Twa 800

[fire wall]

BelArgUSA and IGh, I too still fly the old girl. My understanding is that the scavenge pump is located in the LH body gr wheel well.... not in the tank. If this is the case then please explain how an ignition source could be generated by such.
Regards.

[polzin]

800

Did anyone besides me see a video shown on TV taken at a beach which showed a smokey trail upwards at the time TWA 800 was flying over?

[lomapaseo]

..there were also several reputable eye witness's.

all the reputable eye witness's were countermanded by equally reputable non-government investigators who in turn carried expert credentials at separating fact from fiction.

[PBL]

Originally Posted by nick charles

If it was a CWT explosion and no crime was involved, why are law suits under the FOI Act still required to obtain information? - more than ten years after the event

What an odd statement.

I have a very large folder full of information on the accident, known as the NTSB docket, which includes substantial reports by major scientific organisations on various aspects of fuel tank fires (flammability, ignition and so on). Indeed, there is so much there that one can publish alternative theories in the New York Review of Books which contradict some of the hard evidence in the docket and yet no one will notice.

Presumably the FBI wants to keep its data to itself because that is what the FBI does when it collects data on, inter alia, military activities.

Originally Posted by nick charles

And why does the FBI still list the case as "pending inactive?"

Good question for FBI watchers. Because they can't be bothered to reclassify it? Or because someone there is embarrassed that after so much fuss they found nothing and had to hand the investigation over to the NTSB and is still hoping there might be something there? Or because someone there is a conspiracy theorist?

I might as well ask a question that has been puzzling me. Since you say you are a manufacturer of such fuel tanks, how come you think ullage cannot ignite, despite reams of evidence to show that, and how, it can, and a preceding case to TWA 800 where it did? Would one really want to buy
a fuel tank from someone who apparently wants to contradict what the American Chemical Society, NASA and the NTSB consider to be the established physics and chemistry of a potential hazardous event with such a tank?
Or can you show where the ACS, NASA and NTSB have made mistakes? If so, please share.

PBL

[PBL]

Originally Posted by polzin

Did anyone besides me see a video shown on TV taken at a beach which showed a smokey trail upwards at the time TWA 800 was flying over?

I think a former press secretary to President Kennedy made quite an ass of himself in public over such videos, if I remember rightly.

PBL

[PBL]

Originally Posted by fesmokie

I don't really believe the tank theory

I take it you do not understand the physics and chemistry laid out in the docket? I think that is probably a prerequisite for having one's opinion considered seriously.

PBL

[Dream Land]

Something smells.

[fesmokie]

Originally Posted by fesmokie
I don't really believe the tank theory

PBL Or can you show where the ACS, NASA and NTSB have made mistakes? If so, please share.

PBL...No I can't show you where they have made mistakes as I don't have the articles in front of me however...can you show me they have not made mistakes?

[Checkboard]

Makes you think - if the investigation result had determined a missile attack as the probable cause, how many people would be crying "Conspiracy! Boeing and FAA cover up centre tank fuel explosion!!"

[IGh]

Fighting post-mishap Sabotage Syndrome

From Chkbd, just above: "... if the investigation result had determined a missile attack as the probable cause ... people would be crying 'Conspiracy! Boeing and FAA cover up centre tank fuel explosion!!'"

That's just what "accident" investigators were up against, from the very beginning. Metal wreckage was on the ocean floor -- and a Respected Pilot Gossip sent an email outlining the detailed missile scenario. That did it: the whole story was right there on this new thing called the "web". The missile scenario must be true, it was on the web (while the direct evidence was still on the ocean floor).

Much later the wreckage was recovered from the bottom of the ocean, and law enforcement agreed that there was no evidence of "detonation" anyplace on the wreckage. Everyone agreed that there had been a "deflagration" inside the near-empty center tank. On day two we had told the FBI about the sister-ship's inflight breakup over Madrid in May'76.

[20driver]

IGh - re the sister flight break up, May 76, can you provide some more details or links?
Thanks
20driver

[PBL]

Originally Posted by fesmokie

PBL...No I can't show you where they have made mistakes as I don't have the articles in front of me however...can you show me they have not made mistakes

I don't have to. The opinion of someone who expresses it in public, but hasn't read any of the studies which are available for years on the WWW, is hardly worth the pixels it is printed in. Please do your homework; then we can engage in a discussion about the explanation and where it may be right or wrong.

PBL

[IGh]

Sister ship = ULF48 / 9May76 (Shaw's cargo)

Question from two slots above: "... the sister [-ship] ... break up, May 76, ... provide some more details ..."

The US Safety Board provided an NTSB-AAR-78-12, on web at
http://www.airdisaster.com/accrep/#1978


Iranian Air Force flt ULF48, 9May76 daylight 1430 GMT, B747-131 (cargo conversion) to McGuire from Tehran, inflight structural failure, inflight breakup, crashed near Madrid Spain.

Left wing separated at an altitude of 6000', in severe wx and TRW, and Electrical Storms. FDR inop at time of accident. You can read the CVR analysis on AAR pg 5+.

