In his review of Pat Milton's "In the Blink of an Eye" (Sept. 26) about TWA Flight 800, William Langewiesche reflects public misconceptions that are due in part to a lack of candor on the part of the NTSB and the FAA. From the beginning, the public was led to believe that there was almost no possibility of a fuel-tank explosion without some sinister explanation. In fact, there had been at least two previous fatal accidents due to fuel-tank explosions. One of these, in 1976, involved a Boeing 747 operated by the Iranian Air Force and may have been caused by lightning. Another, in 1990, involved a Boeing 737. Very few members of the public knew this in the early days of the investigation. Had they been so informed, perhaps there would have been less of what Langewiesche calls "conspiracy mongering and gross speculation."
Langewiesche states that "Flight 800 was an aging airplane with 93,303 hours in flight, and over 16,000 takeoff and landing cycles, but it was well-maintained and in good health." Let's examine its health. Like many other airlines buffeted by deregulation, TWA had to operate aging aircraft far longer than originally envisioned by the designers. This aircraft had averaged almost two flights a day, every day, for 25 years. Its last day was typical. When it arrived at JFK from Athens on that warm and humid July day, it would have been dripping with condensation, inside and out, due to the rapid descent from cruise altitude where the temperature is typically 50 below to 70 below. Three hours later, it was climbing again from the warm and moist ground conditions toward the freezing temperatures of the stratosphere. When one considers the combined effect of 32,000 such extreme temperature changes, condensation, the stress of 16,000 landings and takeoffs, 93,000 hours of pressure changes, flight loads, turbulence and vibration; not to mention the chafing and aging of wiring insulation, the health of the aircraft doesn't appear to be so rosy. As a retired Boeing 747 captain, I was horrified when I learned the age and flight time of this aircraft. The FAA and NTSB typically defend their standards by citing low accident rates. If they were more candid, perhaps the public would expect higher standards, as I do.
Kenneth J. Kahn