 |
BY BOB YOUNG |
|
|
See WW's complete coverage of the King-56 investigation.
The first public investigation of the King-56 crash concluded that if the first fuel tank ran dry, the others would automatically feed the engines. The current theory maintains that didn't happen.
Responding to the criticism of Ron Wyden (above), Lt. Gen. David Vesely says the latest Air Force theory "will not withstand every doubt." Civilian investigator George Anderson adds, "The position of the boost pumps will never be known."
The latest Air Force investigation into the King-56 crash found 22 "deficiencies" in the C-130 fleet that the Air Force hadn't previously known about. |
Sounding a defiant note, Sen. Ron Wyden said Tuesday that his investigation into the crash of King-56 is "far, far from closed." After being briefed this week by Air Force officials on their latest theory about the November 1996 crash, Wyden said he would consider holding up the confirmation of a new secretary of the Air Force in order to get more answers and evidence. "A U.S. senator has a lot of tools," Wyden told WW. "We'll look at all the possibilities. I'm not going to rule out anything." Last year, Wyden and fellow Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith held up the confirmation of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in order to force the Air Force to conduct a new investigation into the King-56 disaster. The top job at the Air Force is still unfilled; the last nominee, Daryl Jones, was rejected by the Senate last month because of questions about his flying record and business dealings. Smith had not yet been briefed by the Air Force when WW went to print, but the senator said he would consider holding up a new secretary's nomination. "It worked last time, and if I find I'm as unsatisfied as Senator Wyden, I will join him." The latest theory was first suggested by the Air Force in January and was reinforced this week after investigators had salvaged more of the King-56 wreckage. The theory blames the crew. Specifically, the Air Force claims that the plane's four engines stopped running after the crew mismanaged the fuel supply, causing the Portland-based C-130 to lose all power and plummet into the Pacific Ocean. Ten reservists aboard were killed. The Air Force contends that the crew fed the plane's four engines from a single tank located on the right side of the fuselage, but forgot to turn on the "boost" pumps that would automatically start supplying fuel from the plane's nine other tanks when the first tank ran dry. Furthermore, the theory holds, the crew ignored fuel-gauge warning lights that should have alerted them to a problem. For a variety of reasons, the extra tanks didn't automatically "gravity feed" fuel to the engines, as the Air Force believed they would. As a result, the empty tank pumped air into the engines, causing them to "flame out." After that, the crew spent 16 hellish minutes falling out of the sky, powerless to restart the engines, no matter what they tried. The Air Force's theory, divulged in an emotional four-hour briefing Tuesday at Wyden's Portland office, was met with skeptical, even hostile, questions from some King-56 family members. Wyden wasn't convinced by the Air Force's case, either. "I've still not heard factual evidence that supports [the theory]," says Wyden. "There is no factual evidence that flight engineer Bob Roberts had the boost pumps off. And the Air Force's review couldn't find one person at the 939th Rescue Wing who was ever known to fly with the boost pumps off." "If they can't prove the boost pumps were off, their theory is null and void," says Gayle Schott, widow of the pilot's plane. Schott pointed out that the King-56 crew specialized in one mission: refueling helicopters in the air. "This crew's job was managing fuel," she says. "To say they didn't know where the fuel was is just incredible." William Galbreath, an attorney who represents some of the King-56 widows, stresses that the Air Force theory depends on a series of unlikely circumstances. "It's still not common sense. They have to create all these assumptions to make their plan fly. The facts militate against it," Galbreath says. Last year, Galbreath filed a suit in federal court blaming the plane's manufacturer, Lockheed-Martin, and Allison Engine Company for producing defective parts. In explaining his doubts, Wyden stressed the checkered history of the Air Force's King-56 investigation. As standard practice, the Air Force conducts two probes at the time of a crash; one is public, and the other is kept secret, ostensibly for security reasons. In the case of King-56, the public investigation could not pinpoint the cause of the crash. Yet, Wyden notes, he and Smith had to apply extraordinary pressure to get the Air Force to follow up on its initial, flawed investigation. The Air Force's resistance led Wyden and Smith to sponsor legislation that seeks to reform the Air Force's investigatory process. "It's important to remember that the Air Force rushed to judgment and refused to recover wreckage and reopen the investigation," Wyden says. "The Air Force has been fighting bipartisan legislation that would change its...unnecessary secrecy. "The way these investigations are conducted is flawed," Wyden continued. "It breeds skepticism and cynicism. It's time to open the investigation process in all instances, except for national-security reasons." Three of the widows have vowed to keep pushing for reforms in the Air Force investigation process. Wyden has, too. "We're not going to let this matter slip away," he says. "These courageous families deserve it. Their relatives gave all for this country."
originally published August 26, 1998 |