A/C purchased from TWA on 1Mar76 [along with a second B747 later returned to TWA (really never left Boeing-Wichita) suffering the later 17Jul96 accident], large cargo door installed at Boeing-Wichita. Left Wing showed no evidence of pre-failure damage, nor stress corrosion, nor fatigue. Left Wing had three separate span-wise failure locations.

Board examined three possible causes:
* possible internal over-pressure in fuel tank;
* possible turbulence loads; or
* possible dynamic loads from whorl of engine pylon.

Damage indicated explosion, possible P.C.:

-- first, ignition of fuel vapors in #1 fuel tank w/over-pressure.

-- 2nd, integrity of aft wing lost, reduced torsional strength; then oscillation (flutter) of wing and engine pylon, then compression fracture of upper structure of left wing.

Witnesses rept'd lightening strikes (but vent outlet Surge Tank Protection had NOT activated, suggesting that lightening didn't hit near vent). [Note, TWA had installed STP on various models.]

Report listed five lightening accidents (Constellation near Milan Italy, B707 near Elkton MD, USAF KC-135 near Madrid, KSC FL USAF F-4, Pacallpa Peru L-188) all attributed to Lightening Strike to a wing followed by explosion in same wing.

In this B747 case ignition at vent outlet was not found, prompting investigators to list other strike routing-ignition paths.

No final P.C., only hypotheses of Lightning or Turbulence.

Investigated by US-NTSB, NTSB-AAR-78-12.

Recall that only a few months later, the C141 inflight breakup over London -- records show investigators comparing notes re' Turb vs Lightning, in each case.

[20driver]

IGH - thanks for the link. Interesting read
Just to keep the conspiracy crowd happy, the TWA 800 jet spent some time in Iran as well. All part of the plan.
20driver

[polzin]

Boeing has to my knowledge admitted a design problem if it found it to be so. Admitily sometimes it took time, such as the 737 rudder problem. But that was a Boeing employee, as i remember, who figured it out.

At the time of the TWA 800 accident I think that Boeing was adament that the short in the pump, explosion in the center tank was false and a rush to judgement by especially the FBI.

Now my question. Did Boeing ever agree to the conclusion?
kp

[lomapaseo]

Boeing has to my knowledge admitted a design problem if it found it to be so. Admitily sometimes it took time, such as the 737 rudder problem. But that was a Boeing employee, as i remember, who figured it out.

At the time of the TWA 800 accident I think that Boeing was adament that the short in the pump, explosion in the center tank was false and a rush to judgement by especially the FBI.

Now my question. Did Boeing ever agree to the conclusion?
kp

Could you parse these statements and questions down to one subject at a time? I can't figure out if you are mixing multiple accidents together in a single thread relative to what Boeing's position was or what the findings of the investigations showed for which accident


And as in any accident investigation, if Boeing were to disagree they would have filed a formal disagreement in the record which ought to be searchable.

[polzin]

Lomopisso,

No I can't.

So did you search it?

Out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?

kp

[GlueBall]

10 year old Thai B737-4D7, c/n 25321, HS-TDC, empty center tank "exploded" at the jetway at BKK 03-03-2001. Apparently the CWT pump was left running in an empty tank.

One of the superlative CWT pump fail safe designs can be found in the old Douglas DC-8: The CWT pump is inside the No.2 Main Tank, always inmersed and cooled by its fuel.

[cyrus15]

Let’s get back to basics:

1. How can a CWT explode in mid air only in that particular aircraft during normal flight, though B747 been in service since 1973. (Supposedly no act of sabotage involved in here).
2. At 13000 feet, air (oxygen) can’t enter the fuel tank due to low ambient pressure and even in empty or half / quarter tank full; the pressure is equalized as the altitude changes. So the possibility of air getting in is not there not to mention the existence of fuel vapor pressure that occupy the empty space seeking lower pressure area to escape well prevent any air to get in (this is during flight).
3. If the electrical device in the fuel tank is electrically shorted or overheated (incase of running dry) what is the possibility during flight to have fire or explosion in this condition? Where the needed oxygen should come from?
4. How fire extinguisher works?
5. The theory of fuel tank explosion in mid air has been talked about and discussed in a span of couple of days after the accident and before even the wreckage recovery started. Four years later in a televised conference, all agencies (NTSB, FBI, FAA etc.) Conclusion was “fuel tank explosion”.
6. Commercial jet engines operation principal are not the same as rockets or space shuttle engines so do the fuel used in both engines are not the same (no oxidizers in jet fuel and no after burner engine used in this case).
7. Did anybody examine the AD (Airworthiness Directive) issued after this accident? How extensive is the work to comply with it? Is there any major changes of fuel tank designs introduced? What other than visual inspection and wire harness change required?
8. Most fuel injected cars (gasoline) has pump in the fuel tank, it is DC powered type of pump, that didn’t cause any concerns of the DOT, NTSB and other regulatory agencies knowing that gasoline is more volatile than kerosene based jet fuel and still the same principal fuel tank designed used. Road Accidents are more likely to cause automobiles fire but not fuel tanks will be on fire by design flaw.

