Under The Direction Of The Captain, Plans, Organizes, Directs And Participates In Th: Fill & Download for Free

The answer is simple and it will make you think twice about flying. Throw away your conspiracy theories, the simplest answer is almost always the right one. I was involved in the commercial and military programs that were partially ignited by TWA 800. The issue was known but TWA 800 made it a priority. All this falls under what is termed “ The Aging Aircraft Wiring Systems” initiatives., which were launched in earnest by multiple organizations once the severity was understood. The aviation industry in general was caught off guard. The FAA, AFRL, NAVAIR/ NAVSEA, DARPA, NASA, NTSB, Sandia, major universities and all the airframe OEM’s, all had major programs launched. We had no technology to assess how bad things had become but the initial findings were very bad, I mean scary bad. In many cases, it was starting to look like it would be cheaper to scrap some aircraft than trying to fix them.What they discovered is that the wiring insulation lost a lot more of its insulation properties over time than what was anticipated and that wire clamping and routing had to be re engineered in many cases . All this is especially true in aircraft fuel tanks. Jet fuel isnt explosive unless it is a vapor. The last place you want a bare wire where arcing could take place is in a fuel tank. The more aircraft they inspected the red flags were hoisted ever higher. It was so bad that the FAA issued directives on certain model aircraft, restricting them to not fly below a certain fuel level in the tanks. This was to assure that the bare wire areas were always submerged in fuel, especially during takeoffs and landings.Since then a lot has been done, but it is still a big problem. The OEM’s and the FAA have been working towards fuel tank inerting systems. Systems that siphon off the fuel vapor and replace it with nitrogen, eliminating the explosion risk.Just dig around a bit on the FAA’s website to see the details and you will think twice about boarding an old aircraft.A final note. One of the big engineering mistakes identified as the likely cause of such an explosion was that the wiring harness bundles were not segregated by what the wires were doing. The fuel level indicator sensors in the fuel tanks are low voltage and low current. They are designed not to spark. During these investigations and research initiatives, the original wiring harness designs were reviewed for potential problems. Sure enough there were plenty.The biggest risk came from bundling high power and high voltage wires together in the same harness as the low voltage sensor wires. Anyone who has ever worked on cars as a hobby can tell you about being zapped by the ignition coil through the wire insulation. In an aircraft, its the perfect storm for catastrophe. So common sense seemed to have been left out of the design meetings on a lot of this. This was one of the first things that they started to fix with Airworthiness Directives from the FAA.The final words from flight 800 right before the explosion, the captain was recorded as saying, “Look at that crazy fuel flow indicator there on number four, see that? The likely spark that ended the flight.Inside a 747 center wing tank .. size of a roomwalkthrough the fuel tanks in below video to appreciate the volumeAdditional notes …I have added information on what has happened in the industry, due to the many comments on maintenance, in the sections below.An NTSB presentation from back when i was involved with this ntsbfueltanks.pptA couple of slides from the above NTSB presentation from 2007 ….lots of people asked if other planes have had the issue…here are severalJUST ADDED - For those who want the hard core details on the latest environmental testing on wires : http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar082.pdfUSA Today http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washdc/2001-05-02-faa.htm05/01/2001 - Updated 11:31 PM ETFAA to issue strict fuel-tank safety rulesBy Alan Levin, USA TODAYNearly five years after TWA Flight 800 exploded, federal aviation officials plan within days to issue tough new fuel-tank safety standards. The Federal Aviation Administration's final regulations would apply new standards to the entire fleet of about 7,000 commercial aircraft, several aviation sources told USA TODAY. The agency has estimated the changes will cost airlines about $170 million.The long-awaited rules address safety recommendations from the TWA 800 accident, which killed 230. The rules will require more inspections of tanks and revamped designs.The FAA estimated that without any changes the world's airlines could expect a fuel-tank explosion once every 4½ years. Officials hope the new fuel-tank rules will stretch the time between explosions to about 15 years.Instead of settling the issue, however, the new rules are intensifying the debate over what additional steps are needed to prevent fuel-tank blasts.The FAA last year proposed injecting tanks with inert gas to prevent explosions. But airline officials in recent weeks told an FAA advisory group that inert gas will not be necessary with the new standards, several aviation sources say. The airline industry contends the risks are so small that the estimated $1.6 billion cost of using inert gas would be better spent solving other safety problems.This contradicts findings by the National Transportation Safety Board last year that the only way to eliminate fuel explosions is by using inert gas.Three jets have been destroyed by center fuel tank explosions since 1990. On March 3, one person died when a Thai Airways International jet parked at a terminal in Bangkok was destroyed. Investigators for the National Transportation Safety Board say preliminary evidence shows the jet's center fuel tank exploded.Among the steps being taken to reduce the risks is an effort to get airlines to decrease use of on-board air conditioners, which heat fuel tanks. Last week, the FAA also issued an emergency order to shut off pumps in empty 737 tanks.USA Today Air-cooling gear can heat tanks05/01/2001 - Updated 10:00 PM ETAir-cooling gear can heat tanksBy Alan Levin, USA TODAYEvery day this summer, thousands of jets will take off with fuel tanks holding a heated, explosive mix of gases.Despite dozens of safety measures enacted since TWA Flight 800 exploded in 1996, officials continue to debate whether fuel tanks are safe enough. In the wake of another deadly fuel tank explosion aboard a jet in Bangkok, Thailand, in March, USA TODAY sought to determine how airlines in this country are following one suggestion to help reduce the heat in fuel tanks.In some Boeing jets, tanks sit next to air-conditioning systems that blast them with heat. At normal temperatures, jet fuel is difficult to ignite. But when fuel vapors get hot enough, a single spark can set off an explosion capable of breaking a jet apart in flight. Three such fatal explosions have destroyed jets since 1990.In a change from just a few years ago, many jets now use cold air piped in from the airport terminal instead of using the aircraft's own air conditioning, USA TODAY found.But roughly half of all flights in summer months still use the jets' air-conditioning systems, according to information from pilots, airline spokesmen and government officials."I think the running of the air-conditioning packs on the ground is the most important contributor to the development of (explosive) vapor," says Bernard Loeb, the recently retired head of the National Transportation Safety Board's aviation accident investigation team.After the TWA explosion, which killed 230 people, the NTSB recommended that air conditioning from the terminal be used.Explosions are rare, but the FAA estimates that on the average jet, fuel tanks are flammable 35% of the time. That could be reduced to 25% with mandatory use of alternative air-conditioning sources. Most of that risk occurs on the ground or shortly after takeoff. Cooler air at high altitudes cools fuel tanks.Spokesmen for Boeing, which built the three jets that exploded, and airlines say the tanks are safe. "We don't believe that the carriers who continue to run the (air-conditioning) packs have created an unsafe condition," Boeing spokesman Tim Neale says.One year ago, Boeing issued a letter to its customers suggesting that, "when available," airlines pipe cool air in from the terminal rather than run the on-board air conditioners. Airline officials say they have increasingly begun using "ground-conditioned air" in recent years, but more for economic than safety reasons. Cooling a jet with a system on the ground is cheaper than running a jet's air conditioners.Large carriers such as American Airlines and United Airlines direct pilots to switch off on-board air conditioners at terminals with an alternative source of cool air, spokesmen said.Airlines say that virtually all the nation's large hub airports are now equipped with air-conditioning systems at terminals. Southwest Airlines, which often flies to alternative destinations, uses ground air conditioning at about half of its most popular destinations, and the number is growing, spokeswoman Beth Harbin said.Alternative air conditioning can help only so much, however. Pilots report that some widebody jets are too big to be cooled exclusively by outside air, so they must continue to run on-board conditioners. And many outlying airports do not offer air conditioning.Because a jet's interior heats up so quickly in the sun, pilots say they sometimes have no alternative but to operate on-board conditioners. "I'm going down to Cancun, Mexico, this afternoon," airline pilot David Heekin said recently. "You better believe I'm going to have the air-conditioning packs going full swing."On jets made by McDonnell Douglas, such as the MD-11 and MD-80, the air conditioners were not placed next to the fuel tank. (Boeing now owns McDonnell Douglas.) Airbus placed air-conditioning packs next to tanks on its jets, but the company insulated the tanks and vented the area to reduce heat.see footnote link for overview of industry best practice and regulations on aircraft wiring from the FAA as a direct result of these activities.