12 Comments

• 

  USNinJapan2 at 06:52 PM JST - 26th July

  There's a hole in my jumbo dear Sheila dear Sheila...

• 

  LIBERTAS at 07:36 PM JST - 26th July

  So, fix it, dear Trevor, dear Trevor. Fix it!

• 

  northlondon at 08:30 PM JST - 26th July

  A hole caused by an explosive decompression ? Passengers woken by a loud explosive bang ? Initial reports indicated no link to terrorism ? Nice to see that Qantas have totally disregarded the terrorist threat. Wouldn't it take a few day's before they can make that kind of confident statement ?

• 

  DenshaDeGO at 09:35 PM JST - 26th July

  On the news here they mentioned finding corrosion during the aircrafts inspection in March. Not much more information than that though

• 

  OssanULTRA at 12:35 AM JST - 27th July

  Leaving aside tghe total chaos that would ensue, shouldn't every 747-400 in service throughout the world be immediately grounded until the cause of the explosion is determined?

• 

  Freespeech at 06:56 AM JST - 27th July

  If Ciron, Dixon and Gibson had said nothing we would be just as wise about the case... Don't misunderstand, northlondon, it is highly likely that the explosive decompression is the consequence, not the cause, of this aircraft suddenly losing a large piece of its fuselage skin. Additionally, I believe that if there had been an explosive device inside the holds of this Jumbo, the wound would have a completely different aspect, with torn and distorted metal ; instead, it is "clean" as if a skin panel had been removed. Now why ? Structural failure, or structural failure accelerated by corrosion (corrosion, not rust, you idiot) : this would mean that all aircrafts of this family have to be grounded ASAP for accurate inspection and that corrosion -if such is the case- has to be explained. Another possible explanation, that QANTAS certainly would hate to have to give : the piece that separated from the fuselage (actually a piece of the fairing blending the wing's leading edge with the fuselage) is in a location where damage could have been inflicted earlier, for instance in a collision with ground handling equipment, and the repair would have been botched. Anybody has any other explanation to propose ?

• 

  presto345 at 11:20 AM JST - 27th July

  Anybody has any other explanation to propose ?

  Only 6 of these aircraft have been built, exclusively for Quantas. It's a revised version of previous models. Inherent structural failure?

• 

  northlondon at 02:44 PM JST - 27th July

  Freespeech

  Official Accident Investigation Spokesperson for Qantas Airlines

  Japan Division

• 

  nandakandamanda at 07:12 PM JST - 27th July

  I read a long report not too long ago of blocked drains on Qantas 747s. Something about the stewardesses pouring the coffee ground etc. down the sinks when they clean up. This has caused considerable seepage and leakage and wet floors down below the galleys, so corrosion would have to be a factor to consider, even if the investigators conclude that it did not apply here.

• 

  some14some at 11:37 PM JST - 27th July

  since flight originated from London, people will have multiple concerns and multiple suspicions.

• 

  rajakumar at 01:51 AM JST - 28th July

  The cause of this incident, must be investigated and told to the press.

• 

  Freespeech at 06:49 AM JST - 28th July

  There are things that a mechanical engineer can notice, from the pictures and the accounts, and this is the basis for my "theories" as Mr Gibson says, or hypotheses if you prefer. On the oxygen cylinders : one is missing, is it because it exploded and that no trace (repeat : no trace) of it can be found, or is it because the loss of fuselage skin in this area pulled it away ? If a cylinder exploded, well, it is an explosive device like another (maybe less powerfule than a chemical explosive), but I would expect the fuselage skin to show metal pushed to the outside, with irregular contours. It all looks like this fairing was neatly taken away, so I cannot help but think that even an O2 cylinder explosion must have benefited from bad "stitching" of this skin panel. What could make a panel so easily detachable in the event of a pressure surge on the inside of the holds ? Anything of structural weakness induced by corrosion (not "rust", you ignorant journalist) or by metal fatigue or by shoddy assembly or shoddy repair,... or a combination of several. Now to a more "philosophical" approach : we are in presence of an accident which, having caused no human loss thanks to God, is extremely interesting to analyze because it gives insight on a rarely (if ever) described situation i.e. the dynamics of an "explosive decompression". We have hundreds of valuable witnesses for describing what happened, what they heard, saw and felt... It seems that some description has been given of massive air movement in the cabin at the time of the decompression. Now remember the tragedy of JAL's flight 123 in 1985, in which the loss of rudder system was attributed to the failure of the rear cabin bulkhead with explosive decompression. The only survivor -a stewardess- was later asked whether she had experienced a "wind gust" in the cabin, and (correct me if I am wrong, I am working out of recollection), she said there had been no such thing. Her statement was disregarded and the japanese investigators pushed their theory regardless (the committee of "ah sooh" men against the lone person). We now have substantial information at hand on what happens in a cabin under a condition of explosive decompression, and it is my impression that it should be used for good cause. By the way, has anything be disclosed about the condition of the floor separating the passenger cabin from the holds on the Qantas aiplane ?

Register or login to add a comment!