China Airlines B747 Crash (Merged)

[Trash Hauler]

Hey Hotdog and JBS.

This thread has been excellent. I have learned a lot about evaluating information against pre-conceived ideas.

Both of you could be accused of bias but I will not do that. I hope that the sparring stops but the discussion continues.

JBS - Keep your input coming. Certainly very challenging regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

Hotdog - Any other information you have would be appreciated.

Cheers

Trash Hauler

[JohnBarrySmith]

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.

JBS>I wanted to see what it looks like as if I had posted the HotDog post.

The interpretation I read if I had posted it was that:

‘I had received the following information and it was to Dear...whoever such as contributors, or posters, or some anonymous person, or a name omitted for privacy reasons and that ASC had 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.’

I had added to the terse copied post no amplification as to source as Aviation Week, or that it was not to me instead of from me, no quotation marks to indicate the text was not the original but from an email from Aviation Week, and the impression was that a picture existed of the aft cargo door and I would check into the possible missing middle strip.

Any claim that the text was not from the poster is ingenuous.

dis•in•gen•u•ous 'dis-en-"jen-ye-wes\\ adj : lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness

Misstatements and misdirection, typical of conspiracy guys.

So, what’s point? Distractions work.

Has anybody got some technical questions? Has anybody read the Smith AARs in pdf and said, hey, this might be right and if so, then what and why and how? Does anybody care enough to want to do something about it? If posters have contacts with Aviation Week, why is not Aviation Week running a story on a shattered aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611?

Is everybody just waiting around for someone else to do something?

The shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation for China Airlines Flight 611 is either right or wrong and if right, something needs to be done.

The shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup for Air India Flight 182, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800 is either right or wrong and if right, something needs to be done.

Who else to do it?

Well, I’m doing what I can, rebutting any factual misconceptions with facts and cut and thrusting with the personality boys on this forum.

Things brought up here and won’t go away:
1. 38115 pounds of pressure on Trans World Airlines Flight 800 at 13700 feet MSL event time.
2. 20 inch shatter zone on port side of Pan Am Flight 103 at event time and at same time a huge hole on starboard side in and around the foward cargo door.
3. Frayed from outward force cargo door of Air India Flight 182 at explosion location, forward cargo compartment on starboard side.
4. Fodded engine number three on Pan Am Flight 103.

Can anyone show me my facts are wrong which lead to the wiring/cargo door conclusion for various Boeing 747 accidents?

Can anyone say why they believe bombs and center tank explosions were involved without telling me someone else’s opinion as proof?

No bombs for Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103, no initial event as center tank fire for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and maybe no repair doubler failure as an initial event for China Airlines Flight 611 which might have had an aft cargo door rupture as the initial event. Those are the positions.

Cheers,
Barry

[HotDog]

Flight 611 Probe Finds Likely Rear Fuselage Fatigue Cracks


By Michael A. Dornheim/Aviation Week & Space Technology

06-Aug-2002 10:16 AM U.S. EDT

The following is an excerpt from the above article.

Quote:
There were flat fracture cracks likely caused by fatigue in about three places on stringers around the aftmost No. 5 left exit door. A repair doubler there was made of stainless steel, not aluminum. The current structural repair manual forbids stainless steel, Yong said.


Mechanics have to be careful about blending a repair in with surrounding structure. It is possible to have a repair that is strong in itself but alters stress paths and overloads surrounding structure.


The No. 4 left exit door had a puncture hole about the size of an orange at about fuselage station 1694. The hole has sharp teeth and appears to be caused by a high-energy impact, but there are conflicting indications of the direction of the impact, Yong said. The No. 4 right door has not been found. Unquote.

The largest cracks so far, have been found around the doubler repair of the tailskid repair damage, which is aft of the bulk cargo compartment on the underside of the fuselage. That doubler incidentally appears to have been an approved repair with approved material in contradiction to some reports here, that it was stainless steel. The stainless steel doubler repair was around the stringers of L5 door, which is on the left hand side of section 46 at station 2261. The aft cargo door is on the right hand side of the fuselage at station 1865. The L4 door was found to have a puncture hole the size of an orange due to undetermined impact damage. I shall leave it to Barry to pontificate on the possible reasons for this but it would be interesting to see how this particular damage could be attributed to an aft cargo door latch failure from the opposite side of the fuselage?

[Trash Hauler]

Hotdog,

I have followed this thread with avid interest from the beginning. Looking at your last post I am confused as to what is the "quote" and what is your commentary.

The cracks do not indicate fail points. The hole in the L4 door is very interesting. But to have a go at JBS to "pontificate" as to how it got there shows you have lost the point of this thread and are into personal attacks.

I don't want to see the good gen stop flowing.

Lets keep to the information an not the dislikes.

Cheers

Trash Hauler

[HotDog]

Trash Hauler, have another read of my post, you will see unquote at he end of the quote. OK?

I do not think I have lost the thread by any means at all. Barry has no training, qualifications or experience on B747 airplanes, sytems or structures, other than his personal obsessions of his own website. If he was so informed of the cause of all the 747 catastrophies of inflight breakups, he would be a highly paid head of official investigators of NTSB and would not be obliged to obfuscate the results of the of the findings of expert agencies on this website.

To have offically investigated, analysed and prosecuted in the case of PanAm and pending with Air India and the reconstruction of TWA accidents, which have cost millions of dollars, do you really believe that there is a commercial plot by the Boeing company to hide a fatal fault in their B747 cargo door design?

[JohnBarrySmith]

HD>To have offically investigatet, analysed and prosecuted in the case of PanAm and pending with Air India and the reconstruction of TWA accidents, which have cost millions of dollars, do you really believe that there is a commercial plot by the Boeing company to hide a possible design fault in their B747 cargo door design?

