Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Real Reason Why TWA800 Exploded  
User currently offlineVS744 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 677 posts, RR: 1
Posted (12 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1701 times:

Did anyone in the UK see the documentary in c4 at 8.30 pm?

I can't believe the chain of events that led to that, AND that there are still 100 747's flying around that havent had the safety modification.

chain of events:
Low fuel in centre tank
heat from air con
oxygen sucked out thru vent on ascent
wires short fusing causing increase of voltage to fuel tank
build up of carbon deposits led to spark which ignited fuel vapour!!

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1523 times:

Oh god, this is gonna turn into a big debate. There's quite a lot of evidence that says that the spark COULDN'T have caused the CFTE.

User currently offlineCaptain.MD-11 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1504 times:

Have you seen the state of the wires that pass the main fuel tanks on aircraft as modern as the 767-300? It's scary!! All the wires are just bunched together, a short was bound to happen on these older birds (747-100/200, DC-10, L10-11,767-200/300) According to reports it was faulty wiring that brought that SR MD-11 down a couple of years back.It was partly due to the type of coating on the wires which caused the fire, the same coating as found in the A340, 744 etc worrying isn't it!  Sad


Twins,twins, everywhere.... but where are the three holers?
User currently offlineJohnnie From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1484 times:

There is also strong evidence that the forward portion of the fuselage (just fwd of doors 2L/2R) separated from TW880 B E F O R E the ignition of the central fuel tank. Hmmmm, a debate this shall be indeed!

User currently offlineJohnnie From Portugal, joined Jul 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1472 times:

Something tells me the only people who will TRULY know the reason why TWA800 exploded are the passengers and crew of that flight, and "God".

May they all rest in peace.


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8060 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1475 times:

Saw the documentary, very interesting and I don't believe the conspiracy theories. The CGI animations were a bit graphic but they got the facts right which is all that matters.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineLGB Photos From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1451 times:

Very interesting!

User currently offlineAirmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 376 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1413 times:

Considering the TWA incident was the only such case since the 747 came into existence makes me seriously doubt the fuel tank story.

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © John Sweeney




.....up there with the best!
User currently offlineMcdougald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1400 times:

Airmale: It wasn't the first. There was an incident where a 747's fuel tank exploded over Spain. A 737 also suffered a tank explosion in the Philippines prior to the TWA incident.

User currently offlineVirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1342 times:

There are 18 incidents of fuel tank explosions in all including an MD-88 in the Phillipines and a Thai 737-400. The FAA questioned the issue in the 70s but put it on the bacburner after they bent backwards over airline and manufacture bottom line. This is a habit of them.


"FUIMUS"
User currently offlineMx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1314 times:

Hey guys,

Those forward cargo doors are a 'real' problem on some aircraft.

Remember Turkish Air DC-10?

Cheers,

mb


User currently offlineSeagull From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 340 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1295 times:

Interestingly, nobody who is actually close to the investigation, the NTSB team members nor the ALPA team members, believe in any of the conspiracy theories and all are confident that they found the answer in the published findings.

User currently offlineL-1011-500 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 368 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1254 times:

I personally think it is a missile. If it was really this center-fuel tank explosion, why haven't more planes fallen out of the sky? I think the center-fuel tank explosion theory was a cover-up for two things: possible government involvement, and the NTSB/FAA's inabiility to find out a true cause.

Also, here is an interesting theory: http://www.corazon.com


User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1214 times:

I think the overall safety record of the 747 speaks volumes. We should all be so lucky to own a specific car model that we can run for 30 years for millions of miles just below mach 1 before a single (or one or two) catastrophic event involving the fuel tank occurs.



User currently offlineVirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1185 times:

It looks like Ichan wasn't the killer of the airline but rather TWA's shoddy maintinance. Too bad they didn't repace the old and out dated gas guzzling 747s with more fuel efficient 757/767 aircraft soo enough otherwise they'd be the size of CO out of JFK.


"FUIMUS"
User currently offlineVS744 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 677 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1139 times:

From what I saw last night, it showed the actual aircraft had a 75ft section rebuilt from the million pieces of debris they recovered from the sea bed.

The evidence showed that there had definately been an explosion in the fuel tank, as the main supports had damage as a result of a support beam being thrust forward in the impact.

They couldnt itentify the reason why such an explosion would occur, and carried out tests on Jet A (Kerosene) to see how they could make it ignite. They discovered that ignition was possible when oxygen was starved. The 747 has wing vents which draw out the air as the atmospheric pressure changes on ascent.
In order for the fuel to produce vapour, it would need to be very hot, and because a passenger was late, and the ground temperature was extreme, they had an a/c full of passengers in sweltering conditions.

The air con was switched on (and is located directly beneath the centre fuel tank) which led to the heating of the fuel. Because the tank is designed to absorb heat, this should have been safe. However, there was only 50 gallons of fuel in this tank, which therefore led to it heating rapidly and producing the vapour required to be combustable.

