Retired Airline Pilot sues NTSB for "Zoom-climb" data

http://www.twa800.com/lahr/lahr-amended.htm ^ | 7/27/02 | John Fiorentino

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

"This constitutes challenging preparation for living in a world unwilling to see freedom as treasure but very willing to entangle people in a yoke of bondage to the will of the vaunted elite."

I commend you for your courage in using this thread to teach young people about "spin" and its purveyors.

"Paid not at all if they are able to think independently".

Sad but true. It always comes down to money, doesn't it?

[Rokke]

"Sorry pal, but I stand by those words."

Then you are just being absurd. And to say that I am "trying to deceive us" is also absurd considering you are asking me what Boeing structural engineers think, and I am merely quoting their reports. Stop being so paranoid. Men in Black was just a movie, and the idea that the government hires people to participate in internet threads is laughable. The only people who still give a wit about TWA 800 are losers like you and me. Read the Boeing addendum to the NTSB report. Focus especially on the part titled Structural Findings, Simulations and Modeling. You will read for yourself exactly what Boeing has to say about the breakup sequence. But here is a response to your final question/demand.
From the Boeing addendum, page A-2, paragraph 2 under the section titled Structural Breakup-Final Conclusions:
"The Boeing Structures representatives agree that while there may be unexplained aspects with regard to certain observations, “the facts and data on the whole support the sequence documented” in the Sequence Group Report."
Here are the Boeing reps names from the Structures Group:
Jim Powers, Steve Chisholm, Roy Hurlbut, Rob Harrower, Bob Whittington, Bruce Hocking, Barry Smith, Henry Missel, Warren Steyaert, Arnie Reimer, Kelvin Dean, Dave Orth, Lewis Thomson
Here is the sequence they agree to:
5.2.2.5 The WCS maintained wing bending continuity with the upper and lower panels mostly undamaged and the midspar, SWB#1, and rear spar still providing shear continuity. The main landing gear beams also assisted in carrying wing bending.
5.2.2.6 Some localized areas of fire and soot were sustained subsequent to initial events and prior to major airplane breakup (see Section 5.2.4).
5.2.2.7 At major airplane breakup the WCS failed in a manner consistent with up bending overload (the upper panel buckling in compression and the lower panel fracturing in tension).
5.2.2.8 During major airplane breakup the remaining WCS separated with some of the WCS structure remaining attached to the right wing and some remaining attached to the left wing (as described in sections 4.1 to 4.11).

So there you have it. I am simply reporting THE FACTS. It you think that is being purposely deceptive, then your evident paranoia is just a symptom of a greater problem. Seek professional help.

[Swordmaker]

Again I refer you to basic physics... a course you apparently slept through.

1."Momentum is merely inertia, stored energy"

Rok, MOMENTUM is the inertia of a mass in motion... nothing more. MASS times VELOCITY.

On the other hand:

"A FORCE is a push or pull upon an object resulting from the object's interaction with another object. Whenever there is an interaction between two objects, there is a FORCE acting on each of the objects. When the interaction ceases, the two objects no longer experience a FORCE. FORCES only exist as a result of an interaction."

The above definition of MOMENTUM does NOT INCLUDE A SECOND OBJECT! Therefor, MOMENTUM, by definition, is not a FORCE.

2. Force is measured in units of ft/sec ("a total of 55 feet per second of force straight up.")

No, FORCE is measured in Newtons if we were working in metric measurements. One Newton is the amount of force required to give a 1-kilogram mass an acceleration of one meter per second per second. However, the actual formula is Force = Mass times Acceleration.

FORCE is a vector quantity... to fully define a force one must also include a direction the force is applied.

My statement is correct but your quotation of my statement omitted the MASS portion of my statement... "the plane is lifted a total of 55 (actually my arithmatic was wrong on this, it should have been 65) per second of force straight up." This statement fulfills all the requirements to define a force... the mass (1 Boeing), the acceleration (55 Feet per second) AND the direction (straight up).

You want Newtons??? OK...

