http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/mh370-flash-fire-theory-rejected-by-air-crash-experts/news-story/ab0a8856f8001e989d6554669219e7d5
 

MH370 ‘flash fire’ theory rejected by air crash experts

An alleged charred piece of wreckage from MH370 as shown on the Seven Network’s news.

 

International aviation experts have debunked renewed speculation that a “flash fire” brought down Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

Air crash investigators and an aerospace engineer say logic combined with the known facts work against the theory, and that the provenance of a supposedly charred piece of wreckage is ­suspect.

They also describe a recent US Federal Aviation Administration airworthiness directive regarding replacing oxygen mask tubes on Boeing 777s as routine and in this case irrelevant since it would not have applied to MH370.

The FAA had issued the directive to replace “the low-pressure oxygen flex hoses in the gaseous passenger oxygen system” of some 777 models because they could “potentially be conductive” and lead to oxygen fires. But Malaysia Airlines and the FAA have confirmed the model of 777 used on flight MH370 was not equipped with the oxygen system in question.

“The Boeing 777 used in flight MH370 would not have been affected by this AD,” the FAA said.

Airlines that do have the model have six years to comply.

The FAA directive was one of two developments this week which prompted renewed discussion about whether a fire could explain the loss of MH370, which disappeared on March 8, 2014, on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to ­Beijing with 239 people aboard.

Wing flap is part of MH370

US lawyer Blaine Gibson, who is mounting his own amateur quest to find pieces of MH370 on the African coast and Indian Ocean islands, claims he had found “the most significant piece of potential wreckage” in the form of a blackened piece of panel which he handed over to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

“The top layer of paint has been singed, scorched black,” Mr Gibson told Channel 7 in Perth.

A spokeswoman for the ATSB said the object had “yet to be examined” and “comments about the state of the debris are entirely speculative”.

A member of the independent group of experts investigating the MH370 mystery, British aerospace engineer Richard Godfrey, said a photo of the debris “shows burn marks underneath the ­location of a fastener or bracket”.

“This implies that the item, even if from MH370, was thrown on a fire (possibly a beach fire) after the crash.”

Mr Godfrey is one of three experts who say the idea that a fire could explain the loss of MH370 does not add up. “No aircraft with a fire on board managed to fly for much more than 20 minutes, let alone seven hours,” he said.

Veteran US pilot and air crash investigator John Cox said: “In every other case where a fire has existed (eg, UPS 006, Asiana 991, SwissAir 111) the crew has made a radio call and initiated a diversion. MH370 did not do either of those.”

Another investigator described the fire theory as “all but impossible”. “Basic logic says that such a fire does not make any sense when you break it down from an investigation point of view,” he said.

Reader comments on this site are moderated before publication to promote lively and civil debate. We encourage your comments but submitting one does not guarantee publication. We publish hundreds of comments daily, and if a comment is rejected it is likely because it does not meet with our comment guidelines, which you can read here. No correspondence will be entered into if a comment is declined.

8 COMMENTS
12 people listening

 

 
NEWEST | OLDEST | TOP COMMENTS
graham
 
 
 
 

 

Blaine Gibson described as "amateur quest"

Richard Godfrey described "member independent group of experts"

Unhelpful. 
 

'In every case a radio call', your dreaming.

'No aircraft with a fire on board managed to fly for more than 20 minutes', rubbish, look up Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and John Young's efforts in the Korean War; any number in Vietnam. Good pilots bring home some pretty shabby machines.

Mick, I take it the modification to 9M-MRO was in relation to the Egyptair MS667 incident.

There were two eyewitness reports of a fire; one from a Vung Tau oil rig and one from a lady on a yacht. Fires may have been suppressed then flared up again.

On the assumption that the aircraft was airborne and not floating on the sea after a controlled forced landing;

I suggest it is time to consult NASA and get some real mathematicians to analyse the satellite data.

Keep an open mind on this and leave no Tern unstoned. 
 


