Qantas mid-air decompression

[CockpitCat]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080725045922.2jcj8lko&show_article=1

According to news.24.com:



Manila - A Qantas flight en route to Australia from London made an emergency stop in Manila on Friday, and airport authorities discovered a big hole in the Boeing 747-400's fuselage near the right wing.

There were no injuries, but some of the 350 passengers vomited after disembarking, said Manila International Airport Authority deputy manager for operations Octavio Lina.

"There is a big hole on the right side near the wing," he said, adding it was 2.5 to 3 yards (metres) in diameter. The flooring gave way, exposing some of the cargo beneath, he said. The ceiling around the area also collapsed.

[Longreach747]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/07/25/1216492712146.html

some more info and pics...decent sized hole.

[Lions]

Hi there just read this

MANILA (AFP) - - A Qantas Boeing 747 flying to Melbourne made an emergency landing in Manila on Friday after a dramatic mid-air rupture that left a "gaping hole" in its fuselage, officials and passengers said.
<TABLE class=ad_slug_table cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!--Vendor: Yahoo, Format: Standard --><SCRIPT language=javascript>if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();window.yzq_d['EofHqnxseNI-']='&U=13fueavcv%2fN%3dEofHqnxseNI-%2fC%3d666071.12794205.13077168.3272417%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d5398745%2fV%3d1';</SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT>
Stunned passengers reported how the jumbo, which originated in London and made a stop in Hong Kong, plunged 20,000 feet (6,000) metres in an "absolutely terrifying" ordeal.

A Qantas spokeswoman said the plane, carrying 346 passengers and 19 crew, diverted to Manila where it was now undergoing inspection on the ground.

"There was a terrific boom, and bits of wood and debris just flew forward into first (class) and the oxygen masks dropped down," June Kane, a passenger from Melbourne, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

"We were told that one of the rear doors, a hole had blown into it, but I've since looked at the plane and there's a gigantic gaping hole in the plane.

"It was absolutely terrifying, but I have to say everyone was very calm," she added, speaking from the Philippine capital.

Qantas chief executive officer Geoff Dixon said initial inspections showed the aircraft had sustained a hole in its fuselage, and it was currently being inspected by engineers.

He said the flight crew performed emergency procedures after oxygen masks were deployed and there were no reports of any injuries.

Dixon said the Australian Transportation Safety Bureau and Civil Aviation Safety Authority had been notified.

Manila airport operations officer Ding Lima said the aircraft lost cabin pressure shortly after leaving Hong Kong bound for Melbourne.

"The captain of the aircraft immediately called the (Manila) control tower for an immediate landing," Lima told local radio.

"There is a big hole in the belly of the aircraft near the right wing about three metres in diameter," he added.

Flight QF30, which took off from Hong Kong at 9:00am (0100 GMT), had been due to arrive in Melbourne at 1145 GMT, according to the Qantas website.

Lorena Dimaya, a Qantas assistant supervisor in Manila, said the aircraft had landed safely just after 11:00am local time and the incident had not been "life threatening."

She said the plane had taken off from Hong Kong when it "encountered some technical problems and requested to be diverted to Manila, where it made an emergency landing."

Passenger June Kane said the problem seemed to centre on the baggage compartment of the plane.

"I'm looking at the plane now and on the left-hand side, just forward of the wing, there's a gaping hole from the wing to the underbody," she said.

"It's about two metres by four metres and there's baggage hanging out so you assume that there's a few bags that may have gone missing.

Passengers praised the crew for landing the plane safely.

"We heard a very large bang, the oxygen masks came out. But the crew was very calm and everything was fine," said Phil Rescall, a 40-year-old man from England travelling to Australia for work.

"I think we were all very lucky."

"The crew were terrific, they did a great job," another passenger, Brendan McClements, said. "Everyone gave them a round of applause as we landed."

<SCRIPT>YAHOO.EU.Messenger = new Messenger();var sStoryHeadline="Qantas jumbo makes emergency landing after mid-air drama"+'%0A';var sStoryLink="http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080725/tts-philippines-australia-air-qantas-inc-2c863b4.html"+'%0A';var sDefaultMsg = 'Check out this story on Yahoo! News:';</SCRIPT>

[Cargo Runner]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44861000/jpg/_44861901_cdc3a227-9e51-48f9-9419-26adfaa24bb7.jpg

bbc news

[sjwk]

According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7524733.stm),
The plane is reported to have rapidly lost altitude, falling from 40,000ft to about 25,000ft.
Rather than 'falling', isn't that more likely to be the pilots descending to a safer altitude?

Steve.

[brianw999]

Rather than 'falling', isn't that more likely to be the pilots descending to a safer altitude?
Quite correct. Standard operating procedure would be to descend to around 12,000 feet into breathable air. The O2 mask system in the cabin is only good for around 10-15 minutes of supply.

[N-ONE]

Saw some video on the news....nasty. Damage on the R/H lower fuselage taking out the fwd wing-body fairing. Its early yet and no news yet on engine failure but is this in a possible engine burst zone if it were to spit a fan blade? Any of you 747 experts can comment?

[Longreach747]

not sure you'd find many heavy 744's just out of HK on a 9hr flight cruising at 40,000 feet, I read that it was at 290 & descended to 10,000.

[MCM]

Longreach, yes you'd be right, its more likely they were in the range of 29,000 to 33,000 depending on the weight. Certainly not 40,000.

N-One... Not an engine failure.

Brian - You are correct, 14,000ft the pax can come off oxygen, and 10,000 the crew can. Oxygen endurance is a bit better than the 10-15 mins that you state on the 744 though.. that figure is more accurate for aircraft that have the individual generators installed (eg 767) rather than the bottles the 744 does.

Oh, BTW, don't believe CNN... they're saying 20,000ft in a matter of seconds, and a cargo door gave out :nonono:

[sjwk]

BBC now have an interview and video footage taken onboard during the approach and landing. All looks fairly calm, although the interviewer was asking how it felt to be on a plane knowing there was something wrong as it plunged thousands of feet...:roll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7525125.stm

Steve.

[CockpitCat]

Judging from the close-up photo's of the hole, it seems that baggage contents (clothes?) is visible. Also the surrounding metal seems to have been 'blown outwards'...possibly indicating an explosive event from within a cargo pallet?

[AVION1]

Something exploded in the cargo compartment...I wonder if QANTAS is required to carry a spare main tire in their Fly Away Box?, could be an over inflated spare tire blowing up?

[AVION1]

Lucky that the engines didn't take any F.O.D. from the debris..!!

[mawheatley]

"I'm looking at the plane now and on the left-hand side, just forward of the wing, there's a gaping hole from the wing to the underbody," she said.

I wonder if that matches the one on the right side of the fuselage - the one in Cargorunner's picture above!!

[Dmmoore]

The damage to the structural portion of the fuselage is less than a meter in diameter. The large hole in the wing faring is not critical to safety of flight, it is a drag reducing component.

The damage was caused from one of two possible events.

1. Structural failure caused by fatigue or previous damage.

2. Secondary damage after a explosive device detonated.

In either event, the remaining material will have residual evidence.

I eagerly await further word.

[Dmmoore]

"I'm looking at the plane now and on the left-hand side, just forward of the wing, there's a gaping hole from the wing to the underbody," she said.

I wonder if that matches the one on the right side of the fuselage - the one in Cargorunner's picture above!!

Left and right are totally dependent on your point of view. Statements in the press are always subject to the experience of the person doing the interview and the person being interviewed

[mawheatley]

Left and right are totally dependent on your point of view. Statements in the press are always subject to the experience of the person doing the interview and the person being interviewed

And of course the direction in which the aircraft was moving when it happened!!

[N-ONE]

Something exploded in the cargo compartment...I wonder if QANTAS is required to carry a spare main tire in their Fly Away Box?, could be an over inflated spare tire blowing up?

Airlines generally keep the flykit in the aft/bulk area where spare tires are kept in a partial inflated condition, fully inflated once installed. Dead tires will be depressurized before they are even pulled off the axle.

I do, however, think the oxygen bottles are in that area.

[AVION1]

I wonder how many pieces of luggages are floating somewhere in the midle of the Pacific today?
:-)

[Leftseat86]

That is bizarre. How old is this airframe?

[Vinco]

This may be a stupid question but is the cargo compartment pressurized?

[Leftseat86]

This may be a stupid question but is the cargo compartment pressurized?


I believe so.

[Crunk415balla]

It doesn't look like the "hole" itself is that big. It just looks like material around the hole was ripped off as well. At any rate, I'm just glad the crew got down okay. Leave it to the media to make you think explosion put the plane into a giant terrifying freefall.:roll:

I wonder what caused this, was the airframe getting old?

[alanh]

Here's a closeup.

http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/00816/PHILIPPINES-PLANE___816172a.jpg

What is that stuff sticking out? It looks more like trash bags than luggage.

[Dmmoore]

This may be a stupid question but is the cargo compartment pressurized?

Yes. The cargo compartments of the 747 are pressurized.

[AVION1]

Here's a closeup.

http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/00816/PHILIPPINES-PLANE___816172a.jpg

What is that stuff sticking out? It looks more like trash bags than luggage.

MAIL BAGS...PROBABLY DHL, FEDEX OR ANY OTHER COMPANY MAIL BAGS!
THEY ARE LIGHT WEIGHT, AND WAS THE FIRST STUFF THAT GOT SUCKED FROM THE CARGO COMPARTMENT..!..

[Crunk415balla]

MAIL BAGS...PROBABLY DHL, FEDEX OR ANY OTHER COMPANY MAIL BAGS!
THEY ARE LIGHT WEIGHT, AND WAS THE FIRST STUFF THAT GOT SUCKED FROM THE CARGO COMPARTMENT..!..
...What?

Anyway, I just saw on the local news, "A Qantas 747 plunges 20,000 feet over the Pacific full of terrified passangers."

Ugh.

[AJ]

AVION1, just so you know not one post you have made has been accurate.

[Leftseat86]

AVION1, just so you know not one post you have made has been accurate.

:lol:

[Longreach747]

That is bizarre. How old is this airframe?

VH-OJK Boeing 747-438 (Longreach) 25067 / 857 0091 0691 4 RR RB211-524G/H-T 396893 F14C50Y315 LQ-BH Newcastle

17 years give or take, Clovis.

[JordanD]

AVION1, just so you know not one post you have made has been accurate.
http://members.airsoftcanada.com/digital_assasin/Forum%20Stuff/Misc/oh_snap.gif

[LRJet Guy]

AVION1, just so you know not one post you have made has been accurate.

