The FAA is citing TWA 800 along with dubious evidence from Thai 737 and Phillipine 737 incidents that NTSB chaulked up to fuel tank explosions.

From what I've read in print media and internet all three incidents were more likely terrorist events. The 737s were on ground, Thai PM was to be on flight - Ramsi Yousef was active in Manila at time of the other 737 explosion.

The TWA 800 incident had hundreds of witnesses that claim missile struck aircraft. Since that time there have been many instances of missile attacks on aircraft around the world.

Using the aircraft struck in Iraq as an example - both military and civilion type AC returned safely to airfield we know its possible for AC to survive a shoulder launched missile.

Why after 8 years is the FAA all of the sudden wanting to inert fuell tanks - is it because it will help defeat missile threat or do you believe its to prevent spontainous tank explosions as they claim?

possibility of both maybe?

maybe because a practible solution to inert a fuel tank was only finished recently? If a shoulder fired missile was fired it would have only hit one engine and not the fuel tank, and a 747 could have turned around and landed with three engines or maybe even two.

They still want to make it look like TWA 800 was a faulty fuel tank and not a terror attack, or.>>ahem<<.....a stray navy missile accidentally striking the poor jet.

People often laughed at me when I said I believe there was a link between 9/11 and TWA flight 800. Im still looking for that thread that links the two. But needless to say........... No matter what they do with the fuel tank, it sure as hell will do nothing to stop damage from some of the newer missiles who no longer rely on heat signatures to guide them.