Thresher and Scorpion

[Linxe Termoil]

Thresher and Scorpion, two US SSN's, were destroyed in separate incidents due to going below crush depth. There were no survivors

 

Actually, that's not entirely true, ehr, I think. I'm sure you got good information but I think I have better info

 

Although, that would be the perception of why they went down, because stuff does tend to go boom at crush depth (actually, it's more an implosion, not explosion...hrm...does it still go boom then?).

 

One of em went down because of flooding, which resulted in the birth of Quality of assurance and submarine safety rules, and the other went down because a torpedo may have exploded, if I recall correctly. I'd have to go look at my notes from my QA classes and such when I was in the Navy on board the U.S.S. Henry M. Jackson.

 

In retrospect everything else you said is mostly likely completely true (I'll neither confirm nor deny anything, as i'm not willing to admit to anything that could get me in trouble!)

 

Posters' Disclaimer!

The poster of this post in no way shape or form admits to any actual knowledge that may or may not be true due to his time in the Navy. The poster does however acknowledge that this is his belief from a faulty era which, simply put, he doesn't really want to remember all that much, but is willing to go see if he can find any notes to back-up what he believes he was told/taught. In the case of the poster being totally wrong, he will in effect come back and say so and apologize for J.A.S (Jack Ass Syndrome) or what may be perceived as total jackassism by the other fans of the notorious author, Cliff H. Anger.

 

Best regards,

 

Jon

 

(who is off to see if he can find said notes)

[C James]

Actually, that's not entirely true, ehr, I think. I'm sure you got good information but I think I have better info

 

Although, that would be the perception of why they went down, because stuff does tend to go boom at crush depth (actually, it's more an implosion, not explosion...hrm...does it still go boom then?).

 

One of em went down because of flooding, which resulted in the birth of Quality of assurance and submarine safety rules, and the other went down because a torpedo may have exploded, if I recall correctly. I'd have to go look at my notes from my QA classes and such when I was in the Navy on board the U.S.S. Henry M. Jackson.

 

In retrospect everything else you said is mostly likely completely true (I'll neither confirm nor deny anything, as i'm not willing to admit to anything that could get me in trouble!)

 

Posters' Disclaimer!

The poster of this post in no way shape or form admits to any actual knowledge that may or may not be true due to his time in the Navy. The poster does however acknowledge that this is his belief from a faulty era which, simply put, he doesn't really want to remember all that much, but is willing to go see if he can find any notes to back-up what he believes he was told/taught. In the case of the poster being totally wrong, he will in effect come back and say so and apologize for J.A.S (Jack Ass Syndrome) or what may be perceived as total jackassism by the other fans of the notorious author, Cliff H. Anger.

 

Best regards,

 

Jon

 

(who is off to see if he can find said notes)

 

I split this (With Linx's OK) out of a chapter thread, because I thought it would make for a very interesting discussion.

 

First off, my phrasing was horrible; I never meant to imply that going below crush depth was the initial cuase for the loss of Scorpion or Thresher. However, my words can certainly be read that way.

 

Both subs were destroyed when they exceeded crush depth, but that's much akin to saying an air disaster was caused by the plane hitting the ground. The issue is, how they got there.

 

One of the most interesting things is that it is not known for absolute certainty what went wrong on either sub.

 

Going from memory here, Scorpion was returning to the US from a patrol in the Med. She never arrived, kicking off a massive search. Using a combination of sonar data from the time of her loss, her probably course track, and some superb detective work, the same man who found the Soviet sub in the pacific (the one the CIA tried to raise in Project Jennifer, using the Howard Hughs ship Glomar Explorer, built for the task) pinpointed Scorpeon's likely location. With time running out due to weather, when the navy finally looked there, there she was.

 

From the orientation of the debris, plus her position relative to the sonar traces, it was deduced that a likely cause of her destruction was a hot run; a torpedo engine (they were battery powered) triggering in her torpedo room. The automatic reaction to a hot run is to order an immediate 180 degree turn of the sub (the Torp's gyro detects this, and it safes the warhead. This design feature is there so that a torpedo with a stuck rudder won't sink the sub that fired it).

