China Airlines B747 Crash (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 40N, 80W
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
---------------------
OVERTALK => Is Boeing Concerned about ASB's getting to be Public Knowledge?
-----------------
Many thanks for your eye-opening post. I had not understood extent to which manufacturers, as well as safety organizations such as ASC, use legalities to suppress the publication of safety bulletins and information. I had no idea that "we, the people" had authorized (via Congress and the DMCA) the withholding of safety documents from the public.
I assume that one can discuss an ASB in public without being threatened? However, if one or more parties in the discussion do not have the actual text available, they may finish up talking apples and oranges. Particularly if you need previously published ASBs to put it all in context. There is probably no better way of creating misunderstanding than suppressing the actual text of current and past ASB texts.
P.S. And off subject, I found the following (rather old) summary of the electrical fire situation on a Delta Airlines L-1011 interesting:
-------- Start quote ---------
As the crew’s report to the Aviation Safety Reporting System recounted, the captain "had a sea of inoperative flags on his panel...with random electrical items giving warnings, it became evident that the airplane thought it was on the ground and in the air simultaneously." Even after the crew completed an emergency landing, they could not turn off the engines by cutting the fuel ignition switches. Pulling the fire handles got the engines to finally stop.
The problem was attributed to an improperly installed clamp, which, over time, wore through wiring insulation and caused a short circuit.
-------- End quote ---------
Thanks again for your valuable (to me) post.
Cheers,
OVERTALK => Is Boeing Concerned about ASB's getting to be Public Knowledge?
-----------------
Many thanks for your eye-opening post. I had not understood extent to which manufacturers, as well as safety organizations such as ASC, use legalities to suppress the publication of safety bulletins and information. I had no idea that "we, the people" had authorized (via Congress and the DMCA) the withholding of safety documents from the public.
I assume that one can discuss an ASB in public without being threatened? However, if one or more parties in the discussion do not have the actual text available, they may finish up talking apples and oranges. Particularly if you need previously published ASBs to put it all in context. There is probably no better way of creating misunderstanding than suppressing the actual text of current and past ASB texts.
P.S. And off subject, I found the following (rather old) summary of the electrical fire situation on a Delta Airlines L-1011 interesting:
-------- Start quote ---------
As the crew’s report to the Aviation Safety Reporting System recounted, the captain "had a sea of inoperative flags on his panel...with random electrical items giving warnings, it became evident that the airplane thought it was on the ground and in the air simultaneously." Even after the crew completed an emergency landing, they could not turn off the engines by cutting the fuel ignition switches. Pulling the fire handles got the engines to finally stop.
The problem was attributed to an improperly installed clamp, which, over time, wore through wiring insulation and caused a short circuit.
-------- End quote ---------
Thanks again for your valuable (to me) post.
Cheers,
Last edited by PickyPerkins; 5th Jun 2005 at 18:48.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wanaka New Zealand
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UA811
We have just viewed an advance copy of "Unlocking Disaster"a tv documentry on UA811 and our investigation of its cause. The film is the first in a series of 6 on air disasters and was produced by Stone City Films UK. It is a Cineflix production for 5 in association with Discovery Canada,France 5 and Canal d.
We found it very well produced and it should be screened in the Uk,Canada and France later this year. It will be interesting to see if it also screens in USA!!!
We found it very well produced and it should be screened in the Uk,Canada and France later this year. It will be interesting to see if it also screens in USA!!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firehorse:>JBS, There are numerous reasons why some items still remain unrecovered off Taiwan, none of those reasons being devious.
JBS>I never said they were.
FH>For example try sea currents up to 4.3 knts, seas up to 8m,
JBS> Yes, those midspan latches and the middle pieces of the door are missing because of sea currents for CI 611...and for TWA 800, and UAL 811, and AI 182, and PA 103...oh wait a minute, Lockerbie is on dry land and they still can't find those same pesky latches and the middle of the door although they did find fingernail pieces of other stuff. There is no conspiracy, the obvious answer is they are not looking early enough in the debris field because they do not speculate of the door rupturing open as the first event.
FH>The bottom line here is that nature doesn't descriminate based on importance of objects when it comes to what gets buried and what doesn't.
JBS>Still looking at the tree of CI 611 and not the forest of five early model Boeing 747s that come apart in the air with shattered cargo door and the same missing essential locking mechanisms.
FH>Not everthing is a conspiracy mate, the best people tried for nearly 4mths and simply missed certain parts. End of story.
JBS> The conspiracy thought is in your head, mate, not mine. If you read conspiracy when confronted with facts which give alternative to official line, you thought of it, not me. Nowhere in the TWA 800 thread or this one will you ever see me say there is a coverup or conspiracy, just wishful thinking on everyone's part that the problem on those five 747s is a one off deal and not a serious problem that demands expensive repairs and modifications.
But I smile as usual that when I bring up facts, the reply is usually that I am nuts, such as a crank that sees conspiracies and coverups. The facts are that that aft cargo door was found in several pieces far apart in the debris field with important parts missing. That door shattered in flight. Why? Well, the precedent is aft repair bulkhead failure and wiring. The aft bulkhead failure has been ruled out but not the wiring causing inadvertent rupturing open in flight.
Now it appears that tail strike repair doubler repairs are common. That CI 611 repair doubler was intact with cracks. Cracks are always discovered on all these 747 after they crash. Are they relevant? Well, are they as relevant as a shattered cargo door for CI 611 that has similarities to UAL 811?
The authorities will bring out their electronic microscopes and make the granules move back and forth in those cracks while ignoring the huge shattered pieces of metal nearby.
Why, because of wishful thinking that a known problem of polyimide wiring did not happen again since the authorities said it would not happen, wishful thinking by the crews that they are flying something that can come apart in an instant with no emergency checklist to help, wishful thinking that the planes do not need to be grounded (as the military planes with that wiring have been), and wishful thinking that all that blame and hatred towards foreigners with bombs was misplaced.
To not admit that that aft cargo door shattered open in flight and scattered the pieces far and wide, such as an explosive decompression, is to ignore an obvious problem with obvious links to UAL 811.
Again, why? It's no conspiracy, no coverup, just wishful thinking, the kind of thinking that rules nowadays but has no place in scientific aircraft accident investigation.
Firehorse, you wish I would go away as just another conspiracy nut but I am not the problem; the problem is the debris field plot and the pieces of the door that indicate that aft cargo door of CI 611 shattered open in flight high up with tremendous force. The conclusion is not that the reporter, me, is a conspiracy nut, but that explosive decompression occurred which has a confirmed precedent, UAL 811.
Well, the conspiracy accusation was made against me in the TWA 800 thread of years ago in PPrune when I showed photographs of the shattered door. It is made now with CI 611 and it will be made again when the next early model Boeing 747 suffers an inflight breakup within an hour of takeoff leaving a sudden sound on the CVR followed by a complete power failure to the FDR and the cargo door will be found shattered and scattered and the midspan latches and other locking mechanisms in the middle of the door will be missing and unrecovered and I report same with pictures to this forum.
Cheers,
John Barry Smith
JBS>I never said they were.
FH>For example try sea currents up to 4.3 knts, seas up to 8m,
JBS> Yes, those midspan latches and the middle pieces of the door are missing because of sea currents for CI 611...and for TWA 800, and UAL 811, and AI 182, and PA 103...oh wait a minute, Lockerbie is on dry land and they still can't find those same pesky latches and the middle of the door although they did find fingernail pieces of other stuff. There is no conspiracy, the obvious answer is they are not looking early enough in the debris field because they do not speculate of the door rupturing open as the first event.
FH>The bottom line here is that nature doesn't descriminate based on importance of objects when it comes to what gets buried and what doesn't.
JBS>Still looking at the tree of CI 611 and not the forest of five early model Boeing 747s that come apart in the air with shattered cargo door and the same missing essential locking mechanisms.
FH>Not everthing is a conspiracy mate, the best people tried for nearly 4mths and simply missed certain parts. End of story.
