China Airlines B747 Crash (Merged)

[JohnBarrySmith]

Wes Wall>Accident comparisons certainly have a place in ones consideration, and I agree, often call for attention. But comparisons are only as good as they relate specifically to the event. One could say that N739PA operated the LAX - HNL - PPG- AKL - SYD - MEL and return line of flying many times, and additionally, the flight numbers were PA811 and PA812, both carriers crew bid the line out of the west coast based personnel, and UA took over the flying when it purchased the Pacific Division from Pan Am, but does that make it a likely candidate that should be compared with UA811?

JBS>By gosh, I think you’ve got it. You are using the technique of differential diagnosis to find a common cause. You use similarities which appear trivial for a sarcastic point, but there is truth there in principle. It’s called seeing the forest for the trees. There was many trivial similarities for the five events which I have discounted and included a few for which I have no explanation but are too unusual to ignore.

The Smith Table of dozens of evidence matches for the five accidents which specifically relate to the event is at www.corazon.com. I welcome more similarities which may or may not be relevant. The now five trees make up the forest of early model Boeing 747s that suffered solo inflight breakups. (and add JAL 123 too)

WesWall>You continue to compare incidents with one another, but there is one very large and obvious variance between PA103 and UA811.

Can you see it?

JBS> They both have the letter ‘A’ missing in the name of the air carrier? No, wait, they do have that letter. I give up. Please don’t tell me the difference is the nose stayed on United Airlines Flight 811 but came off the others.

Glue> ..so then in the case of PA103, Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi also may be suffering from an overdose of confirmation bias by offering compensation...for an apparent Boeing design flaw that had caused the forward belly door to open inflight and rip the fuselage apart?

JBS>Can you offer evidence of your allegation that Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi has offered compensation for Pan Am Flight 103? No, you can’t. You can offer spin doctor feelers from attorneys like Kriendler who would love to have a few billion dollars change hands in their direction, but then Kriendler is not Khaddafi....although....although close, they both start with ‘K’...maybe, maybe ‘q’, depends who has the most confirmation bias.

WesWall>When you recover from the shuddering from the coincedence of the Picky Perkins posting, perhaps you could repost the following in english that I can understand...

JBS>And who’s to say that I’m not using PickyPerkins as an anonymous Nom De Plume? So it’s me talking to me? Ha! Now that would be paranoia or schizo behaviour. I like the plot though, some guy has heated discussions in forum with himself but does not know it’s him. Then plots to get even with the other/himself. The two faces of Smith. (Actually the plot was sort of done in 'Fight Club' with Brad Pitt.)

The paragraph in question was in American English, you know what I’m saying, dude, it’s totally correct.

Wes Wall>Aside from this, you continue to completely discount the facts re PA103, Talk about confirmation bias.

JBS>Absence of facts that support your position noted....again....as usual..

Plethora of facts about Pan Am Flight 103 and others offered in my previous post to support shorted wiring/forward cargo door rupture/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation....again...as usual.

My previous experience with confirmation bias is the phenomenon noted after buying a new car. The new buyer reads all the advertising to confirm he made the right choice for spending all that cash for a machine that needs constant maintenance, washing, care, and protection. But pretty though! And the women in the commercials seem to like the driver......

Ah, the bomb guys, short of facts but long on connecting dots that don’t relate, like Narita explosion, attorney political maneuvering; time to bring in the Golden Temple invasion and Indira Ghandi assassination by a Sikh, and the shootdown by the Vincennes of an Iranian airliner, and eyewitnesses seeing streak go up in sky, and all those State department persons who cancelled flight at last minute, and the warning to the embassy, are you sure you can’t find a Bin Laden/Iraq/Taliban connection in there somewhere?

Here is a controversial political opinion from me:

The WTC plane crashes are directly linked to the confirmation bias of the Indians, the AAIB, and the NTSB (CASB omitted) who insisted bombs blew up passenger jets and thus caused all the grief and consternation in the world.

We, the good guys, told them, the bad guys, what hurt us and how to hurt us, so they did it again. And they will do it again. Never tell the attackers the results of their attacks and never give a damage assessment.

The desire to avoid the responsibility of causing the crashes of the three Boeing 747s by mechanical and thus preventable causes and thereby constructing mental malarkey of evil foreigners causing passenger planes to blowup has given the enemy the knowledge of what really terrifies the people who the terrorist wants to terrify.

So they did, and will again.

As a student of history I find it amusing to watch the authorities in the late 80’s calling every big plane crash a bomb explosion until proven otherwise to the early 00’s where a plane takes off out of New York and crashes but it’s not a bomb, it’s a tail coming off, and a Boeing 747 explodes in midair and it’s not a bomb but repair failure. Years ago both of them would have been bombs and villains sought.

