It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Basic Chemical Information for Jet fuel
For detailed chemical information see the chemical detail page.
Basic Identification Information About This Chemical
U.S. EPA PC Code
CA DPR Chem Code
Chem Class Jet fuel
Chemical versus Common Names
063515 (US EPA PC Code) , 94114-58-6 (CAS Number) , 94114586 , 94114586 (CAS Number) , Fuels, jet, JP-3 , Fuels, jet, JP-4 , Fuels, jet, JP-5 , Jet fuel , Jet fuels, JP-4 , Jet fuels, JP-5 , Jet fuels, JP-6 , Jetfuel , JP-5 jet fuel , JP-6 jet fuel , Navy fuels JP-5 , Navy fuels JP-5, petroleum derived , NCI-C54784
Originally posted by doctordoom
What is ethylene glycol monomethyl ether?
Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide may form when heated to decomposition.
Originally posted by doctordoom
Now, think about how witness explained the recent Montana plane crash. It seems to me that that is how a plane would react if it was sputtering, not getting enough fuel.
New Inspection & Maintenance Requirements Create Widespread Uncertainty
Air Safety Week , June 21, 2004
The four major safety programs involve electrical, fuel and structural systems, with new requirements for airplanes with 14 or more years of service. To recount briefly each of the four initiatives affecting transport-category aircraft:
1. Electrical system safety. This initiative has a mouthful of an acronym, EAPAS, which stands for Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Aircraft Systems. It involves zonal inspections of electrical wiring and interconnection systems (EWIS). These inspections were dubbed the enhanced zonal analysis program (EZAP) for wiring. The EZAP effort reportedly will commence in 2006, a two-year slide from the original plan to begin that effort this year (see ASW, May 5, 2003, and ASW, July 14, 2003). A subset of this effort involved a onetime detailed visual inspection of cockpit, electronics and equipment bay wiring, and power feeder cables (CEEPF). However, according to the June bulletin of the UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), the CEEPF inspections have been folded into the larger EZAP effort .
2. Structural system safety. The second program involves widespread fatigue damage, or WFD. This effort requires operators to implement maintenance actions to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches a set number of flight cycles and/or hours. The problem of WFD from scribe marks scored into the aluminum during preparation for painting was recently the subject of FAA concern (see ASW, April 12, and ASW, June 7). A corrosion prevention and control (CPCP) initiative is evidently on "hold" for the moment, although corrosion can contribute to WFD, as was evidenced in the fatal May 2002 explosive decompression of a China Airlines B747, which involved WFD aggravated by corrosion (see ASW, June 30, 2003).
3. Structural system safety. For aircraft with 14 or more years of service, the FAA wants damage-tolerance-based inspections incorporated into the aircraft maintenance programs. This initiative applies the damage-tolerance concept to structure outside of the pressure hull.
4. Fuel system safety. Under a Special Federal Aviation Regulation known as SFAR 88, manufacturers are required to conduct fuel system safety assessments and to implement required inspection and maintenance programs to ensure that the original design, intended to minimize the presence of ignition sources, remains intact through the life of the airplane. Since electrical components are found in fuel pumping and fuel level indication systems, there is a certain amount of overlap between the SFAR 88 effort and the EAPAS program.
An overall plan was expected to be published May 4 in the Federal Register, but that document, the subject of ongoing review within the FAA, the Department of Transportation, and the Office of Management and Budget, has been delayed. Imminent release is expected.
Both standard jet fuels (Jet A and Jet B) may contain a number of additives:
* Antioxidants to prevent gumming, usually based on alkylated phenols, eg. AO-30, AO-31, or AO-37;
* Antistatic agents, to dissipate static electricity and prevent sparking; Stadis 450, with dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid (DINNSA) as the active ingredient, is an example
* Corrosion inhibitors, e.g. DCI-4A used for civilian and military fuels, and DCI-6A used for military fuels;
* Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII) agents, e.g. Di-EGME; FSII is often mixed at the point-of-sale so that users with heated fuel lines do not have to pay the extra expense.
* Biocide can be added if evidence of bacterial colonies inside the fuel system exists.
Originally posted by tagus2012
I really would like to see an actual picture of a sky with chemtrails with a plane producing contrails.
Maybe it´s my fault by not finding any, but my question is:
If we are to believe chemtrails are deliberately spread into the sky by some planes and not an atmospheric phenomena, then there must be pictures of planes producing contrails while others chemtrails, in the same weather conditions above in the sky.
If we see some planes throwing "normal" contrails, and we see some planes that spread chemtrails which after a while can become a cloud of it´s own, then why can´t i find pics where a "normal" plane and an evil one are flying together in the same weather conditions?
Originally posted by Komodo
I have no idea wheather it got published or not.
After a quick read of the article, it seems that the FAA KNOWS that older aircraft are in dire need of better maintenance and was/is trying to do something about it.
As for the fuel filters being clogged, I for one will have to go with the OP on this on...especially since the above is true. Those that perform the maintenance of these aircraft HAVE to sign their maintenance reports as having made the repairs/maintenance of the part/aircraft.
Fuel filters and fuel systems IMO, get a check up regularly and the only reason they get clogged before the maintenance was due would be someone added something to the fuel that shouldn't have been there; wheather it was at the manufacturing plant or after refueling.
just my .02
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2008-0411; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-061-AD;
Amendment 39-15488; AD 2008-09-07]
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 757 airplanes and Model 767-200, 767-300, and 767-300F
series airplanes. This AD requires revising the Limitations section of
the airplane flight manual to advise the flight crew of procedures to
follow to ensure that a fuel filter impending bypass condition due to
gross fuel contamination is detected in a timely manner. This AD was
prompted by an error in the operating program software (OPS) of the
engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS). The error prevents
the display of an advisory message to the flight crew of a left engine
fuel filter contamination and imminent bypass condition, SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
We are issuing this AD to prevent
malfunction and thrust loss on both engines, which could result in a
forced off-airport landing.
DATES: This AD is effective May 8, 2008.
We must receive comments on this AD by June 23, 2008.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Komodo
But what's the point adding something? The filters catch it, that's why they get clogged.
Originally posted by defcon5
Like gerktron01, I have also been a fueler. There is a very simple way to prove that Chemtrails have nothing to do with the fuel. Diesel ground equipment is fueled with the same gas that is used on aircraft, and from the same trucks.