 

The Scorpeon investigation was a classic CYA (Cover Your Ass) operation, sad to say. It was known, in advance, that there were problems with that model of torpedo. Further, the relavant warning memos from BuShips and the armory people (Sorry, can't recall the exact term) were never made available to the investigators.

 

Given the 180 degree turn, the "Hot run" problem was beleived confirmed by the investigators. The suspicion of a hot run had, not incidentally, been central to the modeling of her likely course and fate after the sonar trace ended. So, they had some confirmation for the theory. The reports on the torpedos would have likly closed the case.

 

The most likly scenaro was a hot run that ended in a battery fire. Unknown to the investigators (inetentionaly kept from them) the batteries had been shown to explode and ignite under heavy vibration (which a hot run in the rack would generate). The fire would be enough to cook off the warhead. Had the warhead been detonated as designed, it would have likly split the hull and that would have been seen on the wreckage photos. However, high explosive (I think they used Octol for that model of warhead, can't recall for sure) can detonate from heat and pressure as a low-order explosion; a slower burning explosion, less percussive force, BUT, still generating enormous volumes of gasses. Enough to blow the torpedo loading hatch door off. (the hatch was seen to be missing).

 

Flooding in the torpedo room would be fatal. The tremendous added weight on the fore end of the sub would arc her over into a dive. Even a full blow and full ahead power and up planes would likely not be enough to stop her decent. They surely tried, but about 90 seconds after the explosion in the torpedo room, Scorpion passed crush depth. The bow and stern teliscoped in, probably in under a second. At least it would be quick (the sudden increase in pressure and heat would be instantly lethal for the crew).

 

I have a feeling I missed wuite a bit.. It's been years since i was looking into this.

 

Thresher was another case. Different cause, also not absolutely determined. In fact, the evidence there is far thinner than for Scorpeon. Thresher was on a dive to test dpeth (max safe depth). They trasnsmited over a growler (underwater sound-based comms) that they were having difficulties. Nothing further was eaver heard. She imploded, probably soon after passing crush depth (about 1600 feet for that class of sub, if memory serves) The wreckage was found, but with virtually zero indication of the prime cuase (though it was obvious she had gone below crush depth somehow). Some testing based on her design was done, and several liely causes were outlines; flooding from a broken fitting and possible ice formating in the blow tank valves were prime suspects.

 

Thresher could have come up in two ways; blowing the tanks, or by engine power. Whatever killed her likely took out both systems. However, though the theory of what killed her appears sound, it is merely a theory; no hard evidence has ever been found. (unlike Scorpeon, where at least it is known that the torpedo loading hatch was gone, and that sonar data indicated an explosion aboard of some kind).

 

BTW, the Henry Jackson, with Linxe was on, is an Ohio-class boomer (missile sub, deterance patrol, "we hide with pride".) They're essentially an upgraded, and very much stretched (thanks to needing room for the "Sherwood Forest, the missile room) 688 class sub. Fantastic ships... their propelor alone is an engineering masterpiece; a massive 7-blaeded prop, with the blades looking sort of like twisted scimitars, they are precision made to almost optical tolerences, to avoid any roughness or vacuum creation while running at moderate speeds; any tiny bubbles formed by low pressure areas in the flow collpse noisily, called cavitation, and noise is deadly underwater. Forget the movies, modern SSN and SSBN's do not cruise around pinging (that's active sonar, and a great way to give away your position). The vast majority of the time, they operate on passive sonar. The quietness of a submarine is probably it's greatest tactical advantage in the modern world of undersea warfare).

 

And, ummm, Cliff H. Anger? Defently never heard of any such person.

[Mark Arbour]

I split this (With Linx's OK) out of a chapter thread, because I thought it would make for a very interesting discussion.