[1]Analysis of wreckage by Rendon GroupDisasters waiting to happen ……Photo of Arc-through of In-tank Fuel Pump Housing representative of post-accident inspection program (not from TWA 800) More aircraft would have shared the same or similar fate as TWA 800. We got lucky and fixed the problems first.Further ReadingAircraft Maintenance -The Inspection Process from http://www.coopind.com/news_AvMaint-WireMaintenance.htmOngoing wiring inspection is part of any aircraft’s regular safety check process. “In various checks (A/C/D-check) wiring is controlled visually for cleanness, cracks, chafing, color change and installation,” Arntz said. “This is done according to Original Equipment Manufacturer Standard Practice Manuals and EWIS (Electrical Wiring Interconnection System) tasks incorporated into the Aircraft Maintenance Program.”Still, unless something obvious happens—shortly before the explosion on TWA Flight 800, the captain was recorded as saying, “Look at that crazy fuel flow indicator there on number four, see that?”—electrical problems can go unnoticed. This is why such problems may not be found until the C- or D-Check, when “an aircraft is pretty much disassembled down to its bones,” said Frank Correro, StandardAero’s avionics manager in Springfield, Ill. “This is when technicians have their best opportunity to look at all of the aircraft’s wiring, to spot and rectify problems.” The only exceptions are self controlling systems built into an aircraft system that identify faults through BITE (Built-in Test Equipment) tests, and power wires that are specifically monitored with load control units (circuit breakers) to indicate system failure and protect wiring.Sometimes equipment manufacturers can help when aircraft wiring problems are identified in the shop. “Recently, HARCO was asked to look at a harness that had been in service for 20 years,” Gannon said. “The harness, which measured exhaust gas temperatures mated to probes, required exposed ring terminals to be fastened to the probe stud.” Now such an exposed ring terminal can invite moisture, which can reduce the insulation resistance of a wire harness. To address this, “Harco introduced some features to prevent the harness from absorbing water that improved the insulation resistance properties of the harness, and prevented false warning indicators from being triggered in the cockpit,” he said.What to Look ForUnfortunately for aircraft maintenance technicians, there is no advanced handheld device that can be waved over aircraft wires, to detect faults quickly and reliably. Instead, it takes careful visual inspections of wiring bundles, along with manipulation of wires for flexibility and signs of cracking, to detect problems before they become serious.“The problem is that most mechanics are not given extensive training in wiring inspection,” said Paul Sneden. He is an instructor at Global Jet Services. Based in Weatogue, Conn., Global Jet Services offers a range of professional development and continuing educations courses for aircraft technicians, including a week-long course in wiring inspection and maintenance that is used by MROs such as StandardAero. “They need extra hand-on training to identify and deal with the many signs of deteriorating aircraft wiring.”So what should mechanics be looking for when inspecting aircraft wiring? In general, anything that doesn’t look like factory-standard, Sneden replied. Ideally, wiring bundles should be secure but not under stress, with all clamps in place and properly locked. Exterior insulation should be unbroken and uncracked, and it should continue to be when flexed by hand to spot any hidden damage.Aging, faulty wiring is also thought to have contributed to the cockpit fire on Swissair 111 on September 2, 1998. While suggestive, the Canadian TSB investigation was unable to confirm if arcing from wiring of the in-flight entertainment system was the main event that ignited the flammable covering on insulation blankets that quickly spread across other flammable substances.Any form of staining is bad news. It could point to fluid leaking onto the wires, or deterioration of the wire’s insulation. “Similarly, any sign of chafing, charring, burning or arcing is not to be dismissed,” said Sneden. “The bundle needs to be removed and inspected, and if need be replaced.”That’s not all. Any signs of damage on wiring could be evidence of failures in other parts of the aircraft’s systems and airframe. The causes for wiring damage need to be tracked back to the source, so that these problems can be dealt with as well.A rule of thumb is the older and/or more used the aircraft, the more likely that the wiring is suffering from age-related deterioration. Since aircraft 20 years or older fall into the ‘aging’ category, mechanics need to be extra-vigilant when working on anything made in 1993 or earlier.Unfortunately, until the current wave of airline fleet renewals is over, MROs will find themselves coping with an increasing number of aging aircraft on a daily basis. The problem of wire deterioration is thus considered to be so serious, that “EWIS has been incorporated as a preventive measure to monitor wire aging,” said SR Technics’ Arntz. “Therefore it can be stated that on condition maintenance has been changed to a more preventive maintenance concept for wiring.”So far, “a complete re-wiring of aged wires is not yet a part of the rulemaking agenda,” he added. But this might change as active air fleets get older and if more aging wire issues emerge.Vigilance is VitalIf there is a moral to this tale, it is that aircraft wiring is a difficult-to-service element that must be monitored, inspected and maintained as rigorously as engines and avionics. The losses of TWA Flight 800 and Swissair Flight 111 point to the devastating consequences that can occur should this not happen.from An overview of the aircraft wiring issueBy David Evans, Editor Aviation Maintenance- Reprinted courtesy of Aviation Maintenance/Access IntelligenceThe potential hazard posed by bad aircraft wiring has generated a tremendous amount of activity in the industry. Some operators now treat wiring as a system, meriting attention during maintenance equivalent to the black boxes and other electrical components to which the wire is attached. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposal for fleetwide inspection of wiring in zones containing combustable materials or wiring within two inches of hydraulic, mechanical or electric flight controls could well involve a whole new - albeit necessary - burden on aircraft maintainers.The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) lent added urgency to the need for wiring inspections with its late June press conference, timed shortly before the 10 th anniversary of the TWA Flight 800 disaster, to reinforce and restate the Board’s concern about fuel tank safety and aging, cracked and deteriorated wiring. Recall that the accident airplane, an old B747-100, blew up shortly after takeoff from New York’s JFK International Airport on July 17,1996, for an overnight flight to Paris.All 230 aboard were killed when flammable vapors in the center wing fuel tank exploded. Electrical arcing in a bundle of wires outside the fuel tank produced a surge of current that passed down a fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wire. As the Board noted in its press release of June 29, “The ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank was attributed to an electrical failure.”Chafing the Dominant ProblemTo be sure, numerous airworthiness directives (Ads) have been issued since the TWA disaster, mandating wiring and other modifications to ensure electrical system safety. While the FAA does not have good records on the incidence of wire failures in the commercial industry, the U.S. Navy has amassed considerable information and insight. Navy data suggests that as many as one million man hours are spend annually in troubleshooting, isolating, locating and fixing wiring faults. