Camelspyder is making a fair point. What about the Lightning or SR71, both of which leaked like sieves until skin temperature expanded the skin to plug the leaks. Its not so much the leak as what causes the 'spark' on any fire. All aeroplanes leak, to a certain extent, due to the continual thermal and pressure changes on seals and couplings etc in normal operation over extended periods of time. If servicing schedules and item 'life' is being extended in an arbitrary fashion, to cope with 'one off events' that then become continual, then THAT is a problem in itself that could lead to unacceptable leaks or other faults.
That, though is a policy decision relating to 'overstretch' that needs to be addressed as a separate issue. Hopefully, if it were a factor in this incident, then the BOI will bring that out. Historically, BOIs have never been afraid of pointing the finger of blame upwards - its whether 'Their Airships' are prepared to accept those reccomendations
Also, not fully understanding how the system works, would fire suppressant foam actually stop a tank exploding if the explosion is a result of a fire not in a tank? Does it release into the tank as a result of a pressure change in the tank or on temperature? ie: if a leaking fuel has caught fire in another location, where it has pooled and been ignited, no amount of foam in a tank 20 feet away up the wing is going to stop a fire in that other location.
Last edited by thunderbird7; 3rd July 2007 at 09:47.