I don’t know, but I have a qualified opinion to share.
While employed by the Air Force, I investigated material failures in turbojet engines. My specialty was hydrogen embrittlement (HE), a field little known in industry and somewhat akin to water seeping into apparently solid rock, then freezing and tearing apart the rock. Only in the last few decades has HE been identified by accident investigators as a significant threat, earlier called “Metal Fatigue.” For example, Titanium can soak up hydrogen during manufacturing if not properly treated and eliminated. HE can then cause cracks that can rupture apparently solid materials. There were no ADs connected with HE nor tests for hydrogen saturation at the time of Flight 800. HE failures in aircraft turbine engines have existed for at least 75 years and parts from uncontained failures can travel over 3,000 feet, damaging other engines, fuel tanks and aircraft systems along the way.
There is no doubt that a large group of highly qualified investigators participated in the investigation. However, I don’t know how many investigators were needed to disassemble a commercial engine and write a report. There were very few of us at the Air Force “unsatisfactory reports” facility where uncontained failure engines were disassembled. More than two on one engine would be getting in each other’s way. Not exactly a large group that might leak secrets, more like just a few that could be controlled to not tell.
I have found that most accident investigators are divorced from the other’s specialty areas and any deviation, when there is a strongly held pre-conclusion by management, can easily be suppressed by fear of reprisal; which can be career ending if not “harmful.” So, I have good reason to believe the NTSB Final Report might have been compromised.
Referencing TRACON radio reports: TWA Flight 800 had been ordered to climb from 13,000 feet to 15,000 feet. A pilot of an oncoming Eastwind Airlines Flight 507, descending to 16,000 feet, reported seeing a light on the 747 climbing towards him, which he assumed was a greeting. However, just one light might be more indicative of an uncontained engine failure, especially since it was quickly followed by an explosion within the aircraft.
It appears to me that engine #3 then may have separated from the aircraft, moved forward still under thrust and then fell, burning, rearward into the sea; based the published evaluation of the powerplant group. The burning engine would also leave a smoke trail, as reported in TRACON radio transmissions.
Starting with a highly likely engine separation, substantiated by the recovered fuel gage for engine #3, which indicated a far greater fuel flow than normal, indicative of the fuel line tearing apart, engine #3 would have ended up directly below the 747’s flight path, miles from the main debris field. The smoke trail was also observed by many people on the ground as a falling object. It is this location, which can be confirmed by the navigation logs of the USS Grasp recovery vessel, where engine #3 was finally found, after an extensive search.
Therefore, the NTSB claim that all four engines were found in the main debris field appears false.
On disassembly, engine #3 was found to have entered the water rearward, indicated by the fact that the compressor section was also found to be “sooted” from the smoke of burning oil. No other engine was disassembled. If there was any material defect found in engine #3, the NTSB concealed its existence.
Therefore, the NTSB may have withheld evidence of the cause of failure.
One reason I know an uncontained engine failure is a likely probability is that a now retired NTSB investigator, who assisted in the Flight 800 747 reconstruction, wrote about puncture holes in newly recovered portions of skin on the right side of the 747 and the CWT. He also detailed efforts by an apparently authorized individual to hammer these holes or tears flat, essentially concealing evidence of an uncontained engine failure.
I was sent photos of these puncture holes by a former associate, including one photo with round holes that appear to have been made by engine bearings. There is also one photo of a turbine bucket imbedded in the tail section. Unfortunately, these disappeared. I have since searched online for similar photos, but found none to date. There is an online photo of engine #3 being lifted aboard the USS Grasp, appearing to be an uncontained failure. One can see this among the many online pictures of the Flight 800 disaster.
What one may not see are photos of engines #1, #2 and #4. The photos I saw show these engines all entered the water intact and in a forward attitude, still attached to the wings by their pylons. The pylon for engine #3 was apparently scrapped, possibly to remove evidence of engine ejection.
Therefore, the claim by the NTSB that there was no engine uncontainment may be false.
Many nearby pilots reported seeing an explosion. A pilot of Flight 507 reported there were two smoke trails, small and large. 507 did NOT see the 747’s nose section separate, when he passed several thousand feet above and to the left of the intact aircraft, as it descended into the sea. There is evidence, a smear of red paint, which indicates the nose section folded back onto the right side of the fuselage at a later time, then tore completely loose and ended up to the right of the flight path, some distance away from the main debris field.
Therefore, the “Zoom, Climb” claim by the NTSB that the nose section immediately separated from the main section and the main section then climbed from 13,500 to 17,000 feet may be false.
On close inspection, one can see the right side of the fuselage has puncture holes while the left side does not. I suspect an uncontained engine failure projected parts everywhere in the vicinity, with only one part needed to cause the CWT to explode.
On hearing of the disaster, I wrote to the FAA and NTSB to see if they might need someone experienced in the identification of HE based failures. The FAA Center sent me nearly 2,000 reports of accidents, including dozens with detailed descriptions of Pratt & Whitney JT9D uncontained engine failures that caused crashes, fires and/or explosions. The NTSB never replied and I later found their Final Report to not be credible.
I have no hope the NTSB will ever reopen the investigation. I just want locate a retired member of the Powerplant group with a good memory, who can tell me if there was an uncontained failure or not.