JBS>I run into this all the time: Conspiracy thinking. I say again for the thousandth time over 13 years: There is no plot, there is no conspiracy, there is no group of manufacturers, attorneys, agencies, airlines, law enforcement or anyone else that ‘knows’ that wiring is causing cargo doors to rupture in flight and are trying to keep it secret. All of the persons involved are acting in their own perceived best interest. They do not go down the path of investigation that may lead them to disaster; they do go down the path of investigation that exonerates them, that exults them, that gives them promotions and respect of their colleagues. No one wants unpleasant truths and will try to avoid them, that’s human nature. It’s called denial.

A clue to the correct side of an argument is if one person attacks the other instead of the issue. The attacker is on the wrong side. If the attacker had truth or facts to demolish the other foolish side, he would use them, but since he does not, he resorts to name calling. There's a lawyer saying something like this: If you have truth and facts, talk quietly in court, if you have neither, bang loudly on the table.

Bill Tucker of TSB tried to get photographs of the forward cargo door area of Air India Flight 182 for me and failed. And he was the Director General of TSB before retiring a few months ago. None of the reasons given below for denying the request make sense if one knows about all the high quality 35 MM film and video shot at the time. And a fuzzy picture is better than no picture.

From Bill Tucker below:

"Now to the matter of your request for photos of the forward right side of
the AI 182 B747.

I spoke with John Garstang about your request. He advised that there are
both photos and videos from the AI 182 investigation. However, with respect
to the forward right side and the cargo door in particular, he is only
certain about the video. They have pictures showing where the cargo door
was in the debris field, and they also have a picture of the door at the
ocean surface when it broke free during the recovery attempt; he is just not
sure how much was video, or still frame from video, versus photographs..

To complicate matters, the video was deteriorating as time went by. Some
years ago (estimate: around 1995), the RCMP took the magnetic tape video
(which would be of even poorer quality by now) and made a digitized version.
The former is ours, the latter is theirs; however they need both for trial
purposes (continuity of evidence, I assume). Moreover, they have advised
that the matter is before the courts, that a publication ban is in effect,
and that they do not want anything to be released that could be prejudicial
to the court process. Both the TSB's General Counsel and I have been
notified that the RCMP Legal Services group believes that release of Air
India wreckage photographs could be injurious to the RCMP's work and that,
as such, release is exempted under Sec. 16(1) of Canada's Access to
Information Act.

There may (far from certain) be some form of photo/video info that is still
in the TSB's possession and that may (also far from certain) be releasable
to you. To determine that will take considerable effort and, to be at all
manageable, it will require the personal involvement of John Garstang. With
his heavy workload, as we try to complete the report on the SWR111
investigation, we just can't give him any more tasks for the next few
months. However, I have obtained a personal commitment from both the
Director of Engineering and the Director of Air Investigations that they
will follow-up on this at the end of the summer and see if there is anything
that can be made available to you. To that end, I shall send both of them a
copy of this message so that they can create a "bring forward" reminder to
follow up. At the very worst, the TSB's photos/videos can certainly be made
available after the trial."

JBS>And by the way, NTSB excoriated Boeing and MD for their confirmed design fault for B747 cargo door design already. No one wants to read another AAR like NTSB AAR 92/02 in which everybody got blamed. Why work very hard in one direction to find out that there are very serious problems when easy work in another direction will produce compliments?

That is why I can see the forest of the four or five trees. I am objective, independent, and motivated. My job is not on the line nor my reputation.

I can read in the AAIB report of a 20 inch hole and read that it may have caused a relatively mild blast by a very large shotgun discharge at close range to the fuselage and I can imagine a very large shotgun discharging at close range to the fuselage giving a relatively mild blast whereas others imagine a very powerful semtex bomb blowing the nose of Pan Am Flight 103 to smithereens.

If one were objective and view all the official AARs it can be seen that a forward cargo door rupturing in flight answers the questions the evidence raises and they match United Airlines Flight 811, the uncontested shorted wiring/switch/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation.

If one wants to read into those AAR mysterious foreigners planting bombs that go off three or so flights later or mysterious fuel tank explosions with no ignition source, then their imagination is a wonderful thing. But it does not fit the facts.

If anyone has access to a photograph of the bottom half of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611, it would be welcomed an evaluated by a guy who has studied ruptured cargo doors in Boeing 747 for years. AvWeek needs a subscription I don’t have so I can’t contact the reporter.

The hole in the port side passenger door of China Airlines Flight 611 could be soda can being expelled as the fuselage disintegrates. Trans World Airlines Flight 800 had similar type indentations and holes in the seat backs. Right now, I would say it’s a mystery and gives support for any missile guys lurking around.

The missing passenger door on the starboard side is interesting too. When something is missing and is being searched for intently in an area where nearby fuselage material was already found, that’s a clue that part of the fuselage was not normal.

More stuff is missing from starboard side aft of the wing that port side. More stuff is shattered on starboard side than port side. The hull rupture occurred for China Airlines Flight 611 and it appears to be from starboard side based upon skimpy reports of missing and shattered pieces of wreckage.

That repair doubler did not fail, apparently, just cracks around it. To conclude the probable cause of China Airlines Flight 611 was repair doubler failure and exclude any discussion of a possible initial event of a ruptured open aft cargo door is biased reporting. It’s not a plot, just reporting pleasant interpretations to an industry that really wants to believe China Airlines Flight 611 and others were random acts of violence or one off bad repair jobs and that all the rest of the planes are safe and there is no industry wide mechanical problem of faulty wiring causing non plug cargo doors to rupture open in flight.

