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

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

[JohnFiorentino]

Retired airline Pilot Capt. Ray Lahr has brought suit against the NTSB for release of the data pertaining to the alleged "zoom-climb" by TWA800. NTSB has stated that this event was what the hundreds of witnesses observed prior to the TWA800 explosion.

You can view the amended complaint in it's entirety here:

http://www.twa800.com/lahr/lahr-amended.htm

[Boner1]

But I will bet that no one on the Hill will have the guts to even ask for one.

Was one(congress-critter) ,but he was thrown out a couple days ago

[JohnFiorentino]

How do you equate "insulting them" with saying you believe the investigation was poorly done?.....I for one have no interest in insults.....But if you are willing to accept everything that is spoon fed to you simply because of it's source, then I'm afraid my good man, you are in for quite a shock.

I remember one William Jefferson Clinton stating under oath, "I did not have sexual relations with that girl".....do YOU remember that one?

[secretagent]

Thanks for the explanation. I'd never heard that before, but your version sounds plausible.

[secretagent]

Please comment on #16. jlogajan explains how the the plane climbed once the nose dropped off.

[jlogajan]

I should say that I was private pilot rated at one point in my life (single engine, land, non-instrument, i.e. your typical weekend warrior type.)

Anyhow, you had to know where your COG was before you took off. There were a series of calculations for passenger weight, luggage, fuel, etc. And where they were distributed. If you had heavy luggage back in the luggage compartment you might not be able to take off, not because you were overweight, but because your COG was too far back.

You would simply be outside the safe operating range of the craft -- it couldn't get it's COL far enough back -- you could lose control of the craft.

There have been accidents where the airplane engine has come off (broken prop tears engine loose.) Pity the poor pilot. The aircraft is fine otherwise, but the COG is now so far off from the COL that the aircraft is uncontrollable. The aircraft will probably porpoise a few times before breaking up due to overspeeds on uncontrolled decent portions.

[Steve Eisenberg]

How do you equate "insulting them" with saying you believe the investigation was poorly done?

Poorly done is not an insult. I was responding to a post that says they covered-up.

I am no expert on aviation accidents, but over decades have read maybe 2-3 serious books on the subject. One thing quite clear is that investigation of total airframe loss accidents is often extremely difficult. In this case, as in many others, every scenario worth considering, without exception, requires accepting that something happenned which was extremely unlikely to happen. No proposed scenario probably fit all the facts. The reason the NTSB ruled as they did is that the people on the team honestly thought that of, all the unlikely scenarios, the internal fuel tank explosion scenario was the least unlikely. Does the NTSB always get it right? Who knows? But because these investigations are so difficult, and because there is no ultimate test of whether the NTSB is right, they probably are sometimes wrong.

If I get some time tonight, I'll read the NTSB report to see why they ruled out a missile.

[jlogajan]

I'll read the NTSB report to see why they ruled out a missile.

It'll fall on deaf ears, my boy. You are talking to hard core tinfoil types.

You will find, though, that the NTSB quickly concluded it was not a missile or a bomb -- even though the FBI was pressing forward with the assumption that it WAS either a missile or a bomb! Eventually the FBI could offer no evidence at all that it was due to a hostile act, so they had to back down and let the NTSB carry on its normal investigation.

The idea that there was a cover-up on this is laughable.

[JohnFiorentino]

What you will REALLY find "my boy" as jlogajan has put it..is that the FBI's chief metallugist, William Tobin "concluded" in September 1996, approx 6 weeks after his assignment to the investigation, and while approx 50% of TWA800 was still at the bottom of the Atlantic, that there was no "evidence of a bomb or missile"

James Kallstrom dismissed Tobin from the probe, indicating his conclusions were hasty and unprofessional.

You will also find here on this thread, the term "tin-foil" hats, applied to EVERYONE who disagrees with the official conclusion. A standard MO for the professional disinformationalist. Name calling, casting aspersions, etc., rather than a discussion of the issues.

