The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United

States and significant accidents in the other modes of transportation -- railroad, highway, marine and pipeline -- and issuing safety recommendations aimed

at preventing future accidents.

The NTSB is responsible for maintaining the government's data base on civil aviation accidents and also conducts special studies of transportation safety

issues of national significance. The NTSB provides investigators to serve as U.S. Accredited Representatives as specified in international treaties for aviation

accidents overseas involving U.S.-registered aircraft, or involving aircraft or major components of U.S. manufacture.

The NTSB also serves as the "court of appeals" for any airman, mechanic or mariner whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation

Administration or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are assessed by the FAA.

The NTSB opened its doors on April 1, 1967. Although independent, it relied on the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for funding and administrative

support. In 1975, under the Independent Safety Board Act, all organizational ties to DOT were severed. The NTSB is not part of DOT, or affiliated with any of

its modal agencies.

Since its inception in 1967, the NTSB has investigated more than 100,000 aviation accidents and thousands of surface transportation accidents. In so

doing, it has become the world's premier accident investigation agency. On call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, NTSB investigators fly to every corner of the

world to investigate significant accidents.

The NTSB has issued almost 10,000 recommendations in all transportation modes to more than 1,250 recipients. Since 1990, the NTSB has highlighted

some issues on a Most Wanted list of safety improvements (A copy of the Most Wanted list may be obtained elsewhere on the NTSB's Home Page). Although

it has no regulatory or enforcement powers, its reputation for impartiality and thoroughness has enabled the NTSB to achieve such success in shaping

transportation safety improvements that more than 80 percent of its recommendations have been adopted by those in a position to effect change.

Many safety features currently incorporated into airplanes, automobiles, trains, pipelines and marine vessels had their genesis in NTSB recommendations. At

an annual cost of less than 15 cents a citizen, the NTSB is one of the best buys in the government.

Mysterious Aviation Disasters Help Set a Deadly Record in

1996

By Ken Kaye

Sun-Sentinel

Tuesday, December 31 1996; Page A04

The Washington Post

This wasn't just the deadliest year for commercial aviation, it also was the most shocking. Two major disasters occurred

under bizarre and mysterious circumstances.

Last May, a ValuJet DC-9 plunged into the Florida Everglades, suspected of being doomed by a cargo of

oxygen-generating canisters erupting into fire. Two months later, a Trans World Airlines 747 exploded near Long Island,

N.Y., breaking in pieces that rained into the Atlantic Ocean.

But there were other, less dramatic aviation disasters as well. In July, a Delta Air Lines jet engine exploded into a

passenger cabin in Pensacola, Fla., during takeoff. Last month, a United Express turboprop commuter collided with a

small plane in Quincy, Ill.

There were four major crashes in the Caribbean and Latin America, another three in the rest of the world. That does not

include the crash of an American Airlines Boeing 757 into a mountain near Cali, Colombia, last December that killed 159

people.

In all, 355 U.S. air passengers were killed in 1996, more than double the 175 U.S. fatalities in 1995 and the highest

domestic death toll in the past decade.

Globally, 1,460 air travelers died, the most ever. The previous record was in 1985, when 1,179 air passengers died.

That was the year a Japan Air Lines Boeing 747 crashed into a mountain, killing 520 people, and a Delta Air Lines jumbo

jet that had departed from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., crashed in Dallas, killing 137 people.

"It was a bad headline year," said Mike Overly, of the nonprofit Aviation Institute in Worthington, Ohio, which studies

aviation accidents. "This is likely going to be the worst year in aviation for fatal crashes and body counts."

Overly and other aviation experts said each accident is the result of its own special set of factors. And in terms of

accident rates, which those in the industry consider the true measure of aviation safety, 1996 was an average year, if not

low. Seven of the past 10 years were worse.

The U.S. accident rate this year is expected to be about .044 fatal accidents per 100,000 departures, up from .024 in 1995.

The rate remains low because the number of U.S. airline departures climbed sharply, from 8.2 million in 1995 to about 9

million this year, according to the Air Transport Association, which represents most major air carriers.

The chances of dying in an airplane crash are still about 8 million to one, said association spokesman David Fuscus.

"You're much more likely to be struck by lightning or drown in your bathtub," he said.

That, however, is little consolation to many nervous travelers, who think of ValuJet Flight 592 and TWA Flight 800 when

they board an airliner.

"Flying's very frightening to me now," said Roberta Bramson of Coral Springs, Fla. "I tend to look where the exits are

more than I used to."

The ValuJet DC-9, bound for Atlanta, crashed into the Everglades about 10 minutes after takeoff from Miami, killing 110

people. It was the first major crash of a discount air carrier, and showed how often dangerous materials are carried in

airliner cargo holds. The accident revealed a lax federal scrutiny of the airline industry.

On the positive side, aviation experts said, the Federal Aviation Administration is addressing all those issues.

The TWA Boeing 747, bound for Paris, exploded at 13,000 feet over Long Island after taking off from John F. Kennedy

International Airport, killing 230 people.

Initially, witness reports of a streak of light going up to the jumbo jet before it blew apart led to suspicion of a terrorist

missile. Although federal investigators now believe a fuel-system problem may have been at fault, the cause of the

explosion remains a mystery.

Overly said that though these accidents may be unsettling, "body counts are not a good indicator of safety."

What concerns him, he said, is that there appears to be an increase in other categories of aviation accidents.

For example, he said there was a high number of military fighter jet accidents and that cutbacks in spending and

training may have contributed to them.

There also was an unusual number of cargo plane accidents worldwide, including the crash of a Boeing 707 operated by

Miami-based Millon Air into a densely populated barrio in Manta, Ecuador, killing at least 30 people.

Accident rates have been steadily improving as the skies have gotten more crowded.

In 1960, U.S. airlines carried a total of 58 million passengers and experienced 12 fatal accidents. That equates to a fatal

accident with every 316,000 departures.

Last year, the airlines carried almost 550 million passengers and had two fatal accidents -- or an accident once every 4

million departures.

In recent speeches, David Hinson, former administrator of the FAA, said aviation must continue to become dramatically

safer because of the industry's projected growth. The FAA has estimated the number of U.S. air carrier flights will

increase by 40 percent to about 11.5 million departures in 2015, and twice as many passenger deaths.

In the meantime, Fuscus, of the Air Transport Association, said flying remains the safest form of travel. In a three-month

period, he said, more people die on the nation's highways -- about 9,000 -- than have died in the entire history of

commercial aviation.

NTSB Urges FAA to Order Changes

After Crash

1:59am EST, 1/4/97

WASHINGTON - The National Transportation Safety

Board made an urgent recommendation that federal

aviation officials order air carriers to improve markings

for opening the exit doors of Beechcraft 1900 commuter

aircraft.

The recommendation Friday came as part of the NTSB's

ongoing investigation into the collision of a United

Express Beechcraft 1900C with a Beechcraft King Air A90

at a municipal airport near Quincy, Ill. on Nov. 19.

All 10 passengers and two crew aboard the United

Express Flight 5925 were killed as a result of the crash, as

well as the two pilots of the King Air.

Three pilots arrived on the scene shortly after the

collision, but were unable to open the door of the Beech

1900C.

The NTSB, which has not yet determined why attempts to

open the exit door failed, said evidence showed some

occupants of the Beech 1900C survived the impact and

might have been saved if rescuers had been able to open

the plane's main boarding door.

Instructions for opening the door were on a small placard

below the door, but they were difficult to read and not

clearly stated, the board found, after examining another

Beech 1900C aircraft.

The board urged the Federal Aviation Administration to

immediately issue a directive to all operators of

Beechcraft 1900 planes to improve the way exit doors are

marked. An estimated 265 Beech 1900 aircraft are

operated by U.S. carriers.

The NTSB said clear, concise and complete instructions

for opening exits were critical for rescuers after accidents

involving aircraft that have external handles within reach

of people on the ground.

This was especially critical because these aircraft were

often used at airports without on site rescue and

firefighting services and untrained individuals might be

required to open the exit doors.

Lacking any evidence that a bomb or missile destroyed TWA Flight 800 four months ago, law enforcement investigators are now intensively checking

several new sabotage theories, sources say.

One possibility, the sources said yesterday, is that a skilled saboteur brought the plane down using a relatively tiny detonator placed in the center

fuel tank of the Boeing 747. Another is that someone engaged in "sabotage without explosion," interfering with the plane's electronic or mechanical

operating systems.

Investigators are also intensively checking the backgrounds of several people who had access to the plane on the ground in New York or Athens and

who they recently learned had previous connections to criminal or terrorist groups, according to the sources. There is no evidence linking these people

to current crimes or the destruction of the plane, but their past relationships with violence-prone organizations are leads that investigators are

running down, the sources said.

The renewed emphasis on possible sabotage comes just days after lead FBI investigator James Kallstrom was quoted as saying that with little left

of the plane to find, bomb and missile scenarios were becoming less likely. Kallstrom said last week, however, that he had been misinterpreted and

that all three theories still had "equal weight."

The sources acknowledged that the sabotage leads they are pursuing now are largely theoretical. "Admittedly, some of the stuff we are considering is

pretty farfetched," said one source.

One theoretical scenario, for example, involves the placing of a detonator with a small amount of explosive in the center fuel tank, which caused the

larger explosion, the sources explained.

A second possibility is that a skilled saboteur somehow interfered with the plane's electrical or mechanical systems, triggering an explosive spark

that caused the center fuel tank to explode.

National Transportation Safety Board officials said they couldn't comment because the agency does not monitor the FBI's investigations. "We

would encourage them to investigate all aspects," said NTSB spokesman Peter Goelz.

Kallstrom, while not commenting on specific scenarios, said, "We are not going to rule out sabotage until we have explored every possible scenario."

Kallstrom said he plans to gather the 20 key federal agents supervising the investigation to re-examine what investigators have come up with so far,

go back over it in case something did not stand out the first time, and come up with new possibilities that should be explored.

"We're going to be rethinking everything, seeing if there was anything left out," Kallstrom said.

Agents of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms have already begun redoing computer models of how the blast might have occurred

to see if anything was overlooked, according to sources.

"We are not leaving until we know what happened to that plane, and it's unlikely that that is going to happen soon," Kallstrom said. "But the public

wants and is entitled to know what happened."

Dredgers are still finding pieces of the plane as they scrape the ocean bottom at the crash site off Long Island. Yesterday, they were still analyzing

150 bags of debris that have been recovered in the last three days. But so far, none of the material, including pieces of the jet's outer skin, has

revealed any new clues.

With an estimated 95 percent of the plane recovered, all three possible causes of the July 17 crash - bomb, missile and mechanical malfunction - are

still considered likely, Kallstrom said.

"But if you have ninety-nine or a hundred percent recovered, you can make a more realistic determination of what caused and did not cause the

crash," said Kallstrom. "There's a possibility that my technical people will say that we have all the plane up except for two or three missing pieces, and

it's unlikely that there could be any evidence in the missing pieces."

That process, however, could still take many months, he said.

Kallstrom said 75 agents are still working full time on the crash, down from 500 at the height of the investigation. He said that despite the lack of

results, "morale is still high."

"We are realists and we know investigations can take time," Kallstrom said.

NTSB has yet to query TWA's

ground crews: FBI questioned

workers after crash

Associated Press, 11/25/96

SMITHTOWN, N.Y. - More than four months after TWA Flight

800 exploded, the National Transportation Safety Board

has yet to interview anyone who serviced the jet before it

took off.

The FBI, however, began around-the-clock interviews within

48 hours of the July 17 crash - questioning hundreds of

maintenance workers, baggage handlers and mechanics,

focusing on the possibility of terrorism or sabotage.

NTSB spokesman Alan Pollock said yesterday that the

safety board waited to question ground crews because it

``needed time to understand more about the accident.''

``Now we know more precisely what questions to ask,'' Pollock

said. ``When an accident happens in the morning, our society

wants answers by the 11 o'clock news. The NTSB doesn't

work that way. We are methodical, focused and very patient.''

The FBI interviews were conducted at New York's Kennedy

International Airport, where the Paris-bound plane departed

minutes before the explosion. Others were interviewed in

Athens, Greece, where the flight had originated.

NTSB investigators were invited to conduct dual interviews

with the FBI at the time, but they ``chose not to

participate,'' according to one criminal investigator who

spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The source noted that NTSB did provide a few questions to

the FBI.

November 28, 1996

Dredging Contracts Renewed in Search for TWA Blast Clues

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

EW YORK -- Fishing boats raking the sea bed for the last missing fragments of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 have had their

contracts renewed for 75 days to ensure that no potential clue to the perplexing crash is left behind, federal investigators said

Wednesday.

Four chartered scallop-dredging boats will expand the search and continue working 24 hours a day, said Shelly Hazle, a spokeswoman for the

National Transportation Safety Board. "If they keep bringing stuff up, they'll continue to dredge," she said.

The dredging, which began Nov. 4, has already produced more than one and a half tons of wreckage, filling some gaps in the reconstruction of

the giant jet's center fuel tank. Investigators say the tank seems to have been the epicenter of the explosion that split the jet 19 weeks ago,

killing all 230 people aboard.

But many important items remain missing, including a small fuel pump and some fuel measuring rods from the center tank, any of which could

have produced a spark and ignited fuel vapors.

The expanded search is a critical part of a new effort by investigators to study patterns of tears and cracks in the tank that might help them

close in on whatever mechanical flaw or criminal act caused the disaster. Neither a missile, a bomb nor an incendiary device has been ruled out

as the cause.

The emphasis on looking for subtle patterns has grown as chances have dimmed for finding what several investigators have called a "Eureka

piece," some single bit of wreckage or equipment that contains critical clues.

Investigators say that much of the aluminum recovered in recent weeks is corroded from long immersion in salt water, a process that could

have erased microscopic pitting from a high-powered blast from a bomb or other tiny marks that might help pinpoint a mechanical cause.

In recent days, the amount of recovered debris has steadily dwindled, but every tow has produced at least a little wreckage, officials involved in

the search said.

Originally, each boat towed its pair of 15-foot-wide dredges less than a mile before hauling up an ample "catch" of dozens of pieces of metal,

luggage or other debris, said one crash investigator who, like most of those involved in the search, spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Now, though, the dredges are towed four and a half miles before they are brought up, and "you're lucky if you get six or eight pieces of metal

the size of your hand," he said. That would be like sweeping 45 city blocks and collecting only a half-dozen bits of litter.

Along with expanding the offshore salvage work, investigators were trying other new tactics to unravel the mystery, including an additional

round of interviews with the mechanics and other workers who refueled and inspected the Boeing 747 before it left Kennedy International

Airport on its ill-fated flight July 17.

The new interviews, which were begun last week, have mainly helped eliminate questions about some earlier reports of troubles with the jet, an

investigator for the safety board said. For example, a reported fuel leak from a faulty fitting in a tank in one of the wings turned out to have

occurred not on the night of the crash, as law-enforcement officials had been told by a fuel crew, but two weeks earlier. The fitting was fixed.

"In every case, we're looking for mistakes, for human error," said the safety board official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. "But

we've found nothing so far of a magnitude that could lead to this event," he said.

The new interviews helped the investigators track down -- and eliminate from suspicion -- possible problems with several other systems on the

jet, including a faulty engine pressure gauge and a control that reverses the thrust of the jet engines after the plane has landed.

"We're putting to rest a lot of issues," the safety board official said. But he quickly added that the interviews had not helped point the

investigation in any new direction.

The lack of new leads on shore has driven the continued search for the last shreds of metal under the sea 10 miles south of Long Island. The

boats have paused only to take on fuel and provisions.

For the crew of one scallop boat, the Kathy Ann, the conjunction of a refueling trip to Point Pleasant, N.J., with Thanksgiving means they will

be able to have a holiday dinner with their families before returning to sea Thursday night.

But for most of those involved in the salvage effort, the holiday will pass in hotels or at the hangars in Calverton

By Sylvia Adcock and Robert E. Kessler. STAFF WRITERS

It was the day after the crash. The governor of New York had just finished telling reporters from around the world that the watery grave of TWA Flight

800 was now an FBI crime scene.

Robert Francis, vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, who had spoken earlier, hurried back to the microphone to try to clarify an

issue that has lingered for the four months since the crash. "We have no evidence at this point that this is not an accident," he said. "So the NTSB, as

long as it is considered an accident, will be in charge."

Since then, little has changed in the subtle tug-of-war between the two investigative agencies trying to solve the puzzle of Flight 800. As the effort to

find the last crucial pieces of the shattered Boeing 747 continues, the NTSB and the FBI - two institutions as different as night and day - remain yoked

together, joined more by a lack of evidence on either side than anything else.

From the beginning, there have been perceived slights, grumblings and misunderstandings as the two agencies tried to mesh their styles. And in recent

weeks, tensions appear to have escalated, with a senior law enforcement official suggesting that the NTSB was dragging its feet. "They act like they have

all the time in the world," the official said. FBI agents also were annoyed when the NTSB recently said it planned to reinterview some of the ground crew

members because the FBI hadn't asked the right questions.

"Our people are criminal investigators and they ask questions about crimes, not about technical questions like the coefficient of heat resistance," said

one law enforcement official. There's no end in sight to this uneasy union. In what has become the longest recovery effort of its kind, four fishing boats

plowing the Atlantic Ocean bottom looking for shattered airplane pieces are now expected to continue well into next year. "We're going to go wherever we

think we might find something, and we're going to continue until we've picked up everything we can find," Francis said.

At some point, the trawlers will begin coming up empty-handed, and investigators will have to confront the end of gathering evidence from the scene. But

even if there's still no evidence that the July 17 explosion was caused by sabotage, the FBI is unlikely to bow out for some time. Law enforcement officials

say that after all the evidence is in, they'll want to see more of the plane reconstructed in hangars at Calverton, a process that could take months, before

deciding whether to rule out sabotage.

Several weeks ago, some FBI officials were miffed when a high-ranking NTSB official said that if none of the recovered evidence shows sabotage, the

NTSB would likely declare the crash an accident. The official, Bernard Loeb, head of aviation safety, later said he was only giving his opinion and not an

official NTSB stance.

Francis said he had no opinion on Loeb's statement: "That's his comment." But he said the statement did not create problems between the two agencies.

"We're doing all right with the FBI."

James Kallstrom, the lead FBI investigator on the case, agreed. "This has been a complete team effort," he said.

But the lack of a solution so far has led some law enforcement officials who asked not to be identified to complain that the NTSB's pace is too slow.

"They don't seem to give a damn that there's a country out there that wants results," said one official.

Francis deflected the criticism, saying the urgent need to solve the puzzle does not mean that the NTSB should rush in carelessly. "We're doing things the

way we do things, which is as thoughtfully and professionally and comprehensively as we can do them," he said. "Like I've said all along, we're not going to

sacrifice quality of the investigation for speed."

Francis said one reason the NTSB, which has a worldwide reputation for thorough accident investigations, doesn't rush is that retrofitting an aircraft

can carry dangers. What if, for instance, the agency decided to blame an unrecovered scavenge pump from the center fuel tank, and ordered a different

model installed on all 747s? And what if the installation was faulty? "Any time you start tinkering, there's a risk."

FBI agents have focused on tests to determine if a fuel tank explosion alone would be enough to bring down the plane. The NTSB has selected the

California Institute of Technology to study the properties of the fuel-air mixture that was in the center tank of the Boeing 747, but those tests have not

yet begun. "We're just waiting for the wheels to turn in Washington," said one Cal Tech official.

Francis said the tests have not begun because the NTSB's technical experts are still working on the parameters for the tests. "You need to make sure

you know what you're trying to find out. When you start looking at fuels and how they react, you want to make sure you have some meaningful work at the

end of the day, so you can go on to the next step," probably a computer simulation or full-scale explosion, Francis said.

Misunderstandings arose early in the investigation. The first came the day after the crash, when an FBI agent didn't understand what was being said at

an organizational meeting, and the next day missed a boat going out to look at the wreckage. Within days, NTSB investigators were grumbling because

the FBI wouldn't let them take photographs of the wreckage. At times, the FBI shipped pieces of wreckage to its own labs before the NTSB had a chance

to see them, according to sources.

"My recollection is there were a lot of people in the early days who were unhappy because life was not working out exactly the way it had always worked out

for them," Francis said.

The NTSB was also annoyed that word of the first finding of explosive residue was leaked to newspapers before top investigators knew. One investigator

said he believed that the FBI timed the leak deliberately to put the public's focus back on its side of the investigation.

Some of the early tiffs get chalked up to the vastly different cultures. "We're more horizontal and they're more vertical," said one NTSB investigator. The

FBI follows a strict chain of command, with decisions coming from the top down, while the NTSB has a more collaborative style. NTSB investigators are

more likely to make decisions by sitting around a table and kicking around ideas.

Despite their different outlooks, there is substantial evidence that the two agencies work well together. Interactions in the hangar are always cordial, said

one source familiar with the investigation. And as the NTSB seeks more money to fund the investigation, the agency will make a pitch on behalf of the FBI.

