China Airlines B747 Crash (Merged)
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry, your post about Airbus cabin doors is a total red herring to support your theories.
For other readers benefit, cabin doors on B747, Airbus and in fact all modern pressurized airplanes are plug type doors that cannot blow out like the cargo door scenario Barry describes in his diatribe.
The actual primary reason for the Airbus door accidents, was the fact that the crew having selected manual pressurization mode, did not ensure that the cabin was depressurized after landing. An indication of cabin pressure is readily available on the flight deck.
On 747 Classic airplanes where the flight engineer controls cabin pressurization, there is a decal on the pressurization control panel showing a maximum allowable cabin pressure of 0.11 psi on the ground as any pressure in excess of this figure would prevent the opening of cabin doors.
Barry,
So the opinions and forensic evidence of thousands of experts in their field is of no consequence but the opinions of one person,you , is fact and gospel.
.
Ten bodies sucked into No.3 engine and pulverized? Barry, have you ever experienced a birdstrike or seen the damage to the fan blades as a result. I have and I can tell you that usually, enough bits are left over to be able to find the type of bird that did it. A human body can not get pulverized into bone fragments by being sucked into a turbo fan. Let alone ten of them!
Oh my God, another attempt by the manufacturer to take the heat off those" pesky" cargo doors.
Engines have serial numbers Barry, rest assured it was No.3.
Once again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the 747 and use jargon to impress your (impressionable) audience
For other readers benefit, cabin doors on B747, Airbus and in fact all modern pressurized airplanes are plug type doors that cannot blow out like the cargo door scenario Barry describes in his diatribe.
The actual primary reason for the Airbus door accidents, was the fact that the crew having selected manual pressurization mode, did not ensure that the cabin was depressurized after landing. An indication of cabin pressure is readily available on the flight deck.
On 747 Classic airplanes where the flight engineer controls cabin pressurization, there is a decal on the pressurization control panel showing a maximum allowable cabin pressure of 0.11 psi on the ground as any pressure in excess of this figure would prevent the opening of cabin doors.
Barry,
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.
.
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.
On 747 plastic models the passenger doors are all marked while the cargo door outlines are missing
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.
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.
Last edited by HotDog; 23rd Aug 2002 at 01:31.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Test attempt to display graphic in post.
Barry
Another attempt to post graphic.
Barry
Dr. Loeb>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.
JBS>I offer as rebuttal to above opinion the above photos of the forward cargo door of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 which shows intact hinge, missing pressure relief doors, outward petal shaped bulges at the missing midspan latches as if from an outward force, general shattered appearance, and the absence of most of the door hardware. The bottom sill is probably the one for the aft cargo door as only one sill was retrieved and it was called the aft cargo door sill and was found in the aft fuselage debris field.
The China Airlines Flight 611 aft cargo door has some similar matches and awaits more wreckage retrieval.
Thanks to private message that assisted me in posting graphics.
Cheers,
Barry
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS>Locate hinge on top of cargo door: To the left is a petal shaped outward bulge; that is where the aft midspan latch was located. On other picture, locate hinge on top of door: to right and below is where the forward midspan latch used to be. The bottom sill fiasco is hard to believe since it means hanging a large piece of wreckage in the wrong place but the wreckage database is complete with addendum and there is only one sill retrieved and that was the aft sill. They are identical in shape and size and function.
Also, one pressure relief door was recovered and placed in the reconstruction.
Note that the port side opposite this shattered area is smooth.
You are looking at the initial hull rupture location points for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and it's not the center tank.
Cheers,
Barry
Also, one pressure relief door was recovered and placed in the reconstruction.
Note that the port side opposite this shattered area is smooth.
You are looking at the initial hull rupture location points for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 and it's not the center tank.
Cheers,
Barry
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello all...
I've been reading this thread since it's inception and have reached a point where my own curiosity compells me to ask a couple of questions... (Apologies if these questions have already been asked in this thread).
Before I do so, I will firmly point out that my association to aviation is purely as a hobby, but a very intense one, so my questions are from a lay person point of view, so I make no claims to any advanced knowledge of structures, accident investigation and so forth... Preamble over.
JBS, you frequently mention the 'sudden loud sound' on the CVR indicating a sudden explosive decompression. I even recall seeing a lineup of the comparison of those sounds for all of the accidents you believe are due to the cargo door opening in flight based on the sound of a DC-10 cargo door opening in flight. You also state that it they 'do not match the sound of a bomb' yet, I do not recall seeing the same comparison of the incidents based on the CVR sound of an actual 'bomb' that would show a definitive difference in the acoustic patterns from a confirmed bomb going off in the cargo hold. I am curious as to how the sound would differ if it were indeed a bomb that went off.
Also, in reading several of the accident reports, it is stated in them that the main deck floor beams of UA811 buckled downwards (albeit slightly for that accident) as well as with the Turkish DC-10 accident, the floor showed definitive signs of buckling downwards. Yet the reports for the Air India and Pan Am indicate that not only did the floor beams, but the seat legs and even forensic evidence on the passengers in the immediate area all show an upward force having been exerted. I did not see that information in the TWA800 evidence, so I'm not including that in this question. I am curious as to how this discrepancy occurred if the intial event was the same for all accidents.
Again, I am not an aircraft structure expert nor do I know physics aside from the basics, but if there was an initial explosion in the aircraft (whether it be a bomb or a fuel tank explosion), there would obviously be a great deal of overpressure created internally due to the expansion of gases. Those gases will try to escape the aircraft any means possible using the weakest point in the structure (and I use that term only in a frame of reference as it is an opening to the outiside of the aircraft). That weakest point would be the cargo door in most cases -- blowing the door away from the aircraft as the floor buckles and full structural failure takes place. What would the difference in damage patterns be if the cargo door opening was the initial event, or if an explosion was the initial event creating the overpressure that may have caused the door to give way....
William
I've been reading this thread since it's inception and have reached a point where my own curiosity compells me to ask a couple of questions... (Apologies if these questions have already been asked in this thread).
Before I do so, I will firmly point out that my association to aviation is purely as a hobby, but a very intense one, so my questions are from a lay person point of view, so I make no claims to any advanced knowledge of structures, accident investigation and so forth... Preamble over.
JBS, you frequently mention the 'sudden loud sound' on the CVR indicating a sudden explosive decompression. I even recall seeing a lineup of the comparison of those sounds for all of the accidents you believe are due to the cargo door opening in flight based on the sound of a DC-10 cargo door opening in flight. You also state that it they 'do not match the sound of a bomb' yet, I do not recall seeing the same comparison of the incidents based on the CVR sound of an actual 'bomb' that would show a definitive difference in the acoustic patterns from a confirmed bomb going off in the cargo hold. I am curious as to how the sound would differ if it were indeed a bomb that went off.
Also, in reading several of the accident reports, it is stated in them that the main deck floor beams of UA811 buckled downwards (albeit slightly for that accident) as well as with the Turkish DC-10 accident, the floor showed definitive signs of buckling downwards. Yet the reports for the Air India and Pan Am indicate that not only did the floor beams, but the seat legs and even forensic evidence on the passengers in the immediate area all show an upward force having been exerted. I did not see that information in the TWA800 evidence, so I'm not including that in this question. I am curious as to how this discrepancy occurred if the intial event was the same for all accidents.
Again, I am not an aircraft structure expert nor do I know physics aside from the basics, but if there was an initial explosion in the aircraft (whether it be a bomb or a fuel tank explosion), there would obviously be a great deal of overpressure created internally due to the expansion of gases. Those gases will try to escape the aircraft any means possible using the weakest point in the structure (and I use that term only in a frame of reference as it is an opening to the outiside of the aircraft). That weakest point would be the cargo door in most cases -- blowing the door away from the aircraft as the floor buckles and full structural failure takes place. What would the difference in damage patterns be if the cargo door opening was the initial event, or if an explosion was the initial event creating the overpressure that may have caused the door to give way....
William
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS, thanx for the pictures, although not having designed any 747 structures, I am not sure what they show. Since you seemingly dismiss the credentials of Bernard Loeb, and discount his statements as mere opinions, let me quote from the metallurgist's report on his examination of the forward cargo door:
That metallurgist's findings seem to contradict your hypothesis of the cargo door flying off and initiating the disaster.
As for Mr. Loeb, you said the following:
Perhaps you harbor some animus against Mr. Loeb who received, by your own admission, hundreds of emails from you, and never responded to one. I have little doubt you are familiar with Mr. Loeb's resume, but other forum readers may not be.
He is the director of the Office of Aviation Safety at the NTSB (all the aircraft accident investigators work in this office).
Employed at the Safety Board for more than 20 years, he has also served the Board as the Director of the Office of Research and Engineering, Acting Director and the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Accident Investigation, the Chief of the Aviation
Engineering Division and the Chief of the Safety Studies and Data Analysis Division, and as an Aerospace Engineer during which time he researched and wrote numerous safety studies. Prior to joining the Safety Board, Dr. Loeb worked for about 15 years in various aeronautical engineering research positions in the aerospace industry and in government research laboratories.
Education and Training: Bachelors degree (1960) from the University of Maryland in aeronautical engineering; Masters (1963) and Doctorate (1966) from the George Washington University in engineering science.
Not defending Mr. Loeb's lack of response, but perhaps your communications were similar to the one you sent the President.
Two final points regarding your propensities for speculation and selectively choosing only those facts that suit your hypotheses. The bodies of seven residents of Lockerbie were never found. Surely you would not suggest that they were ingested by the engine(s).
And Aviation Week reported as follows:
A neutral, objective statement, to which you quickly added the following as a possible cause:
Examination of the lower lobe forward cargo door showed that all eight of the door latching cams remain attached (along with pieces of the door itself) to the pins along the lower door sill.
Overall examination of the forward portion of the airplane showed that sections 41 and 42 contained uniform crushing damage that extended from S-39L across the bottom of the fuselage and up above the right side main cabin window belt to S-14R. This crushing damage is consistent with the intact forward portion of the airplane (including sections 41 and 42) impacting the water with a right wing low attitude. The lower lobe forward cargo door was in the crush area.
Overall examination of the forward portion of the airplane showed that sections 41 and 42 contained uniform crushing damage that extended from S-39L across the bottom of the fuselage and up above the right side main cabin window belt to S-14R. This crushing damage is consistent with the intact forward portion of the airplane (including sections 41 and 42) impacting the water with a right wing low attitude. The lower lobe forward cargo door was in the crush area.
As for Mr. Loeb, you said the following:
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." ....
first of all Loeb is not an aircraft accident investigator
first of all Loeb is not an aircraft accident investigator
He is the director of the Office of Aviation Safety at the NTSB (all the aircraft accident investigators work in this office).
Employed at the Safety Board for more than 20 years, he has also served the Board as the Director of the Office of Research and Engineering, Acting Director and the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Accident Investigation, the Chief of the Aviation
Engineering Division and the Chief of the Safety Studies and Data Analysis Division, and as an Aerospace Engineer during which time he researched and wrote numerous safety studies. Prior to joining the Safety Board, Dr. Loeb worked for about 15 years in various aeronautical engineering research positions in the aerospace industry and in government research laboratories.
Education and Training: Bachelors degree (1960) from the University of Maryland in aeronautical engineering; Masters (1963) and Doctorate (1966) from the George Washington University in engineering science.
Not defending Mr. Loeb's lack of response, but perhaps your communications were similar to the one you sent the President.
Mr. Bill Clinton, President of the United States of America
Dear Mr. President,
Hello, Sir. I have important news to give. Your life is in immediate danger, although slight, hopefully slight, when you fly on Air Force One, a Boeing 747-200B. This type aircraft has a history of
inadvertent forward cargo door openings in flight. Hindsight and the internet have enabled me to link several crashes of early model Boeing 747s to a common cause, the inadvertent opening of the forward cargo door in flight.
Documentation, pictures, comments, and emails from all over the world regarding this discovery are on the internet web site at
http://www.corazon.com
Your life, the lives of those who fly with you, and all the passengers on early model Boeing 747s are at risk to this door
opening outward and upward, tearing off in the slipstream exposing a large gash in the nose which tears off. The door openings at altitude mimic a bomb. It is not a bomb. The world will be a bit less dangerous once the causes are determined to be mechanical and not evil. Have you ever had a car door, or hood, or trunk open unexpectedly? I have; it's not unusual. If you have, then please give thought to possible airplane door opening and the severe consequences.
Please be responsive to this informed citizen. Mr. Clinton, leader from follower, I ask that you check out the forward cargo door as the cause of the crash of TWAFlight 800.
