STUDY ON RUSSIAN METROJET AIRBUS CRASH
Prof. (Ret.) Dr.
Sohei Matsuno,
Palembang,
Indonesia
ABSTRACT
Metrojet
crash (Oct. 31 2015) is the 4th event in a series of similar plane
crashes, viz. 1st: Air France (2009), 2nd: AirAsia (2014)
and 3rd: Lufthansa (2015). The points of similarity are: (i) involve Airbus, (ii) rare events in cruise
altitudes, (iii) ominous
short irregularity in a control-system, (iv)
sequent control-systems’ total paralysis, (v)
consecutive steep ascent followed by stall/descent motions to crash, (vi) different destruction
patterns of cockpit and tail from the main body, (vii) no flight-balance recovery by pilots or autopilots, (viii) no distress call from
pilots. These reveal a common cause for all. For 1st ~ 3rd
events, pilot-centered causes were assumed. In the 4th event, Airbus’
rear body broke up in mid-air. Hence, the pilot-centered hypothesis is inapplicable.
All the three hypotheses appear in this report assume, ‘the plane had a
structural failure in mid-air,’ but with different causes of the failure, viz. IED explosion (Russian
team), no evidence of IED (Egyptian
team) and cockpit bulkhead fatigue rupture (the
Writer). Egyptian hypothesis is transient. Its due studies may find evidence of IED, or may confirm the transient
conclusion and find a cause other than IED. Egyptian hypothesis has one step
neared to but is still several steps away from a true cause. It’ll need several
more crashes to reach the truth. This report’s purpose is to let it do with no
more crash. This report denies IED hypothesis’ premise, flawless plane, and
identifies its cause. It’d be verified by additional black-box data. The Writer
has waited for it. But the black boxes seem to give no more useful information. Hence, this report is
herewith presented without more black-box data.
Keywords: crash from cruising altitude, breaking up in
mid-air, bulkhead fatigue rupture
INTRODUCTION
Definitions and abbreviations
For
definitions of technical terms, cause, determinant and fatigue, cf. [7] and [12]. For the definitions of logical terms, induction and
deduction, cf. [15].
As to abbreviations, cf. GLOSSARY shown at the end of this
report.
Background of this report
General
This report pertains to a causation study on a plane crash. In this study field, there’re generally two
backgrounds against which the study is badly influenced. One is: an excessive
automation. It’s
governing many fields with computer programs.
As it’s prevailed over the societies for three generations, people in the
respective societies have been ABIDS patients who have lost their ability to manage
or detect problems happened or to-happen beyond the programs. This was
discussed already in the Writer’s past report, [14], and [15]. The other one is: ‘under the
above setting, causation studies are apt to seek a temporizing hypothesis that brings
a minimum monetary and reputation losses to the societies involved. Almost all researchers
and investigators who participate in the studies believe, ‘it’s the best way to protect corporate and national interests,’ [7] ~ [18]. It seems to be so in a short run, but really not, in a long run.
This report shall discuss it with M-event as an example.
Parties involved
in M-event
There’re
usually three main players (of their respective nations), viz. a producer of
the plane, an operator of the flight, and a controller of the airport. France,
Russia and Egypt are in M-event. In M-event, Germany and Ireland participate as the state of the plane
manufacture and registration. M-event has an extra outsider, a scenario writer of
the event, the Islamic State. Further, the operator’s state, Russia, is an
at-odds participant with other ones. These particularities have characterized the
M-event’s study and the hypotheces.
A hypothesis
to meet all the parties’ convenience
The fact, ‘the rear body broke up in mid-air,’ forced hypotheses to assume plane’s structural
failure for which the plane producer and operator can’t evade their
responsibility. Then, there was IS’ timely self-declaration of responsibility for
the Metrojet’s crash by IED. The IED (bomb) hypothesis offered by IS
effectively unburdened the players’ respective responsibilities, except Egypt (an
airport operator responsible for the security of the airport and keen to
promote the tourism industry).
The bomb hypothesis encourages the
fighters of the Islamic State group. Likewise, it also stimulates the fighting
spirit of the peoples who have been fed up with long inconclusive wars (no
exception). The regular players’ states, which have been also losing their fighting
power, expect to refresh their fading momentum by structuring a dream coalition
of a Russia-US-EU axis. Really, U.S., Russia and states in EU are more or less
clearly supporting the bomb hypothesis. Egypt, who is at odds with the bomb
hypothesis from a tourism view point, may agree to it from a political view
point, as it itself has been at wars with IS in the Sinai Peninsula where
M-event happened. The bomb hypothesis meets all the regular and extra players’ convenience
before the ‘supreme moral obligation of war.’ cf. quotations below. All quotations
are from internet and written in Italic letters.
On 5 November, US
President Barack Obama made a statement that the US government was taking the
incident "very seriously", knowing that there was a possibility that
a bomb was on board the flight.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said he believed the cause of the
crash was
“more likely than not” a bomb.
Russia
and Western governments have said the Airbus A321 operated by Metrojet was
likely brought down by a bomb. The Islamic State militant group said it had smuggled an explosive on board.
Earlier
Saturday, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said the international
community had not heeded Egypt's calls to deal seriously with terrorism. Other countries
"did not show a level of cooperation and direct targeting of these
organizations that we hoped for," Shoukry said.
Comment: A terrorist bomb
attack causes a major embarrassment and is disastrous for the Egyptian travel
industry, while for others, any
structural failure raises difficult questions about the state of the national
aviation industry, while it convinces the public of the air war against IS in
Syria.
Purpose of this report
Any
study needs study objects. The number
of the objects is really the more, the better. However, if the study object is
such as accidents or disasters that claim human and material loss like a
causation study, the results of the study must be so as to reduce the number of
occurrence of its study object, i.e., the accidents and disasters, as few as
possible. But in reality, studies in this field often go in an opposite
direction, [7].
In
the case of M-event, the study situation has been bettered comparing to the
past three analogous events, but it’s still several steps far from an agreeable
level. To let it be the level, it may need several more crashes, if not given a
true cause now. This report shall meet the need, i.e., reduce the needed number
of crash to 0, by offering the true cause with given data and found facts. This
is the purpose of this report.
GIVEN
DATA AND FOUND FACTS
General
There’re two main items in
this regard, viz. (i) recorded data & facts from them, and (ii)
found facts by site investigations & lab tests. The former includes the
flight data from a transponder of the plane, then, recorded by FlightRadar24,
and the flight data & sounds recorded in FDR & CVR. The latter
comprises the results of site investigations of essential items of debris at
the crash site and the sequent lab tests. They are briefly explained in this Sect.
Recorded data and facts from them
Data from
FlightRadar24
The
data are shown in Fig. 1 (a) and (b). There’re 2 notes in this regard,
viz. 1: speed in (a) and altitude in (b) are magnitudes of components of
velocity and displacement, in an advancing direction (speed) and in a falling
direction (altitude) respectively. That
is, their directions are different. Hence, they’ve no mathematical relation,
and 2: data were sent by transponder
at 1-min. intervals, and the charts are drawn by joining these points. Hence,
any fluctuations of less than 1-min. duration do not appear in Fig. 1.
Comment: The transponder terminated at 6:13:00 a.m. (local time) in Fig. 1. But FDR’s data lasted 23 (sec.)
more as seen in Fig. 2 (recording
intervals are 1 sec). This difference is due to the interval difference.