AJ.. You ARE the man....

[Crunk415balla]

Of course the media was comparing the incident to United 811 and Pan Am 103 saying it was just as bad.

[KBUF]

UA881, anyone?

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ua811/1.jpg

Ironically, it was a 747 as well, albeit a -100.

[WOSR]

Don, a QF LAME lives 3 houses away from me, he said this aircraft was known as the "sardine can"...a couple of years ago went for a retrofit at Avalon and the amount of corrosion and water damage they found was astonishing. There were rumours it was not worth doing it up.

This is the 4th 747-400 Qantas has had problems with corrosion or water ingestion with that have made light of the media, apparently there are others which never saw light of day, also in their 767 fleet.

Looking at a close up of the photo, would you say the bottom of the detached fairing had the bonding glue "washed away" over time? I doubt we are looking at an explosion here, there is no explosive damage to the bags in the compartment.

Passengers have manifested the floor immediately above the hole actually buckled and "sank" alarmingly.

The way I see it, the fairing detached, cleanly at the bottom but tore away part of the top skin of the area, andn in the process ripped the attached aluminium skin separating the area from the cargo hold.

[laroche spotters]

There's a video of the incident from the inside of the plane. Here is the link
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=fU7kIqC9XEo

[474218]

It doesn't look like the "hole" itself is that big.

If the stringer spacing is 8 inches and the frames spacing is 20 inch, both being industry standards, the miminum hole size is 64 inches high and 40 inches wide. That works out to 2560 square inches, which is BIG.

[AVION1]

AVION1, just so you know not one post you have made has been accurate.
After working for FEDEX and DHL for 22 years as A&P mechanic, I can tell you those bags are mail bags from those companies, I can even see a COMAT bag in there (company's materials).
If you don't believe me, that is fine. Have a great day and this is my last post to your forum..and my last visit to it.

[Dmmoore]

Don, a QF LAME lives 3 houses away from me, he said this aircraft was known as the "sardine can"...a couple of years ago went for a retrofit at Avalon and the amount of corrosion and water damage they found was astonishing. There were rumours it was not worth doing it up.
First hand information is always the best source.
Corrosion control is always a challenge for all of us. However I have seen corrosion end an aircraft's life but to end a 744's life the corrosion repair bill would need to total >10 million dollars. I have seen corrosion only repairs on a 742F total >1 million. None the less I'll be looking for the official cause of the event.
This is the 4th 747-400 Qantas has had problems with corrosion or water ingestion with that have made light of the media, apparently there are others which never saw light of day, also in their 767 fleet.
Such is always the case. I have seen totally clean (corrosion free) "C" checks but only on the first "C" check out of the factory.
Looking at a close up of the photo, would you say the bottom of the detached fairing had the bonding glue "washed away" over time? I doubt we are looking at an explosion here, there is no explosive damage to the bags in the compartment.
There is no "bonding glue" securing the fairing to the fuselage. However there is a "aerodynamic seal" which is applied as a fillet seal (applied around the edge) applied after the fairing is installed.
I too have doubts about a planned explosion but other things could have contributed to the events cause. Time will tell.
Passengers have manifested the floor immediately above the hole actually buckled and "sank" alarmingly.
I saw the same report but it was reported bulging up, then down which (if true) supports the case for a pressure surge in the lower lobe. Again, time will tell.
The way I see it, the fairing detached, cleanly at the bottom but tore away part of the top skin of the area, andn in the process ripped the attached aluminium skin separating the area from the cargo hold.
The detaching fairing was not a cause of the event. The fairing only attaches to the skin around the edges. All edges are visible in the photo and none of the damage is common to the fairing attach points. The bulkhead mounting the section still attached. For this bulkhead to have pulled the skin loose, the aft fairing would be damaged.

[screaming_emu]

Meh...defer/cdl it and continue to the destination ;-)

Kidding of course.

[pothole]

How about this idea for a chain of events:

Something from inside the cargo compartment caused damage to the aircraft skin from the inside, such as a cargo pallet that shifted. Could have been on this flight or could have been damage from an earlier event. Any damage would not have been visible from the outside as this area of the airplane skin is covered by the fairing.

If the damage was enough to cause a split in the aluminum skin, then theoretically Boeing's flap should have opened and limited the damage to one small square. Even if it was limited to one square, there would most likely be enough outrushing air from the decompression to have blown off the outer fairing.

Why was there more than one square of damage? Maybe some cargo item blocked the outrushing air and created a pressure spike (like has been considered for the Aloha 243 convertible accident).

Maybe corrosion also played a part in either making the damage site larger, or creating a weak structure that failed possibly with little or no damage from the cargo.

Interesting event.

pothole

[Dmmoore]

How about this idea for a chain of events:

Something from inside the cargo compartment caused damage to the aircraft skin from the inside, such as a cargo pallet that shifted. Could have been on this flight or could have been damage from an earlier event. Any damage would not have been visible from the outside as this area of the airplane skin is covered by the fairing.Possible however the damage would be visible from inside the lower lobe. Pallets are not close to the skin in this area. Roughly 12 - 14 inches between the vertical stantions and the skin / structure.
If the damage was enough to cause a split in the aluminum skin, then theoretically Boeing's flap should have opened and limited the damage to one small square. Even if it was limited to one square, there would most likely be enough outrushing air from the decompression to have blown off the outer fairing. I missed something. Beings flap? What flap? There is no "Flap" in the fuselage design. The limiting factor is anti tear strips that prevent structural damage from destroying the aircraft (ah la De Haviland Comet).
Why was there more than one square of damage? Maybe some cargo item blocked the outrushing air and created a pressure spike (like has been considered for the Aloha 243 convertible accident).

Maybe corrosion also played a part in either making the damage site larger, or creating a weak structure that failed possibly with little or no damage from the cargo.

Interesting event.

pothole
Corrosion is always a possibility. Corrosion tends to occur in places where water / moisture can collect and stagnate. The area that's damaged is not in an area where I would expect to find it. That does not mean corrosion couldn't be an issue.

[AJ]

As expected CASA has issued a directive that the oxygen bottles on all Australian registered (read Qantas) Boeing 747-400s be inspected.

[Jet-fighters.Net]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080727/ap_on_re_as/philippines_emergency_landing

[N-ONE]

Standard 115 cu/ft composite O2 bottle comes with:

-Direct reading pressure gauge
-Manual shutoff valve
-Frangible disk set to blow off excess bottle pressure at 2500-2700 psi.
<O:p</O:p

Nominal oxygen bottle pressure is 1850 psi for a fresh tank. If given the chance, the frangible disk should have relieved excess bottle pressure to prevent such an explosion if this is truly what had happened. It will be interesting to hear about the dynamic for this event. Rare!

<O:p</O:p
I am not sure if this 744 had reached its max normal cabin delta P given the altitude the event occurred at, but with this sudden rush of pressure from an O2 bottle, it may have momentarily opened the cabin overpressure relief valves. Any pictures of the overpressure relief valve flappers to see weather they are still ajar? That might be a good tell-tale.

With all that O2 flooding the compartment, it might be just as well it punched a hole in the fuselage to get it all out, nothing like an oxygen fire to make your day.

In my humble opinion.
</O:p

N1

[CockpitCat]

Mmm...oxygen bottles sitting out of sight in the cargo hold makes me very nervous...I wonder how often they are inspected, and how easy it is to access/inspect them...

[juan23]

Mmm...oxygen bottles sitting out of sight in the cargo hold makes me very nervous...I wonder how often they are inspected, and how easy it is to access/inspect them...

Just about everything that needs to be inspected is "out of sight"


Did this aircraft have oxygen generators for the cabin or O2 cylinders?

[Dmmoore]

Mmm...oxygen bottles sitting out of sight in the cargo hold makes me very nervous...I wonder how often they are inspected, and how easy it is to access/inspect them...

They are visually checked for pressure and general condition at "A" checks.
At "B" checks and higher letter checks they are physically checked for time since the last hydro-static inspection. The hydro-static inspection is due every 5 -7 years depending on policy.

The size and shape of the hole is about right for a vertically mounted O-2 bottle to have exited the aircraft after a bottle rupture. In 40+ years I have never heard of a similar event.

[Dmmoore]

Just about everything that needs to be inspected is "out of sight"


Did this aircraft have oxygen generators for the cabin or O2 cylinders?

The 747 uses O-2 cylinders. It is the last American built airliner to use gaseous O-2 for emergency pax use.

[Cactus]

As it appears the probable cause of this incident is an exploded O2 tank, would anybody hazard a guess as to whether the flight deck was receiving oxygen during the emergency, and whether there was any danger of impairment/incapacitation to the crew?

There are stories in the media of O2 masks not deploying properly in the cabin, and babies turning blue from lack of oxygen!

[Brenden S]

The oxygen in the 747.
Crew have 2 cylinders in parallel and are separate to the pax.
Pax oxy there is 4 cylinders installed in QF aircraft which are in parallel and there is no one way valve, so if one goes there is no oxygen to the passengers at all. That will explain why people were turning blue and couldn't breathe. These pictures should explain. The cargo is separated from the oxy by a thin wall to the left (in the picture)
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f195/dc3engineer/747-4.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f195/dc3engineer/D_check4.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f195/dc3engineer/747-3.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f195/dc3engineer/747-2.jpg

[Cactus]

Thanks for that.

Additionally, there was a report that the flightdeck lost instrument lighting and autopilot, and was landed at Manilla under manual control.

Presumably the electronics systems were damaged by the explosion too.

Cheers

[Uncle Jay]

Unclejay not one of your posts has been accurate.

[ATFS_Crash]

I wouldn’t be surprised if someone tries to tell me this is off topic as friendly as the skies are here.



From Times OnlineJuly 28, 2008

US warned of faulty 747 oxygen tanks months before Qantas blast

(Edwin Loobrera/AFP/getty Images)
The gaping hole in the side of the Qantas 747, which was bound for Melbourne
Sophie Tedmanson in Sydney
US aviation authorities warned of problems with oxygen tanks on board Boeing 747s months before the explosion that ripped a hole in a Qantas jumbo jet on Friday, it has emerged.

The US Federal Aviation Administration had ordered thorough checks of US-registered Boeing 747s after a report found many of the oxygen cylinders needed to be replaced.

“We are issuing this [directive] to prevent failure to oxygen cylinder support under the most critical flight load conditions, which would cause the oxygen cylinder to come loose and leak oxygen,” the FAA told airlines.

