On 19 July 1996, a 747 had been parked for several hours at JFK airport, while its airconditioner packs heated an almost empty center wing tank (CWT); making fuel vapors even more volatile. After loading, TWA Flight 800 took off and headed for Paris. At 8:31 PM and 11 miles south of Long Island, NY, the CWT exploded while the 747 was climbing towards its assigned 15,000 foot altitude. All 230 people onboard died as a result.
Pilots of Eastwind Airlines Flight 507, descending to 16,000 feet, were nearly head-on and observed the 747 as it climbed towards them in the clear air. One pilot radioed that a light appear on the 747 and he flashed his landing lights in greeting, then saw the 747 exploded. The pilot reported two fireballs going down, with small and large smoke trails. Many nearby pilots also reported they saw the event, with no report by anyone of seeing anything other than the 747, an explosion, then two smoke trails and the crash site.
Having been a researcher of one cause of uncontained aircraft engine failures for the Air Force, I immediately suspected that heated parts from an uncontained engine failure had ignited a fuel tank. I was sure the NTSB investigators interviewed these pilots and came to the same conclusion.
Had the NTSB promptly revealed the information contained in these pilot interviews, the public might have been spared the hundreds of hours and thousands of pages of testimony created by “eye witnesses.”
These were individuals, 11 or more miles away, who said in good faith and some in great detail that they saw a missile rise upward from the sea and explode against the 747. Many believed these witnesses’ reports were evidence of “Friendly Fire” by a missile from a Navy vessel or a terrorist attack. Their stories became national, even international news, resulting in TV shows and books. But there was no mention by the nearby pilots of any missile smoke trail coming up and only two trails going down. In addition, other equally believable witnesses reported they only saw flaming objects falling from the sky and most only after they heard the sound of an explosion; more than one minute after the event.
The descending “streak of light” and smaller smoke trail seen by pilots and other witnesses on land, was most likely engine #3 (right inboard, next to CWT) after it separated from the aircraft and fell, burning, rearward into the sea, miles short of the main debris field. Engine #3 was found much later, seen torn apart in recovery photographs and clearly an uncontained engine failure. However, the found location of engine #3 was changed by the NTSB to the debris field, preventing others from knowing exactly where it separated.
After most of the aircraft was recovered, the NTSB reported the CWT had exploded. Then the NTSB produced a movie showing the aircraft blowing apart, with the main section climbing several thousand feet, then falling with all four engines in place. However, the aircraft was only seen descending by nearby airline pilots shortly after it exploded, leaving a small smoke trail behind that was most likely engine #3.
Uncontained engine failures can be very destructive, ejecting parts as far as three thousand feet and often destroying any adjacent engines. Uncontained engine part entry holes riddled the right side of the 747, with one engine part embedded in the tail section. However, unknown individuals were later seen pounding on recovered fuselage panels with hammers, effectively destroying evidence of engine part entry holes. Then the NTSB’s Final Report stated there was “No evidence of any engine uncontainment.”
I wrote to the FAA and NTSB in 1996, sure that people with more experience and qualifications would know the cause was a classic uncontained engine failure. Only the FAA replied, with nearly 2,000 accident reports, including many with uncontained engine failures and fatal crashes of 747s. Shortly after that, two men visited me one night and told me to cease my unqualified efforts as it might “prove harmful.” I did till now.
While the NTSB Final Report suggested defective wiring insulation inside the CWT to be the most likely origin of the fuel vapor ignition and explosion, no clear cause was apparently determined by the NTSB.
The NTSB Final Report does not appear credible to me. However, I welcome any corrections of my opinion.
Pilots of Eastwind Airlines Flight 507, descending to 16,000 feet, were nearly head-on and observed the 747 as it climbed towards them in the clear air. One pilot radioed that a light appear on the 747 and he flashed his landing lights in greeting, then saw the 747 exploded. The pilot reported two fireballs going down, with small and large smoke trails. Many nearby pilots also reported they saw the event, with no report by anyone of seeing anything other than the 747, an explosion, then two smoke trails and the crash site.
Having been a researcher of one cause of uncontained aircraft engine failures for the Air Force, I immediately suspected that heated parts from an uncontained engine failure had ignited a fuel tank. I was sure the NTSB investigators interviewed these pilots and came to the same conclusion.
Had the NTSB promptly revealed the information contained in these pilot interviews, the public might have been spared the hundreds of hours and thousands of pages of testimony created by “eye witnesses.”
These were individuals, 11 or more miles away, who said in good faith and some in great detail that they saw a missile rise upward from the sea and explode against the 747. Many believed these witnesses’ reports were evidence of “Friendly Fire” by a missile from a Navy vessel or a terrorist attack. Their stories became national, even international news, resulting in TV shows and books. But there was no mention by the nearby pilots of any missile smoke trail coming up and only two trails going down. In addition, other equally believable witnesses reported they only saw flaming objects falling from the sky and most only after they heard the sound of an explosion; more than one minute after the event.
The descending “streak of light” and smaller smoke trail seen by pilots and other witnesses on land, was most likely engine #3 (right inboard, next to CWT) after it separated from the aircraft and fell, burning, rearward into the sea, miles short of the main debris field. Engine #3 was found much later, seen torn apart in recovery photographs and clearly an uncontained engine failure. However, the found location of engine #3 was changed by the NTSB to the debris field, preventing others from knowing exactly where it separated.
After most of the aircraft was recovered, the NTSB reported the CWT had exploded. Then the NTSB produced a movie showing the aircraft blowing apart, with the main section climbing several thousand feet, then falling with all four engines in place. However, the aircraft was only seen descending by nearby airline pilots shortly after it exploded, leaving a small smoke trail behind that was most likely engine #3.
Uncontained engine failures can be very destructive, ejecting parts as far as three thousand feet and often destroying any adjacent engines. Uncontained engine part entry holes riddled the right side of the 747, with one engine part embedded in the tail section. However, unknown individuals were later seen pounding on recovered fuselage panels with hammers, effectively destroying evidence of engine part entry holes. Then the NTSB’s Final Report stated there was “No evidence of any engine uncontainment.”
I wrote to the FAA and NTSB in 1996, sure that people with more experience and qualifications would know the cause was a classic uncontained engine failure. Only the FAA replied, with nearly 2,000 accident reports, including many with uncontained engine failures and fatal crashes of 747s. Shortly after that, two men visited me one night and told me to cease my unqualified efforts as it might “prove harmful.” I did till now.
While the NTSB Final Report suggested defective wiring insulation inside the CWT to be the most likely origin of the fuel vapor ignition and explosion, no clear cause was apparently determined by the NTSB.
The NTSB Final Report does not appear credible to me. However, I welcome any corrections of my opinion.
Comment