AA and Anti Missile System

[777 fixer]

With some experience myself I can tell you that particular argument doesn't fly. Only a few manning the ships CIC would know what they hit(if they did hit). Could they be effectively silenced? Maybe, maybe not, but its not about silencing a a ship full of sailors by any measure.

Are you going to try and tell me that the OS working in the CIC isn't going to tell his buddy working the ships laundry? Who will then tell his buddy the GS working down in engineering. Don't you think the GM's would notice that a missile was missing? Not to mention the racket that SM-2 would make when launched. The whole idea you could keep the rest of the ship from knowing what happened is even more preposterous than thinking you can keep a ship full of sailors from talking.

 

[777 fixer]

<_< ------ First fixer, your not the only one who spent some time in the Navy! And there was at least one retired "Senior Chief" on the investigating team with over twenty years service! Second Gentlemen you're assuming one hell of a lot if you think that missles could only have come from a ship! Or even from the Navy for that matter! I did say the one thing I wasn't sure about was if it, or they, came from the Navy at all? Or in fact it was the first shot of the War we are now in, came on that day, and not 9/11!!!

Could you please show me where I have said that a missile could have only come from a Navy ship?
Tell me why you keep bringing up witnesses who supposedly saw a missile when the IAM report you talked about so much said they were ".....not reliable to help in the determination of this event that may
have happen outside of the aircraft in close proximity to the aircraft." Could you also tell me what this retired Senior Chiefs exact function in the investigation was.

You seem to be convinced it was a missile yet give no supporting evidence.

 

[Skymess]

The way I figure it, it could have happened how they said it did but I don't really buy it based on the fact that I worked for a carrier with the oldest, and least repaired, 747's known to mankind.

I used to work for Tower and a cheaper airline hasn't been seen since. We used to fly around CONSTANTLY with empty center fuel tanks. You want to talk about hot places? We would spend hot summers flying around in Qatar, Africa, India, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Cyprus. It doesn't get much hotter than some of the places we parked at........waiting.......broken.........baking..........no APU..........waiting...........not blowing up.

A one time thing is a possibility but I really have to believe that if it were to happen to anyone it would have happened to an airline that had shoddy maintenance, more 747's, and was in hellishly hot places all the time.

 

[Vortilon]

One of the people I know who has viewed the wreckage sits on ALPA's safety committee and graduated with his aero engineering degree, so I'd consider that a technical background.

There's no shock wave audible on the voice recorder, and I'd think a shock wave from an external impact would have manifested itself in more than just three random systems.

Is there a point where the wiring for all or some of the three of the systems you mention run parallel to the fuel tank wiring, and do any of those bundles also carry higher voltage wires? One of the non-missle theories is that the spiking showing on the recorders was actually short-outs, possibly due to higher voltage wiring arcing into lower voltage wires. There was enough evidence of cracked and chafed insulation on the wiring harnesses of other elderly 747's, so I don't think you can rule possibility out quite so easily. If higher voltage did manage to cross-feed into the tank wiring, it woud have been just as likely to cause arcing inside the tank (or anywhere else) as it tries to find a ground...

I've played with diesel enough to know it wont ignite easily at ramp temperatures, but heat it up a bit, and it will go up fast and furious. Diesel and Jet-A have similar flash points -- between 100F and 148F. The NTSB's testing did prove that running the packs for an hour on the ground most likely raised the temps in the fuel tank on TW800 enough that the fuel was at or near its flash point on takeoff. They did a test flight duplicating the ground delay and flying the same profile, and at the point in time where 800 went down, they found center fuel tank temperatures of approx 127F, which is right in the center of the flash point range. With a tank full of vapor, 28V @ 120F+ could have easily been enough to set off the tank.

Government cover up?... When we see where the goings on at Abu Ghraib or the Pat Tillman friendly-fire incident weren't able to be kept under wraps, I find it sad that anyone believes there'd really be a succesful cover-up of this magnitude, much less what the 9/11 Truthers still believe.

