FAA now backs fix for fuel-tank blasts

USA TODAY ^ | 13 December 2002 | Alan Levin

[Asmodeus]

EGG HARBOR, N.J. -- The Federal Aviation Administration said Thursday that it has developed a simple technology that prevents jet fuel tanks from exploding. For years, the agency has called the idea too expensive and complex.

A fuel-tank explosion was blamed for the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996. Since then, the aviation industry has taken dozens of steps to reduce the risks. FAA rules released last year could require even more expensive redesigns of some jet models.

But the device demonstrated at an FAA technical facility here could provide greater safety at a lower cost, officials said. It would fill a fuel tank full of non-flammable nitrogen gas that makes an explosion all but impossible. ''Every now and then we have these real breakthroughs for safety, and I think that's what we have here,'' FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said.

Jet fuel is less flammable than gasoline, but it can explode in combination with high heat, oxygen-laden air and a spark. An FAA study found that center fuel tanks on jets have enough heat and oxygen to blow up to 35% of the time. Sparks are rare, but it is difficult to completely eliminate them.

Since 1990, fuel tanks on three commercial jets have exploded. The explosion on TWA Flight 800 killed 230 people. Nine people died in fuel tank explosions in Manila and Bangkok.

The announcement by the FAA represents a major turnabout. Last year, an agency-sponsored group calculated that the costs of placing an inert gas, such as nitrogen, into jet fuel tanks ''far exceed'' the benefits. That had left the FAA at odds with the National Transportation Safety Board (news - web sites), which made the issue one of its ''most wanted'' safety improvements. ''We're most encouraged that the FAA has taken this on -- and that wasn't always the case,'' said Carol Carmody, acting NTSB (news - web sites) chairman.

Because nitrogen gas could be a cheaper solution than other options, FAA officials believe the aviation industry will embrace the new technology. Boeing, the jet manufacturer, recently sought FAA approval for its own device on 737 and 747 models. It hopes to begin testing its design in flight by fall of next year.

The FAA's breakthrough came last May, when engineers calculated that less nitrogen is needed to prevent explosions than was previously believed. Instead of costly systems based at airports, the agency began to focus on smaller devices that work automatically on jets.

The demonstration model on a Boeing 747 at the FAA facility weighs only 160 pounds. It uses three tubes that extract nitrogen from the air and a series of pipes to carry the nitrogen into the fuel tank. It has no moving parts, said Ivor Thomas, the FAA's chief scientist for fuel systems.

FAA officials say they have not calculated the costs of installing the new devices on the 5,000 commercial jets in this country. Privately, industry sources say the only way jet manufacturers will install the devices is if they no longer have to adopt other costly safety measures instead.

Both FAA and Boeing said this and other technical hurdles remain before the system can be certified and put into service. But the FAA predicted the devices could be aboard jets starting in 2004.

[Asmodeus]

The TWA 800 "missile(s) shootdown" conspiracy theorists will, of course, allege that this is part of their fantasy "government coverup of the truth" while continuing to ignore the reality that Flight 800 was not the victim of a missile(s) attack or bomb.

The "Missile Witnesses" Myth Ten Expert Metallurgists Find No Physical Evidence Of A Missile Or Bomb Attack

[Fish out of Water]

bump

[Bommer]

Name 1 other 747 that blew up in mid air from the center fuel tank exploding?

[js1138]

I am aware of fuel tank fires, and have seen film of them. I am unaware of any explosions. Nor am I aware of any successful attempt to replicate the explosion, say in 55 gallon drum, which was attempted for a tv documentary.

[eastforker]

As a matter of fact,It is hard to believe that this wasn't already implicated.I work in a refinery and anytime there is a risk of a fire or explosion in a vessel we always put a blanket of nitrogen on it.The article mentioned a devise that pulled only nitrogen from the air.How expensive would it be just to put a couple bottles of nitrogen on the aircraft with regulators to keep a .5 pound of preasure in the fuel tanks?I am not an engineer but this does not sound like something hard to do.

[Hoplite]

Nitrogen'n'stuff.

[lmailbvmbipfwedu]

USAF has lost 5 KC-135s to fuel tank explosions over the years. These explosions have be caused by fuel pumps overheating due to low fuel level. Their answer, keep 3,000 lbs of fuel in the tanks........

[Paleo Conservative]

Name 1 other 747 that blew up in mid air from the center fuel tank exploding?

China Airlines

[Darksheare]

Oh, they FINALLY realized how stupid they looked by NOT doing this?
Or did you finally realize it yourself and report it to your superiors?

[Darksheare]

That's been my point all along.
If there had truly been a defect, then the 747's would ALL have been grounded long ago for repairs and upgrades...

[Keith]

I'll agree to being called a conspiracy theorist if you will agree to being called a coincidence theorist. It's not even the stupidity about alleging a fuel tank exploded that incenses me, it's the idiot CIA video alleging that the plane CLIMBED for several thousand feet after the nose came off that is so insulting. Gimme a break.

[Mr. K]

baloney- I saw WITH MY OWN EYES the 'cocktail party' video of a missile streaking up and the plane exploding afterwards...

I also use kerosine in my back yard to start bonfires- you can toss a match into a bucket of it and the match will go out.

Geez...

This is like people watchign the Zapruder film and STILL insisting that the head shot came from behind...

[wcbtinman]

I just want to know how they are going to contain nitrogen, under pressure, in a fuel tank that is vented to the atmosphere...and one that is not designed to operate under constant pressurization.

[Archangelsk]

Perhaps a seal using bleed air from the compressor?

[thatdewd]

BUMP for Truth!!!

[thatdewd]

China Airlines

Perhaps I missed it, but there is absolutely nothing in the article mentioning the center fuel tank whatsoever. The only thing mentioned in the article is their horrible safety record, which would imply a myriad of other possibilities besides the center fuel tank.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

You can throw a match into gasoline and it will go out. The fumes are what is really flamible.

[glock rocks]

it's the idiot CIA video alleging that the plane CLIMBED for several thousand feet after the nose came off that is so insulting. Gimme a break.

damned straight, Keith!

just what insurance are we going to have that the cia isn't going to create cartoons to explain away
every mysterious event? what if richard "adidas" reed had been successful? huh?
wiley coyote and acme do boeing? debbie the airbus does vortex?

nothing-to-see-here and the composites?

[6AL-4V]

If it is compressed/heated a spark will ignite it. Thats how a jet engine is started, a high voltage igniter. Douglas A/C maint. manuals forbid the use of safety wire in fuel tanks. The ends are a potential static discharge. Boeing A/C procedures now require a minimum fuel load to cool boost pumps. 747's have A/C packs beneath the center wing which generate a lot of heat. No opinions, just a few random facts