How many times do I have to tell you that until a few years ago, inerting systems were too heavy and expensive?
As far as older 747’s being exempt, if that’s true, maybe they’re being used as freighters. Very few, if any, older 747’s carry passengers anymore. Plus there were other Airworthiness Directives that made the older 747’s safer. Fuel tank explosions are rare. I don’t think anybody’s disputing that.
Frankly, Moorman, you've demonstrated time and time again you don't know anything. You will just say anything to counter any cogent argument to support your viewpoint, true or not. You will make factoids up if thats what you need such as your claims about "older 747s being freighters" instead of passenger planes. You are pathetic.
Please post these older directives you claim were more important to get out there. Mere expense has never stopped the NTSB before. I told you the only ones I am aware of were for things that Boeing had been already doing in its air craft even before the 747 was designed, such as not allowing any electrical wiring in fuel tanks, contrary to those who have been claiming that electrical wires have been routed through fuel tanks, a really stupid idea when there are much easier and safer routes to take wires. . . like around them? It's not as if Boeing is trying to save a few bucks on wire to cut costs by routing them the shortest distance by going straight through the fuel tanks, you know.