I’ve been actively on this cargo door thing since summer of 1995 when the internet gave me research access and the matches between Pan Am Flight 103 and United Airlines Flight 811 became very clear. I was not surprised when Trans World Airlines Flight 800 happened and matched it right away to United Airlines Flight 811. Then I learned about Air India Flight 182 many years earlier. And now China Airlines Flight 611.

Five early model Boeing 747s that had inflight breakups with many many evidence matches all centering around a cargo door that has characteristics similar to the China Airlines Flight 611 aft cargo door top piece.

Why has this discovery not become acknowledged? It’s wishful thinking by those involved it not be true.

Well, it is true.

Why have not aviation professionals reported the discovery to their safety personnel for their review and consideration? The evidence is there to read about and see.

But...everyone stands around and waits and I see Trans World Airlines Flight 800 happening, and then the other cargo door openings that don’t cause fatalities so are ignored, and now China Airlines Flight 611. And in about two more years, another early model Boeing 747 is reported to have disintegrated in flight with no warning leaving a sudden sound on the CVR followed by an abrupt power cut and one of the cargo doors will be shattered and split longitudinally with most of the door latching hardware missing. And it will be again be a bomb, or a missile, or improperly latched, or a fuel tank explosion with no ignition source but never known faulty Poly X wiring rupturing open a known poor design of a non plug cargo door.

It’s not a plot, there is no conspiracy, it’s just everyone wishing something which does not blame them caused the accident and trying hard to avoid doing any hard work that might point a finger of responsibility at them.

JBS>I repeat: Can anyone say why they believe bombs and center tank explosions were involved without telling me someone else’s opinion as proof? Can anyone show me my facts are wrong which lead to the wiring/cargo door conclusion for various Boeing 747 accidents? Can anyone get pictures of the bottom half of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611? Can anyone get a text description of the aft cargo door total pieces? Can anyone refer a member of the aviation press to me or corazon.com?

Cheers,
Barry

[Ranger One]

JBS sez:

"Moreover, they have advised that the matter is before the courts, that a publication ban is in effect, and that they do not want anything to be released that could be prejudicial to the court process. Both the TSB's General Counsel and I have been notified that the RCMP Legal Services group believes that release of Air India wreckage photographs could be injurious to the RCMP's work and that, as such, release is exempted under Sec. 16(1) of Canada's Access to Information Act. "

Without passing comment on JBS theories, I would point out that there is one group of people pretty much guaranteed to have access to the photos/video - the Sikhs defence team. Suggest JBS should approach them, offering to explore the defence that the crash was not the result of a bombing at all.

That's his best way to have a chance of a look at the photographs. RCMP may well refuse to release them to anyone else, but they can hardly refuse the defence brief!

R1

[JohnBarrySmith]

R1>Without passing comment on JBS theories, I would point out that there is one group of people pretty much guaranteed to have access to the photos/video - the Sikhs defence team. Suggest JBS should approach them, offering to explore the defence that the crash was not the result of a bombing at all.

That's his best way to have a chance of a look at the photographs. RCMP may well refuse to release them to anyone else, but they can hardly refuse the defence brief!

JBS>Thanks for suggestion and been there, done that. I’ve talked to three attorneys of the Sikhs, several of the relatives, the RCMP, and the TSB.

All start from the ‘it was a bomb, period.’ All end with, ‘it was a bomb’ but the Sikhs did or did not do it, period.’

The attorneys are criminal attorneys and don’t know the first thing about airplanes crashing. The Sikhs are conspiracy from the word go and believe it is a religious/political plot against them. The press won’t talk about it because of the ban. The RCMP now says with their ‘expert’ John Garstang, that it was a bomb in the aft cargo compartment, completely contrary to what the CASB and Kirpal Indian report said in 1986. Some attorneys have quit and some are under investigation for hiring relatives. And everybody believes it was a bomb for Air India Flight 182...except the actual investigators on the scene and who have examined the wreckage and say otherwise in the official reports of 1986.

The RCMP won’t release any photographs, the TSB guy retired, the Sikhs continue to fight off conspiracy ‘proof’ against them, an impossible task, as they look for other ‘bombers’ to put the blame on. Exactly the strategy of the Pan Am Flight 103 defence team who never disputed it was a bomb but blamed the Syrians or whoever.

Once it was assumed to be a bomb, who needs prosecutors with a defense team like that.

I have never been refuted by facts, only opinions from interested parties. They never asked any questions about the wiring/cargo door issue, just about me personally.

It is not a conspiracy. Would you expect Boeing to run computer simulations of 747s that disintegrate in the air and run all the possibilities when one of them can be perceived as causing the company to crash? These pieces of wreckage have to do what they do after the initial event, they can not negotiate or have wishful thinking to land over there or over here. A computer simulation can easily be made that would explain the movement and twisted shapes of the wreckage pieces.

A center tank explosion gives center type damage, not the actual starboard shattered side and the smooth port side of Trans World Airlines Flight 800.

A bomb on the port side of Pan Am Flight 103 would give shattered port side, not the actual small hole on port side and huge shattered starboard side.

A repair doubler failure on the port side of China Airlines Flight 611 would give more shattered port side aft fuselage damage, not the apparent more severe starboard side.

A powerful semtex bomb that blows the nose off of Boeing 747s would be heard on the CVRs, but was not heard on any.

All the wishful thinking is refuted by the actual evidence.

The attorneys know that in trials it is expert opinion versus expert opinion and my ‘non expert’ opinion will not stand up against the ‘bomb’ opinions, regardless of the facts. The attorneys don’t care about plane crashes, only about their clients. The attorneys would have to learn all about pressurized hulls going back to the Comet to adequately cross examine me and they will not learn all that but will try for technicalities which, I believe, will get their clients off. I predict there will be no trial for Air India Flight 182. The case against them is too flawed, even more so than against the Libyans, if that’s possible.

