BY NANCY ROSENSTOCK

NEW YORK - Nearly a month after the crash of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island, with half the plane and most of its contents recovered from the ocean floor, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the FBI have not produced a single shred of evidence that points to a bombing of the plane. At the same time, investigators "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," reported a front-page article in the August 9 Seattle Times.

The article, by the paper's aerospace reporter, Byron Acohido, was headlined "Mechanical failure eyed in probe of TWA crash" with the teaser "Possible structural problems, fuel leak get a closer look." The Seattle Times, published in Boeing's home turf, had run another front-page story July 27 on the Boeing 747 explosion near Madrid in the mid-1970s that led to discovery of fuel-system defects in the plane. That account included the otherwise virtually unreported notification by TWA 800 pilots of "an erratic fuel-flow gauge" just two minutes before the crash.

The July 27 story received scant attention in the media. The August 9 article has begun to get wider notice. It was reprinted in its entirety in the August 10 Star-Ledger, the main daily in Newark, New Jersey. Meanwhile, most big-business papers like the New York Times have moved their daily articles on the TWA investigation - which peddle the government/company "terrorist" scare campaign - from the front pages to inside sections.

Acohido reports that the TWA 800 crash may have been caused by "massive structural failure of the engines or fuselage, perhaps linked to an initial fire fed by leaking fuel." When investigators raised the right wing from the ocean floor, they found that the engines were missing and that the engine attachment pins or fuse pins, all eight of them, were in place.

Weak fuse pins were the cause of an El Al 747 freighter crash in Amsterdam in 1992. The faulty pins caused the El Al jet's inboard right engine to break loose of the wing on take-off. The engine shot forward and to the right, knocking the right outboard engine off the wing as well. The jet smashed into a crowded 10-story apartment building.

"A nearly identical fatal crash of a China Airlines 747 freighter had occurred near Taipei, Taiwan, 10 months earlier," Acohido reported. Boeing subsequently developed corrosion- resistant fuse pins and designed a special bracket to more securely hold the engine to the wings. The company assigned special crews to travel around the world to begin strengthening 747 mounts. But older jets weren't top priority. According to NTSB vice-chairman Robert Francis, the 25-year-old TWA 800 plane hadn't yet had its mounts fully upgraded.

These are not the only problems with older 747 jets. According to Acohido, part of the structural frame, known as Section 41, has been a safety concern since the mid-1980s. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ordered major strengthening of Section 41 frames when these planes reach 20,000 flights. In the crash of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, the plane broke into several pieces after its Section 41 frames buckled. Acohido reported that "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."

Acohido said a loose engine could smash into the plane's fuselage and buckle its weak Section 41 frame.

Another safety question relates to the 747's leaky fuel tanks, which can develop over time on aging jets. "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," Acohido wrote. "Fatigue cracks can develop in the fastener holes on the front spar, creating fuel leaks near the inboard engines."

Back in 1991 Boeing warned that such "fuel leakage can cause a fire."

Acohido added that "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."

The only other time a 747 jet exploded in mid-air was in 1976. The 747 was owned by the Iranian military and exploded near Madrid. No cause was ever determined for this crash but it was reported that lightening could have triggered an electrical spark from a fuel system pump.

Last year, another incident just now coming to light, occurred in Singapore. The 747 jet, owned by Japan Air Lines, was being refueled when it caught fire. The electrical insulation for one of its 14 fuel pumps shorted out and ignited fuel, according to the New York Times.

The August 8 New York Times reported the FAA will issue a new ruling soon that would "require regular testing and possible replacement of fuel pumps on the huge jets. The pumps - there are 14 on each 747 - have been shown to be prone to leakage."

Claiming this has no connection to the crash of Flight 800, the Times continued, "The agency [FAA] has been working on the new rule for months, and the timing of its release is not related to the TWA crash. But tests have shown many pumps to be susceptible to the problem."

In 1976, following the Madrid crash, the FAA ordered 747 wings checked for fuel leaks. Most found leaks and the FAA ordered upgrades. But the jet that crashed July 17 was owned by Iran's military at the time and was exempt from civil aviation rules. Boeing spokesman Doug Webb would not say whether the fuel system upgrades were made once the plane was repurchased by TWA in December 1976. Acohido revealed that the pilots of TWA 800 reported "an erratic fuel gauge" just before the crash.

As part of its cost-cutting drive to shore up declining profit rates and outbid competition, TWA has not invested in new aircraft. The average age of the company's fleet has grown to nearly 20 years and for its Boeing 747 fleet it is 25 years.

Airline workers are quite familiar with the detrimental effect of this profit drive on aircraft maintenance and safety, as crews get smaller and the bosses impose dangerous speed up.

We have also felt the brunt of the employers' assault on our living standard. TWA has been in and out of bankruptcy twice in the past eight years. In November 1994, after TWA emerged from bankruptcy, workers made concessions to the tune of $660 million in exchange for 45 percent "ownership" of the company. New hires on the ramp, most of whom start part-time, make less than 50 percent of top pay. Vacations have been cut and pensions are frozen.

The latest example of how the companies' profit drive undermines safety is the recent announcement by Delta Air Lines. The August 9 New York Times reported that the company plans to start a "budget, no frills airline" called Delta Express. "To make money," the article said, "Delta Express must chop labor costs and cut the time it takes to load and fuel a plane to 20 minutes from almost an hour."

Nancy Rosenstock is a member of the International Association of Machinists and works at TWA in Newark, New Jersey.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home