The Controversy Surrounding TWA Flight 800: A Decomposition of Events and Evidence
On July 17, 1996, TWA Flight 800, an Airbus A300B4-200, exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Long Island, New York, resulting in 230 fatalities. The tragic incident remains one of the most controversial in aviation history. This article will explore the reasons behind the controversy, the conflicting evidence, and the impact on aviation safety regulations.
Initial Investigations and Speculation
Initial investigations suggested that the crash was due to a fuel tank explosion, initially attributed to a spark igniting vapors in the center fuel tank. However, many eyewitnesses reported seeing a streak of light before the explosion, which led to speculation about external causes, such as a missile strike or other possible terrorist activities.
Government Response and Media Coverage
The investigation was conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI's involvement, particularly its initial focus on a possible terrorist attack, raised suspicions and accusations of a cover-up. These accusations intensified when the investigation concluded that the crash was an accident.
Media coverage of the crash extensively highlighted the conflicting narratives and theories surrounding the incident. Eyewitness accounts of a missile or bright light approaching the aircraft before the explosion often contradicted the official findings, often leading to skepticism among the public about the official explanations.
Impact on Aviation Safety Regulations
The crash sparked significant changes in aviation safety regulations, particularly concerning fuel tank safety and the prevention of explosions due to flammable vapors. This shift underscores the importance of addressing potential hazards in commercial aviation, leading to more stringent safety measures and protocols.
The Controversial Evidence and Eyewitness Accounts
A beachgoer reported seeing a missile contrail in the sky, suggesting an external cause for the explosion. Upon review, however, it was discovered that the person only reported this well after the crash. As a jet-A and diesel mechanic, there are two critical factors that Boeing, the airlines, and the NTSB all missed: Jet A and diesel fuels cannot ignite with any spark, be it from electrical wires or spark plugs, due to their diesel-based nature that requires a vacuum or pressure of 32 P.S.I. to ignite.
Experimental evidence supports this claim. A burning match thrown into jet-A or diesel fuel will extinguish the flame due to the high flash point and the fuel's inability to ignite with a spark. This is a well-known property that can be replicated at home by performing the test with kerosene or diesel.
According to the author, the NTSB's claim that a spark from an electrical wire shorted inside the fuel tank is misleading and potentially hiding the true cause. The true cause, based on the author's calculations, was a vacuum or pressure of over 32 P.S.I. forming in the empty center fuel tank, which ignited the remaining fuel and fumes.
This pressure could have been generated by a small crack in the fuselage, particularly around the fuel filler neck, which the 20 years of flight could have caused. The remedy to prevent such incidents is to maintain a minimum half tank of fuel and ensure the tank's internal pressure is monitored and controlled to not exceed 32 P.S.I.
Conclusion
The combination of conflicting evidence, government involvement, and media sensationalism made TWA Flight 800 a deeply controversial incident, leading to ongoing debates about the true cause of the crash and the handling of the investigation. Further research and disclosure of the true cause are essential to ensure future aviation safety and prevent similar tragedies.