Confirmation bias changes from one to the other based on the whims of the perceivers. First they are all bombs now they are not bombs. And the evidence stays the same.

As we banter, the picture of the bottom part of the China Airlines Flight 611 door should be available soon and we can get back to basics.

Cheers,
Barry

[wes_wall]

JBS, you say:

(JBS) Number three had ‘‘ingested debris from within the aircraft,’’ and ‘‘contained a number of lose items originating from within the cabin or baggage hold’’ an evaluation which is not
mentioned for engine number two, which implies engine two did not ingest debris from within the aircraft, just paint smears and other evidence suggesting the passage of items of debris. ““Debris’’ is not really baggage from within the baggage hold as was said for engine three and ‘‘suggested’’ is not for certain and ‘‘other evidence’’ is oh so vague.

I beg to differ Sir. From the UK Report, I quote verbatim from 1.17.4, which I am sure you have seen, but unfortunately did not completely or adequately quote.


(UK Report) No 2 engine (situated closest to the site of the explosion) had evidence of blade "shingling" in the area of the shrouds consistent with the results of major airflow disturbance
whilst delivering power. (This effect is produced when random bending and torsional deflection occurs, permitting the mid-span shrouds to disengage and repeatedly strike the adjacent aerofoil
surfaces of the blades). The interior of the air intake contained paint smears and other evidence suggesting the passage of items of debris. One such item of significance was a clear indentation produced by a length of cable of diameter and strand size similar to that typically attached to the closure curtains on the baggage containers.

Seems to me to be not oh so vague. Nor does the very detailed analysis of the container which housed the explosive. In fact, I find very little which is vague, considering the catastrophic break
up of the airplane.

This has been enough for me. Good luck with your continued search, be it right or wrong, it has to be helpful. To that end, you have my admiration.

[JohnBarrySmith]

Should be the bottom part of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611.
Need evaluations by persons that can understand what we are looking at.

Cheers,
Barry

WesWall>I beg to differ Sir. From the UK Report, I quote verbatim from 1.17.4, which I am sure you have seen, but unfortunately did not completely or adequately quote.

(UK Report) No 2 engine (situated closest to the site of the explosion) had evidence of blade "shingling" in the area of the shrouds consistent with the results of major airflow disturbance
whilst delivering power. (This effect is produced when random bending and torsional deflection occurs, permitting the mid-span shrouds to disengage and repeatedly strike the adjacent aerofoil
surfaces of the blades). The interior of the air intake contained paint smears and other evidence suggesting the passage of items of debris. One such item of significance was a clear indentation produced by a length of cable of diameter and strand size similar to that typically attached to the closure curtains on the baggage containers.

JBS>Dear WesWall, please do your homework before criticizing others who do. On the previous page of this forum, page 35, is my post which has all the data on the engines for Pan Am Flight 103 which I must now repost to support my defense that I am not biased but do present all the facts impartially, contrary to your allegation of bias.

JBS repeat from page 35>

Let's look at the engine evidence scientifically:

Engine number two had shingling whatever that is:

AAIB>(i) No 2 engine (situated closest to the site of the explosion) had evidence of blade "shingling" in the area of the shrouds consistent with the results of major airflow disturbance whilst delivering power. (This effect is produced when random bending and torsional deflection occurs, permitting the mid-span shrouds to disengage and repeatedly strike the adjacent aerofoil surfaces of the blades). The interior of the air intake contained paint smears and other evidence suggesting the passage of items of debris.

(ii) No 3 engine, identified on site as containing ingested debris from within the aircraft, nonetheless had no evidence of the type of shingling seen on the blades of No 2 engine. Such evidence is usually unmistakable and its absence is a clear indication that No 3 engine did not suffer a major intake airflow disturbance whilst delivering significant power. The intake structure was found to have been crushed longitudinally by an impact on the front face although, as stated earlier, it had struck the ground on its rear face whilst falling vertically.
(iii) All 3 engines had evidence of blade tip rubs on the fan cases having a combination of circumference and depth greater than hitherto seen on any investigation witnessed on Boeing 747 aircraft by the Pratt and Whitney specialists. Subsequent examination of No 4 engine confirmed that it had a similar deep, large circumference tip rub. These tip-rubs on the four engines were centred at slightly different clock positions around their respective fan cases.

JBS>OK, shingling on engine number two which means what?

Random bending and torsional deflection occurred. What does that mean? FOD? Not really as FOD using breaks blades, starts fire and throws out blades. This could be extreme airflow disruption over the intake of engine number two after forward cargo door blows out at 31000 feet at 300 knots.