The sad part is the semi wacky explanations like electro magnetic interference, meteors, missiles, static electricity, and space debris get press attention and official attention, while the mechanical explanation with solid precedent is ignored. Not a conspiracy, just wishful thinking on the part of the interested parties that a very serious industry wide problem exists on all poly X wired and non plug cargo door airliners...and that’s a big problem.

Cheers
Barry

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>Maybe there will be a trial although the Hell's Angel trial named below was dismissed.

Innocent until proven guilty. Ha! This court is patterned after the Camp Zeist courtroom for Pan Am Flight 103 accused.

Barry


VANCOUVER -- A $7.2-million courtroom built for the Air-India bombing trial will end up saving taxpayers money, officials with the office of the Attorney-General said yesterday. The officials led journalists on a tour of Courtroom 20, a high-tech, high-security courtroom that boasts 25 computer monitors and two kilometres of data cable. Huge bullet-resistant Lexan windows separate Courtroom 20 from the public gallery, which seats 149. Three big-screen monitors relay the courtroom activities to the spectators. The $7.2-million price tag is just a small part of the massive costs of the Air-India trial. Last month, a former lawyer for one of the defendants estimated that legal-aid defence lawyers' bills alone will amount to $36-million. That figure doesn't include what has been spent already on legal aid since the first two accused were arrested in October, 2000. Nor does it include payments to a team of more than a dozen senior Crown prosecutors, a cost that is being shared by the federal and B.C. governments. Then there's the estimated cost of the 16-year RCMP investigation that led to the charges -- $30-million. The government knew that the new, state-of-the-art courtroom was going to be "a fairly costly project," Julian Borkowski, technical co-ordinator for the project, told reporters yesterday. But the high-tech gear is money well spent in the long run, he said. "The purpose of the technology is, bottom line, to save us money," said Mr. Borkowski. Mr. Borkowski said studies have shown that similar high-tech innovations have cut trial times by 35 to 45 per cent. For example, he said, an exhibit that took 13 minutes to view in a conventional courtroom could be viewed by jurors and lawyers on individual TV screens in three minutes, he said. The jurors in the new courtroom will view exhibits on individual flat-screen LCD monitors. Because they're used to watching TV, they will understand the evidence better, which will make for shorter deliberation times, Mr. Borkowski said. He added that the courtroom will see plenty of use once the Air-India trial is over. "We have some trials with 25 lawyers and indications are there are going to be more trials like that in the future," Mr. Borkowski said. The Air-India trial is scheduled to start March 31, 2003. Inderjit Singh Reyat, Ajaib Singh Bagri and Ripudaman Singh Malik are accused of planting a bomb on Air-India Flight 182. The flight crashed June 23, 1985, killing all 329 passengers and crew. Vancouver's courtroom is still cheaper than the $19-million facility that was built in Montreal to house a high-profile Hells Angels trial.

[atakacs]

Folks,

> I have followed this thread with avid interest from the
> beginning. Looking at your last post I am confused as
> to what is the "quote" and what is your commentary.

May I respectfully suggest that we all use the various formatting tags available in this BB software, and, in particular, the QUOTE code that allows formatting such as

I have followed this thread with avid interest from the beginning. Looking at your last post I am confused as to what is the "quote" and what is your commentary.

It would, IMHO, make reading this board much easier.

[firehorse]

Hmmm getting a bit off the subject are we not?

[HotDog]

JBS>I repeat: Can anyone say why they believe bombs and center tank explosions were involved without telling me someone else’s opinion as proof? Can anyone show me my facts are wrong which lead to the wiring/cargo door conclusion for various Boeing 747 accidents? Can anyone get pictures of the bottom half of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611? Can anyone get a text description of the aft cargo door total pieces? Can anyone refer a member of the aviation press to me or corazon.com?

Try Dr. Bernard Loeb, chief of the NTSB probe of TWA 800 in flight breakup.

You are accusing the Boeing Company and regulatory authorities of the USA and Canada of criminal negligence or worse, by ignoring the real cause of inflight breakups as documented in Corazon.com. So everybody flying on B747 airplanes are risking their lives and waiting for the next cargo door midspan latch failure.

Quite frankly, I am surprised you have not been sued for libel, as yet.

[JohnBarrySmith]

Firehorse>Hmmm getting a bit off the subject are we not?
JBS>Firehorse lives!

HotDog>You are accusing the Boeing Company and regulatory authorities of the USA and Canada of criminal negligence or worse, by ignoring the real cause of inflight breakups as documented in Corazon.com. So everybody flying on B747 airplanes are risking their lives and waiting for the next cargo door midspan latch failure.

Quite frankly, I am surprised you have not been sued for libel, as yet.

JBS>Quite frankly, my dear, I don’t give damn. Well, first of all, as I await technical questions about a mechanical premise which seems to be holding up pretty well scientifically, I am not accusing anyone of anything. You may try to put words in my mouth but you are wrong. You are falsely accusing me of making accusations against Boeing and others. You should be sued for slander as you have provided no support for your allegation. I have provided support for my allegation with your quote above.

You conspiracy guys think in terms of plots and scheming and cheating and lying so you think others think that way too. I don’t. There are no plots from Boeing and no accusations from me.

Now, to the next conclusion that ‘everybody flying on B747 airplanes are risking their lives’...you are entirely correct and I’ve said this since 1992 in print. The sad proof was it happened in 1996 with Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and maybe in 2002 with China Airlines Flight 611. I don’t think the passengers are waiting for the next cargo door midspan latch failure to occur, but I certainly am. I watch carefully all the Boeing 747 hull losses and only one in the last six years, after Trans World Airlines Flight 800, that fits the bill and that’s China Airlines Flight 611.