Speed (miles/hr.), DP: Ground Altitude (ft), DL: MSWL
(a) Velocity in advancing direction (b)
Displacement in falling directions
Fig. 1 Flight data received by
FlightRadar24 from planes transponder
Fig 1 suggests
general facts as follows, (i)
something fatal happened at the beginning of a steep ascent in altitude (6:11)
or the beginning of a steep descent in speed (6:12), (ii) the plane had lost its propelling power when it reached
the highest altitude, (iii)
after the stall, the plane descended at a rate of 5300 (ft/min.).
Comment:
The above facts are temporary recognitions from Fig. 1.
Data from FDR
The data are shown in Fig 2.
Fig.
2 Altitude and speed
charts vs. time (min.sec.). Speed axis legend on right
Note: The speed in the chart is the magnitude of velocity
that has a vertical component, vs. ground as a DP, and the altitude is the
magnitude of displacement vs. MSWL as DL. Hence, there can be seen a mathematical
relation between the speed and altitude charts.
Fig.
2 is an in-detail altitude / speed charts of the last 36 (sec.) of Fig. 1 given by FDR. The data are shown
at 1-sec. steps. Hence, the charts express the flight characters more in detail
than Fig. 1 as follows: See Fig. 2.
(1)
The altitude chart indicates an ominous irregularity. It began at 6:12:55.5.
This is Time 0 of M-event. It lasted
4 (min.).
(2) It
was immediately followed by a steep decrease of speed and altitude at Time 4. This is the time something fatal
incident began at 6:12:59.5.
(3) The
descent ended at 6:13:00.5 (Time 5).
This is the time when the incident terminated. It lasted for 1 (sec.).
(4)
After the descent, the plane sharply ascended for 1 (sec.).
(5) After
the ascent, at 6:13:02.5 (Time 6),
it stalled. It lasted 1 odd (sec.).
(6) It
was followed by a backward descent of 5 (sec.).
(7)
After the 1st stall/backward-descent motion, FDR recorded
stall/descent motions 3 more times until 6:13:23 (Time 26). FDR stopped recording at this time.
The above tells the following facts respectively:
(1) The
event was heralded by an ominous irregularity related to an elevator-control
system.
(2)~(3) During
this 1 (sec.) from Time 4 to 5, ssomething
fatal incident began and ended. Engines stopped at Time 4. Other control systems had been all paralyzed.
(4)~(5)
The wrong elevator happened to be in sharp ascent position during this period. The plane climbed steeply. When
the engines stopped, the plane’s speed was 650 (km/hr.). Because of this
velocity inertia, the plane could ascend by 550 (m). At 9800-m altitude, the
velocity inertia went out, and the plane stalled.
(6)~(7)
The plane experienced stall/descent motions total 5 times. Count horizontal portion after the first stall, it is four. Among them, the 2nd
one was forward descent. It is known by the increase in speed as shown in the speed chart. FDR stopped recording when the tail
was severed from the [lane’s
main body. FDR was housed in the tail.
Comment 1: The rear body hadn’t yet severed
from the plane’s main body. It was minutes later. It’ll be discussed with the
facts found by the site investigations.
Comment 2: After the
separation of the tail, the main body was subjected to
spin motions as well. The rear body was repeatedly
brandished by the stall/descent/spin motions.
Comment 3: The fact found at this stage is:
the allegation, ‘the rear body separated from the main fuselage simultaneously
when something fatal (bomb explosion?) happened in the rear cabin,’ is wrong.
Data from CVR
There’s one useful datum that’s 1-sec.
uncharacteristic sounds recorded in CVR. It is said that the sounds are at the end of normal recording. After it, no more sounds are recorded. It tells the nature of the sounds. It
is not the sounds of explosion. En passant, the sounds of explosion must have a
shorter period, a bigger amplitude and peculiar timbre. Then, of what were the
sounds? To answer this question, the sounds in CVR must be positioned (without synchronization) correctly
in FDR data (Fig. 2). If the
duration of recoded sounds (1 sec.) laps in the duration of between Time 4 and 5 when something fatal appeared, it is, quite likely, the sounds of the fuselage rupture before CVR was broken. If the
sounds fall between time 0 and Time 4, the sounds are when the CVR itself was broken. If it falls before Time 0 or after Time 5, either (both) FDR’s or (and) CVR’s watch(s) was (were) out of order. cf. quotations below.
Last month, a member of the air accident investigation team in
Egypt said investigators were "90% sure" the noise heard on the black
box of the airliner seconds before it crashed was caused by a bomb.
Question:
Explain why the investigator judges so, the Writer asks.
Muqaddam did not describe the noise investigators
picked up from the cockpit voice recorder when the flight disintegrated midair......
"A spectral analysis will be carried out by specialized labs in order to
identify the nature of this noise," he said.
CNN aviation analyst Richard Quest said there would
have been different data on the black boxes had there been a catastrophic
failure rather than an explosion. The key is what happened just before the data
suddenly stopped, he said. "It's this split second, and it's a
millisecond, where you hear an explosion of some description," he said.
"And you see all the parameters go haywire before the power is completely
lost. If this report is accurate, (investigators) have now analyzed that ...
heard it and they can identify it." Had the plane broken apart due to
structural failure, there would have been more noise, and for a longer time, he
said.
Comment: The 3rd
statement is not seeing the sounds on FDR’s time axis in which the time when
something fatal happened is clearly shown. No wonder it gives no conclusion.
Facts found
by site investigations and lab tests
General feature at the crash site
Photo 1
is an aerial view of the main crash site. It shows a general feature of the crashed
plane.
It tells the following facts: (i)
The plane was upside down when it hit the ground, as blue colored cockpit’s lower fuselage and nose gears
are seen in upper-side, and the upper fuselage is in a lower-side. (ii) The main-body fuselage and
its attachments were smashed to pieces and changed their color to black. (iii) The debris didn’t scatter.
(iv) The rear body after the wings scarcely shows up in the black silhouette.
(v) Last but not the least,
despite the general status of the ruined main body, the cockpit keeps
relatively a good shape.
The above
further reveals the facts respectively as follows: (i) The plane fell in spin after having lost its tail. (ii) The plane deformed plastically
when collided with ground. The pieces were blackened not by kerosene-base
conflagration but by heat generated in metal materials when they had been
cold-worked. (iii) After the
plastic deformation, no rebound took place. (iv) The rear body fell in a different location. (v) The cockpit had been almost separated
from the main fuselage in mid-air. It was fully severed when it hit ground.
1. Nose, 2.
Cockpit, 3. Door, 4. Wing
Photo 1 Debris at main crash site (all photos are from images
in Google)
Cockpit status
Photo 2 is a GL view of 1, 2 and 3 of Photo 1. Notice:
cockpit’s carriage is upside down.
It tells essential facts. You can
see a nose of the cockpit and an exit door of just behind the cockpit at about
30 and 10-m distant from their original position. They were not severed in
mid-air but disconnected by the collision shock on the ground. The nose was
separated along its weld joint where there’s
remarkable structural discontinuity. The door was torn off at its hinge joints. Their cut sections are plain circular (nose) and rectangular
(door) with no big deformation (both). It tells that the joints were weaker than the jointed bodies. These severed parts (cockpit itself,
nose and exit door) showed independent breaking patterns from their mother bodies. The cockpit keeps a
good shape, though its mother body was wholly broken and blackened.
