Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

NTSB MARKS 10th ANNIVERSARY OF CRASH OF TWA 800

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Rogue5

Adult Swim junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2002
Posts
882
June 29, 2006 - SB-06-38

NTSB MARKS 10th ANNIVERSARY OF CRASH OF TWA 800

Washington DC - With the 10th anniversary of the crash of TWA Flight 800 approaching, the National Transportation Safety Board today released a fact sheet that reviews lessons learned from the accident investigation and the
progress toward ensuring that similar tragedies do not happen in the future.

The Board's review found that significant safety improvements have been implemented over the past ten years, but that more needs to be done to avoid another accident like TWA 800.

TWA 800, a Boeing 747, crashed on July 17, 1996, minutes after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport on a flight to Paris, France. All 230 persons aboard the airplane died in the accident. The Safety Board conducted an exhaustive four-year investigation and determined that
the accident was caused by an explosion in the center wing fuel tank, resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank.

"The crash of TWA 800 was a watershed event for the air carrier industry," said NTSB Acting Chairman Mark V. Rosenker. "In the intervening years, a lot of thought and effort has been devoted to the issues raised by this
accident, and the public is safer for it."

The most prominent issues raised by the TWA 800 accident concern protection against flammable fuel tank vapors and aging electrical systems.

Rosenker noted that fleet-wide inspections and analytical reviews of fuel tank design have resulted in significant measures that have the potential to reduce the likelihood of an ignition event inside a tank, and that fuel pumps, fuel
quantity indicating systems, in-tank wiring, co-routed wiring, and operational procedures have been modified to make fuel systems safer.

"Equally important," Rosenker said, "is the prospect of substantially reducing fuel tank flammability exposure - something that was seen as impractical ten years ago but is now feasible, even in this difficult era when airline operators need to be extremely conscious of costs."

But while applauding the FAA and industry for the progress that has been made, Rosenker cautioned that the process is moving much too slowly. "Ten years after the TWA accident, fuel tank inerting systems are not in place on our airliners, and flammability exposure is largely unchanged. And proposed rule changes do not include the majority of fuel tanks which are in the wings of transport airplanes, nor this country's large fleet of cargo aircraft." Consequently, he added, reduction in fuel tank flammability remains on the NTSB's Most Wanted List of Safety Improvements.

Rosenker also expressed disappointment that the FAA did not act on the NTSB's immediate, interim recommendations, issued a few months after the TWA accident, that were aimed at reducing the fuel tank flammability problem until longer-term solutions are in place. The recommendation was closed by the Safety Board last year and given an "unacceptable action" status.

Rosenker noted that the TWA accident gave great impetus to legislation that revolutionized the ability of the families of the victims to obtain accurate and timely information about an airliner accident and the subsequent investigation. Passed in 1996, Public Law 104-264 assigned to the NTSB the
role of integrating the resources of the Federal government with those of local and state authorities, and the airlines, to meet the needs of aviation disaster victims and their families. Today, the emergency planning accomplished by the airlines, in cooperation with the NTSB, serves as a model
for the transportation industry in this country and throughout the world.

Further information on the investigation of the crash of TWA 800, the text of the final report and the recommendations stemming from the accident are available on the NTSB web site at www.ntsb.gov.

Attachment: TWA 800 Fact Sheet
Media contact: Paul Schlamm (202) 314-6100

TWA FLIGHT 800
The crash of a Boeing 747, operating as TWA flight 800, on July 17, 1996, tragically took the lives of all 230 persons aboard, and resulted in one of the most extensive, expensive and technically difficult investigations in the Safety Board's history.

After a 4-year investigation, the Safety Board determined that the probable cause of the crash was an explosion in the center wing fuel tank; the ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank was attributed to an electrical
failure.

The accident investigation highlighted two significant issues with major implications for the design and operation of transport airplanes. One concerns the potential vulnerability of fuel tanks, the other the problems raised
by aging aircraft wiring.

