10 Years Ago Today

[Larry Gude]

Let me guess...

Of course not. The Vincennes never would have done that.





J/K I know what you're saying, and I know what really happened with IranAir.

...the gas tank sprung a leak, someone flicked a cigarette out of the cockpit window while trying to wipe a bug off the windshield and, kaboom?

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

Most US warships operating off the coast at that time were not armed.

...let's see; you're being crytpic on purpose to see how far I'll go with this?

'Most' is good enough to preclude this as a reasonable scenario?

It's possible. A decent possibility?

 

[MMDad]

Is it truly just a catastrophic, one of a kind accident for the 747 that isn't worth fixing?

NTSB continues to beleive it is worth fixing. That's why I quoted their recommendation. They also recommend we have seatbelts in school busses, have precision radar at every airport to prevent runway incursions, require everyone on every boat wear life preservers, and have positive control of every train in the U.S.

If you want to know why the problems haven't been fixed: $$$$

There is actually some good reading if you are interested. There are a ton of reports at www.ntsb.gov

 

[Larry Gude]

What good is that...

I was watching some show and there were changes implemented. That center fuel tank is no longer allowed to be left empty on short flights so there there is not a build up of vapors. There were some other things too, but I don't remember, it was a year ago I saw the show.

...if there is a wiring problem? When the tank IS used, it will start to run low, yes? And, sooner or later, build up vapors? The TV says that the electric circuit that is said to be the culprit would have had to be activated by the pilots flipping the center tank switch and that the switch was said to have been untouched.

I don't know crap about planes. While that may qualify me as a pilot, I'm not even claiming that. I'd be happy to know it was a design problem and that it was fixed. I would have expected a Valujet oxygen container like PR blitz to reinforce that the problem was addressed.

 

[MMDad]

...the gas tank sprung a leak, someone flicked a cigarette out of the cockpit window while trying to wipe a bug off the windshield and, kaboom?

Well, I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you.



Seriously, everything I know is available online. I just learned it way back when, and I am not authorized to divulge what I did learn.

That's another thing to consider when you hear things from an "inside source": are they telling you things they shouldn't? Doesn't that completely destroy their credibility?

 

[Bustem' Down]

...let's see; you're being crytpic on purpose to see how far I'll go with this?

'Most' is good enough to preclude this as a reasonable scenario?

It's possible. A decent possibility?

The procedure for shooting down an aircraft is complex involving many people. The missle launchers would have to be brought up by the gunner's mates and someone would have to get the firing key from the Captain which he keeps locked in a safe in his stateroom. Someone would have to engage it and someone would have to authorize that and the system would have to be over ridden because it's not a hostile track. Dozens of people would have to be involved all making mistakes for it to "accidentally happen". It's 100 times more likely that there was a lone terrorist standing on the Jersey shore with a stinger than a cruiser.

 

[Bustem' Down]

...let's see; you're being crytpic on purpose to see how far I'll go with this?

I'm not being cryptic to see how far you will go, I'm just deciding on what I can and should say on a public forum about fleet operations. Prior to 9/11, if a ship wasn't deploying overseas, then it didn't carry missles. It costs too much and there was no need.

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

neither the ignition energy release mechanism nor the location of the ignition inside the CWT could be determined from the available evidence. There was no evidence of a missile or bomb detonation.

(NTSB)

No certainty and no evidence of foul play. That means they don't know, for sure, and that there was zero reason for the FBI to stay on board for so long, yes?

An explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.

This plane had over 19,000 flights, if I read it correctly. It seems to me, that if there was anything inherently wrong, if a short circuit actually was responsible, it would have happened to other 747-100's (or anything else with the same design), a number of times.

Also, I thought jet fuel wasn't very flammable, much like kerosene.

 

[Bustem' Down]

(NTSB)

No certainty and no evidence of foul play. That means they don't know, for sure, and that there was zero reason for the FBI to stay on board for so long, yes?





This plane had over 19,000 flights, if I read it correctly. It seems to me, that if there was anything inherently wrong, if a short circuit actually was responsible, it would have happened to other 747-100's (or anything else with the same design), a number of times.

Also, I thought jet fuel wasn't very flammable, much like kerosene.

It isn't until you vaporize it. Look at the USS Forrestal.

 

[MMDad]

I'm not being cryptic to see how far you will go, I'm just deciding on what I can and should say on a public forum about fleet operations. Prior to 9/11, if a ship wasn't deploying overseas, then it didn't carry missles. It costs too much and there was no need.