To sum it up:
· Commercial jet fuel tank (bladder or steel type if any) doesn’t explode in mid air. You need fuel, oxygen and source of ignition combined at the same time to have fire or explosion in any fuel tank.
· Fire extinguisher works under the principle of isolating air (oxygen) from the fire, that’s why magnesium fire is a problem because it can produce oxygen when it burn.
· Four years later and millions of dollars spent to tell the same wrong conclusion that started in a matter of days after the accident? Is it plausible?

What is the logic behind permitting manufacturer to have electrical equipments inside fuel tanks (submerged pump) knowing that it could serve as ignition source? Unless there is a strong reason to do so, something like law of physics.

(fuel + source of ignition or heat + no oxygen = No Fire)

[bsieker]

Originally Posted by cyrus15

Let’s get back to basics:

Good idea. Let's call it "Science 101".

1. How can a CWT explode in mid air only in that particular aircraft during normal flight, though B747 been in service since 1973. (Supposedly no act of sabotage involved in here).

Probably because great care is taken to keep ignition sources away from fuel tanks. So only very rarely there will be one. The mode of ignition in this accident has never been identified definitively.

2. At 13000 feet, air (oxygen) can’t enter the fuel tank due to low ambient pressure and even in empty or half / quarter tank full; the pressure is equalized as the altitude changes. So the possibility of air getting in is not there not to mention the existence of fuel vapor pressure that occupy the empty space seeking lower pressure area to escape well prevent any air to get in (this is during flight).

Now let's see.

Tanks have vents.

Fluids (i. e. gases and liquids) stream from regions of higher pressure towards regions of lower pressure. What is the pressure inside and outside the tank?

If we go along with your premise that no air was in the tank to begin with (more on that later), the only thing inside the tank to create pressure is the fuel vapor pressure. The only value I have found is for JP-8 at 38 degrees Celsius: it is about 200Pa. Another document about Jet-A1 mentions "less than 10hPa", so, let's be generous and assume 1000Pa.

Ambient air pressure at 13,000ft is around 50,000Pa, i. e. 50 times the inside pressure.

To figure out which fluid will stream into which direction is left as an exercise to the reader.

3. If the electrical devices in the fuel tank are electrically shorted or overheated (incase of running dry) what’s the possibility during flight to have fire or explosion in this condition? Where the needed oxygen should come from?

Well, from the air, I guess. See above. The correct solution to the exercise above is: it will stream from the outside into the tank, because the pressure outside the tank is higher than inside. One of the characteristics of jet fuel is its very low vapor pressure.

An additional thought: Why do you think many modern jet airliners have tank interting systems, which feed nitrogen-enriched air into the tanks, to reduce the amount of oxygen, to reduce the chances of creating a flammable fuel/air mixture.

I also recommend actually reading the TWA800 accident report. The investigators did actually test fuel/air mixture ratios in actual fuel tanks in flight and found them to be in the flammable range. See section 1.16.5.1.1.1 of the report.

4. How fire extinguisher works?

Many different ways. Some (the most efficient, like Halon) are chemical inhibitors that bind free radicals, thus breaking the reaction chain. Others replace the air (oxygen) around the fuel to stop the reaction. Water (water vapor) and foam are common.

5. The theory of fuel tank explosion in mid air has been talked about and discussed in a span of couple of days after the accident and before even the wreckage recovery started. Four years later in a televised conference, all agencies (NTSB, FBI, FAA etc.) Conclusion was “fuel tank explosion”.

Interesting. A theory that is discussed early on can never be true?

6. Commercial jet engines operation principal are not the same as rockets or space shuttle engines so do the fuel used in both engines are not the same (no oxidizers in jet fuel and no after burner engine used).

True. Same for military jet aircraft. Btw. liquid rocket fuels do not contain oxidisers, either, those are separate. As a side note, the most powerful rocket to date (Saturn V) used kerosene as its primary-stage fuel.

8. Most fuel injected cars (gasoline) has pump in the fuel tank, it is DC powered type of pump, that didn’t cause any concerns of the DOT, NTSB and other regulatory agencies knowing that gasoline is more volatile than kerosene based jet fuel and still the same principal fuel tank designed used. Road Accidents are more likely to cause automobiles fire but not the fuel tank will be on fire by design flaw.

The fuel pump as such was not found to be the ignition souce. Secondly, car fuel pumps are usually not submerged in the tank, but somewhere down the line, which their electrical parts away from the fuel line.

magnesium fire is a problem because it can produce oxygen when it burn.

No. Magnesium fire does not create oxygen (where from?)

Magnesium fire is a problem because it continues burning under water, because, very simply put, oxygen binds stronger to magnesium than to hydrogen (in the water), so magnesium "uses" the oxygen in the water molecules to burn, thereby freeing hydrogen.

Divers use magnesium torches.

· Four years later and millions of dollars spent to tell the same wrong conclusion that started in a matter of days after the accident?

What's wrong with a few smart people having the right hunch from the beginning? Or with an extensive investigation to find out the real cause.

Is it plausible?

I think so.


Bernd