Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are carry-on bags a safety issue?

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    the FBI...had NEVER been involved with an air disaster before
    Not true:
    https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/ne...xplosion120905
    https://www.bbc.com/news/30568134
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

    Comment


    • #62


      I stand corrected, however, one had the wife of an aide to President Eisenhower and a young boy, and the other a American registered airline blown up overseas. No other domestic airline crashes in the USA. On TWA 800, the FBI took pieces that were never recovered.

      Comment


      • #63
        Fair enough, but from the tone of your post it seemed like you were questioning the FBI's competence.

        Obviously there are a lot of variables but between the two, it seems like the FBI would be the better organization to investigate an explosion because they do it a lot more often than the NTSB does.
        Be alert! America needs more lerts.

        Eric Law

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by elaw View Post
          Fair enough, but from the tone of your post it seemed like you were questioning the FBI's competence.

          Obviously there are a lot of variables but between the two, it seems like the FBI would be the better organization to investigate an explosion because they do it a lot more often than the NTSB does.
          All a bunch of hokey pokey with TWA 800.

          Comment


          • #65
            I have forgotten- do you have an opinion what happened, or is it just what didn't happen?
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              I have forgotten- do you have an opinion what happened, or is it just what didn't happen?

              Buy this and read it. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/nig...RoCVpMQAvD_BwE

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                Or go to your local bookstore and look for it in the "fiction" section.
                Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                Eric Law

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by elaw View Post
                  Or go to your local bookstore and look for it in the "fiction" section.
                  Yes, that is where it is sold. However, there is truth to what is in that book. Over 20 people including a Viet Nam Phantom pilot that was in his Kayak that saw the plane shot down. Like I also said, I have stood inside of the center wing tank in MacArthur airport on Long Island where the parts were reassembled. There is absolutely no evidence of an internal explosion. I also flew the 100 and 200 for 14 years and dealt with the A/D note that came out because of it. You ask anyone that flew the Queen if they think that is what brought her down, I doubt you will find one that will say yes.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                    You ask anyone that flew the Queen if they think that is what brought her down, I doubt you will find one that will say yes.
                    Why do you think pilots are in special position to question that finding? It's all engineering and physics, including exhaustive studies into the conditions that make jet fuel explosive. And, in terms of engineering and physics, it all adds up (and there are documented incidents to back that up). BB, you are taking a Northwester position on this: everything was there to cause a center tank explosion but, coincidentally, it was hit by a missile instead.

                    Not very convincing in either case. Luckily for us, in both cases steps were taken to make aviation safer. Which brings me back to my original post, before you hijacked it, that fuel-tank inerting was a progressive step forward despite a statistically low incidence of fuel tank explosions.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      737 as Gabe pointed out, a couple of incidences on the ground so they know what it was. And I agree with you that purging the space with inert gas is a good system. Have you ever shot an empty beer can when you were a kid or thrown a cherry bomb in one? Looks totally different. I was not allowed to take any photos when I was in the hanger, but I am sure by now there are some on the internet. That tank did not blow up from the inside out! Now back to your next system, automatic overhead bins locking systems.

                      Comment


                      • #72
                        There are some discreet pictures of the TWA 747 remains on the old airdisaster.com website, from a trip several of us took to the hangar around 2004. Some people may be clever enough to find them. The trip was arranged for us by a senior NTSB official, whom some of you here will know. I don’t take sides on this controversy, but few of the professionals will agree with BB’s interpretation. I find it hard that a bunch of amateur enthusiasts would be allowed to visit this place if they were hiding something.

                        Comment


                        • #73
                          Originally posted by HalcyonDays View Post
                          There are some discreet pictures of the TWA 747 remains on the old airdisaster.com website, from a trip several of us took to the hangar around 2004. Some people may be clever enough to find them. The trip was arranged for us by a senior NTSB official, whom some of you here will know. I don’t take sides on this controversy, but few of the professionals will agree with BB’s interpretation. I find it hard that a bunch of amateur enthusiasts would be allowed to visit this place if they were hiding something.
                          I was taken by an FAA inspector and as I said there were no cameras or phones allowed. Professionals? Not professional 747 drivers! Professional Government pawns!

                          Comment


                          • #74
                            And the MAL 777 was not pilot suicide either!

                            Comment


                            • #75
                              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                              In other words you do not have an opinion as to the cause.

                              We have discussed this before- the TWA 800 thing is strange enough that I feel no need to flame war argue that the NTSB is right. I tend to believe they are right, and thus do not agree with you, but would only bet a beer. The outside of the plane, around the center fuel tank sure looks like the thing "blew outward", and I can only think of one thing inside that particular area that would shove outwards...could the outside of the plane kept the tank walls from looking as though they blew outward?

                              Anyway- more interesting than getting folks panties in a wad over the overhead bins- so cheers.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X