 

 

Mick
 
 
 
 

 

@graham Yes, graham, the AD came off the back of the Egyptair MS 667 fire.   Boeing issued a number of recommendations as a result of that fire:

Alert Service Bulletin 777-35A0027, dated 15 December 2011, recommending that operators of early model B777 airplanes replace low pressure oxygen hoses with non-conductive low pressure oxygen hoses located in the flight deck; and 

Service Bulletin 777-33-0042, dated 9 January 2012, recommending that B777 operators inspect and if necessary repair the captain's and first officer's oxygen light plate wiring. 

Alert Service Bulletin 777-35A0027, which was only a recommendation for early model B777s, was superseded by FAA AD 2012-13-05, which was a mandatory requirement for all B777s. 

This stuff is all a matter of the public record.   It is appalling that an aviation reporter manages to consistently botch this sort of factual information.

 

John
 
 
 
 

@Mick @graham I vaguely recall some aircraft fire where the oxygen pipes reportedly had rubber caps, which of course burnt and released oxygen to feed the fire.  Was that SR111 or another accident?
 

Mick
 
 
 
 

 

@John   The caps on the crew oxygen system on SR111 were aluminium.   However, in the course of the investigation, it was found that the heat from the electrical fire would have been sufficient to have caused the caps to fail shortly before end of flight, which may have contributed to the intensity of the fire just prior to impact.

By the time the caps might have failed that airplane was uncontrolled and uncontrollable. 

That said, I believe that a fault with MH370's oxygen system played a significant contributory role in its disappearance. 

 

 
Mick
 
 
 
 

 

In keeping with The Australian's astounding ability to botch facts regarding MH370 today were treated to more misinformation, this time regarding a mandatory airworthiness directive for B777 operators to replace the low-pressure oxygen hoses associated with the crew's oxygen system (the hoses in question attach the crew's quick-donning oxygen masks to the oxygen system) issued by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

Contrary to what we're told in this article, FAA AD 2012-13-05 requires B777 operators to "... Replace the low-pressure oxygen hoses with non-conductive low-pressure oxygen hoses in the flight compartment ..." and sets a time frame for compliance of "Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD ...".   The directive's effective date was 16 August 2012. 

And if Mr Higgins had bothered consulting the Factual Information Report released by The Malaysian ICAO Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team for MH370 well over a year ago he would know that not only did the FAA directive apply to the Malaysian Airlines B777 fleet but that MAS had in fact actioned that directive on 9M-MRO (the B777 that operated as MH370) on 17 January 2014.

 
 
3rd May 2018, 07:39
  #26 (permalink)  
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lower Silesia
Age: 71
Posts: 25
Blacksheep said
The theory is plausible, but I believe the oxygen hose SB was accomplished on this aircraft during the last maintenance visit some weeks prior to the event?
In a very similar catastrophe, China Airlines 747 Flt CI-611 broke up in the Taiwan Straits in May 2002 - upon reaching cruise altitude. Luckily the NTSB and Boeing reps sent to Taipei insisted upon further wreckage recovery and discovered a tailstrike area fuselage doubler which, when removed, disclosed nicotine stains on the deeply scratched external skin beneath. That discovery dated the "repair" to having been prior to the smoking restrictions. It further enabled a probe further back in China Airlines records to a 1980 tailstrike 22 years earlier. Records had been changed post-accident to show a Boeing prescribed permanent repair had replaced the temporary patch repair - except that it hadn't been implemented - as disclosed by the 2nd wreckage recovery. The temporary patch had become the magical permanent repair.

It took 22 years of short-haul for the tailstrike scratches beneath the temporary doubler to propagate further with each pressurization cycle, until that spider-web of scratch-generated fatigue cracking joined up and the fuselage ruptured along its length. Not exactly the same as the single row of rivets patch debacle that lost JAL its first 747 via total loss of controllability, but a fairly equivalent fiasco.