A faulty oxygen cylinder is thought to be at the centre of the explosion on board a Qantas jet on Friday which ripped a 10ft hole in QF30, which was en route from London to Melbourne via Hong Kong.

The explosion forced the 747, with 346 passengers and 19 crew on board, to descend 20,000ft and make an emergency landing in Manila.

Investigations continue in Manila today, however officials said an oxygen back-up cylinder was missing from the aircraft, and have ordered Qantas to inspect all such bottles on its fleet of Boeing 747s.

Qantas began to inspect their 30-strong 747 fleet this morning.

An investigator from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Neville Blyth, said: “It is too early to say whether this was the cause of the explosion, but one of the cylinders which provides back-up oxygen is missing.” He said investigators had ruled out terrorism.

Geoff Dixon, Qantas CEO, said that whatever caused a mid-air emergency was more than likely beyond the control of the airline.

He told a news conference today that the cause of the incident that ripped the giant hole in the fuselage of the passenger jet was a mechanical fault.

Mr Dixon also said that the US warning in April about oxygen tank concerns on airliners was not anything to do with the potential cause of Friday's incident.

A spokesman for Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Peter Gibson, said that the American directive was limited to a certain number of support brackets, racks that held the oxygen tanks in place on the plane, and not the actual bottles.

He said the report had been picked up by Qantas earlier this year but that the checks were limited to a certain batch number of the racks.

“Qantas had done the inspections (of their aircraft) earlier this year - there were only three aircraft that were affected. The plane in Manilla was not one of these aircraft.”

Some passengers on board QF30 have described not having access to oxygen during the mid-air drama, or complained of the masks being faulty.

Debra Manchester, a British passenger, who was sitting in first class when the explosion occurred, told the Times Online that her oxygen mask did not work in the midst of the chaos inside the cabin.

“Mine came totally out of the ceiling,” she said. “But I quickly got another one so was able to use it in time.”

However Qantas’s head of engineering, David Cox, said the oxygen masks should have been in good condition.

“There is a maintenance regime on the masks and every indication we have is that they were in perfect working order before the flight,” Mr Cox told The Australian.

The Boeing 747 involved in Friday’s incident had an extensive overhaul in Sydney four years ago and had two checks done in New South Wales and Victoria earlier this year.

Mr Dixon defended the maintenance and safety record of Qantas, saying the 747 involved in emergency landing on Friday was in good condition when it left Hong Kong.

"We believe everything on that aircraft was in good shape when it took off," he said. "Incidents do happen. This is a tremendously bad one, and it's one we regret.”

The controversy comes at a time when questions have been raised about how Qantas maintains its planes.

Last month the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association hit out at the international airline’s moves to increase the amount of maintenance work performed offshore, including Malaysia, the US and London.

At the time outgoing Qantas CEO Geoff Dixon dismissed the claim, saying 15-20 per cent of Qantas engineering had been done offshore for 50 years and that checks would be supervised by Qantas engineers.

Mr Gibson today supported Mr Dixon’s comments.

“There is nothing inherently unsafe about maintenance being done overseas,” he said.

“The maintenance has to be done to Australian standards, it is audited by us (CASA) and audited by Qantas so is performed to our safety standards.”

It was also announced on Monday that Alan Joyce, the head of Qantas’s budget airline Jetstar, who previously worked with Ireland’s Aer Lingus airline, would take over as Qantas CEO when Mr Dixon steps down in November.

In a separate development, Qantas has been ranked among the top four most trusted airlines by Asia Pacific travellers in a study by Unisys. Locally-based carriers were more trusted than those based in Europe or North America for passengers in the Asia-Pacific region.
Source http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article4414114.ece

[ATFS_Crash]

Why wouldn’t the warnings apply to the Qantas 747 that had a decompression from a fuselage breach that initial reports suggest might be related to the oxygen cylinders? Smells a little fishy.

Qantas Airways officials said Monday that an air safety directive issued by the United States Federal Aviation Authority with a warning about how oxygen cylinders were attached to Boeing 747 aircraft did not apply to the plane that was forced to make an emergency landing last week with a hole in its fuselage.
versus
Media reports here said the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the F.A.A. had ordered airline operators, including Qantas, to inspect and replace the brackets that held the oxygen canisters in place. The F.A.A. directive became effective on May 7

Source
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/world/asia/29qantas.html?ref=asia

[Jet-fighters.Net]

The valve from the missing O2 tank has been located inside the passenger cabin after it punctured the floor.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/valve-in-oxygen-cylinder-the-culprit-in-747-explosion-20080728-3maq.html

[474218]

Why wouldn’t the warnings apply to the Qantas 747 that had a decompression from a fuselage breach that initial reports suggest might be related to the oxygen cylinders? Smells a little fishy.

Since the 747 that experienced the incident is registered in Australia the United States FAA has no authority to issue a warning for it. That is up to the Australian authorities.

[ATFS_Crash]

Since the 747 that experienced the incident is registered in Australia the United States FAA has no authority to issue a warning for it. That is up to the Australian authorities.

That makes sense up to a point. That’s when I first thought but was confused by the article. I was under the impression that the FAA had no direct jurisdiction over foreign airlines. However the second quote in the article contradicted my belief.

I feel that Qantas is somewhat doing a media damage control spin with the words. Sure technically they apparently are not under the jurisdiction of the FAA, however isn’t it part of professional safety standards that when safety alerts are issued that the professional thing to do is to investigate the matters? I also wonder if the FAA or if Boeing tried to contact any of the foreign customers with the safety alerts? In my opinion the safety alerts should have been sent to foreign customers as a professional courtesy and as a moral obligation. I also feel that a safety conscious professional customer would do safety inspections and updates even if they are not technically required because of some jurisdiction technicality.

[474218]

That makes sense up to a point. That’s when I first thought but was confused by the article. I was under the impression that the FAA had no direct jurisdiction over foreign airlines. However the second quote in the article contradicted my belief.

I feel that Qantas is somewhat doing a media damage control spin with the words. Sure technically they apparently are not under the jurisdiction of the FAA, however isn’t it part of professional safety standards that when safety alerts are issued that the professional thing to do is to investigate the matters? I also wonder if the FAA or if Boeing tried to contact any of the foreign customers with the safety alerts? In my opinion the safety alerts should have been sent to foreign customers as a professional courtesy and as a moral obligation. I also feel that a safety conscious professional customer would do safety inspections and updates even if they are not technically required because of some jurisdiction technicality.

If you remember back when the FAA pulled the airworthness certificate of the DC-10 foreign operators continued to fly them. However, the majority of the time foreign regulatory agency will go along with the FAA, just like the FAA does when the EASA issues an safety alert.

[T.O.G.A.]

Maybe it's just me but I thought the only time an o2 bottle is in danger of blowing up is during servicing (never seen it happen but I have serviced them in exploision proof water tanks before).

I've seen bottles dropped and ruptured where they rapidly decompressed but explode? Even if it was hydrostaticly compromised, I would think, at worse, the cargo hold would fill with o2-not blow the side of a 747 out.

[Vinco]

The only way I see this happen is if the bottle got loose, fell over and the neck/valve got knocked off. I've seen welding gas cylinders take off flying when the neck is sheared off. It's definately fast enough to punch through a/c skin.

[Dmmoore]

Maybe it's just me but I thought the only time an o2 bottle is in danger of blowing up is during servicing (never seen it happen but I have serviced them in explosion proof water tanks before).

I've seen bottles dropped and ruptured where they rapidly decompressed but explode? Even if it was hydrostaticly compromised, I would think, at worse, the cargo hold would fill with o2-not blow the side of a 747 out.

As this is the first incident of its type in the more than 60 years O-2 cylinders have been is use on pressurized aircraft I suggest we use information gained from experience with pressurized cylinders in non aircraft use.

Myth Busters did a spot on pressurized cylinders. These cylinders did not explode however they did move violently when the valve was knocked off.

Depending on the failure mode, a bottle containing >1500 but <1900 PSI I can see how a flawed cylinder could fail in such a way as to do the damage seen on this aircraft. Again, one incident in >60 years is a very good record. There is no reason to panic however there is every reason to find the cause and / or failure mode to insure another incident doesn't happen again.

[Andreas Fast]

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?cl=9018124

[Theoddkiwi]

Well i am surprised with you guys. I've absent for a while but there a fundamental documented history for rupture and explosion of oygen bottles and it is due to a basic maintenance error.

When servicing oygen systems the PRIMARY procaution is to ensure you so so with oil and grease free tooling.

The combination of grease and pressurised oxygen is explosive. The are famous photos of a P3 Orion where a crew oxygen bottle exploded and rocketed out the side of the aircraft. The aircraft was ultimately destroyed buy the ensuing fire, but this occured on the flight line.

If anyone does not know that precaution they should not be touching oxygen systems.

My hypothisis on this, and a totaly stab in the haze...

During a past check the bottles have been checked and serviced, (not sure if there are preflight checks that may result in the bottle being serviced as required)

The mechanic in question decides to use his own tools rather than the special clean "Oygen Only" tools the company should provide for oxygen servicing.

In the process some residual grease ends up on the threads of the bottle connections.

Over time perhaps a very slight leak develops as the grease ment the connection does not stay tight. As the oxygen is under pressure the leak begines to generate heat. The heat and action of the oxygen passing the grease accelerates and then ultimately explodes. The valve bursts off and the bottle is fired out the side of the aircraft and ultimately the results we can see now.

This has happend before and like many occasions it just happend on military aircraft so is less well known. But any ex service persion who has been involved with oxygen servicing will be well versed in the dangers of mixing grease and oil with oxygen.

Edited to add link

http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/categories/military/496.html

ironically it was an Australian P3 Orion lol

[MCM]

ATFS, did you actually read all of the statement?

He said the report had been picked up by Qantas earlier this year but that the checks were limited to a certain batch number of the racks.

“Qantas had done the inspections (of their aircraft) earlier this year - there were only three aircraft that were affected. The plane in Manilla was not one of these aircraft.”

[ATFS_Crash]

ATFS, did you actually read all of the statement?

No. I was just skimming the original article. The part you added makes a world of difference. Thanks.

My bad.

I missed that key part.

He said the report had been picked up by Qantas earlier this year but that the checks were limited to a certain batch number of the racks .
:o

[Cargo Runner]

I wouldn’t be surprised if someone tries to tell me this is off topic as friendly as the skies are here.

{sub quote} Geoff Dixon, Qantas CEO, said that whatever caused a mid-air emergency was more than likely beyond the control of the airline.