You're really reaching if you think that 28vdc with minimal current is going to create a spark. Having worked on a tank crew in the past I have seen what it takes to ignite jet A. It's not as easy as you may assume. Also your wire to wire short is highly unlikely as well, as the insulation on both wires would have to wear through at the same spot. Now if there had been problems with fuel quantity indications in the center fuel tank in the past - then I might say there was something to your theory. However, I don't recall anybody mentioning any fuel qty indication problems with the ctr fuel tank. Chances are, had there been a short - there would have been fluctuations much earlier. Electrical problems like you suggest usually start out as intermittent and wear until its a hard fault and or short. Check the ctr fuel tank fuel qty indication history for problems - if there is some history - then this lends a little more weight to the popular theory. On the other hand, if the history is clean.....

 

[MCI transplant]

Could you please show me where I have said that a missile could have only come from a Navy ship?
Tell me why you keep bringing up witnesses who supposedly saw a missile when the IAM report you talked about so much said they were ".....not reliable to help in the determination of this event that may
have happen outside of the aircraft in close proximity to the aircraft." Could you also tell me what this retired Senior Chiefs exact function in the investigation was.

You seem to be convinced it was a missile yet give no supporting evidence.

<_< ------ Fixer, fixer! The statement you keep jumping on, "not reliable" references the fact that the team was not involved with that part of the investigation! The FBI were the ones that interviewed the witness. They took no depositions! Did not record any interviews! Took hand written notes! Did not interview all witness! And told the NTSB their conclusions when they handed them their notes! Go to the Associated Retired Aviation Professionals web page, and read what they say on the matter! And if you read that statement in context with the full report, what they're alluding to is a possibly a second event (missile?) exploding "outside the aircraft in close proximity to the aircraft." The team, including the Chief, was made up of TWA Inspectors, and LST's ( Tech. Crew Chief's) from the MCI "Overhaul Base", with extensive 747 experience. They were at the Crash site, on the salvage boat's. And at the hanger telling the "expert's" how all those peaces went together!

 

[Garfield1966]

Good Grief. An engine never fell off a DC10 until one did fall off. A tiger never escaped it's enclosure in SFO zoo until one did escape. And I am sure there are a ton of examples where something had never happened and no one ever thought it could happen but it did.

No one can ever replicate the exact circumstances that occurred on TWA 800. I am all for a good conspiracy. I have never had a problem tossing my own government under the bus. I have no problem believing that my own government would lie to me. I do have a problem believing that given the hundreds if not thousands of people who had direct contact with the investigation, access to radar tapes, audio info and what have you that any cover up could occur. Could it happen, sure. I could win the lottery 10 time in a row too but I doubt it will happen.

Why is it so difficult for people to accept the fact that sometimes sh1t just happens? If there was an ounce of credible evidence (and I guess you have to determine what credible is) I can see questioning it. So far I have not heard squat to indicate that it is anything other than what was explained.

 

[777 fixer]

<_< ------ Fixer, fixer! The statement you keep jumping on, "not reliable" references the fact that the team was not involved with that part of the investigation! The FBI were the ones that interviewed the witness. They took no depositions! Did not record any interviews! Took hand written notes! Did not interview all witness! And told the NTSB their conclusions when they handed them their notes! Go to the Associated Retired Aviation Professionals web page, and read what they say on the matter! And if you read that statement in context with the full report, what they're alluding to is a possibly a second event (missile?) exploding "outside the aircraft in close proximity to the aircraft." The team, including the Chief, was made up of TWA Inspectors, and LST's ( Tech. Crew Chief's) from the MCI "Overhaul Base", with extensive 747 experience. They were at the Crash site, on the salvage boat's. And at the hanger telling the "expert's" how all those peaces went together!

Because the IAM "team" was not involved with that part of the investigation it's not reliable? So I guess the only way for the witness statements to be reliable is if the IAM took them? What exactly is the IAM's expertise in this area?

The IAM report that you seem to put so much emphasis on offers no hard evidence of a missile impact. One would think that all those TWA inspectors, LST etc would have noticed damage like fragmentation holes of blast damage. Yet nothing like that is mentioned. One would think if they had they would have said something. Or are you going to try and tell me they were "silenced"? I'm sorry but "alluding to" is not evidence of anything.

Go to the Associated Retired Aviation Professionals web page, and read what they say on the matter!

When someone associated with the site says "TWA is highly regulated and subject to the NTSB and FAA oversight on a daily basis" I become a bit skeptical about their expertise. As we all know the NTSB has no regulatory powers.

