Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TWA-800...again.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    All of what I am writing is verifiable if you do a little digging. On the evening of July 17, 1996 there was an ex United States Airforce F4 pilot that flew many combat missions in Viet Nam in his kayak off the coast of Long Island. He reported seeing a missile launched from a small boat that was painted completely black and then sped away.
    I don't know, BB, there are too many holes in that even without the missiles. Firstly, those waters aren't the best for kayaking, especially at night. Secondly, I find the idea that he was able to make out a black boat against a backdrop of black water and black sky (time was well past dusk) very iffy. Thirdly, the "painted completely black" idea reeks a tad too much of the whole "black helicopter" hysteria to be given much credence. Why paint a boat "completely black"? Can one not also launch a missile of a beige (or white, or blue) boat?

    I don't disagree with you that the official theory is not rock solid, but...

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
      I don't know, BB, there are too many holes in that even without the missiles. Firstly, those waters aren't the best for kayaking, especially at night. Secondly, I find the idea that he was able to make out a black boat against a backdrop of black water and black sky (time was well past dusk) very iffy. Thirdly, the "painted completely black" idea reeks a tad too much of the whole "black helicopter" hysteria to be given much credence. Why paint a boat "completely black"? Can one not also launch a missile of a beige (or white, or blue) boat?

      I don't disagree with you that the official theory is not rock solid, but...
      I am just stating FACTS. There was an ocean kayaker out that evening that was an ex fighter pilot during the Viet Nam war. He was interviewed by the FBI, the CIA and the local police. He stated what he saw and swears by it. Why some scumbag paints his boat black I can't tell you. The fact that they were off by close to a half hour, if they were the smartest people in the world they might just go out and do something productive for a living.

      I fly three different variants of the 747 16 - 18 days every month. The 747-400, 747-8 and the LCF. 80% of the time I have no fuel in the center wing tank at all. Am I worried about it? Not a damn bit!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
        I fly three different variants of the 747 16 - 18 days every month. The 747-400, 747-8 and the LCF. 80% of the time I have no fuel in the center wing tank at all. Am I worried about it? Not a damn bit!
        Nor should you worry, since the FAA ordered design changes to the scavenger pump and some of the CWT wiring after TWA-800.

        BoeingBobby, as a 747 Captain, you owe it to yourself to read this:
        Federal Aviation Administration orders immediate change in fuel pumps on Boeing 747 jetliners and also proposes change in wiring of older models of jumbo jet after tests following crash of Trans World Airlines plane off Long Island, NY, in 1996 indicated both are potential causes of midair explosion; says changes are prudent, even though cause of accident remains unknown; National Transportation Safety Board has concluded that plane was destroyed in July 1996 killing all 230 people aboard when center wing tank with little fuel but filled with explosive vapors, somehow exploded; diagram (M)

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          Nor should you worry, since the FAA ordered design changes to the scavenger pump and some of the CWT wiring after TWA-800.

          BoeingBobby, as a 747 Captain, you owe it to yourself to read this:
          http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/27/ny...ing-747-s.html
          I am well aware of the change, And there was an A.D. issued for the 100/200 that called for not operating the scavenge pump with less than 1000 kilos of fuel in the tank. But if you read your article you will see.

          " Although ''there is no evidence from the accident airplane that leads us to conclude that either one of these is the cause of the accident,'' said Thomas E. McSweeny, director of the F.A.A.'s aircraft certification service, the agency believed it was ''prudent'' to make the changes".

          Comment


          • #50
            Funny thing is that in the brand new 747-8 @ 335 million each, there is a nitrogen purge system for the center tank (777, 787 and I think the newer 737's as well). But if there is a fire in the lower cargo hold (which is kind of close to the tank) the system is deactivated! Go figure!

            What Gabriel, no smart ass comments?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
              " Although ''there is no evidence from the accident airplane that leads us to conclude that either one of these is the cause of the accident,'' said Thomas E. McSweeny, director of the F.A.A.'s aircraft certification service, the agency believed it was ''prudent'' to make the changes".
              The FAA's cozy relationship with the industry it regulates is infamous. I'm sure that statement was made to placate certain interests. The fact is, there was no conclusive evidence that this vulnerability caused the explosion (the scavenger pumps were never recovered), however the statement he makes is misleading. There was an abundance of evidence that leads us to highly suspect it was the casue of the accident.

              Thus the changes that were made. And later on, the nitrogen systems.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                What Gabriel, no smart ass comments?
                No.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #53
                  So how many hours does Boeing Bobby have in what aircraft?
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    The FAA's cozy relationship with the industry it regulates is infamous. I'm sure that statement was made to placate certain interests. The fact is, there was no conclusive evidence that this vulnerability caused the explosion (the scavenger pumps were never recovered), however the statement he makes is misleading. There was an abundance of evidence that leads us to highly suspect it was the casue of the accident.

                    Thus the changes that were made. And later on, the nitrogen systems.
                    There is abundant conclusive evidence that the CFT exploded in the way it would if the fuel vapors would ignite, and not in the way it would as the result of a high-energy device like a bomb or missile.

                    There is conclusive evidence that the air / fuel vapors mixture can be explosive under certain circumstances, matching the circumstances of TWA 800. So this provides the energy source for the explosion.

                    There is no conclusive evidence of what was the source of the ignition. However, there is conclusive evidence that there was a source of ignition. That conclusive evidence is... the ignition.

                    Many times it happens in an accident that the part holding the evidence is destroyed or not found.