 

First off, my phrasing was horrible; I never meant to imply that going below crush depth was the initial cuase for the loss of Scorpion or Thresher. However, my words can certainly be read that way.

 

Both subs were destroyed when they exceeded crush depth, but that's much akin to saying an air disaster was caused by the plane hitting the ground. The issue is, how they got there.

 

One of the most interesting things is that it is not known for absolute certainty what went wrong on either sub.

 

Going from memory here, Scorpion was returning to the US from a patrol in the Med. She never arrived, kicking off a massive search. Using a combination of sonar data from the time of her loss, her probably course track, and some superb detective work, the same man who found the Soviet sub in the pacific (the one the CIA tried to raise in Project Jennifer, using the Howard Hughs ship Glomar Explorer, built for the task) pinpointed Scorpeon's likely location. With time running out due to weather, when the navy finally looked there, there she was.

 

From the orientation of the debris, plus her position relative to the sonar traces, it was deduced that a likely cause of her destruction was a hot run; a torpedo engine (they were battery powered) triggering in her torpedo room. The automatic reaction to a hot run is to order an immediate 180 degree turn of the sub (the Torp's gyro detects this, and it safes the warhead. This design feature is there so that a torpedo with a stuck rudder won't sink the sub that fired it).

 

The Scorpeon investigation was a classic CYA (Cover Your Ass) operation, sad to say. It was known, in advance, that there were problems with that model of torpedo. Further, the relavant warning memos from BuShips and the armory people (Sorry, can't recall the exact term) were never made available to the investigators.

 

Given the 180 degree turn, the "Hot run" problem was beleived confirmed by the investigators. The suspicion of a hot run had, not incidentally, been central to the modeling of her likely course and fate after the sonar trace ended. So, they had some confirmation for the theory. The reports on the torpedos would have likly closed the case.

 

The most likly scenaro was a hot run that ended in a battery fire. Unknown to the investigators (inetentionaly kept from them) the batteries had been shown to explode and ignite under heavy vibration (which a hot run in the rack would generate). The fire would be enough to cook off the warhead. Had the warhead been detonated as designed, it would have likly split the hull and that would have been seen on the wreckage photos. However, high explosive (I think they used Octol for that model of warhead, can't recall for sure) can detonate from heat and pressure as a low-order explosion; a slower burning explosion, less percussive force, BUT, still generating enormous volumes of gasses. Enough to blow the torpedo loading hatch door off. (the hatch was seen to be missing).

 

Flooding in the torpedo room would be fatal. The tremendous added weight on the fore end of the sub would arc her over into a dive. Even a full blow and full ahead power and up planes would likely not be enough to stop her decent. They surely tried, but about 90 seconds after the explosion in the torpedo room, Scorpion passed crush depth. The bow and stern teliscoped in, probably in under a second. At least it would be quick (the sudden increase in pressure and heat would be instantly lethal for the crew).

 

I have a feeling I missed wuite a bit.. It's been years since i was looking into this.

 

Thresher was another case. Different cause, also not absolutely determined. In fact, the evidence there is far thinner than for Scorpeon. Thresher was on a dive to test dpeth (max safe depth). They trasnsmited over a growler (underwater sound-based comms) that they were having difficulties. Nothing further was eaver heard. She imploded, probably soon after passing crush depth (about 1600 feet for that class of sub, if memory serves) The wreckage was found, but with virtually zero indication of the prime cuase (though it was obvious she had gone below crush depth somehow). Some testing based on her design was done, and several liely causes were outlines; flooding from a broken fitting and possible ice formating in the blow tank valves were prime suspects.

 

Thresher could have come up in two ways; blowing the tanks, or by engine power. Whatever killed her likely took out both systems. However, though the theory of what killed her appears sound, it is merely a theory; no hard evidence has ever been found. (unlike Scorpeon, where at least it is known that the torpedo loading hatch was gone, and that sonar data indicated an explosion aboard of some kind).