Fuel Tank Vulnerability
Since the TWA 800 accident, there have been two additional airliner fuel tank explosions. On March 3, 2001, a center wing tank explosion destroyed a Thai Airways B-737 at the terminal in Bangkok, Thailand.

Currently under investigation is a left wing fuel tank explosion on a Transmile Airlines B-727 in Bangalore, India on May 4, 2006. At the time of the explosion the airplane was waiting to be towed and only the auxiliary power unit
was running. The exact source of the ignition energy for the fuel/vapor mixture has not been determined, but initial examination of the structural damage to the left wing indicates that most likely the wing would have failed had the airplane been in flight at the time of the explosion. Such a structural failure in flight would not be survivable.

The TWA 800 investigation found that factors contributing to the accident were:

A flawed design and airworthiness certification philosophy that fuel tank explosions could be prevented solely by eliminating all likely ignition
sources; and,

The certification of the Boeing 747 design that had heat sources located beneath the center wing tank with no means to reduce the heat transferred into the fuel tank, and no protection against the flammability of vapors that accumulated in the tank.

The Safety Board concluded that dealing just with ignition sources was not sufficient to ensure safe flight and that fuel tank flammability must be addressed.

On December 13, 1996, the NTSB issued two safety recommendations aimed at reducing flammable fuel/air mixtures on airliners. One suggested short-term measures in airplane operations that could immediately reduce the levels
of these flammable mixtures (A-96-175), while the other called for design changes that would necessarily take years to implement (A-96-174).

Both recommendations were placed on the Board's Most Wanted List of Safety Improvements.

The Safety Board is disappointed that the FAA has refused to require air carriers to adopt short-term actions that could be quickly implemented to lessen fuel tank vulnerability. In November 2005, the NTSB classified this recommendation "Closed-Unacceptable Action."

The FAA has made significant progress in eliminating potential ignition sources in the entire fleet of transport airplanes. In May 2001, the FAA issued Special Federal Aviation Regulation Number 88 (SFAR 88) requiring a comprehensive analysis of all potential ignition sources in aircraft fuel tanks, and provisions to remove the ignition source risk.

The FAA also is in the process of issuing over a hundred airworthiness directives that address specific problems that were found in various airplane models.

On November 22, 2005, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled "Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability in Transport Category Airplanes" which proposes new rules that should greatly reduce the chances of a catastrophic fuel-tank explosion by requiring a flammability reduction system be installed and used in transport category airplanes.

The NTSB strongly supports adoption of this NPRM for both existing and new airplanes, and has urged the fastest possible implementation.

The NPRM, however, will not apply this requirement to airliner wing fuel tanks, nor to cargo aircraft. The Safety Board believes this system should be required for cargo as well as passenger aircraft, and that wing fuel tanks should also be covered. As the recent Bangalore incident illustrates, the potential for ignition of fuel/air vapors can exist in wing tanks as well as center wing tanks.

The Safety Board is concerned that movement on the NPRM has been so slow and that closure of the comment period has been repeatedly postponed, finally closing on May 8, 2006. Airliner fuel tanks are as flammable today as they were ten years ago.

Aging Wiring
In the TWA 800 investigation, the Safety Board found evidence to conclude that the most likely source of ignition energy for the fuel tank explosion was a short circuit that introduced electrical energy into the tank.

Examination of numerous other transport airplanes revealed wide-spread problems related to the aging of wiring and other airplane systems that could result in catastrophic accidents.

On April 7, 1998, the Safety Board issued a series of recommendations (A-98-34 to 39) addressing wiring problems that potentially could result in fires or provide fuel tank ignition sources.

Additional recommendations (A-00-105 to 108) concerning the aging and maintenance of systems installed in the entire fleet of transport airplanes were issued following the Safety Board's public meeting (August 22-23, 2000) at which the TWA 800 final investigation report was considered.