I'm aware that MAS very early on claimed to have completed that crew oxy hose Service Bulletin, but in that tinyurl above you will note that the oxy-hose SB was thereafter applied to every Boeing type and model, including the 787. This was done subtly over a lengthy period (in fact for years after MH370's loss, and in a cornucopia AD document covering a myriad of models)....... but it amply demonstrates that the 1996 767 hull-loss event, the Nefertiti 772 ramp event (and the others cited) all failed to be addressed with sufficient urgency (The NTSB said so quite scathingly after the Egyptair 772 loss). The AD that applied to MH370 had a with effect date only a few weeks prior to 9M-MRO's loss. It's not beyond belief that someone sharp-pencilled the SB's enactment into the aircraft maint records AFTER the MH370 loss.... particularly in light of what was done after CI-611's loss (a fraudulent entry which was easily proven to have been the case).

CI-611 Report:
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20020525-0

 
 
15th May 2018, 14:37
  #52 (permalink)  
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lower Silesia
Age: 71
Posts: 25
As I was saying in my earlier posts in this thread and at http://tinyurl.com/or9bzf2  and at  http://tinyurl.com/gqpnwcn

AD 2018-09-12 SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-300, and 747-400 series airplanes. This AD requires replacing certain low pressure oxygen flex-hoses with new non-conductive low-pressure oxygen flex-hoses in the gaseous passenger oxygen system in airplanes equipped with therapeutic oxygen. This AD also requires a general visual inspection of the low-pressure passenger oxygen system to ensure there is minimum clearance of the oxygen system components from adjacent structure and systems. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD was prompted by reports of low-pressure flex-hoses of theflightcrew oxygen system that burned through due to inadvertent (??) electrical current from a short circuit.
They forgot to add that the fuselage side also burnt through in all these instances (as noted at the links above, and at earlier post MH370 AD's for all Boeing types including 787's). Depressurization plus unavailability of Flt Crew oxygen +ITCZ turbulence of flight through CB's in March = disrupted headings but static after spit-out from heavy cloud/turb. Flight to South and clear of ITCZ and climbing [autopilot off with weight redn due burn-off] plus unique characteristics of 777 flight control system = MH370
DATES: This AD is effective May 30, 2018.
  In Support of the Oxygen Flash Fire Theory for MH370  (per http://tinyurl.com/or9bzf2 )

 One possible cause for an MH370 flash fire was the flawed LP oxygen hose that incorporated the conductive internal helical-coil spring that was inset as an anti-kink measure. An advanced version of this flexible hose that encased that anti-kink spring between two layers of hose ("protected" by an inner and an outer casing) failed to succeed in preventing a fire due to its exposed cut ends of conductive stainless steel spring (as found in the ABX Air 767 oxygen fire in San Francisco - N799AX). However there are other sources of oxygen ignition.  The FAA's ATSRAC (Aging Transport Systems Rule-Making Advisory Committee) stated in their final report (pursuant to the Swissair 111 follow-up investigation) that chafing of unsupported lengths of wiring were the primary cause of airborne electrical fires. Both the Cairo SU-GBP and San Francisco 767 NTSB investigators also found unsupported lengths of electrical wires and also wires that were illegally bound to oxygen pipes along their lengths. During a fleetwide check of 777's, the Egyptian investigators also found unsupported lengths of wire beneath the console cover and close adjacent to the First Officer's oxygen regulator feed-lines. A check of all 777's found that this was present in all 777's built to date - with the inference being (and ultimately an actual admission) that it was an assembly line flaw (and contrary to the Boeing design spec - which had been properly implemented on the flight-deck's other side pilot's console). A further significant observation was that almost universally (i.e. in all airliner types) the entire length of overboard pressure relief discharge oxygen piping was undesirably ungrounded along its entire length (i.e. from the "bottle-bank" of cylinders to the blow-out pressure relief green disc in the fuselage side). How come? These pipes were all run, as a Boeing standard, through rubber-lined stand-offs. Another possible source of electrical fire is cited in the SFO ABX Air report as being the Audio Select Panel (and if this had shorted out in MH370 it would easily explain why comms with ATC, between pilots and the aft cabin crew may have been impossible). Additionally, Service Bulletin 777-33-0042, dated 9 January 2012, recommended that B777 operators inspect and (if necessary) repair the captain's and first officer's oxygen light plate wiring. So the conclusion must be that within those side consoles, co-habiting with the oxygen lines, were quite a few wiring looms and harnesses that may have been the culprit. You could also review the MAS claim of having replaced the faulty hoses in the light of the China Airlines Flt CI-600 maint records of having made a Boeing Repair Scheme skin replacement repair to the tail-strike that ultimately caused the break up of its B742 (B-18255) - some twenty years later. Wreckage recovered from the Taiwan Straits found that the repair had never taken place (i.e. it was the original cosmetic doubler (only) that had remained riveted in place over those two decades, allowing the tail-scrape's grooves to propagate and spiderweb into a hull breakup).

