I happen to have some information regarding testing of one specific failure scenario, a short circuit/spark in a fuel pump. Sparks were actually induced in an operating pump submerged in fuel. The test result was negative, i.e. no ignition. I've never read the final report to see how specific it got beyond "mechanical failure."
I knew the scientist tasked to examine possible fuel tank fumes igniting, causing the explosion. The theory involved high pressure high flow hydraulic lines creating static discharges from fluidic friction. The problem with that theory is that aviation fuel is kerosene and it takes specific levels of oxygen/air and compression for ignition that don't exist, obviously, in a fuel tank.
Makes absolute sense given that aviation fuel (Jet-A, basically kerosene) ignites by spark when mixed with oxygen by atomization or vapor. If you could stick a lit match into it without being exposed to the vapor around it, the fuel would extinguish the match. (I’ve never tested this for obvious reasons, but it’s my understanding that’s the case.)
Great work. As an early web user I remember having a photo saved that someone had taken showing the apparent missile contrail just before the incident.
Always interesting and informative, but good to know, as they provide a great reason for me never to fly again. I think I was born a white knuckle flyer. Didn’t like the idea even before I stepped into that first plane. Each time I flew, it got worse. So wired on the flight to wherever we went, I found it impossible to enjoy the vacation, thinking about the return trip. I reached the end of my rope on a rough flight home in a storm when lightning struck the wing outside my window. The plane shook like hell, lights flashed off & on and I was finished. Rain and fog so thick that I couldn’t see the airport as we approached & when we touched down so hard, I thought we were goners.
That was in ’91. The good part of this story is I’ve since visited 43 States and several
Not interested in Hawaii, I've concentrated on Historical sites and places that inspired me as a kid, The Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Homes of Several American Presidents, Historic battle sites, Ft MC Henry, FT Sumter, The Alamo. Boston, to see The Old North Church & the Constitution, Philly for the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall. The Little Big Horn , The Arch in St Louis, so much more.
I must have missed this: Why the coverup? From everything I've read of the Clinton White House, they would have been happy to blame the Navy--unless the Prez had personally authorized the missile test in busy airspace. After the USS Vincennes blew up that Iranian airliner in '88, the Navy obviously needed real-world training with better safeguards. Their track record on handling incidents is very bad, starting at least with the Iowa explosion coverup, and the Liberty in '67. Short term thinking.
Here is an excellent summary from Plane and Pilot magazine. The explosive residue was not identified, even knowing as a baseline what was used in explosive detection dog training. That would have been conclusive.
As for a fuel tank being vulnerable to hot enough sparks or static electrical coronal discharges, the documentation of previous center wing tank explosions is firm evidence that it can and did happen.
"As such, the most probable cause is the one cited by the NTSB, especially given that this isn’t the only center fuel tank explosion in a Boeing aircraft. In 1990, the center tank exploded on Philippine Airlines Flight 143, a Boeing 737-3Y0, shortly before takeoff, killing eight. Then, in 2001, Thai Airways Flight 114, a Boeing 737-400, was destroyed by a center wing tank explosion prior to boarding, resulting in a crew fatality. As for the explosive residue found on the wreckage—well, while the NTSB can’t be 100% sure, it strongly believes it either came from contamination when the aircraft was used during the Gulf War or, most likely, from an explosive-detection dog-training exercise conducted just a few weeks before the crash. To prevent further incidents, the FAA issued safety changes to the fuel pumps and wiring of all Boeing aircraft with center fuel tanks."
Leonard Daneman
Substack writer on the law, Birthright Citizenship, Naturalization Law, Constitutional Issues
One thing that caught my eye was that the two previous explosions were at takeoff. Flt 800 was only at 17,000 feet and the main tanks may have not fully depressurized and had enough oxygen for combustion. Airlines cruise at 30K to 40K feet, so not much oxygen, which is why the three incidents were consistently at lower altitudes . . .
Sorry no man carried anti aircraft missile of that era had the range to hit the Boeing. Further, such missiles had a distinctive countail. No one ever mentioned such a indication. What was really strange was the FBI taking over from the FAA after day one. Then once the wreckage was assembled in the hanger and the bogus gas tank explosion theory given, contrary to all protocol, the FBI destroyed all evidence. A Boeing has never been destroyed by a fuel tank explosion. What has been concealed are the flight records of other aircraft around and near the Boeing flight. Also note such a disaster would have caused endless lawsuits. The lawyers would have been like vultures and the suits would have made headlines. We got zip.
