Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Good job gentlemen.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    We (the people, including Evan if he flies at all) routinely fly in airplanes with outwards-opening doors.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	loading-dockluggagecargolufthansa-airbus-a350-900munich-airportupper-M15YWE.jpg
Views:	74
Size:	317.2 KB
ID:	1109747Click image for larger version

Name:	a-lufthansa-aircraft-with-opened-cargo-door-at-one-of-the-gates-of-the-new-satellite-terminal-of-the-munich-airport-PPD3FF.jpg
Views:	62
Size:	429.6 KB
ID:	1109748Click image for larger version

Name:	33-composite-repair-boeing-787-dreamliner-G.jpg?v=OkLcWwhW6P.jpg
Views:	61
Size:	201.5 KB
ID:	1109749Click image for larger version

Name:	960x0.jpg?fit=scale.jpg
Views:	60
Size:	550.7 KB
ID:	1109750Click image for larger version

Name:	c3dd25f48e77c65ec3158eeb54649b1d.jpg
Views:	61
Size:	221.2 KB
ID:	1109751


    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #32
      Curious, do bicycles have inward opening doors? Asking for a friend

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
        Curious, do bicycles have inward opening doors? Asking for a friend
        Hope this helps with your question. (Of note, is that we sometimes suspect Evan of living in a plastic bubble...oh the ironing)

        Click image for larger version

Name:	the-flight-of-the-gossamer-condor_0.jpg
Views:	72
Size:	702.4 KB
ID:	1109761
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

          You had several opportunities to take specifically their DC-9 Combis?
          No. Did I say that? They had five 747 Combis.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            We (the people, including Evan if he flies at all) routinely fly in airplanes with outwards-opening doors.
            Yes, but not on the passenger deck. I said I avoid combis. Or did, as they are mostly phased out now.

            Still, I would prefer that the cargo doors did not open outward. Hopefully, airframes since the 80's use locking mechanisms that are designed to be stooge-proof. That wasn't the case with the 747, DC-10, DC-9, nor (as this thread confirms) the 757. Nor is this true of all the others that experienced doors opening in flight. The problem wasn't the designs themselves, it was the design's failure to consider stoogery and ineptitude on the part of those operating them. That is the environment they occasionally operate in, however.

            Originally posted by UA FLT 811 Investigation
            There are no reasonable means by which the door locking and latching mechanisms could open mechanically in flight from a properly closed and locked position.
            Yeah, but...

            So this happened:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...nes_Flight_811

            That was a lower cargo door on a 747. And nine people were ejected into the stratosphere. Oh well.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              stratosphere
              Hyberbole much?

              Stratosphere - Wikipedia
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Evan View Post

                No. Did I say that? They had five 747 Combis.
                Just for your edification, the lower lobe cargo doors on the 74 are no different on a freighter, combi or pax bird. To my knowledge, no main deck cargo door has ever opened in flight on any 74.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post

                  Yes, but not on the passenger deck. I said I avoid combis. Or did, as they are mostly phased out now.

                  Still, I would prefer that the cargo doors did not open outward. Hopefully, airframes since the 80's use locking mechanisms that are designed to be stooge-proof. That wasn't the case with the 747, DC-10, DC-9, nor (as this thread confirms) the 757. Nor is this true of all the others that experienced doors opening in flight. The problem wasn't the designs themselves, it was the design's failure to consider stoogery and ineptitude on the part of those operating them. That is the environment they occasionally operate in, however.

                  Originally posted by [B
                  UA FLT 811 Investigation[/B]]There are no reasonable means by which the door locking and latching mechanisms could open mechanically in flight from a properly closed and locked position.
                  Yeah, but...

                  So this happened:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...nes_Flight_811

                  That was a lower cargo door on a 747. And nine people were ejected into the stratosphere. Oh well.
                  Did you read that beyond what you posted?

