TWA explosion sparks filter production at Porvair

Citywire ^ | 26 June 2007 | Helen Burggraff

[Alter Kaker]

TWA800 was flying at 275 knots (316 mph), not 500 mph.

You're right and I'm wrong and at 275 knots, the plane was still outside of the operational range of a MANPADS.

[Alter Kaker]

I am not trying to be a smart A$$. I would really like to know what you think.

I'm in no way an aviation safety expert and have no way of evaluating the official report blaming the center fuel tank. In fact, as you may have noticed from me getting the airspeed completely wrong, I know very little about Flight 800. I do, on the other hand, know a bit about MANPADS, having worked with them in civilian and military capacities.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

You're right and I'm wrong and at 275 knots, the plane was still outside of the operational range of a MANPADS.

What makes you so cock-sure it was a MANPADS?

[Alter Kaker]

TWA800 was just off the southern coast of Long Island.

As far as MANPADS go, 8 miles into the Atlantic is more than "just off."

Given your ignorance of the facts about exactly where TWA800 was at the time of the explosion, I would seriously question any knowledge you may possess about the operational capabilities of any MANPAD.

I don't see how the two are related. I've worked with MANPADS professionally and am aware of their capabilities. I've never researched Flight 800.

[Strategerist]

Several Boeing 737s have suffered catastrophic accidental center fuel tank explosions as well.

[Alter Kaker]

What makes you so cock-sure it was a MANPADS?

I'm not. Whatever caused Flight 800 to go down, it was almost certainly not a MANPADS.

[Strategerist]

Never happened before that night -- never happened since.

Only one DC-10 has had an engine fall off in flight. So was AA 191 hit by a missile over O'Hare?

Is there some set number of mechanical failure modes below which it's impossible for something to be an accident? I'm curious as to what that number is.

[Strategerist]

I'm not. Whatever caused Flight 800 to go down, it was almost certainly not a MANPADS.

According to one of Cashill's super-secret sources several weeks ago (or, more lilely, a voice in his head) it was a Tomahawk missile.

Amazes me how guys can continually embarass themselves in print like that and still have an audience.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

As far as MANPADS go, 8 miles into the Atlantic is more than "just off."

Who said the MANPADS was fired from 8 miles away?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I'm not. Whatever caused Flight 800 to go down, it was almost certainly not a MANPADS.

Many, including the DHS, State Dept. and Northrup-Grummann disagree with you about the threat and operational capabilities of MANPADS. (The MANPADS Menace: Combating the Threat to Global Aviation from Man-Portable Air Defense Systems)

MANPADS can strike aircraft flying at altitudes up to approximately 15,000 feet (4572 meters) at a range of up to 3 miles (4.82 kilometers).

...

See 'Zone of Susceptibility' on page 4. (MANPAD Protection for Commercial Aircraft)

[AppyPappy]

Yeah but it has a 35 lb warhead. That would have to be a really good hit on a fuel tank.

A large bomb onboard would be more effective.

[ops33]

Actually, there have been many incidents of fuel vapors exploding in aircraft fuel tanks both airborne and on the ground. The KC 135 and B 52 have had several and it is one of the reasons the Air Force uses nitrogen to purge empty tanks.

[BenLurkin]

If I remember correctly the maintenance people bent the bolt that held the engine on by using a forklift to hold the engine in place during inspections or repairs. The maintenance was done wrong and thereby caused the failure.

But there probably is a statistical level below which it is simply impractical to spend money for phantom "fixes" to unproven problems -- whether or not flight 800 was destroyed due to an accident.