JBS> The conspiracy thought is in your head, mate, not mine. If you read conspiracy when confronted with facts which give alternative to official line, you thought of it, not me. Nowhere in the TWA 800 thread or this one will you ever see me say there is a coverup or conspiracy, just wishful thinking on everyone's part that the problem on those five 747s is a one off deal and not a serious problem that demands expensive repairs and modifications.
But I smile as usual that when I bring up facts, the reply is usually that I am nuts, such as a crank that sees conspiracies and coverups. The facts are that that aft cargo door was found in several pieces far apart in the debris field with important parts missing. That door shattered in flight. Why? Well, the precedent is aft repair bulkhead failure and wiring. The aft bulkhead failure has been ruled out but not the wiring causing inadvertent rupturing open in flight.
Now it appears that tail strike repair doubler repairs are common. That CI 611 repair doubler was intact with cracks. Cracks are always discovered on all these 747 after they crash. Are they relevant? Well, are they as relevant as a shattered cargo door for CI 611 that has similarities to UAL 811?
The authorities will bring out their electronic microscopes and make the granules move back and forth in those cracks while ignoring the huge shattered pieces of metal nearby.
Why, because of wishful thinking that a known problem of polyimide wiring did not happen again since the authorities said it would not happen, wishful thinking by the crews that they are flying something that can come apart in an instant with no emergency checklist to help, wishful thinking that the planes do not need to be grounded (as the military planes with that wiring have been), and wishful thinking that all that blame and hatred towards foreigners with bombs was misplaced.
To not admit that that aft cargo door shattered open in flight and scattered the pieces far and wide, such as an explosive decompression, is to ignore an obvious problem with obvious links to UAL 811.
Again, why? It's no conspiracy, no coverup, just wishful thinking, the kind of thinking that rules nowadays but has no place in scientific aircraft accident investigation.
Firehorse, you wish I would go away as just another conspiracy nut but I am not the problem; the problem is the debris field plot and the pieces of the door that indicate that aft cargo door of CI 611 shattered open in flight high up with tremendous force. The conclusion is not that the reporter, me, is a conspiracy nut, but that explosive decompression occurred which has a confirmed precedent, UAL 811.
Well, the conspiracy accusation was made against me in the TWA 800 thread of years ago in PPrune when I showed photographs of the shattered door. It is made now with CI 611 and it will be made again when the next early model Boeing 747 suffers an inflight breakup within an hour of takeoff leaving a sudden sound on the CVR followed by a complete power failure to the FDR and the cargo door will be found shattered and scattered and the midspan latches and other locking mechanisms in the middle of the door will be missing and unrecovered and I report same with pictures to this forum.
Cheers,
John Barry Smith
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I AM impressed!. After six months this thread is still running, I say running what I really mean is going on and on and on and...........
38 pages, or is 39?, of repetion after repetition after.......
We must be getting close to a PPRuNe record here.
Anyway JBS, just because the horizontal stab is situated behind a certain engine, doesn't mean that whatever whas embedde in it came from that engine.
I have seen a small access door embedded in the very top of the horizontal stab of a DC-10. Care to guess from which engine it fell off?.
38 pages, or is 39?, of repetion after repetition after.......
We must be getting close to a PPRuNe record here.
Anyway JBS, just because the horizontal stab is situated behind a certain engine, doesn't mean that whatever whas embedde in it came from that engine.
I have seen a small access door embedded in the very top of the horizontal stab of a DC-10. Care to guess from which engine it fell off?.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TM>Care to guess from which engine it fell off?
JBS>Number nine? Number nine...number nine...number nine.
Anyway, the point is that the NTSB said no uncontained engines for TWA 800 but that engine blade was found embedded in the right horiz stab, (which was found far from fallen engines), had to come from some engine, and engine number three did have broken and missing blades, according to the public docket breakdown report (which was missing in the final report).
Talk about hard evidence, nut much harder than a jet engine blade.
JBS
JBS>Number nine? Number nine...number nine...number nine.
Anyway, the point is that the NTSB said no uncontained engines for TWA 800 but that engine blade was found embedded in the right horiz stab, (which was found far from fallen engines), had to come from some engine, and engine number three did have broken and missing blades, according to the public docket breakdown report (which was missing in the final report).
Talk about hard evidence, nut much harder than a jet engine blade.
JBS
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JBS
The authorities already brought ther microscopes !
As you can see in the ASC Investigation Update, the doubler looks like it had played a role in the breakup.
This does not necesarily mean, it was the initial point.
The Boeing SB wording ´can affect the structural integrity of the airplane´ is quite a strong one, normally Boeing speaks only of ´can lead to loss of pressurisation´ ore similar if fuselage cracks are adresed.
So this area of the 747 fuselage must be a verry critical one.
Let´s wait for further news, ASC still seems to work intensively on the wreakage examination.
Now it appears that tail strike repair doubler repairs are common. That CI 611 repair doubler was intact with cracks. Cracks are always discovered on all these 747 after they crash. Are they relevant? Well, are they as relevant as a shattered cargo door for CI 611 that has similarities to UAL 811?
The authorities will bring out their electronic microscopes and make the granules move back and forth in those cracks while ignoring the huge shattered pieces of metal nearby.
The authorities will bring out their electronic microscopes and make the granules move back and forth in those cracks while ignoring the huge shattered pieces of metal nearby.
As you can see in the ASC Investigation Update, the doubler looks like it had played a role in the breakup.
This does not necesarily mean, it was the initial point.
The Boeing SB wording ´can affect the structural integrity of the airplane´ is quite a strong one, normally Boeing speaks only of ´can lead to loss of pressurisation´ ore similar if fuselage cracks are adresed.
So this area of the 747 fuselage must be a verry critical one.
Let´s wait for further news, ASC still seems to work intensively on the wreakage examination.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: US
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More on the possible role of the doubler: Crash prompts US to order new jumbo jet inspections
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point about this shuttle door thing is:
If the shorted wiring/open cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for Boeing 747s had been accepted and acted upon earlier, NASA would not have been so blase about a piece of foam/ice striking the underside of the left wing where the door is located. They would have known about the danger/Achilles heel of doors in aviation hulls and acted differently.
Any cut in a hull is dangerous. Every patched cut is prone to fail or susceptible to further damage.
Ferries, space capsules, planes, cars, and now a shuttle have shown the vulnerability to failure at the door when an unusual event occurs such as freak wave, leak in seal, electrical short, or impact from usually benign foam.
But, denial that a simple but necessary thing such as a door could cause such catastrophe has again proven that wishful thinking sometimes kills.
Small world: yesterday I spent an hour fixing a door. My tenant in a rental house was complaining a door knob would not turn. I had to take it all apart, lubricate it, and fix it. She wanted the lock part to be on the other side of the door so I put it in 'backwards'. All was fine except now to close the door into its place, the knob has to be first turned to retract the latch pin to close the door instead of pulling the door closed and letting the sill push the pin to the retract position.
So, doors are not that simple after all, even an internal house door.
Well, maybe some attention will be put on to the shorted wiring/open cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation as a door failing in an airliner may not seem so weird now.
Barry.
Achil•les tendon \e-'ki-lez-\ n : the tendon joining the muscles in the calf of the leg to the bone of the heel
John Barry Smith
541 Country Club Drive
Carmel Valley, California 93924
831 659 3552
[email protected]
http://www.corazon.com
News>Investigators recovered the repaired fuselage section from the ocean and found a series of scratches, which could have been caused by the tail strike, and a 15-inch crack underneath the doubler.
Further examination of the same area revealed other damage that may have caused fatigue cracking over time, regulators said.
JBS>Let's see, scratches that did not crack and cracks that did not break and other damage that may crack.
And that is the avenue of research....
And nearby is shattered into several pieces large door which has failed before in another same model plane causing a similar inflight breakup after takeoff.....
And that is not the avenue of research.
China Airlines Flight 611 investigation follows the logic of why USA is invading Iraq...wishful thinking unlated to facts, data, evidence.
Barry
If the shorted wiring/open cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation for Boeing 747s had been accepted and acted upon earlier, NASA would not have been so blase about a piece of foam/ice striking the underside of the left wing where the door is located. They would have known about the danger/Achilles heel of doors in aviation hulls and acted differently.