Let’s look at engine number two and number three for Pan Am Flight 103: The two vacuum cleaners next to the port and starboard side of the nose at high power at event time.

Number three had ‘ingested debris from within the aircraft,’ and ‘contained a number of lose items originating from within the cabin or baggage hold’ an evaluation which is not mentioned for engine number two, which implies engine two did not ingest debris from within the aircraft, just paint smears and other evidence suggesting the passage of items of debris. “Debris’ is not really baggage from within the baggage hold as was said for engine three and ‘suggested’ is not for certain and ‘other evidence’ is oh so vague.

AAIB>“All four engines had struck the ground in Lockerbie with considerable velocity and therefore sustained major damage, in particular to most of the fan blades. The No 3 engine had fallen 1,100 metres north of the other three engines, striking the ground on its rear face, penetrating a road surface and coming to rest without any further change of orientation i.e. with the front face remaining uppermost. The intake area contained a number of lose items originating from within the cabin or baggage hold. It was not possible initially to determine whether any of the general damage to any of the engine fans or the ingestion noted in No 3 engine intake occurred whilst the relevant engines were delivering power or at a later stage.”

WesWall today>This has been enough for me. Good luck with your continued search, be it right or wrong, it has to be helpful. To that end, you have my admiration.

JBS today>Goodbye to WesWall, HotDog, and SaturnV, valiant bomb guys all, retiring from the fray, bloodied and beaten...emotionally and mentally but still strong physically I’m sure. Come back when you are refreshed, your inputs are always welcome, zany as they are.

You’re leaving at a good time though, that aft door bottom is real evidence. You can slam the door on your way out.

Cheers,
Barry

JBS>Need help. Is Mechanicman here or others who can orient the picture on corazon.com that purports to be the bottom of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611?

Which way is up? Are we looking inside out at the unlatched latches?

Those latches look unlatched to me. The silver panels with bumps appear to be the aft cargo compartment decking. The green metal to bottom and left appear to be the actual bottom part of door seen from inside. There does appear to be some outward force damage on the stiffener and skin. The picture does not go up the midspan latches but how tantalizing. The nose could be to right. If so, the forward leading edge of the door is missing.

Need confirmation this is actually the aft cargo door and flooring and that the latches are the cargo door bottom eight latches.

If so, the unlatched latches are interesting in that they were previously reported to be latched.

Regardless, this is not a normal aft cargo door that was part of a hull rupture nearby.

This picture coupled with the top part means the middle is missing and that has the meat of the door.

All input, conjecture, guessing, and imaginative thoughts about this picture are welcomed. Please post here.

Cheers,
Barry

[MechanicalMan]

Barry,

Looking at the picture, the bottom left of the pic would be about the middle of the cargo door when viewed from inside, the silver panels with bumps are the lower cargo floor ballmats, the forward edge of the door is still present but the fusalage door frame and skin are missing. Looking at the pic the door does still look latched at the lower edge, the lower eight latch torque tube is still present (only just in view) and looks intact (no bending) the latch actuator is still present (the white object at the left of the pic 2/3's down) as is its torque tube which looks undamaged as does the pushrod from the lower eight latch torque tube to the midspan latches (lower edge of photo, 1/3 in from left). The rollers you can see just above the bottom edge of the door are cargo loading rollers on the floor lip, not part of the cargo door latches. There does not seem to be any structual damage to the door visible in the pic as far as i can see, the panel that is torn (1/2 way along, 1/3 up from the bottom of the pic) is made from gilliner, a fireproof fibreglass - easily torn. The pic does seem to show the rear floor are but i'me not 100% sure of that, same floor in both front and rear freight bays, but judging by the floor beams i'me fairly sure it is the rear.

Interesting to note though is the complete lack of fusalage skin on the left hand side and belly.

hope this helps

[JohnBarrySmith]

SK from private email with permission>You mention the "pressure relief door" in this post and in previous ones. I am familiar only with the 747-400, but I suspect that this door has the same function in all models, in that it is a "negative pressure" relief door - or doors.

JBS>Negative/positive/sucked/blown/half empty/half full depends on reference.

Were the nine passengers of United Airlines Flight 811 sucked out or blown out? Depends if looking from inside or outside the ruptured hull.

The pressure relief doors are to relieve the pressure differential between on ground inside cargo compartment pressure and on ground outside hull pressure. The risk is internal high pressure and external low pressure at ground level is driving door open fast and hard injuring anyone in the outward opening upward swinging cargo door path.

SK> In normal operation, this door would remain closed in flight, and because it is in effect a "plug-type" door, I can't see how it could open if the aircraft performs a normal descent.