He told a news conference today that the cause of the incident that ripped the giant hole in the fuselage of the passenger jet was a mechanical fault. {sub quote}


Source http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article4414114.ece

A little flippant/ couldn't care less attitude to say the least - maybe his departure in November should be brought forward a bit.... I seem to remember similar remarks from BA management about T5 problems and how they were not to blame.... prompting the quick exit of two managers.

We are all responsible for the safety of passengers while we work in aviation. That starts with the guys and girls looking after the airport landscaping, even the plane spotters right up to the CEO's of airline/airport companies. FOD, sloppy workmanship and terrorism has no place in todays world of aviation.

I think QF needs to do some damage limitation to keep the most important people on their side.

Whether by design or fault this accident could have been a whole lot worse and I am sure a lot of people are thanking their lucky stars that the situation worked out the way it did.

[T.O.G.A.]

Myth Busters did a spot on pressurized cylinders. These cylinders did not explode however they did move violently when the valve was knocked off.

I have heard of o2 bottles And other pressurized bottles becoming projectiles when mishandled but on an aircraft, the bottles are held in place with at least two clamps, safety wired to remain clamped and connected to rigid delivery lines that are also clamped to the fuselage.

I know the lack of burn marks make the o2 bottle suspect. As for theodkiwi' theory, grease exposure is possible, I suppose, as would an improperly torqued fitting allowing a leak to build o2 bubble in the bay and a spark igniting said bubble.

That's the only way I could see the cargo and cabin floors buckling. You need rapid expansion and a 2000 pound oxy bottle by itself can't do that.

I remember a Delta 727 with a chronic crew o2 leak that couldn't be found by mtc burn at the gate in SLC because the o2 bubble reached the f/c gally ovens that were heating breakfast (circa 1989) but it was not explosive, just rapid flame propogation. Of course, the aircraft wasn't pressurized so maybe we do have a little history to go on....

[andrasz]

build o2 bubble in the bay and a spark igniting said bubble

Pure oxygen will not burn or explode. You need something flammable COMBINED with oxygen (eg. fuel vapor, hydrogen) to have a gas explosion. Otherwise pure oxygen will just make an existing fire burn faster.

[O_K]

Pure oxygen will not burn or explode. You need something flammable COMBINED with oxygen (eg. fuel vapor, hydrogen) to have a gas explosion. Otherwise pure oxygen will just make an existing fire burn faster.

That is true, but pure oxygen will make almost everything burn or ignite, things that otherwise only would glow can be explosive with pure oxygen. A good example is woll, witch does not burn well normally and woll-blankets can be used to put out small fires. With oxygen in it, a woll blanket can explode.

I would think that if you replaced all the air in a mail-bag with pure oxygen, and ignited it, you will be suprised of the reaction.

[Theoddkiwi]

There are many anacdotal stories of jet pilots have small flash fires in the flight deck while eating cheese sandwiches as the oils from the cheese and oxygen react.

A great demonstration video they showed us in tech school was trolly arm dropped onto an asphalt surface where liquid oxygen had just evaporated from.
The energy of the arm hitting the ground with was enough to spark a big flash fire.

This is a real danger and far more plausable than a secured bottle rupturing because of some weakness in its cylinder.

The Photos i saw of the RAAF P3 was of a large hole punched out the side of the fuselage, and the bottle laying on the ground about 100m away.

The explosive force was so great it was enough rip from its mounting bracket tear through the side of the fuselage and still rocket across the apron.

The only difference i see here is that there was no obvious fire.

The math is simple

Pressurre/Force + Oxygen + contaminant (grease) = Explosion

Bangkok was a close call for Qantas, this was even closer.

[T.O.G.A.]

I stand by Theoddkiwi on this...referring back to the DAL incident in SLC, I read the hot galley ovens mixed with O2 caused the fire, maybe it was the greasy food in the ovens. Here's the report: Conclusion appears to be inconclusive.

Any fire would have extinguished once exposed to the outside where there isn't enough oxygen to support it.

October 14, 1989 Delta Air Lines Flight Unknown

NTSB Identification: DCA90MA002 For details, refer to NTSB microfiche number 39724A
Scheduled 14 CFR 121 operation of DELTA AIRLINES, INC.
Accident occurred OCT-14-89 at SALT LAKE CITY, UT
Aircraft: BOEING 727-232, registration: N530DA
Injuries: 5 Minor, 17 Uninjured.

THE CREW HEARD A MUFFLED EXPLOSION & SAW FLAMES COMING FROM THE VENT NEAR SEAT 3-D WHILE ACFT WAS PARKKED AT GATE. LOCATION OF FIRE PREVENTED CREW FROM RETURNING TO COCKPIT TO NOTIFY CFR & ILLUMINATE EMERG FLOOR LIGHTING. PASSENGERS & CREW EVACUATED ACFT. SECOND OFFICER, LAST TO LEAVE, COULD NOT REACH REAR AIRSTAIRS & EXITED VIA EMERG WINDOW EXIT AFTER HAVING DIFFICULTY IN LOCATING AN EXIT BECAUSE OF SMOKE. A MECHANIC NOTED LOW PASSENGER OXYGEN SUPPLY DURING PREFLIGHT & REPLACED OXYGEN CYLINDERS. WHILE EXITING THE ELECTRICAL EQUIP BAY THE MECHANIC SAW A WHITE FLASH ENGULF THE OXYGEN SYSTEM FLOW CONTROL UNIT. HE ATTEMPTED TO HAVE CFR NOTIFIED OF THE FIRE USING A HAND HELD RADIO TO NO AVAIL. THE PASSENGER OXYGEN SYSTEM HAD 6 LOW OXYGEN QUANTITY MAINTENANCE WRITE-UPS DURING PREVIOUS 30 DAYS BUT WAS NOT "FLAGGED" BY COMPANY AUTOMATED TREND ANALYSIS PROGRAM BECAUSE OF THE JOB TITLE OF THE PERSON ENTERING THE WRITE-UPS. INSPECTION OF DELTA'S FLEET REVEALED 35 OXYGEN SYSTEM LEAKS ON OTHER ACFT.

Probable Cause

A FIRE WHICH STARTED IN THE PASSENGER OXYGEN SYSTEM FOR UNDETERMINED REASONS. CONTRIBUTING TO THE ACCIDENT WAS THE FAILURE OF DELTA AIRLINES TO RECOGNIZE, ATTEND TO AND CORRECT REPEATED LEAKS IN THE OXYGEN SYSTEM

[Dmmoore]

Well i am surprised with you guys. I've absent for a while but there a fundamental documented history for rupture and explosion of oygen bottles and it is due to a basic maintenance error.
All oil / O-2 fires / explosions I know of occurred during servicing. As soon as the O-2 contacts the oil, it burns. There is no way to delay the reaction.

When servicing oygen systems the PRIMARY procaution is to ensure you so so with oil and grease free tooling.
Standard warning found in every AMM and countless safety bulletins.

The combination of grease and pressurised oxygen is explosive. The are famous photos of a P3 Orion where a crew oxygen bottle exploded and rocketed out the side of the aircraft. The aircraft was ultimately destroyed buy the ensuing fire, but this occured on the flight line.
Correct but again an accident during servicing.

If anyone does not know that precaution they should not be touching oxygen systems.

My hypothisis on this, and a totaly stab in the haze...

During a past check the bottles have been checked and serviced, (not sure if there are preflight checks that may result in the bottle being serviced as required)

The mechanic in question decides to use his own tools rather than the special clean "Oygen Only" tools the company should provide for oxygen servicing.

In the process some residual grease ends up on the threads of the bottle connections.

Over time perhaps a very slight leak develops as the grease ment the connection does not stay tight. As the oxygen is under pressure the leak begines to generate heat. The heat and action of the oxygen passing the grease accelerates and then ultimately explodes. The valve bursts off and the bottle is fired out the side of the aircraft and ultimately the results we can see now.

This has happend before and like many occasions it just happend on military aircraft so is less well known. But any ex service persion who has been involved with oxygen servicing will be well versed in the dangers of mixing grease and oil with oxygen.

Edited to add link

http://www.aviationtoday.com/am/categories/military/496.html

ironically it was an Australian P3 Orion lol

The quantity of contaminate must be large enough to enter the storage cylinder. Oil on the threads will cause a problem at the threads.

In this case the bottle ripped open blowing the cylinder out of the aircraft. There was a defect or damage to the cylinder st some point prior to the event. The questions are:
1. What defect? or
2. What damage?
3. How did it occur?

[Theoddkiwi]

All oil / O-2 fires / explosions I know of occurred during servicing. As soon as the O-2 contacts the oil, it burns. There is no way to delay the reaction.

Agree in pricipal, but as we know things like this are chain of events

Standard warning found in every AMM and countless safety bulletins.

We also know that just because its written in the AMM etc doesnt mean someone can't get complacent. Human error often occurs when some one strays from standard procedures. I guess the same can be said about damaging a bottle and not reporting it. ;)

Like others am particularly concerned with Mr Dixon's assertions that this was beyond the control of Qantas. Unless some one fires a missile at an aicraft the airline will always be responsible for some aspect of an incident.

[AJ]

Here is the ATSB's media release made today:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_28.aspx

[Vinco]

I'm having a really hard time visualizing how door handle could have been sheared off. Does anyone have a picture of the #2 door?

[P3_Super_Bee]

Agree in pricipal, but as we know things like this are chain of events



We also know that just because its written in the AMM etc doesnt mean someone can't get complacent. Human error often occurs when some one strays from standard procedures. I guess the same can be said about damaging a bottle and not reporting it. ;)

Like others am particularly concerned with Mr Dixon's assertions that this was beyond the control of Qantas. Unless some one fires a missile at an aicraft the airline will always be responsible for some aspect of an incident.

Sorry with 20 years maintenance experience, don't buy this swiss cheese one bit. NEVER crossed my mind.

By the way the "Famous" P-3 incident you refered to isn't that famous. I worked 20 years in P-3's and never heard of it till this thread.

[ATFS_Crash]

All oil / O-2 fires / explosions I know of occurred during servicing. As soon as the O-2 contacts the oil, it burns. There is no way to delay the reaction.
Agree in pricipal, but as we know things like this are chain of events

Like they say. It depends on the variables. The main factors are the pressure, temperature and type of oxygen. IE If you’re working with high pressure gaseous oxygen, something as simple as petroleum on lubricants on seals or the wrong type of seals can trigger fire or explosion even at room temperature without a heat source.