Sincerely, John Barry Smith
Dear Mr. President,
Hello, Sir. I have important news to give. Your life is in immediate danger, although slight, hopefully slight, when you fly on Air Force One, a Boeing 747-200B. This type aircraft has a history of
inadvertent forward cargo door openings in flight. Hindsight and the internet have enabled me to link several crashes of early model Boeing 747s to a common cause, the inadvertent opening of the forward cargo door in flight.
Documentation, pictures, comments, and emails from all over the world regarding this discovery are on the internet web site at
http://www.corazon.com
Your life, the lives of those who fly with you, and all the passengers on early model Boeing 747s are at risk to this door
opening outward and upward, tearing off in the slipstream exposing a large gash in the nose which tears off. The door openings at altitude mimic a bomb. It is not a bomb. The world will be a bit less dangerous once the causes are determined to be mechanical and not evil. Have you ever had a car door, or hood, or trunk open unexpectedly? I have; it's not unusual. If you have, then please give thought to possible airplane door opening and the severe consequences.
Please be responsive to this informed citizen. Mr. Clinton, leader from follower, I ask that you check out the forward cargo door as the cause of the crash of TWAFlight 800.
Sincerely, John Barry Smith
And Aviation Week reported as follows:
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 hole in the port side passenger door of China Airlines Flight 611 could be soda can being expelled as the fuselage disintegrates
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Above is Aviation Safety Council of Taiwan released picture of the top part of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611. Note vertical tear lines in skin above door, missing pressure relief doors, intact hinge, longitudinal split, missing lower part, and general shattered appearance of door. Those observations are similar to other cargo doors of early model Boeing 747s that have ruptured open in flight.
Barry
Try again
JBS>Regarding quotes from my web site of correspondence to various officials:
They were written over a period of six years and I tried everything short of threats to get their attention. I tried humor, cajoling, whining, begging, and other humiliating efforts to get an audience. I tried these tactics after years of polite reasoning, pictures, research, and analysis. Some are bitter and angry, some are wrong as they were written before the reconstruction was complete. If you want to find emotional correspondence that makes me appear a fool, you probably can. So? I am trivial, my discovery is not. The evidence is there whether I am persuasive or not.
In all, about a thousand pages were sent to dozens of officials, media, Boeing, airlines, congressmen, etc. In addition another thousand pages were sent to discussion group on Trans World Airlines Flight 800. The web site was 150 megs with about a thousand pages, now cut to 500 to allow for the free search engine. The web site gets about an average of about 3000 requests a day every day, every week, every month since August 1996 for about a total of 6 million 5 hundred 75 thousands requests for information about the wiring/cargo door explanation. The computers requesting the data are in the millions also. Using an average of 100 megs downloaded a week means that 219 terrabytes have been transferred.
Why this is relevant is that you refer to a few ‘experts’ and I give you millions who pay attention. All the email responses follow a pattern: Those that disagree use profanity, insults, spelling errors, use capitals a lot, are somewhat coherent, and get their facts wrong. All those that agree are polite, knowledgeable, use proper sentences that make sense, and offer support.
Program started on Sun, Jun 02 2002 at 9:40 AM.
Analyzed requests from Sun, May 26 2002 at 12:42 AM to Sun, Jun 02 2002 at
12:09 AM (6.98 days).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Summary
---------------
(Figures in parentheses refer to the 7-day period ending Jun 02 2002 at
9:40 AM).
Successful requests: 26,483 (25,316)
Average successful requests per day: 3,795 (3,616)
Successful requests for pages: 10,464 (9,980)
Average successful requests for pages per day: 1,499 (1,425)
Failed requests: 294 (277)
Distinct files requested: 1,245 (1,232)
Distinct hosts served: 5,202 (5,035)
Corrupt logfile lines: 441
Data transferred: 864.230 Mbytes (825.951 Mbytes)
Average data transferred per day: 123.867 Mbytes (117.993 Mbytes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the continued insults against me: Opinions noted, absence of facts to support allegations noted.
Regarding credentials of ‘experts’ who disagree with the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation: I offer twisted metal to rebut, not other experts.
People like Bernie Loeb and Jim Wildey said that the probable cause of United Airlines Flight 811 was an improperly latched forward cargo door. The whole NTSB agreed, investigators nodded their heads, Boeing sighed and accepted it, the board members signed off, ADs were discussed....and they were wrong. Very very wrong.
So? To be wrong is human nature. To correct the errors is morally right. To call a shattered door latched and locked until water impact is not right. The NTSB of 1990 corrected the error of 811 with a new AAR. The NTSB of 2000 did not for TWA 800.
And it took two amateurs to get NTSB to find the true answer for United Airlines Flight 811; Kevin and Susan Campbell whose son died in United Airlines Flight 811. They spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own time and money to get the right answer and it was not an improperly latched cargo door but electrical.
When you start talking facts and evidence that can be seen, touched and evaluated and quit quoting expert opinions, then you will have assumed responsibility for your life. You will have started to think for yourself instead of regurgitating others’ views.
Experts told me my aircraft could fly with one engine out while dirty, it couldn’t. My pilot died and I almost did. Your thinking that the opinions of experts counts as truth is funny to me. It counts as opinion, just as my opinion does, nothing more, nothing less. The evidence is what counts.
The evidence speaks for itself if you can open your ears and listen to it.
Barry
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whauet>You also state that it they 'do not match the sound of a bomb' yet, I do not recall seeing the same comparison of the incidents based on the CVR sound of an actual 'bomb' that would show a definitive difference in the acoustic patterns from a confirmed bomb going off in the cargo hold. I am curious as to how the sound would differ if it were indeed a bomb that went off.
JBS>Good question and answered in the Air India Flight 182 AAR Kirpal report as explained by Mr. Ray Davis of the AAIB: A bomb sound has lower frequencies and a sharper rise time than the CVR sudden sounds. NTSB and AAIB and FBI have tried for years to match those sounds of Pan Am Flight 103 to a bomb but have failed. They have staged a real bombing in a real pressurized 747 with microphones all around. The reason the sound is not of a bomb explosion is because there was no bomb explosion. The sound has been matched from Air India Flight 182 to a DC 10 cargo door explosive decompression.
Whauut> Also, in reading several of the accident reports, it is stated in them that the main deck floor beams of UA811 buckled downwards (albeit slightly for that accident) as well as with the Turkish DC-10 accident, the floor showed definitive signs of buckling downwards. Yet the reports for the Air India and Pan Am indicate that not only did the floor beams, but the seat legs and even forensic evidence on the passengers in the immediate area all show an upward force having been exerted. I did not see that information in the TWA800 evidence, so I'm not including that in this question. I am curious as to how this discrepancy occurred if the initial event was the same for all accidents.
JBS>Yes, that is very important, floor beams buckled downward or pushed upward. Sucked down would be explosive decompression and pushed up would be bomb explosion. The evaluation was based on movement of the floor panels which indicated separation in an upwards manner. It may be that the sudden sucking down of the floor beams as they separated from the floor panels gave the impression that the floor panels went upward. Cup half full or half empty. For Air India Flight 182 the evaluations were done by viewing video of the floor beams as that area was not brought up.
For Trans World Airlines Flight 800 the data is absent although very crucial.
This floor beam movement is one area that needs to be reexamined from the point of view of ruling in or ruling out explosive decompression. Another area is the engine breakdown reports for Pan Am Flight 103. When the investigators looked for evidence of a bomb they found evidence of an explosion and assumed it was a bomb explosion, not an explosive decompression.
Whauet>Again, I am not an aircraft structure expert nor do I know physics aside from the basics, but if there was an initial explosion in the aircraft (whether it be a bomb or a fuel tank explosion), there would obviously be a great deal of overpressure created internally due to the expansion of gases. Those gases will try to escape the aircraft any means possible using the weakest point in the structure (and I use that term only in a frame of reference as it is an opening to the outside of the aircraft). That weakest point would be the cargo door in most cases -- blowing the door away from the aircraft as the floor buckles and full structural failure takes place. What would the difference in damage patterns be if the cargo door opening was the initial event, or if an explosion was the initial event creating the overpressure that may have caused the door to give way....
JBS>Allow me to digress...your post is typical of those that have an open mind. The questions are polite and pointed. I think you really want to know what happened. Your conjecture about the weakest point is that of an honest ‘bomb’ guy who might say, yes, the door ruptures, so what, the bomb did it. They never admit that because if the door ruptured open in flight then the question is why and United Airlines Flight 811 is best evidence.
I agree, if it were a bomb near the door, the door would rupture. So, more evidence of a bomb is needed. The NTSB did a thorough job of explaining why Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was not a bomb and all that required, but absent, evidence is the same evidence lacking in Pan Am Flight 103. There is actually more real evidence for a bomb explosion in Trans World Airlines Flight 800 than Pan Am Flight 103. My Smith AARs go into the bomb premise for all the accidents very deeply.
Now, how could one tell if a bomb blew the door open or it ruptured on its own. That point was raised by Bill Tucker of TSB when he visited me in December. I told him that would be for the structural engineers to determine. We guessed that a bomb explosion would be sudden and might not bend the torque tubes as the wiring/cargo door explanation supposes. Mainly, when a real bomb goes off in a real plane there is ample evidence of it. There is sooting etc. That inner door lining would have impacts, pitting etc to show the rupture was caused by the force of the internal explosion. All these doors have no evidence of a bomb explosion inside.
Another piece of evidence used by Judge Kirpal of India to find that a bomb caused Air India Flight 182 was something called ‘twinning’ in metal. It was said in 1986 that twinning was found and that was conclusive evidence of a bomb explosion. The Canadians demurred and it has since been proven that twinning can be caused by bomb, fuel tank explosion, and explosive decompression or whenever aluminum is subjected to intense pressure quickly.
There were explosions aboard all these aircraft. Each type of explosion leaves certain evidence. The scale weighs one way for a bomb, or missile, or fuel tank or open cargo door. For me, based on the forest of the five aircraft, the scale tips toward electrical/mechanical and away from conspiracy or fires with no ignition source, and that is because of United Airlines Flight 811 and its linchpin of the sudden sound followed by an abrupt power cut to the FDR.
The questions you ask would be answered with a reexamination of the actual wreckage of these planes from the point of view of ruling in or out the wiring/cargo door explanation. For the accidents at the time, the emphasis was on the prosecution building a case for bomb explosion which reflected the political tenor of the times.
Cheers,
Barry
Above is smooth port side forward of the wing, nose to left, of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 which contrasts to shattered starboard side forward of the wing. Wreckage distribution shows first parts to leave were just forward of the wing. A center tank explosion as the initial event would give bilateral damage, not the actual unilateral damage shown by the evidence.
It will be interesting to see the port side of China Airlines Flight 611 aft of the wing and compare with the starboard side. A repair doubler in the center failing would give bilateral damage, not unilateral.
Barry
Try again for image.
Try try again.
Try try try again
JBS>Good question and answered in the Air India Flight 182 AAR Kirpal report as explained by Mr. Ray Davis of the AAIB: A bomb sound has lower frequencies and a sharper rise time than the CVR sudden sounds. NTSB and AAIB and FBI have tried for years to match those sounds of Pan Am Flight 103 to a bomb but have failed. They have staged a real bombing in a real pressurized 747 with microphones all around. The reason the sound is not of a bomb explosion is because there was no bomb explosion. The sound has been matched from Air India Flight 182 to a DC 10 cargo door explosive decompression.
Whauut> Also, in reading several of the accident reports, it is stated in them that the main deck floor beams of UA811 buckled downwards (albeit slightly for that accident) as well as with the Turkish DC-10 accident, the floor showed definitive signs of buckling downwards. Yet the reports for the Air India and Pan Am indicate that not only did the floor beams, but the seat legs and even forensic evidence on the passengers in the immediate area all show an upward force having been exerted. I did not see that information in the TWA800 evidence, so I'm not including that in this question. I am curious as to how this discrepancy occurred if the initial event was the same for all accidents.
JBS>Yes, that is very important, floor beams buckled downward or pushed upward. Sucked down would be explosive decompression and pushed up would be bomb explosion. The evaluation was based on movement of the floor panels which indicated separation in an upwards manner. It may be that the sudden sucking down of the floor beams as they separated from the floor panels gave the impression that the floor panels went upward. Cup half full or half empty. For Air India Flight 182 the evaluations were done by viewing video of the floor beams as that area was not brought up.
For Trans World Airlines Flight 800 the data is absent although very crucial.
This floor beam movement is one area that needs to be reexamined from the point of view of ruling in or ruling out explosive decompression. Another area is the engine breakdown reports for Pan Am Flight 103. When the investigators looked for evidence of a bomb they found evidence of an explosion and assumed it was a bomb explosion, not an explosive decompression.
Whauet>Again, I am not an aircraft structure expert nor do I know physics aside from the basics, but if there was an initial explosion in the aircraft (whether it be a bomb or a fuel tank explosion), there would obviously be a great deal of overpressure created internally due to the expansion of gases. Those gases will try to escape the aircraft any means possible using the weakest point in the structure (and I use that term only in a frame of reference as it is an opening to the outside of the aircraft). That weakest point would be the cargo door in most cases -- blowing the door away from the aircraft as the floor buckles and full structural failure takes place. What would the difference in damage patterns be if the cargo door opening was the initial event, or if an explosion was the initial event creating the overpressure that may have caused the door to give way....
JBS>Allow me to digress...your post is typical of those that have an open mind. The questions are polite and pointed. I think you really want to know what happened. Your conjecture about the weakest point is that of an honest ‘bomb’ guy who might say, yes, the door ruptures, so what, the bomb did it. They never admit that because if the door ruptured open in flight then the question is why and United Airlines Flight 811 is best evidence.
I agree, if it were a bomb near the door, the door would rupture. So, more evidence of a bomb is needed. The NTSB did a thorough job of explaining why Trans World Airlines Flight 800 was not a bomb and all that required, but absent, evidence is the same evidence lacking in Pan Am Flight 103. There is actually more real evidence for a bomb explosion in Trans World Airlines Flight 800 than Pan Am Flight 103. My Smith AARs go into the bomb premise for all the accidents very deeply.
Now, how could one tell if a bomb blew the door open or it ruptured on its own. That point was raised by Bill Tucker of TSB when he visited me in December. I told him that would be for the structural engineers to determine. We guessed that a bomb explosion would be sudden and might not bend the torque tubes as the wiring/cargo door explanation supposes. Mainly, when a real bomb goes off in a real plane there is ample evidence of it. There is sooting etc. That inner door lining would have impacts, pitting etc to show the rupture was caused by the force of the internal explosion. All these doors have no evidence of a bomb explosion inside.
Another piece of evidence used by Judge Kirpal of India to find that a bomb caused Air India Flight 182 was something called ‘twinning’ in metal. It was said in 1986 that twinning was found and that was conclusive evidence of a bomb explosion. The Canadians demurred and it has since been proven that twinning can be caused by bomb, fuel tank explosion, and explosive decompression or whenever aluminum is subjected to intense pressure quickly.
There were explosions aboard all these aircraft. Each type of explosion leaves certain evidence. The scale weighs one way for a bomb, or missile, or fuel tank or open cargo door. For me, based on the forest of the five aircraft, the scale tips toward electrical/mechanical and away from conspiracy or fires with no ignition source, and that is because of United Airlines Flight 811 and its linchpin of the sudden sound followed by an abrupt power cut to the FDR.
The questions you ask would be answered with a reexamination of the actual wreckage of these planes from the point of view of ruling in or out the wiring/cargo door explanation. For the accidents at the time, the emphasis was on the prosecution building a case for bomb explosion which reflected the political tenor of the times.
Cheers,
Barry
Above is smooth port side forward of the wing, nose to left, of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 which contrasts to shattered starboard side forward of the wing. Wreckage distribution shows first parts to leave were just forward of the wing. A center tank explosion as the initial event would give bilateral damage, not the actual unilateral damage shown by the evidence.
It will be interesting to see the port side of China Airlines Flight 611 aft of the wing and compare with the starboard side. A repair doubler in the center failing would give bilateral damage, not unilateral.
Barry
Try again for image.
Try try again.
Try try try again
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Barry, having read your letter to President Bill Clinton, has given me an understanding why he succumbed to the charms of Monica Lewinski.
It must have happened just after he read your letter and he had to get rid of his frustrations.
It must have happened just after he read your letter and he had to get rid of his frustrations.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: london
Age: 53
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry,
Youre picture of the TWA cargo door & the report show that the door was latched at its lower edge. As i have said before, the midspan latches cannot turn unless the lower eight are driven open by the actuator first, as the actuator drives the lower eight latches torque tube and then the midspan. All latches have to operate for the midspan to turn. Basic mechanics; if a torque tube cannot turn then it cannot transmit its drive. - fact not fiction.
The lower eight were still latched & locked, therefore there is no way for the midspan to turn.
Also for any electrical power to get to the latch actuator you would need this sequence of events;
Aircraft on the ground, Air/ground prox switch made, Power available to Ground Handling Bus. (if the aircraft had gone into ground mode the FDR would pick it up)
Manual latch handle opened; gives indication in cockpit, allows power to go cargo door opening switch, (All lower latches were latched &locked so handle was not opened)
Switch operated - actuator turns all eight lower & mechanical linkage from the lower eight torque tube drives the midspan.
(the lower eight were still latched and locked so no mechanical drive able to get to the midspan latches)
Also on TWA the Nose section 41 seperated at its production joint at Body Station 520. the forward edge of the cargo door frame is at Body station 560, 40 inches behind the production joint. Your photo of the TWA door shows that 40 innches of metal still there, if your door had come open causing the nose to rip off, then that metal would not have been present.
Youre picture of the TWA cargo door & the report show that the door was latched at its lower edge. As i have said before, the midspan latches cannot turn unless the lower eight are driven open by the actuator first, as the actuator drives the lower eight latches torque tube and then the midspan. All latches have to operate for the midspan to turn. Basic mechanics; if a torque tube cannot turn then it cannot transmit its drive. - fact not fiction.
The lower eight were still latched & locked, therefore there is no way for the midspan to turn.
Also for any electrical power to get to the latch actuator you would need this sequence of events;
Aircraft on the ground, Air/ground prox switch made, Power available to Ground Handling Bus. (if the aircraft had gone into ground mode the FDR would pick it up)
Manual latch handle opened; gives indication in cockpit, allows power to go cargo door opening switch, (All lower latches were latched &locked so handle was not opened)
Switch operated - actuator turns all eight lower & mechanical linkage from the lower eight torque tube drives the midspan.
(the lower eight were still latched and locked so no mechanical drive able to get to the midspan latches)
Also on TWA the Nose section 41 seperated at its production joint at Body Station 520. the forward edge of the cargo door frame is at Body station 560, 40 inches behind the production joint. Your photo of the TWA door shows that 40 innches of metal still there, if your door had come open causing the nose to rip off, then that metal would not have been present.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS,
I have read the NTSB report on UA 811 and find no reference to power being cut to the FDR. Perhaps you could cite the section where that fact appears in the report. (There is a reference to the NTSB's examination of FDR data, but nothing that I can find about data being missing because the FDR power was cut.)
And on your correspondence to the President, his staff, heads of Cabinet departments and agencies, etc.: did none of these individuals reply to you? I saw no evidence of such on your website. Perhaps you might have gotten more attention if you had written to the Director of the U.S. Secret Service and the Commander of the Air Force's 89th Airlift Wing who are most directly responsible for and interested in the safe operation of Air Force One. Indeed, I'm quite sure if you had persevered in your correspondence to the Director of the Secret Service, an agent would have visited you.
because of United Airlines Flight 811 and its linchpin of the sudden sound followed by an abrupt power cut to the FDR.
And on your correspondence to the President, his staff, heads of Cabinet departments and agencies, etc.: did none of these individuals reply to you? I saw no evidence of such on your website. Perhaps you might have gotten more attention if you had written to the Director of the U.S. Secret Service and the Commander of the Air Force's 89th Airlift Wing who are most directly responsible for and interested in the safe operation of Air Force One. Indeed, I'm quite sure if you had persevered in your correspondence to the Director of the Secret Service, an agent would have visited you.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD>Well Barry, having read your letter to President Bill Clinton, has given me an understanding why he succumbed to the charms of Monica Lewinski. I have asked the FBI to interview me for six years. They have intereviewed over 6000 people with weird missile stories but refuse to even acknowledge a person with a non terrorist explanation.
JBS>I doubt he ever read it, heard of it, or was briefed on it. It is impossible to get through to high officials or high corporate officers, especially with bad news. That’s why the polite email from Kay Yong was so encouraging.
MM>As i have said before, the midspan latches cannot turn unless the lower eight are driven open by the actuator first, as the actuator drives the lower eight latches torque tube and then the midspan. All latches have to operate for the midspan to turn. Basic mechanics; if a torque tube cannot turn then it cannot transmit its drive. - fact not fiction.
JBS>Wishful thinking that because something is not supposed to happen it did not happen. The torque tubes were not recovered to be examined...as usual.. as most of the door hardware is missing, but they were able to find pieces of bone. The midspan latches were blown away leaving petal shaped rupture holes where where used to be. One explanation is the lower eight were inadvertently driven open...but stopped by the locking sectors, but the two midspan were also inadvertently driven open...but stopped from fully opening by the torque tube...but not stopped from turning just enough past dead center for the enormous inside pressure to burst open the two weak areas.
Regardless, an explanation is needed for the two rupture holes at the midspans of the forward cargo door of Trans World Airlines Flight 800. An honest person would say the center fuel tank explosion blew it open. But they never do. Except one guy, Neil Schalekamp of FAA who quickly recanted and stated the NTSB point of view:
Manager in the Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, dated 30 January 98. Neil Schalekamp:
"While no one scenario has been categorically proven to the the cause, it is believed, based upon available data, that the center tank (CWT) explosion preceded any separation of the forward cargo door. The paint markings and structural deformation that you cite, do indicate an outward explosion, generally accepted to be caused by the explosion of the CWT. Furthermore, you mentioned that the forward cargo door was recovered a considerable distance from the rest of the structure. This could be due to its aerodynamic characteristics and prevailing winds at the time of the accident, rather than attributing this as the primary cause of the accident."
JBS>Shortly thereafter, nine days later, he changed his tune after I emailed his response to NTSB: Note his suddenly changed attitude.
NS>"It appears that you are determined to impose your theory about the events that led to this unfortunate accident upon the official investigators."
"Please take note that this office will no longer be responding to your further inquires about these same concerns, including your February 6 and February 9 letters that I just received."
"The evidence from the reconstructed 747 airplane reveals that the forward cargo door was attached to the forward section of the airplane and was latched in the closed position when this section of the airplane impacted the ocean."
JBS>Well, an honest man even if only for a few days.
MM>Also on TWA the Nose section 41 separated at its production joint at Body Station 520.
JBS>Who says? The NTSB never did specifically say where it separated. If you are right, that negates a center tank explosion as the cause of the nose coming off. There is a sharp skin line of no soot and sooted which is just aft of the forward cargo door. I think that’s where it was cut.
MM>the forward edge of the cargo door frame is at Body station 560, 40 inches behind the production joint. Your photo of the TWA door shows that 40 inches of metal still there, if your door had come open causing the nose to rip off, then that metal would not have been present.
JBS>I don’t follow that logic. The sequence at this time is huge hole appears, nose bends to right, nose comes off, hits number three, three falls away on fire and fodded, seconds later the disintegrating fuel tanks create vapor ignited by falling on fire number three.
The actual sequence of when and why cargo door ruptures at midspans is best described in AAR 92/02 for United Airlines Flight 811. Their mystery is how power got to the unlatch motor. They assume the door opened on the ground but popped later at 22000 feet. That makes little sense.
So, how did the motor get power and how did the latches turn are two mysteries that need evidence and since the investigators concentrated on bomb or center tank explosion, they did not look for frayed wiring or bent tubes. They chose to believe that shattered door was all locked, all latched, and all intact until water impact. Ha! I can see with my own eyes that is incorrect. I feel like saying to Loeb, “Liar, Liar, Pants on fire!” I shouldn’t joke, 230 people died a horrible death when that hull ruptured...and left the dozens of clues that match other inflight breakups, including China Airlines Flight 611 and United Airlines Flight 811.
Barry
SV>I have read the NTSB report on UA 811 and find no reference to power being cut to the FDR. Perhaps you could cite the section where that fact appears in the report.
JBS>Okey dokey, From AAR 92/02 for United Airlines Flight 811:
1.11 Flight Recorders
The airplane was equipped with a Sundstrand model 573 digital type Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) and a Sundstrand model AV557-B Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR).
