Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[MrMango 667]

More on fuel tank inerting systems:

 

"Although 10 years have passed since this recommendation was issued, the FAA’s recent actions indicate positive movement, particularly in the development of a practical fuel tank inerting system. Boeing is making a flammability reduction system a basic feature in the design of the new 787 Dreamliner aircraft. Boeing has also designed a flammability reduction system and delivered these systems on production models of the 747 and 737 NG. The first B-737 equipped with a flammability reduction system was delivered on December 8, 2005, to Southwest Airlines. The next design to receive a flammability reduction system will be the B-777. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) will certify the new Airbus A380 transport aircraft without a fuel tank inerting system, instead relying on minimizing ignition sources and maintaining the fuel tank temperature below the ignition point. Ironically, Airbus has been investigating the use of inerting systems for cargo compartments, rather than staying with the increasing cost of Halon fire protection. Both the Safety Board and the FAA submitted comments opposing the Airbus approach."

 

The full article, the most recent I could find, is dated November 2006 and can be found here,

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/mostwanted/explosive_tanks.htm

I keep waiting - Where are the Airbus supporters here? I am waiting for their response?

[Samsonite 181]

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Type Certificate to Airbus for its A380 on 29 December 2006, but I cannot find anything on their reasoning for certifying it without a fuel tank inerting system.

Politics as usual, probably.

 

Guess what?! Airbus has their own eltib.

See the following web site:

 

http://www.eaawatch.net/CAT_Allegations.html

Edited May 26, 2007 by Scalawag

[MrMango 667]

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Type Certificate to Airbus for its A380 on 29 December 2006, but I cannot find anything on their reasoning for certifying it without a fuel tank inerting system.

Again, it was my understanding that you did not have to have a inert gas insertion system, even on older 747's.

Like most air crashes, they are a result of a lot of things going wrong at the wrong time, and any one of them would not of even been noticed if the bird did not crash. As I remember the sequence was:

It was a short flight for a 747 so the main fuel tank was almost empty (lots of fumes)

The cabin air conditioner condenser is located directly above the main fuel tank.

It was a very warm day, and the plane sat on the tarmac waiting for takeoff for a long period of time, causing a lot of heat from the air conditioner to warm up the fuel tank to combustible levels.

During manufacture, they routed a wire THROUGH the fuel tank and it had a defective coupling or sensor that sparked, and the rest is history.

I am going strictly by memory so you Boeing haters don't flame me on the exact details please.

[eltib 54]

Guess what?! Airbus has their own eltib.

See the following web site:

 

http://www.eaawatch.net/CAT_Allegations.html

 

Guess what? I don't disclose everything I have, like he did. And my issues are based on ethical practices, that Boeing will never get the message until a jury awards a plantiff an excessive amont of money.

 

Thanks for the comparision, but you are way off base.

Edited May 26, 2007 by eltib

[eltib 54]

Actually, funny that you mention that, as I previously thought when I read some of your previous posts "God, I hope this guy doesn't have any automatic weapons at home or some execs at Boeing are going to have a rough morning one of these days."

 

Anyways, congrats on you new job.

 

Hub

 

Probably because the comments I made about Wolfowitz, or the realism of the film "Death of a President." Believe me, nothing more would please me if somebody took both of them out. But in Bush's case we'd have to deal with Cheney as President. And that's a lose/lose situation.

 

Wolfowitz's demise would not cause any political ramifications.

Edited May 26, 2007 by eltib

[MrMango 667]

Have you noted that eltib totally ignores the negative posts about Airbus?

 

Funny, he claims to be so Ethical...

[eltib 54]

Have you noted that eltib totally ignores the negative posts about Airbus?

 

Funny, he claims to be so Ethical...

 

First of all I don't care much for the A380 either, it's too big an aircraft for me even to consider flying. I prefer the A320/330/340 family.

 

Not ignoring them Mango, the guy is just ranting away without any credible sources. And I mean ranting. I could do that if I wanted to, but I've only given a taste of what I have. Can he show those are genuine emails by exposing headers, and IP info? Those contracts have no official company letterheads on them. Why is the guy ranting on a webpage with all these misdeeds of Airbus, instead of suing them? In my case I've actually posted actual emails, policy and procedures, etc and removed names to protect the innocent. If I knew I was right why would I want public opinion to side with me, instead of taking it to the legal system?