                    There is a wrong belief that, to solve something, the root cause must be found. That's not true. Firs of all, you can put containment measures that will break the chain of events. The inerting system is an example. Second, even if you can't find the actual root cause, you can investigate what are all the things that could potentially have been the root cause, and work on them. This approach has the advantage that you may be fixing not only the root cause of this particular case, but potentially other root causes of what would have been following cases.

                    So, going to TWA, we know that the CFT exploded (even if BB says it didn't). We know that it exploded due to the air / fuel vapors mixture igniting, because it is ignitable and because it was the only possible source of energy for the explosion, after category discarding high-energy devices. So we know there was a source of ignition but can't find out what it was. So we start to ask what could have been. And work of that.

                    This approach (together with others) has made commercial aviation the amazingly safe industry it is today.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      So how many hours does Boeing Bobby have in what aircraft?
                      And how many years (on and off) have you been reading flying magazine?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                        Funny thing is that in the brand new 747-8 @ 335 million each, there is a nitrogen purge system for the center tank (777, 787 and I think the newer 737's as well). But if there is a fire in the lower cargo hold (which is kind of close to the tank) the system is deactivated! Go figure!
                        While I don't know this for a fact, I believe it is due to the cargo fire suppression cutting off airflow to the cargo hold. The nitrogen inerting system on the new Boeings is not a pure-nitrogen injection system like that found on many military aircraft. To save cost and weight, they instead developed a system that uses the engine bleed air, mixed through a fresh-air heat exchanger and then passed through a filter that removes most of the oxygen and results in a mixture that is about 99.9% nitrogen, which is then constantly pumped into the CWT. The displaced O2 from the tank is vented overboard.

                        Since the fire suppression shuts down the bleed air to the cargo hold, it might also shut down the bleed air to the inerting system.

                        Just a theory.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                          And how many years (on and off) have you been reading flying magazine?
                          Enough that I don't need to highlight it by typing it out time after time after time as part of the discussion. Flying Magazine is not that much help to know that hydrocarbons can volatilze and how diesel engines work.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            There is abundant conclusive evidence that the CFT exploded in the way it would if the fuel vapors would ignite, and not in the way it would as the result of a high-energy device like a bomb or missile.

                            There is conclusive evidence that the air / fuel vapors mixture can be explosive under certain circumstances, matching the circumstances of TWA 800. So this provides the energy source for the explosion.

                            There is no conclusive evidence of what was the source of the ignition. However, there is conclusive evidence that there was a source of ignition. That conclusive evidence is... the ignition.

                            Many times it happens in an accident that the part holding the evidence is destroyed or not found.

                            There is a wrong belief that, to solve something, the root cause must be found. That's not true. Firs of all, you can put containment measures that will break the chain of events. The inerting system is an example. Second, even if you can't find the actual root cause, you can investigate what are all the things that could potentially have been the root cause, and work on them. This approach has the advantage that you may be fixing not only the root cause of this particular case, but potentially other root causes of what would have been following cases.

                            So, going to TWA, we know that the CFT exploded (even if BB says it didn't). We know that it exploded due to the air / fuel vapors mixture igniting, because it is ignitable and because it was the only possible source of energy for the explosion, after category discarding high-energy devices. So we know there was a source of ignition but can't find out what it was. So we start to ask what could have been. And work of that.

                            This approach (together with others) has made commercial aviation the amazingly safe industry it is today.
                            We're saying the same thing. Even if the cause of the crash is never absolutely determined, the vulnerabilities that the investigation does reveal should result in removing those vulnerabilities whenever possible and practical.

                            What the investigation basically revealed is that...

                            ...in aircraft where the AC packs are in direct proximity to the CWT (especially below it), and...

                            ...the fuel quantity in the tank is sufficient, when heated, to create volatile fumes yet still low enough to allow ullage heating above a certain temperature threshold (i.e. the tank is nearly empty)...

                            ...then the ullage gas becomes flammable and potentially explosive.

                            And, certain scavenger pumps contain silicon seals that will break down over time when immersed in fuel, exposing fuel vapors to a source of ignition.

                            And, despite the low voltages of the Fuel Quantity Indication System, wire routings that bundle them with higher voltage wiring can lead to transient voltage spikes that can create a spark sufficient to ignite the aforementioned over-heated ullage gas, resulting in explosive forces sufficient to destroy the airframe.

                            Thus, regardless of the actual cause of ignition, we know conclusively that the ullage becomes explosive and is potentially exposed to a source of ignition and thus we need to both change the design of certain components and wiring and inert the ullage spaces. The FAA has predicted that 9 more occurences of CWT explosion were likely in the near future without the inerting systems vs 1 with the inerting systems. So, they made it a requirement.

                            Other countries (Europe, I'm talkin' to you) have not.

                            Missile theories and phantom black boats notwithstanding, we are much safer thanks to this investigation and its conclusions.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Skeptics who have long theorized that TWA Flight 800 was brought down by sinister forces will get a fresh surge of energy when a documentary is released in July.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                From that link:
                                Originally posted by NTSB investigator
                                "The sequencing report that told how the airplane fell apart, none of it supports a missile -- none of it. When you look at the physical evidence inside the tank, it's clear that there was an explosion inside the tank. If the top of the tank goes up and the bottom of the tank goes down, and the forward side goes forward and the back of the tank goes back, that tells you that the blast was inside the tank -- not outside."
                                Originally posted by Relative of victims
                                Some of the people involved in this group have been involved in Internet conspiracy theories for the last 15 years

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X