Those "experts" poo-pooing the oxygen flash fire theory are disregarding the blow-torch effect and oxygen enrichment DDT trigger (Deflagration to Detonation Transition) that can rupture the hull and easily extinguish any flight-deck flash fire via a depressurization. This is explained in the main document tinyurl.com/or9bzf2 (i.e. how a combination of blow-torch localized hull-weakening beneath the side console, cabin pressure differential at cruise height and the sudden overpressure spike of a DDT event could complete the hull rupture and evacuate the oxygen-enriched atmosphere from the sealed flight-deck). Hull rupture is to be seen in all oxygen ramp fires. It's the one common denominator for ramp and cruise height oxygen fires.

Oxygen enrichment is an insidious process, much akin to carbon monoxide poisoning. Oxygen enrichment is undetectable due to oxygen being colourless, odourless and tasteless. If this was the MH370 scenario, it's quite possible that the pilots simply perceived what they could see at night of the sub-console arcing and glow of the oxygen blowtorch as being a simple electrical arcing resulting from a short. Their priority would have been to leave that seat and attack it with a Halon fire extinguisher (which is quite ineffective against an oxygen fire). In fact, within an enclosed space, the Halon gas is known to have an undesired effect upon pilots' consciousness, vision and alertness. In a confined space it is beyond distracting, according to the FAA's own testing. Those pilots would have gone on 100% oxygen at the first sign of fumes and smoke, but one of them may not have been breathing other than ambient air. The other pilot would've been getting his oxygen at that early stage however - as both pilots breathe from the same cylinder source (link to image)

A rough rule of thumb from reading through the catalogued library of oxygen fire accidents at NASA's White Sands NM oxygen fire research unit, is that a build-up to around an 87% enrichment flash point for a DDT event would take around a minute (only) - once the flt deck's aircon air swap-out is factored in. Oxygen doesn't burn so the build-up rate is only affected by the extent of the leak (i.e. hole size and flow-rate). You must think of oxygen enrichment as a soaking. All oxygen "wetted" surfaces in an enriched environment become combustible, no matter what they're made of..... but only the wetted surface. The flash-over will do little more than leave surface scorch marks, sooting and some residual distortion of plastics, tripped circuit breakers and a few systems outages. Damage will be quite superficial once there's a depressurization (either due to a DDT or blow-torch). A pilot facially protected from a flash-over, and breathing 100% oxygen up to that point, might be able to dial in a course reversal, disengage the autopilot and enter a nose-down emergency descent (as an instinctive reaction to an aural depressurization alert) - before passing out due to hypoxia. The prior collapse of the other pilot would be an inexplicable event as well as a major distraction for him - and could also explain the lack of comms with ATC. As in the Air France 447 scenario, a sudden quandary tends to paralyze thought and action.

