Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Ruling On Center Fuel Tanks  
User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3331 times:

This may have been discussed already, but I came across a link on the FAA's ruling on center fuel tanks for certain Boeing and Airbus aircraft. In some retrospects this ruling is a lil bit late, but is for the best. Are there any words on the airlines complaining aout the costs or effectiveness of the system?


Here is the link....

http://www.airdisaster.com/news/article.php?id=29


I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3145 times:



Quoting B727LVR (Thread starter):
This may have been discussed already, but I came across a link on the FAA's ruling on center fuel tanks for certain Boeing and Airbus aircraft.

It's not just Boeing and Airbus...it's all FAA-certified aircraft with tanks that meet the profile (greater flammability exposure than an unheated aluminum wing tank).

Quoting B727LVR (Thread starter):
Are there any words on the airlines complaining aout the costs or effectiveness of the system?

There are, literally, thousands of pages of comments from virtually every major airline in response to the original proposed rule. They're basically universally negative, except the cargo pilots group (they want it on freighters too) and the families of TWA800 group (no surprise).

Tom.


User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2921 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 1):
They're basically universally negative, except the cargo pilots group (they want it on freighters too) and the families of TWA800 group (no surprise).

I'm not too surprised that the reports would be negative. What did surprise me was the fact that the freight haulers would not be required to have the system installed. I believe I would be asking for it to be installed as well if I were those pilots. I know the report said the costs were the reason for them not to be installed in the freighters, but there has to be a better one than that. Forgive me if I sound a little blunt, but that says that freight pilots aren't worth the cost to keep them safe, and I don't agree with that. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the system they are refering to is similar to the one installed in the 737's currently.



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2843 times:



Quoting B727LVR (Reply 2):
I'm not too surprised that the reports would be negative. What did surprise me was the fact that the freight haulers would not be required to have the system installed. I believe I would be asking for it to be installed as well if I were those pilots. I know the report said the costs were the reason for them not to be installed in the freighters, but there has to be a better one than that. Forgive me if I sound a little blunt, but that says that freight pilots aren't worth the cost to keep them safe, and I don't agree with that. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the system they are refering to is similar to the one installed in the 737's currently.

Yea, we freightdogs are expendable  bomb 



Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2707 times:



Quoting B727LVR (Reply 2):
I know the report said the costs were the reason for them not to be installed in the freighters, but there has to be a better one than that.

Actually, there doesn't. The cost/benefit calculation used by the FAA for rulemaking is pretty clear and the flammability reduction just barely squeaks over the line (even from the very optimistic FAA stance) for passenger operations...the likely number of deaths in freighter operations is far far too low to meet the cost/benefit hurdle.

Quoting B727LVR (Reply 2):
Forgive me if I sound a little blunt, but that says that freight pilots aren't worth the cost to keep them safe, and I don't agree with that.

To be equally blunt, that's how the laws are made. Suppose the cost to keep them safe was $100 billion per airplane...obviously, that's too high and nobody would do it. Suppose it was $0 per airplane...then everyone would do it. People can (and do) fight a lot about where the line is but you can't deny that the line exists.

Quoting B727LVR (Reply 2):
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the system they are refering to is similar to the one installed in the 737's currently.

Sort of. The system that Boeing will use is very similar to the existing one. However, the FAA rule doesn't actually specify what system you have to use, just how effective the system (whatever you use) has to be. OEM's are free to use whatever system they like to meet the performance requirements of the rule.

Tom.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3417 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2520 times:



Quoting Jhooper (Reply 3):
Yea, we freightdogs are expendable

Yup. Currently 2 people is seen as not very worth getting worked up over.

200? Gets a bit more attention.

That said, I'd suspect that the FAA will look at it more/again when

A. passenger adoption brings the real cost to the table for review and if its cheap enough....

and/or

B. a freighter has an "issue" with this problem.


Sad to say though freighters just don't kill enough people to make anyone care much about them outside of the potential victums which again isn't much at all compared to the millions of passengers, stockholders, etc.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic FAA Ruling On Center Fuel Tanks
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
External Fuel Tanks On Airliners - Ever Used? posted Wed Jan 7 2004 22:48:01 by Mr Spaceman
Does VT-ALD (77L) Have Aux Fuel Tanks? posted Tue Jan 22 2008 16:01:28 by WestWing
777LR Conformal Fuel Tanks For LHR-SYD? posted Wed Nov 21 2007 09:48:39 by Faro
Wing-to-Fuselage Fairings: Why No Fuel Tanks? posted Tue Nov 13 2007 04:22:40 by Faro
Air Force One Fuel Tanks posted Wed Oct 3 2007 05:13:10 by VikingA346
757-200 Aux Fuel Tanks posted Sun Sep 2 2007 02:47:35 by CALPSAFltSkeds
Gulfstream With Wingtip Fuel Tanks? posted Wed Feb 14 2007 06:18:00 by LoveASE
Pushing On With Fuel Leak, No Need For Equip. posted Tue Apr 11 2006 13:18:21 by Eilennaei
DHC-2 Beaver Fuel Tanks? posted Sun Oct 30 2005 21:10:46 by Mr Spaceman
737-200 Number Of Fuel Tanks posted Wed Sep 7 2005 20:16:12 by ArniePie

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format