Model 707 airplanes, Model 720 and 720B
series airplanes, Model 727 airplanes, and
Model 737-
100, -200, and -200C series airplanes. This
AD was prompted by a report of a fire that
originated near
the first officer's area and caused
extensive damage to the flight deck on a
different airplane model.
This AD requires replacing the low-pressure
oxygen hoses with non-conductive
low-pressure oxygen
hoses in the flight compartment. We are
issuing this AD to prevent electrical
current from
inadvertently passing through an internal,
anti-collapse spring of the low-pressure
oxygen hose,
which can cause the low-pressure oxygen hose
to melt or burn, leading to an oxygen-fed
fire and/or
smoke in the flight deck
DATES: This AD is effective September 23,
2014.
----- Original Message -----
"Rex Stanners" <rex@rsaeroco.nz>
"Paul" <paul_howard
@iinet.net.au>
Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:19:47 +0800
Re: MH370 theory
Rex
It may stir up some interest. I always
find that interest foments
and generates further info and ideas.
The other plus (of course) is that any
coverage on airliners.net might
make Pprune look like the emasculated
"newbie site" that it has become.
The link that purports to be a letter
to Daina Weeks (victim's husband) was
never sent. I had afterthoughts about
sending it inasmuch as it would be
upsetting for her.
If I do find anything further, I will
update that same link ( tinyurl.com/or9bzf2 ).
In fact I recall doing so yesterday.
It may be the Malaysian Transportation
Accident Bureau that has the best chance
of uncovering the facts of 9M-MRO's
actual mod state on the oxygen low-press
lines front.
I still believe that the Egyptair
accident should have been a real "heads
up" for all concerned with the 777 for
what might happen in an airborne variant
of that same scenario. It's hard to
imagine a more horrific happenstance (be
it a 777 / A350 / 787 / A380 or
whatever).The Orion A9-300 oxygen fire
(as a quite destructive ramp fire) was
caused by misplaced lubricants. It
totally burnt out the flight-deck. I
can't imagine the same level of
destruction occurring airborne as there
is always a focused blowtorch effect
that (together with the pressn
differential) quite quickly causes
depressurization and exhausts the oxygen
enriched atmosphere / snuffs the
flare-fire. I can well imagine that
there could be a quite flyable
flight-deck remaining, but for obvious
reasons no-one left to fly it - and a
locked cockpit door to boot. Overall,
just another permutation of that Helios
737 accident and its "ghost flight".
Oxygen flare fires quickly reach a
thermal peak and then snuff as the
bottles are drained - all in a very few
seconds. Couple all that with the very
selective disabling of some systems due
to the heat-peak vulnerability of
distorting cockpit plastics
(pushbuttons, CB's, screens and the
like) and the very capable active FCS
can take that airplane (or any other
modern airframe) to all sorts of quite
distant places no-one ever imagined as
their watery or land-grave. There's not
an interceptor available (as in the
Helios case) to follow a long-haul
airplane to its ultimate watery
grave.That Egyptair accident should have
generated real and abiding concerns.
However it never ever did - and so here
we are today, left wondering.... quite
likely forever ... and leaving this
threat unconsidered in its true light.
regards
John Sampson
----- Original Message -----
"John Sampson" <phoebus@iinet.net.au>
<paul_howard
@iinet.net.au>
Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:13:19 +1200
Subject:
Re: MH370 theory
Wow, that was
quick for you to
reply John!
This has really
sparked my interest.
I'll make some
enquiries through my
old mates at Air NZ
as to why there are
two ADs and SBs
about the same
thing.
It's interesting what
you are saying about
Pprune. I used to read
them quite a lot,
especially when I was
away from home on
contract work and there
was nothing on the hotel
TV! But I haven't been
back for a while.
Airliners.net might
be more tolerant of your
views.
I'll let you know if I find
out anything interesting
about the B777 Ads.
Regards,
Rex Stanners
On 19 August 2014 16:48, <phoebus@iinet.net.au>
wrote:
Rex
I wrote that the FAA
Airworthiness Directive
was promulgated on 16
Apr 2014 because that
was the "with effect"
date on it mandating the
earlier Boeing Service
Bulletin. I did ask on
Pprune whether anybody
was aware that any prior
action beyond an early
2012 "Inspect and
Report" SB went out (or
were aware of any Alert
SB). That post lasted
about 30 minutes before
it was deleted by the
new "Masters of Pprune"
and that was around two
days before I got banned
permanently
My question should more
appropriately be whether
9M-MRO had the
non-conductive helically
wound reinforcing
stiffener wire in the
low pressure oxygen
concertina hoses (or
not?) As you'd be aware
Rex, some non-US
airlines just never get
around to implementing
these SB's, whether or
not they are FAA
mandated (but put them
off until the next major
service).
I'd agree that my
postulations are nothing
more than speculative
theories that seem to
fit the bill in most (if
not all) respects -
particularly in regard
to the mysteries that in
some people's (or even
general) opinion - point
directly to unlawful
interference or pilot
suicide. In my flight
safety pursuits of
logical explanations,
I've rarely been unable
to find a viable
alternative explanation
for what seemed to be a
mystery.... or at least
prima facie
inexplicable.
Of greater interest
however is the rabid
response of the new
order of Pprune
Moderators in erasing
long-standing members of
Pprune for posting such
theories and thus
purposefully eradicating
the think-tank
environment that used to
prevail quite healthily
under Danny Fynne
(original owner Capt
Pprune). Whereas Danny
would rarely ban a
poster, even for good
cause, he'd always
annotate the offending
post or explain why
("prior warning
disregarded" etc). The
modus operandi is now to
simply and quietly "rub
out" the offender. When
you look more closely
into who is operating
Pprune (and why and
how), it is quite plain
that that company's
proxy censorship is on
behalf of the actual
covert website owners
(Boeing, Airbus et
al).... and done to
their rules and strict
guidelines. They
religiously expunge
anything derogatory or
derisive or critical of
the manufacturers.... in
particular any
explanations that might
lead down the path of
litigation by victims'
families.
I doubt that the truth
will ever be known, so
having said my piece,
I'm not proposing to
spruik any further on
the topic - beyond
saying that the MH
pilots do deserve the
benefit of the doubt.
I'd be willing to bet
they won't get it.
(alias theShadow/
Unctuous/ Runcible/
Belgique /DaggerDirk /
etc etc - but no more).
Pprune joiner in 1997