Those who have dismissed the oxygen flare fire theory (and evidence of a fire on the panels found recently by wreck-searcher Blaine Gibson -see image at top of this page) should re-examine the whole scenario for its viability. Boeing will be doing its best to discredit the theory, as a lot of litigation money will ride upon whatever conclusions are ultimately reached. If you need to indulge in denial as a reflex action, you also need to dismantle the entire theory with precision. Without that process there is nil credibility in a bland rejection. An oxygen flare fire is really "a fire without any future" - once the hull is holed. Accept that as a fact and digest "the rest" and you are well on the way to seeing the MH370 saga as "not really a mystery".

Now having reflected upon this MH370 theory, consider the crash of Egyptair MS-804 (where the pilots' oxygen bottles are located beneath the F/O's seat) - and the Fly-by-Wire concept is completely different (i.e. its fallback Flight Control modes would never allow an A320 family airplane to just "fly ever onwards" to fuel exhaustion). But all the other clues are very similar to the MH370 scenario. Wikipedia link to MS-804 crash

Link to image of the 777 Crew supplementary Oxygen bottle beneath the flight deck (note the wiring beneath and alongside it)
This post deleted and poster permanently banned What have they got to hide (on behalf of Boeing? ==>> see "banned/deleted from Pprune" at link)

Post below found to be offensive and deleted by PPrune (and poster WeeWinkyWilly was then banned from Pprune) - it was deleted from this link (and the whole thread was then soon padlocked to preclude further commentary).

It was a response to a query by posters "Wiggy" and "Ulysse"

Posted on Jet Blast forum because all other forums were far more strictly censoring any MH370-related posts

post by WeeWinkyWilly:

The 777 FCS is totally compensatory and has ultimate built-in redundancy with numerous fall-back, fail-safe and fault-defeating configurations. Even when the APU fuel supply line dries up and the RAT is deployed as sole power provider, the FCS is still true blue to its specs. That's what makes the fuel exhaustion death-dive shown in the risible 60 Minutes program so ludicrous - and the recently released Larry Vance book on MH370 so off-base. I could tell that Martin Dolan (ex-ATSB chief) was in squirm mode. He's left the theory at the links below still sitting for inspection on ATSB's website (where it was posted many years ago now). After the 2nd engine flamed out and a descent set in, the aircraft would have ditched in a fairly optimal wings-level clean attitude. The simulator flown by airlines is quite different in the reproduction of this FCS inherent stability characteristic- but Boeing's "iron bird" tech simulator faithfully reproduces the flight characteristics. That's why "BOEING KNOWS" and the FAA is now making sure that the oxygen hose fire "fix" is well and truly "in"..

One advantage of a very Sophisticated Flight Control System -> Its sensors are anticipatory:

Auto-pilot OFF, a 777's uncommanded wing-drop is wing-leveled within micro-seconds - which leads to a very stable auto-pilot OFF heading stability (except when severe turbulence intervenes -as in ITCZ conditions or orographic turbulence (such as standing waves off of Sumatran Mountain ranges) - and all inherent stability bets are then off due to convective or leeward terrain generated air-mass mix complexity). But upon regaining clear air, the ejectment heading is then maintained +/- around 5 degrees max for very long periods (i.e. longitudinally sinusoidal to a very very minor degree). Similarly, the pitch phugoid damping is excellent and highly responsive to mild disruptions. With no pax or crew movement, the fuel burn-off just allows a continuous stable climb-rate of a few FPM. As the airplane ended up on a Southerly heading after the last ejectment, it was climbing into quite smooth cloud-free air to the south of the seasonal ITCZ band, and increasingly with a greatly reduced chance of bumbling into a CuNim and having the new base course heading change at all - compared to unpiloted ITCZ flight). Boeing is very much aware of the threat due to pilot incapacitation following crew supplementary oxygen fire and its typical trademark of rapid fuselage burn-through (image link). NASA has had a dedicated section for many years (decades in fact) accumulating statistics on nasty oxygen fires. No need to ask why. Read the links. The main blurb (1st link below) satisfactorily explains all the other "mystery" facets of MH370 as well. Second link is just an Exec Summary (and never kept updated).