Examination of the data plotted from the DFDR indicated that the flight was normal from liftoff to the accident. The recorder operated normally during the period. However, the decompression event caused a data loss of approximately 2 1/2 seconds. When the data resumed being recorded, all values appeared valid with the exception of the pitch and roll parameters. Lateral acceleration showed a sharp increase immediately following the decompression. Vertical acceleration showed a sharp, rapid change just after the decompression and a slight increase as the airplane began its descent.
The CVR revealed normal communication before the decompression. At 0209:09:2 HST, a loud bang could be heard on the CVR. The loud bang was about 1.5 seconds after a "thump" was heard on the CVR for which one of the flightcrew made a comment. The electrical power to the CVR was lost for approximately 21.4 seconds following the loud bang. The CVR returned to normal operation at 0209:29 HST, and cockpit conversation continued to be recorded in a normal manner.
SV>And on your correspondence to the President, his staff, heads of Cabinet departments and agencies, etc.: did none of these individuals reply to you?
JBS>Never, except Senator John McCain who agreed that my concerns were worth checking out and recommended to Chairman Jim Hall that NTSB meet with me. Hall flatly refused to have an NTSB representative listen to me. They never have to this day but do take pot shots in the press and to members of the press who ask too pointed questions. They have told me I’m wrong, but never say why. They have said they refuse to correspond or respond to further inquiries from me.
SV>I saw no evidence of such on your website. Perhaps you might have gotten more attention if you had written to the Director of the U.S. Secret Service
JBS>Did that. No response.
SV> and the Commander of the Air Force's 89th Airlift Wing
JBS>Did that. No response.
SV>. Indeed, I'm quite sure if you had persevered in your correspondence to the Director of the Secret Service, an agent would have visited you.
JBS>Well you did hit upon an interesting episode. I emailed John McCain about the hazard of cargo doors on 747s and therefore Air Force One. I said if a cargo door blew out, it would be perceived as a bomb and that would be wrong. The very next day I had two Secret Service agents, armed, at my front door for an interview. I have it all on video tape. They said they came from a referral from “McCain’s Office.” The interview went fine as they quickly realized they had a retired military officer writing about airplane crashes. They came to check out the messenger and did not care about the message. They wanted to leave in fifteen minutes but I was able to keep them for an hour. They left.
I emailed McCain asking him to now check out the message now that the messenger was checked out. He replied by letter that he nor anyone on his staff had ever initiated any investigation of me or any member of my family. I believe him. I believe that the Echelon system of monitoring communications alerted to an email that the President, bomb, and Air Force One were in the same paragraph.
The hour interview with the SS man and woman was interesting in many ways. I was an intelligence officer in the Navy and know about interrogation techniques. I got more info from them than they thought. Plus I had the internet. As she was talking to me I had my web site up and showing pictures etc and said, well let’s check you out and put her name in the search engine. It popped up with her phone number, her address, and a map showing where in San Jose she lived. The first thing she said after she rocketed up off her chair, “I’m going to sue somebody!” Ha! Is this America or what?
There are many more facets of that interview that bear repeating, some other time, some other place. Welcome to America, write your Senator about a safety issue, get armed agents in your home...within 24 hours, armed and lying.
It turns out through other sources that Air Force One has the cargo doors sealed for security reasons (not rupture problems but ease of access).
I guess the lesson learned here is if you want to confront authority about their incorrect appraisal of a situation, be prepared to be hassled, checked out, and insulted.
Their efforts to suppress contrary thought are similar to the persons in this forum, insult and harangue using one’s own words against them.
The insidious effect is to stifle others who see what’s happening and don’t want the grief because they are not as motivated as I am, so they remain silent. It’s a successful technique to suppress dissent. It does not work with me because I had my life saved in an airplane crash and aviation safety has the highest priority with me and I can take all this crap. Once past the emotional ego of insults, it’s easy. Getting past the insults for others without that motivation is hard, I understand. Insults, investigations, and harassment are very very intimidating and will even deter contributors to this forum to walk away, not wanting to get involved. That is the goal of the harassers and it works. Most people could not withstand the scrutiny of a full scale investigation. Fortunately for me, my life has been recorded every three months by school officials Navy officials, and Army officials in evaluation reports. My life is an open book, but for others not so. And if you think that an anonymous nickname protects identity, you are wrong. Assume everything is recorded, I do.
There are always the quiet thinkers like Whauet who do the research and come up with the telling questions. It is a pleasure to reply to them.
By the way, Engine number 3 was never retrieved for Air India Flight 182 so there was no serial number to check. No engines were retrieved. It’s amazing they got any wreckage from 6700 feet down.
I also believe there is no picture of the bottom part of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611, that was an error on the part of the reporter or he was misled. I’ve emailed both reporters but have no response...as usual.
Another aspect is the attitude of authorities. Generally speaking they believe it is ‘us’ against ‘them’ and we are the ‘them’. This is peacetime with a civilian aircraft. I have the credentials and the research to assist but am rejected and barely acknowledged and even then disparaged. I am not the enemy. But when someone, anyone offers facts, data, and evidence which conflicts with their already determined reason for a crash, that person becomes the enemy. So sad. There is a breakdown of trust and respect between government and citizen and it’s probably because of lawsuits. Officials are scared and act scared. Except Kay Yong and that may change if he offers the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation for China Airlines Flight 611.
We’ll see. Silence from ASC is ominous.
Cheers,
Barry
JBS>I doubt he ever read it, heard of it, or was briefed on it. It is impossible to get through to high officials or high corporate officers, especially with bad news. That’s why the polite email from Kay Yong was so encouraging.
MM>As i have said before, the midspan latches cannot turn unless the lower eight are driven open by the actuator first, as the actuator drives the lower eight latches torque tube and then the midspan. All latches have to operate for the midspan to turn. Basic mechanics; if a torque tube cannot turn then it cannot transmit its drive. - fact not fiction.
JBS>Wishful thinking that because something is not supposed to happen it did not happen. The torque tubes were not recovered to be examined...as usual.. as most of the door hardware is missing, but they were able to find pieces of bone. The midspan latches were blown away leaving petal shaped rupture holes where where used to be. One explanation is the lower eight were inadvertently driven open...but stopped by the locking sectors, but the two midspan were also inadvertently driven open...but stopped from fully opening by the torque tube...but not stopped from turning just enough past dead center for the enormous inside pressure to burst open the two weak areas.
Regardless, an explanation is needed for the two rupture holes at the midspans of the forward cargo door of Trans World Airlines Flight 800. An honest person would say the center fuel tank explosion blew it open. But they never do. Except one guy, Neil Schalekamp of FAA who quickly recanted and stated the NTSB point of view:
Manager in the Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, dated 30 January 98. Neil Schalekamp:
"While no one scenario has been categorically proven to the the cause, it is believed, based upon available data, that the center tank (CWT) explosion preceded any separation of the forward cargo door. The paint markings and structural deformation that you cite, do indicate an outward explosion, generally accepted to be caused by the explosion of the CWT. Furthermore, you mentioned that the forward cargo door was recovered a considerable distance from the rest of the structure. This could be due to its aerodynamic characteristics and prevailing winds at the time of the accident, rather than attributing this as the primary cause of the accident."
JBS>Shortly thereafter, nine days later, he changed his tune after I emailed his response to NTSB: Note his suddenly changed attitude.
NS>"It appears that you are determined to impose your theory about the events that led to this unfortunate accident upon the official investigators."
"Please take note that this office will no longer be responding to your further inquires about these same concerns, including your February 6 and February 9 letters that I just received."
"The evidence from the reconstructed 747 airplane reveals that the forward cargo door was attached to the forward section of the airplane and was latched in the closed position when this section of the airplane impacted the ocean."
JBS>Well, an honest man even if only for a few days.
MM>Also on TWA the Nose section 41 separated at its production joint at Body Station 520.
JBS>Who says? The NTSB never did specifically say where it separated. If you are right, that negates a center tank explosion as the cause of the nose coming off. There is a sharp skin line of no soot and sooted which is just aft of the forward cargo door. I think that’s where it was cut.
MM>the forward edge of the cargo door frame is at Body station 560, 40 inches behind the production joint. Your photo of the TWA door shows that 40 inches of metal still there, if your door had come open causing the nose to rip off, then that metal would not have been present.
JBS>I don’t follow that logic. The sequence at this time is huge hole appears, nose bends to right, nose comes off, hits number three, three falls away on fire and fodded, seconds later the disintegrating fuel tanks create vapor ignited by falling on fire number three.
The actual sequence of when and why cargo door ruptures at midspans is best described in AAR 92/02 for United Airlines Flight 811. Their mystery is how power got to the unlatch motor. They assume the door opened on the ground but popped later at 22000 feet. That makes little sense.
So, how did the motor get power and how did the latches turn are two mysteries that need evidence and since the investigators concentrated on bomb or center tank explosion, they did not look for frayed wiring or bent tubes. They chose to believe that shattered door was all locked, all latched, and all intact until water impact. Ha! I can see with my own eyes that is incorrect. I feel like saying to Loeb, “Liar, Liar, Pants on fire!” I shouldn’t joke, 230 people died a horrible death when that hull ruptured...and left the dozens of clues that match other inflight breakups, including China Airlines Flight 611 and United Airlines Flight 811.
Barry
SV>I have read the NTSB report on UA 811 and find no reference to power being cut to the FDR. Perhaps you could cite the section where that fact appears in the report.
JBS>Okey dokey, From AAR 92/02 for United Airlines Flight 811:
1.11 Flight Recorders
The airplane was equipped with a Sundstrand model 573 digital type Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) and a Sundstrand model AV557-B Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR).
Examination of the data plotted from the DFDR indicated that the flight was normal from liftoff to the accident. The recorder operated normally during the period. However, the decompression event caused a data loss of approximately 2 1/2 seconds. When the data resumed being recorded, all values appeared valid with the exception of the pitch and roll parameters. Lateral acceleration showed a sharp increase immediately following the decompression. Vertical acceleration showed a sharp, rapid change just after the decompression and a slight increase as the airplane began its descent.
The CVR revealed normal communication before the decompression. At 0209:09:2 HST, a loud bang could be heard on the CVR. The loud bang was about 1.5 seconds after a "thump" was heard on the CVR for which one of the flightcrew made a comment. The electrical power to the CVR was lost for approximately 21.4 seconds following the loud bang. The CVR returned to normal operation at 0209:29 HST, and cockpit conversation continued to be recorded in a normal manner.
SV>And on your correspondence to the President, his staff, heads of Cabinet departments and agencies, etc.: did none of these individuals reply to you?
JBS>Never, except Senator John McCain who agreed that my concerns were worth checking out and recommended to Chairman Jim Hall that NTSB meet with me. Hall flatly refused to have an NTSB representative listen to me. They never have to this day but do take pot shots in the press and to members of the press who ask too pointed questions. They have told me I’m wrong, but never say why. They have said they refuse to correspond or respond to further inquiries from me.
SV>I saw no evidence of such on your website. Perhaps you might have gotten more attention if you had written to the Director of the U.S. Secret Service
JBS>Did that. No response.
SV> and the Commander of the Air Force's 89th Airlift Wing
JBS>Did that. No response.
SV>. Indeed, I'm quite sure if you had persevered in your correspondence to the Director of the Secret Service, an agent would have visited you.
JBS>Well you did hit upon an interesting episode. I emailed John McCain about the hazard of cargo doors on 747s and therefore Air Force One. I said if a cargo door blew out, it would be perceived as a bomb and that would be wrong. The very next day I had two Secret Service agents, armed, at my front door for an interview. I have it all on video tape. They said they came from a referral from “McCain’s Office.” The interview went fine as they quickly realized they had a retired military officer writing about airplane crashes. They came to check out the messenger and did not care about the message. They wanted to leave in fifteen minutes but I was able to keep them for an hour. They left.
I emailed McCain asking him to now check out the message now that the messenger was checked out. He replied by letter that he nor anyone on his staff had ever initiated any investigation of me or any member of my family. I believe him. I believe that the Echelon system of monitoring communications alerted to an email that the President, bomb, and Air Force One were in the same paragraph.
The hour interview with the SS man and woman was interesting in many ways. I was an intelligence officer in the Navy and know about interrogation techniques. I got more info from them than they thought. Plus I had the internet. As she was talking to me I had my web site up and showing pictures etc and said, well let’s check you out and put her name in the search engine. It popped up with her phone number, her address, and a map showing where in San Jose she lived. The first thing she said after she rocketed up off her chair, “I’m going to sue somebody!” Ha! Is this America or what?