Any cut in a hull is dangerous. Every patched cut is prone to fail or susceptible to further damage.
Ferries, space capsules, planes, cars, and now a shuttle have shown the vulnerability to failure at the door when an unusual event occurs such as freak wave, leak in seal, electrical short, or impact from usually benign foam.
But, denial that a simple but necessary thing such as a door could cause such catastrophe has again proven that wishful thinking sometimes kills.
Small world: yesterday I spent an hour fixing a door. My tenant in a rental house was complaining a door knob would not turn. I had to take it all apart, lubricate it, and fix it. She wanted the lock part to be on the other side of the door so I put it in 'backwards'. All was fine except now to close the door into its place, the knob has to be first turned to retract the latch pin to close the door instead of pulling the door closed and letting the sill push the pin to the retract position.
So, doors are not that simple after all, even an internal house door.
Well, maybe some attention will be put on to the shorted wiring/open cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation as a door failing in an airliner may not seem so weird now.
Barry.
Achil•les tendon \e-'ki-lez-\ n : the tendon joining the muscles in the calf of the leg to the bone of the heel
John Barry Smith
541 Country Club Drive
Carmel Valley, California 93924
831 659 3552
[email protected]
http://www.corazon.com
News>Investigators recovered the repaired fuselage section from the ocean and found a series of scratches, which could have been caused by the tail strike, and a 15-inch crack underneath the doubler.
Further examination of the same area revealed other damage that may have caused fatigue cracking over time, regulators said.
JBS>Let's see, scratches that did not crack and cracks that did not break and other damage that may crack.
And that is the avenue of research....
And nearby is shattered into several pieces large door which has failed before in another same model plane causing a similar inflight breakup after takeoff.....
And that is not the avenue of research.
China Airlines Flight 611 investigation follows the logic of why USA is invading Iraq...wishful thinking unlated to facts, data, evidence.
Barry
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When it was first mentioned at conference about landing gear door strike by foam, NASA refused to discuss it. Then they called it wheel well or recess.
Why not call a door a door?
Here's my best guess. There are some things that go wrong with a plane that can be fixed with minimum amount of problems and get back flying and there are some things that ground the plane just about forever.
The easy things are pilot error and weather. Blame the pilot or god and get back to work.
The middle things are one off problems like repair doublers or jackscrew grease or oxygen cannisters.
The hard things are those which mean the plane can't fly again without big design changes that make it impractical to fly again.
Wiring is one such problem with Boeing airliners. The wiring is known to be faulty and causes bad things to happen like autopilot disconnect, fires, and cargo doors to open. To replace faulty wiring is so expensive and disruptive to interior that the military just grounded the planes but the airlines didn't and keep on flying them...all the while trying as best they can to minimize the problem in their minds...by not going down any investigative path that leads to the identification of the problem which means something must be done...and that would be grounding them. It's not a conspiracy, it's just not working real hard to discover a terrible truth especially when working less leads to an easier answer, suicidal foreign pilot, or foreign bomber, or act of god with static electricity.
So, wiring goes unreported and always evaded as root cause of Boeing 747 accidents.
Now to the shuttle. The tiles have to be there or plane burns up. Shuttle is plane when landing, the first accident was in the rocket phase. The tiles have to stay. So the tiles can not be a problem because if they are, the plane gets grounded.
The landing gear doors have to be there or the plane can't land. So the doors can't be a problem.
So, any discussion about tiles and doors is played down, evaded, passed off, and dismissed.
The two real problems met with the shuttle crash. So, they have to be dismissed and replaced with an act of god meteorite. If accepted that tiles are vulnerable and landing gear doors can never be completely sealed because they have to open to get gear down to land, then the problem is so great the shuttles have to be grounded.
No shuttles flying, no jobs. No jobs, no high life, no status for the Shuttle Program Director. So, no problems with tiles and doors.
No conspiracy, just real interest in the problem being something else that lets everyone keep their jobs and status and the only ones losing their lives are the crew...once in a while, like passengers in airliners.
That's why when I heard the code phrase 'no stone unturned' I said, uh oh, denial mode is happening. The search for political easy satisfying explanation is on, and no stone unturned to find one.
They found one. For planes it's called re-entry thing as in Pan American World Airways Flight 103
1.17.4 Space debris Four items of space debris were known to have re-entered the Earth's atmosphere on 21 December 1988. Three of these items were fragments of debris which would not have survived re-entry, although their burn up in the upper atmosphere might have been visible from the Earth's surface. The fourth item landed in the USSR at 09.50 hrs UTC.
So for shuttle, they are finding all sorts of things that could hit it and destroy it and make everyone blameless but god.
NASA>In his briefing Mr Dittemore said investigators had studied video of the launch and the moment the foam hit the wing and were now trying to improve the quality of the pictures. But he said from what they could see already, there were "no gross, large areas of damage" to the wing.
JBS>The problem is under the wing which can't be seen by any camera or person. Of course there was no visible damage to the top of visible wing, the foam/ice struck underneath it as shown by the camera footage.
Boeing 747s need cargo doors even though outward opening non plug type doors and poly X wiring are known to be faulty. To fix those known problems is to ground them and that is unacceptable.
So, we have investigations that lead to crazy pilots or bombers or static electricity or scratches and cracks. No conspiracy, just wishful thinking by all involved that the problems are one off type events, not fleet wide.
Barry
Why not call a door a door?
Here's my best guess. There are some things that go wrong with a plane that can be fixed with minimum amount of problems and get back flying and there are some things that ground the plane just about forever.
The easy things are pilot error and weather. Blame the pilot or god and get back to work.
The middle things are one off problems like repair doublers or jackscrew grease or oxygen cannisters.
The hard things are those which mean the plane can't fly again without big design changes that make it impractical to fly again.
Wiring is one such problem with Boeing airliners. The wiring is known to be faulty and causes bad things to happen like autopilot disconnect, fires, and cargo doors to open. To replace faulty wiring is so expensive and disruptive to interior that the military just grounded the planes but the airlines didn't and keep on flying them...all the while trying as best they can to minimize the problem in their minds...by not going down any investigative path that leads to the identification of the problem which means something must be done...and that would be grounding them. It's not a conspiracy, it's just not working real hard to discover a terrible truth especially when working less leads to an easier answer, suicidal foreign pilot, or foreign bomber, or act of god with static electricity.
So, wiring goes unreported and always evaded as root cause of Boeing 747 accidents.
Now to the shuttle. The tiles have to be there or plane burns up. Shuttle is plane when landing, the first accident was in the rocket phase. The tiles have to stay. So the tiles can not be a problem because if they are, the plane gets grounded.
The landing gear doors have to be there or the plane can't land. So the doors can't be a problem.
So, any discussion about tiles and doors is played down, evaded, passed off, and dismissed.
The two real problems met with the shuttle crash. So, they have to be dismissed and replaced with an act of god meteorite. If accepted that tiles are vulnerable and landing gear doors can never be completely sealed because they have to open to get gear down to land, then the problem is so great the shuttles have to be grounded.
No shuttles flying, no jobs. No jobs, no high life, no status for the Shuttle Program Director. So, no problems with tiles and doors.
No conspiracy, just real interest in the problem being something else that lets everyone keep their jobs and status and the only ones losing their lives are the crew...once in a while, like passengers in airliners.
That's why when I heard the code phrase 'no stone unturned' I said, uh oh, denial mode is happening. The search for political easy satisfying explanation is on, and no stone unturned to find one.
They found one. For planes it's called re-entry thing as in Pan American World Airways Flight 103
1.17.4 Space debris Four items of space debris were known to have re-entered the Earth's atmosphere on 21 December 1988. Three of these items were fragments of debris which would not have survived re-entry, although their burn up in the upper atmosphere might have been visible from the Earth's surface. The fourth item landed in the USSR at 09.50 hrs UTC.
So for shuttle, they are finding all sorts of things that could hit it and destroy it and make everyone blameless but god.
NASA>In his briefing Mr Dittemore said investigators had studied video of the launch and the moment the foam hit the wing and were now trying to improve the quality of the pictures. But he said from what they could see already, there were "no gross, large areas of damage" to the wing.