As the FBI investigates sabotage scenarios that include a tiny detonator in the fuel tank, the NTSB says both agencies are being thorough. "We've got

Source: No sign of bomb blast on TWA jet's cargo door

By Pat Milton

Associated Press

EAST MORICHES, N.Y. -- Tests found no bomb residue on a piece of the front cargo door from TWA Flight 800, dealing a setback to investigators looking

for proof that an explosive brought down the jetliner, a source said Thursday.

The source, who is close to the investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity, said the door also did not appear to have the scars usually left by a bomb.

In a preliminary inspection of the door, "nothing ... jumps out at us, nothing that looks like it is going to get us closer" to proving what destroyed the plane,

the source said.

Federal agents still have not discounted the possibility that some kind of catastrophic mechanical problem caused the July 17 crash.

Investigators want to find and test the other two-thirds of the cargo door, the source said.

Searchers looking for bodies and wreckage were hampered for a second straight day by choppy seas and heavy rain, but the salvage ship USS Grasp was

able to raise a 40-to-45-foot-long piece of fuselage, the largest fragment of wreckage yet recovered.

The piece, which contained 15 passenger cabin windows, remained on deck because seas were too rough to move it to land.

Robert Francis, head of federal investigation, said less than 10 percent of the wreckage had been raised. The bodies of 184 victims had been recovered over

the last two weeks, leaving 46 unaccounted for.

FBI Director Louis Freeh said in Washington that the agency already had interviewed hundreds of people around the world, and plied intelligence sources for

clues.

"We have been doing all the things that agents would normally do in an investigation," Freeh said. "If it's turned over to us we will not have lost any time."

Investigators who think a bomb brought Flight 800 down have theorized that the blast occurred in the front cargo hold, which the source said carried

passengers' baggage. If so, the search for a potential bomber could be narrowed to those with access to the bags.

Investigators also speculate that a bomb could have been placed in the nose wheel, or in a food cart in the front upper section of the plane, the source said.

Bombs placed in luggage stored in the front cargo hold are thought to have destroyed a French airliner over the Sahara in 1989 and Pan Am Flight 103 over

Scotland in 1988. Investigators are studying both cases for similarities to Flight 800, which exploded and plunged into the Atlantic about 10 miles off Long

Island.

The source also said no sign of potential bomb chemicals had been confirmed on TWA Flight 800's wreckage in tests with sophisticated equipment in

Washington.

FBI: Traces of Explosive

Not Found on Plane

Debris

By By Joseph A. Kirby

TRIBUNE STAFF WRITERS

Web-posted: Friday, August 2, 1996

MITHTOWN, N.Y.-- FBI officials investigating the crash

of TWA Fight 800 said Thursday that testing of

debris from the plane's underwater wreckageÅincluding a

recently discovered cargo door -- had not detected any

chemical residue or other traces of an explosive.

The forward cargo door was viewed by investigators as a

key test of the theory that the Paris-bound jumbo jet was

blown out of the sky two weeks ago by a bomb, possibly

located in the 747's cargo hold. In two other relatively

recent airplane bombings -- including that of Pan Am

Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 -- explosives

were believed to have been placed in forward cargo holds.

"We have not found [any evidence] yet," said James

Kallstrom, the assistant director of the FBI, referring to

agency technicians who are testing for residues left by an

explosive and looking for telltale deformities in the plane's

metal skin. "But I don't think that we have gotten results

back on everything we've pulled up."

For the second consecutive day rough seas stalled the

effort to recover more of the plane's wreckage. Conditions

were so harsh that some members of the recovery team

were bruised from being tossed around on the ships,

according to Robert Francis, vice chairman of the

National Transportation Safety Board.

Thursday "was the least productive day we've had so far,"

Francis said. "It is very rough out there."

For the first time, officials said the conditions associated

with the crash could hinder efforts to pinpoint a specific

type of explosive device that was used, if the plane's

downing is found to be a criminal act. The possibility of

finding very small pieces of evidence may be slim, Kallstrom

said, because the crash site is 12 miles from land, 120 to

150 feet underwater and is subject to unpredictable

weather.

Finding small evidence may prove to be crucial. In the Pan

Am bombingÅa case FBI officials are studying closely

because of its similarities to Flight 800Åinvestigators

cracked the case after finding a transistor chip the size of

a thumbnail.

"From that standpoint ... that is going to be difficult,"

Kallstrom said. "If we go there, it is a difficult environment.

Whether we can find that kind of stuff in the water ... I

don't know." In Washington Thursday, congressional

efforts to draft new anti-terrorism laws deadlocked as

House conservatives demanded broad new privacy laws as

the price for expanded wiretapping authority.

President Clinton had asked Congress for quick action

following the crash of TWA Flight 800 and the pipe-bomb

blast at the Olympic Games. But his hopes of getting

legislation passed before Congress enters a month's

recess this weekend were viewed as virtually dead.

Earlier, FBI Director Louis Freeh told the Senate

Intelligence Committee that the recent crush of bomb and

terror cases has severely strained the bureau's resources

and nearly caused gridlock in the FBI's vaunted crime lab.

"In terms of agents and analysis and resources to deal

with these problems, we are being spread very thin," Freeh

said.

Freeh's statements contrasted with those of his boss,

Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, who said earlier of the FBI that "I

don't think they're spread thin now." The director's remarks

also seemed to contradict Deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie

Gorelick, who told CNN Sunday that in recent

conversations Freeh "has not said he feels stretched in

any way."

But Freeh told the Senate committee that the

investigations of TWA Flight 800, the Olympics bombing

and the attack on U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, coupled

with preparations for trials in the Unabomber case and the

Oklahoma City bombing, have taxed the bureau's

resources.

"We could double the amount of people we have in our

counterterrorism program and probably still not be where

we need to be if this current trend continues," he said.

Jet's Rear Cabin Hit Sea 1.5 Miles After Nose

Breakup of Airliner Was Similar to Bomb Destruction of Pan Am 103

Over Lockerbie

By Don Phillips

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, July 29 1996; Page A11

The Washington Post

SMITHTOWN, N.Y., July 28 -- Trans World Airlines Flight 800 broke apart shortly after it was hit by some sort of catastrophic

event, with the nose and forward passenger cabin hitting the Atlantic Ocean a mile and a half before the wings and rear cabin

crashed into the sea, investigators said today.

The pattern of breakup was similar to that of Pan American Flight 103, which was destroyed over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988

when a bomb in its forward cargo hold exploded. In that crash, the nose and cockpit of the Boeing 747 cracked away to the

right, almost like a door turning on a hinge.

Because of the TWA plane's lower altitude -- it had ascended to 13,700 feet after taking off from John F. Kennedy International

Airport -- there was less difference between the outside air pressure and the pressurized cabin. As a result, a much larger bomb

would have been required to down the TWA plane, investigative sources said.

The sources said the TWA plane's forward cargo hold contained baggage, with cargo containers loaded to the rear.

James K. Kallstrom, the FBI official in charge of the criminal part of the investigation of the July 17 disaster, said today that the

probe is approaching a turning point. He said he has asked recovery teams to look for certain pieces of wreckage, which he would

not characterize further.

Kallstrom said, "I hope within the next 48 hours we'll get something that we think is going to give us the clues" needed to come

to a final conclusion about what happened to the plane when it crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all 230 people aboard.

Law enforcement officials said over the weekend that they are "80 percent to 90 percent certain" that a criminal act was

responsible for the crash -- such as a bomb or, less likely, a missile -- and the FBI could take over the investigation as early as

this week.

Today, a senior law enforcement official said privately that the only holdup now is that investigators do not have conclusive

evidence of a bomb. The official stressed "conclusive."

Navy divers have found new pieces of aircraft debris that, coupled with enhanced radar data, indicate that the wings and rear

passenger cabins flew on alone for perhaps as long as 24 seconds after the front of the aircraft broke away, and then

disintegrated in a fireball.

However, Norm Wiemeyer, radar specialist for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), said much work needs to be

done before the plane's final movements will be known for certain.

Navy divers have recovered its nose landing gear in a debris field about a mile and a half to the southwest of the main field of

wreckage, indicating that it was one of the first pieces of plane to fall away. Nearby was a section of the forward fuselage with

the first- and business-class section. Wreckage of the cockpit area had not been found as of late today.

Rear Adm. Edward Kristensen, heading the Navy salvage effort, said several of the Navy's salvage ships will search the new field,

as well as another wreckage field found another two miles farther southwest. He said he does not yet know what is in the third

field.

NTSB Vice Chairman Robert Francis refused to speculate about what may have happened to produce the debris pattern, but he

said, "Things that come off first tend to be indicators of what happened."

Investigators are puzzling over why initial radar tracks did not indicate such large pieces falling off so early in the flight, but said

the main piece of the fuselage might have shielded other sections from radar waves.

In any case, it is now becoming clear that whether a bomb or some other form of explosion brought down the plane, the event

originated at the front of the aircraft.

The most likely location is the forward cargo hold, which stretches from the front of the wings to the nose area. The forward end

of that hold ends just below the rear of the cockpit and the distinctive spiral staircase used in older 747s for access to the

upper deck.

Directly ahead of the cargo hold are the electrical cabinets, which contain all the plane's electrical connections.

An explosion there would explain why all electricity ended at about the same moment to the plane's radar transponder, which

reports the plane's altitude and identity to air traffic controllers, as well as the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder.

All radio capability would also likely be wiped out, even if the crew members were not incapacitated.

Analyses of the two recorders showed normal activity and conversation, which was suddenly and inexplicably cut off. On the

cockpit voice recorder, which uses four microphones to pick up cockpit sounds, the tape ends with a brief, split-second loud

noise, an ending that investigators said was similar to what was found on the cockpit voice recorder recovered from the Pan Am

103 crash.

Francis said recovery of bodies is proceeding, with 153 of the 230 victims having been found and brought up from the ocean

bottom. So far, 147 of the bodies have been positively identified, 146 families notified and 142 bodies released to relatives.

Francis said the identification process has gained speed because the Suffolk County medical examiner is getting more

information on fingerprints and other documentation from families.

Francis also said a large new section of fuselage was found today that may contain more bodies. He said it apparently was from

the center-to-rear portion of the plane, and was found in the main debris field where most other fuselage sections and wing and

engine parts had previously been found.

There also were indications that another one of the plane's four engines has been located in that field. With the two already

located, this would indicate that the wings and engines remained with the main part of the fuselage

© Copyright 1996 The Washington Post Company

EAST MORICHES, N.Y. -- The explosion that killed 230 people aboard a TWA jetliner took place in the front of the plane, ripping off the cockpit and the First

Class cabin, a source close to the investigation said Saturday night.

The source said investigators are speculating that the explosion was caused by a bomb in the front cargo section. They have not discounted the possibility

of a missile, and will not entirely rule out the possibility of mechanical failure, but are focusing on the bomb theory, the source said.

The source said TWA flight 800 "flew without a front for 10 to 11 seconds" after the initial blast. The plane was then engulfed in a fireball when it was

approximately 9,000 feet up and 10 miles off the coast of Long Island.

Some passengers in First Class were thrown out of the plane by the force of the explosion.

The source said the disaster "has a lot of similarities to Pan Am 103," which exploded over Scotland in 1988 after a terrorist bomb went off in a cargo hold.

The source spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

The information came on a day when federal investigators also were looking at the bomb that exploded at the Olympics, killing one person, leading to the

death of another and injuring more than 100.

Investigators are still looking for sheet metal from the front of the plane, hoping it would give them the forensic proof they need.

The electrical equipment of the 747 is located just ahead of the front cargo bay and this could explain why the flight voice recorder and the flight data

recorder were cut off abruptly 111/2 minutes after the doomed jetliner left John F. Kennedy International Airport for Paris. Radar continued to track the plane

or a portion of it in the sky for some seconds after the recorders shut down.

The possibility of a heat-seeking missile or radar-guided missile has not been entirely discounted, nor has the possibility of mechanical failure, but the bomb

theory is the one now given the most credence, the source said.

The source would not say what new evidence might have turned up to enable investigators to focus the probe on the bomb theory 10 days after the jetliner

Search crews working in clear weather lifted to the surface the first significant part of the doomed Boeing 747 -- a 15-foot-by-4-foot chunk of the right wing.

It was moved in the hopes of locating more bodies, but none was found and investigators conceded that they may never recover all the victims. Of the 230

people who were on board, 145 bodies have been found.

"Are we confident that we'll find all the bodies? ... The answer, I guess, is honestly no," said Robert Francis, vice chairman of the National Transportation

Safety Board. "We certainly hope to be able to. But in situations like this kind, you know the recovery of 100 percent of bodies is not the usual."

Asked about reports that there were military planes in the area when the plane blew up, Kallstrom replied: "We are looking at everything that was in this area,

be it military, be it civilian, be it anything else. ... We're certainly are aware of what was here, and we are looking into that."

Kallstrom said investigators were trying to "freeze that environment for the period of time" and check out all "planes, ships, anything travelling through the

waterway and airwaves.''

No physical evidence -- such as chemical residue from explosives on airline debris -- has been found to confirm suspicions of sabotage.

The Navy, meanwhile, said another specialized salvage ship would arrive Monday to aid in the recovery of wreckage that might reveal additional clues to the

explosion.

The "recovery of victims continues to take highest priority,'' Francis said.

Divers have spotted four more bodies tangled in a "wreckage field'' of shredded metal and wiring that spreads along the sandy bottom, but none had been

brought to the surface as of Saturday afternoon, Francis said.

Using video cameras and laser-equipped scanners, searchers have located two of the planes four engines, landing gear and a forward part of the aircraft

that might include the cockpit.

Clues from 'black boxes'

In one of the strongest suggestions yet that a bomb or missile destroyed the plane, rather than a massive mechanical failure, the NTSB Friday said data

from the two ''black boxes'' showed the flight was operating normally in the minutes before the explosion.

The crew conversation was customary, and the captain's final words were a routine order to increase altitude. His order is followed by a loud sound, and the

flight tape ends abruptly.

After the voice tape ends, the plane -- or a large portion of it -- continued to be tracked by radar for an additional 41 seconds. Radar records indicate the

plane was disabled at 13,700 feet, and the engines probably continued to run as it descended and burst into a fireball at 8,500 feet in a blast probably fed

by jet fuel.

Because some witnesses have reported seeing streaks of light in the sky at the time of the explosion, the FBI is looking closely at the possibility a missile was

used to bring down the plane. The tapes are undergoing further analysis in Washington, D.C., where investigators will compare the sound to those recorded in

other flight disasters.

At a hotel near Kennedy Airport, members of victims' families spoke sympathetically about those injured by the pipe bomb in Atlanta, which killed one woman

and left more than 100 hurt.

"We are in the mood that we can understand how they are feeling,'' said Marc Cayrol, 54, of Montpellier, France, who was awaiting word on the body of his

brother, Jacques, 47.

More than 100 families remain at the hotel, hoping for news of lost loved ones and the progress of the investigation. They were reassured that the bombing

at the Olympics would not undercut the Flight 800 probe.

Kallstrom, in fact, said more agents were being brought in.

Due to arrive Monday, the USS Grapple is the sister ship of the USS Grasp, which the Navy brought in earlier to help in the search. The Grapple has

equipment that can snare heavy pieces of wreckage and bring them to the surface. Divers have already located two of the plane's four engines, which might

shed additional light on the cause of the explosion.

July 29, 1996

EAST MORICHES, N.Y. (AP) - Investigators say a key piece of metal could prove a theory that TWA Flight

800 was destroyed by a bomb in the front cargo section that blew off the cockpit and first-class cabin.

U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Edward K. Kristensen uses a pointer to describe the location of the wreckage fields

from TWA Flight 800 during a news conference Sunday, July 28, 1996 at the Sheraton hotel in

Smithtown, N.Y. Investigators hoping to prove a theory that TWA Flight 800 was destroyed by a bomb

that blew off the cockpit and first-class cabin directed divers to search Sunday for a crucial piece of the

airliner's aluminum skin.(AP Photo/John Dunn)

A source close to the investigation told The Associated Press Sunday that a piece of the plane's aluminum coating close to the explosion would probably tell

what caused the blast and whether the metal was pierced from the inside (a bomb) or the outside (a missile).

``We need that piece of sheet metal'' in order to declare the crash a crime, the source said.

The search was being focused on a debris field 100 feet below the Atlantic where the first wreckage settled, including first-class seats and the front landing

gear.

As divers searched the ocean floor Sunday, James Kallstrom, the FBI agent in charge, said the piece of metal ``could be the next piece the Navy turns over

to us. We know which pieces we want. ... We hope in the next 24 hours we will get something.''

Searchers were working around the clock.

``We're always interested in what came off first,'' said Robert Francis, head of the search, explaining investigators' interest in the area. ``Things that come off

first tend to be an indicator of what happened.''

Francis, who is vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, declined to confirm or deny the primacy of the bomb theory.

Investigators were speculating that the explosion was caused by a bomb in the front cargo section, one of them told The AP.

They had neither discounted the possibility of a missile, nor ruled out the possibility of mechanical failure, but were focusing on the bomb theory, according to

the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The plane exploded in a fireball July 17, killing all 230 people aboard.

The source said the jet apparently ``flew without a front for 10 to 11 seconds'' after the initial blast.

Some passengers in first class were thrown out of the plane by the force of the explosion.

The source said the disaster ``has a lot of similarities to Pan Am 103,'' which exploded over Scotland in 1988 after a terrorist bomb went off in a cargo hold.

The electrical equipment of the 747 is located just ahead of the front cargo bay, which could explain why the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data

recorder were cut off abruptly without any sign of trouble 11 minutes after the jetliner left Kennedy Airport.

Radar continued to track the plane, or a portion of it, through the sky for some seconds after the recorders shut down.

The source would not say what new evidence might have turned up to focus investigators on the bomb theory.

No physical evidence - such as chemical residue from explosives on airline debris - has been found to confirm suspicions of sabotage.

The Pirouette, one of two primary search and salvage vessels, was ready to move a mile and a half to the southwest and anchor over the area where the first

debris landed.

And the Navy said another salvage ship, the Grapple, was en route to the same area and should be ready to lift wreckage by Tuesday.

On Saturday, search crews working in clear weather lifted to the surface the first significant part of the 747 that crashed 10 miles off Long Island - a

15-foot-by-4-foot chunk of the right wing.

The piece was moved to look for bodies, but none were found, and investigators conceded that they may never recover all the victims' remains. Francis said

Sunday 153 bodies had been recovered, and others spotted on the ocean floor. All but four of the bodies retrieved were identified, according to the Suffolk

County medical examiner.

THE TANGLED MASS dangling from a crane at the Shinnecock Coast Guard base shortly after midnight on Aug. 4 attracted

a crowd. Word had spread that the cockpit was coming in, 18 days after an explosion decapitated the plane in midair.

Nothing else about an airplane lends itself more readily to easy comparisons to human features than the snub nose and narrow

windshield of a cockpit. Few can forget the image of a crumpled cockpit that seemed to stare out from a soggy Scottish field

after the 1988 Lockerbie crash. It was the face of disaster.

Flight 800's aftermath had no such face. Small items stood out, like seats and the unbroken dials of instruments, from what

otherwise looked like a tangled knot of wires and sheared metal.

"I was standing out there and the seats were there and the crew seatbelts were just flapping in the breeze," said Col. Frank

Intini, the Army National Guard commander. "That was tough."

When Navy divers brought the cockpit onto the deck of the Grapple, they discovered the bodies of Capt. Ralph Kevorkian and

flight engineer Richard Campbell inside. Both were removed before the debris was transferred to shore.

But there was more in the cockpit. As the crane operator lowered the shredded mass to the dock, a man's black dress shoe

dropped out.

Hours later, when the trucks brought the cockpit to the Calverton hangar, FBI investigator Ken Maxwell, 45, watched a tiny

gold pin fall to the hangar floor. Investigators picked it up. It was a pair of TWA wings.

"It was a very moving, very poignant moment then," Maxwell said. "Of all the things, the pilot's wings. That kind of thing, you

know, really hits home. In more ways than one."

The cockpit earned its own separate zone in the main debris hangar. The investigation had expanded into three other hangars

for the interior, engines and other systems of the aircraft.

IF THEY COULD figure out the area of the aircraft where a part belonged, they brought it to the appropriate hangar, often to

the precise grid marked on the floor. They tossed the unidentifiable pieces in The Boneyard, a small anteroom to one of the

hangars.

"We always say it's the largest jigsaw puzzle in the world," Maxwell said.

From the beginning, federal agents met each piece, swabbing some to test for explosives residue with a sophisticated

chemical-analysis machine. Just five days after the crash, they thought one test proved positive, but the piece of debris

revealed no trace in subsequent tests conducted in a laboratory in Quantico, Va.

Workers moved some pieces by crane, others by tweezers. Aviation fuel vapors wafted from wing sections and slices of fuselage,

painted yellow and green inside, scorched black outside.

Sitting at picnic tables at lunch, workers bandied their theories about, much as those in higher echelons did, and the media

after them. Federal agents talked bombs and missiles and listened to aviation specialists ponder unforeseen faults in the

aircraft.

