Aviation - fuel tank explosions, TWA Flight 800, Concorde, etc.

Originally posted by elpasys
Yes!

By?

I had a quick look around (ntrs, aerade and eevl) and found nothing... could you gimme a link please?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Please provide the official source of the "arrow of time" in the TWA 800 synopsis. The NTSB accident website makes no mention of this "fuel weathering" delay you claim. Also, there is no reference to the B-727 refueling incident in Minneapolis you describe and the NTSB accident web site goes back to 1962.

I can tell you that these theories you espouse have never made it to mainstream accident investigation or flight training.

Entropy is NEVER mentioned.

Entropy is taboooooo!
Thus the 20th century was lost for thermodynamics. There are only two Nobel prize winners (Onsager and Prigogine) regarding entropy concepts in the 20th century. The uncertainty on the concept of entropy itself is a kind of entropy. In aviation it is not clear where exactly and how the entropy generation takes place. After all, flammable vapors and nucleate boiling have been present in fuel tanks since the Wright brothers first flew. Thus far fuel tank self(?)-explosions have resulted in 350 fatalities(!). There is a lot of hard work to regarding antropy in the 21st century.

""fuel weathering" delay" - see with concentrated attention the Aircraft Accident Report TWA 800.

Refueling incidents in Minneapolis; see:
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Title: "Fuel Tank Ignition Prevention Measures"
www.epa.gov...

2. Service History / Fuel Tank Safety Level Assessment
ARAC Task Group 1
Refueling Events
www.fire.tc.faa.gov...

Originally posted by elpasys
""fuel weathering" delay" - see with concentrated attention the Aircraft Accident Report TWA 800.

What!?! The only official accident report is here. It makes no mention of a "weathering delay". Please site your source.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Please site your source.

Please read between the lines of the official report:

"The VSO (volumetric shutoff) will also shut the valves when fuel enters the tanks if a fuel tank is overfilled. While the accident airplane was being fueled at JFK the fuel system's automatic VSO activated"

[due to fuel weathering (nucleate boiling)] (the unspoken words)

"before the fuel tanks were full. A mechanic overode the safety system and finished fueling manually."

"TWA Flight 800 was schedulded to depart JFK (New York, New York, USA) for Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG, Paris, France) about 19:00; however, the flight was delayed"

[1.2 hour] [due to fuel weathering (nucleate boiling)]. [Official:] (the unspoken words)

"a disabled piece of ground equipment (a fleet service vehicle was blocking the accident airplane at the gate) and concerns about a suspected passenger/baggage mismatch (the missing passenger was on board the whole time)."

You can read anything you want between the lines of an accident report. But that doesn't mean that you're right.

Elpasys

As i mentioned before your information on concord is wrong - the only accident in its history was caused by the aricraft , on take off , hitting a piece of debris , which punctured a tyre - pieces of wheel and/or the piece of debris from the preceeding aircraft then spun upwards with great kinetic energy and punctured the fuel tank.

The rest , is as they say , history.

Elpasys;

Alright; this is the last time. I've read the official accident report and it does not mention anything about delays, volumetric shutoff, or anything else you've stated here. I'm willing to concede that I may have missed something--but you need to site your source!! Please provide a link. Otherwise, I'm done with this thread.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

Originally posted by Harlequin
Elpasys
As i mentioned before your information on concord is wrong - the only accident in its history was caused by the aricraft , on take off , hitting a piece of debris , which punctured a tyre - pieces of wheel and/or the piece of debris from the preceeding aircraft then spun upwards with great kinetic energy and punctured the fuel tank.
The rest , is as they say , history.

"Concorde Accident
16 Tests and Research
16.3 Observation and Pictures of the Event
The following was provided by examination of pictures available of the
accident flight and from reports by various people who were at the airport
or saw the aircraft flying.
The initial fire began under the wing, between the left engine nacelles and
the fuselage, a few seconds before the start of takeoff rotation, the
aircraft being in the vicinity of W7 or S5. A small flame apparently
appeared suddenly, similar to a blowtorch, and then got wider (enveloping
the left engines) and longer (about the length of a fuselage). This flame
was accompanied by thick black smoke. The noise of the aircraft was perhaps different from normal.