I doubt this happened, but for argument sake: The tanks look relatively close to the cargo area, perhaps some cargo broke free and damaged a tank or knocked a valve off.

I doubt this happened, but for argument sake: Perhaps and electrically hotwire rubbed against a tank or line until there was a breach from the chafing and arcing ; then in the suddenly oxygen rich environment things that normally don’t burn like wire insulation or hoses starts to burn with an arcing wire as and ignition source.

A great demonstration video they showed us in tech school was trolly arm dropped onto an asphalt surface where liquid oxygen had just evaporated from.
The energy of the arm hitting the ground with was enough to spark a big flash fire.
Man From LOX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9sIT6P_05I

[P3_Super_Bee]

I doubt this happened, but for argument sake. The tanks look relatively close to the cargo area, perhaps some cargo broke free and damaged a tank or knocked a valve off


I could possibly see this happening long before the dirty maintainer who worked on the system hours, or days before.

Question for Don or another 747 mech. Are the bottles serviced there? or another spot? I ask because, on the P-3(only plane I've ever worked on) the servicing port is on the port side of the fuselage by down near the nose wheel well. The bottles are under the pilot's seat. Very rarely do we mess with the bottles. We replace the reg's which, are not around the bottles either, every 896 days. (every 4th 224 day inspection, and those have a +/- 7 day window.

[T.O.G.A.]

The tanks on every airliner I have worked on are either in the e&e bay or cargo area in their own compartment separated from the cargo by a honeycomb wall with an access door/panel. They are usually protected. Cannot speak to the servicing method on a 747 but on every boeing I have worked on, the bottles are removed because as Don said,
"All oil / O-2 fires / explosions I know of occurred during servicing. As soon as the O-2 contacts the oil, it burns. There is no way to delay the reaction."


Although, there is that delta 727 that flamed up just sitting there.

[ATFS_Crash]

I could possibly see this happening long before the dirty maintainer who worked on the system hours, or days before.

In the scenario I was talking about I was not necessarily trying to place blame on a person or labeled the person I was merely stating the possibilities it could be a result of man or machine or procedure a combination therefore.

A hypothetical event like I mentioned could be from a lot of things. A material handler/loadmaster not properly securing the load. A defective strap(s). Defective hard point(s).

I was thinking along the lines of a resupply aircraft that was taking off from the carrier. It doesn’t involve oxygen however I think it is a real-life example of the damage that an improperly secured load can do.

Allegedly
lAssigned pilot refused the flight as unsafe. Transporting a tactical generator. Hotshot (higher ranking) pilot said he could do it. Generator broke from cargo moorings on CAT shot. Loadmaster and backenders probably dead in first three seconds. Generator came forward to get the pilots after it cartwheeled. No survivors.

See the cat launch 20 seconds into this video.
(C-2 Greyhound hammerheads after catapult launch.)
Aircraft Mishap Montage 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfzaAYEEZ7Y

[AJ]

I'm having a really hard time visualizing how door handle could have been sheared off. Does anyone have a picture of the #2 door?
The mechanism sheared, not the handle itself. The handle was left in the twelve o'clock position.

[Dmmoore]

If installed, the crew system could be topped up using the remote fill system. A top up was considered to be a bottle pressure >1350 PSI. Any less than that required a bottle removal. Bottle temperatures could climb too high if the bottles were serviced too fast (increasing pressure = increasing temperature). The service port has a 1/8" restricter but servicing with a wide open regulator through the restricter will overheat the bottle if more than 500 PSI is added.

Crew bottles below 1350 and all PAX bottles are removed for service.

[P3_Super_Bee]

If installed, the crew system could be topped up using the remote fill system. A top up was considered to be a bottle pressure >1350 PSI. Any less than that required a bottle removal. Bottle temperatures could climb too high if the bottles were serviced too fast (increasing pressure = increasing temperature). The service port has a 1/8" restricter but servicing with a wide open regulator through the restricter will overheat the bottle if more than 500 PSI is added.

Crew bottles below 1350 and all PAX bottles are removed for service.

OK thanks. It is quite different than what I'm used to. Our bottles are installed/un-installed empty. Then serviced from 0 to 1800 (PSI depends on temp as earlier referenced) while in the aircraft. Now this are what we call the "Main O2", the crew walk-around bottles are in fact removed from aircraft prior to servicing.

[pothole]

As I understand it, there was a 20 cm hole in the floor directly above the oxygen bottle caused by the regulator flying vertically upwards. Thus the oxygen bottle itself must have been vertical at the time of the regulator failure.

The hole that the oxygen bottle departed out of the aircraft was at the side, thus the bottle must have been horizontal at the time it exited the aircraft.

Thus, it seems that the regulator failed (for an unknown reason) presumably with the oxygen bottle strapped in its normal vertical position. Did the force of the escaping oxygen cause the bottle break free of its mounts, turn 90 degrees and punch through the aircraft fuselage?

I would have assumed the mounting system was supposed to be strong enough to keep the oxygen bottle in place. Does that indicate that perhaps whatever caused the regulator to fail might have also caused the oxygen bottle to get knocked loose from its mounting at the same time? Perhaps shifting cargo?

But level cruise seems an unlikely time for cargo to shift (unless there was some significant turbulence that I have not heard about). Thus perhaps previous damage due to some earlier event had occurred to both the oxygen bottle and its mounting?

Hmmmmm.....
pothole

[Dmmoore]

As I understand it, there was a 20 cm hole in the floor directly above the oxygen bottle caused by the regulator flying vertically upwards. Thus the oxygen bottle itself must have been vertical at the time of the regulator failure. The hole that the oxygen bottle departed out of the aircraft was at the side, thus the bottle must have been horizontal at the time it exited the aircraft.
We don't know if the valves departure was cause or effect. If the bottle failed in or close to the valve boss (thread area) the valve could be liberated. However the bottle would have to fail the mounts then fall with the valve end inboard. My knowledge of how these bottles are installed does not easily support that failure mode. Without a physical inspection of the area, the failure mode is unknown but the possibility that the bottle exited while standing vertically must be considered.
Thus, it seems that the regulator failed (for an unknown reason) presumably with the oxygen bottle strapped in its normal vertical position. Did the force of the escaping oxygen cause the bottle break free of its mounts, turn 90 degrees and punch through the aircraft fuselage?
What failed was the shutoff valve. The regulator is mounted elsewhere. If the the inboard vertical face of the bottle contained a flaw or damage the bottle could split open, the force could liberate the valve and blow the bottle and mount assembly out the side of the fuselage.
I would have assumed the mounting system was supposed to be strong enough to keep the oxygen bottle in place. Does that indicate that perhaps whatever caused the regulator to fail might have also caused the oxygen bottle to get knocked loose from its mounting at the same time? Perhaps shifting cargo?
The mount system is strong enough to retain the weight of the bottle in a 9G event. It was not designed to restrain the bottle in the event the bottle ruptured.
But level cruise seems an unlikely time for cargo to shift (unless there was some significant turbulence that I have not heard about). Thus perhaps previous damage due to some earlier event had occurred to both the oxygen bottle and its mounting?

Hmmmmm.....
pothole
The cargo loaded into the forward lower lobe is containerized. Shifting cargo is an unlikely event. The bottles are mounted between the fuselage structure and the vertical cabin floor supports. The area is separated by a light weight (pylon) cover. For the O-2 bottles to be damaged while they are installed, the pylon cover must be damaged. If the pylon were found damaged, the O-2 bottles and anything else behind the damage must be inspected.

This is the only event I know of in 50 years of pressurized flight. It isn't something we expect to see again anytime soon. None the less finding the cause is important if there is a defect that needs to be addressed.

[AJ]

What failed was the shutoff valve. The regulator is mounted elsewhere.
What we are hearing is the bottle itself ruptured 20% up from the base creating a literal torpedo. Not nice.

[Vinco]

Did this occur over land or water? Was the bottle ever recovered?

[474218]

The mount system is strong enough to retain the weight of the bottle in a 9G event. It was not designed to restrain the bottle in the event the bottle ruptured.
Only in the forward direction. The vertical load up is 3G, down 6G and laterial (sideways) 1.5G.

[WOSR]

Don,



Disregard my PM...found a way to share the file with you all...have a look at this, as it was sent to me today

http://rapidshare.com/files/134686598/Qantas.pdf.html

[pothole]

So it seems we have some part of the oxygen bottle flying upwards to create mayhem in the cabin. Of course the other piece of the bottle would try to go downwards.

Unfortunately, none of the photos clearly shows how the bottom support bracket for the oxygen bottles is attached to the fuselage.

If the failure of the oxygen bottle caused a downwards force of more than 6G on the bottom support bracket, what would happen? Depending on how that bracket is attached to the fuselage, could it possibly perhaps bend some structural part of the fuselage and cause a seam to open?

In this case, the ruptured oxygen bottle does not need to "build up speed to puncture through the hull" as has been commented on before. It just needs to apply a large enough force to bend the lower support bracket. If this causes rupture of a joint in the fuselage, then the outrush of air perhaps would pull the remaining part of the oxygen bottle out the hole.

Combine the initiating failure due to the bending of the bottom support bracket together with the explosive release of the oxygen bottle contents immediately adjacent to the fuselage, and perhaps thats how a relatively large damage zone was created.

pothole

[Dmmoore]

So it seems we have some part of the oxygen bottle flying upwards to create mayhem in the cabin. Of course the other piece of the bottle would try to go downwards.
I would like to see a picture of the piece that ended up in the cabin!

Unfortunately, none of the photos clearly shows how the bottom support bracket for the oxygen bottles is attached to the fuselage.
The bottom attaching point is simply a shelf. The bottle sits directly on the shelf. The shelf is attached using aluminum support angles formed from 0.050" thick 2024-0 material, heat treated to -T6 after forming. The support angles are attached to the vertical legs of the fuselage frames using "AD" rivets -5 or -6 depending on the number of bottles each shelf supports. The frame is not in contact with the fuselage skin. A downward deflection of about an inch is required for the shelf to contact the skin.

If the failure of the oxygen bottle caused a downwards force of more than 6G on the bottom support bracket, what would happen? Depending on how that bracket is attached to the fuselage, could it possibly perhaps bend some structural part of the fuselage and cause a seam to open?
Or a fractured corner of the supporting shelf could puncture the skin, same result.

In this case, the ruptured oxygen bottle does not need to "build up speed to puncture through the hull" as has been commented on before. It just needs to apply a large enough force to bend the lower support bracket. If this causes rupture of a joint in the fuselage, then the outrush of air perhaps would pull the remaining part of the oxygen bottle out the hole.