tinyurl.com/or9bzf2  and tinyurl.com/gqpnwcn

Discussion was becoming centred on the latest 15 May 2018 release of yet another electrically conductive oxygen hose Airworthiness Directive by the FAA. See it here

 
  A Final thought on 777 Autopilot OFF Flight

Even though this theory has been out there since mid 2014, Boeing has seen fit not to refute the fact that the unique 777 Flight Control System is quite capable of maintaining a virtually straight course over great distances - autopilot OFF. Why would that be? Is it actually because they know that they should not rebut something that is factually correct? In the long history of aircraft accidents, such quintessential truisms are traditionally never contested or even raised or opposed by aircraft manufacturers. Why? Because ultimately, proof of their factuality always tends to backfire and totally cut their legs out from under them. Therefore, in a similar context, Boeing found it easier to redesign and incorporate a new rudder control valve in the 737 than ever admit that the existing one was possibly flawed, could stick and was thus potentially vulnerable to jamming/reversal. It minimizes the corporate damage from civil litigation.

So, is it even possible for an aircraft such as the 777 to transit many miles autopilot OFF and maintain a consistent base course? The easy answer is why not? The aircraft's FCS will instantly pick up an uncommanded wing drop and oppose any gust-induced yaw. Instantly means microseconds (i.e. in smooth air no wing drop will actually occur because it is already being sensed and opposed). In mild turbulence, the end-game L/R effect over a period is that any deviation is cancelled out and would show as an infinitesimal meander (or a narrow breadth longitudinally sinusoidal flight-path). Inherent stability in the vertical flight profile would likewise just permit a slow-rate climb over a lengthy period as fuel burnt off. After all, fuel is transferring automatically and there's no fore-aft movement at all in the fuselage (to disrupt a static longitudinal trim-state). After the aircraft left the ITCZ band of convective activity, and is spat out of a thunderstorm or large CB onto its final Southerly heading and clear of mountain waves, the over-ocean air as it climbed would be increasingly smooth..... and conducive to undisrupted well-damped flight - ultimately nodding away slightly in pitch at its absolute service ceiling.

Banned/Deleted from Pprune forum...

There are links in the main document to official descriptions of the 777's flight control system - its capabilities and its designed impermeability to system-induced failures due to its built-in triple redundancy. My insistence in bringing up this aspect of the MH370 saga has led to my permanent banning under any pseudonym by the Boeing surrogate-owned and sponsored Pprune Forum. Each time I get a post up there after serving a qualifying apprenticeship period in a new guise, those Boeing-owned mods quickly respond by banning the poster and deleting his posts. That might be seen by some to be indicative of a high degree of sensitivity to such revelations and irrefutable facts. It's really a well-concealed exercise in self-incrimination on their part. Well-concealed? Poof, and you just disappear off their web-space.

Look into the history of the company that runs Pprune.org for Boeing. It's replete with such instances of mob rule. Look at this link (i.e. wikipedia's factual expose -review under the sub-headings of both "controversies" and "references") - then enlarge your Google search on InternetBrands Inc. The Mob rules. The interesting fact is that they also control so many other free forums, lawyer forums, union blogs and subscription sites. Unlike Facebook, they won't be called up before Congress to explain their immoral turpitudes. They are proxy malefactors and miscreants and they "doctor" their site's information. Do you yet feel manipulated?

Look at their very many "InternetBrands Inc" courtcases (link). The clincher (for contrived secrecy) is that the MH370 thread at this link is now padlocked (preventing any further posts by anybody). It's the only thread ever to be padlocked on Pprune's "Jet Blast". With the advent of InternetBrands Inc (and their ilk) the control of the internet (and its gullible consumer herd) entered a whole new era.