 

BTW, the Henry Jackson, with Linxe was on, is an Ohio-class boomer (missile sub, deterance patrol, "we hide with pride".) They're essentially an upgraded, and very much stretched (thanks to needing room for the "Sherwood Forest, the missile room) 688 class sub. Fantastic ships... their propelor alone is an engineering masterpiece; a massive 7-blaeded prop, with the blades looking sort of like twisted scimitars, they are precision made to almost optical tolerences, to avoid any roughness or vacuum creation while running at moderate speeds; any tiny bubbles formed by low pressure areas in the flow collpse noisily, called cavitation, and noise is deadly underwater. Forget the movies, modern SSN and SSBN's do not cruise around pinging (that's active sonar, and a great way to give away your position). The vast majority of the time, they operate on passive sonar. The quietness of a submarine is probably it's greatest tactical advantage in the modern world of undersea warfare).

 

And, ummm, Cliff H. Anger? Defently never heard of any such person.

 

Well put CJ. I had to do some research on both of these sinkings because I used them in "Chronicles of an Academic Predator" and "1968."

 

As usual, my best source was Wiki. Here are the links, for those who are interested.

 

USS Thresher (lost 1963)

 

USS Scorpion (lost 1968)

[C James]

Well put CJ. I had to do some research on both of these sinkings because I used them in "Chronicles of an Academic Predator" and "1968."

 

As usual, my best source was Wiki. Here are the links, for those who are interested.

 

USS Thresher (lost 1963)

 

USS Scorpion (lost 1968)

 

 

Thanks for the links, Mark!!

 

Very detailed articles, from the look of it.

 

Wikipedia is generally a good research tool, though I'm a little contrarian and tend to like to poke holes in their data.

 

In this case, their Scorpeon article is quite good, but, they bungle it in a couple of minor ways. For example, a copuple of times they refer to a torpedo activating "in the tube". What they mean is "In the rack".

 

Also, they mention Craven, head of the Naval special projects lab (and a couple of other things, though they don't mention that)

However, when they refer to his use of Baysean search techniques, they leave out the critical part. Craven adopted this system to search for the lost nuclear warhead off Spain, and later, (though wikipedia doesn't have this) to find the Soviet's K-129, lost a few hundred miles north of Hawaii. (for that one, they used the spec-ops sub Growler, which was equipped for deep=water seafloor search via RPV's)

 

Anyway, the very best part about Craven's technique? He was finding submarines.. with whiskey! His application of Baysean theory included mining for data, getting the benifit of "educated guesses" for want of a better terms. So, he'd bet bottles of whiskey with naval officerns familier with the search, getting them to wager where, exactly, based on what they did know, did they thing the wreckage had ended up. Sounds nuts, but it worked. (and BTW, the eccentricity of this method is why a lot of the Navy brass didn't take Craven seriously). Craven IMHO was brilliant.

 

In the Wiki article, it reads as if Craven was directing the search ship Mizar. That's far from true. The navy wasn't listening to Craven at that point. They were intent on looking wast of the sonar traces (Scorpeon had been transitiing the atlantic east to west)

Only when they came up dry, and had only deays of usable weather left, did they rlent enough to let Mizar look where Cravent said. They found Scorpeon on the first run.

 

BTW, one other point, the Wiki article mentions SOSUS as the source of some sonar data. Wrong. The Sosus arays (hydrophones strung along the seafloor in lines in varius places in the north atlantic), used for tracking Sov subs, had filtering elements that would have obsured sounds such as Scorpeon made. The Wiki article begged part of it; the semi-official (and high secret at the time) lab in the Canary's recorded Scorpeon's death. However, you can't triangulate without a second bearing. Craven found that, at another underwater research station, probaly in newfoundland (I don't recall for sure).

 

Anyway, enough nit-picking from me. The Wiki articles are great, thanks.

[JamesSavik]

That's not the first time bad torpedoes caused the navy serious trouble. One of their most famous submarines and skippers, the Wahoo under Mush Morton, was destroyed and lost with all hands in 1943 by a circular torpedo run.