Combine the initiating failure due to the bending of the bottom support bracket together with the explosive release of the oxygen bottle contents immediately adjacent to the fuselage, and perhaps thats how a relatively large damage zone was created.

pothole

The damage done to the fuselage is in line with what I would expect from such an event. However, I would never have expected to see such an event.

[Airbus_A320]

Since the bottle was destroyed, does that mean that an area of the cabin didn't have oxygen flowing out of the masks after the event? Or does each mask have connections to separate bottles?

[AJ]

Since the bottle was destroyed, does that mean that an area of the cabin didn't have oxygen flowing out of the masks after the event? Or does each mask have connections to separate bottles?
There was oxygen in the system although the pressure was significantly reduced at the extremities of the system and the duration of flow was reduced.

[WOSR]

I would like to see a picture of the piece that ended up in the cabin!



Don, the piece that entered the cabin was responsible for the "bulb" on the side of the fuselage, on the door frame itself. If you look at the photos of the damaged door, you can clearly see a green smudge on the side of the cabin panelling, near the floor, where the piece ricocheted towards the door, with such force that it buckled the frame, moved the door leve to the "open" position in flight and warped the door.

[T.O.G.A.]

Great photos WOSR.

I still have a hard time accepting that a failed O2 bottle would have enough energy to blow a part through the door, cause a bulge in the door frame AND rip through all of those rivetted stringers and the a/c's skin AND blow out the inner cargo walls to expose, destroy wiring. To me, only a rapid expansion of gases caused by an explosion can do all that.

I'd like to see a similar bottle in an enclosed box slowly and rapidly punctured in different places to see if this damage can be replicated.

After the last test, I'd like to see a spark introduced to the escaped O2 in the box to see what happens to the box.

[ATFS_Crash]

I still have a hard time accepting that a failed O2 bottle would have enough energy to blow a part through the door, cause a bulge in the door frame AND rip through all of those rivetted stringers and the a/c's skin AND blow out the inner cargo walls to expose, destroy wiring. To me, only a rapid expansion of gases caused by an explosion can do all that.

I have very little doubt that there is enough energy to account for the resulting damage. Perhaps someone could run the math, the surface area of the bottle and the PSI to find the resulting force. I think you would find that there is the potential to do much greater damage.

The thing that’s a little bit hard to believe is that it failed in the first place, because oxygen bottles usually have a high degree of extra strength built into the design for a safety margin. That usually makes them very heavy. Perhaps they were designed extra light, compromising the safety margin. However I suspect that there was some sort of underlying cause that compromise the strength of the bottle. Perhaps there was fatigue issues between where the bottle and the bracket meet. Perhaps at some time the bottle was damaged by cargo/material handling or improper maintenance, corrosion, etc…. that compromised the strength of the bottle? Perhaps there was a manufacturing defect in the bottle? (We may never know. If we could determine the location on the bottle at the failure occurred, we could probably make a pretty good guess. If we could find a piece of the bottle where the origin of the assumed/alleged/theoretical failure occurred, then we could almost certainly have a solid determination) unfortunately it sounds like the critical pieces of bottle may never be recovered.

If it was a case of terrorism, which I highly doubt. Perhaps a small bomb was used to compromise the oxygen bottle to trigger a larger secondary explosion. I doubt this because the evidence at this time doesn’t seem to support that theory, and it would probably require an insider saboteur, such maintenance personnel or a material handler. It is possible, it seems extremely far-fetched. Perhaps there was a bomb in the cargo, or perhaps there was some material in the cargo that inadvertently exploded damaged the bottle and triggering a secondary explosion. But that also seems far-fetched.



I don’t think you realize/respect the damage that compressed gas and the container can do if they cut loose. I’ve seen a truck tire (Dayton rim/snap ring style rim/split rim) that the “snap ring” came loose from the rim. This happened at a stop light, the damage was enough that it totaled a Volkswagen and injured the driver. The insurance agent suspected it was fraud and consulted with engineers and mechanics and was reassured that the damage and evidence supported at the damage was from a tire/rim failure. I think the tire pressure was just an excess of 100 psi. I think you’ll find that the O2 pressure was much higher in the aircraft and that the volume was probably greater in the bottle; so there was much greater potential to do damage.


I can’t think of any specific cases right now but I remember several cases were aviation tires have exploded and caused structural damage to the aircraft. I think the typical airline tire has about twice the pressure as a commercial truck tire. Yet it pales in comparison to the pressure and the potential for an explosive release of an O2 bottle.

At one minute 25 seconds into this video a truck tire explodes. (note that this explosion was rather weak, because the tire’s strength was compromised by the fire)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqrWTl8M8BU

A lower pressure automotive tire, being over inflated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3mzsT6ze7A

After the last test, I'd like to see a spark introduced to the escaped O2 in the box to see what happens to the box.

You seem to be implying that the O2 bottle failure was a pyrotechnical type of explosion. The oxygen would not have to combust to result in such severe damage. If the oxygen container was to fail, the sudden release of pressure could be severe enough that it almost certainly would be considered an explosion and could do the damage without any form of combustion.

A party balloon has relatively infinitesimal pressure, yet if you pin prick a balloon, the sudden release of pressure can make a somewhat noisy pop. It may not be pyrotechnic, but the release of pressure is so sudden that even a bursting balloon can be considered a micro scale explosion.

An oxygen bottle would be like a metal balloon at much higher pressure. If it cut loose the pressure and the shrapnel could be very violent.

[Dmmoore]

ATFS Crash
I think you are dead on. The top of the bottle failed causing an immediate release of 115 cubic feet of O-2 at 1500 - 1850 PSI. The force generated is tremendous.
My question is, why?

[T.O.G.A.]

Of course the investigation will tell what happened but I do think pyrotechnics was involved.

I can see 1850 psi shooting a sst part with some mass and velocity through aluminum. But that's all I can see.

I have seen the damage a dropped door assist bottle (about the size of a cantalope) can do to a hangar wall some 60 ft away and 60 ft up- but it was loose and had compressed gas provide propulsion and it weighs about ten pounds.

This bottle is securely fixed in place. It sits on a shelf and cannot become a projectile.

Aside from blowing the part off, it should only have filled the compartment with oxygen. Once the gas is out of the bottle, it is no longer compressed. 747's are voluminous (sp?) and can easily withstand a pressure increase. 115cuft is less than 5ft X 5ft x 5ft. The walls should have remained intact if it was just a broken bottle. Unless, the sst regulator strikes the aluminum and creates a nice, hot spark, maybe more than one.

Consider the earlier posts were there were claims that the cabin and cargo floors buckled. You can't get that much damage from a bottle in addition to blowing out the side! With pyrotechnics, you multiply the volume of the contents in the bottle and the velocity of expansion then you get the damage we see. And I am not suggesting terrorism. I don't give them that much credit-

[T.O.G.A.]

[QUOTE=ATFS_Crash]

A party balloon has relatively infinitesimal pressure, yet if you pin prick a balloon, the sudden release of pressure can make a somewhat noisy pop. It may not be pyrotechnic, but the release of pressure is so sudden that even a bursting balloon can be considered a micro scale explosion.


Well, here is one theory I might accept: That the external skin was compromised (some one called her a corrosion queen) and it popped like a balloon.

[ATFS_Crash]

I found this video with some more examples of injuries and fatalities; documenting the damage that a relatively low pressure truck/industrial tire can do. There does not have to be combustion for there to be an explosion.

I think this demonstrates well the dangers of a compressed gas in a container.

Workers killed while servicing tires
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQbKCd3ezrA&NR=1

----
another example:
To the best I can recall.

There was an radio control model pilot that used 2 L pop bottle for an air reservoir for re-tractable gear and such. I think the pop bottle was rated at about 70 PSI working and about 90 PSI burst. I think the RC pilot filled the pop bottle to about 90 -130 PSI. During the flight the pop bottle exploded, shorting out the radio battery and rupturing the alcohol nitro methane fuel tank. The burning debris started a forest fire in Canada.
My question is, why?

That’s what we all would like to know. Hopefully we can find that Eureka piece of evidence, that shows damage from materials handling, or corrosion, fatigue fractures, an inclusion, etc…

I doubt it was a multiple explosion scenario (bomb or hazardous cargo); otherwise someone would’ve likely leaked the information; because the evidence would have been fairly obvious as much as the aircraft was intact.

It would be interesting to know if there was any pieces of the oxygen bottle bracket still attached to the airframe; if so it would be interesting to know the conditions of those bracket(s). Did the brackets fail secondarily from an exploding bottle? Or from as a primary failure; from overstress or fatigue, corrosion or other damage? If the brackets are shattered or torn a lot of information could probably be derived from the tears or cracks.

If the bottle itself failed then I think there’s a good chance that the Eureka pieces were ejected in the flight and it’s doubtful they will ever be recovered. I think that’s why one message board member was asking if this happened over water or land; because over land there would be virtually no chance of recovering the evidence and overseas there would probably be even less. Unless we can find that Eureka piece(s) we may not know exactly what happened in this case.

[AJ]

I can clearly see my posts being ignored so I won't bother from here on in.

That being said a previous post I made stated fact about where the bottle failed.

[Airbus_A320]

There was oxygen in the system although the pressure was significantly reduced at the extremities of the system and the duration of flow was reduced.
Alright, that makes sense. Thanks for the explaination.

[ATFS_Crash]

Well, here is one theory I might accept: That the external skin was compromised (some one called her a corrosion queen) and it popped like a balloon.

That’s a definite possibility and a suspicion. However IMAO The majority of the evidence does not seem to be indicating that at this time. The majority of the evidence seems to suggest an oxygen bottle failure; whether it be a primary or secondary cause.


I too was thought it might be some sort of fatigue issue of the skin or supporting structure. My suspicions were also elevated when it was pointed out that the failure occurred right next to some repairs; to repair damage from corrosion. I thought maybe the repairs were substandard that may have aggravated a fatigue issue and may have been additionally aggravated by corrosion after the corrosion repair..


I’m not saying this was the exact suspicion that I had but these two mishaps popped into mind when the corrosion and repair issues were brought up.

Japan Airlines Flight 123
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123

Aloha Airlines Flight 243
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243


I don’t think the failure of the skin or supporting structure stemming from possible corrosion and or possible shoddy repairs could be entirely ruled out yet. However some of the evidence seems to strongly contradict those theories.