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) data suggests that nearly as many hours are spent on unscheduled wiring maintenance as on scheduled maintenance.Further, the data collected by NAVAIR indicated that chafing contributed to more than a third (37%) of all wiring failures on Navy aircraft during the period 1980-1999. Moreover, despite the fact that chafing, or the erosion of insulation and the exposure of conductor, is a known problem, and the tools to resolve it are available, analysis of data from the years 2000 to 2004 show that chafing remained the leader of all wire failure modes on Navy aircraft.Perhaps the closest to an industry wide measure for the commercial side comes from the fleet wide inspections mandated by the FAA for fuel system wiring on the B737 fleet in 1998. The inspections were directed after fuel was observed leaking from a conduit for wiring that had been opened by electrical arcing. All B737 operators were required to report their findings to the FAA. The inspections revealed a clear relationship between aircraft age and the severity of the severity of the problems found. Fully 30% of aircraft with more than 70,000 hours were found with severe chafing and bare wires.That is twice the percent found on B737s with fewer than 70,000 hours. Some commercial operators have raised awareness of good wiring husbandry and practices to be avoided. For example, United Air Lines has widely distributed a poster outlining the do’s and don’ts for wiring maintenance.United’s laudable effort notwithstanding, we offer below a somewhat broader perspective of the aircraft wiring issue, including a contrarian view to the search for ever thinner and lighter wire insulation.Wiring 101The amount matters. Modern jets contain 100-200 miles of wiring running into every nook and cranny of the airplane. To borrow a biological metaphor, the wiring is akin to the body’s nervous system.The trend matters. New jets feature more wiring carrying more current (the advent of wireless systems is reversing this trend). The cabin area of a new-production jet, for example, features wiring for such things as in-flight entertainment systems. A measurement the electric power generating capacity of 1st, 2nd, and current generation jets of comparable passenger-carrying capability would show a steady increase in aircraft electric power generating capability.Protection matters, Fire detection and suppression is inadequate. Enough electric power for a medium-size office building is concentrated in the electrical and equipment (E&E) bay located under the cockpit. The E&E bay has neither fire detection nor suppression. A runaway electrical fire downed Swissair Flight 111 in Sept. 1998; a month later a Delta Airlines L-1011 experienced an electrical fire behind the flight engineer’s panel, in a location where hand extinguishers were virtually useless. With about 100 miles remaining on a flight from Hawaii to California, the crew effected an emergency landing at San Francisco. This airplane could easily have been “another Swissair,” involving an airplane of U.S. registry.Age matters. Wiring is not immortal; it ages in service. Over time, the insulation can break, exposing conductor. Exposed conductors create a fertile field for ticking faults, spurious signals and, worse, full-blown electrical arcing. Any carrier with a significant population of its aircraft having 10 or more years’ service has an aging wire problem.Location matters. Wiring is subject to changes in temperature, moisture, vibration and chafing. In some areas of the aircraft, such as in the leading/trailing edges of the wing, the landing gear wheel wells, etc., the physical stresses are higher than in more protected areas (e.g., the cabin)Installation matters. Sharp bend radii, improperly supported wire bundles, mixed insulation types in the same bundle, routing high and low power circuits in the same bundle, to name a few sins, can exacerbate the known environmental effects. Arcing in a vertically oriented bundle is more hazardous than in one running horizontally. One might suggest the large wire bundles indicate an electrical wiring philosophy based on ease of installation during manufacture, not necessarily ease of maintenance for the operator.Type matters. Certain types of wire insulation, notably aromatic polyimide, have known properties of hardness, vulnerability to cracking, and the tendency to arc spectacularly. Indeed, the carbonized insulation under arcing conditions itself becomes a conductor, spreading the danger literally with the speed of lightning.Maintenance matters. Wiring can be damaged during maintenance of other aircraft components, largely because technicians are unaware of the potential hazard created by stepping on a bundle or yanking it in such a way that brittle insulation is damaged further. Another major problem is unrelated maintenance damaging the wire. For example, drilling into aluminum structure creates shavings, called swarf. If those bits of swarf fall onto wire, they can eventually cut or wear through insulation, giving rise to intermittent (or worse) electrical failures. To be sure, it takes time to put a cover over the wires while drilling, then folding up the covers and removing them from the airplane. But it may take less time than involved in finding swarf-related faults in the wiring weeks or months later.The military’s experience matters. Some industry officials believe the U.S. military’s experience is not relevant jets are exposed to higher maneuvering loads and to harsher operating environments. On the other hand, the military’s experience with a jet designed with a 6,000 hour service life may be highly relevant to an airliner with a design service goal of 60,000 hours. The airliner is exposed to lower extremes over an order of magnitude longer period of time. In this respect, the military’s experience may be considered a form of accelerated aging from which the commercial side of the aerospace industry could learn much.Inspection types matter. Visual inspections are not enough. Eyeballing the wiring in a jet may uncover only a third or less of the insulation breaches exposing conductor. Yet technologies can be mobilized to quantify the state of wiring in an airplane, and to assess the amount of life remaining. These techniques can be used to target a cost-effective program of selective wire replacement.A Broad ViewThe airline industry may be at a place with respect to wiring that it was a decade ago with aging structure. The physical structure of an airliner now is built to be damage tolerant. That is, the airplane is designed such that structural components feature sufficient residual strength to withstand the weakening effects of fatigue cracking, say; from a tiny flaw that may lurk unseen somewhere in the structure from the day it leaves the factory. Recall that when damage tolerant structure was being debated, the manufactures worried the added weight would drive them out of the airplane building business and into the manufacture of railroad rolling stock.As it turned out, damage tolerant design added about 1,000 lbs. (454 kg) to the weight of a DC-10 while greatly extending its service life. Damage tolerant structure is now considered the norm.Wiring however, is not damage tolerant. As a weight saving measure, the thickness of the insulation has been shaved to minimum. In some wires, the insulation is about the thickness of four human hairs laid side-by-side. Or, as one expert observed, the industry is about “four hairs from electrocution.” Indeed, many of the problems of chafing, etc. elucidated above would not be the threats they are if the insulation was about four times thicker. Admittedly, this is kind of a brute-force approach, but by one estimate thickening the insulation would add about 200 pounds (91 kg) to the weight of wiring in a widebody jet.That’s about the equivalent weight of magazines and catalogues in the seat-back pockets. Perhaps a philosophy of damage tolerant electrical system design is only a matter of time—and certainly it is within the current state-of-the-art.Other potential improvements are numerous. Heavier insulation could be made an available option during manufacture. High power and low power wires could be better segregated. Connectors could be better separated, too and not all bunched together so that an electrical arc can jump from one to another. Longer- life circuit breakers could be installed as original equipment, saving considerable money over the long haul.Fire detection and suppression in the electronics and equipment (E&E) bay, and other unprotected areas where electrical systems are concentrated, could be insisted upon. The reduced maintenance costs, higher dispatch reliability, and fewer precautionary landings would, over the life of the airplane, more than offset the purchase cost of such features and protections.Brief Timeline on Flight 800 and the Fuel Tank Inerting FAA initiatives as a direct resultJuly 17, 1996 At about 2031 EDT, TWA flight 800, a Boeing 747-13, broke up in flight with a loss of life of all 230 passengers and crew. The crash debris fell into the Atlantic Ocean south of East Moriches, Long Island, NY. The accident investigation was one of the longest and