On October 5, 2005, the FAA published an NPRM titled "Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Systems/Fuel Tank Safety" that proposed a combination of actions to ensure the safety of commercial airplanes by improving the design, installation, and maintenance of electrical wiring
interconnection systems.

The Safety Board believes this NPRM has many positive aspects and introduces numerous potential improvements, and looks forward to its implementation.
 
Yeah, and I'm having a party for the over 150 eyewitnesses who saw something streaking up from the surface of the ocean seconds before 800 exploded.

ALL 150 were either discredited, intimidated by the FBI or not interviewed at all.

Yea NTSB! Yea FBI! :rolleyes: TC
 
And I'm having a party at my house for the countless thousands of "eyewitnesses" who heard jet engines "sputtering" just before the crash, who saw pieces of flaming engines on fuel starvation accidents and all the others who give the NTSB the consistently LEAST credible amount of any useful information....eyewitnesses.

I wonder how many of those heard TWA 800's engines "sputtering"?:rolleyes:

Yep...."they" shot it down. Now it is your job to go out there and get 'em. Either DO something about it or STFU. Or are you just another typical loudmouth who never does a GD thing except run your mouth?
 
AA717driver said:
Yeah, and I'm having a party for the over 150 eyewitnesses who saw something streaking up from the surface of the ocean seconds before 800 exploded.

ALL 150 were either discredited, intimidated by the FBI or not interviewed at all.

Yea NTSB! Yea FBI! :rolleyes: TC

Watch it. The Black choppers will be coming for you shortly...

Do you have a list of even say a dozen of your alleged witnesses? Do you think the likes of CNN would fail to give them major coverage if they actually existed?

Amazing how some people can not accept or understand the facts that are right in front of them.

OBTW - I have met and worked with some of the folks who contributed to the accident investigation.
 
If the NY Times can't keep a secret, what make you think there's some big conspiracy now?
 
According to Occam's Razor, the NTSB view on this crash can safely be discredited.

Here's something else to consider:
With the Atlanta Olympics just a few days away, and a presidential election just four months later, do you think that poll-driven Bill Clinton might have had motive to make this terrorist attack just "go away"?
 
Inquiring minds...