JBS>Right, probably impossible to manually open the pressure relief doors inflight while hull is pressurized. The doors are mechanically acutated, not pressure. When the bottom eight locking sectors start to turn by the manual locking handle, the mechanical linkage turns the pressure relief doors. The fact that one or more of the pressure relief doors is missing or jammed open on each of the five suspect cargo doors indicated to me those doors received a mechanical instruction to open inflight and once the pressure decreased enough, after the rupture of the door at the midspan latch, the pressure relief doors opened.

If the cargo door were normal and the hull had disintegrated for other reasons, it could be assumed the door might be intact or even fractured but those pressure relief doors would have remained intact in place in the upper part of the cargo door. But....one or more of the pressure relief doors is jammed or missing on all five aircraft cargo doors.

The sequence of the internal working of that complex device called a cargo door and the pressure relief doors as they open apart in flight is open for much more consideration. UAL 811 has a nice discussion in AAR 92/02.

SK>to prevent increases in atmospheric pressure from overpressurizing the aircraft if all doors are closed (e.g. a closed, depowered aircraft parked overnight with a rising barometer).

JBS>Interesting. The pressure relief doors are to protect the airplane and not the ground crew?

SK> The spring-loaded flapper door merely opens as needed to let air into the aircraft until inside and outside pressures are equalized.

JBS>Yes, for pressure actuated doors. The pressure relief doors in the cargo doors are not pressure actuated but mechanical.

SK>I cannot see how these negative pressure relief door(s) could open in flight;

JBS>Exactly, how did they open as the evidence shows for five aircraft?

SK>even if these door(s) did open or even somehow leave the aircraft in flight, I cannot see how it would be any more of an emergency than the blowing out of a cabin window,

JBS>Right, if only one door were to open, it is small and manageable, sort of like a 20 inch shatter hole in nose.

SK>I cannot see how it would cause a failure of the main cargo door itself.

JBS>It does not cause a failure, the midspan latches are the location of the failure, the pressure relief doors are a symptom, a clue after the event, not a cause.

SK>Your other comment which I find curious was:
"... flying normally for an hour or less and was normally pressurized"
I grant you that this was likely the case with the CI 747, but with TWA's? Did they routinely fly the 747 on short sectors? Not to my knowledge.

JBS>Ah, I meant "... flying normally for an hour or less {on a five hour flight} and was normally pressurized {for the altitude it was flying}"

SK>I think it was on the DHL/Russian midair thread that someone mentioned the incredible ratio of "views" to "posts."

JBS>That was interesting, the ratio of posts to viewer. Lurkers? Freeloaders? I think interested scanners. The human mind has an incredible ability to accumulate and sort through data. I think all the many viewers who don’t post are interested, accumulating information from this source and hundreds more, and sorting through it later. It’s the magic and power of the internet.

I would encourage all viewers to post, throw some grist into the mill, some wood on the fire, some bricks for the wall....some...Anyway, do not be deterred by the scornful degrading humiliating responses to them. The words are all puffs of air, the factual content is everything. The emotional response of hot cheeks when insulted quickly fades while the facts remain and can be referenced later.

The structure is not a chat room but a ‘Forum” which implies a person a more scientific approach with proper presentation and well thought out premises, not a chat room with a stream of consciousness going on.

Each of us here, each of us in the thousands has a little bit and maybe a big bit, of experience and knowledge that qualifies each as an ‘expert’ in that narrow area.

Do not be intimidated by rude responses, throw your hat in the ring with your opinions. The insults are intended to deter those who might offer contrary ideas. Well, don’t be growled off, the snide comments are a clue that the subject is worthy of discussion the growler is insecure in his facts and reasoning. And I could be talking about me, too.



MM>Looking at the picture, the bottom left of the pic would be about the middle of the cargo door when viewed from inside, the silver panels with bumps are the lower cargo floor ballmats, the forward edge of the door is still present but the fusalage door frame and skin are missing.

JBS>OK, let me see if I get this right: The forward edge of the door is just to the left of the word “JUL”. The fuselage to which the door is attached (by latch cams and pins) is above the word “JUL 14 2002.” Tail to left.

MM>Looking at the pic the door does still look latched at the lower edge, the lower eight latch torque tube is still present (only just in view) and looks intact (no bending)

JBS>I do see a green tube running left to right and appears straight.

I don’t see any locking sectors or any latching hardware but will assume they are hidden. The bottom eight should be latched after AD 881204.

It still does not look right to me as I would expect the door to fit flush when latched but this looks like the door folds up while floor stays were it is but if the door were raised to vertical it would not be flush, there is about a six inch ledge/vertical step looking yellow in picture. The ledge/skin is above the door and below the white ballmats.