The force being applied to the plane was 4,905,300 Newtons (249,000 Kg * 19.7m/s/s) straight up. On the other hand, the force of gravity pulling the plane back toward the ground is 2,440,200 Newtons (249,000 Kg * 9.8M/s/s) straight down. The amount of force required for TWA800 to climb at 33 feet per second is 2,465,100 Newtons (4,905,300N - 2,440,200N). This FORCE is being produced by the LIFT from the collision of aircraft and the atoms and molecules of the atmosphere... remove that LIFT and the only FORCE remaining that has a vertical vector is GRAVITY... which applies an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s DOWN.

Now, as to your next fallacy:

3. The momentum of a 747 with an upward velocity of at least 33ft/sec is overwhelmed by gravity in less than 1 second ("The Upward momentum vector is overcome fairly quickly after lift is lost... less than one second"; and "The evidence is that they went almost instantly into a stall... and ALL LIFT DISAPPEARED"). (and 4, 5 and 6)

MOMENTUM = MASS * VELOCITY (Direction)

Since we're talking about upwards momentum then our rest position is level flight, i.e. no upwardly vectored momentum. Thus the only thing we have to concern ourselves about is the upward momentum of the 747. The upward motion is 33 feet per second... or 10 Meters per second. The mass of the 747 is 249,000 Kg.

p = 249,000Kg * 10m/s = 2,490,000Kg*m/s

Therefore the entire upward momentum is 2,490,000 Kg*m/s.

Incidentally, using the same formula, the horizontal momentum of the 747 is 36,520,000 Kg*m/s.

One corralary of Newton's Second Law is that IMPULSE equals CHANGE IN MOMENTUM... IMPULES is FORCE times TIME and a change in momentum is, by definition, Mass times acceleration (deltaV) either negative or positive. From this we get the formula:

F * t = M * deltaV

Therefore if we apply a FORCE for 1 second it equals the change in MOMENTUM for that direction, either positive or negative.

FORCE of gravity on the 747 for one second: 2,440,200 Newtons
The upward momentum of the 747: 2,490,000 Kg*m/s

Let's plug our figures into the formula: F*t=M*deltaV and solve for time (t) the force needs to overcome the upward momentum:

2,440,200Kg*m/s^2 *t = 2,490,000 Kg*m/s

s = 1 second

2,440,200Kg*m/1 *t = 2,490,000 Kg*m/1

Divide both sides by 2,440,200Kg*m/s t = 2,490,000Kg*m / 2,440,200Kg*m

t = 1.02

1.02 seconds to overcome the upward momentum of the 747 using the force of gravity

Now you'll probably say that 1.02 seconds is more than "less than a second"... it is, but that was a quick off the top of my head estimate, which turns out is pretty close!

9. You can determine an object's terminal velocity without knowing its coefficient of drag ("until it reaches terminal velocity of about 450 feet per second in 15 seconds")

Coefficient of drag is found empiracally: put the object into a controlled velocity wind and MEASURE IT. The 450 FPS was used because it was provided empiracally... from the radar that returned blips from the falling plane. Knowing the forces that could apply (gravity and air resistance- drag) it was easy to calculate the terminal velocity of this particular object.

I agree about the use of "total" being a bit more clear.

I'll take your word for the final thing.

[Rokke]

"a course you apparently slept through"
Well, I won't deny that, and after reading your post I remember why. However, I did pass my college physics course so give me a little credit.

"MOMENTUM is the inertia of a mass in motion"
Which I agree with, which is not the same as saying "momentum is merely inertia". Nor is momentum stored energy. That would be Potential Energy. So maybe you were with me, snoring in the back row. So let's compromise...I'll retract my statement that the counteracting force could be lift or momentum, and you can retract your statement that "Momentum is merely inertia, stored energy". Instead, I will say, "The counteracting force was lift." Better?

With regard to the units of force...Sure, you can use Newtons if you want. But you didn't. You used ft/sec in your original post. Nothing else. Therefore, your original statement is incorrect. It's a nitnoid point, but that has been the trend of most of our corresspondence.

Your third point...nice calculations and you will note that I had already done those calculations for you in lbsft/sec. The problem with your assumptions is that you assume the upward velocity of the 747 was never higher than 33 ft/sec. Yet, in your own theory you believe TWA 800 experienced a significant pitch up that lasted for 3 seconds before the wings stalled. Therefore, the upward velocity HAD to be higher than 33 ft/sec, unless you believe an increase in the force of lift has no impact on momentum. (my point #7)

Your last point...The radar did not give an altitude cut, and you have no idea which of those blips was the main fuselage. It may have been the first piece to hit or it may have been the last. You simply cannot calculate the terminal velocity of the falling, crumbling TWA 800. Nobody can.

