Talk:1967 USS Forrestal fire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1967 USS Forrestal fire article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Reports and maps

I'm looking for links to the investigation reports. There were at least two official investigations/groups, The Judge Advocate General Investigation led by Rear Admiral Forsyth Massey and a Panel to Review Safety in Aircraft Carrier Operations led by Admiral James S. Russell (The Russell Report). I'd like to find those sources so we can develop a flight deck map of aircraft positions prior to / during the incident. A picture is worth 1000 words and I think it would help explain where these planes were and the area of damage involved. All we have now on this is that it was in the aft part of the ship. I'm sure I can find a drawing or image to put a/c positions on, but there should be a drawing of some kind in the official investigation. Any ideas / help? --Dual Freq (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Detail

Is it really an appropriate level of detail to list the serial numbers of destroyed aircraft? Is it also necessary to state that post-repair trials included the first carrier landing after the accident and to list who piloted the plane? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changed intro a bit

I removed the claim that the cause was a malfunctioning rocket. The rocket actually functioned perfectly. It was the very unusual electrical anomaly which caused the incident. Without that, the rocket couldn't have fired.08:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions

It's unbelievable that these have not been noticed before now.

The article contradicts itself at least once. The beginning of the article and under 'aftermath' it states that the fire resulted in, "at least 62 injuries". The picture on the right hand side of the article (the very first one) under Casualties, lists "161 injured".

The "161 injured" figure reflects the USS Forrestal article which has a reference of the DC Museum [1]. The USS Forrestal article states the fire, "burned for hours, killing 134, injuring 161 and costing the Navy $72 million."

The contradiction to another article comes in with the John McCain article, which is currently locked and not available for tagging. This is the article that looks like it is incorrect, but I am not a judge or Wiki administrator and do not know which source will be deemed more reliable.

In the John McCain article it states, "The ensuing fire killed 132 sailors, injured 62 others, destroyed at least 20 aircraft, and took 24 hours to control."

It uses McCain's book, Faith of My Fathers as a reference , and the e-copy [2] itself that is linked as the reference contradicts the article by specifying that, "Fires burned below deck for 24 hours. It was a total disaster. 134 men died, dozens were wounded and more than 20 planes were destroyed." Also, the numbers are all different. Chexmix53 (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The number of wounded differs between DANFS as well, which states " Some 132 officers and men died in the catastrophe, two disappeared (missing, presumed dead), and another 62 suffered injuries." However, DANFS is wrong about the two missing since all 134 bodies were recovered[3] and I can not find the names of anyone still "missing" from the incident. I have found some lists that have 135 names, but there was a seaman that died before the incident on the same day so 134 is the number of dead. As for injuries, I've seen 62 from DANFS and 161 from the DC museum article. At this point I don't know which is correct, but on a ship with thousands of crew members affected / involved, its safe to assume there were a large number of casualties, physically, mentally etc. How those casualties were counted and what the various numbers were is unknown to me at this time. As for dozens, I think its fair to say dozens since hundreds is too many, we know there were at least 62, maybe "scores" be better than dozens. 1967 USS Forrestal fire is the main article for the fire, we only need to summarize here. It looks to me that McCain's book only summarizes the incident so I don't think its numbers are going to differ from other sources that deal specifically with the incident. Why don't you complain to the people editing the McCain article? --Dual Freq (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I've corrected the McCain article to remove the contradictions. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I did complain to the McCain people. Where should I go about trying to find the accurate number on injured? I think that is an important fact to have included in the article- documenting the fire. The article is kind of pointless if it can't express how detrimental the fire was. The article is important to McCain as well seeing as he started having second thoughts about his role in the war because of the napalm. Chexmix53 (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see Napalm in this article or any of the sources used here. The main damage was caused by fuel leaks and the 1000 lb bombs, which are not napalm. DANFS says 62 injuries, DC museum and The Impact of the USS Forrestal's 1967 Fire on United States Navy Shipboard Damage Control. Henry P. Stewart; Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS. say 161. Stewart references the 161 injured to page 33 of the Department of the Navy, Manual of the Judge Advocate General Basic Final Investigative Report Concerning the Fire on Board the USS Forrestal (CVA-59) on July 29, 1967. (Washington, D.C.: US Navy Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1968). I'd say the 161 trumps the 62. Stewart does not mention napalm either. If you want something else, I would say to try a library. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, Darn, I know I saw that Napalm thing, I thought it was in one of those references. I will have to get back to you on that... Chexmix53 (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain responsibility controversy

Deck plan with aircraft involved circled. The Zuni is said to have come from F-4 #110. McCain's A-4 (416) is shown with the engine facing outboard. No F-4 was positioned behind his aircraft despite conspiracy theories to the contrary.
Deck plan with aircraft involved circled. The Zuni is said to have come from F-4 #110. McCain's A-4 (416) is shown with the engine facing outboard. No F-4 was positioned behind his aircraft despite conspiracy theories to the contrary.