MM>the latch actuator is still present (the white object at the left of the pic 2/3's down)

JBS>Got it, white solid metal thing in door on left with green tube going inside it.

MM> as is its torque tube which looks undamaged as does the pushrod from the lower eight latch torque tube to the midspan latches (lower edge of photo, 1/3 in from left).

JBS>Torque tube to forward midspan latch green and mostly upper right to lower left in picture. Midspan latch picture missing because cropped out or actually missing. I am encouraged they have recovered this piece and thus able to intensively examine it. I hope more pictures will be released.

JBS>The rollers you can see just above the bottom edge of the door are cargo loading rollers on the floor lip, not part of the cargo door latches.

JBS>Got it, they are not door latches.

MM> There does not seem to be any structual damage to the door visible in the pic as far as i can see, the panel that is torn (1/2 way along, 1/3 up from the bottom of the pic) is made from gilliner, a fireproof fibreglass - easily torn.

JBS>This bottom door piece we see does seem to be in solid condition in contrast with the top piece and the missing middle.

MM>The pic does seem to show the rear floor are but i'me not 100% sure of that, same floor in both front and rear freight bays, but judging by the floor beams i'me fairly sure it is the rear.

JBS>Very good, need to always rule out the other twin door.

MM>Interesting to note though is the complete lack of fusalage skin on the left hand side and belly.

JBS>Yes, this looks like the hull rupture area, aft of the wing. It also appears the bottom of the door has its external skin still attached. I see no evidence of an outward force pressing on the door.

All of the above is fairly consistent with a premise of ruptures at the midspan latches with bottom eight holding firm. The leading edge of the door frame which is missing in photo needs to be examined for petal shaped opening. It appears the forward leading edge should be there but isn’t, or is it?

Note how the bottom part of the door is not exactly parallel with the yellow fuselage skin. If bottom eight latches still latched, the door would have a constant six inch difference but it’s six inches on the right side of the picture and dwindles to about two inches on left side of the picture. Why is that?

Nose to right, tail to left.

The inner strength of this door is apparent. For it to break into several pieces as the evidence shows would be unusual if the hull fracture open elsewhere. The door might be intact in a big square door but not split in two or three longitudinally. It appears the floor ballmats end abruptly about where the aft edge of the door would end. Why a sharp cut there?

But, normal is in the eye of the beholder here.

What is that big metal thing behind the word “JUL” and ends before ‘14’? It looks like part of the door yet can’t be as it looks permanently attached. That object intrigues me.

I assume the paired ridges, five of which are barely seen out of eight installed, all in middle left in picture, are the supports for the latching cams. What are they for sure?

Well, thank you very very much MM, this now enables us to get our bearings once more photos are released. The white actuator is a good reference point as well as the gilliner panel.

Cheers,
Barry

[gas path]

What is that big metal thing behind the word “JUL” and ends before ‘14’? It looks like part of the door yet can’t be as it looks permanently attached. That object intrigues me.

That piece I believe is part of the pull-in hook pin structure, I think that the hook is just visible (I did try to 'blow up' the image (no pun intended) in photoshop but it didn't get any clearer!
Due to the tapering shape of the fuselage the door and the fuselage frame shown does not lie parallel therefore I agree with Mechanical Man that it is indeed the aft cargo door area.

[JohnBarrySmith]

CAL Cargo Door Under Study

MICHAEL A. DORNHEIM

MD>Investigators have recovered the upper and lower parts of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611 still connected to the surrounding fuselage. A middle portion of the door hasn't been recovered yet.

JBS>That is assuming the missing piece(s) are only one; the middle may be in more than one piece.

MD>Aft cargo door is located on the lower right fuselage behind the wing, and was recovered in several pieces. The upper part (top photo) is still hinged to the fuselage, and the lower part (green structure, below) is latched in place next to cargo rollers.

JBS>Conjecture: can’t be sure about ‘latched in place’ until see it latched in place.

MD>Even though both pieces are attached, Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council (ASC) has not ruled out the door as a cause, and in fact "we are paying more attention to it now than before," said Kay Yong, ASC managing director.

JBS>The cat is out of the bag. If and when they follow the evidence of what ruptured open cargo doors in flight do to Boeing 747s, it will become apparent it has happened at least four times before. Not ruling out the cargo door as a cause is to imply it could be the cause; such an obvious deduction but many are loathe to admit it.

MD> "There are some strange areas that we can't explain right now; we need more evidence." ASC officials believe the aft fuselage of the Boeing 747-200, also known as Section 46, was the first area to come apart, and the aft cargo door is on the aft fuselage ( AW&ST Aug. 5, p. 41).

JBS>Yes, strange areas. Yes, need more evidence.