"We didn't think the airplane was infallible," said Michael Peat, of the safety board's mechanics team. "Everyone was theorizing,

'You think it could have been this?' Kicking stuff around."

It was obvious to investigators that the aircraft's center fuel tank had erupted in flames. The center section, particularly,

showed deep scorching.

"But what caused it to break up was the topic of discussion," Peat said. "And still is."

But much of the speculation centered on sabotage.

In late August, tests in Calverton and the FBI lab showed traces of two chemical components in plastic explosives, PETN and

RDX.

"When we had those hits on the residue, explosive residue, that certainly created a certain extra energy level, if you will," Maxwell

recalled. "Maybe we're starting to get the building blocks toward that this was a bomb or some type of missile."

INVESTIGATORS PORED over metal as it came in, searching for the distinctive patterns that could confirm that hunch. They

looked for curls or pits, signs that a high-energy explosive detonated nearby. They held up parts and asked each other, "Does

this look unusual," or pressed engineers to explain where the part came from.

A scrawl of numbers on each piece told where it was found and when. Later, when divers toured the hangar, they would point to

pieces they had carried.

When the FBI lost interest in a piece, the engineers took over, examining serial numbers stamped into the metal or printed on

wires of the jetliner Boeing built in 1971, the 153rd of the giant planes to roll off its assembly lines.

They used a computer to check Boeing blueprints before arraying the pieces like an unscrolled aircraft.

As weeks went by without any further evidence, the explosive traces puzzled investigators.

On Sept. 20, FAA officials told the FBI that a bomb squad in St. Louis had used the aircraft to put their dog Carlo through his

paces with sample explosives more than a month before the crash. The value of the tests evaporated.

"I was flabbergasted," Kallstrom said. "What could I do? We don't live in a perfect world. That was not withheld from us for any

malice of forethought. No one thought that. It's a big country, a big system, it's a big government."

Kallstrom said he never would have gone into a court armed only with the residue evidence anyway. "Emotionally, from a

psychology standpoint it might have changed something, but not tangibly."

Families grew impatient. "Every week a new theory is getting big play," complained John Seaman, Michele Becker's uncle. "They've

been grappling to explain the chemicals and now, only this week, they come forward and say, 'We might have had them on the

airplane.' It seems very extraordinary."

THE SAFETY board's Robert Francis, by now receiving gifts of shirts to augment the three he had packed, suggested it might

be time for investigators to make Thanksgiving reservations. He called this the beginning of "the drudgery phase."

Kallstrom realized a lot more painstaking work lay ahead.

"The plane was in a lot more pieces," he said. "I mean I didn't, that first day, think the plane would be in twenty-five thousand or

thirty thousand pieces.

On Sept. 25, Maxwell gave a tour of the hangar to the father and sister of Jamie Hurd, a 29-year-old man from suburban

Baltimore who was killed in the crash, and whose body is among 15 that have not been recovered from the sea.

"It's just hard to believe a 747 could end up in pieces like that," said Hurd's sister, Cyndi. "It doesn't look like an airplane."

The Hurds and Maxwell moved on to the hangar housing the plane's interior, with row after row of navy blue seats emblazoned

with the TWA logo. The Hurds lingered a long while at Row 33, Seat O, where Jamie had sat, his favorite brown leather sandals

on his feet, dreams of a rendezvous with his Parisian girlfriend in his head. They wept and hugged Maxwell.

"You can't even imagine it," Maxwell said.

THE WITNESSES

Sunset in the East

AT THE SUFFOLK County Police Marine Unit headquarters on Timber Point, diver Vinnie Termine thought he was witnessing a

spectacular sunset. Then he realized he was looking east.

In Mastic Beach, Deborah Walsh and her children thought they saw late-season fireworks, and didn't think twice until much

later.

At TRACON center in Westbury, an air-traffic controller who had just passed aircraft N93119 to a colleague in Nashua, N.H.,

watched as the blip on his radar screen fissioned into two, three and more dots that faded off the screen. It was 8:31 p.m.,

moments after a controller in Nashua had cleared Flight 800 to climb from 13,000 to 15,000 feet. The last recorded words

were the pilot asking for climbing power.

In the East Moriches Coast Guard Station, Petty Officer Danny Phee, 35, was midway through a routinely dull shift as officer

of the day when the telephones began ringing in the cramped 10-by-6-foot command center. The first caller described a ball of

flame, like a large flare.

Phee, a burly, straight-talking 13-year veteran, looked on a wall map at a wing-shaped zone off Westhampton Beach dubbed

"Jaws." The Air National Guard uses that swath to practice flare drops, he thought. Usually, though, they let him know. Phee

put in a call to the Air Guard. The dispatcher told him to stand by.

"He came back about a minute and a half later, whoever was the watch commander there and said -- King-74 was the call sign,

I'll never forget it -- 'King-74 just witnessed a large aircraft explosion, and he's en route to position. He'll be on scene in about a

minute."'

Phee listened on the military frequency as King-74, an Air Guard C-130 on maneuvers, flew 100 feet above the scene.

"He said there was what appeared to be a commercial jetliner in the water that had exploded, and he said there were numerous

bodies in the water, along with what looked like life rafts that had been deployed from the aircraft."

Moments later, TRACON called to say an aircraft had disappeared from radar.

IT FILLED Phee with an odd mix of excitement and dread.

The first fiery moments of the Flight 800 disaster had a lingering quality, and they play in the memory of witnesses like the

grainy Zapruder film of President John Kennedy's assassination or the television footage of the Space Shuttle Challenger

disintegrating against the sky.

"I saw two flashes, like an initial flash, then another flash," said Termine, the police diver at Timber Point. "It was just incredible

proportions. It extended from about three-quarters of my field of vision, up and all the way down to the water."

Sven Faret, a pilot from Plainview, was flying his single-engine Air Commander at 8,500 feet, 11 miles offshore when he saw a

flash of light from the ground, and seconds later, a fireball erupted ahead of him. "It was cracking an eggshell and watching a

flaming yoke come out," he said.

Frank Jackson was piloting his 55-foot fishing boat, "Night Moves," into Shinnecock Inlet, and looked over his shoulder to

check his crew on the boat's stern. "I looked out over the back deck to make sure everyone was on the boat when I saw a big

fireball in the sky," Jackson said. "It split into two pieces and dropped into the water about four or five miles away. We figured it

was probably a plane but at the time we didn't think it was a jet. We figured it was just a small plane."

Walsh was with her three sons, Justin, 5, Stefan, 8, and Bryan, 11, scouting a good spot to take her Christmas-card

photographs. Every year she gets a shot with her kids in shorts, tanned, with a beach-like background, and sends them out in

December.

They stopped by Paisley's restaurant. One son, Bryan, was studying Captain Bob's fishing boat schedule. In the sky behind the

sign, they saw the bright explosion.

"I just saw a big fireball, and the big part stayed up there, and the little part fell off," she recalled. Bryan has a calculating mind.

She asked him later that night how long he thought the fire lingered in the sky. He figured about 14 seconds.

For weeks, Walsh cringed at the sound of airplanes overhead, wondering about the people aboard Flight 800.

FALLEN THEORIES

The Evidence Conflicts

By Matthew Cox

Staff Writer

THEY WERE THERE when federal authorities held their first news conference less than 24 hours after the crash of TWA Flight 800, and they

remain today: Bomb. Missile. Mechanical failure.

Each of the theories on what downed the plane has risen and fallen as investigators have worked to solve the disaster. Here is a summary of the

evidence supporting or contradicting them 20 weeks into the investigation:

Mechanical Failure

Investigators have known for months that the Boeing 747's nearly empty center fuel tank exploded. They are trying to find out why.

The plane's sudden disappearance -- without a distress call and with no problems revealed by the plane's cockpit and flight data recorders --

argues against a mechanical cause. National Transportation Safety Board officials have been unable to cite an accident that had these

characteristics and was not associated with sabotage.

Still, the theory has gained prominence in recent months. Neither the roughly 95 percent of the plane that has been recovered, nor the autopsies

on the recovered bodies, has yielded forensic proof of a bomb or missile.

Mechanical problems have caused fumes in partially filled fuel tanks to explode before. At least five times between 1987 and 1993, fuel tanks on

American military planes exploded or ruptured because of mechanical problems or human error.

And after a Philippine Airlines Boeing 737 exploded on the tarmac in Manila in 1990, investigators concluded damaged wiring may have provided

the spark that ignited fumes in the plane's nearly empty center fuel tank.

TWA Flight 800 investigators are looking at several possible ignition sources.

The plane had three electrical pumps mounted on the rear wall of its center fuel tank. Two have been recovered and show no sign of a malfunction;

the third is missing.

Seven internal fuel measuring devices, called fuel probes, carry a tiny electrical charge. Although several of the probes have been recovered, none

show signs of a problem.

Crash investigators have looked for possible sources of static electricity. And they want to examine wiring bundles near the tank.

Investigators found what looks like fire damage on the interior of a fuel vent line running between the tank and the right wing tip and are exploring

its significance.

Bomb

There are resemblances between Flight 800 and Pan Am Flight 103, which was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. In both cases, a

Boeing 747 blew apart in midair. And the last thing picked up on both planes' cockpit voice recorders was a brief, unidentified sound.

An analysis of the sound on Flight 800's recorder led investigators to conclude it was not evidence of sabotage.

A bomb seemed like an especially plausible explanation after laboratory tests of wreckage revealed traces of three explosive chemicals -- PETN

and RDX, two ingredients in plastic explosives, and nitroglycerin. But the tests' significance faded in late September when the Federal Aviation

Association found that the airplane had been used in a test of bomb-sniffing dogs in St. Louis five weeks before the deadly explosion. Explosive

packages used in the testing could explain the chemicals' presence, officials said.

Much of the recovered wreckage has been damaged by fire and explosion. But investigators have found none of the metallurgical signs -- pitting,

outward bending metal, craters created by hot gases -- consistent with a high energy explosive device.

A bomb concealed in checked luggage likely would have exploded in the plane's forward cargo hold. None of the four luggage bins in the hold

showed signs of a bomb.

In October, FBI agents asked families of the flight's victims about a torn-apart beige carry-on bag that couldn't be linked to any of the victims,

and that had been found to be near the center of the blast. The FBI said later the bag contained no explosive traces and was not significant.

Missile

At least 20 credible witnesses said they saw an object ascending toward the plane the night of the crash. And radar records showed a tiny

unexplained blip just before Flight 800 disappeared. Within days, however, officials said the blip was not from a missile.

Officials say sophisticated spy technology detected no missile launch in the area. Also, a missile would have left behind clues -- a piece of fuselage

pierced from the outside, for example. And they say that so far, no such evidence in the recovered wreckage has been found.

Divers found all four of the plane's engines; none had been damaged by a heat-seeking missile.

There are shoulder-fired missiles that might have reached the plane at 13,000 feet, especially if they were fired from a boat.

Investigators interviewed people who were on the water that night but came away without answers.

A theory popular on the Internet and in Europe is that the plane was downed by a ``friendly fire'' missile strike.

Although a Navy P-3 Orion surveillance plane was 15 miles from the disaster, and flew over the crash after learning of it, investigators said the

plane doesn't carry air-to-air missiles.

Former White House press secretary Pierre Salinger breathed new life into the theory last month when he said he had obtained a document

confirming the plane was downed by an American missile. The FBI said, however, that Salinger's information had been posted on the Internet for

By Matthew Cox. STAFF WRITER

The TWA Flight 800 investigation is moving ahead "as expeditiously as humanly possible," but will likely continue at least into the

spring, according to the head of the National Transportation Safety Board.

"Like you and the families, I wish we had an answer today, but I want us to get it right," NTSB Board Chairman Jim Hall wrote in a

letter dated yesterday to Sen. Alfonse D'Amato.

D'Amato, who this week complained about the pace of the investigation, said last night he would accept Hall's offer to provide him

with a briefing on the probe. And he stood by his earlier complaint about the investigation's progress.

"There's a dogged determination that one sees in the manner in which the FBI has pursued this, and I'd like to see a little more of

that" from the NTSB, D'Amato said yesterday. After his exchange of letters with Hall, D'Amato said, "I feel that the NTSB is now

moving in the kind of direction that one would expect."

Hall's letter to D'Amato said the Flight 800 crash investigation - the most expensive in the agency's history - is likely to cost about

$27 million by the middle of next year. A typical investigation takes nine months to a year or more to complete, and the Flight 800

probe is more difficult than most because the plane settled at the bottom of the ocean, Hall wrote.

Hall conceded it is possible the board may never determine what sparked an explosion of the plane's center fuel tank, although he

said he is "confident" a cause will be found.

"The NTSB's credibility, and its reputation for competence, thoroughness and objectivity are not an accident," Hall wrote. "Our

comprehensive investigations are based on the painstaking, meticulous collection and examination of evidence, and on carefully

designed and controlled testing and simulations."

D'Amato's letter complained that safety board investigators haven't yet interviewed key witnesses at Kennedy Airport and that a

California Institute of Technology study of fuel-air explosions has not yet begun.

In his response, Hall said NTSB investigators agreed to the FBI's request not to sit in on early FBI interviews because it is the

NTSB's practice to include other investigative parties in the sessions, and that would have interfered with the FBI's ability to

prosecute a criminal case later.

Hall said the fuel-air tests haven't begun because "we first had to determine what needed to be done and who has the capability of

doing it, and then develop a proper and thorough test protocol."

A Long Beach man who lost two family members in the July 17 crash off Long Island's South Shore said last night he isn't sure who

to believe in the debate over the investigation's progress.

"I wish they would bring it to a conclusion," said Dick Hammer, whose wife, Beverly, and daughter, Tracy Anne, died in the

explosion. "Nothing will alleviate the loss, but on the other hand it will, I think, bring closure to a lot of people and contribute to the

healing process."

Missile Tests in Flight 800 Probe

By Robert E. Kessler. STAFF WRITER; Knut Royce contributed to this story.

Investigators probing the crash of TWA Flight 800 in July have fired missiles at targets at a top secret military base in California

over the past several weeks, sources say, but so far the tests have lent no credibility to the missile theory.

The missiles, fired at sheets of airplane metals, have caused more extensive damage than any found on the recovered wreckage of

the TWA plane, the sources say.

The tests have been conducted at the Navy's China Lake Naval Weapons Station near Death Valley, the sources said. The

purpose of the tests, the most recent of which was held last week, was to show investigators what to search for on the skin of an

airplane after a missile strike.

One source familiar with the tests at the base, which has developed many of the armed forces' missiles, said missiles were shot at

"stationary targets, like metal plates . . . They were fired at targets on the ground. It was to see what the signature was."

Federal investigators have also been given access to the classifed results of dozens of previous tests in which the armed forces

fired missiles at planes in the air, and planes and plane fuselages on the ground, the sources said.

The results of the recent and previous tests demonstrate that airplane metal struck by a missile would be expected to show

significant damage unlike that found on any of the 95 percent of the TWA plane recovered so far, said the sources.

Investigators are reluctant, however, to rule out the possibility that a missile struck the plane based on the tests conducted so far,

the sources said, because relatively few tests have been conducted, different tests have yielded different degrees of damage, and

because 5 percent of the TWA jet is missing and could contain missile damage.

"Our database is just not large enough to rule anything in or out," said one source familiar with the tests. The investigators are in

the process of re-analyzing the data they have received to determine what if any further tests they should request, according to the

sources.

When asked why the tests were conducted on metal sheets duplicating skins of the TWA plane rather than a similar plane or a

part of a plane, one investigator said, "Why waste a missile on a plane when you can get the same results on a metal sheet?"

Navy officials at the Pentagon and China Lake said that any questions about weapons testing at China Lake for TWA investigators

could be answered only by the FBI.

James Kallstrom, the chief FBI investigator of the crash, declined to comment on classified missile tests. But Kallstrom said

yesterday that all three theories are still under consideration as to the cause of the crash - a bomb, a missile or a mechanical

malfunction.

The tests were conducted because there is relatively little information on the marks left by a missile strike on an airplane, the

sources said.

"This is the first forensic investigation in history involving [the possibility of] a missile strike on an airplane," said one source, noting

that the previous armed forces tests did not yield results on a microscopic level that would necessarily stand up in court.

Even small-scale missiles that do not have exploding warheads in the tests caused gaping, jagged holes, or multiple holes, and

significant twisting of the impacted metal.

"They got ripping, tearing, charring, and curling," unlike that on the recovered parts, said another source familiar with the recent

tests.

While investigators have ruled out the widely rumored possibility that a U.S. missile - mostly commonly rumored to have come

from a Navy ship or plane - downed the TWA jet, they have said they are investigating the possibility that a terrorist missile attack

might have caused the plane to explode.

Investigators note they have a number of witnesses, described as credible, who reported something streaking toward the jet before

it crashed.

Sources familiar with the investigation say that given the lack of extensive data, officials may eventually request that missiles also

be fired at a 747 or a 747 fuselage to determine the type of damage such a strike would cause. But the sources said such an

experiment would be far in the future.

Flight 800 Families Asserting Claims

With Cause of July Crash in Doubt, Litigants Pursue Their Own Theories

By Serge F. Kovaleski

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, December 13 1996; Page A31

The Washington Post

After five months, the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 remains an enigma to investigators, who have been

unable to pinpoint whether mechanical failure or a criminal act caused the Boeing 747 to break apart in a fiery

burst and hurtle to the sea.

But the lingering mystery has not stopped attorneys representing victims' families from filing at least 21 lawsuits

against the airline and Boeing Corp. seeking about $1 billion in damages. One of the suits also names Hydro Aire, a

Burbank, Calif., firm that is alleged to have manufactured a faulty boost fuel pump in the plane's center fuel tank

that may have contributed to the demise of the Paris-bound jumbo jet.

With plaintiffs' lawyers saying more claims are on the way regardless of the official inquiry's progress, Boeing has

already filed a motion to have all pending and future suits in the case consolidated in federal court in Brooklyn. An

unusual aspect to the suits, filed on behalf of both American and European families, is that they provide a precise

chronology of the crash and allege in detail that the disaster was the apparent result of mechanical failure. The

findings are based on speculation by hired experts and published news reports.

Although government probers have thus far recovered an estimated 98 percent of the jetliner and 215 of the 230

victims from 120 feet underwater, they have yet to determine whether a bomb, missile or malfunction -- their three

theories -- caused the nearly empty center fuel tank to blow and bring down the plane. The barrage of suits began

in October and has come under fire from critics, including other lawyers for Flight 800 families.

"The claims are premature. Experienced lawyers know there is no way to get our hands on the hard evidence until

the investigators release it to us, and that won't happen until they draw some conclusions," said attorney Mitch

Baumeister, whose clients include a dozen families who lost loved ones on Flight 800.

"Any lawyer can hire an expert and speculate. To come out at this juncture and say you have solved the case is just

disingenuous," he said. "Unfortunately, given the competition in the legal community today, lawyers seem to be

jumping the gun with lawsuits to get their names in the press as a veiled form of publicity and marketing."

Nineteen of the Flight 800 suits were filed by New York attorney Lee S. Kreindler, a veteran of airline disaster

litigation. He was lead attorney for families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, which crashed in Lockerbie,

Scotland, in 1988 after a bomb blew it out of the sky, killing all 259 aboard. Flight 103 relatives were awarded a total

of more than $500 million.

Lawyers involved in the Flight 800 cases said they are filing suits now because it may take the National

Transportation Safety Board and the FBI longer than the statute of limitations -- generally two years in such cases --

to come up with a probable cause and issue a final report. The suits could drag on for years.

Further, the attorneys contended that it is not worthwhile waiting for the federal government's report before

litigating because its conclusions and opinions are not admissible in a civil case. That restriction was created largely

to ensure that probable cause determinations would not be used in litigation, but rather to improve air safety with

no legal consequences for those who supply information to the NTSB.

Lawyers noted that suits have already been settled in the September 1994 crash of USAir Flight 427 near Pittsburgh,

in which all 132 people on board were killed, despite the fact that the NTSB has yet to issue a final report on the

tragedy. Plaintiffs in the case alleged that problems with the rudder system precipitated the accident.

"We are not bound by the NTSB and neither are the defendants," said attorney Donald J. Nolan, who sued in the

USAir crash and has filed a claim in Chicago on behalf of the family of a Flight 800 victim. "If the NTSB says, `We

cannot tell what made a plane crash,' we can pursue it and have pursued it with viable theories. We may very well

have to conduct our own investigations and then it will be up to a jury to decide on liability and damages."

Nolan's suit against TWA, Boeing and Hydro Aire concludes that a fuel pump "in unreasonably dangerous

condition" caused a fire and subsequent explosion in the 747's center fuel tank before the plane smashed into the

Atlantic shortly after takeoff July 17 from John F. Kennedy International Airport. The suit accuses TWA of

operating the plane without certain safeguards in the center tank to rid it of flammable vapors and suppress a

possible fire.

To secure damages that exceed the $75,000 limit that each victim's family is entitled to under the 1929 Warsaw

Convention governing international flights, lawyers generally must prove that a carrier acted with "willful

misconduct."