Comment: As discussed later, a
joint must be so designed as to be stronger than the joined bodies. That is,
the joined structure shouldn’t be broken at the joint. This basic rule in
structural engineering is at odds with the
facts found at the crash site of this event.
Photo 2 Grand level view of point 1, 2 and 3 in Fig. 1
Photo 3 is the cut section where the cockpit was severed from the
fuselage of the main body. As seen, it has a plain cut in the upper section
(lower fuselage), and an irregular cut section below it (upper fuselage). It is
adjacent to the main body’s remains but in good shape. It showed a different
pattern of destruction from the main body, because it’d been already severed
from the main body fuselage in mid-air and hit the ground.
Comment: In
the plain cut section, a ring of stiffener can be seen along the cut section. The
same can be seen in the two other cut sections as well. As discussed later, it
worked to increase the discontinuity of the fuselage at the
joint section.
Photo 3 Back view of cockpit from
cain side
Tail’s
status
In this report, a tail is an extreme end part of a plane beyond a
pressure bulkhead. FDR is usually housed in it. The tail had separated from the
rear body before the rear body was severed from the main body, as fatigue
cracks had already developed from the bottom to the top of the fuselage there,
having formed the 2nd weakest section after the one at the cockpit. The
separation took place at 6.13.23 (hr.min.sec.). It’s so identified by the fact that the charts are terminated at this time. The data after this time, if there’d
be, do not represent the motion of the plane.
It is said that the tail was found within a-few-km
distant location from the rear body. It has a plain cut section from the rear
body fuselage where a pressure
bulkhead was fixed.
Comment: In Photo 4, a hall is shown on the
pressure bulkhead by a red mark, probaly indicating it was caused by bomb
explosion
Photo 4 Tail severed from the plane’s
rear body (horizontal stabilizers aren’t visible)
Rear
body’s status
It is shown in Photo 5. It
tells further the following facts: The seperation of the tail with horizontal
stabirizers and elevators (a part of the rear body byond the pressure bulkhead)
preceded the separation of the rear body itself,. The cut
section along the pressure bulkhead is plain.
Photo 5 Rear body of Metrojet plane
(No tail, as it’d been severed from the rear body)
The rear body was found 5 km
apart from the main body crash site and 3 km from the tail. It
was severed from the main body probably at about 3000-m
altitude, about 3 (min.) before it collided with
the ground. It is so judged as per primary physics and the assumption of wind
velocity. The cabin fuselage usually doesn’t have remarkable discontinuity. The
separation of the rear body may be caused by weld jointing at the time of repair works. That is, the repair
works may have caused the rear body’s separation, but didn’t cause the plane
crash. The
concept, ‘a spontaneous occurrence of a fatal incident
(bomb explosion?) and the rear body separation,’ is unconceivable. cf. quotations
below.
This reinforces the belief that
the tail (rear body) was severed from the rest of the airplane at the point
when it broke up and fell separately. It all happened in 25 seconds: the A320’s
fate was very sudden, as revealed in data released
by FlightRadar24.
It says a 25-sec. is a time lag between the bomb explosion
and the rear body (the ‘tail) separation. Really, it’s the time between cockpit fuselage rupture and the separation of the tail, not the rear body.
Reports that the Metrojet Flight
9268's tail (rear body) was found miles away from the other plane
wreckage, she said, indicate something could have gone wrong with the repair
work after the tail strike. "To me, it says (the tail) exited the plane before
the explosive event and before the fire engulfed the plane. ... A bad repair is
like a ticking time bomb, because once it's on the plane, it stays with the
plane forever," she said.
She insists, ‘the rear-body separation due to bad repair works preceded bomb explosion.’ Really, there was no explosion.
The bad repair could
sever the rear body as it was subjected to eccess loads due to
extraordinary stall/dscent/spin motions after loss of the tail. The cause of
the crash is the cockpit fuselage rupture that preceded everything else.
Fig. 3
explains key terms of the rear body, i.e., luggage hold, seats, pressure
bulkhead, cut section, and illustrates relative
positions between them.
Fig. 3 Metrojet Airbus Rear body
Scattered
luggage
Photo 6 shows gathered luggage
scattered in 10-km long area to undergo lab tests.
The scattered luggage was
considered as a result of a mid-air bomb explosion in a luggage hold of the
plane. But, in fact, ‘there could be found no physical/chemical clue
(deformation/powder-smoke components due to
bomb explosion) to prove it. The luggage was not scattered by bomb explosion,
but spilled out from the luggage hold, when the plane rear body was severed
from the main body having formed a hall and
brandished by stall/descent/spin motions. After spilling, it was blown away by wind.
Comment 1: For a body of the same specific
gravity, the smaller the size is, the greater the surface-area/weight ratio is.
Specific gravity of luggage is smaller than the plane’s body; hence, luggage
was blown away farther than the plane body.
Comment 2: The facts shown
in this Sect. are all used as the evidence to refute the bomb hypothesis in
the next Sect.
Photo 6 Luggage scattered around the crash site and
gathered for due examinations
cf. a quotation below.
Debris
from the plane was scattered over an area more than 13 kilometers long, suggesting
an in-flight breakup, according to Muqaddam. "Maybe it's a lithium
battery, maybe it's an explosion, maybe it's ... a mechanical issue," he
said the possible cause of the crash.
HYPOTHESIS OF
M-EVENT
General
As stated above, two hypotheses have
been presented up to the date. One is by a Russian national investigation team
(simply R-hypothesis) and the other is by an Egyptian international
investigation team (E-hypothesis). They are plainly explained in this Sect.
R-hypothesis
Premise of R-hypothesis:
(1)
R-hypothesis set up a supreme 1st
premise flawless plane, i.e., it
was in an excellent status until its last moment.’ It elaborates: (i)
the plane had been run by well trained /
experienced maintenance-team members and pilots, (ii) it is supported by a precisely programmed automation
system, and (iii) even if
there’re some structural/mechanical
disorders and/or human errors, they must be detected and corrected by the system.
(2)
There’s an undeniable fact that plane’s rear body ws severed in
mid-air. It gives the 2nd premise, ‘the plane had a structural
failure while cruising.’ cf. quotations below.
Smirnov,
Metrojet's deputy director, described the A321 as a reliable aircraft that
would not fall into a spin even if the pilots made a grave error because its
automatic systems would correct crew mistakes.
On 2 November,
Metrojet spokesman Alexander Smirnov insisted that the aircraft was 100%
airworthy and that its crew was "very experienced". He showed the
certificates the airline had received in 2014. He later added that the rear bodystrike incident in Cairo had been fully repaired, and the
plane's engines had been inspected on 26 October, five days before the crash.
"We
rule out a technical fault of the plane or a pilot error," said Alexander
Smirnov, deputy general director of Metrojet, the Associated Press reports.
"The only possible explanation could be an external impact on the airplane."
"We exclude technical problems and reject human error," Mr. Smirnov,
said at a Moscow news conference as he discussed possible causes of the crash.
“The plane was in excellent condition,” Alexander Smirnov said. “We rule out
a technical fault and any mistake by the crew.”