MD>The main thrust of the investigation is still a 21.7 X 16.7-ft. segment of Section 46 that includes the bulk cargo door, which is to the rear of the aft cargo door. Laboratory analysis has confirmed there are fatigue cracks up to 9 in. long around a doubler. The doubler was used to repair tail-strike damage in 1980. The preliminary lab report needs further discussion before it is released, Yong said.

JBS>Lets’ see: The cracks did not crack, the doubler did not fail: The cargo door is shattered...and the main thrust is the.....doubler? Of course. Note that it is Mike Dornhiem saying main thrust, not the actual thruster: ASC.

MD>Recovery efforts are focusing on trying to find the right side of Section 46, including the aftmost passenger doors 4R and 5R. The aircraft did not have a passenger deck cargo door. Most of the left side has already been recovered. The ASC has started moving wreckage from the Penghu Islands to Tao Yuan AFB near Taipei, and plans to make a two-dimensional reconstruction of the rear fuselage and perhaps part of the forward fuselage. A 3D reconstruction may then be made to better explain findings to the public, Yong said.

JBS>Looking for the right side, the starboard side, the aft cargo door side, the shattered side, the side with precedent. They are on the right track. At least a 2D and maybe a 3D, that's very good.

Now, to the examination of the aft cargo door of China Airlines Flight 611:

Items identified:
Top hinge.
Outline of pressure relief doors.
Jagged metal at tear area about one third down.
Door actuator motor.
Pull in hook mechanism.
Bottom sill.
Cargo floor ball mats.
Torque tubes.
Thin fiberglass internal skin of door.
Non parallel lines of bottom of door and sill.
Some wiring inside door.
Cargo rollers.

Top: Vertical tear lines at aft and forward leading edge of the cargo door.
Missing pressure relief doors.
Longitudinal split about one third down from top.
Intact hinge and door attached to top fuselage skin.

Bottom:
Straight torque tubes apparently
Leading edge of door missing.
Edge of door and edge of fuselage sill not parallel.
Latches not seen in photo.
Some internal door cover missing and bent.

Analysis:
Top of aft cargo door matches other ruptured open cargo doors in flight, such as United Airlines Flight 811 and Pan Am Flight 103, in having vertical tear lines at aft and forward leading edge of the cargo door, missing pressure relief doors, longitudinal split about one third down from top and intact hinge and door attached to top fuselage skin.

Bottom of door with its attachment to sill and locked latches (if confirmed) matches Trans World Airlines Flight 800.

Conclusion: Can not yet rule in or rule out the shorted wiring/aft cargo door rupture/rapid decompression/inflight breakup explanation explanation for China Airlines Flight 611. Need more evidence, such as the actual middle parts with its latching hardware, before determination can be made.

Cheers,
Barry

[MechanicalMan]

Barry

The Leading edge of the door is still present in the photo, the ballmats ending abruptly is by design, built and installed like that.

[JohnBarrySmith]

MM>The Leading edge of the door is still present in the photo, the ballmats ending abruptly is by design, built and installed like that.
JBS>I based the leading edge is missing because of the opinion that the pull in hook mechanism is seen and that mechanism is in the door, not out in front of the leading edge.
That whole lower piece is weird. The non parallel lines need to be explained as well as not being flush with fuselage and now exposed pull in hook mechanism and still hidden lower eight latches.
Barry

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>From a knowledgeable correspondent below:

Hi! I can see about 4 C locks in the fully closed and locked position. The portion of the door is lying down from its normal position but it has just rotated on the locking pins as there is nothing to support it. The RH fwd pull in hook looks to be still locked as well and the Rh fwd door frame has broken just above the pull in hook pin. The pull in hook has a section above and below it and you can only see the lower section in the photo.
I dont think that the fact that it is not parallel is_significant, I think the bottom sill is bent.
The forward edge of the door appears intact but_the photo only shows about a quarter of the way up the door.
I am pretty sure that the door would have had an interior covering either aluminium or fibreglass but it would be easily removeable and tear off on the way down.
The tube closest to the rollers is the tube with the C locks and you can see the backs of them next to the supports for the tube
The latches are not visible but the position of the C locks tells me that they are locked in the fully closed position.
I cant see anything that gives me cause for concern with these photos.I think the door could well break in the middle on the way down.
If the door had had a catastrophic failure of the mid span latches I would expect to see severe deformation downwards of the attachment points for the bottom pins and at the pull in hooks but these all seem unstressed. Likewise I would expect to see damage to the top hinge but this also appears to be ok It does however appear to have slammed against the section of fuselage attached to it but again this could have happened on the way down not at the point of initial failure.
Regards

[atakacs]

Anyone alive ?

