[UCANSEE2]

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'.

[OA5599]

The last time I talked to my father about this, they were still floating the static electricity from microscopic cracks theory. Not sure where he got that info (news or scuttlebutt at JFK) but he called BS.

That may have influenced my tendency to not believe the official report. That and my fondness of Boeing and 747s in particular.

I never spoke to him about the subject again. By the time I heard about the damaged wiring/stray voltage issue, he was gone. I was still skeptical, but after reading about the NTSB findings in the last few days, what struck me is how hot the fuel was. I had no idea that the fuel in the tanks would be kept above the flashpoint at all, let alone that far above it.