Preventing sparks from bombs and missiles is very important to flight safety.
Posted on 07/09/2006 12:12:49 PM PDT by Hal1950
In the decade since TWA Flight 800 exploded off Long Island's South Shore, flying on commercial airlines has grown so much safer that the risk of dying in a plane crash has plunged to its lowest level in history.
Improvements in technology and training -- and an added focus on safety spawned by Flight 800 in July 1996 and the ValuJet crash in Florida two months earlier -- have helped usher in an unprecedented period of air safety, experts say.
In the past five years, the accident rate "has been brought to the brink of extinction," said Arnold Barnett, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has done extensive studies of aviation statistics.
Excluding the loss of life on Sept. 11, 2001, the chance of perishing in a domestic flight in the United States has been virtually nonexistent in the past five years. Of the 46 million flights of U.S.-based airlines from 2000 to 2006, only two crashed, including 587, en route to the Dominican Republic, and Alaska Airlines Flight 261, off the California coast in January 2000.
"By every measurement the industry is safer today than it has ever been," said John Cox, a former safety chief for the Air Line Pilots Association and now a Washington, D.C.-based consultant.
Also, newer planes make up a greater percentage of the commercial fleet, after airlines parked some of their older models when Sept. 11 caused a slowdown in air travel.
In response to the TWA crash, the Federal Aviation Administration has ordered new procedures to prevent sparks that can cause a fuel tank explosion, and has increased its focus on aging wiring.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Crashed, my *ss.
Since 911, flying is safer thanks to W!
Unless a missile disguised as an exploding center fuel tank runs into your plane.........
Here is the detailed report of airborne witnesses Faret & Wendell which they prepared after their interviews by the FBI and NTSB because "we felt that they did not capture the detail we expressed, or the certainty of our facts." It accordingly appears that NO government agency (including the FBI, CIA & NTSB) has this report clearly stating the the huge fireball exploded at 7500 feet, NOT at 13,800 feet where the 747 became disabled at 8:31:12
The ATC tape transcript documenting that the first radio report of the huge fireball was timestamped at 8:31:50 - 38 seconds after the initial event disabled the 747 at 13,800 feet..
When the FBI decreed that none of the witnesses would be allowed to testify at the NTSB's first hearing (in Baltimore), the NTSB made tentative plans to have Elizabeth Loftus, "a psychologist who has written extensively about eyewitness testimony", appear at the Baltimore hearing to explain the unreliability of witnesses' observations and recollections as well as the problems arising from "tainting" (input from other sources). Brain Often Blurs What Eyes See
The public was further confused thereafter by "zoom-climb" videos prepared first by the CIA/FBI and NTSB. CIA & NTSB "Explanation" Videos
In summary, it's clear from the detailed report of Faret & Wendell that the disaster did not unfold as we all (the public, government, press and conspiracy theorists) thought it did. Not only was Flight 800 not the victim of a missile attack, it would be impossible for anyone to conjure up a palatable "missile(s) shootdown" scenario that would not be in obvious conflict with the report of those 2 airborne witnesses.
The TSA is window dressing, and accomplishes nothing.
Preventing sparks from bombs and missiles is very important to flight safety.
They said the same thing about the Titanic.
Quoting:
" A short "pin flash of light " appeared on the ground (perhaps water). Very shortly thereafter the white light exploded instantaneously into a huge red-orange ball. My initial thoughts were "who's shooting fireworks tonight. " The magnitude of the fire ball, and altitude, quickly (less than a second) ruled that out. Immediately thereafter a large fire ball emerged from the bottom of the initial fireball, accelerating straight down, as if it had just started to fall. Like a teardrop it drew with it a tail of fire down to the water surface. We watched intently as the descending fire fell closer to the water.
reading something like 'the accident rate "has been brought to the brink of extinction"' makes me feel a little bit uneasy. It has a definite aftertaste of the Concord's 'perfect safety record' or a ship being deemed 'unsinkable'
$hit happens, and it has a tendency to make people regret words like these.
So where are the photos of the wreckage reassembled in the hanger so we can take a look for ourselves? Various zoom ed photos of what is left of the alleged miscreant fuel tank? the wiring? Replays of the Radar tapes? Cockpit recorders, ATC tapes? A copy of the "final report" with documentation?
It should ... it's an idiotic comment to make attributed to some so called expert with MIT credentials. This so called expert ought to put his slide rule away & get out from behind his desk and try living in the real world. Making a statement like that will come back to haunt you every time.
Still won't fly. Enjoying the Flight Free Lifestyle.
Join me! Conserve more gas than a thousand Prius owners!
(You too can speak smuggly with your eyes closed! It's fun!)
It is painfull for me personally, that the benchmark iconic image of air disaster is TWA800. I was a TWA employee at the time and rode it until the end. Ever since flt800 went down, the image of that aircraft is put up with any mention of air disaster.
You mean similar to you spam posting this on every thread that you post? Verbatim?
In summary, it's clear from the detailed report of Faret & Wendell that the disaster did not unfold as we all (the public, government, press and conspiracy theorists) thought it did. Not only was Flight 800 not the victim of a missile attack, it would be impossible for anyone to conjure up a palatable "missile(s) shootdown" scenario that would not be in obvious conflict with the report of those 2 airborne witnesses.
What makes your pilots more believable than the witnesses that saw a streak going upwards? Or the co-pilot, Nasir Aziz, who was told all he saw a meteor? Nothing.
Read the portion I quoted in post #10. Even his pilots saw a missile.
:)
Even your pilots put the plane within range of a missile.
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.