In a complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, attorney Gerald H. Baker alleges that the destruction of Flight

800 was the result of "willful misconduct, intentional acts and gross negligence" of the airline and negligence by

Boeing. But unlike the other suits, Baker's action, in seeking $100 million in compensatory and punitive damages

for the family of an off-duty TWA flight attendant, did not offer a specific cause for the disaster. Baker alleges

broadly that the aircraft, purchased by TWA in 1971, had been operated beyond its service life and was not in

airworthy condition.

Officials at St. Louis-based TWA said the lawsuits are unfounded at this point. "We anxiously await a probable

cause determination by the NTSB based on the evidence in this investigation and feel that any allegations made

prior to that determination cannot be supported," said TWA spokesman John McDonald.

Boeing officials declined to comment on the suits, as did the NTSB. Raymond Boushie, president of Hydro Aire, a

division of Crane Co., said his company manufactured 14 fuel pumps on the plane, two of which were installed in

the center fuel tank. Both of those pumps, along with others, were recovered and analyzed by NTSB investigators,

who have "attributed no cause" to them.

FBI Assistant Director James K. Kallstrom, who is leading the criminal investigation into the TWA crash, expressed

skepticism about the string of lawsuits, saying, "It is symptomatic of the litigious times we live in. It seems a bit

extraordinary." Families said they have received solicitations from a variety of attorneys seeking to enlist bereaved

relatives in lawsuits.

"We think it is best to take a wait-and-see approach," said Aurelie Becker, who lost her daughter in the crash of

Flight 800. "It is very important to us that a cause be found before we do anything. We would just feel better that

way."

David Houck, whose family has filed suit on behalf of the estate of his sister, who also perished in the disaster, feels

differently. "They should have had technology in place to at least reduce the possibility that the center fuel tank

would explode, regardless of whether the cause was a bomb or mechanical failure," he said. "We were approached

by this law firm through our attorney and frankly I was impressed by their expertise. They said there was no reason

not to proceed at this point."

Kreindler's suits all conclude that Flight 800's center fuel tank caught fire because of a spark from a malfunctioning

fuel pump. The scavenge pump, as the device is known, has yet to be retrieved from the ocean depths. TWA said

yesterday that the scavenge pump was made by Lear Siegler. In 1990, Crane purchased Lear Romec Corp., the

division that manufactured the device, from a leveraged buyout firm, company officials said.

Kreindler, who says he represents families of 39 Flight 800 victims, said the findings are based on analysis by an

explosives expert and by a former Boeing engineer he hired to study the crash.

To hedge his bets, Kreindler's lawsuits state that if it is determined that a bomb downed the plane, TWA will be

responsible for the "reckless disregard for the safety of its passengers."

December 13, 1996

WA Crash 'Consistent' with Fuel

Explosion

11:34pm EST, 12/13/96

WASHINGTON - The National Transportation Safety

Board said Friday evidence from the wreckage of TWA

flight 800 was "consistent" with a fuel tank explosion, and

it proposed new steps to prevent fuel from reaching flash

point.

The board said that reconstruction of the plane showed

the Boeing 747's center wing's partially full fuel tank to be

deformed "consistent with an explosion originating within

the tank."

But it stopped short of blaming mechanical reasons for

the July 17 crash that killed all 230 people on board.

It said in a statement that parts of the wreckage pulled up

from the ocean bottom off New York's Long Island

showed no evidence of a bomb or missile.

However, it added, "The investigation into what might

have provided the source of ignition of the fuel-air

mixture (including a bomb or missile) in the CWT

(center wing tank) is continuing."

The board made an urgent recommendation to the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that it issue an

airworthiness regulation to assure that fuel-air mixtures

in planes do not rise to flash points.

It also called for design modifications, such as pumping

nitrogen into partially full fuel tanks, where the fuel-air

mixture is more likely to rise to a flash point, or requiring

insulation between the tanks and heat-generating

equipment, such the air conditioners in the case of flight

800.

The FAA said it would review urgently the board's

recommendations and respond promptly.

Boeing said it would comply with the recommendations

once issued by the FAA, adding that "Our position is any

time safety is concerned, we prefer to go on the side of

caution and we will take whatever actions are necessary

to support any of the directives that come down from the

FAA."

The Paris-bound TWA flight exploded shortly after

takeoff from New York's Kennedy Airport and plunged

into the Atlantic. Navy salvage crews have recovered

more than 90 percent of the plane's wreckage.

Another recommendation to the FAA was for a rule to

require an appropriate amount of fuel be kept in the

center wing tank of the B-747, noting that the vapors in a

partially full tank can more easily rise and ignite.

There should be proper monitoring and maintenance of

the tank's temperature, the board said.

It said that hot air from the air conditioning units just

beneath the center fuel tank of flight 800 may have raised

the temperature of the fuel to flash point, but that it was

not known what touched off the ignition.

Investigators in the five months since the crash have

weighed signs that mechanical failure, a bomb or a

missile from a ship or plane may have destroyed the

plane.

But in recent weeks, as they salavaged more and more of

the plane's remains form the ocean's bottom and found

no bomb evidence, they began to lean toward

mechanical failure.

The board explained that fuel tanks require an energy

source sufficient for ignition and high temperatures, and

that temperatures can rise, especially if the tank is not

full.

The board said it drew its recommendations from earlier

cases of fuel tank explosions involving other Boeing

planes.

In one case, in 1990, a Philippine Airlines 737 had been on

the runway in temperatures of 95 degrees when it

exploded while being pushed back from a terminal gate.

A definitive ignition source was never confirmed, the

board said.

In another case, in 1989, it said, an Avianca 727 exploded

after takeoff, touched off by a bomb under a passenger

seat above the center fuel tank, and while the bomb did

not destroy the plane, it punctured the tank, igniting the

fuel-air vapors which did destory it.

The board also cited the case of an Iranian Air Force

Boeing 747 flying near Madrid in 1976. Witnesses saw a

lightning strike to the left wing, followed by an explosion.

The baord said a report found that while electric current

of the lightning could have ignited the fuel-air mixture,

the energy levels to produce a spark would not

necessarily damage metal or leave a mark at the point of

ignition.

The recommendations by the board come a day before

officials of the board and the Federal Bureau of

Investigation were to meet with the families of the victims

of Flight 800 to brief them on their latest findings.

TWA theory: It was static

electricity

Investigators

speculate

whether spark

set off blast

MSNBC

        The leading theory in the probe of July's

TWA Flight 800 explosion is that static

electricity, building up along a fuel line, sparked

the fatal blast in the plane's center fuel tank,

senior investigators said Friday.

        National Transportation Safety Board

investigators stressed that the theory does not

represent their final conclusion, but is their best

guess five months after the crash.

        However, James Kallstrom, who heads

the FBI's investigation into the crash, said in

Saturday's editions of The New York Times that

he is angry the NTSB is drawing even tentative

conclusions about the crash.

        "It is not prudent, nor professional, to

speculate on what might or might not be the

cause of this tremendous tragedy," he said. "And

I am amazed that people continue to do that. It is

not helpful."

        While investigators are not yet certain of

the cause, the NTSB is suggesting a series of

measures, ranging from short-term precautions to

long-term design changes, to reduce the chance

of fuel-tank explosions. The Boeing Co. said the

agency's recommendations "may involve issues

with far-reaching effects for the entire aviation

industry."

        The Paris-bound Boeing 747 exploded in

midair and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off

Long Island just minutes after takeoff from New

York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.

All 230 people aboard the jumbo jet were killed.

        Investigators discussed the

static-electricity theory with a small group of

reporters on two conditions: that the sources not

be named and that the report be held until 6:30

p.m. ET Friday.

        Federal agencies are briefing families of

the victims on the status of the investigation at

the State Department on Saturday.

        The investigators provided no firm

evidence to confirm the theory - indeed, it

appears to have emerged through a process of

eliminating other potential causes.

        NTSB spokesman Peter Goelz hedged his

comments in an interview with the Associated

Press after the first reports about the

static-electricity theory surfaced.

        "Static electricity could be a cause, as

well as a number of other things," Goelz said.

"Certainly static electricity is one of the potential

ignition sources. It [also] could be a bomb."

        Aviation expert David Stempler said he

could not recall a previous case blamed on static

electricity built up within an airplane. If the

theory is borne out, he said, "it's going to have

significant implications for airlines and

passengers."

        Since the July 17 incident, investigators

from the NTSB, the FBI, TWA, Boeing and

other organizations have followed a series of

blind leads in hopes of determining whether the

plane was downed by a bomb, a missile or

mechanical failure.

        Based on the evidence recovered so far,

investigators agree that the plane was blown

apart by an explosion in the nearly empty center

fuel tank. But what set off that blast?

        Investigators are focusing on a fuel line

running from a tank on the plane's right wing

through the 747's center fuel tank and on to the

engines on the plane's left wing.

        As NBC first reported two months ago,

the pilots of Flight 800 began moving fuel

through that pipe just before the explosion

because of a concern over fuel imbalance.

        The theory is that the running fuel may

have caused a static charge to build up. A broken

rubber connector may have made the buildup

worse, setting off a spark. The tank was warm

and filled with fumes, with just a small amount

of fuel sloshing in the bottom - conditions that

could have turned that spark into the fatal blast,

according to the theory.

        Late Friday, the NTSB issued urgent

recommendations designed to reduce the

likelihood of an explosion in the center fuel tank.

The agency called for airlines to:

        Pump fresh, cool jet fuel from

underground storage tanks into the center fuel

tank before takeoff, to keep the mixture of fumes

and air from becoming too volatile.

        Take care not to run hot

air-conditioning equipment excessively during

long waits at airports. The heat exchangers for

the air-conditioning system are directly under the

fuel tank and can get extremely hot. Flight 800's

air conditioners ran for three hours on the ground

before takeoff.

        It will be up to the Federal Aviation

Administration to determine whether to make the

NTSB's recommendations mandatory.

        As a result of the TWA investigation,

airlines also may be asked to inspect the

fuel-pump wiring on all 747s.

        In 1979, the FAA ordered the wiring be

wrapped with tape to prevent wear on insulation

that might lead to arcing or a fuel-tank leak.

        "Inspecting these wires on this TWA

plane, they noticed that the tape was a little bit

frayed or missing or moved," a source said. But

the source was also quoted as saying the

inspection of wiring "had nothing to do with" the

Flight 800 explosion.

        "It is a simple issue," he said. "Because

of the condition of the tape on this particular

plane, they are going to look at tape on other

similar planes," if the FAA decides it's

necessary.

Investigators

reconstructed wreckage

from TWA Flight 800's

center fuel tank inside a

Long Island hangar.

Experts generally agree

the blast that destroyed

the jet originated in the

center tank.

        NTSB investigators said the agency

would make longer-term recommendations for

design changes in the center fuel tank, including

ways to insulate the air-conditioning equipment

and ways to fill partly empty fuel tanks with

nitrogen gas. The idea of pumping inert nitrogen

into the tanks, in order to reduce the risk of an

explosion of fumes, has been suggested before

but never required.

        The Boeing Co. has received the NTSB's

recommendations, spokesman Doug Webb said

Friday evening.

        "These are recommendations only and do

not presume to determine the cause of the

accident," Webb pointed out. He also noted that

the FAA, not the NTSB, is responsible for

enforcing safety recommendations.

        "The Boeing position, where safety is

concerned, is that we should err on the side of

caution, so we will take action to support any

directives from the FAA," Webb said.

        "Some of the recommendations may

involve issues with far-reaching effects for the

entire aviation industry," the spokesman said.

"Therefore, it is imperative that each

recommendation be thoroughly reviewed,

analyzed and evaluated by all interested parties

before any changes are implemented."

        Webb declined comment on the AP

report about frayed insulation and potential

inspections, saying that Boeing has received no

official word from the FAA on the matter.

        Meanwhile, the Flight 800 investigation

continues: Fishing vessels are still dredging the

ocean floor for more wreckage, experts are still

examining the recovered debris in Long Island

hangars, and the FBI still is leaving open the

possibility that a bomb or missile might have

caused the explosion.

December 15, 1996

Many Answers in TWA Crash Except the One That Counts

In This Articles

First Hunch: Smell of Sabotage Was Everywhere

Second Thoughts: Evidence Keeps Slipping Away

Related Articles

Cost of Jet Safety May Be High, Experts War

By MATTHEW PURDY

ive hundred law enforcement investigators have hunted the globe to find out who did it. An army of scientists and engineers

has applied meticulous analysis to find out what did it.

And in the five months since the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800, investigators have divined deep secrets from the

wreckage of the Boeing 747.

They know the direction of every tear in the plane's aluminum skin. They know much of the sequence in which the 170-ton

aircraft came apart, piece by piece. They have even announced that the plane's center fuel tank was filled with dangerous

fumes, and exploded, possibly with enough force to split the plane in two.

But the central question of the fiery crash still lingers unanswered: What caused the rugged aluminum beast to explode in

midair without a single warning beforehand or a clear explanation afterward?

From the heat of summer to the first snows of winter, there has been a striking shift among many investigators, from the initial

presumption of sabotage with a slim chance of mechanical malfunction to a presumption of malfunction with a slim chance of

sabotage.

On Friday, the National Transportation Safety Board announced recommendations for keeping jetliner fuel tanks from filling

with dangerous fumes or heating to a dangerous level -- a direct result of the Flight 800 investigation. And safety board officials

said their leading theory of the crash is that the fumes were ignited by a spark of static electricity created by fuel leaking into the

tank.

But they offered no evidence to support that theory and, in fact, they could not rule out a bomb or missile as the cause of the

explosion -- two other possibilities for which there is no evidence.

The proclamation of a leading theory reflects the belief of aviation investigators that a lack of evidence of a cause makes a

malfunction, rather than sabotage, the most likely explanation. The FBI strongly disagrees. And beyond that argument, the

cause remains unknown.

After a briefing on the crash investigation early this month, a member of the White House commission on aviation safety said,

"On the basis of the physical evidence found thus far, the plane should still be flying."

With 95 percent of the plane recovered and no cause apparent, the inquiry has become an effort to determine what could

trigger the destruction of a 747, yet leave little or no evidence.

Investigators have seized on the idea of a static spark or a tiny explosive device, neither of which would necessarily have left

enough evidence to be detected. But they say even more remote scenarios remain possible -- from an undetected explosive

device in the front cargo bay, to a catastrophic failure of a beam that holds the wings together, to a sophisticated missile that

exploded but left little trace.

The investigation has become the most complex, expensive and prominent air-disaster inquiry in the nation's history, and

officials are eager to keep it from tumbling into the abyss of permanent mystery, forever haunting air travel and feeding

criminal conspiracy theories.

"What you're dealing with here is much more than an aviation accident because of the profile of the crash," said Jim Hall,

chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. "What you have at stake here is the credibility of this agency and the

credibility of the government to run an investigation."

When the plane crashed off the coast of New York's Long Island on July 17, killing all 230 people on board, few predicted that

the investigation would wind up as a monumental scientific riddle. The immediate suspicion was sabotage, based on a potent

combination of preconceptions about the durability of the 747 and the likelihood of the United States as a target for terrorists.

Criminal investigators long hoped to find the "Eureka piece," a single discovery that would explain the crash, and some still do

as scallop boats continue pulling up scarce wreckage from the ocean floor.

But in the absence of that discovery, a drama of small acts has unfolded in an old hangar along a winding, rural road in

Calverton, N.Y. There, the lack of evidence of a crime has, almost by default, increased the probability of a mechanical

malfunction.

Many of the clues are ambiguous and confusing. The pattern of injuries to the victims' bodies reveals no evidence of a bomb or

missile. Soot in the vents running from the center tank to the wing tips indicates a fire, but not the direction it traveled, or when it

happened.

Distinctive damage in one area of a fuel tank looked like the location of a bomb -- until scientists found that the damage

happened after the explosion. The severe bending of the thick metal floor under two beverage carts has led some investigators

to speculate that there was an explosion in the front of the plane, yet they have found no evidence of that.

The enduring conundrum of the investigation was crystallized in a meeting in early September when White House chief of staff

Leon Panetta asked leaders of the inquiry for their best guesses of the explosion's cause. The safety board engineers said their

hunch was a mechanical failure, while FBI officials said it was probably a bomb, according to officials who attended the meeting.

Why, Panetta asked them.

Because there is no evidence of a bomb, an engineer said.

Because there is no evidence of mechanical failure, an FBI official replied.

Since then, the investigation has evolved from a high-speed chase for evidence, culprits and justice to the measured pace of a

college seminar, with safety board engineers talking about experiments they might conduct "within the next six months."

The investigators are frustrated but say they are not stumped. They are accustomed to difficult cases, but say the stakes have

seldom been higher.

"This was an airplane that people fly on," said James K. Kallstrom, the FBI official in charge of the criminal investigation. "They

go to Thanksgiving holidays on it and Christmas holidays, and they send their kids on French club trips. There's a great need for

us to know what happened."

The crash has stretched the imagination of investigators. They examined whether the jet was attacked by a small

remote-controlled airplane, or whether its fuel was chemically altered to make it more combustible, or whether metal shards

were inserted in the tank to spark an explosion.

Investigators have veered close to certainty -- or wishful thinking -- that they had an answer, only to realize hours later that they

were wrong.

In late August, the discovery of traces of explosives in the wreckage increased the FBI's confidence that the crash was a criminal

act. Hall, the head of the safety board, suggested during a meeting in Attorney General Janet Reno's office that given their

confidence, the FBI should declare the crash a crime and take over the investigation. Two officials at the meeting said that

Hall's comment sounded like a challenge to FBI officials, who refused the offer, saying that the traces were not definitive proof.

Now, with mechanical malfunction considered more likely, the investigation is squarely in the safety board's domain. But the

board's investigators warn that they may never find the precise trigger for the Flight 800 explosion.

Even without it, they say they feel increasingly confident that they will be able to rule out the possibility of sabotage. And they

say that their recommendations Friday about ways to guard against a similar explosion are meant to fulfill their mandate to

improve aviation safety.

"If we come up and say it's one of these five things," said a top safety board engineer who, like many of those interviewed, spoke

only on condition of anonymity, "then we solved it." But that could leave the crash an open question for a public so used to

believing that technology and science can provide certainty.

Without a definite answer, a board official said, the crash "goes the way of the Kennedy assassination: it becomes one of the

great mysteries of our time."

First Hunch:

Smell of Sabotage Was Everywhere

he immediate suspicion of terrorism had as much to do with the atmosphere of the moment as with the crash itself.

On the morning before the July 17 crash, the Federal Aviation Administration convened a major meeting in Washington to

discuss security threats to aviation. In Manhattan, federal prosecutors were unspooling a terrifying plot to blow 12 U.S. airliners

out of the sky at the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the accused terrorist also charged in the World Trade Center bombing. And in

Atlanta, the Olympics were due to begin in three days, under heavy security.

When Flight 800 crashed at 8:31 that night, 11 minutes after leaving Kennedy Airport for Paris, few believed that the midair

explosion on the reliable Boeing 747, even one that was 25 years old, could have been accidental.

That perception grew stronger overnight. Witnesses reported seeing lights streaking toward the plane before the explosion.

Reports of two fireballs were the first indication that the plane broke in two, as in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over

Lockerbie, Scotland.

And at 2 a.m. the next day, top intelligence and security officials were told in a video-teleconference from the White House

situation room that radar tapes showed an object headed at the plane before it exploded. (Days later, the object was found to be

an electronic anomaly.)

"It looked quite likely," a top FBI official said of the early evidence suggesting sabotage. "We're all a creature of what we know

and what we see. We form opinions."

With the plane in a fragmented heap on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean, the belief grew that the government was dealing with

an act of terrorism.

Two days after the crash, Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, after a briefing by administration

officials, and said it "looked pretty darn conclusive" that a bomb or a missile brought down the plane.

The following week, President Clinton met with families of the crash victims in New York and then announced new safeguards to

keep explosives off planes.

And on Aug. 1, FBI Director Louis Freeh told a Senate Committee that the Olympic park bombing and the Flight 800 crash --

while saying that it was not solved -- made new anti-terrorism measures urgent. Most of the proposals were not passed.

The few initial pieces of evidence seemed to sharpen the picture of sabotage. The plane's two "black boxes" showed no hint that

there had been a mechanical problem, only a final loud sound before the power died -- just like Pan Am 103.

Then came what almost seemed like conclusive evidence -- traces of powerful plastic explosives favored by terrorists were found

in the wreckage. The traces were minuscule, but even that fit the expectations of investigators, who figured that residue would

wash off in the ocean.

"It kind of fit our mindset that these are traces," a law enforcement investigator said. "But there could have been a whole lot

more here and that we're just getting these traces because it's been in the ocean."

But the traces were not blasted into metal, and there were no signs of pitted or shattered metal, the signature of a high-energy

detonation. Chemists at the FBI laboratory in Washington and at the British Forensic Explosives Laboratory, where the traces

were also tested, agreed that they were not proof of an explosive device.