Finally, using your calculations, can you explain how Evel Kneivel can jump a motorcycle with no thrust and no lift through a several second arcing leap to an opposing ramp that is approximately the same height as the ramp he left?

[Rokke]

Read the WHOLE exhibit. They flew 9 flights with six being dedicated to the NTSB investigation. The third flight was called the "TWA800 Emulation Flight". The flight was the last flight flown on 15 July, and they tried to match the times of the TWA800 flight as closely as possible. The temperature for the emulation flight was 88 degrees fahrenheit. The temperatures for the same time period the day TWA800 went down were 82 degrees fahrenheit. Unless you want to claim the NTSB controls the weather, I think they did a pretty good job making things as close as possible.

[Rokke]

"so the radar errors occurred right when the nose is shot off. How convenient."

No, not convenient. Realistic, since the nose falling off created a different radar signature and provided a more complex radar problem. The fact that there is a double return indicates the radar was seeing more of a return, not less. And the radar doesn't have any more luck picking up returns on later targets. It just happens that there are more returns to see. But it is improbable that the radar is picking up all the possible returns, or even picking up the same objects consistently.

[Rokke]

"The engineers are giving themselves wiggle room! They are not on board!

Accident investigation and recreation is not a science. Have you ever tried to pin a doctor down for an exact diagnosis? It ain't going to happen. If someone tells you "the facts and data on the whole support the sequence documented" do you think they are telling you they agree with the sequence documented or that they aren't "on board"? You are being ridiculous. I don't believe Boeing did fully endorse the spark scenerio. Their report says the following:
" Based on a review of this information, Boeing believes that there was an ignition of the flammable vapors in the CWT resulting in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft. Although there has been significant analysis of the wreckage and potential failure modes by some of the best minds in aviation, the government and academia, the investigation, to date, has not determined the ignition source."
They are clearly not opposed to stating their opinion on matters concerning the incident. Therefore, when they later say their engineers agree with the sequence documented in the Sequence Group Report, I think it is safe to assume they agree.

[Rokke]

"For instance here, the nose could have been shot off"

Well, since there is as much evidence it was shot off as there is it was ripped off by an alien spacecraft (in other words, none) you could argue anything happened. But the facts don't support anything other than what the NTSB said happened.

[Rokke]

Do you sleep with one eye open? When you walk down the street are you always wondering why someone is following you? When you enter a room do you immediately open all closets and look under all the furniture? You are one of the most suspicious folks I've ever come across. You are like a whipped pup always sure that someone is trying to fool you. The only radar that picked up primary hits on TWA800 when the nose departed was the radar in Islip (the green squares). That is the entire subject of my post, since that was the topic of your post that I was responding to.

[Rokke]

Where did you get your weather data from? Here is the surface weather observation from JFK the night of the incident:

2351Z .. Winds 220 degrees at 8 knots; visibility 10 miles; 6,000 feet scattered, ceiling 7,000 feet broken, 9,000 feet broken; temperature 27.8 degrees C; dew point 21.1 degrees C; altimeter setting 30.07 inches of Hg.; wind shift 2306Z; rain began 2318Z and ended 2329Z; precipitation 0.00 inch between 2327Z and 2351Z.

2351Z is 1951 New York time (7:15pm). 27.8 degrees Celsius is 82 degrees fahrenheit.

[Rokke]

"If one was a disinformist, he would post inaccurate weather info as you just did."

OK, you've gone from being paranoid to just being a dick. I posted the weather report verbatim out of the NTSB report. You haven't said where you are getting your information from, and that would be helpful. If you've got more accurate info than share it, but don't call me a "disinformist" (whatever that is) for posting the most accurate information available.

[FormerLurker]

Just for grins and giggles, perhaps we should all take a break and follow the link below..

What is the term used for the third derivative of position?

[FormerLurker]

Maybe if you'd get a little sleep, you could open your eyes wide enough to read a set of very simple charts, and you would see that the radar returns become more frequent as TWA 800 nears the apex of its climb.

With eyes wide shut, one could easily see that the plane didn't climb, but went down into the Atlantic. What climb are you talking about?