JBS>The problem is under the wing which can't be seen by any camera or person. Of course there was no visible damage to the top of visible wing, the foam/ice struck underneath it as shown by the camera footage.
Boeing 747s need cargo doors even though outward opening non plug type doors and poly X wiring are known to be faulty. To fix those known problems is to ground them and that is unacceptable.
So, we have investigations that lead to crazy pilots or bombers or static electricity or scratches and cracks. No conspiracy, just wishful thinking by all involved that the problems are one off type events, not fleet wide.
Barry
jetsy
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Metal fatigue cracks found in downed CAL jet
2003-03-26 / Agence France-Presse /
Taiwan's flight safety authorities said they have found metal fatigue cracks and damage on a China Airlines' Boeing 747-200 which ploughed into waters off the island last year killing 225 passengers and crew, officials said yesterday.
The ill-fated plane disappeared from radar screens at an altitude of 35,000 feet (10,050 meters) 20 minutes after taking off from Taipei for Hong Kong on May 25 last year.
The Aviation Safety Council (ASC), which is in charge of Taiwan's flight safety investigation, said in its bulletin that it had found "multi-site fatigue damage" and "fatigue cracks" on the repaired fuselage while examining the wreckage of the plane.
China Airlines records showed the plane had undergone repair on its fuselage after its tail scoured the ground.
2003-03-26 / Agence France-Presse /
Taiwan's flight safety authorities said they have found metal fatigue cracks and damage on a China Airlines' Boeing 747-200 which ploughed into waters off the island last year killing 225 passengers and crew, officials said yesterday.
The ill-fated plane disappeared from radar screens at an altitude of 35,000 feet (10,050 meters) 20 minutes after taking off from Taipei for Hong Kong on May 25 last year.
The Aviation Safety Council (ASC), which is in charge of Taiwan's flight safety investigation, said in its bulletin that it had found "multi-site fatigue damage" and "fatigue cracks" on the repaired fuselage while examining the wreckage of the plane.
China Airlines records showed the plane had undergone repair on its fuselage after its tail scoured the ground.
Has the Cause Been Determined?
Taiwan’s China Airlines, which has had a series of maintenance issues, including a suspected fatigue-related failure of a cargo door in the loss of a Boeing 747-200 last year, has named Singapore Airlines Engineering Co. to restructure its engineering maintenance division.
AW&ST March 24,2003
AW&ST March 24,2003
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'failure of a cargo door in the loss of a Boeing 747-200'
Hello? This is the first time ever that anyone has said that cargo door 'failed.' Where did that come from? ASC? AVWeek? Not me who has been saying check out that cargo door all along. It looks like somebody checked it out and it 'failed.' Fatigue related? Is that like old wiring gets tired and shorts? Just joking. The prejudgment is in so far and the answer for CI 611 is a one off problem caused by bad mantenance years ago. It's not an industry wide problem of faulty wiring. Too bad about Swiss Air 111, another one off anomaly and United Airlines Flight 811 and I say, Air India Flight 182 and Pan American World Airways Flight 103 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800.
At least ASC or whoever said the cargo door failed, for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 it was damaged on 'water impact', for Pan American World Airways Flight 103 there is silence, and for Air India Flight 182 it was for a 'cause yet to be determined.' The photos for all show the obvious inflight rupturing and shattering and the wreckage debris fields show the scattering of the pieces of the cargo door indicating the inflight disintegration.
Available at www.corazon.com.
Cheers
Tuesday, April 8, 2003 7:54 AM
John Barry Smith
541 Country Club Drive
Carmel Valley, California 93924
831 659 3552
[email protected]
http://www.corazon.com
Hello? This is the first time ever that anyone has said that cargo door 'failed.' Where did that come from? ASC? AVWeek? Not me who has been saying check out that cargo door all along. It looks like somebody checked it out and it 'failed.' Fatigue related? Is that like old wiring gets tired and shorts? Just joking. The prejudgment is in so far and the answer for CI 611 is a one off problem caused by bad mantenance years ago. It's not an industry wide problem of faulty wiring. Too bad about Swiss Air 111, another one off anomaly and United Airlines Flight 811 and I say, Air India Flight 182 and Pan American World Airways Flight 103 and Trans World Airlines Flight 800.
At least ASC or whoever said the cargo door failed, for Trans World Airlines Flight 800 it was damaged on 'water impact', for Pan American World Airways Flight 103 there is silence, and for Air India Flight 182 it was for a 'cause yet to be determined.' The photos for all show the obvious inflight rupturing and shattering and the wreckage debris fields show the scattering of the pieces of the cargo door indicating the inflight disintegration.
Available at www.corazon.com.
Cheers
Tuesday, April 8, 2003 7:54 AM
John Barry Smith
541 Country Club Drive
Carmel Valley, California 93924
831 659 3552
[email protected]
http://www.corazon.com
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CI-611 as a balloon
Re Article below:
Well I find nothing at all strange in the investigators having found (say) the outflow valves in a non-auto electro-manually closed position (see “puzzlement” below). If you are losing differential and the cabin is climbing much faster than it should be (because air is leaking though widening (and lengthening) fuselage pressure-vessel cracks), a really dopey FE would just eventually close the outflow valves as a prelude to getting out his handbook and looking at the drill to establish reasons “why” (and what to do about it) . And I’m betting that the Boeing standard drill doesn’t include any possible cause as “there are possible large fatigue cracks in the fuselage, so minimize manoeuvre, reduce differential and descend immediately - as a large pressure differential may cause cracks to propagate quickly and compromise structural integrity.” Yes I’ll bet the house on that not being in there. The FE would instead be urgently looking for ways to sustain the differential – of which manual closure of outflow valves is the most obvious. Unfortunately as they climbed and the output (at climb power) of all engines’ bleeds being directed at pressurizing the closed-off fuselage, any marginality in a fatigue crack would soon become a catastrophically propagated failure. The natural and instinctive thing to do becomes a fatal decision. Why?
The strange sounds on the CVR just prior to the breakup might have been metal tearing as accelerated by the added stresses of the FE’s pressn sustainment actions. Think of the outflow valves under normal aspiration as a pressure relief valve. Close off that pressure relief valve because of the FE’s primary initial concern (cabin altitude climbing towards a point where the pax rubber jungle of masks would drop) – and you have then placed a much greater pressure upon the fuselage’s progressively ripping rents and tears. Eventually sufficient metal strength is lost until the point where propagation of the crack is very fast (and the tail then blows off like an exploding balloon). It’s a fairly straightforward process – based on elementary physics.
Why would those metal-tearing noises down near the tail be heard clearly on the CAMs? (cockpit area mikes). Well sound is propagated through the air but also through other mediums (such as the aircraft’s metal structure, wiring, ducting and hydraulic piping). Because the CAMS are attached to that structure they would pick up the low frequencies of metal tearing and metal flapping in the breeze –overlaid upon the sibilance of pressurized air escaping overboard (heard via the fuselage structure as a higher frequency vibratory resonance). However those sounds, although heard clearly at the CAMs, would not be evident to (i.e. remain unheard by) the aircrew on the flight-deck – in fact the usual responses of an FE to this scenario might be non-urgent and might be related to his knowledge of that particular airframe being “a real bitch to maintain differential in”. In other words the problem was likely to have been developing over many prior flights. As long as he could control it (the cabin altitude) by closing the outflow valves, there was no reason for mentioning it to the pilots (particularly if it was a known gripe on that airframe amongst the Company’s FE’s).
As the aircraft had just reached its cruising flight level of 35,000ft (and climb power being then retained for acceln to cruise mach no), the situation is akin to that of a balloon with a weakened section just having reached maximum inflation (but the balloon blower continuing to “blow it up”). The leaking cracks would have widened but the FE would have just left the outflow valves closed – as the system appeared to be coping with keeping the cabin at an acceptable 8000ft pressure altitude. In fact if he’d left the Outflow valve switch in AUTO, the system would have itself closed the outflow valves. In this latter case the FE would have had no awareness of the valves being physically closed off completely and thus have no cause for any alarm or concern.