 

Wahoo

 

USS Tang suffered a similar fate

 

Tang

 

 

In fact the Navy had serious torpedo problems throughout the Pacific War. They were mostly ironed out in the last half of 1943 but continued to a lesser extent through the end of the war.

 

In 1942 the effective rate of torpedoes (run correctly, explode on target was less that 20%. It improved in 1943 after a big shake up at the Navy's Bureau of Ordinance, extensive trials of the mark 14 and including private contractors in the construction and quality control process.

[Linxe Termoil]

Was that that the MK-48 torpedo on the Scorpeon? I'm kind of curious as to how long the Mk-48 has actually been in use. Simply because, even though their are replacement torpedos for them, the MK-48 ADCAP, the Navy still uses Mk-48 torpedos as well, and the damn things are faulty as hell.

[JamesSavik]

The mark 48 torpedo was first deployed in 1972 and the ADCAP (ADvanced CAPability) was deployed in 1988.

 

It is designed for use by submarines against high performance surface or submerged targets.

 

Over the course of its life, the Mark 48 has had 7 major and numerous minor upgrades and maintenance bulletins.

 

Torpedoes are notorious for being difficult to maintain. They are designed for use in a salt, sea air environment that promotes corrosion. They are complex devices that sit on the shelf for decades sometimes before they are used. Aborad summarines that are subject to shock, salt water, rough handlining and, operation at steep angles.

 

mk 48 used during exercises

[Linxe Termoil]

The mark 48 torpedo was first deployed in 1972 and the ADCAP (ADvanced CAPability) was deployed in 1988.

 

It is designed for use by submarines against high performance surface or submerged targets.

 

Over the course of its life, the Mark 48 has had 7 major and numerous minor upgrades and maintenance bulletins.

 

Torpedoes are notorious for being difficult to maintain. They are designed for use in a salt, sea air environment that promotes corrosion. They are complex devices that sit on the shelf for decades sometimes before they are used. Aborad summarines that are subject to shock, salt water, rough handlining and, operation at steep angles.

 

mk 48 used during exercises

 

Heh, and that's not even the half of it. I used to play with the Mk-48's when I was on the sub, so I know all about it. Did a lil looking, they think it was a MK 37 Torpedo that went off and was 'jettisoned'. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that it was ever jettisoned unless it exploded/imploded in the event, which is the only way I can see it as being able to do enough damage to the inside of the ship that it put a hole in the hull.

 

I'm gonna go see if I can find some specs on the MK-37 torpedoes

[Mark Arbour]

I remember reading about these in "Red Storm Rising," surely one of the best books ever written.

 

Spearfish Torpedo

 

Why don't we (the US) have one of these?

[Linxe Termoil]

I remember reading about these in "Red Storm Rising," surely one of the best books ever written.

 

Spearfish Torpedo

 

Why don't we (the US) have one of these?

 

 

Because the MK-48's and the ADCAPs do practically the same thing as a spearfish, just don't weigh quite as much. Same fuel, same capabilities. Wouldn't be all that surprised if the MK-48 ADCAP is the spearfish ::shrug:: Wouldn't be able to tell ya without seeing a picture of one. Ah, and the chip to make autonomous decisions, don't have those either. (hrm, I'd have to do more reading on the ADCAP, but I'm pretty sure of that). As to why we don't have em, we'll...we either got something better now or it'd be to expensive to replace all the MK-48's and ADCAPs, which should be done anyways.

 

 

 

Jon

[JamesSavik]

The next generation torpedo is called the mark 55 and is part of the navy's highly classified Brilliant Saber program which focuses on using AI, muti-spectral sensors and image recognition for targeting.

 

Brilliant Saber has been around for quite a while and is rumored to have had something to do with the downing of TWA flight 800 in 1996.

 

USS Normandy was testing a SM-2 Block IV Extended Range SAM. It was reported to have destroyed the drone it was targeting but some sources say that it missed the drone and fell back on its Brilliant Saber guidance and slammed into the airliner at mark 7 150 miles NW off the test range.