most expensive in the NTSB's history. A substantial fraction of the aircraft was recovered and reconstructed, and numerous studies were carried in the effort to determine the probable cause. The Explosion Dynamics Laboratory at Caltech was asked by the NTSB to participate in the investigation and lead a group of researchers to examine the issues of fuel flammability, ignition, and flame propagation. EDL staff were involved from the fall of 1996 until the final hearing in August 2000.December 13, 1996 Safety Recommendation Letter A-96-174 published.TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: Require the development of and implementation of design or operational changes that will preclude the operation of transport-category airplanes with explosive fuel-air mixtures in the fuel tank: (a) significant consideration should be given to the development of airplane design modifications, such as nitrogen-inerting systems & the addition of insulation between heat-generating equipment & fuel tanks. Appropriate modifications should apply to newly certificated airplanes &, where feasible to existing airplanes.May 20, 1997 Added fuel tank flammability reduction to the Ten-Mosted Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements:"Reduce the potential for explosive fuel-air mixtures in fuel tanks of transport category aircraft. The NTSB has urged the FAA to make operational changes. They include refueling the center wing tank from cooler ground fuel tanks before flight, monitoring temperatures and maintaining a proper minimum amount of fuel in the tanks."December 8-9, 1997 NTSB Investigative hearing.August 22 and 23, 2000 Final hearing by NTSB and announcement of probable cause.2002 Fuel-tank inerting added to Ten-Most Wanted List (removed in 2008)Feb 17, 2004 The FAA announced that it is considering issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) requiring a fuel tank inerting system to be installed on existing aircraft with center wing tank flammability hazards.Feb 15, 2005 The FAA issued the special conditions for the certification of the flammability reduction means (FRM) or fuel tank inerting system proposed by Boeing for the 747 family of aircraft. This system will use hollow fiber membranes to generate "nitrogen enhanced air" to fill the vapor space of the center fuel tank in order to reduce the O2 concentration below 12% for a sufficient duration of the flight that the center fuel is not flammable for greater than 3% of the fleet operational time.Nov 15, 2005 The FAA has finally put on public display the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on fuel tank inerting.November 23, 2005 The (NPRM) was published in the Federal register.March 21, 2006 The FAA has extended the deadline for comment on the NPRM to May 8, 2006.July 12, 2006 From the NTSB website: "The investigation into a wing fuel tank explosion on a Transmile Airlines B-727 airplane in Bangalore, India, on May 4, 2006, is ongoing. The evidence indicates that an explosion in the left wing fuel tank destroyed the structural integrity of the wing."July 21, 2008 The FAA has issued the the final rule: "Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Aircraft." The rule requires retrofitting of certain aircraft with heated center wing tanks and use of flammability reduction means (inerting systems) or ignition mitigation means (foam) on future aircraft to meet a target flammability exposure of 3% fleet average flammability and specific risk of 3% during ground operation and climb out on warm day, above 80 F. The present value of the total compliance cost is estimated by the FAA to be 1 billion USD. Boeing has developed and placed into production inerting systems based on hollow fiber membrane technology for the 747 and 737 typeOctober 16, 2008 Safety Recommendation A-96-174 closed as an acceptable action.More detailsFAA Lessons LearnedNASA Analysis https://sma.nasa.gov/docs/default-source/safety-messages/safetymessage-2011-01-09-twa800inflightbreakup.pdf?sfvrsn=4http://pe.org.pl/articles/2013/7/5.pdfhttps://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2025_981-1.pdfFootnotes[1] https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/air_training_program/job_aids/media/ewis_job-aid_2.0_printable.pdf

When I was studying to be a history teacher, the subject for my final exam was April 9, the background knowledge relevant to that day and the events on that faithfull morning.It is quite a long read, but here is a translated version of the facts included in my history exam. This will provide knowledge of, at least som of the historical facts related to April 9, 1940.i will appologise in advance for any spelling or grammatical errors in the following, I have not translated it myself.Armed neutralityAfter the Danish defeat in the war of 1864, Denmark's role as a northern European power factor was played out. This left Denmark as a small nation with a border that went south of Kolding. The loss corresponded to about a third of Jutland. This led Denmark to move to a policy based on armed neutrality. Armed neutrality was based on the notion that the Danish defense should be strong enough to act as a deterrent to larger countries. At this time, England and Germany were the two most obvious violators of Danish sovereignty. There was never really a notion that Denmark should be able to repel an attack from Germany or England, but the goal was that the defense should be able to persevere and slow the enemy down for long enough, for other and larger countries to come to the rescue.Denmark's problem in this context was that Jutland's location made it strategically attractive for both England and Germany in the event of a war involving both countries, this aspect is elaborated further down. Jutland's strategically problematic location meant that the Danish defense, as stated, had to have a certain strength for the armed neutrality to be credible.In 1915, during the First World War, Denmark called up the so-called security force, which consisted of the most recent cohorts of conscripts. At this time the army had 58,000 men under arms, in 1917 that number was down to about 30,000 divided into 24,500 in Zealand and 5,500 in Jutland / Funen. On 9 April 1940, the standing Danish army force of approximately 13,350 men was roughly evenly distributed in Jutland / Funen and Zealand. Had the security force been called in, the force could potentially have been 58,000 men. The force Denmark had ready to counter a possible attack in April 1940 was thus not a credible safeguard of armed neutrality.Jutland's strategic locationAs stated, Jutland was and is in a strategically exposed position. In the event of an English attack, the English forces would have a direct route to attack directly into the heart of Germany, therefore it was important for Germany during the First World War that the Danish defense was credible. The same was true in 1939 and the first half of 1940. In addition, English control of Jutland would be an effective way for the English fleet to lock in parts of the German fleet in the Baltic Sea. This was exactly what had happened during the First World War when parts of the German navy were inactive in ports on the Baltic Sea.From the English side, the concern was that if Germany gained control of Jutland, ports in northern Jutland could be used as bases for German naval vessels, which could attempt eruptions through the northern part of the North Sea and out into the Atlantic, where they would be able to attack merchant vessels en route. against England and thus try to starve England out of the war. Also, control of Jutland could be used to support German forces in a possible attack on Norway. Norwegian naval bases in German hands were an even greater concern for England than bases in Jutland.In general, it can be said that Denmark due to the narrow belts act as a bottleneck for naval forces that will move from the Baltic Sea and out into the North Sea or vice versa, naval movements could be effectively closed using naval mines and naval forces, both did Denmark during World War I and tried also during World War II.Strategy for the defense of DenmarkThere were two fundamentally different approaches to a defense of Danish neutrality. Either one should try to ensure the survival of the nation. This meant that the majority of the armed forces had to be located on Zealand so that Copenhagen could be defended and thus political and organizational integrity ensured. This approach also meant that one was willing to sacrifice Jutland / Funen. It was the traditional thinking about Danish defense that had been valid for several hundred years.The second approach, which won several proponents through the 1930s, was that the defense should place more emphasis on Jutland / Funen and primarily be a defense that should demonstrate that Denmark opposed an attack, but at the same time accepted that a possible invasion could not be repulsed. Therefore, Jutland had to be defended with a cohesive defense, which fighters had to withdraw while waiting for outside help.In 1940, the defense was, as previously stated, more or less evenly distributed on Zealand and