HD>Try Dr. Bernard Loeb, chief of the NTSB probe of TWA 800 in flight breakup.

JBS>I repeat again my repeat for those that are not clear on first reading: I repeat: Can anyone say why they believe bombs and center tank explosions were involved without telling me someone else’s opinion as proof?

By referring me to Dr. Bernard Loeb, you are offering someone else’s opinion as proof, which is exactly what I did not ask for as it is not evidence or facts but wishful thinking on the part of the non aircraft accident investigator Bernie Loeb.

An absence of facts and evidence noted in previous posts so: In the meantime, I am asking this philosophical question of myself: Should errors of history be corrected? There have been many and was it important to correct them?

The Maine was probably not a Spanish saboteur with a mine in Havana Harbor but coal dust explosion in aging battleship.
Tonkin Gulf was not an event where a US Destroyer was attached by N. Vietnam PT boats but a jittery radar operator.
The Hindenberg was not sabotage but flammable skin of the dirigible.
The Normandie was not German saboteurs in drydock in NYC in WWII but a welder’s torch on Kapok lifejackets.
The Kursk was not a collision with a US Sub but faulty torpedo propellant.

I always go back to United Airlines Flight 811 and the second AAR which was written after the first AAR was found to be in error. NTSB at the time thought it important enough to get it right second time so issued AAR 92/02. Without that corrected AAR, I would be saying all those 747 events were caused by improperly latched cargo doors instead of wiring or switch.

I believe errors of history should be corrected as history is the foundation of the future. That foundation must be as accurate as possible for the future to be successful.

But, in the long run, the moment is what counts and Libya and the Sikhs shall be forever known as cowardly terrorists blowing women and children out of the sky with bombs in planes. Those errors of history shall have the major impact and not the corrected version, whenever it comes out, if ever, of no bombs but a mechanical problem which had happened before and since.

For most, belief is faith, myth, and superstition. My belief is science. Science is not opinion but evidence, math, facts, data, and reality. That’s why I always am able to fend off the emotional tirades of those who do not respect science and dwell on personalities, titles, status, and charm.

I full well understand the reluctance of most to take the time to possibly determine that their inside beliefs on good guys and bad guys and why good people die is wrong. Right now, it’s clear, no blame for the US, or Boeing or the Airline, or anyone else except those poor saps who got blamed for letting two bombs slip through very tight security in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Malta, Frankfurt, and London because those evil foreigners tried to kill us good guys.

Not clear for those wishful thinkers is that politics is involved and that always means going with the will of the majority and the will of the people is always to absolve themselves of blame. No plot, just human nature.

It’s clear to me that the science of plane crashes shows that cargo doors on five early model Boeing 747s are rupturing open in flight. I suggest they all have the same cause, the electrical cause and that’s based on United Airlines Flight 811, a confirmed probable cause, not flimsy shadowy conspiracy nonsense.

So, I wait for more evidence. There is supposed to be a picture of the bottom part of the aft cargo door but I can not locate it. Does anyone have access to it? Can anyone describe it? Is the location known where retrieved?

(PS. I can’t cut an paste into the quote option on the BB software from my Mac so shall continue to use a forward arrow for quotes.)

Cheers,
Barry

[Dagger Dirk]

Well spoken JBS
I may or may not agree with you (or doubt you) but I support to the hilt your right to pursue the possibilities - as you are.

Please don't permit the harangue of your detractors to distract you. Remain focussed on the facts and try and place the burden of proof upon the investigating authorities and manufacturer - to disprove your theories.

But always be sure to take on board and acknowledge any proof (or just evidence) to the contrary - even to the point of pursuing it - and its veracity - with the same vigour you have for your theories.

DD

[HotDog]

Barry, I have drawn the attention of the Boeing Company to your theories. Hope this will be helpful to your cause. They might even send you a picture of the aft cargo door from CA611.

[Trash Hauler]

JBS> I admire your tenacity to continue to follow all the evidence that comes out. I hope that the picture of the lower half of the door is released.

What a great thread this is.

Trash Hauler

[SaturnV]

JBS, I am not surprised that you denigrate the competency of the lawyers for the Sikh defendants in the various Crown prosecutions associated with the loss of Air India 182. Simply, they do not subscribe to your postulate that there was no bomb on AI 182, but rather the plane crashed because of a failure of the forward cargo door.

But surely even half competent lawyers could anticipate how prosecutors would eviscerate your 'investigations' and conclusions on cross examination. In the matter of TW 800, your scenario is that the forward cargo door flew off, setting in motion a rapid, progressive failure of the fuselage leading to the eventual explosion of the center fuel tank. You even describe how radar paints a picture of the forward cargo door flying off. .....And it seems you peddled this scenario to the NTSB. Of all the various scenarios for what happened to TW 800, and there are many, yours is the only one based on an initiating failure of the forward cargo door.

The aforementioned Mr. Loeb at an NTSB board meeting on TW 800 in August, 2000, said this:

We found no evidence that a structural failure and decompression initiated the break-up. A thorough examination of the wreckage by our engineers and metallurgists did not reveal any evidence of fatigue, corrosion, or any other structural fault that could have led to the break-up.

As a side note, I would like to mention that there was absolutely no evidence of an in-flight separation of the forward cargo door - one of the many theories suggested to us by the members of the public. The physical evidence demonstrated that the forward cargo door was closed and latched at water impact.

Loeb appears to be specifically referring to you, and having never examined the wreckage of TW 800, how do you maintain credibility on a witness stand in the face of such a statement?