The conspiracy theory was that there was a cruiser doing pre-deployment work-ups, so they would be armed. However, the whole missile theory is completely stupid if you look at how the aircraft failed, the physics of how missiles work, and the possibility of silencing that many people.

 

[Larry Gude]

And it also strikes me...

...as odd that so much heat built up so quickly in the flight.

And the NTSB says that this was the most likely, of the sources they evaluated hot on the heels of saying it could not be determined with certainty.

If they can narrow it down to a design flaw, they should be able to replicate it in tests. I don't see that they did that.

 

[Bustem' Down]

The conspiracy theory was that there was a cruiser doing pre-deployment work-ups, so they would be armed. However, the whole missile theory is completely stupid if you look at how the aircraft failed, the physics of how missiles work, and the possibility of silencing that many people.

That and pre-deployment work ups are done down in the Carribean. The closest active range on the east coast is Va Beach. That would be quite a shot indeed.

 

[Larry Gude]

Then there...

The conspiracy theory was that there was a cruiser doing pre-deployment work-ups, so they would be armed. However, the whole missile theory is completely stupid if you look at how the aircraft failed, the physics of how missiles work, and the possibility of silencing that many people.

...you go.

So, claims that the plane would have been incapable of doing what it did, rising, if what they say happened, happened, are simply wrong?

So, the center wing tank blows and the nose, not the wings, fall off first?

 

[Larry Gude]

I haven't heard you say...

That and pre-deployment work ups are done down in the Carribean. The closest active range on the east coast is Va Beach. That would be quite a shot indeed.

...a dummy, a training exercise, is highly unlikely, let alone impossible. Yet, a once in how many 747 flights event is not only likely but the only explanation.

 

[Larry Gude]

I thought...

It isn't until you vaporize it. Look at the USS Forrestal.

...(from the TV) that the Forrestal had an accidental missile firing and everything went wrong from there?

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

I'm not being cryptic to see how far you will go, I'm just deciding on what I can and should say on a public forum about fleet operations. Prior to 9/11, if a ship wasn't deploying overseas, then it didn't carry missles. It costs too much and there was no need.

...I sure wouldn't want to out any NAVY secrets. You guys just got done saying it's impossible to keep sailors quiet yet whether or not a dummy missile could have been responsible is a state secret.

 

[Bustem' Down]

...a dummy, a training exercise, is highly unlikely, let alone impossible. Yet, a once in how many 747 flights event is not only likely but the only explanation.

I'm not claiming that the fuel tank ignition is the answer. The only thing I can speak knowlegable on is the Navy consiracy and for that I say no way. Nothing is impossible so I give the chances of a mistake at about .01%. If the Navy did shoot it down, then it wouldn't have been a mistake, it would have had to have been deliberate.

 

[Bustem' Down]

...I sure wouldn't want to out any NAVY secrets. You guys just got done saying it's impossible to keep sailors quiet yet whether or not a dummy missile could have been responsible is a state secret.

A dummy missle could not do it. Impossible.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

The procedure for shooting down an aircraft is complex involving many people. The missle launchers would have to be brought up by the gunner's mates and someone would have to get the firing key from the Captain which he keeps locked in a safe in his stateroom. Someone would have to engage it and someone would have to authorize that and the system would have to be over ridden because it's not a hostile track. Dozens of people would have to be involved all making mistakes for it to "accidentally happen". It's 100 times more likely that there was a lone terrorist standing on the Jersey shore with a stinger than a cruiser.

...it's more likely that the one thing everyone agrees didn't happen, would have happened than what is suggested as an answer to what 100 witnesses claim they saw.

Again, compare that to the odds of what is said to happen, one flight out of that planes 19,000, out of the fleets how many 100's of thousands or millions?

As far as a man portable, from what I can find, Stingers aren't just heat seekers from like 92 on.

 

[MMDad]

So, the center wing tank blows and the nose, not the wings, fall off first?

Yes. It's too much to get in to, but the way they are built, it makes sense. The NTSB report has a ton of info, as well as animations that may help you understand why.

I know a 747 pilot, and he believes the exploding tank. Why does he continue to fly? Because he knows that the probability of anything happening is so low that it's not worth considering.

Stastically, it was far more dangerous for the passengers on 800 to drive to the airport than it was for them to fly. Why do we care so much about their plight? Because it was dramatic. Not criminal, not a conspiracy, just dramatic. Kind of like the space shuttle. Seven people die in an aviation accident? Probably doesn't make the national news. But in a space shuttle, they are suddenly heroes.