Jutland / Funen. But none of the places had the army strength to withstand a strong adversary for long.Danish political thinkingUp through the 1920s, military budgets were cut. The infantry by the army was, among other things by the Defense Act of 1922, reduced to 35 battalions. When World War I broke out, Denmark had 52 battalions. It is a reduction of the army of about 12,600 men only five years after the end of the First World War (Petersen, 2010, p. 167).In 1931, the commanders of the navy and the army, respectively, are asked to come up with proposals for further cuts to the defense. Navy Chief Vice Admiral Wenck and Army Chief General With tried to work together on proposals for new budgets, but they could not agree. Wenck subsequently refused, for reasons of conscience, to come up with proposals to cut the fleet, after which he sought his resignation and retired. General With came up with proposals for pruning and continued in his position. The defense was subsequently cut, among other things, the army's infantry was further reduced to 24 battalions, thus the infantry regiments were reduced by more than half since the outbreak of World War I. Besides, only 8,000 men a year would be called up for military service. General With argued for strong air defense of Copenhagen, that wish was not fulfilled (Petersen, 2010, pp. 170-171).The changed situation in Germany with the appointment of Hitler as the new chancellor meant that Denmark's defense policy was revised. Among other things, they were afraid of whether Nazi groups in Schleswig and Holstein could cross the border, to reclaim parts of Southern Jutland. Therefore, it was decided to strengthen the defense, especially in Southern Jutland with both troops and fortifications, but within the already very limited military budgets. Up through the 1930s, the army wanted more forces available, but Foreign Minister Peter Munch believed, "that a division would more or less not be able to prevent Germany from reaching Vensyssel if that was what it wanted"(Clemmesen, 2010, p. 552). Munch did not believe that the Germans would attack Denmark, and the approach to the defense he expresses in the quote is typical of Munch and the radical left's thinking up through the 1930s, when they were in government with the Social Democrats, from 1929 to 1940. Prime Minister Stauning, under the impression of Hitler's rearmament in Germany, was not opposed to strengthening the defense, but he did not have the political leeway to fundamentally change the situation. The Danish policy in the field of defense led to a situation where it is not surprising that the following quote, taken from Sørensen 2016, can be found in the Prime Minister's New Year's speech:“Due to the country's character, we could not create a defense like other countries, even if the will had been present, and these conditions in conjunction with the reluctance to war that has gradually developed in the population, have led Denmark into a position that makes all notions of effective war readiness impossible. Our country is designed to exercise a guard of neutrality, but warfare in the true sense of the word is excluded by the geographical conditions, just as the small size of the population also precludes the presence of an army that can take up the fight against the powers that be ready to fight. towards Denmark ”(Excerpt from Stauning's New Year's speech, New Year's Eve 1939).That the very idea that Denmark could with relative ease be occupied by either Germany or England, not as a surprise to politicians or military people in 1939. As early as 1936, the army chief General With gave a speech in which he makes it clear that he considers it given that, if war breaks out again between England and Germany, Denmark will be occupied. With predicted completely correctly that Denmark would be attractive to Germany as a base for both air force and naval forces. The speech was not well received by Stauning and With was subsequently excluded from negotiations on the future organization of the defense (Petersen, 2010, p. 181).German strategic thinkingThe German naval officer and then war captain Wolfgang Wegener argued as early as 1915 that Germany should occupy Denmark with the aim of securing naval bases for use in operations against English merchant ships. Also, he believed that naval bases in inland Danish waters would be relatively easy to protect against attack. Access to the Kattegat and Skagerak could be secured with sea mines. Wegener believed that the German navy was a luxury navy because they were in port rather than actively participating in the war, but Wegener was not a supporter of direct combat against the English navy. He maintained that it was a matter of securing control of supply lines rather than confrontations (Clemmesen, 2010, p. 120).Wegener's views on the strategic use of the fleet came to play a key role in the events leading up to the occupation on 9 April. Wegener concluded already in 1915 including "it must also be emphasized that in large nations struggle for survival, a small state is not given the right to neutralize a fleet's power" (Clemmesen, 2010, p. 121)Wegener's thinking came after World War I that imprint the way future naval chief and Admiral Erich Raeder thought. It was then also Raeder who, on October 10, 1939, first suggested Hitler look at Norway. Initially not aimed at an occupation of all of Norway. Raeder advocated that the Germans should settle in Trondheim to use it as a base for submarines (Poulsen, 2004, p. 134). Hitler initially chose to ignore the North as a target for German acts of war, but as England begins to take an interest in Norway, Raeder gets wind in his sails concerning an action aimed at Norway. Denmark is not initially part of the German plans, but as the German connecting lines to Norway may be vulnerable to attacks from the English navy, Denmark also comes into the German spotlight. The goal of the German occupation of Norway is twofold. Wegener's thoughts on the unsustainable situation of the German navy in the Baltic Sea play a role. As the Germans do not want to experience another war in which large parts of their navy can not play a role because it is locked behind naval mines and the royal navy. Therefore, the Germans must use operational bases for the navy in Norway. Also, there is a desire to secure German imports of Swedish iron ore. The Swedish iron ore is shipped from Narvik or transported by train through Sweden. The problem for the Germans is that the sailing trip from Narvik is dangerous and the risk of losing cargo ships during the trip is great. Train transport is safer, but not as efficient in relation to the amount that can be transported.Based on the operations of the English navy and the plans known to the Germans, Hitler decided in the early 1940s that a German operation should be launched against Norway.Although General Falkenhorst, who became commander-in-chief of the German operation to the north, was assigned by Hitler on February 21 to plan an attack on Norway, there was still no clarity in the German High Command, hereinafter referred to as OKW (Oberkommando Wehrmacht), whether be it an attack on Norway alone or whether it should apply to both Norway and Denmark. However, it was clear that Denmark should be involved in the German plans, but it had not yet been decided whether Denmark should be occupied. The Germans were particularly interested in gaining control of the airports at Aalborg, as well as port capacity at Frederikshavn and Skagen. On 26 February, Colonel - General and Chief of the OKW Wilhelm Keitel sent a letter to Falkenhorst, stating that Germany should seek to secure the right to use airports in Jutland and Danish ports, through diplomatic pressure underpinned by a military threat, but the plan was still not that Jutland or possibly all of Denmark should be occupied.From the German side, however, there was no doubt about the additional value of being able to secure control of both Jutland's west coast, Jutland's ports and airports, as well as the possibility of securing control of the Baltic Sea. Hitler highlighted control over the Baltic Sea as one of the reasons for the occupation of both Norway and Jutland / Denmark. Hitler viewed the Baltic Sea in the same way as Jutland, a direct access road to an attack on Germany that could cut their armies in two. On 26 February 1940, General Falkenhorst was ordered to plan an invasion and occupation of Denmark involving the whole country and not just Jutland (Clemmesen, 2010, p. 605).English strategic thinkingThe English Admiralty also had its eyes on Norway. They had also read Wegener's thoughts on a German occupation of port facilities in Norway. Winston Churchill had been appointed English Minister of the Navy in September 1939, a post he also held during World War I. Churchill was a supporter of blocking the German navy inside the Baltic Sea and also directly proposed English operations into the Baltic Sea to cut off German trade relations with Norway (Clemmesen, 2010, p. 524). That German warships were already operating on the border of and also into Norwegian territorial waters allowed