Folks,

What's going one here ? No more solid info for quite some time...

The ASC seemed quite open to communication at the early stages of the investigation. Any updates on their site (I do not read Chinese) ? Firehouse, can you give us some info (nothing confidential, just let us know if the recovery effort is still in place, for instance) ?

Seems that even JBS gave up on this thread... Still mysterious crash, in my book.

--alex

[JohnBarrySmith]

JBS>Give up? I don't think so, not while I have breath to breathe. At 0 PSI differential of course.

Since the bomb guys left, it has been sort of lonely.

Well, facts will provoke discussion. Here's an interesting item to me from an informed source:

(I call it another band aid to close the barn door after the cow has run away.)

Cheers,
Barry

]Docket No. 89-NM-148-AD; Amendment 39-6581; AD 90-09-06

Airworthiness Directives; BOEING Model 747 Series Airplanes

This amendment supersedes Amendment 39-6166, AD 89-05-54.

This amendment (39-6581, AD 90-09-06) becomes effective on May 29, 1990.


Boeing Service Bulletin 747-52A2206,

Revision 3, Revision 4, or Revision 5, paragraphs III.A. and B. Airplanes which fail mechanical and/or

electrical tests must be repaired prior to further flight, in accordance with FAA-approved procedures.

Repeat these tests at intervals not to exceed 30 days and repeat the electrical test after restoration of

electrical power following manual operation.

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-52A2206, Revision 3, dated August

27, 1987, Revision 4, dated April 14, 1988, or Revision 5, dated March 30, 1989: Modify the doors in

accordance with paragraphs III.H. through III.O. of the applicable revision of the service bulletin.


Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-52A2209, dated August 27, 1987,

Revision 1, dated April 14, 1988, or Revision 2, dated March 30, 1989: Modify the doors in accordance

with paragraphs III.E. through III.L. of the applicable revision of the service bulletin.



Number: 747-52-2242 Service Bulletin

Date: August 26, 1993

Aft Lower Lobe Cargo Door Wire Bundle Inspection and Flexible Conduit Replacement

THE BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE GROUP RECOMMENDS THAT EACH OPERATOR

EXAMINE THIS SERVICE BULLETIN IMMEDIATELY.

BACKGROUND

This modification revises the cargo door warning

system for the lower lobe forward and aft and main

deck side cargo doors.

The existing system consists of a "door warning"

switch that monitors the position of the pressure

relief doors which are at the end of the master latch

lock mechanism operating sequence. When the

manual master latch lock handle is closed after the

latch cams have rotated to the latched position, the

pressure relief doors close. Closure of the pressure

relief doors actuates the switch which extinguishes

the cargo door caution message on the Engine

Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS)

display.

The modification adds a new "door latched" switch

to one of the latch cam bellcranks to separately

sense and indicate the position of the latch cams.

The current single pole "door closed" sequence

switch is also replaced by a double pole switch. The

additional pole is used to separately sense the

position of the door. If any of these switches are not

actuated, the cargo door caution message appears

in the upper EICAS display. A latches closed

indication light is also added to the forward and aft

lower lobe exterior door control panels. The light

indicates when the powered latching sequence is

completed and the door may be locked.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airworthiness

Directive 90-09-06, Amendment 39-6581, is related

to this service bulletin.

ACTION (PRR 82334-1)

On the forward, aft and, if equipped, main deck side

cargo doors, replace the current single pole "door

closed" switch with a double pole switch and add the

new "door latched" switch to the latch bellcrank.

Replace the current single pole "door up" switch on

the forward and aft doors with a double pole switch.

Install markers for the new system. Add the latches

closed indicator lights to the cargo door control

panels for the forward and aft doors. Modify the P59

and P86 cargo door equipment panels. If equipped

with a side door, modify the cargo door equipment

module on the main deck side door. Install a new

Signal Collection/Tail Identification (SCID) card in

the Modularized Avionics Warning and Electronics

Assembly (MAWEA) card file. Adjust the rigging

and perform the necessary functional tests.

COMPLIANCE

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airworthiness

Directive 90-09-06, Amendment 39-6581, is related

to this service bulletin.

EFFECTIVITY

All 747-400 airplanes line position 696 through 820.

MANPOWER

See service bulletin for manpower estimates.

MATERIAL INFORMATION

Boeing Supplied Kits

Refer to Paragraph I.F., Material - Price and

Availability.



CHINA AIR LINES, INC. (CHI)

6 RT631-RT632

CHINA AIR LINES, INC. (CHI)

1 RD081

3 RD551

5 RD082-RD083 RR521-RR522

8 RG171-RG174

9 RT631-RT634



I imagine CI-611 was one of these a/c



B. Reason

This modification revises the cargo door warning system for the lower lobe forward and aft and main

deck side cargo doors.

