sectors) are missing, and the aft cargo door was split somewhat longitudinally. All of the above evidence matches generally those cargo doors in 747s that rupture open in flight for whatever reasons.
4. Apparently the repair doubler did not fail or split but there were cracks emanating from the solid steel doubler.
5. Leaks from the investigation to the American press support the failed repair doubler as the initial event while omitting any discussion of the shattered aft cargo door.
Any information about the aft end of China Airlines Flight 611 is welcomed. There is so much evidence to match with other events that even the slightest bit of information about the floor beams, metal skin, bent tubes, paint transfers, distorted cams or latches, is very important.
Please tell me of any information released by the ASC or Taiwan press about China Airlines Flight 611. You have better access to the data than I do and any information is appreciated.
Cheers,
Barry
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Barry "Midspanlatch" Smith, for your information, I repeat my previous post on the discovery of the bottom half of rear cargo door:
posted 16th August 2002 13:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received the following information.
Dear ....
ASC sent me a photo that shows the bottom part of the cargo door still attached to the fuselage, so I can confirm that is correct. Thus it seems they have recovered both the upper and lower part of the door. Am not sure if there is a middle strip missing, will check into that.
At no time did I claim that I received a picture of the door. This information was e-mailed to me by Aviation Week & Space Technology. It would seem that Dear.... was my name from the informant and not Barry.
Any wonder people get frustrated reading your garbage?
posted 16th August 2002 13:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received the following information.
Dear ....
ASC sent me a photo that shows the bottom part of the cargo door still attached to the fuselage, so I can confirm that is correct. Thus it seems they have recovered both the upper and lower part of the door. Am not sure if there is a middle strip missing, will check into that.
At no time did I claim that I received a picture of the door. This information was e-mailed to me by Aviation Week & Space Technology. It would seem that Dear.... was my name from the informant and not Barry.
Any wonder people get frustrated reading your garbage?