Kallstrom bristled at that interpretation, according to a senior law enforcement official in Washington. While Kallstrom did not

think the traces were definitive proof of an explosive device, he felt sure that their discovery was a step down that road.

After all, other explanations for the traces had been ruled out. Navy boats and National Guard trucks hauling wreckage to the

hangar were tested for any residue that might have got on the airplane parts and none was found. Investigators knew that the

FAA tested bomb-sniffing dogs by hiding explosives on airplanes. But they checked TWA's records, and found no indication

that the plane was used in any test.

The traces were convincing to some law enforcement agents, no matter what the scientists were saying.

At a meeting of about half a dozen FBI agents and scientists, a senior agent boasted, "So far the score is 3 to 0" -- bomb versus

mechanical failure. He was referring to the positive test results for three explosives -- PETN, RDX and nitroglycerin.

"This isn't baseball,"an FBI scientist shot back.

Second Thoughts:

Evidence Keeps Slipping Away

n the hangar, however, the wreckage was not yielding clues of terrorism. Ton after ton came in, mangled, torn and full of

holes, but none of it showed the telltale signs of blast damage. The mystery that had appeared to be shrinking was actually

growing.

Cargo bins were ruled out as a location of a bomb or the target of a missile when no blast damage was found there. The cockpit

was ruled out when the bodies of the co-pilot and flight engineer were found intact, buckled in their seats. The windows were

cracked but not shattered.

The discovery in mid-August that fumes in the nearly empty center fuel tank had exploded in flight gave FBI investigators a

focus. The FBI set up two teams of agents, one to work the bomb theory and the other to work the missile theory, and they were

assigned to show how each device could have blown up the tank.

A bomb under a seat in the middle of the plane could have easily ignited the tank. And one of the explosive traces had been

found on the floor in that area.

Again, it was promising theory until the physical evidence disproved it.

The cabin, filled with people, metal and plastic, would show the clear imprint of a blast, if one existed. But as the weeks passed,

high-energy shrapnel was not found in any of the human remains, and the pattern of burns on seats did not indicate a blast.

In late September, the sabotage theory was dealt another serious blow. The FAA informed investigators that weeks before the

crash, the plane had been used to test a bomb-sniffing dog, possibly explaining the explosive traces found after the crash.

The FAA first blamed the delay in disclosing this on the lack of centralized records, but then acknowledged that most every

plane in the United States had been used for these tests in the last couple of years.

The criminal investigators were furious. The test did not necessarily explain away all the traces, but it diminished their value and

rendered them useless in any prosecution. The best evidence of their initial hunch had essentially been lost.

With evidence slipping away, the investigators honed their hypotheses. Could it be that a saboteur planted a small device

under a seat that was designed to penetrate the floor and the top of the fuel tank, igniting the fumes, but leaving little evidence?

This seemed possible since large sections of the flooring were still missing.

But eventually, almost every piece of the fuel tank's top was found, none with high-explosive damage, cutting the chances of a

bomb in the cabin. Investigators then began focusing on other possible places, like a wheel well behind the tank through which

someone could literally "pat the back of the tank," as a safety engineer put it. But that possibility was discounted after Goodyear

technicians examined the tires, and again found no blast damage.

Some parts are still missing from an area in front of the tank, raising the possibility of a shattering blast. But the condition of two

fiberglass water containers in front of that area argues against a bomb.

"One was almost totally intact, and the other one was cracked like an egg shell" but not shattered, according to an aviation

official who has toured the hangar.

Many criminal investigators remained convinced that the bomb was the most likely scenario for the crash, even through

November. They thought that after all the false findings of bomb damage, one day a piece of wreckage was bound to be the real

thing.

"There were many, many days when I got a call that says 'I've got some interesting piece here' and it proved not to be

interesting," a senior criminal investigator said.

At briefings in Washington, officials could sense the zeal of investigators to find evidence to back the theory that they had

believed in from the beginning. "The law enforcement guys were hellbent to find it was a bomb," a White House official said

after a briefing in early October.

That mindset was reflected in numerous news reports, in The New York Times and many other newspapers, resulting in articles

about pieces of metal or other evidence that appeared to show that the plane had been destroyed by a criminal act. Many were

discounted later.

In mid-November, Kallstrom, who had exuberantly driven his troops to search for evidence of a crime, said that with 95 percent

of the plane recovered, and no evidence of a bomb or missile, sabotage appeared less likely. In addition, the FBI's worldwide

search had turned up no leads to a conspiracy to attack the plane.

But he said he wanted "to get to zero" possibility before pulling out of the investigation. The telltale blast damage from the

bombing of Pan Am 103 was the equivalent of about three square feet of metal. As much as 10 tons of Flight 800 was still missing.

The proof, Kallstrom said, "could be a tiny little thing." And there were plenty of those still missing.

Keeping Track of the Theories

The lack of evidence to explain the explosion aboard TWA Flight 800 keeps the mystery of the crash alive, even as some

Government officials say they have a leading theory: a static spark that ignited a fuel tank. Here is a discription of the

investigators' main theories and what the evidence has shown.

Wheel Well

A bomb hidden in the rear wheel well could have ignited the center fuel tank. But no debris from a blast was found in the

plane's tires

Dry Bay

A bomb could have been hidden in the empty space in front of the center fuel tank. But much of that wreckage has been

recovered, including two fiberglass water containers near there, and no signs of a blast from a bomb were evident.

Cabin

A bomb in the cabin would have left unmistakable damage including shrapnel in human remains and an area of shattered,

burned seats. But none of that damage has been found despite careful examination of all the remains and a reconstruction of

the cabin.

Cargo Bay

A bomb hidden in luggage would have left significant blast damage. But all the luggage bins were found and none of them

showed evidence of a blast. Still, both criminal and aviation investigators say they cannot rule out the possibility that a

sophisticated explosive device designed to leave little evidence exploded there.

Shape Charge

A shape-charge bomb, designed to direct its blast into the center fuel tank, would have left a small area of blast damage. But no

evidence of that has been found.

Unexploded Missile

An unarmed or unexploded missile might have struck the plane. But no evidence has been found to support that theory, though

some investigators say it remains possible that a highly sophisticated missile would leave little evidence.

Radar Guided Missile

A radar-guided missile would have hit the center of the plane's mass, most likely the center fuel tank. But investigators have

found no signs of entrance and exit holes in the tank or surrounding areas.

Heat-seeking Missile

A heat-seeking missile would most likely have hit one of the plane's four engines. But all were recovered and showed no signs of

missile damage.

Equipment Spark

One of the three pumps, attached to the center fuel tank, or the seven rods that measure the tank's fuel level, might have

malfunctioned and emitted a spark that ignited the fuel. But two of the pumps, and pieces of several rods, have been recovered

and showed no signs of malfunction. Investigators also have other evidence pointing away from a malfunction of either the

pumps or the fuel rods.

Static Electricity

A field of static electricity could have created a spark in the tank. The National Transportation Safety Board said Friday that its

leading theory is that a defect in fuel lines running through the tank could have caused a spray of fuel leading to a static spark.

But there is no evidence of that, and investigators say a spark from a static field might leave no trace.

Credit: The New York Times

December 16, 1996

Safety Board Theories Disturb TWA Crash Investigators

Related Articles

Dredging for Jet Parts Suspended Until January

U.S. Agency Says a Defect in 747s Could Ignite Jets (December 14)

By DON VAN NATTA JR.

EW YORK -- A senior investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board, who has been working in the Long Island

hangar where the wreckage from TWA Flight 800 is being reassembled, said on Sunday that he and other agency

investigators directly involved in the wreckage analysis were surprised and disturbed by the assertion of his agency's leaders

that they had identified a possible cause for the crash.

On Friday, senior safety board officials in Washington called reporters into the agency's headquarters to announce that they

had identified a fuel-system piping problem in Boeing 747's and that they considered it the leading culprit in the July 17 crash,

which killed all 230 people on board. The agency said it had not concluded that the problem actually caused the crash, but the

board issued an urgent recommendation that airlines take steps to address the problem.

The senior investigator working on the wreckage, who insisted on anonymity, said crash investigators had recovered only a few

pieces of the pipe in question, "but nothing you could draw any conclusion from."

The pipe is called the cross-feed manifold, and the safety board officials in Washington said on Friday that they believed a flaw

in the pipe might have allowed static electricity to build, resulting in a spark that could have ignited fuel vapors in the plane's

center fuel tank.

But the senior investigator, who said he was speaking for other safety board investigators in the Calverton, N.Y., hangar, said the

theory was purely hypothetical and not based on any evidence. In fact, he added, investigators have recovered so few pieces of

the pipe that they have not even added it to a reconstruction of the center fuel tank wreckage.

"Static is not something we are confident of," this investigator said.

When the safety board's leaders made their announcement on Friday, they opened a public rift with the leaders of the FBI's

parallel, criminal inquiry. That night, James Kallstrom, who heads the FBI investigation, said: "It's not prudent or professional to

comment on what might or might not be the cause of this tremendous tragedy. And I am amazed that people continue to do

that."

The remarks on Sunday suggested that a second rift had opened, between the safety board's political leaders in Washington

and the investigators at work on the case on Long Island.

On Sunday evening, Dr. Bernard Loeb, director of the safety board's Office of Aviation Safety in Washington, said: "We're not

putting emphasis on static electricity to the exclusion of anything else. We believe it could be the source of the ignition." He

added that he was not aware of the dissension about this issue within his own agency.

Loeb said the agency was still evaluating other possible sources of ignition, but was emphasizing the static electricity theory.

While he and other leaders of the safety board said on Friday that they had not concluded that the pipe problem had caused

the crash, they added that they would probably offer it as the probable cause if they could not come up with another plausible

explanation.

Kallstrom is not the only law enforcement officer to publicly challenge the safety board's analysis last week. Several other senior

law enforcement officials questioned the timing of the board's comments about the crash, saying they believed the agency was

reacting to criticism that they had moved too slowly in the five-month investigation.

An official with Boeing, who also insisted on anonymity, said she, too, believed the safety board was rushing a bit in response to

impatient inquiries about the pace of the investigation.

"I think what you're seeing is a public dissatisfaction with not knowing," she said. "That creates a tremendous amount of

pressure on regulatory agencies to take steps. Things become more and more political as the pressure increases."

In a letter on Dec. 4 to the chairman of the safety board, James Hall, Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., asked if the investigation

was proceeding "as expeditiously and as efficiently as once believed."

"The American public, but more importantly the relatives of the 230 people killed aboard Flight 800, demand to know the causes

of this most tragic of disasters," D'Amato wrote in the letter. "To delay in finding the reasons for this tragedy is not only an

affront to its victims, but an insult to all Americans."

The increasingly resentful relationship between several senior investigators working the case reflects the difficulty the

investigators are facing as they try to explain a crash that has so far defied explanation. And it shows that the federal

government may have trouble reaching a consensus on a cause -- and on steps to make sure another crash like it does not

occur.

A fundamental difference between the safety board and the FBI is that they have far different standards of evidence. The safety

board can simply determine a "probable cause" of the Flight 800 crash, even without firm evidence. But senior law enforcement

officials say that if no hard evidence is found, the safety board's probable-cause determination may not be enough for them to

rule out a bomb or missile attack.

With less than 5 percent of the shattered jumbo jet's wreckage still missing, Kallstrom insisted that criminal investigators still

could not rule out a criminal act, and probably would not until criminal investigators were certain they had recovered as much

of the missing 5 percent as possible.

In several previous crashes involving center fuel tank explosions, the safety board reached "probable cause" conclusions

without ever finding hard evidence of the ignition source.

"Electricity is a very mysterious thing, and ignition sources are very difficult to pin down," said Bill Hendricks, a former safety

board member who led the investigation of the May 1976 crash of an Iranian Air Force Boeing 747 as it approached Madrid

Copyright 1996 The New York Times Company

December 14, 1996

U.S. Agency Says a Defect in 747s Could Ignite Jets

By MATTHEW L. WALD

ASHINGTON -- The National Transportation Safety Board says it has identified a fuel-system piping problem on Boeing

747s that can ignite explosions, like the one that occurred aboard Trans World Airlines Flight 800 last July, and Friday it

issued an urgent recommendation that airlines be required to take steps to address the problem.

The safety board has not concluded that the problem necessarily caused the crash, which killed all 230 people on board, but it

has become the leading culprit in the minds of its investigators, the agency said Friday.

Boeing declined to comment Friday.

The lead Flight 800 crash investigator for the FBI quarreled with the safety board Friday evening, saying he thought there was

insufficient evidence to reach even a tentative conclusion.

The safety board has only advisory powers, and its recommendation was addressed to the Federal Aviation Administration. A

spokesman at the FAA, which can order compliance, said the agency would react promptly.

Safety board investigators said they think that a flaw in a fuel pipe that runs through the plane's center fuel tank, called a

cross-feed manifold, can allow static electricity to build up, resulting in a spark that could ignite fumes in the tank.

The board is calling for steps to flush explosive vapors out of the tank, or to hold down the temperatures in the tank, which would

reduce the chances that vapors could accumulate in explosive concentrations.

The investigators would not say what, if any, evidence they have suggesting that the sparking problem might have occurred on

Flight 800, but they say that unless they can come up with another plausible explanation, they are likely to offer this one as the

probable cause.

"It's by no means certain, but it's certainly possible," said Dr. Bernard S. Loeb, director of the Office of Aviation Safety at the

board, speaking for the agency.

The recommendation, the safety board's first public statement of what should be done as a result of the crash, demonstrates the

agency's strong confidence that the crash resulted from a mechanical malfunction, rather than a bomb or missile. Top safety

board officials were almost jubilant Friday as they asserted once again that they believed the cause of the crash was

mechanical, not criminal.

But in an interview Thursday night, James Kallstrom, the assistant director of the FBI, said he was surprised and dismayed that

the safety board was drawing even a tentative conclusion. "The law enforcement team is not ruling out a bomb or a missile at

this time," said Kallstrom, the chief criminal investigator on the crash.

"It is not prudent," he said, "nor professional, to speculate on what might or might not be the cause of this tremendous tragedy.

For the whole length of this, we have consistently not done that. And I am amazed that people continue to do that. It is not

helpful."

Kallstrom bristled at the suggestion that investigators had reached a consensus that a spark, caused by static electricity, was a

probable cause of the center fuel tank explosion.

"To my knowledge, there is no evidence that static electricity is the ignition source," he said. "And we have had no discussions

regarding anything new in that area."

The safety board's usual procedure in plane crashes is to hold hearings a few months after a crash, then to issue a report months

later. When it decides that it has information too important to wait for a final report, it issues recommendations even before it

has arrived at a formal determination of cause

At the FAA, Eliot Brenner, the chief spokesman, said his agency had not received anything formal from the safety board.

"When we do, if we do," Brenner said, "we will look at it promptly and study it very closely and take whatever action we consider

appropriate." We take their urgent recommendations very seriously and treat them with the utmost respect."

The agency enacts 90 percent of the safety board's urgent recommendations.

Among some safety board investigators, static electricity and the fuel pipe, called a cross-feed manifold, have been suspects

since a few days after the crash. But the theory has matured gradually, through extensive examination of the wreckage and tests

on 747s that are continuing.

The explosion, according to investigators, was in the center fuel tank, a space about 20 feet by 20 feet by 8 feet. It held only about

50 gallons of fuel, because a full load was not needed for the plane's intended route, from John F. Kennedy International Airport

to Paris.

After the accident, Boeing asserted that the tank would not have held explosive vapors, because jet fuel, like gasoline or heating

oil, burns as a vapor, and the fuel would have been too cold to give off vapors.

But about a month after the crash, Boeing took another 747 to the Mojave Desert in California and ran a test that simulated the

conditions of Flight 800. The temperature increased to 115 degrees, more than enough to vaporize.

Two other factors may have come together to cause the explosion, the agency said Friday.

One is that as the plane climbs, the ability of the fuel to turn from liquid to vapor increases, just as water boils more easily in the

mountains than at sea level. Second, the cross-feed manifold is not in use on takeoff, but is typically turned on after the initial

climb, at about the time the plane exploded.

The cross-feed manifold connects the 747s five main fuel tanks. It runs through the center tank like a pipe runs across a

basement ceiling.

On takeoff, each of the four engines is drawing fuel from a tank in the wing just above it; the No. 1 engine from the No. 1 tank,

the No. 2 engine from the No. 2 tank, and so forth.

But once the plane has finished its initial climb and has reached a significant altitude, standard procedure is to draw fuel from

the larger wing tanks, which are closest to the fuselage. The cross-feed manifold enables the plane's engineer to draw fuel from

any tank and feed it to any engine.

When liquid runs through a pipe, it builds up a static charge on the pipe itself. Aircraft designers ground the pipe so that the

charge flows to the wingtips and is dissipated there through antennas. But investigators say there may have been a break in the

insulation, at a coupling, allowing a difference in electrical potential to build up between the two halves of the pipe. Eventually,

this would cause a spark to leap across the gap.

Another possibility, they say, is that a rubber O-ring at the coupling may have sprung a tiny leak, and the fuel, under about 20

pounds per square inch of pressure, would have sprayed into the tank. The spray would have built up a static charge.

Rubber O-rings have been known to deteriorate and spring leaks, or dislodge the couplings around them. But the agency

offered no specific evidence to support either theory.

Some aviation experts have suspected that the age of the plane -- about a quarter-century -- is relevant to the crash. But if the

problem was an O-ring flaw, age should not be a factor, because the O-rings are supposed to be replaced regularly, safety board

experts said.

The cross-feed manifold theory has replaced the scavenge pump as a center of suspicion. The scavenge pump was of strong

interest in part because it was missing, a top investigator said. Investigators would still like to have it, but they no longer see it as

the most likely cause.

They are calling on the FAA to order changes in hardware or procedures that will cut the risk of explosive vapors developing in

mostly empty fuel tanks. One method would be to keep planes on the ground only for brief periods in hot weather so the fuel

would not heat up.

Another would be to pump cold fuel into them from underground tanks shortly before takeoff. Another would be to pump an

inert gas, like nitrogen, into the tanks if the tanks are not going to be filled for the flight.

That nitrogen would breathe out into the atmosphere as the plane climbed, because the tanks are kept vented to the exterior to

prevent pressure differences from developing. But as the plane climbs, the fuel would be cooled by stratospheric air, reducing

its ability to turn from liquid to vapor

Copyright 1996 The New York Times Company

Investigators question TWA theory

NTSB too

quick

to say spark

may have led to

blast?

MSNBC

        SMITHTOWN, N.Y. - Workers

reassembling TWA Flight 800 wreckage on

Monday accused the National Transportation

Safety Board of trying "to shut the lights off" on

the probe by suggesting the plane was brought

down by static electricity.

        "It's their one-way ticket out of here,"

said one accident investigator about the NTSB's

newest position, that the catastrophic explosion

in the center fuel tank might have resulted from a

static electricity-induced spark. It's a theory the

NTSB acknowledges it has no evidence to

support.

        Dismayed workers said they suspect the

accident agency may be preparing the public for

the possibility it might never determine exactly

what's to blame for the deaths of 230 people, but

wants to present a probable cause that would be

nearly impossible to refute.

        "It's a theory no one can prove and no

one can disprove," said the investigator, who

spoke on condition of anonymity.

        The agency took the position late last

week that while nothing is certain, one of its

leading theories was that the center fuel tank

exploded because of sparks touched off by static

occurring as fuel passed through a pipe in a fuel

tank.

        While investigators squabble over

theories, dredging for wreckage from TWA

Flight 800 was put on hold until January after

crash investigators sent four chartered scallop

boats home for the holidays.

        More than 95 percent of the 170-ton jet

has been recovered through sonar surveys, diving

and dredging. Remains of all but 15 of the

plane's victims have been recovered.

        The public statements last Friday hit

especially hard in the hangar in Calverton, where

crews have worked around the clock in search of

a cause since the Paris-bound plane exploded

about 10 miles off Long Island on July 17.

        Even agency experts studying the

electrical and fuel systems of the Boeing 747

were startled to hear what the public was being

told. Many of them heard it on the radio.

        And James Kallstrom, who is heading the

FBI investigation into the explosion, told

reporters last week that he was surprised at the

NTSB's public speculation that static electricity

was to blame for the explosion.

        Kallstrom declined to comment this week

as it became increasingly clear how strained

relations had become between NTSB authorities

in Washington and their workers on Long Island.

        Peter Goelz, an NTSB spokesman,

denied that there was a rift between officials in

Washington and accident investigators at the

hanger. He also noted that faulty wiring and a

missing fuel pump are alternative theories still

being considered.

        The NTSB's suggestion that a

mechanical problem may have been at fault was

bolstered Monday by new information about a

series of missile tests the FBI ran secretly in

California. Since the TWA wreckage has yielded

no sign of either a bomb or missile explosion,

investigators wanted to see what sort of damage

would be left if a missile passed through the

plane unexploded, for instance, puncturing the

center fuel tank.

