Cricri From France, joined Oct 1999, 581 posts, RR: 7 Posted (14 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 783 times:
I heard something strange on a french TV debate about the TWA 800 flight and the Boeing manufacturer and would like to know if this is true : they said that at the moment where the FBI investigators found out that the crash was probably caused by the explosion of the main fuel tank, Boeing decided to make the following addition : how much does every human casualty costs (insurance, damages to the families, new advertisings...) and how much would be the effective cost to replace all main fuel tanks on every 747 from the same serie? After the results having beeing compared, they decided to stay on the first solution, the much cheaper way for them (There was a specific term for this special point of viewing but I can not remember it) Can this be true and is this aplied by every manufacturer? Thanks in advance for your responses.
Pilot21 From Ireland, joined Oct 1999, 1384 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (14 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 743 times:
While I am not sure that Boeing did or did not decide on this course of action it has been done before, by Ford with one of their cars. Ford designed a car in the late 70's with a fuel tank behind the rear axle of the car, and it was noted that if the car was struck from behind at a certain speed the tank would rupture and the fuel explode, however as the car had already been designed and built Ford did there homework and saw that it was cheaper to leave the existing design and compensate the calculated injuries that people would suffer rather then redesign the car at that stage. They were found out, but when it comes down to it, money decides most things, so maybe Boeings accountants did their sums and decided to compensate rather then redesign??