Your website features an elaborate matrix of variables of five 747 crashes in which you indicate a cargo door failure is a possible (China Air 611), probable (PA 103, TW 800, AI 182), or definitive cause (UA 811). I am rather struck by certain variables being included, while others (which would seem on-point) are omitted. For example, you include an airspeed variable, but none for altitude or differential pressure. Is it perhaps because that TW 800 was at 13,600 feet with a differential pressure of 3.5 psi, and UA 811 was between 22 and 23,000 feet with a differential pressure of 6.5 psi, and how does one then explain why, with the same failure mode, UA was able to successfully land and TW 800 catastrophically breaks apart?

One of your other variables involves power cut to the flight data recorder. Why is it that you omitted a variable involving the CVR? Is it perhaps because the CVR on United 811 functioned all the way to landing? (It is a remarkable transcript of airmanship.) And how to explain away the sudden abrupt loss of CVR and FDR power in TW 800 from a progressive (albeit rapid) failure of the hull when the CVR and FDR power and data cabling run along the top of the cabin?

And there is your variable of the number of unrecovered bodies in all five crashes being at least nine. What the relevance of this is escapes me, other than the fact that there were nine unrecovered bodies for UA 811. However, once again, you have the facts wrong. Last I read, they had identified all but two of the bodies from TW 800, and hoped to identify even these two.

[JohnBarrySmith]

DD>Remain focussed on the facts and try and place the burden of proof upon the investigating authorities and manufacturer - to disprove your theories.

JBS>Roger dodger. Hard to do when they refuse to engage in conversation or discussion via email.

DD>But always be sure to take on board and acknowledge any proof (or just evidence) to the contrary - even to the point of pursuing it - and its veracity - with the same vigour you have for your theories.

JBS>Well spoken DD and it is an attitude that I try to follow: Give equal consideration to all plausible possibilities. In my Smith AARs, I have laid out and examined all the possibilities and given the for and against evidence. I had to rule out bomb and missile for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 as well as center tank as initial event. Ruling in causes is very difficult when the actual evidence is absent such as compressed air or a fraction of an inch of burnt wiring in literally miles of the stuff. All the Smith AARs have as much space given for and against the bombs, missile, center tank explosions and others. Each AAR has all the premises listed, discussion, conclusions and sources given. It’s very unwieldy, specific, and long but that’s what scientific documents are supposed to be. They are not a novels. I did not want to do what the authorities are doing, making a prosecutorial case for a villain and omitting any contrary evidence that points to another. Pan Am Flight 103 omits any discussion or pictures of the starboard side of the nose. Trans World Airlines Flight 800 omits any discussion of a hull rupture in flight. Air India Flight 182 omits all pictures of the agreed upon explosion location point in the forward cargo compartment. China Airlines Flight 611 is so far objective but the press is doing the prosecution of the repair doubler and omitting any discussion of the shattered aft cargo door. Not even a whisper about the door although the ASC has specifically pointed out the strange evidence of the door.

Zealots always defeat their cause by lies, cheats, exaggerations, and fudges. I have to constantly fight the temptation to use those techniques to get my point across. For instance, a contributor asked where the 3.5 PSI came from for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and it took me an hour of so looking for it. I was tempted to ignore it or just say it’s true and leave out the source. It turns out in the thousands of page of NTSB documents for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 it’s one line in one exhibit of a public docket while absent in the actual AAR and its appendices.

I’m tempted to say that engine number three fell apart from the other engines for Air India Flight 182 because one engine did fall apart and that engine was found near the engine number three strut, but...that does not make that engine the number three so I have to say probably engine number three.

So, I ask for evidence to the contrary for China Airlines Flight 611 that the aft cargo door ruptured in flight. So far, the evidence is that it did. Why it did is another mystery. I offer United Airlines Flight 811 as a precedent but will listen of course to others such as JAL 123.

I still leave open missile or bomb or repair doubler failure for China Airlines Flight 611. Any more plausible explanations for an inflight breakup of an early model Boeing 747 that leaves a sudden sound on the CVR followed by an abrupt power cut? I don’t pick the flight numbers, the evidence does. If anyone knows of another early model Boeing 747 that fits the above evidence, let me know and I will examine it carefully.

The larger issue is wiring. The symptoms are being blamed when the initial cause of shorted wiring occurs. Fires start, yaw dampers oscillate, cargo doors open, autopilots disconnect, attitude gyros spin down, and engines fall off, all actual symptoms of plane crashes which were blamed on oxygen cannisters starting on fire, sticky rudder valves, bombs, missiles suicidal pilots, fuel tank explosions, pilot error, and corroded fuse pins, symptoms which may have been caused by shorted wiring based on other similar accidents in which the aircraft returned more or less safely and the actual cause could be determined by the evidence and not guessed at with wishful thinking.

HD>Barry, I have drawn the attention of the Boeing Company to your theories. Hope this will be helpful to your cause. They might even send you a picture of the aft cargo door from CA611.

JBS>Well, thank you sir, I would be glad to talk to any Boeing engineers or safety personnel. I have been emailing them with my research for years to no response. I’ve even written to their attorneys, Perkins and Coie in Seattle. No response. Boeing is a wall.

The goal is to get the actual problem fixed so that it does not reoccur. That means an actual mechanic actually tears out or replaces the known faulty Poly X wiring and that the cargo doors become plug like all the other doors. For Boeing personnel to do that they have to be authorized by FAA. For FAA to order that, NTSB has to show a safety issue. For NTSB to do that, the accident investigators have to make findings as to probable cause. For the investigators to do that they have to have documentation by the senior metallurgist who is James Wildey II who has been in on these events since 1985 with Air India Flight 182. He has consistently said the cargo door for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was normal, all latched, and locked until water impact, even though that finding is very clearly contrary to the actual evidence of blown out and shattered metal in the wreckage reconstruction. And for China Airlines Flight 611, another shattered cargo door goes to Wildey for his conclusions.