 

DOD has consistently denied that the Brilliant Saber project is still underway but the key project members have been at Naval Surface Warfare labs for the last 20 years. Image recognition technology has recently been deployed on the developmental Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile (TSSAM) and the deployed AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile).

 

{Disclaimer for the FBI- no classified information has been revealed that is not available via other sources. AND Yes, we know about your bullshit over TWA flight 800}

[C James]

Heh, and that's not even the half of it. I used to play with the Mk-48's when I was on the sub, so I know all about it. Did a lil looking, they think it was a MK 37 Torpedo that went off and was 'jettisoned'. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure that it was ever jettisoned unless it exploded/imploded in the event, which is the only way I can see it as being able to do enough damage to the inside of the ship that it put a hole in the hull.

 

I'm gonna go see if I can find some specs on the MK-37 torpedoes

 

One enormous difference between the mk-48 and the mk-37 is the fuel; in the -37, it was a battery. In the -48, it's OTTO, a very high-energy-density liquid fuel for a combustion engine.

 

In a "hot run" for a -37, the only possibility it could be jetisoned would be if it was already in a torpedo tube, I think? Most of the torp load is in the racks, and getting a running one into a tube would be difficult, I'd imagine.

 

My personal beleif is that the battery cooked off; they did have a couple in testing that did just that; exploded and caught fire. That would be enough to trigger a low-order explosion of the warhead, overpressurize the torpedo room, and blow off a hatch.

 

Linxe, I have been remiss in not saying so until now, but thank you for your service. Our freedom is given to us by people like you.

 

The next generation torpedo is called the mark 55 and is part of the navy's highly classified Brilliant Saber program which focuses on using AI, muti-spectral sensors and image recognition for targeting.

 

Brilliant Saber has been around for quite a while and is rumored to have had something to do with the downing of TWA flight 800 in 1996.

 

USS Normandy was testing a SM-2 Block IV Extended Range SAM. It was reported to have destroyed the drone it was targeting but some sources say that it missed the drone and fell back on its Brilliant Saber guidance and slammed into the airliner at mark 7 150 miles NW off the test range.

 

DOD has consistently denied that the Brilliant Saber project is still underway but the key project members have been at Naval Surface Warfare labs for the last 20 years. Image recognition technology has recently been deployed on the developmental Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile (TSSAM) and the deployed AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile).

 

{Disclaimer for the FBI- no classified information has been revealed that is not available via other sources. AND Yes, we know about your bullshit over TWA flight 800}

 

I've looked into TWA 800 in the past, and I personally never found the missile hit claims likely, for a few reasons.

One is that it would make no sense at all to be doing SAM tests near one of the world's busiest airways (though I can see how it would be possible). The second is the eyewitness reports of people "seeing" a missile hit. They are self-discrediting in two ways. The first is the report of seeing a firey trail and then the explosion. Makes zero sense; given the boost phase burnout time of even a STANDARD II, second stage, and certainly any form of MANPAD SAM (terrorists), and the altitude at which TWA-800 was at, it is impossible for a MANPAD portable SAm, and unlikly for a SMII (given the probable distance to launch point) to be still under boost at that altitude. So, even if it was a missle hit, there would be no firey trail.

 

The second point; many of those witnesses said they saw the firey trail, and then saw and heard the explosion. This is patently impossible; given their range, and the speed of sound, there is no way they could have heard the explosion as it occurred.

 

My own theory is that the breakup (with the expeption of proximal cause) was correct as officially described; an explsion on board caused the foward fuselage to seperate. The rear 2/3, including wings and engines, then pitched nose-up (due to the CG shift) and climbed several thousand feet, almost stright up, until a secondary explosion of the wing fuel tanks shattered it in a fireball.

 

I think the post-speratation climb, of a burning object, would be the firey trail so many saw.

