Posted on 10/15/2007 12:25:05 PM PDT by yankeesdoodle
A government-industry task force has found that it would be too expensive to eliminate explosive vapors from airplane fuel tanks and that effective technology does not yet exist to do so.In 2002, people were fighting the FAA who said it was too costly to make fuel and tanks to avoid explosions, but your quote suggests that they had already DONE this before the TWA accident. If so, why are people still fighting about it?
This is the second time since the fatal 1996 explosion of a Trans World Airlines [TWA] B747 that inerting has been deemed cost-ineffective and that more research is needed. An ARAC-led study came to the same conclusion in 1998 (see ASW, July 20, 1998). This second effort, the outcome of which was anticipated, has come to the same conclusion.Two studies funded to conclude that it would be too expensive to make tanks that didn't explode, when Ray says that wouldn't explode?
Since the dawn of the jet age, 14 fuel tank explosions have occurred on commercial aircraft, killing more than 530 passengers and crew. The late Will Rogers, who lost his daughter in the TWA explosion, remarked during the course of the TWA accident investigation that the toll is a grim monument to a failed design practice.The industry has taken an approach that recognizes the presence of flammable vapors and minimizes the hazard by eliminating all potential ignition sources. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has challenged this philosophy, arguing that the hazard posed by explosive vapors in fuel tanks needs to be mitigated as the hunt for potential ignition sources has not succeeded.
Of course, I don't know how many of those explosions were caused by a "spark". Ray did qualify his statement, which suggests that this is the only time we had a spark which blew up a fuel tank.
Of course, you would hope there would be no chance of a spark in the fuel tank to begin with. While it's normal for tanks to become empty, it's not normal for sparks to be generated in the tanks. It's wouldn't be surprising if it only happened one time.
Of course, it DID happen before, with Apollo 13, but not in a fuel tank, but rather in an oxygen tank. Before Apollo 13, no spark had EVER caused an explosion in-flight (although there was a spark that caused a fire on the pad which killed three astronauts -- that was also the first and only time for that type of event).
In your quote's last sentence, it says "Until the Flight 800 tragedy, the only listed "fuel-tank explosion" in the 80-year-history" was a 737 in 1990. But my source says there have been 14. Maybe your source was still restricting to "spark-generated" explosions, otherwise they seem very far off (2 vs 14).
Of course, Ray doesn't believe TWA 800 had a fuel-tank explosion due to a spark, as he states categorically in your quote. That aside, not having any other wouldn't prove it didn't happen once, or that it couldn't happen again.
Obviously a lot of people are concerned enough to study the problem and suggest solutions.
I'm reminded of Vincent Bugliosi's explanation of circumstantial evidence. It's not a chain, in the sense that, if one link doesn't hold up, the entire theory/hypothesis fails. It's a rope where if one strand is undone, the rope may become weaker, but does not necessarily fail, and may not even be greatly affected depending on the strength and number of the other strands. In this case there are many other strands in the rope that to me, anyways, make pure coincidence seem a preposterous conjecture.
Whether or not it was a terrorist shootdown, accidental USN shootdown or something else can still be debated, but given the witness testimony, explosive residue, chance of spark detonation, unprecedented involvement of the CIA in a commercial airline *accident*, actions of Kahlstrom (sp?) and the FBI, etc., there's certainly more than meets the eye. Of course, the argument has been made that "too many people would be involved for this to be covered up." Yet, people have spoken up, but they've been labled kooks and steamrolled by the made-for-media party line.
Ouch, never personally ran into eb4 myself.
But I did run across him as Asmodeus, and he struck me a nuttier than Loopy the Squirrel.
He would spend immense amounts of energy and time crafting a web page that would insult everyone he’d been arguing with.
Truly odd and bizarre behavior.
He had his web hosting at ‘hundred megs’.
He’d also quote people without permission.
I know about that; I was on a 286 with a 1200/2400 Modem -- froze me up for ten minutes at a time until I could kill the 'display images' on my browser. Plus he was very active in another site for the TWA800 investigation, I think run from one of the flight aficionados webs.
Not sure what the full outcome of this tragedy will be (I don't think we've gotten at the truth), but there are too many unanswered questions; the "white, high-explosive display" seen by the helo pilots before the fuel explosion, the shrapnel reports from some of the coroner's reports, the disparity between the radar sweep locations and the debris fields, among others.
Missile? Maybe, but I doubt the USN had anything to do with it. But I do wonder why all of the USN divers were put on security restrictions from ever discussing their actions, and the security services taking charge instead of the FAA and NTSB. Too many strange trip-points.
I loved it when he kept posting his “Ex-pert” text, and I asked him what his expertise was.
He first claimed to be an investigator for 50+ years, then turned around a day or three later and said he was an interviewer.
World of difference between the two.
Video missing from site...would like to see it.
Anyone?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.