Two other quotes from the NYT 7/28 article that put the article quote in context.
Investigators acknowledge that none of the theories have yet gained pre-eminence. "There are going to be a thousand different scenarios until there is a real lead," said one member of the team of local and Federal officials assigned to the case.
"We are not sitting here idling; we have a worldwide investigation going on to try to figure this out," said James K. Kallstrom, the F.B.I. agent in charge of the case. "We are assuming for the purposes of our investigation that it is a criminal investigation. We're not saying it is, but we make that assumption so that if it is, we have a launching pad to move and move quickly."
"They are casting a wide net," said a former investigator briefed on the case. "They have to, and they will look at the most improbable things. But they know that if the trail gets cold, it stays cold, and so it has been a full-steam investigation despite the lack of a determined cause. They have tried not to get caught behind any kind of curve."
In the moments following the initial explosion of TWA Flight 800, the aircraft broke into several pieces. The forward fuselage (including the cockpit) separated, while the rest of the plane, minus the cockpit, pitched up and began to climb momentarily.
This climb was not due to the aircraft being under control, but rather a consequence of the explosion's force and the shift in the aircraft's center of gravity after the nose broke off. The intact wings, stabilizers, and engines temporarily propelled the main body of the plane upward, albeit uncontrollably. Eyewitness accounts described seeing a "streak of light" ascending, which some initially interpreted as a missile, but the NTSB determined was likely burning fuel exiting the pla
More from the 8/23 NYT article--Moreover, since PETN is usually a key component of a detonator, not a main explosive charge, they had expected to find residues of bomb chemicals as well. But, the official said, they had not yet found any evidence of it. Nor have they found the ''shock wave'' damage that typically accompanies a blast.
I happen to have some information regarding testing of one specific failure scenario, a short circuit/spark in a fuel pump. Sparks were actually induced in an operating pump submerged in fuel. The test result was negative, i.e. no ignition. I've never read the final report to see how specific it got beyond "mechanical failure."
I knew the scientist tasked to examine possible fuel tank fumes igniting, causing the explosion. The theory involved high pressure high flow hydraulic lines creating static discharges from fluidic friction. The problem with that theory is that aviation fuel is kerosene and it takes specific levels of oxygen/air and compression for ignition that don't exist, obviously, in a fuel tank.
Makes absolute sense given that aviation fuel (Jet-A, basically kerosene) ignites by spark when mixed with oxygen by atomization or vapor. If you could stick a lit match into it without being exposed to the vapor around it, the fuel would extinguish the match. (I’ve never tested this for obvious reasons, but it’s my understanding that’s the case.)
Great work. As an early web user I remember having a photo saved that someone had taken showing the apparent missile contrail just before the incident.
Always interesting and informative, but good to know, as they provide a great reason for me never to fly again. I think I was born a white knuckle flyer. Didn’t like the idea even before I stepped into that first plane. Each time I flew, it got worse. So wired on the flight to wherever we went, I found it impossible to enjoy the vacation, thinking about the return trip. I reached the end of my rope on a rough flight home in a storm when lightning struck the wing outside my window. The plane shook like hell, lights flashed off & on and I was finished. Rain and fog so thick that I couldn’t see the airport as we approached & when we touched down so hard, I thought we were goners.
That was in ’91. The good part of this story is I’ve since visited 43 States and several
areas in Canada, by car!
But it's such a long drive to Hawaii
Not interested in Hawaii, I've concentrated on Historical sites and places that inspired me as a kid, The Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Homes of Several American Presidents, Historic battle sites, Ft MC Henry, FT Sumter, The Alamo. Boston, to see The Old North Church & the Constitution, Philly for the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall. The Little Big Horn , The Arch in St Louis, so much more.
I must have missed this: Why the coverup? From everything I've read of the Clinton White House, they would have been happy to blame the Navy--unless the Prez had personally authorized the missile test in busy airspace. After the USS Vincennes blew up that Iranian airliner in '88, the Navy obviously needed real-world training with better safeguards. Their track record on handling incidents is very bad, starting at least with the Iowa explosion coverup, and the Liberty in '67. Short term thinking.
