CNN SPECIAL- TODAY & TOMORROW:
TWA 800 - A CONTINUING PROBLEM...
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/index.twa.html
Interestingly, Boeing will incorporate prevention....Airbus will wait until it's mandated.
Fuel Tank Explosions - CNN Special
Moderator: Latest news team
Fuel Tank Explosions - CNN Special
Last edited by gwillie on 24 Jul 2006, 17:58, edited 1 time in total.
I saw the show last night, for the most part it was fair, but it was also a bit sensationalist(that's the american media for you), they spent more time talking about the problems of fuel tank explosions, but at the same time spent little informing the public about the changes the FAA has instituted, what Boeing has been doing since the crash of TWA 800 to retrofit fuel tanks with better insulation from faulty wires, etc.
The fact of the matter is, the aviation industry is the safest industry in the world, and I stand by those words. :thumbsup2: :plane:
The fact of the matter is, the aviation industry is the safest industry in the world, and I stand by those words. :thumbsup2: :plane:
There is a smugness in this posting that I find very disturbing, and I cannot let it go unchallenged.Interesting to see how many airbusses had the problem: zero...
A390, one might get the impression that you are suggesting Airbus aircraft are somehow inherently immune from the potential of fuel tank explosions. If that is what you are implying, could you please provide some reason as to why you believe this to be so. If this was not your meaning, would you please explain what you wanted readers to take from what you posted.
Be not too OptimisticA390 wrote:Interesting to see how many airbusses had the problem: zero...
Ok , non Airbus fuel tank exploded, but it could happen...
Airbuses have also a lot of wiring problems.
The fuel tank explosion last in the Transmille 727-200 is becaused of damaged power wiring IN fuel tank, TWA 800 boeing 747 fuel tank explosion was because of damaged (aged) power wiring in a bundel where there was a damaged wire of fuel tank probe wiring NOT in fuel tank. And of course in both cases the correct mixture of fuel vapours where present.
What type of insulation is used in Airbuses (all types) ?
Yes indeed Kapton ! Also used on MD-11, early Boeing 747 ,727 , 737,757 ,767 , not used by boeing After 1992.
So why should this not happen to Airbuses ? Kapton wiring start to crack, with core exposed , like I have seen already on airbuses.
I think it's time to show again the BBC reportage about exploding Kapton wiring !
Poly-X insulation was used on 747's like TWA 800 , wiring service live was estimated to 60.000 hours but the US navy found already cracks in insulation after 2000 hours ! more than 300 F-14 where rewired, Us navy banned use after 1978.
Also current used Cross link Tefzel failed Far-25 specs.
Used by boeing now and also airbus . Nasa banned use because in case of wire burns heavy toxic smoke.
TKT (teflon/kapton/teflon) is the only type insulation passes FAR-25 specs
picture shows wire bundle chafing, 8 wires where compleetly burned through some of them where heavy power wires for nav lights. 8 other wires had heavily insulation burn spots and damage.
Guess what, indeed one of the damaged wire was a coax of fuel tank probe wiring.
This programme was, believe it or not, on in the NWA / KLM lounge at LAX when i flew out of there on Saturday. Bizarre enough that they show it at the airport as we are all about to board a 747 but to be honest from what i saw of it it was pretty sensationalist and seemed to concentrate on grieving families more than the issues. But then I only saw the first 1.5 hours......
chunk - the last 40 minutes of the program focussed on causation (very well covered and not at all sensationalist) - too bad you missed it.
Bilboone - congrats on an excellent post! It sounds like you have first-hand experience with aircraft wiring. It's nice to hear confirmation on this forum that, in fact, Airbus products are not immune from ageing wiring problems. It might otherwise appear that some posters here have information that the NTSB, the FAA and other global air investigators/ regulators do not.
For those individuals, a little investigation would show you
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/mostwanted/aviation_issues.htm
and
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/new ... ewsId=7318
and, if you actually read the FAA's fact sheet, you'll learn that 1) the solution has 2 parts: one, the elimination of ignition sources (like faulty wiring) and two, reducing the flammability of the tank.