Further to this, the voice recorder identified the pilot commenting on a fuel guage which was showing bizzare readings.

The reason this occured because the normally low voltage wiring to the fuel flow indicator in the tank had been short circuited because the loom was damaged, causing greater voltage in the fuel wires.

Finally, the design of the contacts is such that does not permit a spark, however, they did not realise that carbon deposits built up when fuel and voltage came into contact, thus causing a spark.

The forward section of the a/c split off after the support beams were forced in the explosion, and the fusilage ripped 360 degrees from the front of the wings.

This plummeted to the ground, whilst the rear section headed high into the sky until it stalled, inverted and plummeted towards the sea at 400mph - causing the wing tips to break, fuel ignite, and turn into a fireball.

This would have been a very frightening death for the people on board.

They said that older 747's (25 years+) still flying which hadnt had wiring modifications where still a risk. There are 100 such a/c still in use.

Hope this is a good detailed decription of what happened!


User currently offlineSUDDEN From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4130 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1128 times:

I saw that documentary couple of years ago. I found it very interesting, and heartbreaking to watch.
The fact that the fuselage broke up in 2 pieces and passangers still were alive (alot of them) and knowing that there was no way out of it.
If my memory serves me correct, they talked to a man in the documentary that had seen a light (missile).
But they said, what he saw was the explosion it self.
The truth about what really happend that day have been on my mind for a very long time.

There is a 13 minutes long audiofile at Airdisaster.com from T/O to the end between Tower and TWA800 Heavy.
Also audiofiles between tower and other pilots who saw it happend.



When in doubt, flat out!
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1123 times:

What's interesting is the numerous witnesses all saying it was a missile.

User currently offlineVS744 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 677 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1120 times:

I doubt that theory about a missile.

I thought it happened over the sea?

maybe someone had too much sea air!


User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1117 times:

Over the sea, very close to New York

User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3700 posts, RR: 34
Reply 20, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1089 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

All the wires are just bunched together, a short was bound to happen on these older birds (747-100/200, DC-10, L10-11,767-200/300) - err, there was aviation before the 1970's, what about all the 707's & DC8's that DIDN'T explode

User currently offlineCeilidh From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1086 times:

Mx5_boy said: Those forward cargo doors are a 'real' problem on some aircraft.

Remember Turkish Air DC-10?


Actually, that was the aft door ... and was the subject of an AD in 1973 which THY ignored!


User currently offlineF27 From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1079 times:

That is a load of rubbish what they say about TWA 800.The fumes that are inside those tanks there is no oxygen to cause the fire it is a cover up bye the USA Authorities.I have been inside enought tanks on boeing aircraft to know

User currently offlineVS744 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 677 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1064 times:

F27 - You must have seen that there are breather outlets which stretch to the wing then?

The fact that the tanks are starved of oxygen also helps JET-A ignite. Jet-A vapour cannot ignite in normal conditions, but when starved of oxygen - which happened when the a/c was climbing, the vapur becomes more combustable and therefore can ignite. Scientific research backs this up.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13170 posts, RR: 77
Reply 24, posted (12 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1046 times:

It was a good, sober programme. not shown before.
But it confirms what has long been suspected.
Sorry to tell all you conspiracy nuts, but the NTSB are certain about this as the cause. The implications are being studied by airlines and manufacturers alike.
In two years time, the recovered 747 will be the centre-piece of an international crash-investigation training school being set up in Washington.
So the wreck is not hidden away in Area 51, go figure.
It may have been a freak series of events, but so was the Concorde crash last year.
How many 747-100's are flying around unmodified?


25 Post contains images BA777 : i have one thing to say about this that was the first word that came into my head, but sorry, im not allowed to say it in these forums It was a time b
26 VS744 : How many 747-100's are flying around unmodified? They said 100.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Real Reason BA Left SAN posted Sun Aug 20 2006 00:47:53 by Trvlr
Real Reason For The Third A380 Delay? posted Sat Jun 17 2006 08:32:07 by Zvezda
FF Programs - Reason Why... posted Tue May 2 2006 02:15:32 by Utapao
Another Reason Why Flight Int'l Has A Bad Rep posted Mon Feb 20 2006 18:37:40 by UAL747-600
Real Reason And Tragedy Of Tehran Crash posted Thu Dec 8 2005 09:37:44 by Curious
Today @ DFW - Reason Why WN Wants DAL posted Tue Aug 9 2005 03:18:39 by DeltaFFinDFW
One Reason Why UAL May Be Bankrupt posted Mon Feb 28 2005 18:04:01 by 0897t5
Reason Why LH Paints Its Wings White? posted Sun Feb 6 2005 03:31:43 by BALandorLivery
Is CAK The Reason Why AirTran Doesnt Fly To CLE? posted Thu Apr 15 2004 04:48:11 by TriJetFan1
Reason Why ATL Closed... Haha! posted Sat Nov 17 2001 06:25:38 by Delta777-XXX