TWA Flight 800 - Revisited

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by BE911SC

Several people saw a shooter on the grassy knoll too. I'm not saying the P-3 guy is a liar or an idiot but sometimes the explanation is simple. One shooter in Dallas, faulty fuel pump and/or wiring in the 747.

Besides, "the government can't do anything right" right? If that's the conventional wisdom with everything else then how come the government is, conversely, so highly skilled at covering up presidential murder conspiracies and airliner explosions inflight?

People are blabbermouths. (Yes, here I am blabbering on the Internet. Point taken.) If TWA 800 had been shot-down by a military missile firing error it would have come out right away. The news media would have feasted on that. Talk about a great story--the national media would have absolutely eaten that up, especially with a Democrat in the White House. (The media is only as "liberal" as its corporate suits allow it to be.) Someone would have uncovered that fact right away. Pierre Salinger, an early proponent of the missile theory, was treated as a wacko by the media. Yeah, they put him on the air, but it was not as a credible commentator but as a sideshow nutcase. It basically ruined his reputation IMO.

Maybe there is a conspiracy. It would have to include all levels of government and all levels of the media. Any one person who tried to shed light on the conspiracy would have to be dealt with. How? Threaten to ruin their career? Or worse, have the "black ops guys" deal with that person? Sounds like that could spin out of control pretty fast and then the rest of the news media swims in fast and starts feasting.

Sometimes the real explanation is the simplest one.

Yes, people are blabbermouths, but it took a long time for the story to come out that fighter pilots were cleared to shoot down flight 93. And nobody has yet revealed the location of Jimmy Hoffa's body. So you cannot count on the blabbermouths to leak in a timely fashion.

[BE911SC]

^^lol!^^

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Flieger

Some of those things are inter-related, so I would say it is not 6 individual things having to line up, but I still think it is more plausible than a missile.

All 6 would need to happen or it can't go boom. I am NOT on the conspiracy theory of a missile. But the internal tank going boom requires a lot of things all lined up to happen.

Again, if there is a breaker on the fuel pump and the pump is over loaded, it will trip. That trip should occur well before you reach the point of wire damage. But we are also have to be running a pump on an EMPTY TANK. And whatever has to have done what it needed to cause a spark. And the tank had to be above 160F for the vapors to occur that will cause an explosion.

If any one of those things didn't happen. No boom.

[Flieger]

Originally Posted by red-beard

All 6 would need to happen or it can't go boom. I am NOT on the conspiracy theory of a missile. But the internal tank going boom requires a lot of things all lined up to happen.

Again, if there is a breaker on the fuel pump and the pump is over loaded, it will trip. That trip should occur well before you reach the point of wire damage. But we are also have to be running a pump on an EMPTY TANK. And whatever has to have done what it needed to cause a spark. And the tank had to be above 160F for the vapors to occur that will cause an explosion.

If any one of those things didn't happen. No boom.

One theory was that the pumps were running on an empty tank. This damaged the pumps such that they drew more current and heated up more. Therefore, #1, #3, and #5 would follow if #2 happened. It doesn't take too much imagination to see #6 then following from that. So, basically, #2 needs to be done to excess and #4 needs to happen. Not like 6 unrelated things all going wrong at once.

[Flieger]

Where are you getting the flash point from? The few sources I see say it is 100F for Jet-A or kerosene.

[tcar]

Plus, the aircondtioner packs were directly under the center wing tank.

They get very, very hot while on the ground and taxiing.

And it was a hot summer evening.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Flieger

Where are you getting the flash point from? The few sources I see say it is 100F for Jet-A or kerosene.

>140F or 60C

Here is a link to the JP-5 MSDS

http://www.hess.com/ehs/msds/9942JetFuelJP5.pdf

[Flieger]

Originally Posted by red-beard

>140F or 60C

Here is a link to the JP-5 MSDS

http://www.hess.com/ehs/msds/9942JetFuelJP5.pdf

Interesting. Does JP-5 have additives to raise that from the normal kerosene or is JP-5 not based on kerosene like Jet A?

[red-beard]

Take a look at the top of the wiki

Jet fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

100F was the old standard. Look at the upper right hand side in the yellow box.

JP-5 is fairly standard stuff, but Mil-Spec.

[aston@ultrasw.c]

Lets say the "damaged wiring" was a breakdown of the insulation that allowed a spark.

Measuring the performance of wiring insulation in situ is actually fairly easy. All you need is a hi-pot tester. This applies several thousand volts to a conductor with a very low current. The current is so low that no damage is done, certainly not to big honking fuel pumps. When the high voltage is applied you can then measure leakage current with is a direct indicator of the health of the insulation.

So why wouldn't the investigators go and measure a sample of the many aircraft of similar age, type etc and report back.

e.g. 1 in 10 of the aircraft have questionable wiring and will be grounded until they can be repaired.

Just requiring pilots to leave a min level of fuel in the tank seems a bit weak for a corrective action.

[Flieger]

Originally Posted by aston@ultrasw.c

Lets say the "damaged wiring" was a breakdown of the insulation that allowed a spark.

Measuring the performance of wiring insulation in situ is actually fairly easy. All you need is a hi-pot tester. This applies several thousand volts to a conductor with a very low current. The current is so low that no damage is done, certainly not to big honking fuel pumps. When the high voltage is applied you can then measure leakage current with is a direct indicator of the health of the insulation.