Cruise level-off is exactly the climactic point where you would expect a fatigue failure to eventually reach (and ultimately then quickly pass) its propagating failure point of no return. The increased airspeed at level-off might also be expected to quicken the process if the tearing had produced any protuberances (sharp edges projecting into the slipstream). The flapping of such metal would also be heard as a drumming at the CAMs (via the airframe).
I doubt that outflow valve or overpressure relief valve positions are recorded on FDR’s – or for that matter even the outflow valve selection or cabin altitude/pressn differential - so confirmation of the above scenario would likely need to be established via other means.
“It’s very very strange.” said Yong Kay (see below). But any puzzlement on the part of the TW ASC investigators seems to me in turn to be very puzzling indeed. It’s not rocket science.
Perhaps these questions/postulations should be put to Yong Kay…….
UNC
Subject: Pesky pressurization....
Yong said that one strange finding of the investigation was that many knobs on the flight engineer's panel were in unusual positions.
For example, he said that some of the air conditioning pressurization knobs were in the closed position when they should not have been.
"It's very, very strange," said Yong, but he declined to say what he thought happened or how this might have affected the flight.
Metal fatigue brought down flight: ASC
2003/6/4
TAIPEI, Taiwan, The China Post staff
After a year of investigation into the crash of a China Airlines Boeing 747-200 that killed 225 people aboard, aviation authorities confirmed yesterday they found metal fatigue cracks on the debris of plane that fell apart in mid-air.
The cracks and corrosion were in a rear area that was patched up after the plane was damaged when its tail smacked the runway during a 1980 takeoff in Hong Kong, investigators from the Aviation Safety Council said.
The Hong Kong-bound CAL Flight 611 disintegrated and plunged into Taiwan Strait near Penghu on May 25, 2002 20 minutes after takeoff from Chiang Kai-shek International Airport, they said.
Chief investigator Yong Kay said that weather, pilot error, terrorist attacks and other external causes have been ruled out.
"After examining wreckage, victims' remains (including clothes), and cargo goods, the investigation team has found no evidence in the area of fire, smoke and explosives," the ASC said in its "factual data report."
The council was only releasing factual findings, saying it would take another year to complete the probe by determining the cause of the crash.
Yong said one key focus of the probe is the aluminum patch, or "doubler," used to fix the plane's rear near a cargo door. The patch ‹ one of 31 on the plane that flew for 23 years ‹ was designed to reinforce the damaged area.
But cracks and corrosion were found beneath the patch ‹ indicating that it might have not been providing enough support, Yong said.
"Whether corrosion led to the weakening of the metal structure, that is something we need to analyze," Yong said.
Paint deposits were also found under the patch, a possible sign that the patch wasn't tight enough and allowed paint to seep in, he said.
"This is something we have to think about," Yong added.
Workmen also apparently neglected to sand away some of the scratches on the plane's skin created when the tail struck the runway. "Scratches weaken the strength of the material," Yong said.
China Airlines spokesman Roger Han maintained that the plane's maintenance and repairs had been done according to Boeing's manuals and under the supervision of Boeing's engineers.
"Whether metal fatigue was the cause of the crash or the result of it still needs further investigation," Han said.
Early in the investigation, officials said that another patch near a rear door might have been problematic. The patch was made of stainless steel, and Boeing has warned against using such material to repair aluminum alloy planes. Blending the two metals can cause corrosion and structural weakness.
But on Tuesday, Yong said that the stainless steel patch didn't appear to be a major problem.
Investigators had great difficulty recovering parts of the jet that sank in the rough waters of the Taiwan Strait, off Taiwan's western coast and near the Penghu Island chain.
The council said that 175 bodies and only 75 percent to 80 percent of the aircraft were recovered.
Yong said that one strange finding of the investigation was that many knobs on the flight engineer's panel were in unusual positions.
For example, he said that some of the air conditioning pressurization knobs were in the closed position when they should not have been.
"It's very, very strange," said Yong, but he declined to say what he thought happened or how this might have affected the flight.
Well I find nothing at all strange in the investigators having found (say) the outflow valves in a non-auto electro-manually closed position (see “puzzlement” below). If you are losing differential and the cabin is climbing much faster than it should be (because air is leaking though widening (and lengthening) fuselage pressure-vessel cracks), a really dopey FE would just eventually close the outflow valves as a prelude to getting out his handbook and looking at the drill to establish reasons “why” (and what to do about it) . And I’m betting that the Boeing standard drill doesn’t include any possible cause as “there are possible large fatigue cracks in the fuselage, so minimize manoeuvre, reduce differential and descend immediately - as a large pressure differential may cause cracks to propagate quickly and compromise structural integrity.” Yes I’ll bet the house on that not being in there. The FE would instead be urgently looking for ways to sustain the differential – of which manual closure of outflow valves is the most obvious. Unfortunately as they climbed and the output (at climb power) of all engines’ bleeds being directed at pressurizing the closed-off fuselage, any marginality in a fatigue crack would soon become a catastrophically propagated failure. The natural and instinctive thing to do becomes a fatal decision. Why?
The strange sounds on the CVR just prior to the breakup might have been metal tearing as accelerated by the added stresses of the FE’s pressn sustainment actions. Think of the outflow valves under normal aspiration as a pressure relief valve. Close off that pressure relief valve because of the FE’s primary initial concern (cabin altitude climbing towards a point where the pax rubber jungle of masks would drop) – and you have then placed a much greater pressure upon the fuselage’s progressively ripping rents and tears. Eventually sufficient metal strength is lost until the point where propagation of the crack is very fast (and the tail then blows off like an exploding balloon). It’s a fairly straightforward process – based on elementary physics.
Why would those metal-tearing noises down near the tail be heard clearly on the CAMs? (cockpit area mikes). Well sound is propagated through the air but also through other mediums (such as the aircraft’s metal structure, wiring, ducting and hydraulic piping). Because the CAMS are attached to that structure they would pick up the low frequencies of metal tearing and metal flapping in the breeze –overlaid upon the sibilance of pressurized air escaping overboard (heard via the fuselage structure as a higher frequency vibratory resonance). However those sounds, although heard clearly at the CAMs, would not be evident to (i.e. remain unheard by) the aircrew on the flight-deck – in fact the usual responses of an FE to this scenario might be non-urgent and might be related to his knowledge of that particular airframe being “a real bitch to maintain differential in”. In other words the problem was likely to have been developing over many prior flights. As long as he could control it (the cabin altitude) by closing the outflow valves, there was no reason for mentioning it to the pilots (particularly if it was a known gripe on that airframe amongst the Company’s FE’s).
As the aircraft had just reached its cruising flight level of 35,000ft (and climb power being then retained for acceln to cruise mach no), the situation is akin to that of a balloon with a weakened section just having reached maximum inflation (but the balloon blower continuing to “blow it up”). The leaking cracks would have widened but the FE would have just left the outflow valves closed – as the system appeared to be coping with keeping the cabin at an acceptable 8000ft pressure altitude. In fact if he’d left the Outflow valve switch in AUTO, the system would have itself closed the outflow valves. In this latter case the FE would have had no awareness of the valves being physically closed off completely and thus have no cause for any alarm or concern.
Cruise level-off is exactly the climactic point where you would expect a fatigue failure to eventually reach (and ultimately then quickly pass) its propagating failure point of no return. The increased airspeed at level-off might also be expected to quicken the process if the tearing had produced any protuberances (sharp edges projecting into the slipstream). The flapping of such metal would also be heard as a drumming at the CAMs (via the airframe).
I doubt that outflow valve or overpressure relief valve positions are recorded on FDR’s – or for that matter even the outflow valve selection or cabin altitude/pressn differential - so confirmation of the above scenario would likely need to be established via other means.
“It’s very very strange.” said Yong Kay (see below). But any puzzlement on the part of the TW ASC investigators seems to me in turn to be very puzzling indeed. It’s not rocket science.
Perhaps these questions/postulations should be put to Yong Kay…….
UNC
Subject: Pesky pressurization....
Yong said that one strange finding of the investigation was that many knobs on the flight engineer's panel were in unusual positions.
