Japan runway crash marks test of how new carbon jets cope in a disaster
Thread Starter
Japan runway crash marks test of how new carbon jets cope in a disaster
WASHINGTON/LONDON - The runway collision in Japan on Jan 2 marks the first time a modern lightweight airliner has burned down and is being seen as a test case for how well a new generation of carbon-composite planes copes with a catastrophic fire.
The crash "is really the first case study that we have, not only from a fire perspective, but also just from a crash survivability perspective", said Anthony Brickhouse, an air safety expert at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/ja...-in-a-disaster
N4790P
The crash "is really the first case study that we have, not only from a fire perspective, but also just from a crash survivability perspective", said Anthony Brickhouse, an air safety expert at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
"… first time …"
See: Flight 358, A340, 2 August 2005, Toronto Airport, Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358
Similarities, but 'safe'; time - effect relationship was sufficient for evacuation.
Pprune discussion at that time speculated contribution of independent oxygen generators in cabin overhead.
But not to overlook fuel from the aircraft(s) damage as the accelerant.
N.B. Wings / fuel tanks intact.
What are the structural / material differences between cabin and wing.
Edit: and B777
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana...nes_Flight_214
See: Flight 358, A340, 2 August 2005, Toronto Airport, Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358
Similarities, but 'safe'; time - effect relationship was sufficient for evacuation.
Pprune discussion at that time speculated contribution of independent oxygen generators in cabin overhead.
But not to overlook fuel from the aircraft(s) damage as the accelerant.
N.B. Wings / fuel tanks intact.
What are the structural / material differences between cabin and wing.
Edit: and B777
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana...nes_Flight_214
Last edited by safetypee; 5th Jan 2024 at 07:37. Reason: B777 ref
I think there will be a great deal of study of this accident and to how well the carbon composite construction held up compared to what could have been expected of aluminum - both for fire protection and for the effect of the impact with the Dash 8.
That being said, at least according to a Wall Street Journal article - it took nearly 18 minutes (from initial impact) before the aircraft was full evacuated. Sounds like the carbon composite fuselage held up as pretty well...
That being said, at least according to a Wall Street Journal article - it took nearly 18 minutes (from initial impact) before the aircraft was full evacuated. Sounds like the carbon composite fuselage held up as pretty well...
Flammability Properties of Aircraft Carbon-Fiber Structural Composite
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/07-57.pdf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_...unway_disaster
Everyone already out
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/07-57.pdf
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_...unway_disaster
Everyone already out
Aluminum vs Carbon Fiber Epoxy in Fire Aluminum has a low melting point compared to many other metals; so offers little shielding to fuselage components. Carbon fiber with epoxy in this case seems to have held up longer.
I am wondering if a 777 in the same situation and evacuation duration would have had as good a passenger survival outcome.
Whatever is burning, the combustion products are toxic and incapacitating. Survivors of smoke inhalation may end up with reduced lung function and shortened lifespans. Firefighters typically have few years post retirement.
I am wondering if a 777 in the same situation and evacuation duration would have had as good a passenger survival outcome.
Whatever is burning, the combustion products are toxic and incapacitating. Survivors of smoke inhalation may end up with reduced lung function and shortened lifespans. Firefighters typically have few years post retirement.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Top Bunk
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a bit disingenuous quoting the evacuation took 18 minutes. According to this report https://theaircurrent.com/feed/dispa...enger-footage/ 11 minutes of that time was the captain making 100% sure there was no-one left on the aircraft before he "abandoned ship" himself. If that is true, then everyone (bar the captain) was off in 7 minutes.
There were 18 minutes between impact (where the fire started), and the point where the aircraft was fully evacuated. The point is not that it took 18 minutes, it's that the fuselage provided protection from the fire for 18 minutes! Never did I question why it took that long - there is plenty of that going on in the existing thread in the accident forum.
18 minutes is pretty damn good - as others have speculated, I doubt aluminum would have held up that well for that long...
As I posted, there will be no shortage of study of how the carbon composite construction fared, compared to conventional aluminum (as well as ways both could potentially be improved). During the development stage of the (similarly constructed) 787, there was plenty of nay-sayer speculation that carbon composite wouldn't provide the same level of protection as aluminum in an accident - my initial impressions from this accident say those critics were rather dramatically wrong...
You totally missed the point of that statement!
There were 18 minutes between impact (where the fire started), and the point where the aircraft was fully evacuated. The point is not that it took 18 minutes, it's that the fuselage provided protection from the fire for 18 minutes! Never did I question why it took that long - there is plenty of that going on in the existing thread in the accident forum.
18 minutes is pretty damn good - as others have speculated, I doubt aluminum would have held up that well for that long...
As I posted, there will be no shortage of study of how the carbon composite construction fared, compared to conventional aluminum (as well as ways both could potentially be improved). During the development stage of the (similarly constructed) 787, there was plenty of nay-sayer speculation that carbon composite wouldn't provide the same level of protection as aluminum in an accident - my initial impressions from this accident say those critics were rather dramatically wrong...
There were 18 minutes between impact (where the fire started), and the point where the aircraft was fully evacuated. The point is not that it took 18 minutes, it's that the fuselage provided protection from the fire for 18 minutes! Never did I question why it took that long - there is plenty of that going on in the existing thread in the accident forum.
18 minutes is pretty damn good - as others have speculated, I doubt aluminum would have held up that well for that long...
As I posted, there will be no shortage of study of how the carbon composite construction fared, compared to conventional aluminum (as well as ways both could potentially be improved). During the development stage of the (similarly constructed) 787, there was plenty of nay-sayer speculation that carbon composite wouldn't provide the same level of protection as aluminum in an accident - my initial impressions from this accident say those critics were rather dramatically wrong...
See link; early signs of fire inside the cabin.
Plastic windows melt before structure ?
Note internal smoke hazard.
Also note outcome fire pattern appears to be top-down from the roof (several aircraft), which might further indicate an inside-out fire.
[How many mobile lithium batteries remained on board - an intense fire might only require one to sustain it?]
JAL incident at Haneda Airport
Re; "passengers and crew off in 7 minutes" … after the aircraft was stationary. Evacuation timings are normally assessed from the moment that the crew command an evacuation; i.e ignores time before-hand required to understand the situation and decide to evacuate.
Plastic windows melt before structure ?
Note internal smoke hazard.
Also note outcome fire pattern appears to be top-down from the roof (several aircraft), which might further indicate an inside-out fire.
[How many mobile lithium batteries remained on board - an intense fire might only require one to sustain it?]
JAL incident at Haneda Airport
Re; "passengers and crew off in 7 minutes" … after the aircraft was stationary. Evacuation timings are normally assessed from the moment that the crew command an evacuation; i.e ignores time before-hand required to understand the situation and decide to evacuate.
Last edited by safetypee; 8th Jan 2024 at 07:32. Reason: Re Time
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,021
Received 2,902 Likes
on
1,243 Posts
I would be very very careful, I remember a Harrier crash in Germany and it burnt, the crash team were walking around kicking up dust and inhaled the fibres that literally shredded their lungs.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
short flights long nights
