Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 93

Thread: Are carry-on bags a safety issue?

  1. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    864

    Default

    Quote 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

  2. #62
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,408

    Default



    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.

  3. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    864

    Default

    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

  4. #64
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #65
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    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.

  6. #66
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Quote 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

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    864

    Default

    Quote 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

  8. #68
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #69
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,564

    Default

    Quote 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.

  10. #70
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    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.

  11. #71

  12. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,317

    Default

    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.

  13. #73
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Quote 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!

  14. #74
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    And the MAL 777 was not pilot suicide either!

  15. #75
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Quote 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.

  16. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    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!
    I don’t know about the FAA, and not wanting to sound naive, but we do give the NTSB credit for experience, professionalism and objectivity, don’t we ?

  17. #77
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    I can only think of one thing inside that particular area that would shove outwards....
    Pressurization?

    --- 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 ---

  18. #78
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Pressurization?
    Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Tell the man what he has won Johnny.

  19. #79
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,564

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Tell the man what he has won Johnny.
    A tin foil hat!

    The report --of course-- factored in decompression as a cause of the propagation of structural failure following the initial "overpressure event":

    Quote Originally Posted by NTSB Report
    In addition to normal cabin pressurization loads, the accident airplaneís fuselage structure was subjected to loads from the venting of the WCS overpressure.
    What this comes down to is BoeingBobby's unscientific visual analysis of wreckage vs the detailed forensic findings of the NTSB's Metallurgy Structures/Sequencing Group. The latter detemined that the sequence was initiated by an overpressure event in the CWT. This was a CONCLUSION. The only thing left to speculation was the source of ignition. You can say it was a missile and I can't absolutely prove you wrong, but there is no vetted evidence to support that idea, it goes against logic and the evidence to support the electrical anomaly theory is very strong. But the CWT DID fail from "the inside out". It's all in the report:

    the Metallurgy Structures/Sequencing Groupís sequencing study concluded (in part because pieces from inside the CWT were among the first pieces to depart the airplane) that the initial event in the breakup sequence was an overpressure event 543 within the CWT and that the earliest piece of the airplane to be disturbed was SWB3. Specifically, the Sequencing Group concluded that SWB3 fractured at its upper end and that overpressure within the CWT caused it to rotate forward about its lower end. As the upper end of SWB3 rotated forward, it impacted the aft surface of the front spar, leaving distinct witness marks across most of the front spar. Analysis of the wreckage further indicated that when SWB3 impacted the front spar, it initiated multiple fractures along the upper chord of the front spar. Overpressure escaping from the CWT caused the front spar to bulge forward on either side of the two potable water bottles attached next to each other at the center of the front spar. The upper end of the front spar then completely separated from the upper skin of the WCS. After the upper end of the front spar was completely separated from the upper skin, the overpressure remaining within the CWT forced the WCS lower skin and the forward end of the keel beam downward. Downward loading of the forward end of the keel beam greatly increased the stress in the ring chord and in the fuselage skin adjacent to the front spar.

  20. #80
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    And has nothing to do with having over 11000 hours flying the 747, 100, 200, 300, 400 and -8 and knowledge of the systems. You believe what you want to, it is certainly your right to have an opinion. But I would get in an old 100 series put a couple of hundred gallons in the center tank and not worry about a thing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •