Flight Summaries of Four Flights:
TWA Flight 800, UAL Flight 811, Pan Am Flight 103, Air India Flight 182
(From news sources:)
TWA Flight 800 was a scheduled passenger flight from New York to Paris.The
flight was uneventful until after departure from New York. While climbing
through 13,500 feet an event occurred which tore the nose off the aircraft.
The nose fell into the sea. The rest of the aircraft continued on descending
until approximately 9,500 feet where it exploded into a fireball and dropped
into the sea. There were two wreckage trails. Luggage from front cargo hold
was found nearest event site. A streak was seen near the aircraft just before
destruction. A strange radar blip was seen before destruction falling with
the aircraft. There were no calls from the crew to the ground. There were
no survivors. Flight data recorders revealed a loud sound and then all recording
ceased. No evidence of a bomb has been found on recovered wreckage. Front
cargo door found in pieces. Engine number 3 retrieved and had evidence of
FOD. The aircraft was a Boeing 747-131, an early 747 with high flight time
and flight cycles.
Explanations for TWA Flight 800: Boeing 747-131 series high
flight time aircraft are prone to cargo door malfunctions. Doors pop open
in climb or just after. Door popping open exposes large hole in side of
nose. Large hole in side of nose can tear nose off when subjected to high
air pressure loads. Nose tearing off leaves rest of plane to crash resulting
in two wreckage trails. Nose tearing off is sudden and total and leaves
no time for calls to ground from crew or for recorder data to continue.
Door opening and tearing off would be visible as streak as it reflects evening
sun at 13500 feet near New York City on July 17th. Cargo door would be picked
up as radar return as it spun away from aircraft. Contents from front baggage
compartment would be first to leave plane after door and be found closest
to event site. Fifteen missing bodies would have been sucked into engine
number 3. Baggage would FOD number three engine. Door opened inadvertently
because of various reasons consistent with other confirmed, documented,
and witnessed cargo door openings such as design error, improper latching,
electrical problems, wear and tear, or other unknown reason.
(From UAL Flight 811 Accident Report NTSB)
UAL Flight 811 was a scheduled passenger flight from Los Angeles to Sydney,
Australia, with stops in Honolulu, Hi and Auckland, New Zealand. The flight
was uneventful until after departure from Honolulu. While climbing from
FL220 to FL230 the crew heard a "Thump" followed by an explosion.
An explosive decompression was experienced and the #3 and #4 engines were
shutdown because of FOD. The FLT returned to Honolulu and passengers were
evacuated. Inspection revealed the forward lower lobe cargo door departed
inflight causing extensive damage to the fuselage and cabin adjacent to
the door. Investigation centered around design and certification of the
door which allowed it to be improperly latched, and the operation and maintenance
to assure airworthiness of the door and latching mechanism.
Additional information extracted from report: Front cargo door found in
two pieces. Crew erroneously reported bomb onboard to tower after hearing
explosion. Radar tracked door down to ocean contact. Recorders played loud
bang/sound then silence. Nine passengers were ejected and lost at sea. The
aircraft was a Boeing 747-122, an early 747 with high flight time and flight
cycles.
Explanations for UAL Flight 811: Boeing 747-122 series high
flight time aircraft are prone to cargo door malfunctions. Doors pop open
in climb or just after. Door popping open exposes large hole in side of
nose. Large hole in side of nose can tear nose off depending of variables
such as angle of attack, airspeed, turbulence and strength of fuselage.
Cargo door would be picked up as radar return as it spun away from aircraft.
Door opened inadvertently because of various reasons consistent with other
confirmed, documented, and witnessed cargo door openings such as design
error, improper latching, electrical problems, wear and tear, or other unknown
reason.
(From Pan Am Flight 103 Accident Report Dept
or Transport)
Pan Am Flight 103 was a scheduled passenger flight from London to New York.
The flight was uneventful until seven minutes after leveling off after climb.
While level at FL310 an event occurred which tore the nose off the aircraft.
The nose fell to the ground. The rest of the aircraft continued on descending
and crashing into the town of Lockerbie. There were two wreckage trails.
Luggage from front cargo hold was found nearest event site and in engine
number three. A strange radar blip was seen before destruction. There were
no calls from the crew to the ground. There were no survivors. Flight data
recorders revealed a loud sound and then all recording ceased.
Additional information extracted from report: Front cargo door found in
two pieces. Blip on recorder for engine 3 EPR. Reconstruction shows cargo
door area in first sequence of destruction. Eight passengers missing and
not accounted for. The aircraft was a Boeing 747-121, an early 747 with
high flight time and flight cycles.
Explanations for Pan Am Flight 103: Boeing 747-121 series
high flight time aircraft are prone to cargo door malfunctions. Doors pop
open in climb or just after. Door popping open exposes large hole in side
of nose. Large hole in side of nose can tear nose off when subjected to
high air pressure loads. Nose tearing off leaves rest of plane to crash
resulting in two wreckage trails. Nose tearing off is sudden and total and
leaves no time for calls to ground from crew or for recorder data to continue.
Cargo door would be picked up as radar return as it spun away from aircraft.
Contents from front baggage compartment would be first to leave plane after
door and be found closest to event site. Engine 3 closest to door and affect
EPR when Fodded. Door opened inadvertently because of various reasons consistent
with other confirmed, documented, and witnessed cargo door openings such
as design error, improper latching, electrical problems, wear and tear,
or other unknown reason.
(From Canada and Indian accident report)
Air India Flight 182 23 June 1985, 120 miles south of the Irish Coast, from
Toronto, Canada to London. 31000 feet, 1/4 second muffled sound then 40
millisecond sharp bang, data recorder abrupt halt, bodies missing sat in
front of plane, vanished from radar screens, forward cargo hold suspect
area, pathologist states victims died from decompression, no evidence of
bomb or explosive device. Official explanation: bomb.
Explanation for Air India Flight 182: Boeing 747 high time
aircraft kept below 300 knots until nearing end of flight when airspeed
crept up to 296 and door popped, nose separated, aircraft fell into sea.
Cargo door found with fuselage skin attached but dropped on retrieval. No
evidence of bomb residue, sound matched decompression of DC 10, and other
evidence indicated explosive decompression in flight.
Summary of the Summaries: Four early Boeing 747-100 -200
series high flight time, high cycles aircraft with history of front cargo
door malfunctions, in pressure differential mode of flight experience an
event which tears a large hole in each right side of each nose at forward
cargo door area. Four aircraft later exhibit destruction pattern starting
at forward lower lobe cargo door. Four aircraft had flight data recorders
record a thump/bang/loud sound, then silence. Three aircraft had radar blips
recorded leaving aircraft before event. Three aircraft deposit front cargo
doors in two or more pieces. Three aircraft have under thirty passengers
not accounted for. Three noses are torn off which leaves two aircraft to
crash leaving two wreckage trails each. Two nearest trails have contents
of front baggage compartment indicating contents left first. Same three
aircraft had no calls from crew to ground. Same three aircraft had no survivors.
Two aircraft have three engines in one group and another engine apart. One
aircraft erroneously reports a bomb explosion on board but lands safely
allowing investigation to reveal cause of inflight explosion to be inadvertent
opening of forward lower lobe cargo door due to design error, improper maintenance,
and a faulty switch or wiring in the door control system.
For the 800 missile theorists: Streak was metal cargo reflecting
summer evening sun as it spun away from Flight 800 at 13500 feet. Dark on
ground, sunlight up high. Missile would have struck hot engine but no evidence
of damage to engines.
For the bomber theorists:TWA Flight 800 had no blast, no
bomb, but explosions yes. No blast or bomb in baggage compartment. Explosion
when decompression occurred after cargo door opened and wind tore off nose
at 13500 feet.Explosion when 40000 gallons of jet fuel from disintegrating
wings ignited at 7500 feet.
UAL Flight 811 had no blast, no bomb, but explosion yes. Explosion when
decompression occurred after cargo door opened and wind tore off side of
nose at 22000 feet. Crew erroneously thought and reported bomb to explain
explosion. Correct evaluation of opened cargo door made after safe landing.
Pan Am Flight 103 had blast, no bomb and two explosions. Eight by 50 inch
blast hole possibly from "rather as if a very large shotgun had been
fired at the inner surface of the fuselage at close range." Page 19-20
Pan Am 103 accident report. Explosion when decompression occurred after
cargo door opened and wind tore off nose at 31000 feet. Another explosion
when remaining disintegrating structure strikes ground.
Air India Flight 182 had explosion decompression but no bomb.
For the center tank fire theorists: There was a center tank fire explosion
in TWA 800 but after door opened and caused nose to separate allowing rest
of aircraft to fall and disintegrate into fuel vapor and spinning jet engine
number 3 as ignition source. No fireballs for UAL 811, Pan Am 103, (only
falling engine number 3 was on fire) or Air India Flight 182 .
Unlikely that different bombers with different bombs attack random US
airlines years apart and manage to place small device at same location in
same baggage compartment of same type aircraft to provide similar destruction
pattern when detonated at approximately the same time leaving similar evidence.
Likely that a similar defect in a similar type aircraft malfunctions under
similar circumstances resulting in similar destruction patterns leaving
similar evidence.
Comment: All statements above supported by documentation
http://www.corazon.com/
Contents
barry@corazon.com