 

I have more ethics in my pinky, than you have with your dick.

 

 

Get a life.

Edited May 27, 2007 by eltib

[Hub 203]

Probably because the comments I made about Wolfowitz, or the realism of the film "Death of a President." Believe me, nothing more would please me if somebody took both of them out. But in Bush's case we'd have to deal with Cheney as President. And that's a lose/lose situation.

 

Wolfowitz's demise would not cause any political ramifications.

 

I have no idea what you are speaking of (sorry, you lost my attention a long time ago with your "neocon" paranoia and ramblings and can not be bothered to read them), I was simply commenting (tongue in cheek ) on your rambling postings on this thread as a disgruntled former employee.

 

BTW - I think BA was up to $98 yesterday, up eight bucks for me since April

 

Hub

[MrMango 667]

I have more ethics in my pinky, than you have with your dick.

Well, with your ethics, you must have a pretty big pinky to match mine.

[amphora 0]

Again, it was my understanding that you did not have to have a inert gas insertion system, even on older 747's.

Like most air crashes, they are a result of a lot of things going wrong at the wrong time, and any one of them would not of even been noticed if the bird did not crash. As I remember the sequence was:

It was a short flight for a 747 so the main fuel tank was almost empty (lots of fumes)

The cabin air conditioner condenser is located directly above the main fuel tank.

It was a very warm day, and the plane sat on the tarmac waiting for takeoff for a long period of time, causing a lot of heat from the air conditioner to warm up the fuel tank to combustible levels.

During manufacture, they routed a wire THROUGH the fuel tank and it had a defective coupling or sensor that sparked, and the rest is history.

I am going strictly by memory so you Boeing haters don't flame me on the exact details please.

 

That was in fact the chain of events. I think after that incident FAA certification required a inert gas sytem to be installed also in older 747's, but I'm not really sure about that.

[wacmedia 277]

That was in fact the chain of events. I think after that incident FAA certification required a inert gas sytem to be installed also in older 747's, but I'm not really sure about that.

 

Hi,

 

Yeah, it was an unfortunate combination of events that caused that accident. I'm sure both companies will have systems in place to prevent it happening in new designs. They may have different systems, but it would be commercial suicide not to have a system.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

Well, with your ethics, you must have a pretty big pinky to match mine.

 

Mango,

 

I forgot to ask a while back. What planes did/do you actually fly?

[MrMango 667]

Mango,

 

I forgot to ask a while back. What planes did/do you actually fly?

A varied assortment. Among them, your favorite, a 172, along with a B-17 on the other end, with a lot in between.

[eltib 54]

I have no idea what you are speaking of ) on your rambling postings on this thread as a disgruntled former employee.

 

Hub

 

You made a post about me "blowing away some Boeing execs" because of my previous posts. And like I said there are many disgruntled employees that file lawsuits. Some with lotsa info that win, and others with nothing that lose. Fortunately, you'll have to wait and see if I go that far, for I'm not disclosing anymore info pertaining to a lawsuit.

 

Actually, funny that you mention that, as I previously thought when I read some of your previous posts "God, I hope this guy doesn't have any automatic weapons at home or some execs at Boeing are going to have a rough morning one of these days."

 

Hub

 

Don't worry Hub. If I had as many guns (which I don't even own one) as big as my guitar collection, I would be able to start a small war.

 

Well, with your ethics, you must have a pretty big pinky to match mine.

 

Wow!! what an amazing comeback...

 

Give Mango a cigar..

Edited May 27, 2007 by eltib

[MrMango 667]

Wow!! what an amazing comeback...

 

Give Mango a cigar..

Come on, I've got a million of them - It was nothing.

[Hub 203]

.

Don't worry Hub. If I had as many guns (which I don't even own one) as big as my guitar collection, I would be able to start a small war.

 

Eltib:

 

Good.

 

Guitars......good.

 

 

Semiautomatic weapons.........bad.

 

 

Good luck with the new job.