 

[MCI transplant]

Good Grief. An engine never fell off a DC10 until one did fall off. A tiger never escaped it's enclosure in SFO zoo until one did escape. And I am sure there are a ton of examples where something had never happened and no one ever thought it could happen but it did.

No one can ever replicate the exact circumstances that occurred on TWA 800. I am all for a good conspiracy. I have never had a problem tossing my own government under the bus. I have no problem believing that my own government would lie to me. I do have a problem believing that given the hundreds if not thousands of people who had direct contact with the investigation, access to radar tapes, audio info and what have you that any cover up could occur. Could it happen, sure. I could win the lottery 10 time in a row too but I doubt it will happen.

Why is it so difficult for people to accept the fact that sometimes sh1t just happens? If there was an ounce of credible evidence (and I guess you have to determine what credible is) I can see questioning it. So far I have not heard squat to indicate that it is anything other than what was explained.

<_< -------Garfield, You make sense! And normaly I'de agree with you, but there is one question that no one has yet answered, at least, to my satisfaction! That is: "What was the source of ignition that cause the center fuel tank of Flt.800 to explode?" If you go with the Government's theory of a voltage bleed over, you have better odds of wining the lottery ten times in a row! :unsure:

 

[MCI transplant]

MCI,

Any terrorist relying on ATC or the airlines to keep a slot in order to shoot probably isn't smart enough to pull off a missile shot in the first place. We trade takeoff positions at the last second all the time, probably the majority of the time.
Any missile, even without a warhead, would leave a million shrapnel holes all over the 747 after blowing into it at Mach 3+. I don't think you could keep it a secret after the many that got involved with the salvage crew

I look at the slot theory like the 9/11 conspiracies. Any massive evil plan that relies on the airlines to actually show up in one place in a coordinated fashion fails to pass the smell test.

Then again. there was the National Guard Helo pilot that swears he saw a missile. Good witness too, saw a few shot at him in Viet Nam

<_< ------ Mach85ER, I never said that a terrorist would be the sharpest tack in the box! You swap slots all the time! I know that! You know that! But would a terroist know that? :huh:----- As for shrapnel, check out Associated Retired Aviation Professionals web page, under "Shrapnel Lawsuit"!

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ------ I also noticed that the site has a thing on AA Flt.587!!!

 

[Garfield1966]

<_< -------Garfield, You make sense! And normaly I'de agree with you, but there is one question that no one has yet answered, at least, to my satisfaction! That is: "What was the source of ignition that cause the center fuel tank of Flt.800 to explode?" If you go with the Government's theory of a voltage bleed over, you have better odds of wining the lottery ten times in a row! :unsure:

Who knows what it was? That does not mean it some out side malevolent force took the plane out of the sky. There is not one shred of physical evidence that has been brought to light to back up that theory.

Accidents happen. There may have been millions of factors that all happened to converge at that one moment and that was that. It never happened before and it may never happen again.

The 777 that took a dump in LHR a few days ago is another example. No one knows yet what happened. It may be a simple explanation or it may be a situation where millions of factors just happen to converge and presto, double engine failure. What are the odds? What are the odds that it happens 2 miles from LHR and not 2 1/2 miles or even 2 1/4 miles where the ending would have been significantly different?

Sometimes sh1t just happens and we all have to deal with it. Was there one gun man or two? If the Cpt Smith had gone slower and heeded the ice warnings perhaps we would not have had to endure DeCaprio in a movie. Sh1t just happens.

 

[MCI transplant]

------ O.K. Garfeild!----- It was just meant to be!---- If you say so!---- End of Story!

 

[Boomer]

We can do this, it just costs us too much right now.

Systems Perform Within Spec, However, Maintenance Costs More Than Desired

"Results showed that the typical DIRCM pod could fly for about 1,000 hours before it had to be swapped out, said Jim Tuttle, head of the directorate’s explosives division. That is a 10-fold increase from the 100 hours that the system is able to operate aboard military aircraft, he said. The problem is that these numbers need to get up to about 5,000 hours."

"Tuttle said the DIRCM can shoot down missiles successfully, but maintenance and logistics issues are still the sticking points."