As a result, probably, of McCain candidacy, there are now "Swift Boat"-style allegations that John McCain was not only present during the fire, but may have been responsible for it. Specifically, the allegation is:

The starter motor switch on the A4E Skyhawk allowed fuel to pool in the engine. When the aircraft was “wet-started,” an impressive flame would shoot from the tail. It was one of the ways young hot-shots got their jollies. Investigators and survivors took the position that McCain deliberately wet-started to harass the F4 pilot directly behind him. The cook off launched an M34 Zuni rocket that tore through the Skyhawk’s fuel tank...

Clearly, if there was any one person responsible, that person should be identified in this article. But I haven't seen any evidence in support or opposed to this unproven allegation referenced in this article. I take no position, but certainly there should be evidence either way to indicate if this allegation is true or slander.Rockgolf (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the article. The rocket flew across the flight deck and hit a wing-mounted external fuel tank on a Skyhawk, either Aircraft No. 405 (White) or No. 416 (McCain). The rocket didn't come from White or McCain's aircraft, but a third aircraft on the other side of the flight deck. Cookoff caused by McCain? More like Cuckooland for the person who is reputedly quoted. Over. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a source for the above accusation so I'm going to assume it is baseless and not worth inclusion. I would like to echo the above point and add that DANFS states that "a Zuni 5” rocket accidentally fired, probably from Aircraft No. 110, a McDonnell Douglas F-4B Phantom II (BuNo 153061), LCDR James E. Bangert and LT(JG) Lawrence E. McKay from VF-11" it later states that "Investigators did, however, absolve LCDR Bangert and LT(JG) McKay of any errors and noted their exemplary service prior to the catastrophe." I'm not sure its worth naming them in the article since they were cleared by the investigation and DANFS uses "probably" to describe 110 as the firing aircraft. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I noted above that I'd like to find a post-accident investigation drawing of the flightdeck and the placement of aircraft, that would make thing easier to explain. A public domain US Navy video uploaded by someone on youtube shows the A-4's seconds after the impact and there is nothing behind them but ocean. Even if a "wet start" really exists, all that would have been hit is air. The F-4 was on the starboard side, and DANFS says the A-4's were "further aft on the port side waiting to launch." Its pretty clear that the F-4 could not have been behind McCain's A-4. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Any allegation of John McCain having any culpability for the fire are unequivocally false. The primary source for any discussion of the fire should be the Navy's own 6,000-page report. In this report (compete with diagrams and all the minutia of the day) outside of being listed with various crew in different attachments, McCain's name only surfaces in two affidavits he supplied to the board. One from the day of the fire, one from Subic Bay two days later. He was not a "suspect" or person of interest. He was simply one of the witnesses. To that point, it should be noted that nowhere in those 6,000 pages does it state that the Zuni rocket struck AA416 (McCain's A-4E). EVERY note, reference, citation states that the Zuni hit AA-405, LCDR Fred White's A-4E. McCain himself, in the depositions states in the first that he "thought" it was his plane that was hit, but was not certain. In the second, he was certain it hit the other aircraft. Just as an aside, all DANFS citations should be regarded with skepticism. It is not a primary source and has a bad reputation among historians. The report does not point to a single individual. As the previous author noted, Bangert and McKay were absolved. The culprit, according to the board, was a "stray voltage," a spark, on a test plug. The squadron was also using unauthorized procedures for launch preparations that contributed to the event.Fstopfitzgerald (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The German Version of the article includes a deck plan. Averell (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I cropped it a bit for use on en. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If you have a link to an online version of the report, please link to it or add details where it can be found. As noted above, I've been looking for the report online, but have not seen it. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cooking-off

The article uses the phrase "cooking-off" and "cooked off" a couple of times, without explaining this obscure (to me) term. Would someone either explain the term or remove it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Linked it to Cooking off which does the trick. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)