2) Airbus aircraft will be included in the required retrofitting (of inerting systems).
All of the above brings me back to my initial comment (post #1) "Interestingly, Boeing will incorporate prevention....Airbus will wait until it's mandated.
Bilboone - congrats on an excellent post! It sounds like you have first-hand experience with aircraft wiring. It's nice to hear confirmation on this forum that, in fact, Airbus products are not immune from ageing wiring problems. It might otherwise appear that some posters here have information that the NTSB, the FAA and other global air investigators/ regulators do not.
For those individuals, a little investigation would show you
http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/mostwanted/aviation_issues.htm
and
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/new ... ewsId=7318
and, if you actually read the FAA's fact sheet, you'll learn that 1) the solution has 2 parts: one, the elimination of ignition sources (like faulty wiring) and two, reducing the flammability of the tank.
2) Airbus aircraft will be included in the required retrofitting (of inerting systems).
All of the above brings me back to my initial comment (post #1) "Interestingly, Boeing will incorporate prevention....Airbus will wait until it's mandated.
Dear Gwillie,
you should read the postings better, and not look for "hidden" messages: the fact that, up to now (and please let's hope it stays like that...) no airbus had a fueltank explosion is related not only to engineering issues, but also to the fact that the number of ageing Airbusses flying is much smaller than the number of ageing Boeings. Stop relating everything to (nationalist) feelings pro-Boeing or pro-Airbus.
you should read the postings better, and not look for "hidden" messages: the fact that, up to now (and please let's hope it stays like that...) no airbus had a fueltank explosion is related not only to engineering issues, but also to the fact that the number of ageing Airbusses flying is much smaller than the number of ageing Boeings. Stop relating everything to (nationalist) feelings pro-Boeing or pro-Airbus.
Well A390, 'seems to me that you've taken a little trip down the road to Damascus and, albeit that you're not about to admit to it, you're now one of the converted! But, please don't try to hide it with the smokescreen of suggesting it is I who am biased by "nationalist" feelings. If anything, your posts (and your username) might suggest an inkling of such on your part. Please, show me one iota of "nationalist" sentiment in my posts and I'll be the first to kiss your *ss.
And, for the record, I am not one of the individuals on this forum whose identity is tied to one manufacturer or another. Most of my aviation interests/posts are safety-related, less often I share items of interest I have seen elsewhere.
A390, your last post says "the fact that...no airbus had a fueltank explosion is related not only to engineering issues...", and earthman, you stated earlier "Airbus always claimed to design their planes (the wiring in the tanks) in such a way as to make it much less likely that a fuel tank explodes".
Please, either one/both of you, provide some valid/verifiable reference point, link or source which will validate your statements.
A390 also stated "the number of ageing Airbusses flying is much smaller than the number of ageing Boeings". (Is this your guestimate, or do you have a source for this tidbit?)
In any case, "ageing" in aircraft as a cause per se of fuel tank explosions may be something of an urban myth. And, if you're associating defective wiring with ageing aircraft with fuel tank explosions, you'd better think again.
Reviewing the Aviation Safety Network's database of fuel tank explosion occurrences ( http://aviation-safety.net/database/dbl ... ?Event=FIT ), of the 23 occurrences between 1950 and 2006, only 7 involved commercial passenger aircraft. Of these, there were only 3 cases of defective wiring causation. One of these three aircraft was only one year old! (This database might not be inclusive of all incidents, in fact, considering stats used by the FAA, the numbers do appear low to me.)
So, back to the top of the page. Prevention of these occurrences will require reducing the flammability of fuel tank vapors through the use of onboard inerting systems. To their credit, Boeing has accepted this and "will install a nitrogen safety system on its new planes -- with or without an FAA mandate -- because it is "the right thing to do."" http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/06/2 ... tement.pdf
"A spokesman for Airbus, Boeing's Europe-based competitor, said it has never had a fuel tank explosion but that it will comply if the FAA orders the additional safety measures."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/14/twa.main/index.html
will comply...if ordered?