For example, he said that some of the air conditioning pressurization knobs were in the closed position when they should not have been.
"It's very, very strange," said Yong, but he declined to say what he thought happened or how this might have affected the flight.
Metal fatigue brought down flight: ASC
2003/6/4
TAIPEI, Taiwan, The China Post staff
After a year of investigation into the crash of a China Airlines Boeing 747-200 that killed 225 people aboard, aviation authorities confirmed yesterday they found metal fatigue cracks on the debris of plane that fell apart in mid-air.
The cracks and corrosion were in a rear area that was patched up after the plane was damaged when its tail smacked the runway during a 1980 takeoff in Hong Kong, investigators from the Aviation Safety Council said.
The Hong Kong-bound CAL Flight 611 disintegrated and plunged into Taiwan Strait near Penghu on May 25, 2002 20 minutes after takeoff from Chiang Kai-shek International Airport, they said.
Chief investigator Yong Kay said that weather, pilot error, terrorist attacks and other external causes have been ruled out.
"After examining wreckage, victims' remains (including clothes), and cargo goods, the investigation team has found no evidence in the area of fire, smoke and explosives," the ASC said in its "factual data report."
The council was only releasing factual findings, saying it would take another year to complete the probe by determining the cause of the crash.
Yong said one key focus of the probe is the aluminum patch, or "doubler," used to fix the plane's rear near a cargo door. The patch ‹ one of 31 on the plane that flew for 23 years ‹ was designed to reinforce the damaged area.
But cracks and corrosion were found beneath the patch ‹ indicating that it might have not been providing enough support, Yong said.
"Whether corrosion led to the weakening of the metal structure, that is something we need to analyze," Yong said.
Paint deposits were also found under the patch, a possible sign that the patch wasn't tight enough and allowed paint to seep in, he said.
"This is something we have to think about," Yong added.
Workmen also apparently neglected to sand away some of the scratches on the plane's skin created when the tail struck the runway. "Scratches weaken the strength of the material," Yong said.
China Airlines spokesman Roger Han maintained that the plane's maintenance and repairs had been done according to Boeing's manuals and under the supervision of Boeing's engineers.
"Whether metal fatigue was the cause of the crash or the result of it still needs further investigation," Han said.
Early in the investigation, officials said that another patch near a rear door might have been problematic. The patch was made of stainless steel, and Boeing has warned against using such material to repair aluminum alloy planes. Blending the two metals can cause corrosion and structural weakness.
But on Tuesday, Yong said that the stainless steel patch didn't appear to be a major problem.
Investigators had great difficulty recovering parts of the jet that sank in the rough waters of the Taiwan Strait, off Taiwan's western coast and near the Penghu Island chain.
The council said that 175 bodies and only 75 percent to 80 percent of the aircraft were recovered.
Yong said that one strange finding of the investigation was that many knobs on the flight engineer's panel were in unusual positions.
For example, he said that some of the air conditioning pressurization knobs were in the closed position when they should not have been.
"It's very, very strange," said Yong, but he declined to say what he thought happened or how this might have affected the flight.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact if he’d left the Outflow valve switch in AUTO, the system would have itself closed the outflow valves. In this latter case the FE would have had no awareness of the valves being physically closed off completely and thus have no cause for any alarm or concern.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: around abouts
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey there J.B.S,
Been in the wop wops for a while and only just logged in and had a read of your latest post. Mateeeeeee, I never infered you were a conspiracy nut at all, it is people like you that take an interest in these things that get things changed at the end of the day, bravo I say.
Ref the salvage of the AC from the sea floor I was only being factual that's all, we got what we could get. Maybe one day I can show you the plots of debris loc's and you will then see the mammoth effort (126,816 man hrs to be exact) that was put in. Believe me not many other people on the planet were as involved in this salvage operation as I was so I know what I am talking about there. Ref aircraft I am no expert and bow out! (but I can make a pav!)
Keep up the work and if there is anything that you want to know about what went on under the waves let me know and I will see if I can help.
Cheers,
FH.
Been in the wop wops for a while and only just logged in and had a read of your latest post. Mateeeeeee, I never infered you were a conspiracy nut at all, it is people like you that take an interest in these things that get things changed at the end of the day, bravo I say.
Ref the salvage of the AC from the sea floor I was only being factual that's all, we got what we could get. Maybe one day I can show you the plots of debris loc's and you will then see the mammoth effort (126,816 man hrs to be exact) that was put in. Believe me not many other people on the planet were as involved in this salvage operation as I was so I know what I am talking about there. Ref aircraft I am no expert and bow out! (but I can make a pav!)
Keep up the work and if there is anything that you want to know about what went on under the waves let me know and I will see if I can help.
Cheers,
FH.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Carmel Valley California USA
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China Airlines Flight 611
There are no conspiracies regarding China Airlines Flight 611. Thank you Firehorse for your info.
There have been six inflight breakups of early model Boeing 747s out of the approximately 37 hull losses. All six accidents were pressurized hull ruptures in flight at altitude and cruising speed.
CI 611 is the last one of the six and is still a mystery. JAL 123 and United Airlines Flight 811 have little controversy and were mechanical problems: JAL 123 was a failure of the aft pressure bulkhead failure and United Airlines Flight 811 was an electrical problem causing the cargo door to rupture open in flight.
The other three inflight breakups were and are still controversial. The disputed causes have been attributed to a missile, bombs, center tank explosion, unknown cause, and structural failure.
To summarize official explanations for the six inflight breakups for early model Boeing 747s:
1. CI 611: Mystery.
2. United Airlines Flight 811: electrical/ruptured forward cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
3. JAL 123: Aft pressure bulkhead repair failure.
4. Air India Flight 182: Canadian Safety Board states explosion of unknown cause, Indians state bomb explosion. Both state explosion occurred in forward cargo compartment.
5. Pan American World Airways Flight 103: Bomb in forward cargo compartment.
6. Trans World Airlines Flight 800: Spontaneous center fuel tank explosion in wing with undetermined ignition source.
Research by this investigator leads to the conclusion that five of the six have the same probable cause which is the same cause as United Airlines Flight 811, the shorted wiring/ruptured open cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation. JAL 123 is the exception.
1. There was an inflight breakup at high altitude at cruising speed caused by a pressurized hull rupture.
2. The hull rupture occurred aft of the wing.
3. The aft pressure bulkhead broke into several parts.
4. The aft cargo door broke into several parts scattered far apart in the debris field.
5. The repair doubler and the local area had scratches and cracks.
Assume that the closer location of the hull rupture aft of the wing was probably the aft pressure bulkhead, or the aft cargo door, or the repair doubler. Each location needs to be closely examined for matches to other similar events in similar aircraft.
For faulty doubler repairs and aft pressure bulkhead failure, JAL 123 is the model.
For cargo door rupturing open, United Airlines Flight 811 is the model.
The large pieces of that aft cargo door were found in the debris field far apart, according to the ASC report. That would indicate the door fractured high up and the pieces drifted down depending on their gross aerodynamic qualities.
How high up? May we assume the aft cargo door shattered open at about 35000 feet along with the entire aft end of CI 611 with the aft cargo door, aft pressure bulkhead, and repair doubler included?
Which part of the pressurized hull ruptured first? Did the repair doubler fail causing a rupture which led to the breakup of the aft cargo door and aft pressure bulkhead? Did the aft pressure bulkhead fail causing a rupture which led to the breakup of the aft cargo door and repair doubler? Did the aft cargo door fail causing a rupture which led to the breakup of the aft pressure bulkhead and the repair doubler?
Is there evidence of an explosive decompression in the repair doubler and the skin around it? Explosive decompression leaves tell tale marks or outward opening petal shaped metal skin. So far in the reports, there has been no mention of that evidence in or around the repair doubler. Is there evidence of catastrophic tearing or shattering of the doubler that would indicate it occurred first? There is no evidence in the record. The corroborating evidence of a repair doubler failure as the initial event is missing.