The Impossible Zoom Climb

Updates

...Major Fred Meyer saw a missile arc across the sky from right to left. It culminated in at least two ordnance explosions (bright white flashes like flash-bulbs). His copilot, Captain Chris Bauer, was sitting on the left side of the cockpit, and he looked up in time to see a second missile rising from left to right. Then came the huge fuel explosion, and all of the debris fell downward out of the fireball in two flaming streams.
Captain David McClaine and First Officer Vincent Fruschetti on Eastwind Flight 507 were inbound descending to 16,000 feet. They were head-on toTWA800 which was climbing outbound and was limited to 15,000 feet until they were past each other. The Eastwind crew had been visually tracking the oncoming landing lights of TWA800 for a few minutes. As Captain McClaine reached up to turn on his own landing lights, TWA800 just blew up and the aircraft fell down to the water in two balls of flames. This was confirmed by two other airline crews on nearby flights.
Chief Petty Officer Dwight Brumley was a passenger on U S Air 217. He had a window seat and he watched the missile rise and arch over prior to the explosion of TWA800. The debris fell downward.
Mike Wire, Lisa Perry, Paul Angelides, and William Gallahger all saw the missile rising from near the surface towards TWA800 prior to the explosion. The debris fell downward.
The list goes on. However, not a single eyewitness saw the CIA scenario of an explosion, a zoom-climb, a second explosion, a dive, a third explosion, and then a plunge into the ocean.
In support of the eyewitnesses, Captain Richard Russell received a video tape of the ATC radar scope showing four rapidly approaching blips just prior to the explosion.
So how does the NTSB respond to the eyewitness reports? The NTSB simply says that all of these eyewitnesses were wrong and that they didn't understand what they were seeing. The radar blips were anomalies. Furthermore, the NTSB did not allow a single eyewitness to testify at either of its public hearings.
Now mind you, with rare exception, the NTSB did not interview the eyewitnesses, even though the NTSB is charged with that responsibility by Congress. Instead, the NTSB was shoved aside by the FBI, and the FBI conducted the interviews by itself, not even allowing the NTSB to participate in the interviews. Then, in order to discredit the eyewitnesses, the FBI called in the CIA, the master for cover stories. The CIA likewise had not interviewed the eyewitnesses. Instead, the FBI provided the CIA with a selected portion of its 302 forms (a 302 form is the interviewing agent's written recollection of an interview). The witnesses were assigned numbers by the FBI so that their identities could be kept secret. The interviews themselves were not video taped, or audio taped, or even transcribed verbatim.
Working only from the 302 forms provided by the FBI, one individual CIA agent concocted the zoom-climb hypothesis to explain away all of the eyewitness missile reports. A zoom-climb is a rapid pull-up into a steep climb utilizing the forward speed of the aircraft. Such a steep climb is much beyond the capabilities of the engines alone on a large transport aircraft. This CIA agent proposed that after the nose was blown off, the flaming aircraft zoom-climbed from 13,800 feet to about 17,000 feet. The eyewitnesses supposedly mistook the flaming B747 for a missile. Never mind that the eyewitnesses saw a missile rapidly rising from the surface, not a lumbering aircraft rising from a point two and a half miles in the sky. The CIA agent passed his zoom-climb conclusion to the FBI the following morning. Then the NTSB was brought on board. From that moment on, the investigation was shaped to fit the zoom-climb hypothesis.
The CIA created a video animation of its hypothetical zoom-climb and presented it to the FBI. In turn, the FBI presented the video to the world in a prime-time national television program in November, 1998. Boeing wasn't pleased, and it issued a statement the following day saying that it had no knowledge of the data used for the video. The FBI declared there was no evidence of criminality and that it was withdrawing from the investigation. However, the FBI did not release the evidence that it had gathered and analyzed, nor did it release the lab reports that it had prepared. The FBI was not a cooperative partner regarding the sharing of information.
There is reason to believe that something exploded in the passenger cabin of TWA800, and foreign objects were imbedded in some passengers. Red residue was found on a row of seat backs. James Sanders, investigative reporter, had some samples analyzed. The residue was consistent with rocket fuel. The FBI stood by during the autopsies and confiscated all of the foreign objects as they were removed. Those objects were sent to the FBI's own lab for analysis. Reports were written but never released, not even to the other agencies. A determination that the objects were explosive fragments from a missile would have undermined the predetermined cause as being a spark of unknown origin.
Graeme Sephton, an engineer and citizen investigator, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the FBI lab reports. Mr. Sephton was denied. He initiated a lawsuit. Surprisingly, he won and the court ordered the FBI to produce the reports. Subsequently, the FBI came back and said it had searched for the reports and couldn't find them. The court then ruled that the FBI had made a good faith effort, and Mr. Sephton was denied. The most widely publicized and most expensive accident investigation in the history of aviation, and the FBI loses its own lab reports? That is highly unlikely. Presumably, the objects still exist. Obviously, the FBI does not want the public to know what it found...
 
I thought it was widely accepted in the aviation industry that TWA 800 was shot down by a missle. Do people who followed the investigation really believe it was a fuel tank explosion? I thought that the only people who believed that were those that weren't in aviation.
 
The only people who believe it was shot down by a missile are people who don't know anything about missiles. Missiles tend to leave a lot of evidence on things they hit. Like thousands of holes and pieces of warhead fragments. Boeing, TWA and ALPA, all agreed that there was no evidence of either a bomb or missile exploding in or near the aircraft.
 
I have noticed that the people on this thread who believe it was a missile don't have military in their background.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top