NTSB doesn't find evidence of fire before truck slammed into bus in Calif.
RED BLUFF, Calif. — Federal investigators said on Sunday that they haven't found physical evidence confirming a witness' claim that a FedEx truck was on fire before it slammed into a bus carrying high school students, killing 10 people in northern California.
National Transportation Safety Board member Mark Rosekind said investigators are not ruling out a pre-impact fire, but a fire expert did not find evidence of flames as the truck crossed a median, sideswiped a Nissan Altima and crashed into the bus.
“This is all preliminary and factual information,” Rosekind said at a news conference. “We are not ruling anything out.”
The bus was carrying 44 southern California high school students to a free campus tour of Humboldt State University. Many were hoping to become the first in their families to attend college. Five students, three adult chaperones and both drivers died, and dozens were injured in the collision on Thursday in Orland, a small city about 100 miles north of Sacramento.
Bonnie Duran, who drove the Altima and survived with minor injuries, told investigators and reporters on Saturday that she had seen flames emerging from the lower rear of the truck's cab as it approached her car. The bus was gutted, and the truck was a mangled mess when an explosion sent flames towering and black smoke billowing, making it difficult for investigators to track the source of the fire.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- D.C. charges woman over armed protest
- Former nuke commander linked to fake poker chips
- U.S. to arm Iraq’s Sunni tribesmen
- Locavore movement takes to deer hunting across country
- New nuke carrier will arrive late, incomplete
- U.S. releases ‘forever prisoner’ from Gitmo
- 3-mile buffer suggested for grouse breeding, oil and gas drilling
- E-cigarettes cut cravings, study finds
- Man sets house fire, kills deputy
- Ferguson, Mo., grand jury to meet Monday, decide on possible indictment of police officer
- CIA considers ‘major’ changes, including breaking up spying, analysis divisions