The evidence that seems to point suspicion away from possible corrosion or possible shoddy repairs of the skin or supporting structure; is that there was shrapnel apparently shot into the cabin area. If it was a straightforward hull breach; almost all of the explosive force would be outward. Since there was shrapnel apparently blown into the cabin area; that strongly suggests that something like an oxygen bottle cut loose/exploded inside the aircraft; because a considerable amount of the force was apparently directed inward. I would think if it was a deliberate bomb, as in pyrotechnic, as in terrorism; that the evidence would be fairly clear and probably already public knowledge. Therefore for the most part I rule out a deliberate bomb, as in pyrotechnic, as in terrorism.

Though I am doubtful this happened I am willing to consider some even bizarre possibilities. Some of these hypothetical possibilities may not be possible on this aircraft; so my hypothesis may be out of line due to my ignorance of the particular design/layout of the aircraft. This is very bizarre and a very remote possibility hypothetically; suppose the skin or supporting structure failed, suppose there was a line, electrical wire, or linkage that was attached to part of the structure that blew out. So suppose that corrosion or and shoddy repairs was the primary failure, and perhaps a line, electrical wire or linkage that was connected to part of the structure that was blown out by a hull breach slapped against the oxygen tank; damaging the oxygen tank thusly causing it to explode secondarily. I doubt this happened, but hypothetically it is possible.

I can clearly see my posts being ignored so I won't bother from here on in.

That being said a previous post I made stated fact about where the bottle failed.
I don’t think it is so much that you are being ignored. Your contributions seem to be knowledgeable and productive. Though I’m one of the first to make a snap judgment/guess as to a cause, I often keep an open mind and am willing to consider some very bizarre and remote possibilities before making my final conclusions.

I think most people are in agreement with you in that it was a bottle failure, we just want to be a little slow and cautious to make our final conclusions. During an investigation it's best to be fairly open-minded, to prevent overly bias, and to prevent prejudice from overlooking or misinterpreting the evidence. Often there is more than one way to interpret the evidence, and as new evidence is discovered the direction of the investigation may change. So it's best to have a somewhat open mind and follow the evidence.

I think most of the people suspect that the oxygen bottle failed, we just want to be as sure as possible, and know why, and know whether it is a cause or effect.

[Dmmoore]

Great photos WOSR.

I still have a hard time accepting that a failed O2 bottle would have enough energy to blow a part through the door, cause a bulge in the door frame AND rip through all of those rivetted stringers and the a/c's skin AND blow out the inner cargo walls to expose, destroy wiring. To me, only a rapid expansion of gases caused by an explosion can do all that.

I'd like to see a similar bottle in an enclosed box slowly and rapidly punctured in different places to see if this damage can be replicated.

After the last test, I'd like to see a spark introduced to the escaped O2 in the box to see what happens to the box.

The bottle is approximately 7" in diameter. If the bottle separated in the major diameter (7" area) approximately 65,000 psi is trying to move the top and bottom of the bottle in opposite directions. More than enough force to do serious damage.

[Dmmoore]

Of course the investigation will tell what happened but I do think pyrotechnics was involved.

No evidence of any type of pyrotechnics involved.

I can see 1850 psi shooting a sst part with some mass and velocity through aluminum. But that's all I can see.

I have seen the damage a dropped door assist bottle (about the size of a cantalope) can do to a hangar wall some 60 ft away and 60 ft up- but it was loose and had compressed gas provide propulsion and it weighs about ten pounds.

This bottle is securely fixed in place. It sits on a shelf and cannot become a projectile.

The mounting screw clamp and shelf are not intended to prevent the bottle from becoming a projectile.

Aside from blowing the part off, it should only have filled the compartment with oxygen. Once the gas is out of the bottle, it is no longer compressed. 747's are voluminous (sp?) and can easily withstand a pressure increase. 115cuft is less than 5ft X 5ft x 5ft. The walls should have remained intact if it was just a broken bottle. Unless, the sst regulator strikes the aluminum and creates a nice, hot spark, maybe more than one.

Oxygen is only one element of the fire triangle. Add ignition and you still need fuel.

Consider the earlier posts were there were claims that the cabin and cargo floors buckled. You can't get that much damage from a bottle in addition to blowing out the side! With pyrotechnics, you multiply the volume of the contents in the bottle and the velocity of expansion then you get the damage we see. And I am not suggesting terrorism. I don't give them that much credit-

Well, a fire without evidence of such is non existent. As I understand it the only damage is due to impact and decompression. No heat related damage.

[aardvark2zz]

The bottle is approximately 7" in diameter. If the bottle separated in the major diameter (7" area) approximately 65,000 psi is trying to move the top and bottom of the bottle in opposite directions. More than enough force to do serious damage.

I believe you mean 65,000 lbs.

Does that mean I have caught a Dmmoore slip !!?? Unbelievable !!

Do I win a prize ? What is it ? A kick in the ass ??
.

[Dmmoore]

I believe you mean 65,000 lbs.

Does that mean I have caught a Dmmoore slip !!?? Unbelievable !!

Do I win a prize ? What is it ? A kick in the ass ??
.

Hay! it happens!:lol:
Now turn around and you will get your prize. Same location, but the other side!:)

[T.O.G.A.]

Good Monday Morn' all,

Just to address a couple arguments, No doubt an exploding O2 bottle packs a wallop.

Comparing a bottle that's in service to a tire being serviced is not fair. O2 bottles can blow during servicing too. That's why it is preferable to insert them in a concrete water container and why brass non sparking tools are used whilst servicing.

A fairer comparison would be an o2 bottle sitting on a shelf attached to the fuselage and a tire that attached to a vehicle sitting in a parking lot on a 70 degree F. day.

Also, it is not a fair comparison given the history and knowledge manufacturers have of their bottles and that, I think, they are hydrostatically tested every two years and can be only tested a certain number of times before being retired-if memory serves. Whereas, construction vehicles are not as rigorously inspected and personnel are not always well trained.

I still maintain that a flying hunk of steel, striking another piece of metal in a compartment flooded with oxygen is enough to cause a pyrotechnique boom-Keep in mind, using the word pyrotechnic does not mean I am claiming terrorism. Just that a spark for ignition.

The reason there is no evidence of a fire is because there was no fire. As soon as the hull was breached at 29000ft, that compartment, heat, and oxygen was rapidly evacuated and extinguished.

I submit this simple video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyy9yJ0I4E

No bombs or bullet involved. Just a simple problem. You tube is loaded with bullets and o2 bottles.

[T.O.G.A.]

Another youtube video of an exploding o2 bottle during serviceing...Still not fair to compare it to a bottle sitting on a shelf minding its own business but you can see similarities.

"...got so hot that it melted the top of the bottle..."

Ok, so here we have a bottle that explodes and melts a bottle but there is no fuel. And if you look at the slides very carefully, you will note that while there is some evidence of burn marks, considering the damage, not much. The evidence just may well be at the bottom of the ocean but that doesn't rule out an explosion.

Also note that the wrench was not a non-sparking wrench and the chain vice could have contributed to the incident (tension, grease). Somewhere in this chain of events, the was a spark (pyrotechnics).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lw_fhNAIQc&feature=related

[Dmmoore]

T.O.G.A.
FUEL...FUEL...FUEL!
You need Oxygen, Ignition & FUEL.
There is no indication there was any kind of pyrotechnic activity.

[T.O.G.A.]

Did you not look at the first clip? There was no more fuel in that simulated explosion than you would expect in a 747! There was no fuel in the second clip either.

Just a rapid exapansion of superheated gas that could cause the damage we see in the photos.

[Dmmoore]

Yes, I watched the clips.

The explosion depicted happened while servicing the bottle. ANY grease or oil inside the servicing equipment will cause an explosion.

The bottles heat up during servicing (increasing pressure, increasing temperature). These bottles were static. The only thing they can do is leak, decrease pressure. A failure while servicing is understandable. A failure during a hydrostatic test is understandable. They happen occasionally when the pressure and temperature is allowed to increase too rapidly. The failure of a static bottle is unique to this event. A static (serviced & mounted) bottle has NEVER ruptured in any aircraft.
I am most interested in the cause of the bottle failure. Some defect in the bottle had to exist.

[T.O.G.A.]

I agree with everything in your last post. A sitting bottle should be harmless.

But, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the part that was found in the door frame normally mounted away from the bottle? If so, could that part not have ricocheted more than once, striking the bottle thus rupturing it? I believe a ruptured bottle would collapse a little rendering the clamps useless. But if I remember correctly-I think I may have early onset alhiemers's- aren't these bottles made spun fiber meaning that they are lighter & softer than the aluminum ones and less dangerous?

Diffused oxygen and sparks can cause a flash. If that cargohold used LD-3 containers, there's lot's of grease nearby in the rollers and containers themselves. Not much separated the oxygen bay from the cargo hold.

Of course, this ricocheting regulator could have also poked a hole in the skin but that doesn't usually escalate to the damage that occurred. If it had punctured the skin, the oxygen would have been sucked out rapidly killing my flash fire theory --so that simply couldn't have happened!

By the way Dmmoore, Happy Birthday!!!!!!!

[O_K]

A sitting bottle should be harmless, yes, but I would not consider a bottle mounted on an airplane "sitting". There are lots of vibrations and possibilities for damage. I think someone mentioned it earlier in this thread, that i could have been damaged by the mounting brackets. I they are not tightened enough it would be a continuous wear at the location the bottle contacts the bracket. This could seriously weaken the bottle to the point that it ruptures.

[Duff]

Well as a ameuter scuba diver I had to get my air cylinder inspected every year. After about 7 yrs, one year it did not come back after being inspected. They found a slight crack internally.

Now some pressure cylinders depending on what they do etc. get inspected at different intervals. For eg. fire extinguisher cylinders where I come from are inspected every 5 yrs.
When I used to do underground mine rescue, the oxygen cylinders had to be internally inspected every year. Never had a bad one in all of the 30 cylinders that got inspections.
However I have herd of the same cylinders failing inspections else where.


So not being from the aircraft industry, I dont know what there regulations are for pressure cylinders are, but I will take a guess that they would have to be inspected every year. If not then I would be surprised.

So I dont know the answer on why this oxygen cylinder has gone off on this Qantas flight, but pressure cylinders are perodically inspected for a reason, and this incident may be why.
It would be interesting to know when the last inspection date was. However that would be stamped on the cylinder, which would now be sitting in a seabed, making a nice home for a crab.

Duff

[T.O.G.A.]

However that would be stamped on the cylinder, which would now be sitting in a seabed, making a nice home for a crab.