 

Hub

[wacmedia 277]

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is expected to make its first flight in August of 2007 with delivery starting in 2008. As of now, Boeing has orders for 458 planes from 37 customers.

 

Hi,

 

Back on topic guys. Will the 787 be flying in August 2007 as suggested by the OP ?

[BigDUSA 71]

Hi,

 

Back on topic guys. Will the 787 be flying in August 2007 as suggested by the OP ?

 

Yes.

[Gary 4,118]

Purging fuel tanks with nitrogen is a cheap but VERY effective precaution. I think that solution should be mandatory on all commercial aircraft. A couple of inexpensive oxygen sensors coupled with an automatic purge valve is a cheap investment when you are talking about the lives of many people.

[MrMango 667]

Purging fuel tanks with nitrogen is a cheap but VERY effective precaution. I think that solution should be mandatory on all commercial aircraft. A couple of inexpensive oxygen sensors coupled with an automatic purge valve is a cheap investment when you are talking about the lives of many people.

Well, I don't agree, Boeing doesn't agree, and the rest of the industry also does not agree.

It is not cheap, and if you route any flammable possible causes of ignition away from the tanks, as well as limiting the possibility of them being heated up, they are unnecessary.

 

The FAA also agrees.

[Gary 4,118]

Well, I don't agree, Boeing doesn't agree, and the rest of the industry also does not agree.

It is not cheap, and if you route any flammable possible causes of ignition away from the tanks, as well as limiting the possibility of them being heated up, they are unnecessary.

 

The FAA also agrees.

 

Why is it expensive? Compressed or even liquid nitrogen is cheap and oxygen sensors are also cheap. Removing an explosive atmosphere eliminates lightening strike threats as well as electrical shorts or heat problems. All fuel tanks with an oxygen containing atmosphere in them are potential bombs.

[Samsonite 181]

It is not as expensive as some in the aviation industry would like us to believe.

 

"In response to the long-term solution, preventing flammable fuel/air vapors in fuel tanks, the FAA commissioned an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to evaluate design modifications, such as inerting, that would satisfy this recommendation. In its July 1998 final report, the ARAC concluded that inerting would achieve this goal, but at a cost of over $20 billion. The ARAC also concluded that inerting systems would be very difficult to retrofit into existing airplanes and recommended that the FAA continue to investigate a more cost-effective approach to reducing explosive vapors. A 2001 followup study also concluded that the benefit of inerting could not be reasonably balanced by its cost. In May 2002, in contrast to the ARAC’s reports, the FAA developed a prototype inerting system that required no moving parts, weighed less than 200 pounds, and could be retrofitted into existing airplanes at a fraction of the industry-estimated cost: the cost of this prototype system was only $100,000. The system has been flight tested by the FAA, NASA, Boeing, and Airbus, and the results indicate that fuel tank inerting is both practical and effective."

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/mostwanted/explosive_tanks.htm

Edited May 30, 2007 by Scalawag

[MrMango 667]

Why is it expensive? Compressed or even liquid nitrogen is cheap and oxygen sensors are also cheap. Removing an explosive atmosphere eliminates lightening strike threats as well as electrical shorts or heat problems. All fuel tanks with an oxygen containing atmosphere in them are potential bombs.

Agree that Nitrogen is not expensive.

The delivery system and sensors are a little it expensive however.

The FAA decided that they are not necessary.

One accident in how many million flights of a 747?

Waist of money.

[Gary 4,118]

Agree that Nitrogen is not expensive.

The delivery system and sensors are a little it expensive however.

The FAA decided that they are not necessary.

One accident in how many million flights of a 747?

Waist of money.

 

 

Just once is too many if my ass is on that plane. Major retrofit, bullshit. A nitrogen canister in the cargo area and a line to each fuel tank CAN'T be a big deal.

[MrMango 667]

Just once is too many if my ass is on that plane. Major retrofit, bullshit. A nitrogen canister in the cargo area and a line to each fuel tank CAN'T be a big deal.

It's not quite that simple, IMHO. First, you are adding a Major NEW problem when you install a potential explosive (High pressure inert gas) that is now illegal to carry.

 

Second, simply by keeping the tank full during takeoff solves the problem.

 

Why make it more complicated?