These in no way represent the conclusions of the investigation."

Text

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Elpasys;

Alright; this is the last time. I've read the official accident report and it does not mention anything about delays, volumetric shutoff, or anything else you've stated here. I'm willing to concede that I may have missed something--but you need to site your source!! Please provide a link. Otherwise, I'm done with this thread.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]

We are in the US - or in the SU?

NTSB AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT
PB2000-910403
NTSB/AAR-00/03
DCA96MA070
In-flight Breakup Over the Atlantic Ocean Trans World Airlines Flight 800
Boeing 747-131, N93119
Near East Moriches, New York
July 17, 1996

Page 31 (49)
"1.6.2.1 Fuel Quantity Indication System . . .
While the accident airplane was being fueled at JFK, the fuel system's automatic VSO activated before the fuel tanks were full. According to postaccident interviews, a TWA mechanic examined the fuel system and [overrode] the system, pull[ed the] volumetric [shutoff valve or VSO] fuse and an overflow circuit breaker. After the fueler finished fueling the airplane manually, the TWA mechanic reset the fuse and circuit breaker. According to the fueler and TWA maintenance personnel, activation of the VSO is a common occurrence. According to maintenance records, the accident airplane had numerous VSO-related maintenance writeups during the weeks before the accident."

etc., etc., . . .


________
[ The End ]
________


[edit on 8-10-2005 by elpasys]

Originally posted by elpasys
*snip*

Text

from the very site you linked to:

On Tuesday, 25th July 2000 the very first fatal accident involving Concorde occured with Concorde 203, F-BTSC out bound from Paris to New York. It crashed 60 seconds after take off after suffering tyre blow out that caused a fuel tank to rupture. This started a sequence of events that caused a fire which eventually lead to 2 engines failing and the aircraft crashing.

www.concordesst.com...

the front page from the very same website you linked to - and they STATE it was a tyre blow out , caused by a metal strip on the runway , left behind by a preceeding DC-10

[edit on 8-10-2005 by Harlequin]

In, and above the Maximum Entropy zone of a tank ullage the vestigial lithium, aluminium or silver atoms (Jet-fuel additives) can be changed into helium ions with energies many times greater than those of the hydrogen explosive combustion. This additional energy apparently came as a result of the partial conversion of some of the mass of lithium, aluminium or silver
into helium in accordance with the following nuclear reaction:

Lithium + Hydrogen →Helium + Energy
3Li7 + 1H1 →2He4 + 17 MeV

maybe you need to learn a little more about aircraft before you start blaming everything on fuel tank explosions.

If you know anything about the concorde you then should know a spark from a wire in the wheel well started the explosion when the fuel leaked out the wing.

TWA let me see some bare wires, malfunctioning sensor/pump in the fuel tank is what really caused the explosion...... If you think airplanes are in 100% tip top shape and only these wierd fuel explosions you claim are the cause. Then let me tell you dont ever fly, I been working on planes all my life, and have been inside, DC-8, 747, 737, 727, DC-10, 757, 767, L10-11, MD-80,88, Md-11 fuel tanks and all I say all are full of problems.... This is called the human factor.

People break things, step on wires, leave FOD in the fuel tanks and never report it..... maybe just maybe these problems can be associated with your explosions......

oh and your mysterious exploding tank,. hey maybe a mech left his/hers flashlight in the tank, never know will ya?

I did a little investigation and found that this was cause of a static discharge.
Also this happened in the center tank not tank no.2 or or cheek tank...

Maybe you should do a littlle better research on your claims; here is a link

US EPA fuel tank explosions

Sorry, this is totally off topic (well, kinda) but I just keep thinking of the whitesnake song...


Here I go again...