Duff

Not necessarily, the bottles have serial numbers and their history is well documented. With a few keystrokes, Qantas should be able to tell investigators everything they need to knowabout the bottle's life including who installed it ,who removed it, who serviced it and who inspected it for the last three yeears at least.

[Highkeas]

Don,



Disregard my PM...found a way to share the file with you all...have a look at this, as it was sent to me today

http://rapidshare.com/files/134686598/Qantas.pdf.html

I see several broken electrical cables on these photographs.

Has anyone identified what the red and green plastic sheeted items are?

[Dmmoore]

I see several broken electrical cables on these photographs.

Has anyone identified what the red and green plastic sheeted items are?

Cargo. Not a part of the aircraft.

[Highkeas]

ATSB has posed a news release about this incident

http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_33.aspx
Click on Slides used in media conference (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/files/QF30_1mediaPP.pdf) for photogrsaphs and diagrams.

Apparently the entite bottle (or most of it) flew into the main cabin before dropping back down into the hold and exiting the aircraft.

[Theoddkiwi]

Man that they we very very lucky that it richocet back down rather than through the passenger cabin or probably worse out the other side of the aircraft.

It anyone had been by that door they would have had no chance.

[Cargo Runner]

Flipping heck :uhoh: and all of that little carry on in a matter of seconds as well ....... sometimes I guess there must be someone up there who tries to make amends. Truely awesome pics and full credit to the Aussie board for a nice presentation :clap:

[AJ]

After working for FEDEX and DHL for 22 years as A&P mechanic, I can tell you those bags are mail bags from those companies, I can even see a COMAT bag in there (company's materials).
If you don't believe me, that is fine. Have a great day and this is my last post to your forum..and my last visit to it.
I know they were from a DHL pallet, I was disputing the "AND WAS THE FIRST STUFF THAT GOT SUCKED FROM THE CARGO COMPARTMENT..!.." statement. Not one item of cargo or baggage was lost.
I guess this is falling on deaf ears as you don't visit here any more.

[Cargo Runner]

Not one item of cargo or baggage was lost.

That's pretty impressive, seems like the cargo nets saved any loss then :clap:

[palle7688]

ATSB realeased a preliminary factual report stating that "one passenger oxygen cylinder (number-4 from a bank of seven cylinders along the right side of the cargo hold) had sustained a sudden failure and forceful discharge of its pressurised contents into the aircraft hold, rupturing the fuselage in the vicinity of the wing-fuselage leading edge fairing. The cylinder had been propelled upward by the force of the discharge, puncturing the cabin floor and entering the cabin adjacent to the second main cabin door. The cylinder had subsequently impacted the door frame, door handle and overhead panelling, before falling to the cabin floor and exiting the aircraft through the ruptured fuselage.".

See full report here:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/pdf/AO2008053_Prelim.pdf

[palle7688]

In one of the pictures you can actually see the cargo being hold by the cargonetting. Pretty impressive.

Seems like the hole oxygenbottle went up through the floor and down again through the same hole in the floor and out through the hole the pressure made in the fuselage skin. The actual path is drawn in last pages of the prelim. report.
No sign of pyrotechnics.

Did anybody say oxygen killed more onboard aircrafts than it saved????

[ultraflight]

What would happen to the passengers during the approx. 5 minutes it takes to descend from 29.0000 to 10.000 feet? Seems like a long time to be "cold turkey" at Mount Everest altitude...

[andrasz]

What would happen to the passengers during the approx. 5 minutes it takes to descend from 29.0000 to 10.000 feet? Seems like a long time to be "cold turkey" at Mount Everest altitude...

The vast majority (90%+) would pass out within 40-60 seconds from lack of oxygen (See the Helios Air accident...), but would come to once reaching 15-12 thousand feet without any permanent damage. A small percentage could suffer from 'altitude sickness' (the combined effects of low pressure and lack of oxygen) which may be fatal. However altitude sickness is caused more by low pressure (it is an accumulation of fluid in the brain and lungs), and takes hours to develop, I don't think the period of an emergency descent would be sufficient to induce it.

[MCM]

Well, it depends on a lot of things, depending on age, fitness etc.

Some of the pax it looks like got some oxygen that was residual in the system. The cabin altitude climbed to just over 25,000ft, before obviously descending as the aircraft did (probably maintaining just below the aircraft altitude).

At 25,000ft, most people without oxygen would have a reasonable period of useful conciousness (about 3 minutes), and at 20,000ft about 10 minutes... So the time from 25,000ft to 20,000 would have meant that you remained within the time of useful conciousness. This is far different to if it happened at 40,000ft where you would have about 15 seconds of conciousness. This was proved by reports saying that whilst passengers went blue and felt feint, they didn't pass out.

You would expect a lot of pain (from gas expantion without time to release) as well as some popped ear drums amongst the passengers.

[T.O.G.A.]

Clearly no pyrotechnics. I humbly put my argument to rest.But geez, what are the odds of something that big ricocheting around the cabin and finding the second hole it created and getting sucked out of the aircraft? It's like something out of a wild west movie.

[APS]

Of course the times given for useful consciousness are scientifically-derived formula. A person experiencing the increased heart rate, shallow breathing and other classic signs of nervousness/panic will often reduce their "useful" time of consciousness.

Not that that's particularly relevant to this conversation. But I had to find something to make my first post on. :p

[MCM]

Absolutely APS (and welcome!). The figures given are "average" (whatever that is!) adult consciousness periods at those altitudes... of course, its usually based on being "at rest" which we all know is unlikely if there is a hole in your aeroplane :razz:

Things like the shallow breathing, stress, high heart rate, age and fitness levels all contribute.

I was more interested in demonstrating for ultraflight (and others) that for a rapid depressurisation from a cabin altitude of 25,000ft it is actually possible for people to remain conscious (although perhaps not usefully so... but as long as its not the pilot we can probably cope with that) assuming a rapid descent to a safer altitude.

Its amazing how another 10,000ft or so and the situation changes entirely.

[ultraflight]

Mountaineers refer to altitudes over 8000 meters as the "zone of death".
But if the pilots have oxygen and can bring the plane down to an acceptable altitude within a few minutes, there is something to be said for limiting the pressure in the O2 tanks, for example.
After all, if the people on the Qantas plane had died because of a crash, the balance of lives saves and lost because of having 02 on board would have been outright negative.
Hopefully more will be found out about the cause of the tank failing, from other tanks of the same production lot, for instance.

[MCM]

Ultraflight,


This really was a freak occurance. How many millions of hours have 747's flown around the world, and this has occurred once.

The 744 has large bottled oxygen which means it can go places that some other aircraft can't go. For example, there are routes over China where you can't just descend to 10,000ft, and the oxygen keeps passengers comfortable while you cruise at say 18,000ft until you are away from high terrain.

Some other aircraft have chemical generators which are installed above the seat, however have a much shorter supply of oxygen.
The reason people survived without oxygen in this case is because the aircraft was at a relatively low altitude. The vast majority of the flights are done at or above 35,000ft, and without oxygen there, you do have big problems.

[Dmmoore]

Gaseous O-2 is used on every pressurized (and some non pressurized GA) aircraft that have ever flown in commercial service. This is the first time an O-2 bottle decided to rupture while it was in service and not being serviced or removed and replaced.
My only comment is, WHAT THE FCUK! :shock:

[Quench]

What would happen to the passengers during the approx. 5 minutes it takes to descend from 29.0000 to 10.000 feet? Seems like a long time to be "cold turkey" at Mount Everest altitude...

Could you descend in 5 minutes over the alps ?

[ultraflight]

Could you descend in 5 minutes over the alps ?
Point taken!:roll:

[andrasz]

Could you descend in 5 minutes over the alps ?

Yes. In the Alps you only have a few peaks above 10000 ft., all of them along the main ridge. At any given spot you have several options to descend to 10k without any terrain hazard. Now central Asia or the high Andes is another matter...

[mrdeux]

If anyone is still interested in this, there is an updated report on the ATSB web site. It can be found here:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/pdf/AO2008053_Interim.pdf

[Dmmoore]

Thanks for posting the link. We aren't done yet. Changes in the O-2 bottle inspection / life limits are coming.

[safetyfirst]

there's a video of the incident from the inside of the plane. Here is the link
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=fu7kiqc9xeo

this video has been removed owing to third party copyright claims

[Highkeas]

ATSB realeased a preliminary factual report stating that "one passenger oxygen cylinder (number-4 from a bank of seven cylinders along the right side of the cargo hold) had sustained a sudden failure and forceful discharge of its pressurised contents into the aircraft hold, rupturing the fuselage in the vicinity of the wing-fuselage leading edge fairing. The cylinder had been propelled upward by the force of the discharge, puncturing the cabin floor and entering the cabin adjacent to the second main cabin door. The cylinder had subsequently impacted the door frame, door handle and overhead panelling, before falling to the cabin floor and exiting the aircraft through the ruptured fuselage.".

See full report here:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/pdf/AO2008053_Prelim.pdf


From today's AIAA newsletter:

Report Finds July 2008 Explosion Of Oxygen Bottle Was "Unique Event."

The Wall Street Journal (http://mailview.custombriefings.com/mailview.aspx?m=2010112201aiaa&r=2923760-36e6&l=006-924&t=c) (11/22, subscription required) reports on the final report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau on an investigation into an explosion of an oxygen bottle on a Qantas Boeing 747 in July 2008. The report concluded that such an incident is unlikely to be repeated, but was unable to find the exact cause, given that the bottle fell into the ocean, having blown a whole in the side of the plane. ATSB chief commissioner Martin Dolan said that tests were unable to find a design or manufacturing problem with the oxygen bottle, concluding, "it was clear that this occurrence was a unique event."

Yes - a unique event to date.

[ATFS_Crash]

ATSB chief commissioner Martin Dolan said that tests were unable to find a design or manufacturing problem with the oxygen bottle, concluding, "it was clear that this occurrence was a unique event."

I hope he’s right in his conclusion. However it’s not necessarily going to be a unique event even if it’s not a direct design or manufacturing problem with the oxygen bottle.

Aren’t the oxygen bottles located in a place that they might be inadvertently exposed to damage by reckless material handlers/load masters, insecure cargo or receive secondary exposure to erosive foreign substances like salt or acid? A gash and corrosion over period of time could lead to premature failure, that might coincidentally happen on other aircraft with oxygen bottles in the cargo bay.

Just speculating and suggesting we keep an open mind.

[Gabriel]

...given that the bottle fell into the ocean, having blown a whole in the side of the plane.
Luckily it has blown a whole and not a hole...