Hydralics vurnability by design.

When I read about Japan Airlines Flight 123 (Boeing 747-SR46) that crashed due
a bad repair of the rear pressure bulkhead. And the subsequent rupture of ALL
hydralic pipes. It makes me wonder WHY are airplanes designed with this
single-point-of-failure?

Seems a lot of crashs could been avoided if the hydralics system would been
intact.
So why not design some kind of redudancy into the hydralics system?, just
seperating the hydralic pipe route could improve safety by minimising the
chance of all hydralics failing.
Or even have a electrical servo backup system should hydralics fail?

Bad repair - Hydralics ripped
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123
Cargo door - Hydralics ripped
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...ines_Flight_96
Engine rupture - Hydralics ripped
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nes_Flight_191
Turkish DC-10 crashed at Orly due to total loss of hydraulic power
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...15/ai_70429487

wrote in :

When I read about Japan Airlines Flight 123 (Boeing 747-SR46) that
crashed due a bad repair of the rear pressure bulkhead. And the
subsequent rupture of ALL hydralic pipes. It makes me wonder WHY are
airplanes designed with this single-point-of-failure?


They aren't.


Seems a lot of crashs could been avoided if the hydralics system would
been intact.
So why not design some kind of redudancy into the hydralics system?,

Hmmm. Maybe you should write to Boeing and Airbus about this..

I'm sure they'd appreciate this singel point of vurnability pointed out.

Maybe Ken can help you with this. I think he made a hydraulic system out of
ole toilet paper tubes at one time.


Bertie

writes:

When I read about Japan Airlines Flight 123 (Boeing 747-SR46) that crashed due
a bad repair of the rear pressure bulkhead. And the subsequent rupture of ALL
hydralic pipes. It makes me wonder WHY are airplanes designed with this
single-point-of-failure?

They aren't. That was an exceptional situation in which multiple hydraulic
systems passed through a single opening in the bulkhead, which was a design
oversight. The systems were indeed independent, but when the bulkhead was
fortuitously sheared away at precisely the point where the several systems
were in close proximity, it disabled them all.

Or even have a electrical servo backup system should hydralics fail?

There are often multiple back-ups for all critical systems. The 747 is well
equipped with back-up systems.

In some cases, there isn't much choice. If you have multiple systems moving
the elevators, inevitably they all must come in close proximity where they
actually connect to the elevators, so if something happens there, you could
still lose them all.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

When I read about Japan Airlines Flight 123 (Boeing 747-SR46) that
crashed due a bad repair of the rear pressure bulkhead. And the
subsequent rupture of ALL hydralic pipes. It makes me wonder WHY are
airplanes designed with this single-point-of-failure?

They aren't. That was an exceptional situation in which multiple
hydraulic systems passed through a single opening in the bulkhead,
which was a design oversight. The systems were indeed independent,
but when the bulkhead was fortuitously sheared away at precisely the
point where the several systems were in close proximity, it disabled
them all.

Or even have a electrical servo backup system should hydralics fail?

There are often multiple back-ups for all critical systems. The 747
is well equipped with back-up systems.

In some cases, there isn't much choice. If you have multiple systems
moving the elevators, inevitably they all must come in close proximity
where they actually connect to the elevators, so if something happens
there, you could still lose them all.


Nope

Bertie

On Feb 5, 6:22*am, wrote:
When I read about Japan Airlines Flight 123 (Boeing 747-SR46) that crashed due
a bad repair of the rear pressure bulkhead. And the subsequent rupture of ALL
hydralic pipes. It makes me wonder WHY are airplanes designed with this
single-point-of-failure?

Seems a lot of crashs could been avoided if the hydralics system would been
intact.
So why not design some kind of redudancy into the hydralics system?, just
seperating the hydralic pipe route could improve safety by minimising the
chance of all hydralics failing.
Or even have a electrical servo backup system should hydralics fail?

You really should write to Boeing and Airbus about this discovery
you've made. You may save lives!! Please, please post their response
if they respond to you.

-Robert

There IS redundancy built in Boeings. On a B727, it's called Manual
Reversion. There's also a Standby Hydraulic system for the Lower Rudder
wrote in message ...
When I read about Japan Airlines Flight 123 (Boeing 747-SR46) that crashed
due
a bad repair of the rear pressure bulkhead. And the subsequent rupture of
ALL
hydralic pipes. It makes me wonder WHY are airplanes designed with this
single-point-of-failure?

Seems a lot of crashs could been avoided if the hydralics system would
been
intact.
So why not design some kind of redudancy into the hydralics system?, just
seperating the hydralic pipe route could improve safety by minimising the
chance of all hydralics failing.
Or even have a electrical servo backup system should hydralics fail?

Bad repair - Hydralics ripped
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123
Cargo door - Hydralics ripped
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...ines_Flight_96
Engine rupture - Hydralics ripped
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nes_Flight_191
Turkish DC-10 crashed at Orly due to total loss of hydraulic power
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...15/ai_70429487