[edit on 15-10-2005 by kilcoo316]

NTSB Report on airliner fuel tank flammability, August 8, 2001.
Statement of NTSB former chairman Carol Carmody:
"The National Transportation Safety Board recommended in December 1996 both design and operational changes, following its finding that TWA flight 800 suffered a fuel tank explosion. The working group's clearly demonstrates the significant benefits to fuel tank safety and the consequent reduction in air transport fatalities provided by inerting. I am disappointed that their cost-benefit analysis leads them not to recommended inerting systems. Dangerous conditions in fuel tanks occur more commonly than had been believed. The Safety Board strongly believes that near-term measures to eliminate flammable fuel tank vapors are necessary and prudent. The recent destruction of a Boeing 737 in Thailand shows that center fuel tank explosions continue to occur, and likely will occur again in the future".

Originally posted by elpasys

NTSB Report on airliner fuel tank flammability, August 8, 2001.
Statement of NTSB former chairman Carol Carmody:
"The National Transportation Safety Board recommended in December 1996 both design and operational changes, following its finding that TWA flight 800 suffered a fuel tank explosion. The working group's clearly demonstrates the significant benefits to fuel tank safety and the consequent reduction in air transport fatalities provided by inerting. I am disappointed that their cost-benefit analysis leads them not to recommended inerting systems. Dangerous conditions in fuel tanks occur more commonly than had been believed. The Safety Board strongly believes that near-term measures to eliminate flammable fuel tank vapors are necessary and prudent. The recent destruction of a Boeing 737 in Thailand shows that center fuel tank explosions continue to occur, and likely will occur again in the future".

www.ntsb.gov...

The working group’s report clearly demonstrates the significant benefits to fuel tank safety and the consequent reduction in air transport fatalities provided by inerting. I am disappointed that their cost-benefit analysis leads them not to recommend inerting systems. We question the factual basis for the cost-benefit analysis presented in the report. I am pleased that the ARAC Executive Committee appears to share our concerns and has requested further clarification of that analysis.

This is an important issue, and the Safety Board recognizes that there may be a number of different ways to counteract fuel tank flammability in the existing fleet. Extensive research into the crash of TWA flight 800 revealed that dangerous conditions in fuel tanks occur more commonly than had been believed, and that there are numerous potential sources of energy to ignite fuel tank vapors. Despite the aviation community’s best efforts, we can never be sure that all possible ignition sources have been eliminated. The Safety Board strongly believes that near-term measures to eliminate flammable fuel tank vapors are necessary and prudent.

The recent destruction of a Boeing 737 in Thailand shows that center fuel tank explosions continue to occur, and likely will occur again in the future. This problem must be addressed if we are to maintain the confidence of the traveling public.

Nothing like selective quoting is there elpasys

The China Northern Airlines MD-82 Flight 6136, May 7, 2002.

On May 7, 2002 a China Northern Airlines plane MD-82, Flight 6136 plunged, with its lights out, into the Yellow Sea minutes after takeoff, killing all 112 on board.

A fisherman: "We saw the plane exploding and we went down there in a boat and we saw lots of debris and belongings, body parts, but no survivors, we only saw dead bodies".

Entropy won.

As there is no link, and going on past posts, I'll assume MD-82 Flight 6136, May 7, 2002 is more of your imagination (re 'entropy')

intersting every time i hear about these planes going down intot he oceans like flight swiss air 111 and the one just mentioned and all the bodies and debrie thqat was found and then think back to flight 007.

Originally posted by ncbrian211

oh and your mysterious exploding tank,. hey maybe a mech left his/hers flashlight in the tank, never know will ya?

"Filtering or rapidly pumping a liquid that is a relatively poor electrical conductor, like jet fuel, can result in a static charge being created much faster than it dissipates." [i.e. entropy growth]
"When the accumulated charge exceeds the ionization potential" [i.e. maximum entropy state]
"of the air above the liquid, it can discharge from the liquid surface as a spark. The energy of the spark can initiate an explosion if the liquid is flammable and the composition."

More:
Chevron
Aviation fuels
2. Aviation Turbine Fuel Performance