        In the test, three times, the FBI fired an

unarmed missile down a ground-track in the

desert at metal meant to simulate the skin of the

TWA plane. Later, the pieces of metal were

taken to Long Island to be compared to the TWA

wreckage, but no signs of any similar holes were

found in the TWA plane - one more reason to

knock down talk of any missile.

        Saturday, federal investigators briefed

families of victims of the crash, a day after

urging modifications to the aircraft fuel systems

that they said could have caused the disaster.

        About 100 family members attended the

briefing by the NTSB, the FBI and the Navy,

one of a sporadic series of briefings held at the

families' request.

        Asked about the meetings, a spokesman

for the families, Jose Cremades, said "the

general feeling was that the briefing was

worthwhile, but there was not a lot of new

information."

        "The key issues that we wanted to find

answers to have not been answered. Maybe they

cannot be answered now," he said.

        Cremades said the investigators told the

families they did not know whether the 747,

made by Boeing Co., was brought down by

mechanical failure, a bomb or missile.

        While investigators are not yet certain of

the cause, the NTSB is suggesting a series of

measures, ranging from short-term precautions to

long-term design changes, to reduce the chance

of fuel-tank explosions. The Boeing Co. said the

agency's recommendations "may involve issues

with far-reaching effects for the entire aviation

industry."

        The investigators provided no firm

evidence to confirm the theory - indeed, it

appears to have emerged through a process of

eliminating other potential causes.

        Goelz, the NTSB spokesman, hedged his

comments in an interview with The Associated

Press after the first reports about the

static-electricity theory surfaced.

        "Static electricity could be a cause, as

well as a number of other things," Goelz said.

"Certainly static electricity is one of the potential

ignition sources. It [also] could be a bomb."

        Aviation expert David Stempler said he

could not recall a previous case blamed on static

electricity built up within an airplane. If the

theory is borne out, he said, "it's going to have

significant implications for airlines and

passengers."

        Since the July 17 incident, investigators

from the NTSB, the FBI, TWA, Boeing and

other organizations have followed a series of

blind leads in hopes of determining the cause of

the crash.

        Based on the evidence recovered so far,

investigators agree that the plane was blown

apart by an explosion in the nearly empty center

fuel tank. But what set off that blast?

        Investigators are focusing on a fuel line

running from a tank on the plane's right wing

through the 747's center fuel tank and on to the

engines on the plane's left wing.

        As NBC first reported two months ago,

the pilots of Flight 800 began moving fuel

through that pipe just before the explosion

because of a concern over fuel imbalance.

        The theory is that the running fuel may

have caused a static charge to build up. A broken

rubber connector may have made the buildup

worse, setting off a spark. The tank was warm

and filled with fumes, with just a small amount

of fuel sloshing in the bottom - conditions that

could have turned that spark into the fatal blast,

according to the theory.

        Late Friday, the NTSB issued urgent

recommendations designed to reduce the

likelihood of an explosion in the center fuel tank.

The agency called for airlines to:

        Pump fresh, cool jet fuel from

underground storage tanks into the center fuel

tank before takeoff, to keep the mixture of fumes

and air from becoming too volatile.

        Take care not to run hot

air-conditioning equipment excessively during

long waits at airports. The heat exchangers for

the air-conditioning system are directly under the

fuel tank and can get extremely hot. Flight 800's

air conditioners ran for three hours on the ground

before takeoff.

        It will be up to the Federal Aviation

Administration to determine whether to make the

NTSB's recommendations mandatory.

Investigators

reconstructed wreckage

from TWA Flight 800's

center fuel tank inside a

Long Island hangar.

Experts generally agree

the blast that destroyed

the jet originated in the

center tank.

        As a result of the TWA investigation,

airlines also may be asked to inspect the

fuel-pump wiring on all 747s.

        In 1979, the FAA ordered the wiring be

wrapped with tape to prevent wear on insulation

that might lead to arcing or a fuel-tank leak.

        "Inspecting these wires on this TWA

plane, they noticed that the tape was a little bit

frayed or missing or moved," a source said. But

the source was also quoted as saying the

inspection of wiring "had nothing to do with" the

Flight 800 explosion.

        "It is a simple issue," he said. "Because

of the condition of the tape on this particular

plane, they are going to look at tape on other

similar planes," if the FAA decides it's

necessary.

        NTSB investigators said the agency

would make longer-term recommendations for

design changes in the center fuel tank, including

ways to insulate the air-conditioning equipment

and ways to fill partly empty fuel tanks with

nitrogen gas. The idea of pumping inert nitrogen

into the tanks, in order to reduce the risk of an

explosion of fumes, has been suggested before

but never required.

        The Boeing Co. has received the NTSB's

recommendations, spokesman Doug Webb said

Friday evening.

        "These are recommendations only and do

not presume to determine the cause of the

accident," Webb pointed out. He also noted that

the FAA, not the NTSB, is responsible for

enforcing safety recommendations.

        "The Boeing position, where safety is

concerned, is that we should err on the side of

caution, so we will take action to support any

directives from the FAA," Webb said.

        Webb declined comment on the AP

report about frayed insulation and potential

inspections, saying that Boeing has received no

official word from the FAA on the matter.

Aug 9, 1996

Mechanical failure eyed in crash

Investigators of TWA jet explosion look more closely at possibility of massive structural problems, fuel leak

by Byron Acohido

Seattle Times aerospace reporter

More than three weeks after the crash of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island, investigators continue to search for elusive

bomb residue. But they have also begun to more strongly consider mechanical failure as a possible cause of the mid-air explosion of the

Boeing 747-100 on July 17.

Robert Francis, the National Transportation and Safety Board vice chairman leading the inquiry, has said investigators are looking into

every possible scenario for what caused the crash of Flight 800, in which all 230 on board were killed. But he has refrained from

discussing specific theories under consideration by the NTSB and FBI agents on Long Island.

Investigators hope wreckage retrieved in the next few days - including the jet's four Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines, one of which has yet

to be located - will provide the breakthrough they need to focus on a bomb or mechanical failure. In the meantime, they are

concentrating on reconstructing the center fuselage section, where the wings are joined to the aircraft's body.

The leading theories under consideration by aviation experts and independent crash investigators range from a large or precisely

placed explosive device to massive structural failure of the engines or fuselage, perhaps linked to an initial fire fed by leaking fuel. Each

theory has its strengths and weaknesses.

Based on numerous eyewitness accounts, radar data, transcripts from the jet's cockpit and flight data recorders, and preliminary

examination of about a third of the wreckage, investigators have established the following:

Flight 800 was 11 1/2 minutes out of John F. Kennedy International Airport, cruising at 13,700 feet and about to resume climbing, when its

cockpit recording ended with a brief, split-second, loud noise. Radar data indicate the aircraft flew another 24 seconds, during which the

front section may have broken away, before disintegrating in a fireball reported by several pilots flying in the vicinity and witnesses on

Long Island.

The aft portion of the fuselage, wings and tail section came to rest 10 miles off Long Island on an ocean shelf 120 feet deep. The cockpit

and forward fuselage were found 1 1/2 miles closer to the airport, while part of the forward cargo door and luggage were two miles closer

to the airport.

The two outboard engines were quickly located, largely intact, near the main wreckage field, along with one substantially damaged

inboard engine, but the other inboard engine hasn't been found.

The cockpit was located and raised last Saturday, a 1-ton ball of wire and metal entangled with a large metal beam from another section

of the aircraft. The body of the co-pilot Ralph Kevorkian, was found still strapped into his seat.

Then, on Wednesday, a 75-foot section of the right wing was raised from the main wreckage field. The engines were missing, but all eight

engine-attachment pins, called fuse pins, were in place.

The wing showed fire damage in the area nearest the fuselage. The right wingtip had been recovered floating immediately after the

crash.

The bomb theory

A week after the crash, investigators said they were 80 percent to 90 percent certain that sabotage was to blame.

Parallels have been drawn to the 1988 destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, attributed to less than a pound of

plastic explosives detonating in the forward cargo hold of the 747.

Te Pan Am jet was flying fully pressurized at 31,000 feet when the bomb went off. Pressure escaping through a breach in the fuselage

created by the blast multiplied the explosive force, and the jet broke apart in a known weak area of the structural frame called Section

41.

Fatigue cracks in Section 41 of older 747s have been a safety concern since the mid-1980s. The Federal Aviation Administration ordered

major strengthening of Section 41 frames, the flat area beneath the 747's distinctive hump, when a jet reaches 20,000 flights. Until then,

repeated inspection of the area every 3,000 flights is required.

The Pan Am jet broke into several pieces after its Section 41 frames buckled, but did not explode into flames until it hit the ground.

The TWA jet, with 16,870 flights, last had its Section 41 frames inspected after its 14,687th flight, with a typical number of cracks found

and repaired. A 747 makes an average of 700 flights per year.

Flying at 13,700 feet, the TWA jet would have been only about a third of the way to full pressurization. A very large bomb, some theorize,

would have been needed to fracture the 747's sturdy fuselage at that altitude because rapid decompression wouldn't be a factor, and

large bombs tend to leave plenty of residue. Yet fragments of the forward cargo door and a largely intact cargo container from the

forward hold showed no traces of an explosive device.

Another widely discussed theory - that an uninspected package of corneas transported in the cockpit contained the bomb - was

discounted when pilot Kevorkian, who would have been sitting very near the package, was found strapped in his seat.

Weak engine-mount theory

The 1992 crash of an El Al Israel Airlines 747 freighter jet in Amsterdam, combined with the missing TWA engine, adds intrigue to a

theory stemming from the 747's long-running problem with weak engine mounts.

Weak fuse pins caused the El Al jet's inboard right engine to break free of the wing as it was climbing out of Amsterdam's Schiphol

Airport. Instead of falling cleanly away, as Boeing designers predicted, the engine shot forward and to the right, knocking the right

outboard engine off the wing as well. The crippled El Al jet smashed into a crowded 10-story apartment complex.

A nearly identical fatal crash of a China Airlines 747 freighter had occurred near Taipei, Taiwan, 10 months earlier.

Boeing subsequently developed corrosion-resistant fuse pins and designed a special bracket to more securely hold the engine to the

wings. In 1994, the company launched a $100 million, five-year program to substantially beef up the engine mounts on the entire fleet of

1,000 jumbo jets. Special Boeing crews were assigned to travel the world to begin strengthening 747 mounts.

However, the upgrades thus far have centered on newer jumbo jets. Many older 747s built in the 1970s have yet to undergo the full

engine-mount upgrade. The TWA jet hadn't yet had its engine mounts fully upgraded, according to Francis of the NTSB.

While Boeing was redesigning the 747's engine mounts in the early 1990s, an engine fell off a jumbo jet in Anchorage and another

engine tore partially off the wing of a 747 in Tokyo. Safety experts began discussing what would happen if the left, inboard engine mounts

failed under various scenarios. Some theorized that the engine might veer to the right - into the fuselage.

If the missing TWA engine turns out to be the left inboard engine, that scenario would take on new significance, said metallurgist Arthur

McEvily, professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut, who worked as a consultant for El Al on the Amsterdam crash.

One central question awaiting an answer: Could a loose engine smash into the TWA jet's fuselage with enough force to buckle the

Section 41 frames? With the nose section bent or separated, a 747 would be thrown wildly out of balance.

It is not hard for aerodynamicists to imagine the horrific sequence of a fractured fuselage buffeting under drag forces powerful enough

to disintegrate the wing tanks and ignite the jet's fuel in a matter of seconds.

"It's certainly something someone should consider," McEvily said.

Another scenario investigators are said to be discussing is one of the inboard engines disintegrating and flinging engine parts into the

fuselage, cutting off power, buckling the nose section and igniting fuel from ruptured fuel tanks.

Leaky fuel-tank theory

Another way an explosion could occur in close proximity to Section 41 is if fuel leaked into cavities of the wing or cargo section, creating a

highly combustible vapor waiting to be ignited by a stray electrical spark.

There has been a 20-year progression of federally mandated inspections and modifications addressing leaky fuel tanks on 747s.

Coincidentally, the FAA this week proposed an order requiring airlines to check for corroded electrical connectors on fuel pumps used

on 747s.

A standing FAA directive requires operators of 190 747-100s to upgrade fasteners in a main structural member of the wing, called the

front spar, which also forms one side of the jet's fuel tanks.

Fatigue cracks can develop in the fastener holes on the front spar, creating fuel leaks near the inboard engines. In a service bulletin first

issued by Boeing in June 1991, instructing airlines how to inspect for cracks and upgrade the crack-prone fastener holes, Boeing advised:

"The fuel leakage can cause a fire."

The service bulletin was drafted after an airline discovered fuel leaking from an 18-inch fatigue crack that started in a front-spar fastener

hole just above the right inboard engine. Boeing has revised the service bulletin several times since 1991, most recently in November

1994, because airlines discovered fatigued fastener holes in a wider area of the front spar.

The fire damage found on the TWA jet's right wing section is near the area of the front spar, where cracking and fuel leaks are known to

occur.

Could leaky fuel igniting in an inboard wing cavity start a chain of events leading to the nose section buckling and wing tanks

disintegrating? If so, the initial blast would have left a distinctive signature.

"If it was a fuel explosion, you'd expect to find multiple areas of stretching and tearing," said Mike Hynes, an independent crash

investigator from Frederick, Okla. Investigators haven't said whether such tearing has been found.

Airline and federal aviation officials have said the TWA jet complied with all FAA directives, but decline to say whether that meant the

jet was on an inspection schedule or had undergone the fastener-hole upgrade.

Fatigued fastener holes on older 747 wing tanks aren't the only source of concern. In March 1995, the FAA issued a directive requiring

operators of 610 747s to install a seal on the front spar at each engine strut, the structure holding the engine to the underside of the wing.

The seal was "intended to ensure that fuel is contained within the strut drainage area and channeled away from ignition sources."

The directive was prompted by a fire on the ground; leaking fuel ignited after dripping on an engine that had just been shut down. The

FAA proposed that airlines install the strut seal within 12 months. But after airlines objected, the agency extended the deadline to 18

months.

Yet another directive issued by the FAA in July 1990 required airlines to check for improper application of a fuel barrier on the center

wing fuel tank. An improperly installed barrier could permit fuel or fuel vapors to enter adjacent cargo and passenger compartments.

The FAA granted airlines 30 months to conduct the inspection and make any necessary repairs.

Other federal documents show leaking jet fuel grabbed the attention of federal safety officials after a crash in May 1976 near Madrid,

involving a sister ship of the ill-fated TWA Flight 800 jet.

A 747-100 recently purchased from TWA by the Iranian air force exploded in a rain storm on approach to landing in Madrid, killing 13

Iranian servicemen and four Boeing employees.

The crash spurred an unusual 30-month investigation, directed by the NTSB, which normally would have had no jurisdiction over an

accident on foreign soil.

Though the crash was never officially solved, investigators compiled evidence pointing to fuel leaking into an outboard wing cavity and

subsequently being ignited by a stray spark from an electrical fuel pump. A leading theory was that a moderate lightning strike may

have set off the stray spark in the fuel pump.

A month after the Madrid crash, the FAA issued an emergency directive requiring all 747 operators to check within 20 days for fuel leaks

in the wing cavity where fire first flashed on the Iranian jet. Most found leaks. The Iranian air force at the time also owned the jet that was

to become Flight 800 20 years later. TWA repurchased the plane from Iran on Dec. 14, 1976.

So at the time of the FAA-ordered inspection, the jet that was to become Flight 800 was exempt from civilian directives. TWA will not say

whether the jet underwent the leak inspection after ownership reverted to the airline.

Three years later, in September 1979, the FAA ordered other changes aimed at improving protection against lightning strikes.

Aviation experts and industry observers say the Madrid crash confirmed that fuel leaking into empty cavities of the wing and fuselage

pose the threat of mixing with air to create a highly combustible vapor capable of being ignited by a stray electrical spark, hot engine

parts, hot parts of the landing gear or even hot wing deicing fluid.

Missile theory also remains alive

Meanwhile, according to a report in Newsday, the theory that a missile downed the jet, while still the weakest of the three theories,

remains alive because investigators have chronicled an "unusual" amount of radar use among slow-moving ships along the coast for

several days before the crash, and have interviewed credible witnesses who say they saw a fiery streak head toward the aircraft before it

plummeted in flames.

The FBI and other agencies have tried to locate all ships known to have been in the area, but have not been able to check out all of them,

a source told Newsday. In addition, agents from several government entities have interviewed the witnesses who saw the streaks,

according to the source. Pentagon officials have told investigators there are missiles capable of reaching the plane at an altitude of

13,700 feet, and of a lucky hit taking it down.

Investigators are expected to zero in on terrorism or mechanical failure as more of the wreckage is retrieved in coming weeks, but it

could be months before a probable cause is determined.

For Families, No New Answers

By Earl Lane and Matthew Cox

Staff Writers

Washington -- The day after federal safety officials made "urgent" safety recommendations stemming from their probe of the

crash of TWA Flight, families of the victims met with investigators in Washington, D.C., and emerged frustrated to learn nothing

more about the cause of the disaster.

Despite the recommendations issued yesterday about safeguarding center fuel tanks by the National Transportation Safety

Board, which investigators signaled could be connected to an eventual solution to the mystery, the family members said they

received no hint that the probe is close to an end.

"None of the families feel they are willing to accept any delay in the investigation," said Jose Cremades, head of a family

organization, after meeting for five hours yesterday with officials leading the crash probe." The problem is they have no choice."

Cremades said the probe could well go on for many more months. He said investigators, meeting with about 100 family members

from the United States and Europe, had little new concrete information -- despite putting out word the day before about a

scenario in which static electricity could have developed on a fuel transfer line running through the center tank, which

investigators know exploded in the crash.

NTSB officials have been moving privately for some time toward a conclusion that the crash had a mechanical cause, rather than

sabotage, and the board noted in its Friday report that the plane's damage is "consistent" with an explosion originating inside the

center tank.

Cremades said there was some discussion in the meeting about the new NTSB recommendations regarding fuel tank safety,

which involve changes in refueling procedures, closer monitoring of tank temperatures and longer-term design changes such as

use of inert gases to prevent combustion of tank vapors.

But he and other family members said they remain disappointed by the lack of physical evidence to prove whether a mechanical

failure brought down TWA 800 off Long Island on July 17, killing all 230 aboard. Angelo Callas of Philadelphia, who lost a son in

the accident, said there was "some anger" during the meeting because "people are expecting some answers."

NTSB officials declined to comment on the meeting with family members at the State Department building. Cremades and

others said the investigators, including the FBI, continue to say they are looking at all possible causes of ignition for the explosion

that ripped apart the TWA aircraft's center fuel tank and led to the plane's destruction.

Under particular scrutiny is the chance that a spark of static electricity from a fuel transfer line that runs through the center tank

ignited volatile fumes in the mostly empty center tank on TWA 800.

"There are lots of areas we're looking at that are potential sources of ignition . . . and static electricty is certainly one of them," said

Bernard Loeb, head of NTSB's office of aviation safety.

Specifically, he said, investigators are interested in a fuel transfer pipe that runs through the center fuel tank, and which carries

fuel between wing tanks. The metal pipe is actually a series of shorter pipes attached by couplings that include O-rings to prevent

fuel from leaking out during a transfer.

Generally speaking, the motion of fluid passing through a pipe can create a static electrical buildup on the pipe's surface. On

airplanes like the 747, engineers try to discharge such static electricity buildups by directing them to wingtip antennae.

Loeb said Flight 800 investigators are exploring whether a failure of the pipe's O-rings, or a failure of a nearby manifold that

controls fuel distribution during a transfer, could have produced enough static electricity to create an ignition source in the

center tank.

Russ Young, a spokesman for Boeing, said the NTSB's urgent recommendation Friday "does not presume to determine the

cause of the accident. The Boeing position as far as safety is concerned is to err on the side of caution, and we will take whatever

action that is necessary . . ."

Boeing, recognizing that a tank with vapors is potentially explosive, designs its aircraft to prevent any ignition sources from

reaching the tank. Fuel pump motors are located outside the tank, for example, and the amount of electricity flowing through

wires in the tank is restricted.

But the NTSB's letter to FAA notes that if the fuel-air conditions are right in the center tank, "a single ignition source exposed to

the [mixture] could cause an explosion and loss of the airplane. This situation is inconsistent with the basic tenet of transport

aircraft design -- that no single-point failure should prevent continued safe flight."

Cremades said in an interview that such language suggests that Boeing's design philosophy was flawed. Outside experts say that

other manufacturers have adopted similar design approaches and that the industry had seen no reason to doubt the adequacy of

anti-spark features on jetliners.

11 November

1992:

MCI - DURING OP-16, FOUND CRACK 1 INCH LONG IN RIB SUPPORT ANGLE, INSIDE TANK AT WS 679,

STRINGER 26, AFT OF FORWARD INBOARD CORNER OF NR 2 PYLON. REPAIRED PER ARA 6250 AND DRAWING

112U5025, SHEET 1. AIRCRAFT TOTAL TIME 80230. TOTAL CYCLES 14687.