There are many more facets of that interview that bear repeating, some other time, some other place. Welcome to America, write your Senator about a safety issue, get armed agents in your home...within 24 hours, armed and lying.
It turns out through other sources that Air Force One has the cargo doors sealed for security reasons (not rupture problems but ease of access).
I guess the lesson learned here is if you want to confront authority about their incorrect appraisal of a situation, be prepared to be hassled, checked out, and insulted.
Their efforts to suppress contrary thought are similar to the persons in this forum, insult and harangue using one’s own words against them.
The insidious effect is to stifle others who see what’s happening and don’t want the grief because they are not as motivated as I am, so they remain silent. It’s a successful technique to suppress dissent. It does not work with me because I had my life saved in an airplane crash and aviation safety has the highest priority with me and I can take all this crap. Once past the emotional ego of insults, it’s easy. Getting past the insults for others without that motivation is hard, I understand. Insults, investigations, and harassment are very very intimidating and will even deter contributors to this forum to walk away, not wanting to get involved. That is the goal of the harassers and it works. Most people could not withstand the scrutiny of a full scale investigation. Fortunately for me, my life has been recorded every three months by school officials Navy officials, and Army officials in evaluation reports. My life is an open book, but for others not so. And if you think that an anonymous nickname protects identity, you are wrong. Assume everything is recorded, I do.
There are always the quiet thinkers like Whauet who do the research and come up with the telling questions. It is a pleasure to reply to them.
By the way, Engine number 3 was never retrieved for Air India Flight 182 so there was no serial number to check. No engines were retrieved. It’s amazing they got any wreckage from 6700 feet down.
I also believe there is no picture of the bottom part of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611, that was an error on the part of the reporter or he was misled. I’ve emailed both reporters but have no response...as usual.
Another aspect is the attitude of authorities. Generally speaking they believe it is ‘us’ against ‘them’ and we are the ‘them’. This is peacetime with a civilian aircraft. I have the credentials and the research to assist but am rejected and barely acknowledged and even then disparaged. I am not the enemy. But when someone, anyone offers facts, data, and evidence which conflicts with their already determined reason for a crash, that person becomes the enemy. So sad. There is a breakdown of trust and respect between government and citizen and it’s probably because of lawsuits. Officials are scared and act scared. Except Kay Yong and that may change if he offers the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation for China Airlines Flight 611.
We’ll see. Silence from ASC is ominous.
Cheers,
Barry
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Above is AAIB UK photo of the forward cargo door of Pan Am Flight 103. Note vertical tear lines in skin above door, missing pressure relief doors, intact hinge, longitudinal split, missing lower part, and general shattered appearance of door. Those observations are similar to other cargo doors of early model Boeing 747s that have ruptured open in flight.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I am still here quietly thinking and reading through the mountain of data available from several different sources when I have the time, there are a couple of interim questions I want to pose.
First, what is your opinion on the destruction of UTA 772? I do feel it is appropriate to ask this question as you use other aircraft types and incidents to support your belief of ongoing cargo door problems. On your website you do reference other cargo door incidents on a variety of other aircraft types from the 747, to the DC-10, the DC-9 and the DC-8. UTA 772 is the in-flight destruction of a large aircraft from an explosive force coming from the baggage hold, so, in my opinion, does have more than passing relevance to the greater issue.
Second, in your reply to my earlier post you state:
Again, having limited knowledge of physics, I ask the general group if this is indeed so. Say the ignition source was near a corner of the center fuel tank - am I incorrect in thinking that the primary damage would be closer to the ignition source and not uniform? If you have a pool of gasoline - throw a match in the center of that pool and you will have a uniform expansion of the flame, the edges of that pool igniting at essentially the same time. Throw a match near the edge of that pool and you will get a much different pattern of ignition... (Feel free to point and laugh if I'm missing a big point here)..
William
First, what is your opinion on the destruction of UTA 772? I do feel it is appropriate to ask this question as you use other aircraft types and incidents to support your belief of ongoing cargo door problems. On your website you do reference other cargo door incidents on a variety of other aircraft types from the 747, to the DC-10, the DC-9 and the DC-8. UTA 772 is the in-flight destruction of a large aircraft from an explosive force coming from the baggage hold, so, in my opinion, does have more than passing relevance to the greater issue.
Second, in your reply to my earlier post you state:
A center tank explosion as the initial event would give bilateral damage, not the actual unilateral damage shown by the evidence.
William
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whauet>First, what is your opinion on the destruction of UTA 772?
On September 19, 1989 - a DC 10 from the airline UTA (flight 772) disappeared from the radar monitors wile flying over the Sahara desert in Niger's. The cause of the sudden disappearance from the radar monitors, was a midair explosion - caused by a bomb - that killed all 171 passengers and crew onboard. The DC-10 was enroute Brazzaville - N'Djamena - to it's final destination in Paris (Charles-de-Gaulle airport (CDG)).
Accident description - Status: Final
Date: 19 SEP 1989 Time: 13.59 Type: <http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/352.shtml>McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 Operator: Union de Transportes Aériens - UTA Registration: N54629 C/n: 46852/125 Year built: 1973 Total airframe hrs: 60276 hours Cycles: 14777 cycles Engines: 3 General Electric CF6-50C2R Crew: 15 fatalities / 15 on board Passengers: 156 fatalities / 156 on board Total: 171 fatalities / 171 on board Location: Ténéré desert, 16 54'N 11 59'E (<http://aviation-safety.net/database/country/5U.shtml>Niger) Phase: Climb Nature: Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: N'Djamena Destination airport: Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG) Flightnumber: 772
Remarks:
The DC-10 was operating as UTA Flight 772 on the Brazzaville-N'Djamena-Paris route. The aircraft took off from N'Djamena at 13.13h and climbed to a cruising altitude of FL350. At 13.59 an explosion on board caused the aircraft to crash into the desert. The explosive device was located at location 13R in the cargo hold. The device was most probably hidden in baggage, placed aboard at Brazzaville. Possible groups responsible for the explosion are the Islamic Jihad group (demanding the freedom of a Shi'ite Muslim in Israel) or the Secret Chadian Resistance. Co-incidental on March 10, 1984 another UTA aircraft was destroyed when a bomb exploded; in this case the bomb exploded during embarkation at N'Djamena. CONCLUSIONS: "
DC-10 flight UTA 772, Brazzaville N'Djamena - Paris, was destroyed by an explosion on l9 September 1989, forty-six minutes after take-off from N'Djamena, while cruising at flight level 350 in totally normal conditions.
That destruction was due to an explosive charge placed in a container in location 13-R in the forward cargo hold.
The Investigation Commission assert that the most plausible hypothesis is that the explosive charge was inside baggage loaded at Brazzaville Airport.
Observations made shortly after the accident on Brazzaville Airport made it clear that, at that time, the airport security measures in force were not in accordance with the ICAO standards and recommended practices (Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and Civil Aviation Security Manual (DOC 8973))."
JBS>I need more evidence. I read in press reports that evidence of a bomb was found in a suitcase (sound familiar) in the forward cargo compartment and that Libya had accepted responsibility and paid compensation. When aft cargo doors rupture in DC10s they usually lose control or partial control but rarely come apart in the air so completely. I also read the cargo doors where intact. (Unlike China Airlines Flight 611) But, my specialty is the Boeing 747 inflight breakup events and only use others that have cargo door or metal fatigue problems. It’s amazing to me that this crash has generated so little interest or anger.
Whauet> Say the ignition source was near a corner of the center fuel tank - am I incorrect in thinking that the primary damage would be closer to the ignition source and not uniform?
JBS>Good question and the answer is hard to find in the NTSB AAR for Trans World Airlines Flight 800. Since they had no ignition source it was hard to start a fire and name a location without one so they muddied the water as stated below in excerpt: Note that this is Jim Wildey’s explanation, a metallurgist, not an accident investigator. Al Dickinson was the investigator in charge and he was invisible. Note that the wreckage distribution showed that the first pieces to depart the aircraft were from the forward cargo compartment and the trajectory study showed the first parts came from just forward of the wing: Docket Number SA-516, Exhibit No. 22A, Trajectory Study, page 3: "The wreckage distribution shows that parts were initially shed from the area just forward of the wing."
JBS>The center tank is in the wing, not forward of it.
So where in the center tank did the overpressure first occur?
I vote for “This initial fuselage skin crack at stringer 40 right propagated forward at an angle to the left (toward the bottom center of the airplane), then branched circumferentially left and right, and then (from the left branch) propagated back toward the front spar on the lower left side.”
This appears to put the outward force to the left side of the plane and the bottom center. Note the wreckage of the left side of the plane is smooth and the starboard side shattered which refutes this analysis as the initial event. The shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation agrees with the below but states the sequence started after the forward cargo door ruptured open giving the evidence as shown by the photographs.
From AAR 00/03>
As discussed in section 1.16.3, the Metallurgy Structures/Sequencing Group’s sequencing study concluded (in part because pieces from inside the CWT were among the first pieces to depart the airplane) that the initial event in the breakup sequence was an overpressure event543 within the CWT and that the earliest piece of the airplane to be disturbed was SWB3. Specifically, the Sequencing Group concluded that SWB3 fractured at its upper end and that overpressure within the CWT caused it to rotate forward about its lower end. As the upper end of SWB3 rotated forward, it impacted the aft surface of the front spar, leaving distinct witness marks across most of the front spar. Analysis of the wreckage further indicated that when SWB3 impacted the front spar, it initiated multiple fractures along the upper chord of the front spar. Overpressure escaping from the CWT caused the front spar to bulge forward on either side of the two potable water bottles attached next to each other at the center of the front spar. The upper end of the front spar then completely separated from the upper skin of the WCS. After the upper end of the front spar was completely separated from the upper skin, the overpressure remaining within the CWT forced the WCS lower skin and the forward end of the keel beam downward. Downward loading of the forward end of the keel beam greatly increased the stress in the ring chord and in the fuselage skin adjacent to the front spar. As the keel beam was forced downward, cracking propagated down through the lower pressure bulkhead and ring chord and immediately entered the fuselage skin at stringer 40 right. This initial fuselage skin crack at stringer 40 right propagated forward at an angle to the left (toward the bottom center of the airplane), then branched circumferentially left and right, and then (from the left branch) propagated back toward the front spar on the lower left side. Thus, at this point, the fuselage skin had cracked 541 The remainder of SWB2 was found in the green zone (the wreckage zone farthest from JFK along the airplanes flightpath, and, therefore, containing the last pieces to depart the airplane). The manufacturing door was only lightly sooted, whereas the sooting on the remainder of SWB2 was moderate to heavy, indicating that the remaining portion of the WCS was subjected to a more substantial fire after the early departure of the manufacturing door.
Therefore, the large fireball described by some witnesses could not have been caused by the initial destruction of the CWT. For additional discussion about the nature of the reported fireball, see section 2.2.2.1.
As previously mentioned, the Sequencing Group defined an overpressure event as one that would create sufficient pressure in a relatively short time to a level at which the structural integrity of the CWT is compromised.
Analysis 261 Aircraft Accident Report
around three sides of a large piece of fuselage structure (including the piece identified after recovery operations as iLF6Ai); only the side adjacent to the lower pressure bulkhead (beneath the front spar) remained attached to the other structure. Downward loading (from normal cabin pressurization and vented CWT overpressure) on this weakened fuselage piece was transmitted to the forward end of the keel beam, which caused it to separate from the WCS lower skin panel and fracture about 22 inches aft of the mid spar. The separation of the large piece of fuselage created a large opening in the fuselage, just forward of the front spar, through which pieces of the front spar, SWB3, and the manufacturing access door from SWB2 exited the airplane. (The apparent forward and upward motion of the manufacturing access door after it separated from SWB2 at its lower edge indicates that, at that time, the pressure on the aft surface of the door was greater than on the forward surface, consistent with venting of the overpressure forward of SWB2 through the large opening in the bottom of the fuselage.) The sequencing study determined that the breakup sequence was initiated by an overpressure inside the CWT. Because there was no evidence that a high-energy explosive device detonated in this (or any other) area of the airplane, this overpressure could only have been caused by a fuel/air explosion in the CWT.
JBS>Below from NTSB AAR 00/03. This section is again written by the metallurgist, Jim Wildey. Note that most of the door hardware is still missing and therefore could not be examined for mechanical damage. Note that there are ten latches, not eight, and without the other two latches having status confirmed, an open cargo door at the midspans can not be ruled out. The absence of the manual locking handle and two latches coupled with the photograph of the outward petal shaped rupture holes at the midspan latch certainly refute the conclusion of: ‘This evidence indicates that the door was closed and locked at impact.’