The airline is insisting that its own maintenance and safety procedures
cannot have been at fault, but they are not denying that the airplane broke up
in the air at 31,000 feet. Instead, the airline is saying that they don’t
believe that a mechanical or technical fault in the Airbus, for which they
would be responsible, was the cause.
Earlier in the day, the head of Metrojet, the company that operated
the aircraft, moved to rule out any internal malfunction or pilot error. "The only possible could be a purely mechanical
external impact," Alexander Smirnov, the company’s deputy director told a
news conference in Moscow.
Formation
of R-hypothesis
Based on the premises, a skeleton
of a hypothesis, ‘mid-air
structural failure by IED (bomb hypothesis),’
has been set up. Adding to the
skeleton some explanatory elements, (i) IED was 0.727~1.0-kg TNT equivalent, (ii) It was a new type explosive that’s
not produced in Russia and (iii)
IED was smuggled into the cabin and planted under one of the wind-side seats
near from the rear body’s severed
section. Thus, bomb hypothesis had been completed. Then, the problem awaiting solution is only to show the evidence of IED
explosion.
To confirm IED explosion, it is
enough to find powder-smoke components. IEDs need an oxidizing agent. IEDs used to adopt Ammonium Nitrate
(NH3N03) as the agent. It leaves NO3-
as a residual component. Recently, 60% of IEDs use Potassium Chlorate
(KClO3) as the agent, because it has the same power as the
traditional one and needs less process and money. It leaves K+ and CL- as the powder-smoke components.
There’s an explosive that leaves no powder-smoke component. It’s TriAcetone TriPeroxide (TATP) also known as Mother of Satan. It uses
hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as the oxidizing agent. It
leaves no indicative component. However, it is still unpractical, since the
explosive of adding this agent to fuel is too vulnerable, i.e., explode with a
slight shock. It needs a method to stabilize TATP until its usage. IS has not
yet developed it. It
means, ‘the possibility of bomb of no evidence is thin. Cf. following quotations.
Potassium chlorate is an odorless white crystal or
powder that, when combined with a fuel forms an explosive mixture. Ammonium nitrate fertilizer, meanwhile, requires
several steps to transform into an explosive.
"Many model
engines run on nitro-methane, a chemical with explosive properties greater than
TNT however when mixed with an oxidizing agent such as ammonium nitrate, the
explosive power is even greater.
"Pool sanitizer,
this is a product which contains hydrogen peroxide which is the necessary
chemical to make an explosive known as TATP or triacetone triperoxide also
known colloquially as Mother of Satan.
To let TATP suit the practical use is only a matter of time, since the solution is easy, e.g.,
packing the cocktail in a dry-ice (solid CO2)
container. It is ditect-free and leaves no component to be detected. IS is a group
of creative, young people who are expertise in wide fields. In 1960s, the
radical New Left, e.g., Red Army Faction, couldn’t gather talents. Here’s a
historical difference between the New Left groups and the IS group.
This
hypothesis meets the needs of all the players involved in the M-event. That is,
for IS, it encourages IS group fighters. Likewise, for Russia and France (US as
well), it’ll strengthen
the fighting spirit of their peoples who have been fed up with the anti-terrorist wars that are getting bad to worse
since 9/11 WTC attack. Further, the bomb hypothesis might enable to realize a
dream coalition of a US-EU-Russia
axis against IS. As such a coalition has never been formed; people may wishfully think, ‘it brings on a win.’
Contradictions in R-hypothesis
R-hypothesis meets the
event-participants’ national and corporate needs in short term. Hence, it has
garnered consensus among the parties concerned. But it’s an entirely different
matter from, 'if it meets techno-scientific facts.'
R-hypothesis has a lot of
contradictions. It needs revisions ceaselessly whenever it meets a contradiction. For instance, it assumed that the bomb had been
planted in a rear luggage hold. But when the investigation team couldn’t detect
the clue of bomb explosion, i.e., physical damage and/or chemical powder-smoke
components on the luggage, it changed
the place of bomb planting to the rear cabin
of under a window-side seat at the severed section. Probably, the team must
have already inquired into all the onboard passengers’ antecedents. The Writer suggests
special investigations into the
track records of six passengers who were seated at, before and behind the
severed section (cf. Fig. 3.) from
their infancy to death. If any person who had any records, e.g., of depressive
insanity, is found, suspect him/her as a suicide bomber. The same is ongoing with L-event now. In these events, it’s a
magnificent fallacy of which the results are unbecoming without fail.
What
on earth, R-hypothesis can hold good only with its 1st premise flawles plane. The premise is a derivative from arrogance, ignorance, sheer vanity and/or ABIDS. If the
premise is denied, R-hypothesis loses its ground. cf. quotations below.
A bomb
that brought down Russian Metrojet Flight 9268 in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula last
month was placed in the aircraft's main cabin, the daily Kommersant said Wednesday, citing an
unnamed source, according to Reuters. Earlier, it was reported that the bomb
was placed in the aircraft cargo compartment.
Alexander Bortnikov, head of the Federal
Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB), reportedly said Tuesday,
adding that it was an "improvised, homemade bomb," with nearly 1.6
pounds of TNT. (It was 2.2 pounds before, the
Writer’s comment.)
Western intelligence sources who spoke to
Reuters said the evidence was not categorical and there was no hard forensic or
scientific evidence to support the bomb theory.
E-hypothesis
Current
status of E-hypothesis
An
international investigation team based in Egypt consists of members from three ordinary and two incidental states, Egypt (operator of airport where the plane took off), France
(designer of the plane}, Russia (operator of the plane), and Germany (manufacturer
of the plane), Ireland (registry of the plane) respectively. There’s an outside
player, the Islamic State (a self-styled fixer of M-event). The existence of
this ‘State’ has characterized the nature of M-event.
The
team announced its preliminary report of M-event. It says, ‘there can be found
no evidence of terrorist act (bomb attack) so far. It is regarded by the general gallery as an antithesis of what they
expected, the bomb cause. In fact, it is not so. E-hypothesis
is compatible with bomb hypothesis, as the preliminary report keeps freehand to
reach any goal it wants in its due diligent studies.
Prospective
way of E-hypothesis
(1)
The most probable course for the team to pursuit in due diligent studies is
further making efforts to find the evidence
of bomb. However, the studies have been already enough
done. It is said that black box analyses, site investigations especially into the
wreckage whose crucial elements were moved from the
site to a safe location in Cairo and have been examined. Besides these basic
studies, the aircraft's 38 computers, plus two engine computers have also been
looked at, while any repairs to the jet since it was built in May 1977 were
checked out, problems including a malfunctioning key baggage scanning device,
lax searches at an entry gate for plane food and fuel, bribe-taking by police
officers were done by officials. Hence, the Writer anticipates that
E-hypothesis will have little room to meet evidence of bomb.
(2) If the team can’t find the evidence until the extreme end of the
above study, it does confirm no evidence of bomb. So it resolves itself into evidence of no bomb. This is the
starting point to enter a new way. It’s already admirable for the team to arrive
at this point. The matter in issue is, ‘which way will the team choose at this restarting point?’
(3) There’re three ways that E-hypothesis can choose. The easiest
way is to accept R-hypothesis, ‘bomb of no evidece.’
that means there was a bomb explosion, only its evidence han’t yet been able to find so far. Hence, logically, E-hypothesis
may accept R-hypothesis without contradiction. But this
report does not recommend it, as the bomb itself has been refuted in this
report.
