If there was a short in the wiring between a voltage source and the sensor wires, wouldn' the fuel INDICATORS go crazy ? Wouldn't that be recorded on one of the 'blackboxes' as occurring just prior to the explosion ?If that were true, don't you think they would have shown that as proof ? We're straying from things I know about to stuff I have to take the word of others on. Too bad my 747 mechanic father isn't around to talk about this.
However, I kind of recall that there were a few odd indications a couple of minutes before the explosion that the pilots discussed and was captured on the cockpit voice recorder. IIRC, one of them was a tank level or something related. I believe the other one was a higher voltage system, and that both circuits ran in the same conduit. I think that is what lead the NTSB to their theory.
We're straying from things I know about to stuff I have to take the word of others on.Well then.... we are in the same boat, so to speak.
Too bad my 747 mechanic father isn't around to talk about this.
Life is full of coincidences.
My dad was a mechanic at TWA at the overhaul base. He also is, unfortunately, not around to talk to.
IIRC, one of them was a tank level or something related. I believe the other one was a higher voltage system, and that both circuits ran in the same conduit. I think that is what lead the NTSB to their theory.
True. The NTSB said that the cockpit recorder had an incidence of the pilot remarking "look at that crazy fuel gauge on #4).
One of the pictures I posted shows that concept (and indicates wiring to #4 engine).
If true, then the NTSB CWT theory makes sense.
Kallstrom tried to show us proof of the 'arcing' but I'm rather skeptical of the 'piece of evidence'.