Furthermore, JAL 123 and the recent Ilyushin 76 clam shell cargo door accident show that an aft centerline explosive decompression does not cause a total inflight breakup. The force is exerted aft and not to the starboard or port, putting less strain on the airframe. Those two aircraft which have suffered an inflight explosive decompression in the aft centerline continued to fly for almost an hour after the event. They did not totally come apart in the air and float down in thousands of pieces. Based on precedent, if CI 611 had the repair doubler fail as the initial event, it is reasonable to assume that the centerline explosive decompression would have allowed the aircraft to continue to fly for some minutes at least, not a few seconds. The CVR and FDR would have continued for a few minutes at least, not the few seconds it did continue before abruptly stopping. The damage to the aft section horizontal and vertical stabilizer would be bilateral, not unilateral on the right side as the evidence shows it to be.
In the opinion of this investigator, based upon the evidence at this time, it's possible but unlikely that an initial fracture in the skin of the hull at a repair doubler on centerline would have caused the evidence recovered for CI 611.
Is there another more plausible and reasonable explanation that fits the facts, data, and evidence better? Is there evidence of an explosive decompression at the aft cargo door and the skin around it? According to the ASC reports, (in quotation marks) there is evidence of an explosive decompression:
1. 'The lower portion of the door skin was bent outboard approximately 45 degrees,' indicating a strong and sudden outward force from within the aft cargo compartment. 'CI 611 wreckage model There were 161 pieces of wreckage digitized and modeled into 3D SWRPS. All pieces less-than-1-meter, including the cargo floor beam pieces were ignored,' indicates a large explosion occurred nearby in the cargo compartment to make the pieces so small.
2. 'The RHS horizontal stabilizer is considerably more damaged than the LHS. The inboard portion of the RHS leading edge is deformed upwards. At the RHS horizontal stabilizer root, the inboard 10 feet showed considerable impact damage along with upwards deformation of the compromised structure,' which indicates more debris from starboard/right hand side/aft cargo door side striking right hand side stabilizer than debris from underneath fuselage on centerline.
3. 'Vertical Fin (See Figure 1.12-45) The majority of the upper portion of the vertical fin (item 2035) was found separate from the remaining section 48 debris, but also in the red zone. The forward edges of item 2035 were deformed to the left side indicating the leading edge portion was struck by a large object on the right side. The lower edge of this piece exhibited signs of bending and separation to the left side. At the upper forward edge of item 2035, there was significant tearing damage from fore to aft and right to left. The fractures and adjoining skin on item 630C1 contained deformation consistent with the upper portion of the vertical fin bending to the left. The lower portion of the fin (item 630C1), the upper portion of the fin (item 2035), and several of the floating pieces (item 22) show similar evidence of impact damage on the right side. This evidence indicates more ejected debris from starboard/right hand side/aft cargo door side than from debris from underneath fuselage at centerline.
4. United Airlines Flight 811 after landing shows what happens when a cargo door opens in flight and the nose does not come off. The aft cargo door is of identical size and shape as the forward cargo door. "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the sudden opening of the forward lower lobe cargo door in flight and the subsequent explosive decompression. The door opening was attributed to a faulty switch or wiring in the door control system which permitted electrical actuation of the door latches toward the unlatched position after initial door closure and before takeoff."
It is apparent the entire tail of CI 611 came off suddenly inflight. It can be seen that if a hole of the above size occurs near the aft cargo door, the tail would come off almost immediately.
5. CVR and FDR data: United Airlines Flight 811: "The CVR revealed normal communication before the decompression. At 0209:09:2 HST, a loud bang could be heard on the CVR."
The CVR report of CI 611 details the sudden louder sound after a period of normal sounds and the sudden cutoff of the FDR. There is no explanation in the report for the causes. The softer sudden sound for CI 611 might be attributed to the further distance between the aft cargo door to the microphones in the cockpit compared to the distance of the forward cargo door. The key fact is the sudden, without warning, sound on the CVR that matches United Airlines Flight 811 in style.
6. 'The upper portion of the door (item 723 [Figure 1.12-36 (a)]) was recovered with the hinge intact and the actuators in the closed position' is evidence that supports the rupturing open in flight explanation for two reasons:
a. When the cargo door opens inflight, it peels up and backwards taking fuselage skin as well as the hinge with it. The hinge stays attached to the top of the door when it ruptures open inflight.
b. The 'actuators' referred to in the ASC report must refer to the bottom eight latches as they do remain latched but the rupture occurs in the midspan latches which have no locking sectors to prevent inadvertent opening in flight. The two midspan actuators need to be recovered and examined as well as the manual locking handle, the overpressure relief doors, the torque tubes, the wiring in the door, and the midspan latches and pins. Absence of those parts is also evidence of a cargo door rupturing open in flight, because those parts are not recovered, even after extensive searches on land and sea bottom.
In the ASC factual report there was much consideration and thoughtful evaluation of the overpressure relief doors in the cabin. Extensive and excellent tests were done. The aft cargo door has overpressure relief doors also, and apparently, they are missing. The overpressure relief doors are mechanical and only open when the manual locking handle is turned open on the ground. Those small doors in the big door should have been closed and were not.
Aft cargo doors on Boeing 747s have opened inadvertently before but on the ground.
From NTSB AAR 92/02 United Airlines Flight 811
'1.17.6 Uncommanded Cargo Door Opening--UAL B-747, JFK Airport On June 13, 1991, UAL maintenance personnel were unable to electrically open the aft cargo door on a Boeing 747-222B, N152UA, at JFK Airport, Jamaica, New York. This particular airplane had accumulated 19,053 hours and 1,547 cycles at the time of the occurrence. 'Fluctuations in electrical resistance were noted. When the plug was reattached to the J-4 junction box, the door began to open with no activation of the electrical door open switches. The C-288 circuit breaker was pulled, and the door operation ceased.'
To summarize:
1. There is scant evidence to support the repair doubler failing first and much to consider it a later event.
2. There is ample evidence to support the possibility that the aft cargo door ruptured open inflight as the initial event of the hull rupture.
3. The causes of the initial hull rupture at the aft cargo door location can then be considered. An electrical problem causing the aft cargo door to open in flight is a first thought because of the precedent of United Airlines Flight 811.
4. The circumstances of faulty wiring and non plug cargo doors with no locking sectors in the midspan latches exist to this day which might warrant inspecting active early model Boeing 747s in the fleet for any frayed wiring in the cargo door activation circuits.
John Barry Smith
There have been six inflight breakups of early model Boeing 747s out of the approximately 37 hull losses. All six accidents were pressurized hull ruptures in flight at altitude and cruising speed.
CI 611 is the last one of the six and is still a mystery. JAL 123 and United Airlines Flight 811 have little controversy and were mechanical problems: JAL 123 was a failure of the aft pressure bulkhead failure and United Airlines Flight 811 was an electrical problem causing the cargo door to rupture open in flight.
The other three inflight breakups were and are still controversial. The disputed causes have been attributed to a missile, bombs, center tank explosion, unknown cause, and structural failure.
To summarize official explanations for the six inflight breakups for early model Boeing 747s:
1. CI 611: Mystery.
2. United Airlines Flight 811: electrical/ruptured forward cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation.
3. JAL 123: Aft pressure bulkhead repair failure.
4. Air India Flight 182: Canadian Safety Board states explosion of unknown cause, Indians state bomb explosion. Both state explosion occurred in forward cargo compartment.
5. Pan American World Airways Flight 103: Bomb in forward cargo compartment.
6. Trans World Airlines Flight 800: Spontaneous center fuel tank explosion in wing with undetermined ignition source.
Research by this investigator leads to the conclusion that five of the six have the same probable cause which is the same cause as United Airlines Flight 811, the shorted wiring/ruptured open cargo door/explosive decompression/inflight breakup explanation. JAL 123 is the exception.
1. There was an inflight breakup at high altitude at cruising speed caused by a pressurized hull rupture.
2. The hull rupture occurred aft of the wing.
3. The aft pressure bulkhead broke into several parts.
4. The aft cargo door broke into several parts scattered far apart in the debris field.
5. The repair doubler and the local area had scratches and cracks.
Assume that the closer location of the hull rupture aft of the wing was probably the aft pressure bulkhead, or the aft cargo door, or the repair doubler. Each location needs to be closely examined for matches to other similar events in similar aircraft.