But this time is different. Kay Yong is there. ASC looks pretty good so far. I think he will be open minded and really wants to retrieve all those missing pieces of that aft cargo door as well as well as every other piece of metal aft of the wing of China Airlines Flight 611. I predict the NTSB report on the top part of the aft cargo door for China Airlines Flight 611 will come back saying that no preexisting cracks were present, no corrosion was present, and the hinge was intact giving the impression the cargo door was normal while omitting all the matches to other ruptured cargo door events such as vertical tears, missing pressure relief doors, and intact hinge. Again, no plot, no conspiracy, just reports from someone who is doing what he perceives to be in the best interest for all and that interest is not leading investigators into an industry wide problem that affects the number one export of his country but does imply that the problem could be sloppy repair work done by foreign airline personnel. There is probably no way to prove that the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611 opened in flight with just the top part. The midspan latches (if retrieved) might show evidence of bluing which indicates extreme pressure; gouging on the locking sectors would indicate the cams tried to open; evidence which is not conclusive but is indicative of an open cargo door in flight. For NTSB to say that there is no evidence that the aft cargo door ruptured open in flight is correct since the evidence is missing. It would be another case of why travel down a path that leads to potential disaster when this other path of poor repair doubler failure leads to peace and quiet and there where cracks around the doubler, right? so there you are, case closed. But, no plot to hide the ‘truth’, just prosecuting a suspect that eases everyone’s mind except the poor saps who made that repair 22 years ago.

The fact that two of the victims of China Airlines Flight 611 were permanent residents of the USA and thus able to sue is interesting in that it allows somewhere along the line the give and take of court proceedings. This time there is no bomb terrorist hate hysteria going on and objective analysis of mechanical causes may be considered although these things are usually settled out of court.

Regardless of the cause of China Airlines Flight 611, the forward cargo door has ruptured in flight for Air India Flight 182, United Airlines Flight 811, Pan Am Flight 103, and Trans World Airlines Flight 800. I again suggest the cause is a common one, the same as United Airlines Flight 811, electrical.

I’ve thought of some more reasons why errors of history should be corrected: Justice. DNA is clearing up many errors of history. And I know that the Libyan guy in jail and the three accused for Air India Flight 182 are innocent because there were no crimes. They may have done crimes before of after the airplane crash but they did not do a crime on that day, nobody did.

Cheers,
Barry

[JohnBarrySmith]

SaturnV>JBS, I am not surprised that you denigrate the competency of the lawyers for the Sikh defendants in the various Crown prosecutions associated with the loss of Air India 182.
JBS>I do not denigrate the competency of the criminal lawyers for Air India Flight 182, I've talked to them, they know about crime but nothing about airplanes. They can not even ask questions because they don't know why planes fly or crash.

SaturnV>Of all the various scenarios for what happened to TW 800, and there are many, yours is the only one based on an initiating failure of the forward cargo door.

JBS>So?

SaturnV>Is it perhaps because that TW 800 was at 13,600 feet with a differential pressure of 3.5 psi, and UA 811 was between 22 and 23,000 feet with a differential pressure of 6.5 psi, and how does one then explain why, with the same failure mode, UA was able to successfully land and TW 800 catastrophically breaks apart?

JBS>My Smith Table is for matches not mismatches. I could put in a match that there was sufficient differential at initial event time to cause the rupture of the cargo door if the midspan latches just pass off center a bit. They were not on the ground or depressurized in the air. There was 38000 pounds to 96000 pound of pressure pressing on the inside of that curved door with lone midspan latch holding eight feet of fuselage slice together. Oh, and have I mentioned there are no locking sectors on those midspan latches, I think I have actually, over and over again ad nauseum, sorry, but it just sort of flows....

But...you did allude to a stage 7 question that is always asked by open minds: I'm impressed. Why did United Airlines Flight 811 land without nose coming off? I wrestled with that for two years. My answer, and it could be wrong, is that the rectangular hole in the nose was much smaller than the others, probably because the pull in hooks keep the door from flying open for 1.5 seconds allowing a partial decompression. The pilot thinks the nose stayed on because he was off autopilot and did not fight the large yaw he encountered when the door blew open.

SaturnV>Why is it that you omitted a variable involving the CVR? Is it perhaps because the CVR on United 811 functioned all the way to landing?

JBS>The table was for matches and the CVR on United Airlines Flight 811 is the model, it had the sudden sound on the CVR followed by the abrupt power cut to the FDR like all five. Some of the matches may be insignificant while other matches were left out. I matched up similarities such as a fingerprint expert might do. The partial print of United Airlines Flight 811 matches the prints of the other five while not matching up to the other 30 or so hull losses of other Boeing 747s.

SaturnV>And how to explain away the sudden abrupt loss of CVR and FDR power in TW 800 from a progressive (albeit rapid) failure of the hull when the CVR and FDR power and data cabling run along the top of the cabin?

JBS>I don't explain it away, I embrace it. The power was lost probably because the main equipment compartment is adjacent to the forward cargo compartment.. The power was cut probably from the explosion of the decompression not the nose coming off although with China Airlines Flight 611 it appears power was cut when the tail came off.

But, good questions. The actual sequence of events instant by instant is one I am very curious about and need much computer simulation power and data to determine.

SaturnV>And there is your variable of the number of unrecovered bodies in all five crashes being at least nine. What the relevance of this is escapes me,

JBS>You could ask me.

SaturnV>other than the fact that there were nine unrecovered bodies for UA 811. However, once again, you have the facts wrong. Last I read, they had identified all but two of the bodies from TW 800, and hoped to identify even these two.

