Flight Summaries of Four Flights:
TWA Flight 800, UAL Flight 811, Pan Am Flight 103, Air India Flight 182



(From news sources:)
TWA Flight 800 was a scheduled passenger flight from New York to Paris.The flight was uneventful until after departure from New York. While climbing through 13,500 feet an event occurred which tore the nose off the aircraft. The nose fell into the sea. The rest of the aircraft continued on descending until approximately 9,500 feet where it exploded into a fireball and dropped into the sea. There were two wreckage trails. Luggage from front cargo hold was found nearest event site. A streak was seen near the aircraft just before destruction. A strange radar blip was seen before destruction falling with the aircraft. There were no calls from the crew to the ground. There were no survivors. Flight data recorders revealed a loud sound and then all recording ceased. No evidence of a bomb has been found on recovered wreckage. Front cargo door found in pieces. Engine number 3 retrieved and had evidence of FOD. The aircraft was a Boeing 747-131, an early 747 with high flight time and flight cycles.


Explanations for TWA Flight 800: Boeing 747-131 series high flight time aircraft are prone to cargo door malfunctions. Doors pop open in climb or just after. Door popping open exposes large hole in side of nose. Large hole in side of nose can tear nose off when subjected to high air pressure loads. Nose tearing off leaves rest of plane to crash resulting in two wreckage trails. Nose tearing off is sudden and total and leaves no time for calls to ground from crew or for recorder data to continue. Door opening and tearing off would be visible as streak as it reflects evening sun at 13500 feet near New York City on July 17th. Cargo door would be picked up as radar return as it spun away from aircraft. Contents from front baggage compartment would be first to leave plane after door and be found closest to event site. Fifteen missing bodies would have been sucked into engine number 3. Baggage would FOD number three engine. Door opened inadvertently because of various reasons consistent with other confirmed, documented, and witnessed cargo door openings such as design error, improper latching, electrical problems, wear and tear, or other unknown reason.


(From UAL Flight 811 Accident Report NTSB)
UAL Flight 811 was a scheduled passenger flight from Los Angeles to Sydney, Australia, with stops in Honolulu, Hi and Auckland, New Zealand. The flight was uneventful until after departure from Honolulu. While climbing from FL220 to FL230 the crew heard a "Thump" followed by an explosion. An explosive decompression was experienced and the #3 and #4 engines were shutdown because of FOD. The FLT returned to Honolulu and passengers were evacuated. Inspection revealed the forward lower lobe cargo door departed inflight causing extensive damage to the fuselage and cabin adjacent to the door. Investigation centered around design and certification of the door which allowed it to be improperly latched, and the operation and maintenance to assure airworthiness of the door and latching mechanism.
Additional information extracted from report: Front cargo door found in two pieces. Crew erroneously reported bomb onboard to tower after hearing explosion. Radar tracked door down to ocean contact. Recorders played loud bang/sound then silence. Nine passengers were ejected and lost at sea. The aircraft was a Boeing 747-122, an early 747 with high flight time and flight cycles.

Explanations for UAL Flight 811: Boeing 747-122 series high flight time aircraft are prone to cargo door malfunctions. Doors pop open in climb or just after. Door popping open exposes large hole in side of nose. Large hole in side of nose can tear nose off depending of variables such as angle of attack, airspeed, turbulence and strength of fuselage. Cargo door would be picked up as radar return as it spun away from aircraft. Door opened inadvertently because of various reasons consistent with other confirmed, documented, and witnessed cargo door openings such as design error, improper latching, electrical problems, wear and tear, or other unknown reason.


(From Pan Am Flight 103 Accident Report Dept or Transport)
Pan Am Flight 103 was a scheduled passenger flight from London to New York. The flight was uneventful until seven minutes after leveling off after climb. While level at FL310 an event occurred which tore the nose off the aircraft. The nose fell to the ground. The rest of the aircraft continued on descending and crashing into the town of Lockerbie. There were two wreckage trails. Luggage from front cargo hold was found nearest event site and in engine number three. A strange radar blip was seen before destruction. There were no calls from the crew to the ground. There were no survivors. Flight data recorders revealed a loud sound and then all recording ceased.
Additional information extracted from report: Front cargo door found in two pieces. Blip on recorder for engine 3 EPR. Reconstruction shows cargo door area in first sequence of destruction. Eight passengers missing and not accounted for. The aircraft was a Boeing 747-121, an early 747 with high flight time and flight cycles.