AAR 00/03>2.2.1.1 Consideration of a Structural Failure and Decompression Close examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of preexisting airplane structural faults (such as fatigue, corrosion, or mechanical damage) that could have contributed to the in-flight breakup. The examination revealed that the structure did have minimal preexisting corrosion damage, none of which could have led to or affected the breakup of the airplane. Small fatigue cracks were found in some parts of the airplane, including in the lower chord of the front spar and in the shear ties for the floor beams and stiffeners at the front spar; however, none of these cracks had coalesced into a propagating crack that could have led to the in-flight breakup. Further, although the joint between fuselage sections 41 and 42 on some 747s purportedly had been subject to manufacturing assembly problems, there was no evidence that it had separated in any locations before impact.
It was also suggested that the breakup could have been initiated by the in-flight separation of the forward cargo door. However, all eight of the latching cams along the bottom of the door (and some pieces of the cargo door itself) remained attached to the pins along the lower door sill, and there were no indications of preimpact failure of the hinge at the top of the door. This evidence indicates that the door was closed and locked at impact. Further, deformation and fracture patterns on the door matched damage to the adjacent fuselage structure, confirming that the door was in the closed position at the time of impact. Therefore, the Safety Board concludes that the in-flight breakup of TWA flight 800 was not initiated by a preexisting condition resulting in a structural failure and decompression.
HotDog?>
Well Barry, you have finally convinced me, like the rest of the world. Adieu, mon ami.
JBS>Have I not heard this before? Am I having a deja vu? HotDog saying good bye...hmmm. that rings a bell, let me check the ole archives...
HD>Well Barry, I give up. It is obvious that no amount of sense will ever shake your convictions and theories about the 747 cargo doors and correcting your mistakes and misconceptions about aircraft systems, is a complete waste of time. As I really don't want to shatter your dreams, I bow out. Have a good day Major.
HD>posted 10th August 2002 01:51 _
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Barry, I give up.
JBS> Quite all right, I understand.
HD>It is obvious that no amount of sense will ever shake your convictions and theories about the 747 cargo doors and correcting your mistakes and misconceptions about aircraft systems, is a complete waste of time. As I really don't want to shatter your dreams, I bow out.
JBS>Good bye. Thanks for not shattering my dreams.
HD>Have a good day Major.
JBS>You too
JBS Today>Well, Hotdog, I understand. Come back after you are refreshed. I’m just getting started. Good questions from Whatuet and others are invigorating, that’s for sure.
But while I dilly dally, dawdle, and debate with myself, I think about ‘being crazy’. I think about being called paranoid. It’s not every day one is called a serious mental illness.
HD>Stagger, you misunderstand me. I'm not having a shot at you, I'm offering you and everyone else ammunition to debunk that eccentric gentleman suffering from Paranoia.
JBS>Eccentric too! Well, let me consider the saneness or the insanity of the two positions: Bomb or cargo door.
Cargo door is the mechanical explanation with a solid precedent of United Airlines Flight 811. I say no plots, no conspiracy, no money changing hands, and no boom boxes that go boom. Mechanical causes are most common for airplane accidents. I would call that the down to earth explanation, the feet on the ground explanation. I would call that the sane explanation.
The bomb explanation has flimsy precedent of Air India Flight 182 and required plots, conspiracy, money changing, and boom boxes that go boom. Sabotage is a most rare cause of airplane accidents. I would call that the paranoia explanation, the looney explanation. It requires belief that strangers are out to kill the person and do it by talking behind their backs in secret hideouts using codes. I would call that the insane explanation.
What’s interesting to me is that the person who believes in the mechanical explanation is called ‘eccentric’ or suffering from paranoia by the person who believes in conspiracy and plots from strangers, yet the mechanical person does not call the conspiracy plot believer nuts, just misguided and afraid.
A person who believes in conspiracy plots calls someone who doesn’t, nuts. Hmmm..
I have come to realize that if most everyone is crazy, a sane man will be called nuts because he will be different, he will be alone, he will be saying contrary things to the agreed upon crazy truth. History is full of persons like that. In fact every new idea that supplants an old one starts with one person and he will be alone and that starts the sequence. No, wrong, crazy, ignore, go away, attack, ask questions.
If I were ever persuaded that bombs blew Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky, then you can call me crazy and I will be guilty as charged. To believe any bomb scenario is an exercise in suspended disbelief. I love the mach stem theory in AAIB 2.90. It has a mild bit of energy going though a suitcase, through a container, out the 20 inch hole in the fuselage and the rest of the energy bouncing through ducts, off walls and into a compartment gaining energy all the time so that it eventually blows the nose of the plane. The theory refutes basic energy laws of nature. Energy decreases as it travels and is absorbed the air or material usually giving off heat. All aspects of the bomb explanation are looney like that to me and yet the gullible, that’s just about everybody, just grins and nods. Every aspect falls apart under scrutiny. Here in this forum a member said the trial and the conclusion was not based on solid reasoning. I pick apart the actual forensic evidence.
And a person who believes it was a bomb involving conspirators, plots, several countries, improvised explosive devices from cassette audio players, three flights in two planes, etc, is calling me eccentric and suffering from paranoia because I believe a machine did what machines do, break. And it's happened before and since.
But just for a second, let me think like a bomb guy, let’s see, these one or two Libyans who are smart enough to acquire a timer from Switzerland, a cassette player from someplace, make a bomb, sneak it past one set of security people, fly it to another large airport with another set of security people, dogs, etc, and change planes and fly again to another large airport with another set of security people, change planes, and take off and an hour later the bomb goes off. Whoa, I would think that any terrorists smart enough to plan and execute all that would certainly be able to detonate the bomb when and where they wanted. The timer/fuze would not be altitude because it went high and did not go off but timed.
So when to detonate is the question a bomb guy would ask himself of the terrorist. Dozens of hours later when the planes might be on the ground for servicing or held for delays and thus negate the whole misty motive for the bombing? No, most real bombs in real airplanes go off on the very next flight, the only exception that comes to mind is Air India Flight 182 which had another miraculous three flights before that ‘bomb’ went off. The terrorists who put bombs on planes want them to go off right away to avoid any unforeseen events, such as going over land instead of water because of the weather, or engine problems and the plane turns back.
So, I’m laughing at these smooth smart terrorists who suddenly turn into Keystone Kops when it comes to the payoff, the detonation. It just doesn’t make sense, which about sums up the whole bomb explanation. But I don’t call those that believe in that nonsense crazy, just misguided by believing without evidence and scared and looking for reassurance that it can’t happen to them because security has been ‘beefed up’ to stop those evil foreign terrorists.
And tell me again the motive? Ha!
Bomb thinking always make me snort with derision. I get real serious with mechanical explanations that follow the basic laws of nature, the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
Cheers,
Barry
On September 19, 1989 - a DC 10 from the airline UTA (flight 772) disappeared from the radar monitors wile flying over the Sahara desert in Niger's. The cause of the sudden disappearance from the radar monitors, was a midair explosion - caused by a bomb - that killed all 171 passengers and crew onboard. The DC-10 was enroute Brazzaville - N'Djamena - to it's final destination in Paris (Charles-de-Gaulle airport (CDG)).
Accident description - Status: Final
Date: 19 SEP 1989 Time: 13.59 Type: <http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/352.shtml>McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 Operator: Union de Transportes Aériens - UTA Registration: N54629 C/n: 46852/125 Year built: 1973 Total airframe hrs: 60276 hours Cycles: 14777 cycles Engines: 3 General Electric CF6-50C2R Crew: 15 fatalities / 15 on board Passengers: 156 fatalities / 156 on board Total: 171 fatalities / 171 on board Location: Ténéré desert, 16 54'N 11 59'E (<http://aviation-safety.net/database/country/5U.shtml>Niger) Phase: Climb Nature: Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: N'Djamena Destination airport: Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG) Flightnumber: 772
Remarks:
The DC-10 was operating as UTA Flight 772 on the Brazzaville-N'Djamena-Paris route. The aircraft took off from N'Djamena at 13.13h and climbed to a cruising altitude of FL350. At 13.59 an explosion on board caused the aircraft to crash into the desert. The explosive device was located at location 13R in the cargo hold. The device was most probably hidden in baggage, placed aboard at Brazzaville. Possible groups responsible for the explosion are the Islamic Jihad group (demanding the freedom of a Shi'ite Muslim in Israel) or the Secret Chadian Resistance. Co-incidental on March 10, 1984 another UTA aircraft was destroyed when a bomb exploded; in this case the bomb exploded during embarkation at N'Djamena. CONCLUSIONS: "
DC-10 flight UTA 772, Brazzaville N'Djamena - Paris, was destroyed by an explosion on l9 September 1989, forty-six minutes after take-off from N'Djamena, while cruising at flight level 350 in totally normal conditions.
That destruction was due to an explosive charge placed in a container in location 13-R in the forward cargo hold.
The Investigation Commission assert that the most plausible hypothesis is that the explosive charge was inside baggage loaded at Brazzaville Airport.
Observations made shortly after the accident on Brazzaville Airport made it clear that, at that time, the airport security measures in force were not in accordance with the ICAO standards and recommended practices (Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and Civil Aviation Security Manual (DOC 8973))."
JBS>I need more evidence. I read in press reports that evidence of a bomb was found in a suitcase (sound familiar) in the forward cargo compartment and that Libya had accepted responsibility and paid compensation. When aft cargo doors rupture in DC10s they usually lose control or partial control but rarely come apart in the air so completely. I also read the cargo doors where intact. (Unlike China Airlines Flight 611) But, my specialty is the Boeing 747 inflight breakup events and only use others that have cargo door or metal fatigue problems. It’s amazing to me that this crash has generated so little interest or anger.
Whauet> Say the ignition source was near a corner of the center fuel tank - am I incorrect in thinking that the primary damage would be closer to the ignition source and not uniform?
JBS>Good question and the answer is hard to find in the NTSB AAR for Trans World Airlines Flight 800. Since they had no ignition source it was hard to start a fire and name a location without one so they muddied the water as stated below in excerpt: Note that this is Jim Wildey’s explanation, a metallurgist, not an accident investigator. Al Dickinson was the investigator in charge and he was invisible. Note that the wreckage distribution showed that the first pieces to depart the aircraft were from the forward cargo compartment and the trajectory study showed the first parts came from just forward of the wing: Docket Number SA-516, Exhibit No. 22A, Trajectory Study, page 3: "The wreckage distribution shows that parts were initially shed from the area just forward of the wing."
JBS>The center tank is in the wing, not forward of it.
So where in the center tank did the overpressure first occur?
I vote for “This initial fuselage skin crack at stringer 40 right propagated forward at an angle to the left (toward the bottom center of the airplane), then branched circumferentially left and right, and then (from the left branch) propagated back toward the front spar on the lower left side.”
This appears to put the outward force to the left side of the plane and the bottom center. Note the wreckage of the left side of the plane is smooth and the starboard side shattered which refutes this analysis as the initial event. The shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation agrees with the below but states the sequence started after the forward cargo door ruptured open giving the evidence as shown by the photographs.
From AAR 00/03>
As discussed in section 1.16.3, the Metallurgy Structures/Sequencing Group’s sequencing study concluded (in part because pieces from inside the CWT were among the first pieces to depart the airplane) that the initial event in the breakup sequence was an overpressure event543 within the CWT and that the earliest piece of the airplane to be disturbed was SWB3. Specifically, the Sequencing Group concluded that SWB3 fractured at its upper end and that overpressure within the CWT caused it to rotate forward about its lower end. As the upper end of SWB3 rotated forward, it impacted the aft surface of the front spar, leaving distinct witness marks across most of the front spar. Analysis of the wreckage further indicated that when SWB3 impacted the front spar, it initiated multiple fractures along the upper chord of the front spar. Overpressure escaping from the CWT caused the front spar to bulge forward on either side of the two potable water bottles attached next to each other at the center of the front spar. The upper end of the front spar then completely separated from the upper skin of the WCS. After the upper end of the front spar was completely separated from the upper skin, the overpressure remaining within the CWT forced the WCS lower skin and the forward end of the keel beam downward. Downward loading of the forward end of the keel beam greatly increased the stress in the ring chord and in the fuselage skin adjacent to the front spar. As the keel beam was forced downward, cracking propagated down through the lower pressure bulkhead and ring chord and immediately entered the fuselage skin at stringer 40 right. This initial fuselage skin crack at stringer 40 right propagated forward at an angle to the left (toward the bottom center of the airplane), then branched circumferentially left and right, and then (from the left branch) propagated back toward the front spar on the lower left side. Thus, at this point, the fuselage skin had cracked 541 The remainder of SWB2 was found in the green zone (the wreckage zone farthest from JFK along the airplanes flightpath, and, therefore, containing the last pieces to depart the airplane). The manufacturing door was only lightly sooted, whereas the sooting on the remainder of SWB2 was moderate to heavy, indicating that the remaining portion of the WCS was subjected to a more substantial fire after the early departure of the manufacturing door.