While employed by the Air Force, I investigated material failures in turbojet engines. My specialty was hydrogen embrittlement (HE), a field little known in industry and somewhat akin to water seeping into apparently solid rock, then freezing and tearing apart the rock. Only in the last few decades has HE been identified by accident investigators as a significant threat, earlier called “Metal Fatigue.” For example, Titanium can soak up hydrogen during manufacturing if not properly treated and eliminated. HE can then cause cracks that can rupture apparently solid materials. There were no ADs connected with HE nor tests for hydrogen saturation at the time of Flight 800. HE failures in aircraft turbine engines have existed for at least 75 years and parts from uncontained failures can travel over 3,000 feet, damaging other engines, fuel tanks and aircraft systems along the way.
There is no doubt that a large group of highly qualified investigators participated in the investigation. However, I don’t know how many investigators were needed to disassemble a commercial engine and write a report. There were very few of us at the Air Force “unsatisfactory reports” facility where uncontained failure engines were disassembled. More than two on one engine would be getting in each other’s way. Not exactly a large group that might leak secrets, more like just a few that could be controlled to not tell.
I have found that most accident investigators are divorced from the other’s specialty areas and any deviation, when there is a strongly held pre-conclusion by management, can easily be suppressed by fear of reprisal; which can be career ending if not “harmful.” So, I have good reason to believe the NTSB Final Report might have been compromised.
Referencing TRACON radio reports: TWA Flight 800 had been ordered to climb from 13,000 feet to 15,000 feet. A pilot of an oncoming Eastwind Airlines Flight 507, descending to 16,000 feet, reported seeing a light on the 747 climbing towards him, which he assumed was a greeting. However, just one light might be more indicative of an uncontained engine failure, especially since it was quickly followed by an explosion within the aircraft.
It appears to me that engine #3 then may have separated from the aircraft, moved forward still under thrust and then fell, burning, rearward into the sea; based the published evaluation of the powerplant group. The burning engine would also leave a smoke trail, as reported in TRACON radio transmissions.
Starting with a highly likely engine separation, substantiated by the recovered fuel gage for engine #3, which indicated a far greater fuel flow than normal, indicative of the fuel line tearing apart, engine #3 would have ended up directly below the 747’s flight path, miles from the main debris field. The smoke trail was also observed by many people on the ground as a falling object. It is this location, which can be confirmed by the navigation logs of the USS Grasp recovery vessel, where engine #3 was finally found, after an extensive search.
Therefore, the NTSB claim that all four engines were found in the main debris field appears false.
On disassembly, engine #3 was found to have entered the water rearward, indicated by the fact that the compressor section was also found to be “sooted” from the smoke of burning oil. No other engine was disassembled. If there was any material defect found in engine #3, the NTSB concealed its existence.
Therefore, the NTSB may have withheld evidence of the cause of failure.
One reason I know an uncontained engine failure is a likely probability is that a now retired NTSB investigator, who assisted in the Flight 800 747 reconstruction, wrote about puncture holes in newly recovered portions of skin on the right side of the 747 and the CWT. He also detailed efforts by an apparently authorized individual to hammer these holes or tears flat, essentially concealing evidence of an uncontained engine failure.
I was sent photos of these puncture holes by a former associate, including one photo with round holes that appear to have been made by engine bearings. There is also one photo of a turbine bucket imbedded in the tail section. Unfortunately, these disappeared. I have since searched online for similar photos, but found none to date. There is an online photo of engine #3 being lifted aboard the USS Grasp, appearing to be an uncontained failure. One can see this among the many online pictures of the Flight 800 disaster.
What one may not see are photos of engines #1, #2 and #4. The photos I saw show these engines all entered the water intact and in a forward attitude, still attached to the wings by their pylons. The pylon for engine #3 was apparently scrapped, possibly to remove evidence of engine ejection.
Therefore, the claim by the NTSB that there was no engine uncontainment may be false.
Many nearby pilots reported seeing an explosion. A pilot of Flight 507 reported there were two smoke trails, small and large. 507 did NOT see the 747’s nose section separate, when he passed several thousand feet above and to the left of the intact aircraft, as it descended into the sea. There is evidence, a smear of red paint, which indicates the nose section folded back onto the right side of the fuselage at a later time, then tore completely loose and ended up to the right of the flight path, some distance away from the main debris field.
Therefore, the “Zoom, Climb” claim by the NTSB that the nose section immediately separated from the main section and the main section then climbed from 13,500 to 17,000 feet may be false.
On close inspection, one can see the right side of the fuselage has puncture holes while the left side does not. I suspect an uncontained engine failure projected parts everywhere in the vicinity, with only one part needed to cause the CWT to explode.
On hearing of the disaster, I wrote to the FAA and NTSB to see if they might need someone experienced in the identification of HE based failures. The FAA Center sent me nearly 2,000 reports of accidents, including dozens with detailed descriptions of Pratt & Whitney JT9D uncontained engine failures that caused crashes, fires and/or explosions. The NTSB never replied and I later found their Final Report to not be credible.
I have no hope the NTSB will ever reopen the investigation. I just want locate a retired member of the Powerplant group with a good memory, who can tell me if there was an uncontained failure or not.