 

That brings us to the intimal explosion. I don't buy the missile theory, at all. What I do note, however, is that a month after 9-11, an American Airlines airbus crashed on Long Island after departing the same airport (JFK) under odd circumstances. The official report claims that the horizonatal stabilizer snapped off due to turbulence and excessive control inputs. I don't buy that, at all. It does not explain the glaring anomaly of the engines; (the two engines they impacted close to a mile apart, and not near the main fuselage. Now, a detached horiaonal stabilizer can cause a crash, but what it cannot do, at that airspeed, is cause the plane to explode to such a degree. The mystery is, why did the engines detatch? Aerodynamics do not explain it. However, a bomb in a fuel tank would. Just as it would TWA-800. It would be an easy thing to do for anyone on the ground crew, and I suspect terrorists may have done just that.

 

Cushioned by fuel, the explosion would have had little chance to cause the charactheristic micropitting of metal. Also, due to the mood of the nation at that point, I think that they would not be egar to find terrorisim as a cause of the AA long island crash. A similar thing occured with the Anthrax; with absolutly nothing to go on, they declaired it "Domestic terrorisim" and focused on that angle. Their explanation was preposterous; they claimed it fit a "profile". As a result, they focused on the domestic angle, when the only sane approach is to probe all angles untill hard evidence dictates otherwise. They tried to declair "Case closed" with the suicide of their most recent "Person of interest", but not one shred of evidence has ever been found. Therefor, I think they were looking the wrong way and bungled the case. Therefor, I take official investigations with a huge dose of salt.

 

Another angle on TWA-800; it could indeed have been the inadvertent victim of a military test, but not of a missile. I've always wondered if it could have been a zorch: an electrical charge generated by massive amounts of radar. It's well known that when an Ageis phased-aray is in narrow-beam mode, that it can fry the electronics of nearby aircraft, thanks to putting millions of watts wown one degree of azimuth. So, with a target the size of a 747, with old wiring, what would happen if it was hit by the steered beam of an Ageis that was lighting up the sky? I think it would be enough to create a static discharge: a spark in the wiring.

 

Just my three cents (Should be two, but goats can't count).

CJ

[Red_A]

TWA 800

Well 1996 is a life time away, not really. A bit of background which goes further back to 1965, when Boeing undertook to build the biggest jetliner. It was an enormous task, new methods were needed, new means of finace, huge new factories(tens of football pitchs), new unknowns. It was nearly the biggest bankrupcty ever.

The TWA 800 was an old (20-25 years) aircraft. The evidence was that an low level explosion had occurred in the Central wing fuel tank (CWT). The reason that this explosion had occurred could not be reasonable deducted. What was certain was that there was absolutely no external damage.

 

This left three sources

 

small incinderary/bomb in the CWT

This was unlikely as access to the CWT was extremely difficult and there was no sign of bomb parts

 

EMI, ElectroMagneticInterference

This covers lightning and high intensity Radar Beams. this was again unlikely due to the construction (ie metal covered wings) and the only wires in the fuel tanks were the fuel guage sensor. This may be a problem in other aircraft but the original qualifications tests were decisive.

 

aircraft generated electrical fault

by some means a electrical voltage from the aircraft system was applied to the Fuel guage sensor. This could probable because wires chaffing outside the CWT caused voltage to get on to fuel guage sensor line and chaffing inside the CWT caused the wire to be bare. Again there is no evidence but this is the most probable.

 

For once I must agrred with the offical report, although I thought it had a bit of the white brush on it.

 

HAVING SAID THAT IT WAS DUE TO DESIGN A ND WEAR PROBLEMS. it was a relative unlikely event, in that it would need two wear incidents(minimum) in the aircraft, a long ground delay in a hot environment(warm fuele tank) and the right fuel level(vapour content) in the central wing tank, for the explosion to occur. I am positive that it would not occur again as those doors have been firmly closed.

 

The 747 was the first of its kind and the industry learnt so much from that aircraft, and although I have refused to fly on some aircraft whose inner workings I know about, from a safety point of view I would choose a 747 all the time.

 

The 2001 aircraft , I was not involved in at all, so no comment.