                  That is what the NTSBinitially concluded, butt then they revised their findings and based on the new findings service bulletins and then AD were issued.
                  There were locking sectors that were supposed to prevent the cams to rotate even if the motor activated in flight. But these sectors were found to be too weak and deform under the forces of the motor turning. It was laso found that certain electrical fails could cause the motor to activate uncommanded (which was a failure mode for which the locking sectors were supposed to save the day).

                  The AD involved replacing the aluminum locking sectors with steel ones. Problem solved for good and forever.

                  Based on developments after it issued its original report in April 1990, the NTSB issued a superseding accident report on March 18, 1992.[1]:1–2 In this report, the NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was the sudden opening of the cargo door, which was attributed to improper wiring and deficiencies in the door's design. It appeared in this case that a short circuit caused an uncommanded rotation of the latch cams, which forced the weak locking sectors to distort and allow the rotation, thus enabling the pressure differential and aerodynamic forces to blow the door off the fuselage; ripping away the hinge fixing structure, the cabin floor, and the side fuselage skin; and causing the explosive decompression.
                  A well designed door will not open in flight no matter what, unless there is a significant structural failure, and regardless of whether it opens inwards or outwards.

                  The DC-10 door and the 747 door had design flaws that were fixed (too late since there were non-fatal precedents to the fatal accidents).
                  The DC-9 door, not sure if a solution was implemented but there were also non-fatal precedents to the fatal accident.
                  We already have 2 non-fatal precedents in the 757. I don't know how many 757s are there with this type of cargo door but I doubt they are many hundreds, so 2 incidents is definitively too much and unacceptable. I hope that a fail-safe and fool-proof solution is on the works. It can be done.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                    A well designed door will not open in flight no matter what, unless there is a significant structural failure...
                    Right. And yet... how many have opened in flight? Every one of them was 'well-designed' until the weakness revealed itself. And sometimes that weakness was a lax mechanic or a rampie with a rubber hammer solution to life's little problems or an operator pushing limits. It all comes into play. In the final analysis, its far better to fail inward. (note the little dot)

                    Certification being what it is, non-plug, outward-opening doors were allowed in the interest of affording more cargo space. Once one airframer had this to offer, the others would have to as well. So they are quite common now. This compromise between safety and revenue included mandates for safety mechanisms. But they still fail, again and again, from the 60's to the current day.

                    It is what it is. This is now just another risk the flying public has to accept, and therefore I accept it. But I draw (or drew) the line at combis. That's all I'm saying.

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2021-02-19 at 12.39.41 AM.png
Views:	62
Size:	168.9 KB
ID:	1109807

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      So they are quite common now.
                      Yes. Now.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                        Yes. Now.
                        One you didn't point out: the outward-opening upper deck emergency exit on the 747-400/800. I only once flew up there. That thing made me a bit uncomfortable. But then the pre-departure complimentary drinks fixed that. I assume it rarely gets used, so it will probably never fail in flight.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Gabriel
                          [NUMEROUS examples of non-plug doors]
                          We are screwed.

                          We better stick to motor coaches, but their cargo holds open outward too!

                          Click image for larger version  Name:	image_38410.jpg Views:	4 Size:	135.9 KB ID:	1109820
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post

                            One you didn't point out: the outward-opening upper deck emergency exit on the 747-400/800. I only once flew up there. That thing made me a bit uncomfortable. But then the pre-departure complimentary drinks fixed that. I assume it rarely gets used, so it will probably never fail in flight.
                            Yet, whenever I can get one, I always pick an outward-opening emergency exit row in the 737.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post

                              One you didn't point out: the outward-opening upper deck emergency exit on the 747-400/800. I only once flew up there. That thing made me a bit uncomfortable. But then the pre-departure complimentary drinks fixed that. I assume it rarely gets used, so it will probably never fail in flight.
                              No such thing as a 747/800! And we use that "escape hatch" all the time. And it opens inward by the way!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post

                                No such thing as a 747/800! And we use that "escape hatch" all the time. And it opens inward by the way!
                                By the way:

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	1968108.jpg
Views:	93
Size:	560.6 KB
ID:	1109841

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X