JBS>Well, a body is a body and not fragments of bone which has DNA. They have identified all I thought but there were many bodies never recovered. The significance of nine is of course United Airlines Flight 811. Pan Am Flight 103 had ten never recovered bodies and that was after searches which retrieved fingernail sized pieces of plastic. Ten missing bodies which were actively searched for on land and nine on sea is an important clue that they were not there to be found; they probably were sucked in and vaporized into bone fragments by engine three. There are several reports by those on United Airlines Flight 811 or had victim relatives that some were sucked into the engine three of United Airlines Flight 811 but not a word in the AAR.

SaturnV>However, once again, you have the facts wrong.

JBS>However, once again, you have to make the insult.

SaturnV>Loeb appears to be specifically referring to you, and having never examined the wreckage of TW 800, how do you maintain credibility on a witness stand in the face of such a statement?

JBS>Ah. Another question.

Well, first of all Loeb is not an aircraft accident investigator, and second I'm not on a witness stand trying to persuade a non aviation jury, and third, his statement is contrary to the actual evidence which you can see with your actual eyes of the actual wreckage. I think Loeb actually believes what he said even though the shattered door is there to see with most of it still missing. He certainly refused for five years to ever respond to the hundreds of emails I sent to him. For NTSB to say that there was no evidence of an inflight separation of the forward cargo door of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 is to ignore: Missing midspan latches, missing manual locking handle, missing torque tubes and bellcranks, missing pressure relief doors, calling an aft cargo door sill the forward cargo door sill, the wreckage distribution that shows the first parts to come from the aircraft came from just forward of the wing and of course the many many matches to United Airlines Flight 811. The conclusion of latched and locked and intact forward cargo door for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 is based on one line in one exhibit by Wildey which says that the bottom eight latches were latched and locked and therefore the entire door was latched and locked. To say a door is latched and locked without knowing the status of two of the latches and the position of the manual locking handle is wishful thinking for those who want that cargo door closed.

But, if you want to believe other's opinions and do not trust your own judgment, do not look at the actual blown away and shattered forward cargo door of Trans World Airlines Flight 800, do not look at the shattered forward cargo door Pan Am Flight 103, or read about the shattered door of Air India Flight 182, or look at the shattered top part of the China Airlines Flight 611 aft cargo door.

Using opinions of others as proof is not good enough for science when the evidence is there for you to see. Look at those doors and tell me that ‘ that there was absolutely no evidence of an in-flight separation of the forward cargo door’. Your opinion is what counts.

There is clear evidence and it’s in color and in focus, on web site corazon.com.I would show images that clearly show the ruptures at the midspan latches of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 but can't post them since the img function does not work for me. I'll keep trying.

If you want to list all the opinions of those who believe bombs and fuel tanks are exploding and causing 747s to crash, you will have a long list. To list the opinion of one who believes the cause is the same as United Airlines Flight 811 is a short list, me.

What is your opinion based on the actual evidence? Looking at those shattered doors with those similarities, do you think those doors were all latched and all locked and all intact until water or ground impact?

You can plead ignorance of course, but then this is not complicated logic but plain looking at something and trying to figure out what happened to it.

Cheers,
Barry

JBS>To the skeptics:
I appreciate all the criticism, really. There is no in house team to bounce ideas off or phone calls to experts to confirm this or that. The adversarial technique is fine with me. Most truth is determined while someone is crying.

The proof that you care is you are not walking away disinterested. You may care that the conventional wisdom for the causes of those crashes remain where it is but you do care. Indifference is the opposite of love. I think we all love aviation.

And I also believe you believe there is something to this mechanical explanation for five Boeing 747 accidents called the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup and the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation or you would have walked away after a cursory reading of the explanations.

But... the facts just keep on coming up on the side of the mechanical explanation and away from conspiracy plots or fires that start with no ignition source.

The more you dig, the more you will come around to the mechanical explanation. The more you stick to the evidence you can actually see or confirm from your prior experience, the more you will see the most likely, the logical, the one with precedent is the wiring/cargo door explanation.

So, keep on coming with apparent flaws in my reasoning. I have the belief over the years that the wiring/cargo door explanation always fits the facts when presented accurately.

As far as plots go, there are none. Just as the auto manufacturers preferred for years to believe their Corvair did not turn over easily, air bags do not kill, fuel tanks do not rupture in Ford Crown Vics or GM trucks, Firestone tires do not blow out suddenly, and on and on, so does Boeing not believe they have a serious problem with nonplug cargo doors or faulty wiring in early model 747s.

What do do about it? Well for years I’ve been reluctantly saying, ‘Wait until the next one.” Well the next one may have happened and it still may make no difference. That is discouraging. But so what? Press on is the only answer.

On 747 plastic models the passenger doors are all marked while the cargo door outlines are missing, the status of cargo doors which are part of the exploded cargo compartments of real accidents is omitted and pictures absent, press reports on the strange evidence that the investigators feel important enough to comment on or try to retrieve from the ocean is absent in the press. It’s as if those doors did not exist, are unworthy of attention, and trivial.

Anyone that knows the danger of pressure cookers, seen soda or beer cans opened after shaking, or knows firsthand the power of explosive decompression never considers non plug doors trivial whether in submarines or airplanes or space capsules as doors or hatches that open when they shouldn’t have caused fatalities in those vehicles.

I do enjoy the forum and thank PPRuNe for providing it for us. Any thinking about aviation safety is good thinking.

Cheers,
Barry

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS> Pesky doors: From http://aviation-safety.net/index.shtml

20 AUG 2002 Following two Airbus A.300 incidents in which crew members were forcibly ejected when opening the aircraft doors, the NTSB issued 3 safety recommendations to the FAA. It was recommended that all newly certificated transport-category airplanes have a system for each emergency exit door to relieve pressure so that they can only be opened on the ground after a safe differential pressure level is attained. (NTSB) http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2002/A02_20_23.pdf