(4) The other one, also not recommended, is accumulating uncategorical
data and facts, mobilizing tactics of wishful thinking / convenient discarding and compose an imaginary
cause. It’s
also not difficult, as it’s a usual way exercised in many past events, [12]~[15]. Or even forge evidence as it happened in Airbus 320
crash at Habshein 1988, [4].
(5) The most recommended and orthodox but difficult way is to find a
true cause instead of bomb explosion. This paper shows cockpit bulkhead fatigue rupture as a cause. Everybody is kindly advised to find each cause referring
to this model cause. If there can be found any one else, it’s wonderful per se. The Writer shall
learn it. Anyway, if a just cause is
found, it’s an epoch making game changer in this study field. The Egyptian team
is eligible for Nobel Prizes.
E- and R- hypotheses’ answers in short are: no evidence of bomb and bomb of noevidence at the end of preliminary studies. Deductively
speaking, they’re compatible with each other.
But there’s a premise ‘flawless plane’. Hence, R-hypothesis is only a legitimate
answer, which doesn’t overturn as far as the premise
is intact. Even if
there’s no evidence of bomb,
it doesn’tmatter, if the bomb is a ‘bomb of no evidence.’
It is to be recalled that Egypt’s
preliminary report is logically compatible with the Writer’s hypothesis as
well. Anyway, the three hypotheses stand on a common ground, ‘the plane had a structural failure,’ regardless
of its cause, i.e., bomb, fatigue or any cause else that might emerge in a
future. In this context, studies on Airbus have one step neared to the truth by
M-event, but still several steps away from it.
Comment: By logics, evidence of bomb = no evidence of no bomb. Likewise,
no evidence of bomb = evidence of no bomb (but) ≠ bomb of no evidence.
cf. Table 1’s
explanations and following quotations.
Owen said it would be hard to rule out a bomb
explosion just because evidence of one had not been discovered. "If a bomb
is ruled out, it will likely be because another cause has been found," he
said. (The Writer agrees with him to sayy so.)
The alternative to an explosive device is an explosive
decompression in which a sudden structural failure allows pressurized air in
the cabin to escape in a ferocious explosion—it’s a “clean” explosion involving
no ignition or combustion but is just as lethal
Comment: Bomb explosion creates positive pressure, while explosive
decompression is negative. Hence, their effects are different. The former
destroys both structure and human while the latter hurts exclusively human.
Cairo: Egypt said on Monday it had found no evidence so far
of terrorism or other illegal action linked to the crash of a Russian passenger
plane in Sinai that killed all 224 people on board on Oct. 31.
A preliminary report on the disaster on 31
October, which killed all 224 people on board, said investigators had "so
far not found anything indicating any illegal intervention or terrorist
action"
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declined to
comment directly on the Egyptian statement, but told reporters in a conference
call, "can I remind you of the conclusion of our experts from the special
services, who came to the conclusion that it was a terrorist action."
Writer’s Hypothesis
General
This
report is of the Writer’s Hypothesis (W-hypothesis). It confirms a cause of ‘bulkhead-fatigue
rupture along a weld-joint in a cockpit fuselage.’ It is a common cause for the
past analogous three events. In M-event, it was unavoidable for every
hypothesis to verify
R-hypothesis’ 1st premise by
confirming the existence of a bomb explosion. If it’d find evidence of bomb, it directly reaches
a conclusion, and the bomb hypothesis becomes
the bomb theory. But the Writer didn’t follow
that way, since he had known that the event was not a destruction of a flawless plane by a bomb explosion.
If it is the case, the consequences can’t be as shown in the crash site. Hence,
the Writer commenced his study directly with the denial of R-hypothesis’ 1st premise. On the way of the study, the true
cause was necessarily reached.
The
driving force that generated bulkhead fatigue rupture is primarily the 21000-nc
alternation of atmospheric pressure.’ It is elaborated in the next Sect. In this Sect. it comments briefly
at each stage.
Sequence
of Metrojet Airbus crash
(1)
Development of fatigue cracks
The
fatigue cracks were developing at three sections of the plane fuselage, viz.
the cockpit, the tail and the rear cabin. All are along weld joints, or generally
speaking, sections of discontinuity. The one in the cockpit had
started in the lower fuselage and already reached as high as the wind breaker’s
level. Another one was along the pressure bulkhead and developed from the
bottom of the tail fuselage up to the joint between the top of the tail
fuselage and the bottom of the vertical stabilizer. In M-event, there was an
additional crack section in the rear cabin. It started in the upper fuselage
and stopped in the luggage-hold fuselage.
Comment:
Fatigue develops slowly, and is difficult to detect until its last stage, since
there’s no visible heraldic phenomena.
But its speed of development becomes very quick in a last stage. Unlike other causes,
e.g., corrosion (the 2nd greatest cause of structural failure), fatigue has no herald
until the last stage; Ccatastrophe
without notice is one of the characters of the fatigue failure.
(2)
Ominous irregularity in an elevator-control
system
The
development of fatigue crack-rupture caused
ominous phenomena of short duration in its last stage. In a series of four Airbus-crash events, their durations varied from
several (sec.) to several (min.).
In
M-event, before the fatal cockpit fuselage rupture (from Time 4 to 5), there was
a 4-sec. irregularity in the elevator-control
system (from Time 0 to 4). cf. Fig 2.
Comment:
In this context, whenever any ominous
plane-carriage-control-system irregularity occurs, pilots should be so trained
to set a plane in quick descent position, as the copilot did so in L-event,
before control systems fall into a
total failure. It is to reduce the driving force of the fuselage-fatigue-crack
development (the relative atmospheric air
pressure to the one in the plane fuselage).
It’s generally true that nothing is broken under a lowering force condition.
Really, in L-event, the total control-system failure didn’t occur. But the copilot
couldn’t save the plane because the elevator-control-system had been already out of order, [13]~[15]. As the time between the occurrence
of ominous irregularity of plane’s control system and the fatal/total control-system
defunct is so short, pilots should exercise so that they can counter the
situation in a reflex action. Do not make any helpless efforts to save the plane.
Preferably, have engines stop so that the unfavorable vibration is not to be.
If the plane descends down to a 2000~3000-m altitude, resume ordinary level
flight, and try emergency landing with a distress call. However, if this
operation succeeds is depends on if pilots are physically enough functional
under the decompression that quickly follows the fatigue crack development.
(3)
Cockpit bulkhead rupture and its
primary and secondary consequences
The cockpit bulkhead
rupture began at 6:12:59.5 (Time 4) and lasted for 1 (sec.), having preceded everything. Its
primary consequences were total failure of all the control systems and
explosive decompression in the cockpit. As the secondary consequence, pilots (autpilot as well) were physically
paralyzed. These happened within 1 (sec.), practically at once.
Comment: The
uncharacteristic sounds recorded by CVR are not of a bomb explosion, but, surely, the sounds of cockpit bulkhead rupture. There’s
other possibility as discussed previously, but with lesser possibility. The
characteristics of sounds disagree to the characteristics of the bomb explosion
in the rear cabin, time-wise, in duration, amplitude and the shape of the sound waves.
cf. a quotation below.