For faulty doubler repairs and aft pressure bulkhead failure, JAL 123 is the model.
For cargo door rupturing open, United Airlines Flight 811 is the model.
The large pieces of that aft cargo door were found in the debris field far apart, according to the ASC report. That would indicate the door fractured high up and the pieces drifted down depending on their gross aerodynamic qualities.
How high up? May we assume the aft cargo door shattered open at about 35000 feet along with the entire aft end of CI 611 with the aft cargo door, aft pressure bulkhead, and repair doubler included?
Which part of the pressurized hull ruptured first? Did the repair doubler fail causing a rupture which led to the breakup of the aft cargo door and aft pressure bulkhead? Did the aft pressure bulkhead fail causing a rupture which led to the breakup of the aft cargo door and repair doubler? Did the aft cargo door fail causing a rupture which led to the breakup of the aft pressure bulkhead and the repair doubler?
Is there evidence of an explosive decompression in the repair doubler and the skin around it? Explosive decompression leaves tell tale marks or outward opening petal shaped metal skin. So far in the reports, there has been no mention of that evidence in or around the repair doubler. Is there evidence of catastrophic tearing or shattering of the doubler that would indicate it occurred first? There is no evidence in the record. The corroborating evidence of a repair doubler failure as the initial event is missing.
Furthermore, JAL 123 and the recent Ilyushin 76 clam shell cargo door accident show that an aft centerline explosive decompression does not cause a total inflight breakup. The force is exerted aft and not to the starboard or port, putting less strain on the airframe. Those two aircraft which have suffered an inflight explosive decompression in the aft centerline continued to fly for almost an hour after the event. They did not totally come apart in the air and float down in thousands of pieces. Based on precedent, if CI 611 had the repair doubler fail as the initial event, it is reasonable to assume that the centerline explosive decompression would have allowed the aircraft to continue to fly for some minutes at least, not a few seconds. The CVR and FDR would have continued for a few minutes at least, not the few seconds it did continue before abruptly stopping. The damage to the aft section horizontal and vertical stabilizer would be bilateral, not unilateral on the right side as the evidence shows it to be.
In the opinion of this investigator, based upon the evidence at this time, it's possible but unlikely that an initial fracture in the skin of the hull at a repair doubler on centerline would have caused the evidence recovered for CI 611.
Is there another more plausible and reasonable explanation that fits the facts, data, and evidence better? Is there evidence of an explosive decompression at the aft cargo door and the skin around it? According to the ASC reports, (in quotation marks) there is evidence of an explosive decompression:
1. 'The lower portion of the door skin was bent outboard approximately 45 degrees,' indicating a strong and sudden outward force from within the aft cargo compartment. 'CI 611 wreckage model There were 161 pieces of wreckage digitized and modeled into 3D SWRPS. All pieces less-than-1-meter, including the cargo floor beam pieces were ignored,' indicates a large explosion occurred nearby in the cargo compartment to make the pieces so small.
2. 'The RHS horizontal stabilizer is considerably more damaged than the LHS. The inboard portion of the RHS leading edge is deformed upwards. At the RHS horizontal stabilizer root, the inboard 10 feet showed considerable impact damage along with upwards deformation of the compromised structure,' which indicates more debris from starboard/right hand side/aft cargo door side striking right hand side stabilizer than debris from underneath fuselage on centerline.
3. 'Vertical Fin (See Figure 1.12-45) The majority of the upper portion of the vertical fin (item 2035) was found separate from the remaining section 48 debris, but also in the red zone. The forward edges of item 2035 were deformed to the left side indicating the leading edge portion was struck by a large object on the right side. The lower edge of this piece exhibited signs of bending and separation to the left side. At the upper forward edge of item 2035, there was significant tearing damage from fore to aft and right to left. The fractures and adjoining skin on item 630C1 contained deformation consistent with the upper portion of the vertical fin bending to the left. The lower portion of the fin (item 630C1), the upper portion of the fin (item 2035), and several of the floating pieces (item 22) show similar evidence of impact damage on the right side. This evidence indicates more ejected debris from starboard/right hand side/aft cargo door side than from debris from underneath fuselage at centerline.
4. United Airlines Flight 811 after landing shows what happens when a cargo door opens in flight and the nose does not come off. The aft cargo door is of identical size and shape as the forward cargo door. "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the sudden opening of the forward lower lobe cargo door in flight and the subsequent explosive decompression. The door opening was attributed to a faulty switch or wiring in the door control system which permitted electrical actuation of the door latches toward the unlatched position after initial door closure and before takeoff."
It is apparent the entire tail of CI 611 came off suddenly inflight. It can be seen that if a hole of the above size occurs near the aft cargo door, the tail would come off almost immediately.
5. CVR and FDR data: United Airlines Flight 811: "The CVR revealed normal communication before the decompression. At 0209:09:2 HST, a loud bang could be heard on the CVR."
The CVR report of CI 611 details the sudden louder sound after a period of normal sounds and the sudden cutoff of the FDR. There is no explanation in the report for the causes. The softer sudden sound for CI 611 might be attributed to the further distance between the aft cargo door to the microphones in the cockpit compared to the distance of the forward cargo door. The key fact is the sudden, without warning, sound on the CVR that matches United Airlines Flight 811 in style.
6. 'The upper portion of the door (item 723 [Figure 1.12-36 (a)]) was recovered with the hinge intact and the actuators in the closed position' is evidence that supports the rupturing open in flight explanation for two reasons:
a. When the cargo door opens inflight, it peels up and backwards taking fuselage skin as well as the hinge with it. The hinge stays attached to the top of the door when it ruptures open inflight.
b. The 'actuators' referred to in the ASC report must refer to the bottom eight latches as they do remain latched but the rupture occurs in the midspan latches which have no locking sectors to prevent inadvertent opening in flight. The two midspan actuators need to be recovered and examined as well as the manual locking handle, the overpressure relief doors, the torque tubes, the wiring in the door, and the midspan latches and pins. Absence of those parts is also evidence of a cargo door rupturing open in flight, because those parts are not recovered, even after extensive searches on land and sea bottom.
In the ASC factual report there was much consideration and thoughtful evaluation of the overpressure relief doors in the cabin. Extensive and excellent tests were done. The aft cargo door has overpressure relief doors also, and apparently, they are missing. The overpressure relief doors are mechanical and only open when the manual locking handle is turned open on the ground. Those small doors in the big door should have been closed and were not.
Aft cargo doors on Boeing 747s have opened inadvertently before but on the ground.
From NTSB AAR 92/02 United Airlines Flight 811
'1.17.6 Uncommanded Cargo Door Opening--UAL B-747, JFK Airport On June 13, 1991, UAL maintenance personnel were unable to electrically open the aft cargo door on a Boeing 747-222B, N152UA, at JFK Airport, Jamaica, New York. This particular airplane had accumulated 19,053 hours and 1,547 cycles at the time of the occurrence. 'Fluctuations in electrical resistance were noted. When the plug was reattached to the J-4 junction box, the door began to open with no activation of the electrical door open switches. The C-288 circuit breaker was pulled, and the door operation ceased.'
To summarize:
1. There is scant evidence to support the repair doubler failing first and much to consider it a later event.
2. There is ample evidence to support the possibility that the aft cargo door ruptured open inflight as the initial event of the hull rupture.
3. The causes of the initial hull rupture at the aft cargo door location can then be considered. An electrical problem causing the aft cargo door to open in flight is a first thought because of the precedent of United Airlines Flight 811.
4. The circumstances of faulty wiring and non plug cargo doors with no locking sectors in the midspan latches exist to this day which might warrant inspecting active early model Boeing 747s in the fleet for any frayed wiring in the cargo door activation circuits.
John Barry Smith
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC news, August 16.
Libya admits Lockerbie blame
Libya formally accepts responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, paving the way for sanctions to be lifted.
Back to the drawing board JBS.
Libya admits Lockerbie blame
Libya formally accepts responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing, paving the way for sanctions to be lifted.
Back to the drawing board JBS.