[JohnFiorentino]

Your "analysis" is flawed and misleading. Provided below in Capt. Lahr's appeal to his FOIA request is some pertinent data, along with an assessment of whether or not a 3,000ft climb by a noseless Boeing 747 is even in the realm of possibility.

September 24, 2001

Captain Ray Lahr (ret.)
18254 Coastline Drive
Malibu, CA 90265

Carol J. Carmody, Acting Chairman
National Transportation Safety Board
490 L’Enfant Plaza East, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20594

Dear Ms. Carmody:

Thank you for your letter of September 17, 2001, which responded to my previous letters to you and Ronald Battocchi, General Counsel for the Safety Board. Your letter refers to a new FOIA number 2001-0410. Although it was not my intent, my third appeal of the NTSB refusal of my FOIA request seems to have been interpreted as a new request, and it has been given a new FOIA number. I don’t mind the additional number as long as the NTSB explains how it got from the Boeing data published in the TWA 800 accident report to the NTSB conclusion that TWA 800 zoom-climbed several thousand feet with the nose blown off. I am not asking for new Boeing proprietary data (the pretext for the NTSB refusal). My appeal is based on the Boeing data that the NTSB has already published.

Parameter Before Nose Separation After Nose Separation
Gross Weight (lbs) 574,000 464,606
C.G. %MAC 21.1 57.8
Iyy slug-ft sq 27,790,000 15,780,000
Ixx slug-ft sq 19,110,000 18,970,000

The MAC (mean aerodynamic chord) was approximately 33 feet. The C.G. (center of gravity) moved from 21.1% to 57.8% MAC or about 12.1 feet aft. The C.L. (center of lift) of 574,000 lbs didn’t move. That means the aircraft suddenly experienced a nose-up torque of about 6,000,000 ft-lbs. Dividing the torque by the angular moment of inertia of 15,780,000 slug-ft sq gives and angular acceleration of .38 radians per second squared or 22 degrees per second squared. That means that in 1.5 seconds the aircraft pitched through 25 degrees and was completely stalled. The aircraft was in free fall. The most it could have climbed in 1.5 seconds is about 200 feet. There was no zoom-climb. This is further corroborated by the testimony of the pilots who saw the accident and by the radar plots of the falling aircraft. The NTSB goofed when it claimed that TWA 800 zoom-climbed several thousand feet, a claim that is refuted by the Boeing data which the NTSB presented to the public.

Please, Ms. Carmody, the NTSB has a responsibility and moral duty to admit its mistake about that zoom-climb. The NTSB needs to come clean with the public.

Sincerely,

Ray Lahr

[JohnFiorentino]

You may also want to review the information provided in the following URL:
http://twa800.com/lahr/original/original2.gif

[jlogajan]

That means the aircraft suddenly experienced a nose-up torque of about 6,000,000 ft-lbs. Dividing the torque by the angular moment of inertia of 15,780,000 slug-ft sq gives and angular acceleration of .38 radians per second squared or 22 degrees per second squared. That means that in 1.5 seconds the aircraft pitched through 25 degrees and was completely stalled.

Ah, now we are into "theory." This guy's theory forgets that the tail surfaces are going to provide an aerodynamic force opposed to their being swung broadside into a 500 mph headwind. Where is his force calculation for that? Oops, I guess he forgot.

[JohnFiorentino]

The whole thing is a "theory"....."my boy"....unless you want to go on record as stating that the NTSB-CIA cartoon was a FACT? Boeing doesn't think so. Neither does anyone else I've spoken to.

You also say, "as the aircraft traded altitude for speed."

Unfortunately, (for you) the radar data does not support this. There was NO trade off of altitude for airspeed. When the nose departed Fl800 stalled, and began it's decent. There is absolutely NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to support the NTSB claims.