Great attitude, Airbus!
And, for the record, I am not one of the individuals on this forum whose identity is tied to one manufacturer or another. Most of my aviation interests/posts are safety-related, less often I share items of interest I have seen elsewhere.
A390, your last post says "the fact that...no airbus had a fueltank explosion is related not only to engineering issues...", and earthman, you stated earlier "Airbus always claimed to design their planes (the wiring in the tanks) in such a way as to make it much less likely that a fuel tank explodes".
Please, either one/both of you, provide some valid/verifiable reference point, link or source which will validate your statements.
A390 also stated "the number of ageing Airbusses flying is much smaller than the number of ageing Boeings". (Is this your guestimate, or do you have a source for this tidbit?)
In any case, "ageing" in aircraft as a cause per se of fuel tank explosions may be something of an urban myth. And, if you're associating defective wiring with ageing aircraft with fuel tank explosions, you'd better think again.
Reviewing the Aviation Safety Network's database of fuel tank explosion occurrences ( http://aviation-safety.net/database/dbl ... ?Event=FIT ), of the 23 occurrences between 1950 and 2006, only 7 involved commercial passenger aircraft. Of these, there were only 3 cases of defective wiring causation. One of these three aircraft was only one year old! (This database might not be inclusive of all incidents, in fact, considering stats used by the FAA, the numbers do appear low to me.)
So, back to the top of the page. Prevention of these occurrences will require reducing the flammability of fuel tank vapors through the use of onboard inerting systems. To their credit, Boeing has accepted this and "will install a nitrogen safety system on its new planes -- with or without an FAA mandate -- because it is "the right thing to do."" http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/06/2 ... tement.pdf
"A spokesman for Airbus, Boeing's Europe-based competitor, said it has never had a fuel tank explosion but that it will comply if the FAA orders the additional safety measures."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/14/twa.main/index.html
will comply...if ordered?
Great attitude, Airbus!
Some answers :
-electrical wires kept outside fuel tanks
-airconditioning packs sufficiently far away from fuel center tanks
To think about: why invest heavyly in fueltank inertion, when the same amount of money (and weight) could maybe better be used to improve safety in domains where it is more needed ?
Thanks for the explanation about the different insulation types; this indicates that there could well be a link between aircraft age and deterioration of insulation materials.
Lastly: why don't you like my nickname? Is it because it starts with the 'A' of 'Airbus'? Would only indicate your sensitivity.
-electrical wires kept outside fuel tanks
-airconditioning packs sufficiently far away from fuel center tanks
To think about: why invest heavyly in fueltank inertion, when the same amount of money (and weight) could maybe better be used to improve safety in domains where it is more needed ?
Thanks for the explanation about the different insulation types; this indicates that there could well be a link between aircraft age and deterioration of insulation materials.
Lastly: why don't you like my nickname? Is it because it starts with the 'A' of 'Airbus'? Would only indicate your sensitivity.
Another TV special on TWA 800....
National Geographic Channel, tonight, tomorrow and on August 1st
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/c ... 52100.html
National Geographic Channel, tonight, tomorrow and on August 1st
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/c ... 52100.html
Airbus goes for Parker inerting
While I'd like to think that Airbus has finally seen the light.....it's more likely they've seen regulation up ahead.....
from Flight Global....
"Parker Aerospace will provide fuel-tank inerting systems for most of Airbus's product line from 2009. The $500 million contract comes in anticipation of impending rules on inerting. Parker's system uses air separation modules to inject nitrogen-rich air into the centre fuel tank, reducing the flammability of fuel vapour in the tank."
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... +2006.html
from Flight Global....
"Parker Aerospace will provide fuel-tank inerting systems for most of Airbus's product line from 2009. The $500 million contract comes in anticipation of impending rules on inerting. Parker's system uses air separation modules to inject nitrogen-rich air into the centre fuel tank, reducing the flammability of fuel vapour in the tank."
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... +2006.html