JBS, let me see if I can keep my right and left sides in correct order. What I tried to illustrate was the damage to the number 2 engine was consistent to a failure occurring on the LEFT side of the airplane. The star burst pattern of destruction which was present on the LEFT side of the airplane was the source of debris which was ingested by the number 2 engine. The number 3 engine did not ingest debris until later, most likely during or milliseconds prior to the nose of the airplane separating and making contact with it. Suffice it to say, no ingestion occurred until well into the accident sequence.
The destruction to the left side of the airplane clearly indicated a directional force from inside to outside. The investigation also clearly validated the likely cause, which I think you will agree, to
be an explosive action. Two, which are simple to understand. Examination of the cargo container revealed that internal explosive forces ordinating there produced the shatter zone on
the left side of the airplane. The floor beams in the region of the container were extensively broken, and displayed clear indications of overload failure due to upward buckling. The buckling of the floor beams was the result of explosive over pressure, gases emerging from the explosion, and not contact by debris.
To me, the report is quite clear and adequately documented on the likely cause of the destruction of N739PA. I do not consider myself a “bomb guy” but rather a retired aviator who had and still
has more than a passing interest in this terrible tradegy. I consider myself to be both literate and rational, and willing to accept what is realistically proven. If we cannot have trust, and accept the best judgement and integrity of those responsible, educated, and trained to investigate and provide likely causes, then it will be Katy bar the door. I find no fault with your keen pursuit in what you believe to be potential causes, and I am in no means indicating you have tunnel vision, but I feel you may be wrongly ignoring findings which support the conclusion found by the UK in its investigation.
Accident comparisons certainly have a place in ones consideration, and I agree, often call for attention. But comparisons are only as good as they relate specifically to the event. One could say that N739PA operated the LAX - HNL - PPG- AKL - SYD - MEL and return line of flying many times, and additionally, the flight numbers were PA811 and PA812, both carriers crew bid the line out of the west coast based personnel, and UA took over the flying when it purchased the Pacific Division from Pan Am, but does that make it a likely candidate that should be compared with UA811? You continue to compare incidents with one another, but there is one very large and obvious variance between PA103 and UA811.
Can you see it?
Just a few facts.
Edited for spelling
Last edited by wes_wall; 28th Aug 2002 at 17:20.