Churchill to propose an English operation against Norway. On December 15, he wrote a note to the War Cabinet pointing out that the English naval force allowed them to occupy “any islands and suitable points on the coast. Our northern blockade of Germany would then become absolute. We could, for example, occupy Narvik and Bergen ” (Clemmesen, 2010, p. 527). The English began to draw up plans for an English occupation of Narvik and possibly an attack into Sweden to occupy the Swedish mining areas, which supplied the Germans with iron ore for their production of munitions. At the same time, the so-called Altmark affair helped to strengthen the English in that they could take advantage of selected areas in Norway. The Altmark affair is, in short, that a German naval supply ship on its way back from the Atlantic seeks refuge in Norwegian waters, in the same way as a merchant ship could do. But Altmark brought 299 English prisoners of war, and therefore it was a violation of the laws of war to violate Norwegian neutrality. The English also violate Norwegian neutrality, as they force Altmark to sink in Norwegian waters and free the prisoners of war on board. This episode became the direct reason why Hitler no longer dared to trust that Norway would defend its neutrality sufficiently to be able to protect German merchant ships (Petersen, 2010, pp. 212-213). Until 13 March 19490, the British had plans for action against selected places in Norway. The plan went by the name of Operation Stratford, but with the end of the Finnish Winter War, those plans were provisionally shelved. However, Churchill continued to work for English forces to operate around Norwegian waters and chase German ships in an operation known as Operation Catherine.No one in the English Admiralty, however, even though the English themselves had worked on similar plans, had the imagination to imagine a German action against Norway. A German action against northern Norway would bring them close to the English navy's main base in Scapa Flow and thus expose them to great danger if otherwise, the English responded in time. They did not. The fact that one did not believe in a German action against Norway did not mean that one wrote off that the Germans were looking north. Churchill stated on February 3, 1940“I can not blame Denmark for anything - the others have a grave over which they can feed the tiger, but Denmark is so terribly close to Germany that it would be impossible to bring help. In any case, I would not undertake to guarantee Denmark. It is up to Denmark to balance. We get some bacon and butter, and the Germans get something too… it might be best that way. Denmark has a treaty with Germany, but I have no doubt that the Germans will flood Denmark on the day that suits them. ”(Petersen, 2010, p. 211).The attack on Denmark on9 April 1940 at 04.00, the German envoy in Copenhagen, Cecil von Renthe-Fink, called the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and asked for an immediate meeting with Foreign Minister Peter Munch. Renthe-Fink is ready to go to the minister's residence if necessary. At 04.20 he shows up at Munch's residence with a German ultimatum in 13 points to the Danish government. Renthe-Fink himself received the ultimatum for reading on April 8 (Petersen, 2010, p. 33).At 04.20, German soldiers cross the Danish-German border in Southern Jutland, and German troops land from the ferry in Gedser. At the same time, German naval vessels with troops on board enter the ports of Korsør and Nyborg, to occupy the two port cities and cut off contact between Jutland / Funen and Zealand. It is also at 04.20 that the German transport ship Hansestadt Danzig docks at Langelinje in Copenhagen and puts troops ashore in the capital. Already at 04.32 German troops blow up the gate to the army headquarters the castle. The castle is occupied without shooting, the only wounded is a German soldier who came too close to the blast of the gate. The Germans were ordered to use violence only if necessary (Petersen, 2010, p. 21).Shortly after fighting between German troops and the lifeguard around Amalienborg, the troops collide as the Germans will secure the connection road to Kastellet and the lifeguard will secure the access roads to Amalienborg. However, it was never part of the German plan to attack Amalienborg or capture the king (Petersen, 2010, p. 29).At 5.30 the Prime Minister Stauning, Foreign Minister Munch, Minister of Defense Alsing Andersen will meet with the King. Shortly afterward, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, General Prior, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Vice Admiral, and Director of the Ministry of the Navy, Rechnitzer, arrive. Here it was decided, among other things under the impression of German bombers over Copenhagen, decided to give up the fight. The king personally asks his adjutant to go down to the square at Amalienborg and order the royal guards to stop the fighting. At 05.50, the Royal Giards will thus be the first unit to receive an order to surrender.At 06.00 it is decided to issue a general order for capitulation. Official Denmark had surrendered in 1 hour and 40 minutes. After this, the task was to get the message out to all Danish troops, a task that was not helped by the fact that the Germans had interrupted the lines of communication.During the total attack on Denmark, parachute troops were used for the first time in war history, when the Germans threw them down over Masnedøfortet by Storstrømmen. The fort turned out to be manned by two soldiers, a janitor as well as his family. In defense of the fort, the two rifles from the 1800s had no ammunition (Petersen, 2010, pp. 63-64).In Southern Jutland, there was a first battle between Danish and German troops at Lundtoftebjerg at 04.50. Here the Danes inflicted minor losses on the Germans but were subsequently pushed back by the superior forces. This image was repeated time and time again during the morning that Danish soldiers could record the battle in small improvised positions, but only hold the individual positions for a short time. The fighting Danish soldiers are being pushed north towards Haderslev at the same time as several garrisons surrender without a fight. At around 7.50, the order, via Danish radio, comes through to the fighting forces in Jutland to stop the fighting. At this time, there is fighting in Haderslev and a line between Abild, Sølsted, and Bredebro. At approximately 08.00, the last Danish forces surrender. Denmark is now fully and completely occupied.Consequences for Denmark after 1945After the end of the occupation in 1945, it was not long before the alliance between the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union disintegrated. By virtue of the resistance movement's work, Denmark sided with the Allies, even though Denmark was long considered to be essentially an ally of Germany.It soon became clear that Denmark could not stand alone in the event of a new war. In 1948, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark negotiated a Nordic neutrality alliance (Pedersen, 2007, p. 30). The coup of the Soviet Union in Prague in 1948 and in particular the blockade of Berlin and the American-led airlift increased tensions in Europe. This convinced the Danish politicians that Denmark had to seek a stronger alliance than a Nordic union. This meant that in 1949 Denmark joined the North Atlantic defense alliance NATO (Jensen, 2014, p. 14). Denmark's time as a neutral country, which was to balance between the great powers, was finally over. The Cold War and NATO membership could now shape and influence Danish security and foreign policy until today.I would like to add two pieces of information, not contained in the original document.First and foremost, one of the reasons why the Danish government decided to surrender after only 1 hour and 40 minutes of fighting was that only two days before, the attack, danish politicians and civil servants were invited to the cinema, by the Germans to watch a movie called feuerteufe, it showed the firebombing of cities in Poland. The same thing happened in Norway. This means that, when german bombers were circling Copenhagen, the images of burning cities were very much in their memory. This is by no means the primary Reading for the danish surrender, it was however a contributing factor.The other thing as you may well have noticed in the movie April 9’th, the danish soldiers in southern Jutland only heard about the surrender about 8 o’clock. This was because the Germans had cut communication lines and the only way of getting the word out, was by using the public danish radio broadcasting service, however they were not allowed into the studio before, just about 8 o’clock because there were morning gymnastics on the radio first for men, then for women.