Therefore, the large fireball described by some witnesses could not have been caused by the initial destruction of the CWT. For additional discussion about the nature of the reported fireball, see section 2.2.2.1.
As previously mentioned, the Sequencing Group defined an overpressure event as one that would create sufficient pressure in a relatively short time to a level at which the structural integrity of the CWT is compromised.
Analysis 261 Aircraft Accident Report
around three sides of a large piece of fuselage structure (including the piece identified after recovery operations as iLF6Ai); only the side adjacent to the lower pressure bulkhead (beneath the front spar) remained attached to the other structure. Downward loading (from normal cabin pressurization and vented CWT overpressure) on this weakened fuselage piece was transmitted to the forward end of the keel beam, which caused it to separate from the WCS lower skin panel and fracture about 22 inches aft of the mid spar. The separation of the large piece of fuselage created a large opening in the fuselage, just forward of the front spar, through which pieces of the front spar, SWB3, and the manufacturing access door from SWB2 exited the airplane. (The apparent forward and upward motion of the manufacturing access door after it separated from SWB2 at its lower edge indicates that, at that time, the pressure on the aft surface of the door was greater than on the forward surface, consistent with venting of the overpressure forward of SWB2 through the large opening in the bottom of the fuselage.) The sequencing study determined that the breakup sequence was initiated by an overpressure inside the CWT. Because there was no evidence that a high-energy explosive device detonated in this (or any other) area of the airplane, this overpressure could only have been caused by a fuel/air explosion in the CWT.
JBS>Below from NTSB AAR 00/03. This section is again written by the metallurgist, Jim Wildey. Note that most of the door hardware is still missing and therefore could not be examined for mechanical damage. Note that there are ten latches, not eight, and without the other two latches having status confirmed, an open cargo door at the midspans can not be ruled out. The absence of the manual locking handle and two latches coupled with the photograph of the outward petal shaped rupture holes at the midspan latch certainly refute the conclusion of: ‘This evidence indicates that the door was closed and locked at impact.’
AAR 00/03>2.2.1.1 Consideration of a Structural Failure and Decompression Close examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of preexisting airplane structural faults (such as fatigue, corrosion, or mechanical damage) that could have contributed to the in-flight breakup. The examination revealed that the structure did have minimal preexisting corrosion damage, none of which could have led to or affected the breakup of the airplane. Small fatigue cracks were found in some parts of the airplane, including in the lower chord of the front spar and in the shear ties for the floor beams and stiffeners at the front spar; however, none of these cracks had coalesced into a propagating crack that could have led to the in-flight breakup. Further, although the joint between fuselage sections 41 and 42 on some 747s purportedly had been subject to manufacturing assembly problems, there was no evidence that it had separated in any locations before impact.
It was also suggested that the breakup could have been initiated by the in-flight separation of the forward cargo door. However, all eight of the latching cams along the bottom of the door (and some pieces of the cargo door itself) remained attached to the pins along the lower door sill, and there were no indications of preimpact failure of the hinge at the top of the door. This evidence indicates that the door was closed and locked at impact. Further, deformation and fracture patterns on the door matched damage to the adjacent fuselage structure, confirming that the door was in the closed position at the time of impact. Therefore, the Safety Board concludes that the in-flight breakup of TWA flight 800 was not initiated by a preexisting condition resulting in a structural failure and decompression.
HotDog?>
Well Barry, you have finally convinced me, like the rest of the world. Adieu, mon ami.
JBS>Have I not heard this before? Am I having a deja vu? HotDog saying good bye...hmmm. that rings a bell, let me check the ole archives...
HD>Well Barry, I give up. It is obvious that no amount of sense will ever shake your convictions and theories about the 747 cargo doors and correcting your mistakes and misconceptions about aircraft systems, is a complete waste of time. As I really don't want to shatter your dreams, I bow out. Have a good day Major.
HD>posted 10th August 2002 01:51 _
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Barry, I give up.
JBS> Quite all right, I understand.
HD>It is obvious that no amount of sense will ever shake your convictions and theories about the 747 cargo doors and correcting your mistakes and misconceptions about aircraft systems, is a complete waste of time. As I really don't want to shatter your dreams, I bow out.
JBS>Good bye. Thanks for not shattering my dreams.
HD>Have a good day Major.
JBS>You too
JBS Today>Well, Hotdog, I understand. Come back after you are refreshed. I’m just getting started. Good questions from Whatuet and others are invigorating, that’s for sure.
But while I dilly dally, dawdle, and debate with myself, I think about ‘being crazy’. I think about being called paranoid. It’s not every day one is called a serious mental illness.
HD>Stagger, you misunderstand me. I'm not having a shot at you, I'm offering you and everyone else ammunition to debunk that eccentric gentleman suffering from Paranoia.
JBS>Eccentric too! Well, let me consider the saneness or the insanity of the two positions: Bomb or cargo door.
Cargo door is the mechanical explanation with a solid precedent of United Airlines Flight 811. I say no plots, no conspiracy, no money changing hands, and no boom boxes that go boom. Mechanical causes are most common for airplane accidents. I would call that the down to earth explanation, the feet on the ground explanation. I would call that the sane explanation.
The bomb explanation has flimsy precedent of Air India Flight 182 and required plots, conspiracy, money changing, and boom boxes that go boom. Sabotage is a most rare cause of airplane accidents. I would call that the paranoia explanation, the looney explanation. It requires belief that strangers are out to kill the person and do it by talking behind their backs in secret hideouts using codes. I would call that the insane explanation.
What’s interesting to me is that the person who believes in the mechanical explanation is called ‘eccentric’ or suffering from paranoia by the person who believes in conspiracy and plots from strangers, yet the mechanical person does not call the conspiracy plot believer nuts, just misguided and afraid.
A person who believes in conspiracy plots calls someone who doesn’t, nuts. Hmmm..
I have come to realize that if most everyone is crazy, a sane man will be called nuts because he will be different, he will be alone, he will be saying contrary things to the agreed upon crazy truth. History is full of persons like that. In fact every new idea that supplants an old one starts with one person and he will be alone and that starts the sequence. No, wrong, crazy, ignore, go away, attack, ask questions.
If I were ever persuaded that bombs blew Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky, then you can call me crazy and I will be guilty as charged. To believe any bomb scenario is an exercise in suspended disbelief. I love the mach stem theory in AAIB 2.90. It has a mild bit of energy going though a suitcase, through a container, out the 20 inch hole in the fuselage and the rest of the energy bouncing through ducts, off walls and into a compartment gaining energy all the time so that it eventually blows the nose of the plane. The theory refutes basic energy laws of nature. Energy decreases as it travels and is absorbed the air or material usually giving off heat. All aspects of the bomb explanation are looney like that to me and yet the gullible, that’s just about everybody, just grins and nods. Every aspect falls apart under scrutiny. Here in this forum a member said the trial and the conclusion was not based on solid reasoning. I pick apart the actual forensic evidence.
And a person who believes it was a bomb involving conspirators, plots, several countries, improvised explosive devices from cassette audio players, three flights in two planes, etc, is calling me eccentric and suffering from paranoia because I believe a machine did what machines do, break. And it's happened before and since.
But just for a second, let me think like a bomb guy, let’s see, these one or two Libyans who are smart enough to acquire a timer from Switzerland, a cassette player from someplace, make a bomb, sneak it past one set of security people, fly it to another large airport with another set of security people, dogs, etc, and change planes and fly again to another large airport with another set of security people, change planes, and take off and an hour later the bomb goes off. Whoa, I would think that any terrorists smart enough to plan and execute all that would certainly be able to detonate the bomb when and where they wanted. The timer/fuze would not be altitude because it went high and did not go off but timed.
So when to detonate is the question a bomb guy would ask himself of the terrorist. Dozens of hours later when the planes might be on the ground for servicing or held for delays and thus negate the whole misty motive for the bombing? No, most real bombs in real airplanes go off on the very next flight, the only exception that comes to mind is Air India Flight 182 which had another miraculous three flights before that ‘bomb’ went off. The terrorists who put bombs on planes want them to go off right away to avoid any unforeseen events, such as going over land instead of water because of the weather, or engine problems and the plane turns back.
So, I’m laughing at these smooth smart terrorists who suddenly turn into Keystone Kops when it comes to the payoff, the detonation. It just doesn’t make sense, which about sums up the whole bomb explanation. But I don’t call those that believe in that nonsense crazy, just misguided by believing without evidence and scared and looking for reassurance that it can’t happen to them because security has been ‘beefed up’ to stop those evil foreign terrorists.
And tell me again the motive? Ha!
Bomb thinking always make me snort with derision. I get real serious with mechanical explanations that follow the basic laws of nature, the shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
Cheers,
Barry
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS, thank you for your discourse on the terrorist mind, and thank you as well for paraphrasing Captain Yossarian. Yesterday, I had promised myself to stay away from this thread because it is badly sidetracked and increasingly becoming a forensic examination of your mental state, an examination that you appear to revel in. Nearly every new post of yours seems to peel away a bit more of the onion, so to speak.
But three comments. You wrote:
Perhaps you would like to explain what exactly happened in the baggage room at Narita as luggage from CP 003 was being transfered to Air India less than an hour before the crash of AI 182? And if it helps your explanation, I won't be frightened by your applying your apparently extensive knowledge of terminal ballistics and explosion kinetics to the Narita event.
Secondly, if you accurately phrased Senator McCain's reply in which he said that his office did not 'initiate the investigation' of you, he was being correct (at least technically). His office did not initiate the investigation, the Secret Service did. The most likely explanation is that your email to him was sufficiently alarming that his staff quickly referred it to the Secret Service, and after the Secret Service read it, because of its contents or phrasing, they initiated an investigation and immediately sent two agents to visit you.
As a Navy squadron air intelligence officer and a major in Army intelligence (reserves, I assume) you should be aware the National Security Agency (which runs Echelon) is prohibited by law from eavesdropping domestically. (And please, let's not get into a discussion of router paths, intercepts, etc.) Speaking for myself, I would be chagrined, subdued, and subsequently quiet about having to be visited by the Secret Service because of something I wrote. I certainly wouldn't trumpet it to the world if I was trying to establish my credentials. And yes, the Internet is a wonderful place these days. You may have shown the Secret Service agent a map of where she lived; nowadays, one can post a picture of your house.
Finally, I am not sure how one "seals" the forward cargo door of Air Force One. (In your earlier correspondence, you had called for these to be 'locked', but I never understood what additional locking you had in mind.) And I think if you look at the PBS television special on Air Force One, you will see images of Air Force technicians climbing into the lower fuselage through the forward cargo door.)
But three comments. You wrote:
The bomb explanation has flimsy precedent of Air India Flight 182 and required plots, conspiracy, money changing, and boom boxes that go boom. Sabotage is a most rare cause of airplane accidents. I would call that the paranoia explanation, the looney explanation. It requires belief that strangers are out to
kill the person and do it by talking behind their backs in secret hideouts using codes. I would call that the insane explanation.
........If I were ever persuaded that bombs blew Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky, then you can call me crazy and I will be guilty as charged. To believe any bomb scenario is an exercise in suspended disbelief.
kill the person and do it by talking behind their backs in secret hideouts using codes. I would call that the insane explanation.
........If I were ever persuaded that bombs blew Air India Flight 182 and Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky, then you can call me crazy and I will be guilty as charged. To believe any bomb scenario is an exercise in suspended disbelief.
Secondly, if you accurately phrased Senator McCain's reply in which he said that his office did not 'initiate the investigation' of you, he was being correct (at least technically). His office did not initiate the investigation, the Secret Service did. The most likely explanation is that your email to him was sufficiently alarming that his staff quickly referred it to the Secret Service, and after the Secret Service read it, because of its contents or phrasing, they initiated an investigation and immediately sent two agents to visit you.