It cited the source as saying
that an "unexpected” and "nonstandard (emergency)" occurred
"instantly," which was why the pilots failed to send an emergency or
alarm signal.
This statement agrees to the fact that something
emergency occurred in the cockpit.
(4) Steep
ascent
After the
dscent, the plane climbed steeply for about 1 (sec.) by inertia, as engines stopped instantly
when the engine control system was broken at the time when cockpit fuselage
ruptured.
An expert
says, ‘the plane lost the rear body, so the uplift force to the wings caused
nose-up of the plane, then the plane ascended steeply.’ This statement can be
denied by primary level physics. That is, if the plane loses its rear body, the
gravity center of the plane moves to the nose, 3 odd (m) forward the centroid
of the wing surface. Then, the uplift force of the wings causes nose-down. The
steep ascent was caused by the wrong elevator-control system. In fact, the rear
body had not yet severed while climbing. cf. a quotation below.
This trace
of the flight’s last moments shows the altitude and speed of the jet
immediately following its mid-air breakup. The nose pitches up sharply as it
would if the tail (rear body) broke off – the wings are generating lift without the
counterbalance of the horizontal stabilizer,
(5) Stall and
descent
After the
plane ascended up to its highest altitude at 6:13:03 (Time 6), it repeated stall/descent motions five-times for 20 (sec.) up until 6:13:23 (Time 26) and FDR terminated data
recording at this time.
(6) Separation
of tail
The tail
severed from the rear body. As FDR was housed in the tail, it no longer sent
data that represent the behavior of the plane. It was 6:13:23 (Time 26). The horizontal stabilizer
went out with the tail.
Comment
1: The separation occurred having been severed
vertically just around the pressure bulkhead and horizontally along the joint
with the vertical stabilizer. The tail was weld jointed and had remarkable structural discontinuity there. The vertical cut section is
clearly plain that implies the existence of fatigue crack before the separation.
The horizontal cut section surely had a sudden section change there.
Comment 2: The tail was subjected to severer loading conditions than the cockpit, as the tail
has the horizontal and vertical stabilizers to which air pressure acted during
stall/descent motions, but the
cockpit has no such projections as the stailizers.
This is the reason why the cockpit wasn’t severed from the main body until it
hit the ground.
As Photo 5 shows, a fatigue crack had
reached up to the top of fuselage. The
separation of the tail preceded the separation of the rear body.
(7)
Separation of rear body
The loss of
horizontal stabilizers allowed the main body to spin about its lateral-gravity-center
axis of the plane that brought about greater loads to the rear body than before
it had lost its tail. It caused the rear body separation. It further
accelerated the spin motions of the plane’s main body, because of an increase
of the eccentricity between the wings’ surface centroid and the gravity center
of the plane. The time of separation is estimated from the distance between the
main crash site and the location where the rear body was found. It was about 3000-m
altitude (3 odd min. before the terrain crash). cf. quotations below.
Michael Clarke of the Royal United Services
Institute think-tank, agrees. He told the BBC that
reports of the tail (rear body) splitting in two suggest a "catastrophic
failure, not a mechanical failure," which could mean an explosion on
board.
The jetliner apparently stayed largely intact until
well into its dive from some 33,000 feet, according to two people familiar with
the thinking of investigators and preliminary data already collected by the
probe. They said big pieces may not have started falling off until the jet was
around 15,000 feet or perhaps significantly lower.
Comment 1: The 1st quotation stands on an assumption that the tail (rear body) splitting in two ignited the crash. The separation of the rear
body at the section in the rear cabin is uneasy to happen, because usually no
weld joint is there and also fuselage is structurally continuous. It shows a
clear plain cut in the upper side of the fuselage, and irregular cut in the lower
side. It proves the existence of a weak line in the upper side. The cause of
the separation may be the repair works in 2001. It can be confirmed by observing
the plain cut section in the upper fuselage. If there is a weld joint worked
out at the time of the repair works, it’s the cause of the rear body separation
at this section (but not the cause of the plane crash).
Comment 2: The 2nd quotation doesn’t say what ground it has for 15000 (ft) or much lower altitude when
the separation occurred. But it agrees to the Writer’s judgment.
(8) Spreading
out luggage
After the
separation of the rear body, the luggage hold was open at the rear body cut
section. As the luggage is not fixed with the fuselage, it began having been flown out from the opening while
the plane body was languished by stall/descent/spin motions, spreading it in a
long range. Note: It was not spread by bomb explosion.
(9) Collide
with ground
The aero
photo of the crash site is shown in Photo
1. When readers scrutinize it, four points of notice are seen. They are:
(i)
The black silhouette of the crashed plane abstracts the original shape of the
wings and the fore-part of the main body, but the rear-part beyond the wings
doesn’t shows up.
(ii) The carriage of the plane when it
hit the ground was upside down and fore-side back.
(iii) There’s no sign of kerosene
originated fire.
(iv) Despite
wings’ and main body’s bad shape, the cockpit, severed tail and rear body are
in good shapes.
The above
shows respectively the following facts:
(i) When the plane hit the ground, it
was flattened by plastic deformation, and there was no rebound of the plane’s
fuselage and debris, hence, there was no significant debris distribution at the
crash site. A large part of the fuselage beyond the wings had been severed in
mid-air and fell in a different place.
Comment: In
L-event of which the collidee terrain was
also mountainous, BEA assumed big scale rebound of smashed debris. M-event
proved BEA’s assumption was wrong by an
in-situ/full-scale test. An elastic body rebounds.
No plastic body does. The plane’s fuselage is
practically plastic vs. the mountain rock
(solid).
(ii) It proves
spin motions about the lateral gravity-center
axis of the plane after having missed the tail and later the rear body.
(iii) It was so in L-event. Maybe an installed automatic distinguisher system worked.
(iv) An
independent destruction pattern of the cockpit and the tail was seen in A- and
L-event (unknown in F-event). This is due to a discontinuity at the joints
between a cockpit and a main body,
and a tail and a main body. In M-event, an incomprehensible separation took
place in the main body as well. It is possibly due to welding at the time of
2001 repair works. Fatigue cracks was developing at these three sections due to
stress concentration and alternating loads. They formed weak sections in the
plane that was structurally separated
at these sections and broke up into four parts and each part showed each
pattern of destruction.
Review from a logical view
point
Basd on the given data, found
facts and the premises set up, the respective parties have made their
respective inductions, and provided the hypotheses. Having been led by the
hypotheses, each has executed each deduction and achieved each answer. This
Sub-Sect is on the matter of deduction.
As shown in Table 1, there’re four hypotheses with
any one of them a study can go. If the study is fairly done, it must achieve
the same one correct answer. However, if the study is commenced with a correct
hypothesis, it can be obtained the answer with a minimum time and efforts.
Here’s a reason why correct setting of a hypothesis is crucial.
Table 1
Logical answers to a question on evidence of bomb
|
No.
|
Answers
|
studied by
|
Remarks
|
|
1
|
Evidence of bomb
|
Russian
team
|
A majority wants, but nobody achieves
|
|
2
|
No evidence of bomb
|
Egyptian team
|
Preliminary repot’s transient conclusion
|
|
3
|
Evidence of no bomb
|
The
Writer
|
This rport’s conclusion
|
|
4
|
No
evidence of no bomb
|
Nobody
|
Complex in thinking process
|
The majority of research
groupes rushed into No. 1. However, really, there’re logically three more possible answers to the question.