17 November

1992:

MCI - DURING OP-16, FOUND CRACK APPROXIMATELY .5 INCH LONG IN UPPER DECK FORMER FRAME FS

500, STRINGER 8 RIGHT, AT STRINGER CUTOUT. REPAIRED PER ARA 6221. TOTAL AIRCRAFT TIME 80230. TOTAL

CYCLES 14687.

MCI - DURING OP-16, FOUND CRACK IN LEFT WING AT FRONT SPAR RIB SUPPORT BRACE, OUTBOARD SIDE

OF INBOARD STRUT SUPPORT RIB, WS 670. INSTALLED NEW ANGLE PER SRM 51-10-01. TOTAL AIRCRAFT TIME

80230. TOTAL CYCLES 14687.

MCI - DURING OP-16, FOUND TWO CRACKS, EACH APPROXIMATELY FOUR INCHES, VERTICALLY AT CABIN

STATION 300, FORMER FRAME WEB, STRINGER 24 LEFT. REPAIRED PER SRM 53-10-04, FIGURE 15. TOTAL

AIRCRAFT TIME 80230. TOTAL CYCLES 14687.

MCI - DURING OP-16, FOUND CORROSION ON STRINGER 44 LEFT, BETWEEN FS 690 AND FS 740. SPLICED IN

NEW SECTION OF STRINGER PER SRM 53-30-03 AND TWA STANDARD PRACTICES. TOTAL AIRCRAFT TIME

80230. TOTAL CYCLES 14687.

MCI - DURING OP-16, FOUND CORROSION ON STRINGER 34 LEFT, FS 940 TO FS 960. REPLACED STRINGER PER

SRM 53-10-03. TOTAL AIRCRAFT TIME 80230. TOTAL CYCLES 14687.

MCI - DURING OP-16, FOUND CORROSION ON LOWER FUSELAGE SKIN, UNDER DME ANTENNA BASE AT

STATION 690, BL-0. REPAIRED PER SRM 53-30-03. TOTAL AIRCRAFT TIME 80230. TOTAL CYCLES 14687.

11 December

1992:

MCI - DURING OP-16, FOUND CORROSION ON LEFT WING LEADING EDGE FRONT SPAR WEB, ILES 706,

ABOVE LOWER FRONT SPAR. INSTALLED REPAIR PER ARA 6413 AND DRAWING 691U0103. TOTAL CYCLES 14687.

MCI - DURING OP-16, FOUND CORROSION AT FUSELAGE SKIN LAP SEAM 46 LEFT, FS 1728. REPLACED

DOUBLER PER SRM 53-30-03, FIGURE 17. TOTAL CYCLES 14687.

MCI - DURING OP-16, FOUND CRACKED FASTENER IN UPPER AND LOWER FRONT SPAR VERTICAL FLANGE

INTO FUEL TANK, FSSI 636 TO FSSI 675. REPLACED FASTENERS PER ARA 6415 AND ARA 6226. TOTAL CYCLES 14687.

MCI - DURING OP-16, FOUND CORROSION ON STRINGER 44 RIGHT, FS 810 AND FS 896. REPLACED SECTION

OF STRINGER, STATION 810 TO STATION 910, PER SRM 53-10-03, FIGURE 1. TOTAL CYCLES 14687.

27 February

1994:

ATH - FLT 881 - DURING CRUISE, NR 1 AND NR 4 ENGINES SPOOLED DOWN. NR 1 AND NR 4 ENGINE RESTART

WAS NORMAL. CHECKED OPERATION OF FUEL VALVE, FUEL BOOST PUMPS. DRAINED ENGINE FUEL FILTERS,

BLED FUEL CONTROLS AND INSPECTED PS4 LINES, ALL CHECKED NORMAL. PERFORMED GROUND

OPERATIONAL RUNUP AND ENGINES CHECKED NORMAL. CHECK C-4B, 2-1-94, JFK.

24 May 1994:

JFK - DURING MODIFICATIONS TO THE CABIN WHILE IN HANGAR, THE LT POTABLE WATER TANK UPPER

POLAR CAP ERUPTED UPWARD, PENETRATING THE CABIN FLOOR AND PSU AREA ON CEILING AT STA 980 TO

984. REPAIRS TO DAMAGED AREA WERE MADE AND THE AIRCRAFT WAS RETURNED TO SERVICE.

INVESTIGATION INDICATES THE MOST PROBABLE CAUSE WAS THE TANK BECAME OVERPRESSURIZED DUE

TO A MALFUNCTION IN THE AIR COMPRESSOR SWITCH, MFG PN 1G216, AND THE RELIEF VALVE, MFG PN

524-6D-45, SETTING WAS ABOVE THE 50 PSIG MAXIMUM BECAUSE OF A LOOSE ADJUSTMENT LOCKING NUT. A

FLEET CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN INITIATED FOR RELIEF VALVE PRESSURE CHECKS AND REPLACEMENTS WILL BE

OF A NEW VALVE DESIGN, MFG PN RV05-361. TOTAL CYCLES 15,653.

JFK - DURING MODIFICATIONS TO THE CABIN WHILE IN HANGAR, THE LT POTABLE WATER TANK UPPER

POLAR CAP ERUPTED UPWARD, PENETRATING THE CABIN FLOOR AND PSU AREA ON CEILING AT STA 980 TO

984. REPAIRS TO DAMAGED AREA WERE MADE AND THE AIRCRAFT WAS RETURNED TO SERVICE.

INVESTIGATION INDICATES THE MOST PROBABLE CAUSE WAS THE TANK BECAME OVERPRESSURIZED DUE

TO A MALFUNCTION IN THE AIR COMPRESSOR SWITCH, MFG PN 1G216, AND THE RELIEF VALVE, MFG PN

524-6D-45, SETTING WAS ABOVE THE 50 PSIG MAXIMUM BECAUSE OF A LOOSE ADJUSTMENT LOCKING NUT. A

FLEET CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN INITIATED FOR RELIEF VALVE PRESSURE CHECKS AND REPLACEMENTS WILL BE

OF A NEW VALVE DESIGN, MFG PN RV05-361. TOTAL CYCLES 15,653.

26 July 1994:

JFK- DURING CRUISE, SMOKE AND ELECTRICAL SPARKS APPEARED FROM OVERHEAD LUGGAGE BINS AT

ROWS 35 AND 36, SEATS 8 AND 9. FLIGHT CREW DEACTIVATED FLOURESCENT CABIN LIGHTING BY TRIPPING

CIRCUIT BREAKERS. FOUND LIGHT BALLAST, MFG P/N 917-1, DEFECTIVE. REPLACED BALLAST, RESET

BREAKERS, AND OPS CHECKS NORMAL. CHECK C-1.

14 October

1994:

MCI - DURING CHECK C-02, FOUND .75 INCH CRACK IN RT INBOARD FLANGE OF REAR SPAR UPPER SPLICE

FITTING, RUNNING AFT TOWARD EDGE. REPAIRED PER SRM 57-10-303 AND SERVICE BULLETIN 747-57-2110.

TOTAL CYCLES 15,865.

June 22, 1995:

LGW - FLT 720 - DURING CRUISE, SMOKE AND ELECTRICAL ODOR EMITTED FROM OVERHEAD LIGHT NEAR

FIRST CLASS GALLEY. FOUND BROKEN LAMP BASE, MFG PN 1695, IN SOCKET. REMOVED LAMP BASE AND

INSTALLED NEW LAMP. LIGHT OPERATION CHECKED NORMAL. CHECK C-2 - 10-19-94 - MCI.

August 25,

1995:

ATH - FLT 880 - DURING CRUISE, SHUT DOWN NR 4 ENGINE, SN 4178, DUE TO LOW OIL QUANTITY. FOUND OIL

LEAK AT ANGLE GEARBOX OIL SCAVENGE LINE ADAPTER, MFG PN 625926. REPLACED OIL SCAVENGE LINE

ADAPTER. ENGINE LEAK CHECKED AND OPERATION NORMAL. ENGINE TOTAL TIME: 78,763 HOURS; 13,798

CYCLES. CHECK C-2 - 10-19-94 - MCI.

Harro Ranter

hranter@inter.NL.net

Copyright © 1996 Harro Ranter

Most recent revision Thursday 18 July 199

TWA Flight 800 disaste

General facts

Civil Aviation Safety Documentation Archive - CASDA

Date:

17 July 1996

Time:

20.40h EDT

Type:

Boeing 747-131

Registration:

N93119

Construction number:

20083/153

Operator:

Trans World Airlines - TWA

Crew occupants:

18

Pax occupants:

212

AIrCRAFT INFO:

Configuration

29 First Class / 404 Economy Class

First flight:

August 18, 1971

Delivery date:

October 27, 1971

Remarks:

Initially intended for Eastern Airlines

as N7403Q, but not taken up.

Sold to Boeing on December 15, 1975,

but sell to Iran Air Force fell through,

so bought back December 16, 1976

Service difficulties:

see this page

ENGINE INFO:

Engine type:

Pratt&Whitney JT9D-7A

No.1 engine:

47.956 hours

9.680 cycles

installed: 31 Dec. 1995

No.2 engine:

80.851 hours

14.605 cycles

installed: 6 Dec. 1995

No.3 engine:

80.303 hours

14.628 cycles

installed: 18 June 1996

No.4 engine:

77.028 hours

14.012 cycles

installed: 11 May 1996

Harro Ranter

hranter@inter.NL.net

Copyright © 1996 Harro Ranter

Most recent revision Saturday 27 July 1996

97% FBI Perseveres in Flight 800 Search (New York Times; free

registration)

Summary: Some criminal investigators still theorize that a small,

sophisticated bomb or missile struck the jet first, just forward of

the tank, decapitating the forward part of the plane and causing

the tank to explode several seconds later. Investigators also point

out that autopsies show no burns on passengers assigned to sit in

the seats directly above the center fuel tank, which they say is an

DNA Testing Planned for TWA Remains

Probers Seek to Identify 100 Skeletal Fragments

Associated Press

Sunday, December 22 1996; Page A25

The Washington Post

NEW YORK -- Unidentified remains of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 victims will undergo DNA testing in an

effort to match them with the 15 people still unaccounted for after the jetliner's fiery crash.

A formal request was sent Friday to the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Md., said Jack

Ballantyne, Suffolk County supervisor of forensic services.

A spokesman for the lab, Chris Kelly, said it will be up to the Defense Department to formally approve the tests and

make funding arrangements. But Kelly said the lab has been "sort of on standby" in the case.

Medical examiner Charles Wetli had angered families of the victims by refusing to agree to conduct nuclear DNA

tests, which cost about $600 each. Wetli did not return phone calls seeking comment on the policy change.

All 230 people aboard were killed when the Paris-bound 747 jumbo jet exploded in midair off Long Island's south

shore in July. Of those, 215 were recovered and identified by fingerprints, dental records and other standard means.

DNA was used to determine six identities and to verify two others.

More than 100 skeletal fragments gleaned from underwater crash sites remain unidentified.

Richard Bergman of Los Angeles, a friend of missing victim Eugene Silverman and three other family members,

called the decision "a very important step toward proving they are doing everything possible" in the case.

The military lab uses sophisticated DNA technology to identify victims of U.S. military incidents and human

remains from past wars.

Its reputation has been built partly on high-profile outside work, like identifying victims of the 1994 Branch

Davidian compound fire near Waco, Tex., and confirming that bones found in Siberia belonged to deposed

Russian Czar Nicholas II.

The tests can produce results in 24 hours to 48 hours, depending on the condition of remains and other factors. In

the tests, a tiny strand of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is extracted from tissue, bone or blood.

Technicians then develop the strand's unique genetic profile and compare that with known-identity samples to find

a match.

The Flight 800 crash is the first commercial air disaster in which DNA samples were obtained for every victim,

Ballantyne said. Samples from the victims and fragmented remains will be sent to the lab.

Investigators have been unable to determine what sparked the catastrophic explosion inside the plane's center fuel

tank, but leading theories include static electricity, faulty wiring or a spark from the tank's fuel pump.

© Copyright 1996 The Associated Press

96% Testing a Theory of Elusive Sparks With Little Trace (New

York Times; free registration)

Summary: No evidence of blast damage from a bomb or missile

has been found, nor have any signs of a malfunction of fuel

pumps or fuel-measuring probes that operate within the center

fuel tank. Safety board engineers have speculated that a static

charge could have developed within the tank as a result of fuel

spraying from a leak in the line that runs through the tank.

97% FBI Perseveres in Flight 800 Search (New York Times; free

registration)

Summary: But in an interview last week, he said criminal

investigators would not walk away simply because some people

believe a criminal act did not destroy the jet. Now, the central

issue among investigators in the hangar at Calverton, N.Y., is

determining what came first -- the explosion in the center fuel

tank or some other event, such as a bomb blast or a missile hit.

First found: 23 Dec 1996, 11:38 PST

TWA plots new course

Airline plans to cut jobs, stop

using Boeing 747s

From Correspondent Rhonda Schaffle

Choices

ahead for

TWA - Oct.

25, 1996

TWA chief

resigns -

Oct. 24, 1996

Trans

World

Airlines

NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Trans World

Airlines Inc. announced plans Monday

to cut costs by grounding its Boeing

747 fleet and ordering unspecified

layoffs at the carrier's New York hub.

TWA, the nation's seventh largest

airline, said it expected the moves to

save nearly $400 million a year.

TWA is the only major U.S. airline

that still uses giant Boeing 747s --

which seat more than 400 people -- on

transatlantic routes.

On Monday, the carrier described

the 747 and other wide-body jets as too

big to fill and too costly to operate.

TWA plans to now use smaller,

more efficient Boeing 757s and 767s for

transatlantic flights.

"We're past the point in the

transatlantic market where you can

profitably fly 430-seat aircraft," TWA

Vice President Mark Abels said.

"What you need is smaller aircraft,

with passengers who are willing to pay

more for the convenience of flying

from (New York's John F. Kennedy

International Airport) because they

happen to live (nearby)," he said.

Monday's announcement came five

months after TWA Flight 800, a 747

bound for Paris from JFK airport,

crashed shortly after takeoff.

However, TWA insists the crash had

nothing to do with Monday's decision

-- even though bookings lost in the

crash's aftermath contributed to the

carrier's $14 million third-quarter loss.

As for TWA's planned New York

cutbacks, the airline's JFK operations

reportedly lost $131 million in the past

year -- wiping out profits made at the

carrier's St. Louis hub.

A year ago, TWA had been

expanding its JFK presence. But now,

the airline plans to run international

flights out of St. Louis.

Analyst Glenn Engel of Goldman

Sachs said the move makes sense.

December 24, 1996

Lawyers Also Investigate TWA Crash

Related Article

TWA Plans Big Cutbacks at New York's Kennedy Airport

By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and BARRY MEIER

ederal investigators are not the only ones hunting for the cause of the crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800.

At a desolate airplane graveyard in California's Mojave Desert, Peter Jorgenson, a private investigator for a Manhattan

lawyer, Lee S. Kreindler, has spent days crawling around the belly of a Boeing 747. His mission is to find clues that will

strengthen the 20 lawsuits that Kreindler has filed against TWA and Boeing on behalf of the families of some of the 230

passengers killed in the Flight 800 disaster.

Government officials have not determined whether a bomb, missile or mechanical failure caused Flight 800 to explode on

July 17 off the Long Island coastline. But the legal scramble to assign blame and assess liability for the crash began in

October and has gained momentum in recent weeks.

Already, plaintiffs' lawyers have filed 23 multimillion-dollar lawsuits against Boeing and TWA, the most recent one last

week, and more are expected soon. In all, the lawsuits seek compensatory and punitive damages of more than $1 billion.

But in the process, plaintiffs' lawyers are finding themselves at odds with one another over whether they should wait to file

such claims until government investigators determine the accident's likely cause. At least one suit has also been filed

against a California company cleared by federal officials of any involvement in the disaster. And the victims' families are

also finding themselves in a legal and financial quandary.

"I didn't see there was any real need to file against Boeing and TWA until we had a definite cause," said Aurelie Becker of

St. Petersburg, Fla., whose daughter died in the crash. "To me, it is just better to wait."

It is not unusual for plaintiffs' lawyers to sue airlines or manufacturers implicated in a crash long before government

investigators reach their conclusion. While the National Transportation Safety Board requires a high level of certainty in

determining an accident's likely cause, a civil court can hold a defendant liable based on a lesser standard, the

preponderance of evidence.

"There are lots of accidents that go to trial where we don't know the precise cause," said Robert Alpert, chief executive of

International Claims & Insurance Management, a company in Chapel Hill, N.C., that handles claims arising from

airplane cases.

Still, the mysteries surrounding the cause of the crash of Flight 800 have clouded the legal picture. Most of the lawsuits

filed by Kreindler and others have said that a fuel pump in a near-empty center fuel tank malfunctioned and sparked,

igniting the volatile fuel vapors that caused the plane to explode.

This is one of the theories of investigators, but last week they said that a more likely possibility was a spark induced by

static electricity on a fuel pipe in the center tank.

At the same time, however, Kreindler and other lawyers have hedged their theory with the alternative claim in the same

lawsuits that the explosion aboard the plane was caused by a bomb.

Frank Granito III, a plaintiffs' lawyer in New York who has also sued TWA and Boeing on behalf of Flight 800 victims, said

that he, for one, found the dual-track strategy mystifying. "You have got to settle on a theory to present to a jury with slight

variations on how the ignition occurred," Granito said.

Not surprisingly, officials at TWA and Boeing have expressed skepticism that lawyers and their investigators can

determine the cause of an accident that has eluded hundreds of government investigators, who are still at a loss to find an

ignition source despite poring over the wreckage for five months.

"I just find it very, very curious that we get these detailed legal papers, stating precisely what caused the destruction of

Flight 800, from people who concede that their knowledge of this comes from reading the newspapers," said Mark Abels, a

spokesman for TWA

Doug Webb, a Boeing spokesman, said, "It is unfortunate that lawsuits have been filed before the completion of the

investigation." In a letter sent late last week to its customers, Boeing defended its safety record and said no evidence

existed for any of the malfunction theories.

Kreindler and other plaintiffs' lawyers say they have an obligation to begin their own independent investigations. Also,

under federal law, safety board reports on a crash's likely cause are not admissible in court. That law is intended to shield

the agency from being drawn into litigation so that it can fulfill its mission of understanding the cause of a crash to

prevent future ones.

The agency, which has investigated thousands of airplane crashes, has failed on four occasions to identify an accident's

probable cause, a distinct possibility in the Flight 800 case. But even in such cases, claims and lawsuits against airlines,

aircraft manufacturers and others with a connection to an aviation disaster have been filed and, like the majority of

aviation lawsuits, settled out of court.

For example, safety board officials are uncertain about the cause of a 1991 United Airlines crash near Colorado Springs,

Colo., that killed all 25 people aboard. Most claims filed by victims' families have been settled, insurance industry officials

said.

In one case, the scramble to file claims arising out of the Flight 800 disaster has focused on some curious targets. Donald

J. Nolan, a Chicago lawyer, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a passenger's family against TWA, Boeing and Hydro-Aire, a

Burbank, Calif., manufacturer of the fuel pumps on the shattered jumbo jet.

Nolan's lawsuit is the only one to single out Hydro-Aire, a division of the Crane Company, arguing that one of their fuel

pumps "in an unreasonably dangerous condition" triggered the center fuel tank explosion.

"We are advised by our experts that there has been a long history of problems with their fuel pumps," Nolan said. "Our

experts say that it is a likely cause of ignition."

However, Hydro-Aire's pumps on the TWA jet, which were recovered from the ocean in August, passed a battery of tests

at the Marshall Space Center in Huntsville, Ala. At the time, safety board officials said they had ruled out those pumps as

possible ignition sources.

Executives at Hydro-Aire said they were surprised to be named as a defendant in Nolan's lawsuit. "It was sort of like, well,

why not just throw them in there, sort of like the kitchen sink," said Raymond Boushie, president of Hydro-Aire.

A trial of the Flight 800 lawsuits is probably two years away. And if they go to trial, the most likely forum will be a federal

courtroom in Uniondale, N.Y., where most of the suits have been filed. There, depending on which law is applied to the

case, a panel of jurors could be presented with sorting out one of the nation's most complex aviation disasters.

Thus far, little progress has been made in resolving any Flight 800 lawsuits out of court.

The victims' families disagree on the best legal strategy. Some families want to begin the process independently of the

federal inquiries. Earlier last week, several French families with financial hardships as a result of the crash asked that

TWA reimburse them.

"Our response was we would be happy to look at the request with an eye toward making hardship payments against an

eventual settlement," Abels said. "But no decision has been made yet."

Others, like Mrs. Becker, wonder why lawyers and investigators without access to the evidence could be so sure about the

cause. "It just seems to me that they are jumping the gun," she said.

Mitch F. Baumeister, a Manhattan aviation lawyer who represents about a dozen victims' families, said that he would

probably wait to file lawsuits until after government investigators determined a likely cause.

But for lawyers who have already filed claims, the specifics of how the fuel tank detonated may be less important than the

fact that the airplane exploded.

