double standards ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
double standards ?
apologies if this thread has already been covered....?
I was rather shocked to hear the
announcement of the final review of the
TWA 800 incident, with no cause determined
for the centre tank explosion ?
(although they found 32 SB items ?)
I may be missing something here..but...
the concorde fleet is grounded for a
known reason, whereas the 747-100 fleets
continue to fly with a 'possible' risk of
centre tank explosion ?
surely this is a double standard ?
Finally, deepest respects to all those lost in the TWA & Air France incidents.
both incidents
------------------
****Todays lesson...dont leave your coffee on the centre console *****
I was rather shocked to hear the
announcement of the final review of the
TWA 800 incident, with no cause determined
for the centre tank explosion ?
(although they found 32 SB items ?)
I may be missing something here..but...
the concorde fleet is grounded for a
known reason, whereas the 747-100 fleets
continue to fly with a 'possible' risk of
centre tank explosion ?
surely this is a double standard ?
Finally, deepest respects to all those lost in the TWA & Air France incidents.
both incidents
------------------
****Todays lesson...dont leave your coffee on the centre console *****
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fuel is only explosive when mixed with air i.e. a spark occuring completely immersed in fuel won't cause a fire, definitely not an explosion. I think (but don't know for sure) that 747-100's currently have minimum quantities of fuel they can have in the centre tank... read reduced flexibility of operation and range.