No. 1 is the one the majority of people have been
engaged in. No. 2 is an unlucky
result of studies on No. 1. No. 1 and 2 are of pro bomb hypothesis, and No. 3 and 4 are of con. No. 3 is the Writer’s. No. 4 (or 3) is logically the same as Mo.
1 (or 2).
The Answer (simbol Ans) is a dependent logical variable, a Boolean, that resolves itself into Yes or No. Ans is a function of two independent logical
variables, Booleans, viz. existence of evidence (E) and existence of bomb (B). Ans = f(E,B).
Even if E’s and B’s Yes and No change to No and Yes, the Ans doesn’t change its
nature. For example, No. 1 = No. 4,
similary, No. 2 = No. 3. As a matter
of course, No. 1 and 4 are incompatible with No. 2 and 3. But if E and B changes their positionns, the nature of Ans
changes. That is, f(E,B) ≠ f(B,E).
Example: E-hypothesis’ final deduction no evidence of bomb = evidence of no bomb. they’re is not compatible with R-hypothesis’ final deduction evidence of bomb. However, if R-hypothesis’ final deduction
is bomb of no evidence, it is compatible witth E-hypothesis’ final
deduction.
Last, any
hypothesis that doesn’t conclude a cause is not a theory. W-hypothesis have it,
hence, it’s eligible for the theory. If any black-box data that denies
W-hypothesis (though its possibility is thin) might be found, it’ll lose the
name of theory. It’s the reason why the Writer doesn’t dare to declear,
‘W-hypothesis has been a theory.
DETERMINANT
OF M-EVENT
General
As
discussed in past report, [10] and [11], it is an effective way to solve a
complicated problem by finding a determinant of the problem and study its
nature. The results of the study help to solve the problem. In M-event, the
determinant is flawless plane. This is the premise of R-hypothesis,
and is assumed by a majority of parties concerned. Under the premise, an
external impact (bomb explosion) is exclusively a
sole cause. Any other cause is confined in a detention cabin. To liberate them
from the containment, the authenticity of the premise flawless plane must be
checked first.
Preparatory guidance
To check Flawless plane,
readers need neither sophisticated knowledge nor advanced tests, but only high
school class knowledge and a simple home test:
Prepare
a roll of toilet paper. Test 1: Grasp
its open end, pull out the paper by 50 (cm). Pull
the paper at its open end. The paper snaps easily
at a necessary length. The cut happened at an
artificially-made weak line at suitable intervals for users’ convenience. Look
at the cut place, it’s a strait line. Test
2: Strech the unit length of paper (no weak
line in it) at both ends. It needs greater pull force to cut, and the cut takes
place at an arbitrary position. Look at the cut section. It shows an irregular
shape. Test 3: By a pair of scissors,
cut a unit length of paper at its center only half of its width. Pull it at its
both ends. The paper is cut at this
artificially made weak point. The cut section comprises a half strait and a
half is irregular, corresponding to the
original status of the cut section.
The
tests tell several principles in cutting off, i.e.; (i) if there’s a weak line in a specimen, cutting off takes
place at the section where the weak line was, and the shape of the cut is the
same as the shape of the weak line, (ii)
if there’s no weak line in the specimen, the cut happens at anarbitrarily section
in the specimen, and the shape of the cut is irregular, (iii) if the weak line is not full but partial in a section,
the cut happens at the section where the weak line is, and the shape of the cut
is strait in the part where it had weak line and irregular in the part where it
had no weak line.
This
report shows an example of simpler than but similar to M-event. The case was in
Japan in 1960s. Tengu Bridge, an old suspension bridge, was in poor status, but
was still working. There was a local councilor who had petitioned the authority
to construct a new bridge, having insisted, ‘it
will collapse when a storm rises,’ but had been in vain. One stormy night, he
sawed its main steel rope at a point near from one of the anchors. The bridge
collapsed when the saw effort was on its half way. He said the bridge collapsed
as he had predicted. But the police didn’t overlook an odd feature of the cut section, i.e., the cut section’s
upper half was a plain cut but the lower half was irregular. They suspected an
act of sabotage. The councilor was arrested. Though the bridge really collapsed
when a storm blew over, nobody said, ‘the
storm destroyed the bridge.’ Everyone
agreed, ‘it collapsed by an artificial cut of the rope.’
In
M-event, though obvious evidence, i.e., a partially plain / partially irregular cut section
(worldwide circulating), no institution says,
‘the plane was destroyed by a residual weak point in the plane.’ Majority
of people (including Presidents and Prime Minister of leading nations) say, ‘it
was likely destroyed by bomb,’ despite no evidence.
Authenticity of premise of flawless plane
Analogy with Tengu Bridge fall
At the Teng Bridge site, it was found one of its main ropes was severed
near its anchor. The cut section was found upper half plain and lower half
irregular. Police suspected it was cut by a saw, because unless there was an
artificially made flaw, the cut section couldn’t show such a shape. There was a
person who had a motive to have done it. There was an eye witness. The saboteur
was arrested, and found guilty.
At the M-event site, it was found its rear body was severed from the
main body. The cut section showed upper side plain and lower side irregular. But
it was not taken into account. It was suspected a bomb explosion
severed the rear body and the plane crashed, because unless there was a bomb explosion,
the flawless plane couldn’t be severed in mid-air. There was a group who had a motive
to have done it. The group self-declared the responsibility for the act. But
there’s been no solid evidence to prove the scenario. The case has yet to have
a conclusion.
Though the material and the
object are different, i.e., the former is of steel strand rope and the latter
is of aluminum pipe fuselage, the scientific principle is the same for both. The difference in conclusion is caused by the indifference to
the particular shape of the cut sections. cf. Photo 2~5. If there’s somebody being aware of the
characteristics of the cut sections, he/she must suspect of the plane’s weak points.
The reason why the bomb
hypothesis wasn’t eager to be engaged in the cut section analysis is: the week
points in the plane was accidentally made, not by a particular person but by an unidentified population in a programmed - computerized - automation
system
that had no motive of the act. Further, it’s shored up by a belief in myth, flawless plane.
Ring stiffener
The indifference to the danger of
weak point by making structural discontinuity in a plane can be seen in a
design stage too. Readers can see a ring stiffener attached along the plain cut
section edge (the weld joint line). It neither stiffens the joint nor mitigates
the discontinuity at the joint, but weakens the joint and excercabate the discontinuity at the joint. In effect, it accelerates the fatigue cracks there. To stiffen the joint, the stiffener
should be placed not along but across the joint line.
General Design Specifications for Joint
As a joint is apt to be a weak
point, and if the strength of joint is weaker than the jointed bodies, the
structure cannot exhibit its full strength. Hence, in structural engineering,
it is generally so specified that the joint strength
must be greater than the one of the mother bodies.
It is also specified that it must be confirmed by breaking tests. That is, the specimen or the
structure should not be cut at the joint.
Probably, the tests were done
abide by these rules, and passed the regulations set up. But in M-event, actually
the plane was cut at joints. The matter in issue
is in the methods of preparing specimens and loading. The specimen must be such
that that contains possible material inhomogeneousness in it, as the fatigue
start with such a point and spreads to all over the weld
joint. The loading must include the alternating loading with possible intensity
(amplitude) and frequency (period).
