Japan runway crash marks test of how new carbon jets cope in a disaster
"Japan Airlines (JAL) has said it expecting to report an operating loss of Y15bn ($104m) as a result of the collision between one of its A350 aircraft and a coastguard plane at Haneda airport."
Plus, a replacement aircraft will likely significantly more than what they get from the insurance...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the interesting and novel thing about this accident is the fact that the roof of the fuselage did not disintegrate the way aluminum would - see pics of the AF and Asiana birds above and many others e.g.
in which there has been an intense cabin fire (even of relatively short duration). What seems to have happened is that once inside the fuselage (getting in from below) the fire was retained within it without breaching the roof. All those pictures of the fire in which there is a raging fire inside and along the length of the cabin as seen through the windows and doors without the roof having gone are a first - at least for me.
Usually by the time the fire inside is that advanced and intense, the roof has melted away and the flames can be doused before the lower half of the plane is destroyed. I wonder if in this case the intact roof prevented the effective control of the fire, leaving the fire crews to simply watch as the burning cabin floor melted and sank into the baggage compartment (while still fully/partially covered by a sagging roof) and continued to burn until the fuselage was the complete melted wreck seen the next day. I also wonder if melted masses of plastic/carbon have made it hard to find the CVR - which as far as I am aware has still not been found.
in which there has been an intense cabin fire (even of relatively short duration). What seems to have happened is that once inside the fuselage (getting in from below) the fire was retained within it without breaching the roof. All those pictures of the fire in which there is a raging fire inside and along the length of the cabin as seen through the windows and doors without the roof having gone are a first - at least for me.
Usually by the time the fire inside is that advanced and intense, the roof has melted away and the flames can be doused before the lower half of the plane is destroyed. I wonder if in this case the intact roof prevented the effective control of the fire, leaving the fire crews to simply watch as the burning cabin floor melted and sank into the baggage compartment (while still fully/partially covered by a sagging roof) and continued to burn until the fuselage was the complete melted wreck seen the next day. I also wonder if melted masses of plastic/carbon have made it hard to find the CVR - which as far as I am aware has still not been found.
I don't think it makes much if any difference what the materials are, once a fire has taken hold inside the cabin no amount of external water/foam can have any effect whatsoever except for boundary cooling. Unless you can achieve foam delivery inside it's just going to run off the fuselage onto the ground.
Sure, fight external fire with every effort to prevent burnthrough, but if/once that occurs you've lost the battle, and with the massive damage in the belly of this aircraft the hull's integrity may well have been compromised anyway.
I suspect we're going to be hearing a good deal about the health hazards of burned carbon fibres too, an issue that's barely been raised so far. Removal and disposal of the wreckage will be a difficult business, especially if there is any wind at all.
Sure, fight external fire with every effort to prevent burnthrough, but if/once that occurs you've lost the battle, and with the massive damage in the belly of this aircraft the hull's integrity may well have been compromised anyway.
I suspect we're going to be hearing a good deal about the health hazards of burned carbon fibres too, an issue that's barely been raised so far. Removal and disposal of the wreckage will be a difficult business, especially if there is any wind at all.
Join Date: Sep 2022
Location: Driffield
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire Ingress
When comparing alluminium fuselage structure to composite, I would have thought one of the most important measures is how long it takes an external fire to breach an undamaged fuselage. I appreciate the fuselage of the A350 at Haneda may have been anything but undamaged, however, it seemed to stand up reasonably well to the extenal blaze. I am not in any particular composits vs alluminium camp here, although, to make a comparison with the Manchester 737 disaster in the 80's, it according to wiki, it would seem that fire burned through the fuselage in less than a minute, and last survivor was removed by fire crew after 5.5 minutes. However, this was a big fuel fed fire with the hot side into wind, so admittedly, a different scenario.
Disclaimer: lurking SLF here, no aircraft industry knowledge apart from a knowledge of what burning composite smells like having done ultrasonic bonding trial for the industry.
Disclaimer: lurking SLF here, no aircraft industry knowledge apart from a knowledge of what burning composite smells like having done ultrasonic bonding trial for the industry.
Plastic burns well. Heating plastic in a super heated "oven", and condensing the gas given off, produces petrol. (pyrolysis)
I did question, on JB the consumption rate of the burning fuselage. I was told to keep out of it and leave it to the proffesionals on pprune . My response to the expert, was removed by the moderator.
I did question, on JB the consumption rate of the burning fuselage. I was told to keep out of it and leave it to the proffesionals on pprune . My response to the expert, was removed by the moderator.
Last edited by RichardJones; 12th Jan 2024 at 20:41.
Join Date: Sep 2022
Location: Driffield
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plastic burns well. Heating plastic in a super heated "oven", and condensing the gas given off, produces petrol.
I did question, on JB the consumption rate of the burning fuselage. I was told to keep out of it and leave it to the proffesionals on pprune . My response to the expert, was removed by the moderator.
I did question, on JB the consumption rate of the burning fuselage. I was told to keep out of it and leave it to the proffesionals on pprune . My response to the expert, was removed by the moderator.
However, being realistic, the energy involved in heating the stuff, would be greater then the energy produced,in petrol.
I raised this, to illustrate the volatility of some of these composite materials.
Last edited by RichardJones; 14th Jan 2024 at 19:40.
Join Date: Sep 2022
Location: Driffield
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes you can I am informed and believe. If you can produce sufficient quantities. Petroleum spirit.
However, being realistic, the energy involved in heating the stuff, would be greater then the energy produced,in petrol.
I raised this, to illustrate the volatility of some of these composite materials.
However, being realistic, the energy involved in heating the stuff, would be greater then the energy produced,in petrol.
I raised this, to illustrate the volatility of some of these composite materials.
n an alluminium aircraft the fuselage roof would typically melt and burn quite quickly, The A350 didnt seem to do that, consequently, the fire fighters couldnt douse the flames.
Last edited by Germaine; 14th Jan 2024 at 22:29.
Join Date: Sep 2022
Location: Driffield
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to this.... A quick google indicated that CF Laminate has a melt point of over 3000c while alluminium melts at 600c and burns at 1000c. Disclaimer: Google "fact" accuracy not guaranteed!
Last edited by Germaine; 14th Jan 2024 at 22:28.