"While the search for the detonator continues, the essence of these lawsuits is to ask why this tank was a bomb," Nolan

said.

December 25, 1996

French Investigator Backs Mechanical Explanation for TWA Crash

By CRAIG R. WHITNEY

ARIS -- The director of the French government agency that investigates air disasters has said he agrees with American

safety investigators that a mechanical problem probably led to the explosion of TWA Flight 800.

"It's not my investigation, and I'm not passing judgment on it," the director, Paul-Louis Arslanian, said the other day. "But if I

were in charge of the investigation, based on the evidence so far, I don't think I'd be coming to a different conclusion than

the one they appear to be drawing."

Arslanian does not hesitate to take issue with the National Transportation Safety Board in Washington when he thinks it is

wrong.

He did so just last summer, when the French agency took vigorous exception to an NTSB report attributing the 1994 crash of

an American Eagle turboprop plane to inadequate information from the plane's French manufacturer and French aviation

authorities about the difficulty of flying the plane in heavy icing conditions. Those conditions existed on the day of the crash

in Indiana, which took the lives of all 68 people aboard.

"We were in complete disagreement on that case, and we did not hesitate to say so," Arslanian said, recalling that the

French agency, the Bureau Enquetes-Accidents had criticized the American pilots and air traffic controllers for ignoring

advice that was available on handling the French-made plane, an ATR-72, in icing conditions.

But in the case of flight 800, the Boeing 747 that blew up off Long Island on July 17, killing all 230 people aboard -- including

42 French passengers -- Arslanian said he concurs with NTSB.

He and his investigators have worked with the American investigators since July, trying to learn the cause of the disaster.

Based on their examination of the evidence and his own observations, Arslanian said that without some piece of the plane

proving otherwise, it was probably a mechanical problem that led to the explosion of the plane.

In France, where the powerful American commercial aircraft industry is seen as a ruthless rival, a conclusion of mechanical

failure would be seen as a blow to Boeing Co., which built the plane.

Would Arslanian be as confident of the integrity of the American investigation if the Flight 800 plane had been an Airbus

manufactured in Toulouse instead of a Boeing made in the U.S.A.?

"Accident investigations have nothing to do with national pride," he said. "The sole objective of air accident investigators

around the world is improving safety. That doesn't mean we can't disagree at times about the safety lessons that should be

drawn, as we did in the case of the American Eagle plane."

Arslanian met last month with representatives of the families of French victims of the Flight 800 crash and told them that

mechanical failure appeared to be the most likely cause of the disaster. At the time, some of the French families were

inclined to believe reports that an American Navy missile had accidentally brought down the plane and that American

officials were covering up the incident.

"That wouldn't be possible," Arslanian said. "Think of how many hundreds of Navy people would have to be involved in a

coverup. Americans talk too much for that."

Like his American counterparts, Arslanian noted that the investigators would keep looking for pieces of the plane, hoping to

find one that finally unlocked the mystery. But, he concluded, "I think that for all practical purposes, the investigation is

over."

With about 95 percent of the plane recovered from the ocean floor and the pieces reassembled in a hangar on Long Island,

NTSB and FBI officials have not formally ruled out a bomb or missile.

But officials of the safety board let it be known that they were leaning toward the theory that the plane was destroyed by an

explosion of a nearly empty center fuel tank after fumes were ignited by a spark of static electricity from a fuel line. They

recommended to the Federal Aviation Administration ways to prevent such an explosion in the future.

Its French equivalent will wait until the FAA has ruled, Arslanian said.

A French investigating magistrate, Judge Chantal Perdrix, heads an independent French judicial inquiry into the Flight 800

accident. Perdrix has not made any public statements about the state of her investigation, but Arslanian said: "We are, of

course, in communication, but our objectives are not the same. A criminal justice investigation looks primarily at who was

responsible for the accident, while we look at what happened and what can be done differently to make sure it doesn't

happen again."

TWA 800 investigtor lost wife on

flight

FBI agent

pulled strings

to join the

investigation

ASSOCIATED PRESS

        SMITHTOWN, N.Y. - In a hangar

filled with the wreckage of TWA Flight 800, a

mangled seat immediately caught the attention of

FBI Special Agent Charles Christopher.

        He had found what he was looking for:

the seat where his wife, Janet Christopher, a

flight attendant, had last rested.

        "I've flown with her enough to know

exactly where she was sitting. I know the galley

that she had the coffee pot on. I know the door

that she was sitting next to," Christopher said.

Flight 800: Tragedy in

the sky

        For Christopher, a Navy and Vietnam

veteran who has shadowed mob figures, arrested

terrorists in the World Trade Center bombing and

disguised himself to infiltrate criminal

enterprises, this has become the most important

investigation of his life.

        The day after his wife's funeral,

Christopher called James Kallstrom, a Marine

Vietnam veteran and friend of 25 years who is

heading the FBI's investigation of the disaster,

and asked to join the probe.

        "I wanted him to be part of it," said

Kallstrom, who in 1983 was a member of his

friends' wedding party. "Nobody wants to know

the answer to this tragedy more than he does."

        No one touched by the tragedy has quite

the vantage point that Christopher, 55, shares

with his 12-year-old son, Charles IV, as they try

to make sense of a case that has stymied

investigators for more than five months.

        "She would want me to do what I am

doing. Keep going. Don't give up," Christopher

said in one of a series of interviews with The

Associated Press.

        He does not share the frustration of some

of the families of the other 229 victims, who

believe more could be done to determine whether

a bomb, missile or mechanical malfunction made

the Paris-bound plane explode on July 17. All

230 people aboard were killed.

        "I learned a long time ago if you want to

find the answers you have to be patient. The FBI

is dedicated to finding the end to this thing," he

said.

        Kallstrom recalled that August day in the

hangar that Christopher paused for a long

moment, hunched over with tears in his eyes,

staring at the chair where his wife had last sat.

        "He wanted to stand by that seat. He

wanted to touch it. He wanted to look at it,"

Kallstrom said. "It was a very tough, tough

moment."

        A mutual friend brought the Christophers

together in 1972, when he agreed to drive some

furniture in his new pickup truck to Janet

Christopher's apartment. She already was a

TWA flight attendant, a goal she had set for

herself at age 8.

        Janet so loved to fly that Christopher

waited 10 years to marry her, until he could

accept the fact she would never give up her

international flights. They finally wed on Jan. 8,

1983, in Milford, Conn.

'I had to let

her fly if I

was going

to keep this

woman in

my life.'

- CHARLES

CHRISTOPHER

        "I had to let her fly if I was going to keep

this woman in my life," Christopher said.

        One of five daughters of a General

Electric engineer, Janet Christopher was the

efficient engine of the family, leaving meals in

marked containers for her husband and son to eat

during the two days a week when she was

working.

        Christopher said his wife was "the energy

that made this family work."

        "She paid all the bills. Not a day goes by

that Charles and I don't give a hug and take a

moment to talk about mom," he said.

        Janet Christopher, 47, was on the

doomed flight because she had switched

assignments to be home with her family for the

weekend.

        Christopher and his son had just settled in

their living room to watch television when a

news bulletin announced that the plane had gone

down over the Atlantic Ocean.

        "It's mom! It's mom! It's mom!" the son

screamed. Christopher calmed him down, then

immediately called Kallstrom.

        "He's like a brother. We've looked out

for each other a long time," Christopher said.

        At the funeral, Kallstrom delivered a

eulogy and presented Christopher with a wet,

sandy American flag that divers had found the

day before intact on the ocean floor amid

shattered debris.

        On Christmas Day, Christopher and his

son rose, ate breakfast in the kitchen and opened

presents, just as their family had always done.

        "The stockings were on the mantle like

always," Christopher said. "Janet's was hanging

there too. We both really missed her terribly."

        Now, father and son have learned to lean

on each other, a process that began just before

the funeral when Christopher got out of a car in

front of the church.

        "I was looking around, kind of dazed,"

he recalled. "I was looking from one side to the

next, taking a deep breath, and my son reached

over and took me by the hand and said, 'C'mon

dad,'

Conclusion Rests on Judgment of Five

By Matthew Cox

Staff Writer

UNLESS INVESTIGATORS find evidence of a crime, something they haven't done in 23 weeks, five people will decide what caused

TWA Flight 800 to explode.

They are the political appointees who make up the National Transportation Safety Board. And by the time they vote on a probable

cause, they will have a document that is the product of dozens of agency staff members at the scene and in Washington.

``They are the only ones who actually determine the probable cause,'' said safety-board spokesman Peter Goelz, even though most of

them haven't been directly involved in the investigation.

Flight 800's nearly empty center fuel tank exploded from within, and safety-board investigators are examining several possible

ignition sources. One theory is that static electricity generated by the motion of fuel passing through a pipe running through the top

of the tank created a spark. While acknowledging that NTSB staff is considering that theory, Bernard Loeb, the board's director of

aviation safety, said investigators lack proof to support that or any explanation.

``The static-electricity theory is one of about five possible things we're looking at,'' Goelz said.

Plane crashes that yield few physical clues are more likely than others to generate debate over probable cause among NTSB staff

and board members, current and former board staff said. Disagreements among NTSB staff usually are resolved by consensus, said

Rudy Kapustin, who investigated more than 45 major accidents before retiring from the safety board 10 years ago. A senior staff

person, such as Loeb, who has been a strong advocate of a mechanical cause of the crash, can resolve the dispute by imposing a

decision, but that rarely happens, he said.

``You can pull rank, you can say, `Hey, I'm changing this, and if you don't like it, tough,' but you can't expect to go before the board

and get agreement if there's open disagreement,'' Kapustin said. ``You've got to resolve it, come up with a compromise.''

Vern Taylor, a retired NTSB investigator from Franklin Square, said differences of opinion typically are resolved during sessions at

which investigators evaluate the evidence. ``There are numerous meetings to hammer out the different subjects and areas, until they

arrive at a point where they feel they have enough evidence to support a cause,'' Taylor said.

An accident report typically is written by the safety board's investigator in charge, in this case Garden City native Al Dickinson. It is

based on the notes and reports of many in the inquiry. The investigator in charge recommends whether the board should hold a

public hearing. If one is held, a draft report is circulated within the agency afterward for revisions before a ``notation draft'' is shown

to board members.

Board members may make notes on this draft, go to staff with questions and comments, and order changes. Then they adopt a final

report at a public meeting. They are the only people with the power to assign a probable cause. Excluding Flight 800, there are five

commercial-plane crashes for which the NTSB has failed to designate a cause.

Although completing a major crash investigation and assigning a probable cause typically takes nine months to a year or more, the

TWA crash is likely to take longer. In a Dec. 6 letter to Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, NTSB Chairman James Hall said the Flight 800

T W A F L I G H T 8 0 0:

A P I L O T' S R E P O R T

by Ian Williams Goddard

What happened on the night of July 17 when TWA 800

exploded in midair? Sven Faret, pilot of a private

plane, along with passenger Ken Wendell, were both

flying in the area and, with an eagle's-eye view,

were on top of it all. Sven spoke on FOX News and

CNN the night of the crash. So what did they see?

According to Sven's written report [1], Sven and

Ken were flying at 8,500 feet over Riverhead, LI,

NY at about 8:40 pm, on July 17, 1996 when, accord-

ing to the report, "Ken pointed out traffic at 3

o'clock low (actually 2:30). Sven saw a white light

steady in the sky." That light, was TWA flight 800.

Then the report states that a "short 'pin flash of

light' appeared on the ground (perhaps water)." When

I asked Sven if this flash rose upwards vertically

from the surface, he confirmed that it did. He also

told me it was "like a rocket launch at a fireworks

display," and that its point of origin was "near

the shoreline or in the water."

"Very shortly" after they saw this "rocket launch"

below TWA 800, their report states that:

...the white light [TWA 800] exploded

instantaneously into a huge red-orange

ball. My initial thoughts were "who's

shooting fireworks tonight." The magni-

tude of the fire ball, and altitude,

quickly...ruled that out.

Notice the harmony of Sven and Ken's observation

with that of these ground-level eyewitness ac-

counts, ABC World News Sunday (07/21/96):

We saw what appeared to be a flare

going straight up. As a matter of

fact, we thought it was from a boat.

It was a bright reddish-orange color.

...once it went into flames, I knew

that wasn't a flare.

The New York Daily News (11/09/96):

It looked like a big skyrocket go-

ing up, and it kept going up and

up, and the next thing I knew

there was an orange ball of fire.

Roland Penney and his family, who were in a boat

at the time, reported (Newsday, 9/1/96) that they

saw "a pencil-thin white trail rising up...that

hit that plane."

Now back to Sven's report. Moments after TWA 800

exploded, Sven states in the report:

I asked Ken "What was that!?...

It's probably the National Guard

boys losing a C130 or something...

Maybe they shot down one of their

own planes."

It looked like the military shot-down the plane!

When asked if the military conducts such activity

in the area, Sven replied: "On a regular basis."

That military activity is frequent in the area is

also evident in the account given by S. Beach resi-

dent John Bauman (The Independent, 07/24/96), who

said "people continued fishing" after the blast

thinking it was probably "the Westhampton Air

Force Base doing some kind of testing offshore."

CONCLUSION

With over 150 eyewitnesses who saw a "streak of

light" and a "skyrocket" shoot up and hit TWA 800

initiating its annihilation, and with these wit-

nesses on land, in the Great South Bay, out at sea

and even up in the air, all giving virtually ident-

ical accounts, to say that this is an overwhelming

case for a missile hit is an major understatement.

How many criminal cases can you recall with uniform

testimony from over 150 witnesses? It's a prosecu-

tor's wildest dream come true. But in the la-la-land

of TWA 800, anyone who considers this testimony as

proof of a missile strike is portrayed as a mentally

unbalanced idiot by the GovtMedia and are, on the

Internet, assaulted with vicious ad hominem attacks

and threats of physical violence. How strange.

For some, no amount of evidence will shatter their

unfaltering faith in the FBI-NAVY-NTSB cover-up;

and with all the physical evidence -- debris, radar

and satellite records -- locked away, off-limits to

public viewing, it's a cover-up by definition.

And speaking of a cover-up, why are we not hearing

all of pilot Sven Faret and Ken Wendell's eyewit-

ness testimony in the media? It's painfully clear

that the major media is now following the lead of

the government in suppressing all evidence of a

missile strike, hence the term "GovtMedia" [2].

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 21:19:25 +0200

Reply-To: Flight 800 discussion list <FLIGHT-800@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>

Sender: Flight 800 discussion list <FLIGHT-800@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM>

From: Thomas Shoemaker <rosedale@IOS.COM>

Subject: eyewitness report

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Below is the eyewitness account e-mailed to me by Sven Faret.

BEGINQUOTE:

Witnessing the downing of Flight 800 by Sven Faret and Ken Wendell

These events outlined below are actual and accurate. No part should be

discounted in any way.They are presented without personal opinion and

exactly as viewed by us from our perspective.Our intent is to offer as

much factual detail as possible in order to aid in this investigation.

Situation:

Pilot: Sven Faret

Passenger: Ken Wendell

8500 feet over Riverhead LI, NY.

Apx 20:40 hrs, July 17, 1996

N1182J climbing at 95 knots (AC-12 privately Owned)

090 heading

Visibility 8 miles in haze below. Top of haze 6500 feet

Visibility 50+ miles above haze setting sun lighting up clouds to the

north, above the haze

Ground very dark,, ground surface lights outlining Long Island

Ocean waters very black

Prior contact with Long Island departure control on 118.00

Frequency change approved, squawking 1200

Monitoring 118.00, listening to local traffic

Observation:

Being cautious of traffic in a dark sky, we had all marker lights,

strobes, and sky flasher operating on our aircraft. Ken pointed out

traffic at 3 o'clock low (actually 2:30). Sven saw a white light steady

in the sky. My first impression was landing lights pointed towards us

putting it in a northerly direction. Ken saw two lights very close

together. A short "pin flash of light" appeared on the ground (perhaps

water). Very shortly thereafter the white light exploded instantaneously

into a huge red-orange ball. My initial response was, "Who's shooting

fireworks tonight?". The magnitude of the fire ball, and altitude,

quickly (less than a second) ruled that out. Immediately thereafter a

large fire ball emerged from the bottom of the initial fireball,

accelerating straight down, as if it had just started to fall. Like a

teardrop it drew with it a tail of fire down to the water surface. We

watched intently as the descending fire fell closer to the water. Sven

was awaiting the fire to illuminate the water surface as it fell. At the

same moment a pilot reported it to the controller on 118.00. A second

pilot responded and then we reported it. We saw it hit the water,

lighting up the surrounding surface very well. Large splashes could be

seen around the fire. The fire on the surface was relatively small, but

was spreading quickly. I asked Ken, "What was that!? Its probably the

National Guard boys losing a C 130 or something...Maybe they shot down

one of their own planes."

We proceeded to fly over to the smoke cloud. As we crossed the shore

line I looked down and saw 3 boats en route to the fire, about 25% of

the way. I estimated the flames to be 6-7 miles off shore. We watched

intently seeing a flashing light at the SE edge of the flames, but it

soon stopped. We observed a steady blinking light drifting SW away from

the scene. Ken said it appeared to be a helicopter just west of the

flames. Sven thought it could have been a marker beacon on a life raft.

This was about 5+ minutes after the explosion. We approached the

black-gray smoke cloud on the west side. We were at 7700 feet and were

at the top edge of the cloud. The cloud center was at 7500 feet. There

were two small bumps upon it. There was no smoke or smoke trails above

it. it was still lit up a little by the sun, clear above. There was a

tornado like tail leaving the bottom of it leading down to the flames.

It had a small arc in it as the winds gently moved the cloud NNW. I said

to Ken, "I have an eery feeling about this place, what ever stung this

thing could sting us too. Let's bolt out-a-here." We swung north. As we

were turning, we saw twin engine commuter traffic above us at 8000+

traveling NW. We called Flight service on 122.6 and reported what we

saw. We flew back to Riverhead and east. Over Mattituck Airport we

decided that the event had to be enough of a finale for the evening. We

called approach on 132.25 for clearance back to Islip. We also told that

controller what we saw.

Immediate Personal Impressions:

No thoughts of commercial air traffic accident.

Some aircraft with a lot of fuel.

A missile attack seems improbable, but not impossible.

The quickness of the eruption.

A white light exploding into a fireball. Very vertical accelerating

descent of debris.

The length of the flame tail extending from the descending debris.

Clear sky above the gray smoke cloud.

Dark thin drifting smoke trail down to the debris on the surface.

Post Flight Actions:

We returned back to the hanger and called our wives. We let them know

that we were O.K., in case they might have heard of any air accident

reports. When we got to Ken's house, we heard that a 747 went down. We

called fox News and told them what we saw.

Post Media Personal Impressions:

We were interviewed by the FBI and NTSB. They took our report, but we

felt they did not capture the detail we expressed, or the certainty of

our facts.

Comments:

Although Sven and Ken are in no position to conclude anything, this

piece of the puzzle MUST fit into any official version of the incident.

Notes:

Only burning debris was visible to us.

Kin to Get Autopsy Files In TWA Crash

By Lauren Terrazzano

Staff Writer

THE SUFFOLK COUNTY medical examiner's office will release autopsy reports within the next few weeks to the families of

TWA Flight 800 victims, responding to recommendations made by state and federal authorities and mounting pressure from

relatives.

"We were waiting to see where the investigation was going to lead," Suffolk County Medical Examiner Charles Wetli said

yesterday.

Since the July 17 crash, the reports have been sought by many of the families seeking answers about how their relatives died and

clinical details that may be useful in wrongful-death lawsuits.

The announcement came shortly after the state attorney general's office, in a written opinion dated Tuesday, urged the medical

examiner's office to comply with local law, which states that the victim's estates are entitled to copies of the reports. Wetli said

the FBI was consulted also because the crash might still be declared a criminal act, making the reports part of a homicide

investigation and therefore still classified.

But on Dec. 23, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is investigating the crash, wrote to Wetli, saying the reports should be

released to families who wanted them, according to FBI spokesman Jim Margolin.

Aurelie Becker, who lost her daughter, Michele, on the flight, said families wanted the reports to know the conditions of the

bodies and to perhaps determine whether the victims were conscious in the terrifying moments before the plane plunged into

the water, killing 230.

"The families have a right to know the results . . . While it would be excruciatingly painful to read, at some point in time, I would

want to know it," Becker said.

The medical examiner's office said about one third of the families have asked for the reports, which contain information about

the conditions of the bodies. A spokesman for the attorney representing relatives of 45-year-old Susan Hill, who died on the flight,

said the report is needed to determine whether pain and suffering were involved before her death, a factor that could determine

the amount of damages awarded. Hill's family is one of several who have filed wrongful-death suits against TWA and Boeing.

While he wouldn't talk about specifics involving Hill's report, he said if the victim suffered smoke inhalation it might indicate the

passenger was conscious after the explosion, said Tom Ellis, of the law firm of Donald J. Nolan in Chicago. In the past, Wetli has

said he believed the passengers were rendered unconscious after the blast. He said his office will begin releasing the reports

early next week.
Up to 4 Jan97