The existing system consists of a "door warning" switch that monitors the position of the pressure

relief doors which are at the end of the master latch lock mechanism operating sequence. When the

manual master latch lock handle is closed after the latch cams have rotated to the latched position,

the pressure relief doors close. Closure of the pressure relief doors actuates the switch which

extinguishes the cargo door caution message on the Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System

(EICAS) display.

The modification adds a new "door latched" switch to one of the latch cam bellcranks to separately

sense and indicate the position of the latch cams. The current single pole "door closed" sequence

switch is also replaced by a double pole switch. The additional pole is used to separately sense the

position of the door. If any of these switches are not actuated, the cargo door caution message

appears in the upper EICAS display. A latches closed indication light is also added to the forward

and aft lower lobe exterior door control panels. The light indicates when the powered latching

sequence is completed and the door may be locked.

Revision 1 is sent to update the set of retrofit drawings necessary to perform this modification.

Revision 2 is sent to make minor changes to the service bulletin with no more work added for affected

airplanes. The changes include:

- Revision of Paragraph I.A. by the addition of airplanes RT407 - RT410, RT506 - RT507 to Group 6.

These airplanes were in the original release but not included in Revision 1

- The latest revision level for the list of drawings in Paragraph I.J

- The parts accountablity information for the Bellcrank assembly to Paragraph II.D

- Change of system functional test in Paragraph III.T, to allow the system to be functionally tested

by 747 Maintenance Manual.

[MechanicalMan]

EFFECTIVITY

All 747-400 airplanes line position 696 through 820.


JBS>I imagine CI-611 was one of these a/c

no

The mod was for 747-400 series , i think you will find it was a 200 series that crashed, (EICAS is only fitted to the 400 series)

[firehorse]

Major recovery efforts completed

It's over guys n' gals!

The recovery ship "Jan Steen" departed Kaoshiung waters last night at 1700hrs to return home via HKG. The vessel was on location from June 13th - Sep 17th.
A good effort by all and after being on the vessel for over 100days in some cases much steam was vented at a certain bar known as the Pig & Whistle the other night. So now 53 weary souls including myself can go back to our homes and resume our semi-normal lives. Fishing boats are planning to conduct dragging ops of some sort on the location for a few weeks or so, perhaps that will work or not...
As for me, well I think a well deserved beer or 3 will be in order at the Kangaroo pub tonite in honkers, look for the chap on the window observing the scenary walking by outside and you could be in for a story or two...

later.

[arcniz]

Bottoms up!

[atakacs]

firehorse,

Thanks for the update ! So the recovery effort is mostly over.

We obviously have quite some questions for you but I gather you are the best placed to know what / when to say !

--alex

[PickyPerkins]

Re: Major recovery efforts completed

The ISASI 33rd annual Air Safety Seminar was due to be held at the Grand Formosa Regent Taipei, Taipei, Taiwan, Sept.30 through Oct. 3. 2002, with more than 200 worldwide aviation specialists attending. Did anyone attending pick up any futher info re. CI611 which they can share with us?

[firehorse]

PickyP,

CI611 was meant to be talked about briefly but not to the level of "what happened" during the conference.

There was a large Technical Review Meeting held in Taipei Sat before and the operation to date was summarised. The investigation is still very much alive and moving along as quickly as it can be. It's a very lengthy process as I am sure you can imagine and the results of the investigation may take a couple of years before they are made public.

Cheers.

[PickyPerkins]

Firehorse, Thanks for the update!

[PickyPerkins]

I came across a curious thing in Section 1.10.1 "Cockpit Voice Recorder" of a RTO report. It seems that a loud sound clearly heard by several cockpit crew can be missing on the CVR record. Here is a quote from the report:
---------- Start quote ----------
The loud bang heard by the crew and other witnesses was not evident on the CVR. The only unusual sounds recorded occurred two seconds after the V1 call, when the first of a series of 21 "thuds" was heard. A loud bang would certainly contain significant frequency components well within the CVR bandwidth (200-5,000 hertz). The lack of a pronounced loud bang on the CVR was likely the result of the wave transmitted through the aircraft structure causing the automatic gain control on the CVR to squelch the structure-borne signal, thereby masking the slower-travelling airborne sound. The series of thuds was considered similar to the sound of repeated compressor stalls.
---------- End of quote ----------

This may not be significant wrt CI611, but I am posting this because people may assume that if it isn't on the CVR then it didn't happen, and that the human witnesses may be wrong. Also, there have been questions as to whether CVRs pick up structure-bourne noise.