Full Story Here, in case the public domain article were to disappear:
March 2008

Congress Still Undecided on How to Protect Airliners from Missiles

By Stew Magnuson

LOS ANGELES — Tests of a system designed to protect commercial aircraft from shoulder-fired missiles have showed some improved performance in areas such as maintenance. But the system still falls short of goals acceptable to airlines, said the Department of Homeland Security official in charge of the program.

Congress has mandated that the department’s science and technology directorate find a system capable of defeating man-portable air defense systems, or manpads. Earlier this year, DHS officials and contractors conducted a pilot program to see if a directed infrared counter-measure (DIRCM) system could withstand the rigors of flying on a commercial airliner.

Results showed that the typical DIRCM pod could fly for about 1,000 hours before it had to be swapped out, said Jim Tuttle, head of the directorate’s explosives division. That is a 10-fold increase from the 100 hours that the system is able to operate aboard military aircraft, he said. The problem is that these numbers need to get up to about 5,000 hours.

“We [improved] an order of magnitude, but we still have to do another order of magnitude,â€￾ Tuttle told National Defense.

Studies have shown that operating these systems will be costly for either the airlines or taxpayers — about $1 million to outfit one plane, Tuttle added. That excludes maintenance costs. Who would foot the bill has yet to be determined.

Tuttle said the DIRCM can shoot down missiles successfully, but maintenance and logistics issues are still the sticking points.

These issues are major concerns for the airline companies. Industry studies estimate that it could cost between $300 and $400 to operate the counter-manpads system per flight. That figure is far too high for a business that operates on thin profit margins, the studies have said.

“It still goes back to the issue of maintainability, reliability and supportability,â€￾ Tuttle said.

A nine-month test last year using a Northrop Grumman-built counter-manpads system aboard 12 Federal Express transports showed that if there was a malfunction, the modular design made them easy to swap out. The process took about 10 minutes, Tuttle said. But that would mean pre-positioning $1 million replacement modules around the country and flying broken DIRCMs back to a repair depot.

“If these things could last four or five years, then it’s reasonable that you could do that,â€￾ Tuttle said. A typical jetliner undergoes a routine overhaul every four to five years, he said.

The armed services developed the technology to protect its aircraft, but military and civilian aviation are “like night and day,â€￾ he added.

Commercial airliners are constantly in the air to maximize profits, and repairs add time and costs that airlines say they cannot afford.

The Air Transport Association, a group representing airlines, has called for more research into solutions that don’t involve installing the expensive technology onto aircraft, such as airport perimeter defenses. An issue brief said the threat is “real and must be taken seriously.â€￾ However, it notes that there are other threats such as rocket-propelled grenades and .50 caliber bullets, which may have an equally high risk to commercial airliners. The modules should last 10,000 hours without breaking down, which is double DHS’ goal, the association said.

Proponents note that the economic impact of an attack on U.S. aviation could be equally costly — as much as $15 billion, according to a Rand Corp. report.

In the meantime, Congress gave the directorate $35 million this year to extend the research phase, thereby postponing the difficult decisions on whether the program should move forward, and if so, who will pay for it.

This time, three American Airlines passenger jets will be equipped with a system built by BAE Systems in an effort to collect 7,000 hours worth of data over nine months.

About $6 million of the funds will go to test alternatives such as ground-based or unmanned aerial vehicle-based systems, Tuttle said.

That would entail a missile warning system at every airport, and a high-energy laser system to knock down the manpads. Questions remain on what a high-energy beam will do to the plane’s avionics, or other electronics such as a passenger’s pacemaker, he said.

Detlof Von Winterfeldt, director of the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis at the University of Southern California, and co-author of a report on the economic impact of deploying such a system, said the costs are still “too high.â€￾

“Overall, it’s not time to jump into this,â€￾ he said at a DHS science and technology conference sponsored by the National Defense Industrial Association.

One option might be to outfit only some jetliners with the full system. The rest of the bubble-shaped pods would be dummies. It may not matter if the terrorists know this or not, he suggested.

His center has done some studies on the effectiveness of “randomizationâ€￾ — the science of ensuring that a potential terrorist can never be certain that a checkpoint, for example, would be in place or not, thus diminishing their confidence that an attack would succeed.

“I think that could be quite effective,â€￾ he said.

Please email your comments to [email protected]

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ------ Maybe we should just ask how EL AL handel their systems!