As a Navy squadron air intelligence officer and a major in Army intelligence (reserves, I assume) you should be aware the National Security Agency (which runs Echelon) is prohibited by law from eavesdropping domestically. (And please, let's not get into a discussion of router paths, intercepts, etc.) Speaking for myself, I would be chagrined, subdued, and subsequently quiet about having to be visited by the Secret Service because of something I wrote. I certainly wouldn't trumpet it to the world if I was trying to establish my credentials. And yes, the Internet is a wonderful place these days. You may have shown the Secret Service agent a map of where she lived; nowadays, one can post a picture of your house.
Finally, I am not sure how one "seals" the forward cargo door of Air Force One. (In your earlier correspondence, you had called for these to be 'locked', but I never understood what additional locking you had in mind.) And I think if you look at the PBS television special on Air Force One, you will see images of Air Force technicians climbing into the lower fuselage through the forward cargo door.)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SV>JBS, thank you for your discourse on the terrorist mind,
JBS>You’re welcome, sarcasm appreciated.
SV> and thank you as well for paraphrasing Captain Yossarian.
JBS>You’re welcome, sarcasm appreciated and how did you know Catch 22 is one of my favorite all time books? ‘If war is not a Special Service, I don’t know what is.”
SV>Yesterday, I had promised myself to stay away from this thread
JBS>Another promise broken.
SV>because it is badly sidetracked
JBS>Sidetracked? I love it when you talk train talk. But trains are sort of off topic, yes?
SV> and increasingly becoming a forensic examination of your mental state, an examination that you appear to revel in.
JBS>Revel? 'Wallow' is the proper cliche, methinks.
SV>Nearly every new post of yours seems to peel away a bit more of the onion, so to speak.
JBS>If that’s what it takes to get wiring replaced and cargo doors into plug type, then so be it. Nice intro into your post though. Is it time to talk China Airlines Flight 611 yet?
SV>Perhaps you would like to explain what exactly happened in the baggage room at Narita as luggage from CP 003 was being transferred to Air India less than an hour before the crash of AI 182? And if it helps your explanation, I won't be frightened by your applying your apparently extensive knowledge of terminal ballistics and explosion kinetics to the Narita event.
JBS>And into the mind of the conspiracy guys we go......Connecting the dots to make plots and bombs and terror. My serious explanation for Narita is laid out extensively in the Smith AAR for Air India Flight 182, downloadable at corazon.com of course. I have to be careful here as I think about Narita and bombs as I am drinking tea and might snort some out my nose as I contemplate three Boeing 747s through four major airports in two different countries carrying two bombs that happen to go off thousands of miles apart and thousands of feet in altitude difference, but hey! The explosions occurred within hours of each other and that proves......it’s a conspiracy! And anyone who says otherwise is nuts!
SV>The most likely explanation is that your email to him was sufficiently alarming that his staff quickly referred it to the Secret Service,
JBS>Quote from personal letter to me from Senator John McCain:"Please accept my personal assurance that neither I nor my staff made any request for an investigation or interrogation of you or your family by the Secret Service or any government agency or other entity."
On tape the woman agent is saying, “This referral came from McCain’s office.’ She then discussed the text of the email I had sent to Senator McCain earlier.
SV>As a Navy squadron air intelligence officer and a major in Army intelligence (reserves, I assume)
JBS>Not a major in Army Intelligence, don’t read into my words what you want to in order to layout an implied insult.
SV>Speaking for myself, I would be chagrined, subdued, and subsequently quiet about having to be visited by the Secret Service because of something I wrote.
JBS>Guilty conscience? I wear the SS visit as a badge of honor. But you do see the intimidating effect it has on most, like yourself.
SV>I certainly wouldn't trumpet it to the world if I was trying to establish my credentials.
JBS>Then don’t. And I’m not trying to establish my credentials. You get into the ‘expert’ thing again. The evidence is the expert. The twisted metal is there to be cross examined, not me.
SV>You may have shown the Secret Service agent a map of where she lived; nowadays, one can post a picture of your house.
JBS>Let me tell you the most terrifying, amazing and astonishing thing about the whole episode: A few days later I did the lookup thing again with the SS agent’s name. And it had vanished! The SS was able to erase an identity from the internet within 48 hours. Now that’s impressive. And who said the government is powerless? Or slow? Not me.
SV>And I think if you look at the PBS television special on Air Force One, you will see images of Air Force technicians climbing into the lower fuselage through the forward cargo door.)
JBS>You may be looking at the Airstair they have to embark and disembark on tarmac. The cargo door is too high to climb into and the Air Force for the E4B used to use stepladders on the sill until an AD/SB had to be written to stop that.
Well, I was going to sit down and do a review of the evidence for China Airlines Flight 611 today, scant as it is, but got ‘sidetracked’.
Cheers,
Barry
JBS>You’re welcome, sarcasm appreciated.
SV> and thank you as well for paraphrasing Captain Yossarian.
JBS>You’re welcome, sarcasm appreciated and how did you know Catch 22 is one of my favorite all time books? ‘If war is not a Special Service, I don’t know what is.”
SV>Yesterday, I had promised myself to stay away from this thread
JBS>Another promise broken.
SV>because it is badly sidetracked
JBS>Sidetracked? I love it when you talk train talk. But trains are sort of off topic, yes?
SV> and increasingly becoming a forensic examination of your mental state, an examination that you appear to revel in.
JBS>Revel? 'Wallow' is the proper cliche, methinks.
SV>Nearly every new post of yours seems to peel away a bit more of the onion, so to speak.
JBS>If that’s what it takes to get wiring replaced and cargo doors into plug type, then so be it. Nice intro into your post though. Is it time to talk China Airlines Flight 611 yet?
SV>Perhaps you would like to explain what exactly happened in the baggage room at Narita as luggage from CP 003 was being transferred to Air India less than an hour before the crash of AI 182? And if it helps your explanation, I won't be frightened by your applying your apparently extensive knowledge of terminal ballistics and explosion kinetics to the Narita event.
JBS>And into the mind of the conspiracy guys we go......Connecting the dots to make plots and bombs and terror. My serious explanation for Narita is laid out extensively in the Smith AAR for Air India Flight 182, downloadable at corazon.com of course. I have to be careful here as I think about Narita and bombs as I am drinking tea and might snort some out my nose as I contemplate three Boeing 747s through four major airports in two different countries carrying two bombs that happen to go off thousands of miles apart and thousands of feet in altitude difference, but hey! The explosions occurred within hours of each other and that proves......it’s a conspiracy! And anyone who says otherwise is nuts!
SV>The most likely explanation is that your email to him was sufficiently alarming that his staff quickly referred it to the Secret Service,
JBS>Quote from personal letter to me from Senator John McCain:"Please accept my personal assurance that neither I nor my staff made any request for an investigation or interrogation of you or your family by the Secret Service or any government agency or other entity."
On tape the woman agent is saying, “This referral came from McCain’s office.’ She then discussed the text of the email I had sent to Senator McCain earlier.
SV>As a Navy squadron air intelligence officer and a major in Army intelligence (reserves, I assume)
JBS>Not a major in Army Intelligence, don’t read into my words what you want to in order to layout an implied insult.
SV>Speaking for myself, I would be chagrined, subdued, and subsequently quiet about having to be visited by the Secret Service because of something I wrote.
JBS>Guilty conscience? I wear the SS visit as a badge of honor. But you do see the intimidating effect it has on most, like yourself.
SV>I certainly wouldn't trumpet it to the world if I was trying to establish my credentials.
JBS>Then don’t. And I’m not trying to establish my credentials. You get into the ‘expert’ thing again. The evidence is the expert. The twisted metal is there to be cross examined, not me.
SV>You may have shown the Secret Service agent a map of where she lived; nowadays, one can post a picture of your house.
JBS>Let me tell you the most terrifying, amazing and astonishing thing about the whole episode: A few days later I did the lookup thing again with the SS agent’s name. And it had vanished! The SS was able to erase an identity from the internet within 48 hours. Now that’s impressive. And who said the government is powerless? Or slow? Not me.
SV>And I think if you look at the PBS television special on Air Force One, you will see images of Air Force technicians climbing into the lower fuselage through the forward cargo door.)
JBS>You may be looking at the Airstair they have to embark and disembark on tarmac. The cargo door is too high to climb into and the Air Force for the E4B used to use stepladders on the sill until an AD/SB had to be written to stop that.
Well, I was going to sit down and do a review of the evidence for China Airlines Flight 611 today, scant as it is, but got ‘sidetracked’.
Cheers,
Barry
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HotDog, some comments to your post from 8-23 (sorry, no ppruning on weekend for me) :
Of course the Airbus door post from JBS hat nothing to do with the China Airlines crash, but nevertheless some of your remarks are not quite correct :
There are at least two accidents where people were killed by cabin doors opened while the fuselage was still pressurized.
A door is called plug type if ´a component of the initial opening movement of the door is inward´ (see the acording AC / ACJ).
This must not neccesarily mean the MAIN component is inward, so it is pricipally posible to open such a door under pressure, it´s just a question of force. Generally speaking the Airbus doors are much easyer to open than Boeing ones (just look at the flight attendents to see the difference), so it is possible for a powerfull person to open the door when slightly pressurized.
There is not just an indication on the flight deck, there is a warning light in every door window of the Airbus to be seen from inside and from outside to warn the person operating the door. Think for yourself, does such a warning light makes sense if
???
The next point is your comparison between bodies sucked into an engine and bird strike damages. The big difference is the impact speed, so bird strike damage of a 4 lb bird impacting with 300 kts is quite different to an 150 lb person impacting with 10 kts (or something like this if you have just left the plane some 20 ft in front of the engine), because impact energy is 24 times higher !
The damge to the engine after sucking in a body must not be very large, and not even be detectable after the engine felt down 40000 ft from the sky.
Let´s hope for some new facts on the China Air accident before the last member leaves this JBS-cargo-door-topic ...
Of course the Airbus door post from JBS hat nothing to do with the China Airlines crash, but nevertheless some of your remarks are not quite correct :
There are at least two accidents where people were killed by cabin doors opened while the fuselage was still pressurized.
A door is called plug type if ´a component of the initial opening movement of the door is inward´ (see the acording AC / ACJ).
This must not neccesarily mean the MAIN component is inward, so it is pricipally posible to open such a door under pressure, it´s just a question of force. Generally speaking the Airbus doors are much easyer to open than Boeing ones (just look at the flight attendents to see the difference), so it is possible for a powerfull person to open the door when slightly pressurized.
There is not just an indication on the flight deck, there is a warning light in every door window of the Airbus to be seen from inside and from outside to warn the person operating the door. Think for yourself, does such a warning light makes sense if
all modern pressurized airplanes are plug type doors that cannot blow out like the cargo door scenario Barry describes in his diatribe.
The next point is your comparison between bodies sucked into an engine and bird strike damages. The big difference is the impact speed, so bird strike damage of a 4 lb bird impacting with 300 kts is quite different to an 150 lb person impacting with 10 kts (or something like this if you have just left the plane some 20 ft in front of the engine), because impact energy is 24 times higher !
The damge to the engine after sucking in a body must not be very large, and not even be detectable after the engine felt down 40000 ft from the sky.
Let´s hope for some new facts on the China Air accident before the last member leaves this JBS-cargo-door-topic ...
>The big difference is the impact speed, so bird strike damage of a 4 lb bird impacting with 300 kts is quite different to an 150 lb person impacting with 10 kts (or something like this if you have just left the plane some 20 ft in front of the engine), because impact energy is 24 times higher ! <
Sorry to disagree with you volume but your analogy above is not correct.
In either the 300 kt case or the 10 kt case the bird or body does not impact the engine blading with flight motion energy.
It presents itself between the individual blades and the blades do the impacting with their fixed rotational velocity The effect of ingested speed iis only to increase the size of the individually ingested slice bits.
I have an idea that some folks have seen the pictures up close of UA811 engine .I can also tell you that by virtue of the damage to the inlet cowl lip that the ingested speed from the stuff going in was much higher than 10 kts.
Sorry to disagree with you volume but your analogy above is not correct.
In either the 300 kt case or the 10 kt case the bird or body does not impact the engine blading with flight motion energy.
It presents itself between the individual blades and the blades do the impacting with their fixed rotational velocity The effect of ingested speed iis only to increase the size of the individually ingested slice bits.
I have an idea that some folks have seen the pictures up close of UA811 engine .I can also tell you that by virtue of the damage to the inlet cowl lip that the ingested speed from the stuff going in was much higher than 10 kts.