Of course the best way to deal
with the matter comprehensively and thoroughly is a full-scale fuselage test in
a plane dock, [12].
Another issue is the
kind of a joint. It may be necessary to consider a friction joint as an
alternative to the weld joint. The weight of a friction joint becomes heavier
than a weld joint. But a friction joint is more
stable than weld joint in terms of fatigue.
In the cut sections
seen at the crash site are classified into three patterns, viz. (1)
mainly plain and partially irregular (cockpit), (2) fully plain (tail)
and (3)
half plain half irregular (rear body). It means that each cut off section had
each weak
section. The premise of flawless plane must
fade out in every study. The weak section itself is enough to cause the plane crash. The plane
crash does not need bomb explosion; much less if there can be found no evidence of bomb,
CONCLUSIONS
This report summarizes its conclusions as follows:
(1)
Russian national investigation team has induced its bomb hypothesis based on the premise of flawless plane.
(2) Egyptian international investigation
team has announced its hypothesis based on the data in FDR / CVR etc and the
facts found by site investigations etc. It says, ‘no evidence of terrorist or
criminal acts has been found, so far.’ It leaves all the hypotheses be alive, but practically alienated the bomb hypothesis. The
team will make efforts to find a true cause in due diligent studies.
(3) The Writer
has found weak sections resided in the plane, and deduced the cockpit bulkhead
rupture happened, based on applicable data and facts.
(4)
The plane was not flawless. If a flawless body is broken by force, its cut
sections can’t be plain. The plain cut sections seen at the crash site evidence
the weak sections’ existence in the cockpit.
(5) The cause
is common for all the past three events. In the past events, the cut section in
the cockpit wasn’t visible. Hence the cause was induced. But in M-event, it was
clearly shown. Hence, the cause was deduced with the evidence. From many
particular similarities, it’s reasonable to say, ‘the four events have a common cause.’
(6)
The separation of the rear body isn’t the cause of the plane crash, but a
consequence of the cause happened in the cockpit. The cause of the rear body
separation may be the weld joint worked out in 2001 repair works.
This
report’s recommendations are as follows:
(1) In
a short run, it is urgent to revise the pilots’ flight operation manuals, by adding
a new article, ‘Whenever any control system shows more than 3 (sec.) irregularity, pilots must set the elevator
at a rapid descent position without delay, and see the situation. If needed,
stop engines. When a plane has descended to 2000~3000-m altitude, resume
ordinary level flying, send distress calls and seek an emergency landing on
waters, if possible at a nearest accessible airport.’
(8)
As a technical counter-measure, an urgent review is recommended on the method
of joint especially at the section where a structure is discontinuous. This
report recommends a friction joint instead of weld joint. If weld joint is used
at least fixation of a ring stiffener along a weld joint must be stopped.
Instead, consider plates to be welded across a weld line at suitable pitches.
(9)
At the same time, as a long run measure, it need construct a full-scale air
pressure – temperature adjustable plane dock.
GLOSSARY
UE: European Union, US: The United States of America, UK: The United Kingdom, IS: The Islamic State, BEA: Bureau d'Enquêtes
Accident (Accident Enquiry Bureau), Paris,
M-event: Metrojet Airbus
crash event, L-event: Lufthansa
Germanwings Airbus crash event, A-event:
AirAsia Airbus crash event, F-event:
Air France Flight 447 Airbus A330-220 crash event, CVR: Cockpit Voice Recorder, FDR: Flight Data Recorder, GL: Ground Level, GPS: Global Positioning System, PP: Plastic Portion, DP: Datum Plane, DL: Datum Line, MSWL:
Mean Sea Water Level, nc: number of
cycles, IED:
Improvised Explosive Device,
ABIDS: Acquired Basic Iintelligence
Deficiency Syndromes,
REFERENCES
[1] ‘Pilot response led to AirAsia crash into Java Sea,’ www.cnn.com/2015/12/01,
Dec 1, 2015 -
[2] Germanwings crash: Co-pilot Lubitz 'practiced rapid
descent',
[4] Christian Roger, ‘The scandal of
the Airbus A320 crash at
Habsheim, France,’ www.crashdehabsheim.net/
Jun 26, 1998
[5] Reuters, ‘Egypt says no evidence of terrorism in Russian Metrojet plane crash,’
December 14,
2015 - 9:16pm
[6] Mada Masr, ‘Rebutting Egypt report, Russia insists bomb
brought down Metrojet plane in Sinai as inquiry continues,’ Monday, December 14, 2015 - 21:43
[7] Sohei
Matsuno, ‘SEA LEVEL
RISE AND COASTAL FLOODING (JAKARTA),’
[10] Sohei
Matsuno,
“JAKARTA-FLOOD PREVENTION BY TRAINING DIKE vs. GIANT SEA WALL,” www.iba.ac.id/
[11] Sohei Matsuno, “CAUSE & PREVENTION OF COASTAL FLOOFING, JAKAETA FLOODING AS A CASE,“ www.iba.ac.id/
[12] Sohei
Matsuno et al, ‘A CAUSAL STUDY ON THE AIRASIA AIRBUS CRASH EVENT,’
www.iba.ac.id/ 2015
[13] Sohei Matsuno, Asmadi,
‘A STUDY ON LUFTHANSA GERMANWINGS AIRBUS CRASH Event,’ www.iba.ac.id/documents/,
2015
[14] S. Matsuno, ‘STUDY ON
LUFTHANSA GERMANWINGS AIRBUS CRASH,’
www.iba.ac.id/
[15] Dr. Sohei Matsuno1), MS. Pujiono , ‘LEARN BEA'S PRELIMINARY REPORT ON
LUFTHANSA CRASH,’ iba.ac.id/documents/
[16] Sohei Matsuno, Zul Hendri, ‘A STUDY ON THE CAUSE OF KUKAR BRIDGE COLLAPSE,’ www.iba.ac.id Jan 6, 2012.
[17] Sohei Matsuno, Zul Hendri, ‘’A STUDY ON THE CAUSE
OF KUKAR BRIDGE
COLLAPSE (sequel),’ www.iba.ac.id/
[18] Sohei Matsuno, ‘UIBA'S AND HAPPY PONTIST'S KUKAR BRIDGE COLLAPSE THEORY,’www.iba.ac.id/documents/83
EPILOGUE
While writing this report, COP21 was held. It
concluded an agreement on climate, with the aim of keeping global warming below
2°C. New projects of Sustainable
Innovation were set up. 50,000 participants from government, intergovernmental,
non-government organizations, UN agencies etc cheered. It’s a global scale bomb
hypothesis of Metrojet-event. The cause of climate change isn’t global warming by
green-gas emission into the atmosphere, but seawater warming by nuclear-plant’s
cooling-water discharge into the sea, [7]~[11].
The projects do more harm than good. Suppose solar/wind energy replaces the conventional
one, what happen are O2 / food deficiency and a lengthy stay of
harmful gas at industrial-urban areas. The solar energy is only power to
produce O2 and food by photosynthesis. Wind energy works to
homogenize imbalance in atmosphere. It’ll be the Writer’s next subject. For the
prospective report, he neither expects nor solicits a direction change of the
stampede. He only hopes to go down in history.
No comments:
Post a Comment