So why wouldn't the investigators go and measure a sample of the many aircraft of similar age, type etc and report back.

e.g. 1 in 10 of the aircraft have questionable wiring and will be grounded until they can be repaired.

Just requiring pilots to leave a min level of fuel in the tank seems a bit weak for a corrective action.

I believe the fuel minimums were before the accident because they knew the fuel pumps would get damaged by running dry. I thought that after the accident the FAA said that they couldn't route wires through the fuel tank anymore on new planes. Not sure what they did about the existing fleet.

[aston@ultrasw.c]

To continue my thought further...

with all the aircraft out there with this fuel supply configuration,

and all the delays on hot days

and allowing for human error managing the pumps

and the possibility of faulty switches and sensors exacerbating the situation

surely another a/c would have experienced similar conditions and suffered the same fate.

Faulty wiring that was not repaired but simply mitigated by changing an SOP seems a little too convenient and a little too successful.

[aston@ultrasw.c]

Originally Posted by Flieger

I believe the fuel minimums were before the accident because they knew the fuel pumps would get damaged by running dry. I thought that after the accident the FAA said that they couldn't route wires through the fuel tank anymore on new planes. Not sure what they did about the existing fleet.

If the minimum fuel requirement was in place *before* then don't we have operator error? Assuming the residue was less that the required min.

[Flieger]

Originally Posted by aston@ultrasw.c

If the minimum fuel requirement was in place *before* then don't we have operator error? Assuming the residue was less that the required min.

That would be the case. I was just going by what the tanker pilot posted in post #90.

[gordner]

This incident led to a lot more than a simple fuel minimum. This was the event that triggered an airworthiness directive requiring grounding the fleet and verification of the wiring prior to dispatch. That was the immediate action, the long term action was removal from service of that style of wiring for that application, and a complete revamp of the disign requirements of fuel tank wiring for all aircraft. Many years later I routinely do testing on aircraft fuel systems that are driven directly by this incident, on many types of aircraft.

Lessons in aviation tend to be expensive, and are rarely disregarded.

[Cajundaddy]

Originally Posted by gordner

This incident led to a lot more than a simple fuel minimum. This was the event that triggered an airworthiness directive requiring grounding the fleet and verification of the wiring prior to dispatch. That was the immediate action, the long term action was removal from service of that style of wiring for that application, and a complete revamp of the disign requirements of fuel tank wiring for all aircraft. Many years later I routinely do testing on aircraft fuel systems that are driven directly by this incident, on many types of aircraft.

Lessons in aviation tend to be expensive, and are rarely disregarded.

A interesting recent change in direction regarding fuel tank wiring safeguards according to the FAA:

"On July 17, 2008, the Secretary of Transportation visited the facility and announced a final rule designed to prevent more accidents caused by explosions in fuel tanks. The NTSB first recommended such a rule just five months after the Flight 800 accident and thirty-three years after a similar recommendation issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board Bureau of Safety on December 17, 1963, nine days after the crash of Pan Am Flight 214.[135]
In 2009, Boeing advised the FAA that its new Boeing 787 Dreamliner could not meet the new safety standards. The FAA proposed to relax the safeguards for preventing sparks inside the fuel tank, calling them "impractical".[136]"

[Heel n Toe]

Tonight on C2C-AM for anyone who's interested:

Investigating TWA 800 - Shows - Coast to Coast AM

Former police officer specializing in accident investigation, James Sanders was married to a TWA flight attendant when TWA flight 800 went down in 1996. He started his own investigation and later was indicted for the crime of receiving residue from the accident and having it tested. He'll discuss his journey looking for the truth behind what happened.

Find a local station carrying the show here... some have streaming audio:

Radio Stations - Coast to Coast AM

[tcar]

C to C AM?

Those nuts all believe in 'Chemtrails', rusty 'tools and gears' lying around on the surface of Mars, and other nonesense.

That show is for entertainment only.

Zero facts.

Except for the the weekend guys sometimes, but never on weeknights.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by tcar

C to C AM?

Those nuts all believe in 'Chemtrails', rusty 'tools and gears' lying around on the surface of Mars, and other nonesense.

That show is for entertainment only.

Zero facts.

Except for the the weekend guys sometimes, but never on weeknights.

So, you're not among the interested, thereby not whom I was addressing. No problem.

"Zero facts"...not true. I'm guessing you haven't listened all that much.

Sure, they sometimes have some fruit loops on there who talk to their houseplants, and I tune out when they're on, but there's plenty of guests (weeknights and weekends) that are credible.

Tonight's guest... I kinda doubt he's in the fruit loop category, so I'm gonna check it out.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

Tonight on C2C-AM for anyone who's interested:

Investigating TWA 800 - Shows - Coast to Coast AM

On the evening of July 17, 1996 the Navy was conducting a large military exercise in the area near Flight 800, and 26 seconds before the plane was hit, FAA radar picked up a missile launch, which Sanders assumes was part of the Navy exercise. Then, Navy radar tracked the missile as it approached the right side of the 747, and two key witnesses watching TWA 800 from the ground, observed a missile approach its right side and explode where the leading edge of the right wing meets the fuselage, he recounted. Further, there was a second missile that blew the nose off the plane, he said. Sanders speculated that the cover-up was the product of a series of political decisions, particularly, that if the truth about the incident got out, it could hurt Clinton's re-election prospects later that year. "It is my belief that Flight 800 was the catalyst for everything they've covered up since then," he added.

There was a second missile ?

This just keeps getting better (worse).