[sam_paine]

Well if these are opposing theories, "my boys," then let's do some scientific method and try some experiments in the dog-gone old wind tunnel,eh?

How hard can this be? We have almost the entire recovered airframe. Let's make a model of the aft section and see how it flies?

If there's a solid conclusion, seems like the rock solid bureaucrats at the NTSB should hop at the chance to prove themselves correct.

Boeing might do their own analysis, but then they've got a lot of gubbmint contracts....

How bout independent universities? An Aerospace Engineering grad student? Naw, too much gubbmint grant money involved.

That just leaves conspiracy theorists....ah never mind.

[JohnFiorentino]

I have a real cheap "test" for you. Get yourself a wooden glider, you know the kind, with that little metal piece on the nose. Fly it, lotsa fun right?.....Now take off the metal piece and try to fly it.......Not so much fun, huh?

[timestax]

bump

[sam_paine]

Well, Mr. Activity Coordinator, you are quite the condescending fellow, aren't you?

I simulate mixed signal circuitry for a living, and if you use this type of model to test a theoretical implementation, then I hope you are not in the engineering business.

If the zoom-climb trajectory was simulated based on data from the NTSB, let them publish those data to the FOIA requester. If their simulation generates a track that matches the radar, then how could reviewing the data be so problematic??

If the simulation was very coarse, (i.e. did not detail actual aerodynamic damage to control surfaces, account for actual thrust of remaining engine(s) running, blast impulse...) then why not entertain an emulation of the scale wreckage in a wind tunnel? Relatively inexpensive, and less "model theory" to argue over.

The NTSB works for you and me. If you are satisfied with their answer, good for you. Go fly your balsa wonders elsewhere.

[Asmodeus]

"What you will REALLY find "my boy" as jlogajan has put it..is that the FBI's chief metallugist, William Tobin "concluded" in September 1996, approx 6 weeks after his assignment to the investigation, and while approx 50% of TWA800 was still at the bottom of the Atlantic, that there was no "evidence of a bomb or missile. James Kallstrom dismissed Tobin from the probe, indicating his conclusions were hasty and unprofessional."

Tobin is an expert forensic metallurgist, which Kallstrom and you are not, and his conclusion was shared by the nine other expert metallurgists examining the wreckage. Kallstrom didn't want to believe there was no physical evidence of a missile or bomb because he had unprofessionally succumbed to his own sinister suspicions to the contrary at the outset of the investigation. You apparently don't want to believe it for reasons of your own.

1. Are you, a paralegal, contending that the lawyers representing the Flight 800 Families were incompetent in their investigation of the disaster?

or

2. Are you contending that the lawyers representing the Flight 800 Families deceived them?

FBI Chief Metallurgist Blows Whistle On Kallstrom's Wild Goose Chase

[jlogajan]

The whole thing is a "theory"....."my boy".

Well, until your boy, Captain Lahr, adds the tail aerodynamic forces to his little "theory" he is completely discredited and so are you if you rely on it.

This guy is apparently angling to write a book or lecture on the black helicopter circuit. I'm sure you and your fellow tinfoil acolytes will help supplement his income. You deserve each other.

[willyone]

I was thinking the same thing. However something that weighs 250 plus tons traveling at three hundred miles an hour may do some strange things. One thing though not discussed is the change in drag when the nose came off. Instead of a streamlined nose section there is now a hollow tube with all that air slamming into it. We had two family friends sitting in row 18 and I hope that it was quick for them.

[TailspinJim]

Per your #16...."Normally, for level flight, the center of lift is positioned over the center of gravity"......NOT SO!

In standard configured aircraft (not carards), the center of gravity is positioned AHEAD of the center of lift, and the difference is balanced-out by a DOWN-LOAD on the horizontal stab. This makes for a stable aircraft. If the CG and the COL were in the same location, the aircraft would be entering the realm of instibility (unstable fugoid).

Just thought you ought to know......Jim