Too close to the election for a president who was not trusted on things military
Here is an excellent summary from Plane and Pilot magazine. The explosive residue was not identified, even knowing as a baseline what was used in explosive detection dog training. That would have been conclusive.
As for a fuel tank being vulnerable to hot enough sparks or static electrical coronal discharges, the documentation of previous center wing tank explosions is firm evidence that it can and did happen.
"As such, the most probable cause is the one cited by the NTSB, especially given that this isn’t the only center fuel tank explosion in a Boeing aircraft. In 1990, the center tank exploded on Philippine Airlines Flight 143, a Boeing 737-3Y0, shortly before takeoff, killing eight. Then, in 2001, Thai Airways Flight 114, a Boeing 737-400, was destroyed by a center wing tank explosion prior to boarding, resulting in a crew fatality. As for the explosive residue found on the wreckage—well, while the NTSB can’t be 100% sure, it strongly believes it either came from contamination when the aircraft was used during the Gulf War or, most likely, from an explosive-detection dog-training exercise conducted just a few weeks before the crash. To prevent further incidents, the FAA issued safety changes to the fuel pumps and wiring of all Boeing aircraft with center fuel tanks."
Leonard Daneman
Substack writer on the law, Birthright Citizenship, Naturalization Law, Constitutional Issues
One thing that caught my eye was that the two previous explosions were at takeoff. Flt 800 was only at 17,000 feet and the main tanks may have not fully depressurized and had enough oxygen for combustion. Airlines cruise at 30K to 40K feet, so not much oxygen, which is why the three incidents were consistently at lower altitudes . . .
Sorry no man carried anti aircraft missile of that era had the range to hit the Boeing. Further, such missiles had a distinctive countail. No one ever mentioned such a indication. What was really strange was the FBI taking over from the FAA after day one. Then once the wreckage was assembled in the hanger and the bogus gas tank explosion theory given, contrary to all protocol, the FBI destroyed all evidence. A Boeing has never been destroyed by a fuel tank explosion. What has been concealed are the flight records of other aircraft around and near the Boeing flight. Also note such a disaster would have caused endless lawsuits. The lawyers would have been like vultures and the suits would have made headlines. We got zip.
Two other quotes from the NYT 7/28 article that put the article quote in context.
Investigators acknowledge that none of the theories have yet gained pre-eminence. "There are going to be a thousand different scenarios until there is a real lead," said one member of the team of local and Federal officials assigned to the case.
"We are not sitting here idling; we have a worldwide investigation going on to try to figure this out," said James K. Kallstrom, the F.B.I. agent in charge of the case. "We are assuming for the purposes of our investigation that it is a criminal investigation. We're not saying it is, but we make that assumption so that if it is, we have a launching pad to move and move quickly."
"They are casting a wide net," said a former investigator briefed on the case. "They have to, and they will look at the most improbable things. But they know that if the trail gets cold, it stays cold, and so it has been a full-steam investigation despite the lack of a determined cause. They have tried not to get caught behind any kind of curve."
How does an exploded aircraft climb 3200 feet?
Good question
It's lighter without the front half, but the aerodynamics are horrible.
In the moments following the initial explosion of TWA Flight 800, the aircraft broke into several pieces. The forward fuselage (including the cockpit) separated, while the rest of the plane, minus the cockpit, pitched up and began to climb momentarily.
This climb was not due to the aircraft being under control, but rather a consequence of the explosion's force and the shift in the aircraft's center of gravity after the nose broke off. The intact wings, stabilizers, and engines temporarily propelled the main body of the plane upward, albeit uncontrollably. Eyewitness accounts described seeing a "streak of light" ascending, which some initially interpreted as a missile, but the NTSB determined was likely burning fuel exiting the pla
More from the 8/23 NYT article--Moreover, since PETN is usually a key component of a detonator, not a main explosive charge, they had expected to find residues of bomb chemicals as well. But, the official said, they had not yet found any evidence of it. Nor have they found the ''shock wave'' damage that typically accompanies a blast.