|
On Jul 27, 2016, at
7:13 AM,
phoebus@iinet.net.au wrote:
Joe2
A.
If you're referring to MH370, that accident is quite explicable and has
its quite adequate precursor precedents. (SU-GBP [a 777-200] and N799AX
[a 767] and LY-FLB (a 737) - all
destroyed within recent years by oxygen fires initiated by electrical
faults). Most Oxygen fire accidents mainly remain unfound and undetected
within the annals of airliner accidents... as either a primary or
secondary cause. A few moments reflection (and a study of the links
below) might
reveal why it might be an unpopular finding. NASA had an early space flight simulator oxygen fire that
killed astronauts Roger Chaffee, Gus Grissom and Ed White. NASA has
since kept a whole department dedicated to chronicling the history of
aerospace oxygen fires and hazard mitigation.
I'd recommend looking at the following links:-
Executive Summary:
http://tinyurl.com/gqpnwcn
Main document:
http://tinyurl.com/or9bzf2
If you refer to MS804, the Egyptair A320 that went down in the
Mediterranean short of its destination Alexandria; you should note its
similar characteristics to MH370:
1. Rapid onset (no distress call, just a scream of "FIRE" from the
captain and his command for the First Officer to fight the fire with a
handheld fire-extinguisher (useless against an oxygen fire). Nothing
further on the Cockpit Voice Recorder.
2. Oxygen cylinders are to be found beneath the First Officer's seat
(i.e. the underside of the avionics compartment ceiling)
3. Investigators are reporting that the fire indications were in the
lavatory aft of the flight deck and in the avionics compartment beneath
the flight deck (flight crew's supplementary oxygen cylinders are stowed
in the ceiling of that avionics compartment - i.e. beneath the F/O's seat).
resultant
4. Debris recovered show signs of "sooting". Sooting is an indication
of combustion in an oxygen enriched atmosphere in a confined area. When
the oxygen levels exceed 23%, NASA defines this as an oxygen enriched
environment. Higher Oxygen enrichment (as from a pipe/hose leak) "wets"
all surfaces and makes them combustible (but only at their surface)....
thus the sooting. Once the oxygen levels drop off (due to a hull rupture
caused by a high pressure oxygen blowtorch for instance), the fire is
extinguished (particularly salient for an aircraft at around 30,000ft
cruise altitude). If you are wondering why you haven't heard of this
theory before, it's because it's being actively suppressed by Boeing.
Boeing has much to lose if the MH370 truth was ever to emerge.... given
the more than adequate number of "on the ramp" precursors and
precedents.
5. The real difference between an A320 and a 777-200 is that the Boeing
has an active flight control system and can continue flying for
seven hours, even whilst not on autopilot. An A320 losing its flight
control Normal Law, has no limit protections and will quickly enter a
graveyard spiral and crash in situ
(which is what
probably happened to Egyptair's
MS804 - once the pilots were out of the picture. Without oxygen and with
or without a deadly fire, they have a time of useful consciousness of a
mere 30 seconds at cruise altitude once the hull is pierced by an oxygen
blowtorch and a DDT (Deflagration to detonation event) and
pressurization is thus lost).
Resolutely wrap your mind
around the fact that there are two deadly facets to an airborne fire
supplied by the pilots' bottle-fed supplementary oxygen system:
a. The resulting fire is
pressure-fed, intense and can eat (and historically always HAS eaten)
its way quickly through the airframe fuselage, leading to
depressurization and flame extinction - as well as...
b. Leading to pilot hypoxia
anywhere above 20,000 feet altitude - and a resulting total inability to
deal with the underway calamitous development.
B.
Naught to do with your unamplified "video surveillance" (see below), but
I have been advocating flight following and data-dump via the Iridium satellites since 1998 (search Iridian/Roadshow on Google). Many airlines are now using this
Iridian/Roadshow system under different names (but only a small
percentage of flights in comparison with what would be the case once it
was recognized, endorsed via the NTSB, IFAP and ICAO, and mandated by the FAA.
regds
John Sampson
----- Original Message -----
From:
"Lyn S Romano" <rosebush@bestweb.net>
To:
<phoebus@iinet.net.au>
Cc:
Sent:
Wed, 27 Jul 2016 06:36:42 -0400
Subject:
Just my thought
Thought you might like to respond?
From: "Joe2" <joevphoenix2@cox.net>
Date: July 26, 2016 at 9:08:25 PM EDT
To: <rosebush@bestweb.net>
Subject: Just my thought
Video surveillance inside and out should be
mandatory on all commercial flights now
The technology would be cheap enough to do so I
would think.
Just saying…
Thanks
Joe
|