First of all, we need to be aware that there are various theories on the origin of COVID-19. one being that it is a wild-origin mutant that was transmitted to humans through consumption of wild-caught animals. On the other hand, the Russians and Chinese have expressed suspicions that the COVID-19 may have been developed in a US laboratory such as Fort Detrick, which was conincidentally shut down by the NIH in July or August due to suspicions of bio waste leakage. This is not a theory because the lab was indeed shut down for that reason. The theory holds that the virus may have infected US military personnel who then went to the Wuhan world military games and infected other while there. The incubation period of COVID-19 is said to make this theory plausible. I do not claim to necessarily accept any of these theories, but one thing is very very odd. Almost immediately after the Chinese authorities announced the outbreak of the infection, “authorities” in the US claimed they knew ethat the virus was of wild origin. I say that is odd because scientists are still investigating into whether it was wild or man-made. It is also odd that most of the American commentaries dismiss the theories of a man-made origin using perjoratives aimed at discrediting the authors of the theories even though some of these authors were experts in the field of bio weapons, notably the top microbilogist and geneticist of the Czech Republic. The “authorities” attempting to debunk the the theories by call them absurd, ridiculous or the like but do not enter into detail as to why the theories do not hold water. This reminds us of trolling and propaganda but shows little intellectual effort or attention to detail.There is little information available to the public on US labs that produce contagious strains of viruses, but these labs do exist. The problem is that the writings on these labs and their risks are rather esoteric and the general public will be hard put to understand.Here is one example showing that experiments are being done on highly contagious pandemic-capable strains: Rethinking Biosafety in Research on Potential Pandemic PathogensI recently came across a commentary at a Chinese-language web site that seeks to make its case. It is long but I have completed the translation and added notes in brackets in italics.BEGIN TRANSLATIONAt present, tracing the source of the virus is a major international struggle. It is related to the changes in the international environment and the international space of the Chinese nation. It is related to whether it can get rid of the American rogue style and demand that China use the US Treasury to compensate, and whether the living environment of overseas Chinese deteriorates. For such a major principle question of right and wrong, it must be clearly stated, it must be traced back to its source, and it must be fully exposed!Under the careful planning of the United States, from the president, secretary of state, and officials to the media, the stigma of the "Chinese virus" is becoming increasingly shrill. Not only has a group of lawyers in the United States sued China to claim billions of dollars. There are also five lawmakers who jointly signed a bill asking China to compensate the countries affected by the epidemic. Even the Indian International Judicial Association (ICJ) and the All India Bar Association (AIBA) have filed complaints with the UN Human Rights Council, demanding that China compensate for the losses caused by the novel coronavirus epidemic! To this end, it is very important to refresh the "source" of the spread of the coronavirus. It is necessary to find the culprit for the process by which the novel coronavirus broke out, and the current 10 suspicions point unwaveringly to the United States!1. People who have not been to China are infected with novel coronavirus in the United States. A diagnosed patient in the United States has neither been to China nor contacted a person who has just returned from China, nor has he been involved with the "Diamond Princess". The results show that this patient was infected with the novel coronavirus in the United States.[Apparently refers to this report: Northern California reports first case of coronavirus not tied to travel A case of COVID-19 has been confirmed in a Northern California resident who had no travel history to an affected area and no known contact with a person previously diagnosed with COVID-19, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced today (Feb. 26).[This Italian site says none of the infected Italians had any contact with China and it was unknown where or how they had contracted the disease: Nessun malato di Coronavirus ha contatti con la Cina: si sono tutti infettati in Italia]A Japanese citizen travelled to Hawaii and was diagnosed with new coronary pneumonia not long after returning home. Australian Prime Minister Morrison said in an interview on March 20 that about 80% of the new cases of pneumonia diagnosed in Australia were imported from overseas or had direct contact with people returning from overseas. In the United States. "Moreover, the H1N1, swine fever, and the Reston strain of Ebola viruses that have been widespread in the United States in recent years can be described as notorious. Some countries affected by this virus have long suspected that it was caused by the United States. US intelligence officials issued multiple warnings as early as January this year, saying that the novel coronavirus may cause a global crisis. .2. The CDC has confirmed that there was a new case of coronary pneumonia in the United States last November. On March 11, the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee held a new coronary pneumonia hearing, and Robert Redfield, director of the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, publicly admitted that the U.S. flu season that began in September 2019 has infected more than 30 million U.S. people and caused deaths. More than 20,000 people, of which some cases of influenza deaths were actually infected with new coronary pneumonia. The "testimony" of the director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that some Americans who appeared to have died of influenza last year were autopsied post-mortem and tested positive for the novel coronavirus was positive [In his testimony, Redfield did not state a time frame for this. He could have been referring to the period after the known breakout]. A medical doctor at Harvard University revealed (supported by internal data from the Center for Disease Control) that new cases of coronary pneumonia occurred in the United States around November last year. [Actually, this doctor, Michael Gibson, did not say this. He only said it was possible – but not likely – that some cases diagnosed as flu in the fall of 2019 were in fact COVID-19]3. The United States artificially transformed a new type of SARS virus. From April to September 2008, the US NGO ECO Ecological Health Alliance PREDICT project collected a total of 388 batches of coronaviruses in China, including 8680 virus samples from bats, mice and humans (including bat viruses collected by Shi Zhengli's team) At least tens of thousands of animal and human viruses were shipped to US laboratories. Based on this project, the Ralph Baric team obtained the SHC014 virus S protein gene sequence of bat SARS. In 2015, after artificially remodeling the new SARS virus in the North Carolina laboratory in the United States, after chimeric SARS-CoV MA15 virus, creating the SHC014-MA15 virus, which can make humans sick. Since then, in what form did unpredicted viruses regroup in the US laboratory?The laboratory of Dr. Pekova, the leading Czech molecular biologist, is the first laboratory in the Czech Republic to detect the first cases of novel coronavirus infections. In an interview with the Slovak TA3 news channel on March 30, she explained in detail why she believed that the novel coronavirus originated in American laboratories rather than natural mutations in infected animals, not even from Chinese laboratories. She also refuted the claims in the Journal of Natural Medicine that the viruses evolved from natural mutations. She pointed out that the US government has ordered American scientists to deny this information.[Smrtící Koronavirus byl vytvořen v laboratoři a je biologickou zbraní? Přední česká expertka, která ho měla pod mikroskopem, přináší exkluzivní informace - ARFA.czThis interview with Dr, Peková was translated and published at a web site, but some forum users at the site disputed the translation.I therefore took the trouble to search for this interview in Czech. Below is my translation of the disputed part:“The coronavirus has genetic characteristics that do not occur in common isolates. It will probably not be a natural isolate,” says leading Czech biologist Soňa Peková, who had the novel coronavirus under a microscope.Here is the interview on video:https://th-cam.com/video/qmL7okhbVzU/dr-sona-pekova-phd-czech-scientist-on-news-in-the-pandemic-english-subtitles.htmlAt min 14:20. Interviewer quotes Peskova writing that the novel coronavirus “contains genetic characteristics and sequences that you think are not of natural origin. Do you stand by this?” She says yes, she does.]4. Why was the largest biochemical weapon research and development centre closed suddenly? Fort Detrick, Maryland, is the largest biochemical weapon research and development centre of the US military. Since 1943, it has undertaken the development of the US biological weapons program. [In 1969, the US was forced to stop using the name “bio weapons” to describe is work at Fort Detrick, but the work went on under a different label, with research being done supposedly to devise cures and vaccines, although new pathogens were still devised], in epidemics, etc. From July to August 2019, the P4 Biological Laboratory internally reported two leaks. In July 2019, the United States [CDC] shut it down abruptly. The reason for the shutdown was that there was no “sufficiently complete system to purify the wastewater from its highest safety level laboratory.” This reason is ridiculously short on detail.Someone posted a petition on the White House website asking the US government to announce the real reason for closing the Fort Detrick base. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokespersons Hua Chunying and Zhao Lijian also asked this question. But America’s refusal to make it public has made it a mystery what exactly Fort Detrick has leaked. [Critics claimed the web site only got a few hundred hits, but when I went in shortly after it went up, I was unable to open the page. When I tried later, I was unable to get into the site at all! This hypersensitivity to criticism goes hand in hand with the firing of Captain Brett Crozier for telling the truth about his virus-ridden ship and the jailing of Julian Assange]5. The coincidence of a series of events is suspicious. At the same time that Fort Detrick was closed, a series of H1N1 flu outbreaks occurred in the United States, with a series of similar pneumonia cases; then in October [Oct 18] 2019, the United States organized a global epidemic exercise codenamed "Event 201"; [In this fictional simulation] A patient infected with a novel corona pneumonia appeared; in February 2020, the novel coronavirus epidemic occurred in many places around the world. [Here is a video shown at the event Event 201 Pandemic Exercise: Highlights Reel. Keep in mind that this is all a product of the imaginations of the people who organized the event. They are not talking about the real pandemic we are experiencing now]On March 25, Fort Detrick Biological Laboratory, Maryland, tested 382 suspected patients, and 288 were positive, with a positive rate of 75%. In Delaware, close to Maryland, 104 people were tested and 68 were positive, with a positive rate of 65%. New Jersey, not far from Maryland, tested 3297 people, and 2844 were positive, with a positive rate of 86%. The positive rate in these states is far higher than the US average. [Again, this is simulation but very close to the reality today]6. Why did the U.S. military special plane pick up 5 athletes with fever? At the World Military Games in Wuhan in late October 2019 (the address of the Military Games is close to the South China Seafood Market, Wuhan ’s first new crown case appeared near the seafood market in November), the United States team performed extremely weird, shooting 0 points for sharp shooting, winning zero gold medals (133 gold medals for the Chinese team), ranking 35th in total. 5 US military athletes had a fever. At that time, the military games were over. If they are suffering from common diseases, why not wait 2 days and have them join the more than 360 other soldiers back to America? If they really wanted to go home, why didn’t they take an ordinary civil airliner at the Wuhan International Airport! Why did the United States spend a lot of money to send a special plane to pick up five sick athletes from Wuhan. These five sick athletes have since disappeared. The AB family is a virus of the parents' generation, the C family is their son, D and E are the sons of C. Can no parents have a son? The 80,000 cases in mainland China only have the C family, while the ABCDE cases are all in the United States. As soon as the United States surrenders the special soldiers picked up by special planes and lets WHO determine whether they have ever had the same C family virus as the patients in Wuhan, the truth will become clear!7. A relative of a sick athlete in the US military served in the US military biological experiment base [Ft. Detrick]. Three US journalists and one Canadian journalist traced the patient with the novel No. 0 infection in the world. All the evidence points to Maatje Benassi, a relative of a researcher at the US Biological Experiment Base in Fort Detrick. She is a cyclist and a US military officer who participated in the Wuhan Military Games. A relative of hers was also the first patient diagnosed in the Netherlands. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian directly tweeted recently and asked point blank: Is it that the US soldiers brought the virus to Wuhan, and the United States should give Wuhan a statement that triggers a strong response from the international community.Someone asked: If the five American soldiers were patients with novel coronary virus pneumonia, why did the medical care staff not get infected? Due to the 30-day countdown to the Military Games, a port emergency response drill was held to improve the port’s ability to respond to public health incidents and nuclear radiation violations. [the reference here is to a port on the Yangtze River, which passes through Wuhan] Wuhan also treated the five soldiers as infectious viruses. Influenza broke out in the United States in September, and how many virus carriers were there among the American athletes who participated in the Wuhan Military Games in October?8. Where does the novel coronavirus infection of the US Navy aircraft carrier come from? On March 27, the US Navy's "Roosevelt" aircraft carrier had 36 sailors with novel coronavirus tested positive. The aircraft carrier "Roosevelt" left the San Diego home port in January this year, arrived in Guam in mid-February, and has been sailing at sea. How can it be infected with the novel coronavirus? On March 27, on the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan that was undergoing mid-term maintenance in Japan, two sailors were also tested for infection with the novel coronavirus. In addition, on a 40,000-ton amphibious assault ship of the US Navy, a sailor was also found to be positive during the virus detection process, confirming infection with the novel coronavirus.9. Only the United States has five sources of novel coronavirus. On February 12th, the Chinese Academy of Sciences team collected 93 novel coronavirus samples from 12 countries. The analysis of the whole genome data showed that the haplotypes of the relevant patient samples in the South China seafood market are H1 and derived haplotypes H2, H8-H12, while a Wuhan sample haplotype H3 has nothing to do with the South China seafood market. In Australia, France, Japan, and the United States, where there are many samples, patients have at least two sources of infection, while the United States includes five sources. In particular, the H56 haplotype is a source of infection for patients in Australia, France, the United States, and Taiwan. Thus we see that the novel coronavirus from the South China seafood market was introduced from other places. In addition, according to the time of onset of patients and the time of population expansion, the seafood market in South China is also not a source of virus. The study also showed that no recombination events occurred in the novel coronavirus genome.10. Why did the United States reject the WHO investigation? It's a very unlikely time coincidence. In December 2019, the verification protocol of the Biological Weapons Convention was exclusively blocked by the United States. The WHO expert team's investigation in the United States is absolutely beneficial to the United States' epidemic prevention actions. Including the origin, development, the situation in key regions, a brief introduction to the basic policies of the White House, the storage of medical supplies in the United States, the number of medical teams, etc.After discovering the outbreak, China actively cooperated with international organizations. The WHO Director-General came to Beijing on January 28, and then WHO sent an international expert team to China for inspection. A team also went to Wuhan. Bruce Elward, senior adviser to the WHO Director-General, said at a press conference on February 24: "The Chinese method is the only method that has proved to be successful." China has nothing to hide in terms of fighting the epidemic. The virus is afraid of upright behaviour and likes sneakiness. The more the United States refuses, the more it shows that it has unspeakable secrets about the virus.Currently, tracing the source of the virus is a major international struggle. It is related to the changes in the international environment and the international space of the Chinese nation. It is related to whether it can get rid of the American rogue style and the insistence that China must use U.S. Treasury bonds for compensation, and whether the living environment of overseas Chinese deteriorates. Such a major principle question of right and wrong requires a clear statement; the virus must be traced back to its source, and it must be fully exposed!(Editor in chief: Du Pengfei)