Explanations for Pan Am Flight 103: Boeing 747-121 series high flight time aircraft are prone to cargo door malfunctions. Doors pop open in climb or just after. Door popping open exposes large hole in side of nose. Large hole in side of nose can tear nose off when subjected to high air pressure loads. Nose tearing off leaves rest of plane to crash resulting in two wreckage trails. Nose tearing off is sudden and total and leaves no time for calls to ground from crew or for recorder data to continue. Cargo door would be picked up as radar return as it spun away from aircraft. Contents from front baggage compartment would be first to leave plane after door and be found closest to event site. Engine 3 closest to door and affect EPR when Fodded. Door opened inadvertently because of various reasons consistent with other confirmed, documented, and witnessed cargo door openings such as design error, improper latching, electrical problems, wear and tear, or other unknown reason.

(From Canada and Indian accident report)
Air India Flight 182 23 June 1985, 120 miles south of the Irish Coast, from Toronto, Canada to London. 31000 feet, 1/4 second muffled sound then 40 millisecond sharp bang, data recorder abrupt halt, bodies missing sat in front of plane, vanished from radar screens, forward cargo hold suspect area, pathologist states victims died from decompression, no evidence of bomb or explosive device. Official explanation: bomb.

Explanation for Air India Flight 182: Boeing 747 high time aircraft kept below 300 knots until nearing end of flight when airspeed crept up to 296 and door popped, nose separated, aircraft fell into sea. Cargo door found with fuselage skin attached but dropped on retrieval. No evidence of bomb residue, sound matched decompression of DC 10, and other evidence indicated explosive decompression in flight.

Summary of the Summaries: Four early Boeing 747-100 -200 series high flight time, high cycles aircraft with history of front cargo door malfunctions, in pressure differential mode of flight experience an event which tears a large hole in each right side of each nose at forward cargo door area. Four aircraft later exhibit destruction pattern starting at forward lower lobe cargo door. Four aircraft had flight data recorders record a thump/bang/loud sound, then silence. Three aircraft had radar blips recorded leaving aircraft before event. Three aircraft deposit front cargo doors in two or more pieces. Three aircraft have under thirty passengers not accounted for. Three noses are torn off which leaves two aircraft to crash leaving two wreckage trails each. Two nearest trails have contents of front baggage compartment indicating contents left first. Same three aircraft had no calls from crew to ground. Same three aircraft had no survivors. Two aircraft have three engines in one group and another engine apart. One aircraft erroneously reports a bomb explosion on board but lands safely allowing investigation to reveal cause of inflight explosion to be inadvertent opening of forward lower lobe cargo door due to design error, improper maintenance, and a faulty switch or wiring in the door control system.

For the 800 missile theorists: Streak was metal cargo reflecting summer evening sun as it spun away from Flight 800 at 13500 feet. Dark on ground, sunlight up high. Missile would have struck hot engine but no evidence of damage to engines.

For the bomber theorists:TWA Flight 800 had no blast, no bomb, but explosions yes. No blast or bomb in baggage compartment. Explosion when decompression occurred after cargo door opened and wind tore off nose at 13500 feet.Explosion when 40000 gallons of jet fuel from disintegrating wings ignited at 7500 feet.

UAL Flight 811 had no blast, no bomb, but explosion yes. Explosion when decompression occurred after cargo door opened and wind tore off side of nose at 22000 feet. Crew erroneously thought and reported bomb to explain explosion. Correct evaluation of opened cargo door made after safe landing.

Pan Am Flight 103 had blast, no bomb and two explosions. Eight by 50 inch blast hole possibly from "rather as if a very large shotgun had been fired at the inner surface of the fuselage at close range." Page 19-20 Pan Am 103 accident report. Explosion when decompression occurred after cargo door opened and wind tore off nose at 31000 feet. Another explosion when remaining disintegrating structure strikes ground.

Air India Flight 182 had explosion decompression but no bomb.


For the center tank fire theorists: There was a center tank fire explosion in TWA 800 but after door opened and caused nose to separate allowing rest of aircraft to fall and disintegrate into fuel vapor and spinning jet engine number 3 as ignition source. No fireballs for UAL 811, Pan Am 103, (only falling engine number 3 was on fire) or Air India Flight 182 .


Unlikely that different bombers with different bombs attack random US airlines years apart and manage to place small device at same location in same baggage compartment of same type aircraft to provide similar destruction pattern when detonated at approximately the same time leaving similar evidence.

Likely that a similar defect in a similar type aircraft malfunctions under similar circumstances resulting in similar destruction patterns leaving similar evidence.


Comment: All statements above supported by documentation http://www.corazon.com/

Contents
barry@corazon.com