Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Explosive-proof Cargo Bins.  
User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1893 times:

They are viable and seemingly tested technology. Is cost the only reason they are not a mandate?

Seems you either spend the money on screening devices or these bins. But to be honest, until they raise the salaries and training of security personnel, I'd feel safer knowing these bins were in service.

Then again, I guess they wouldn't have been much help against a shoe-bomber.

ER

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

Weight.

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

The FAA seems to like them:
http://cas.faa.gov/readingroom/reports/98harden/98harden.html

Tare weight is an issue, but not an exclusive one.

IV.  SUMMARY
 
The feasibility of blast-resistant baggage containers has been demonstrated under the prototype effort and subsequent FAA solicitation resulting in the successful testing and certification of a unit developed by private industry.  This unit is capable of mitigating an explosive threat in excess of the current explosives detection system certification criteria.  The development of hardened container design criteria has been completed, resulting in a draft specification for LD-3-type hardened baggage containers.  This draft specification provides a vehicle by which the FAA could mandate the use of hardened containers if they are proven to be operationally viable and ensure that these containers will meet or exceed required blast resistance and airworthiness requirements.
 
Prototype containers will continue to be developed and tested in order to refine existing design requirements and address airline operational issues.  Analysis of the operational considerations is being initiated.  This includes assessing those factors with which the airlines are most concerned; i.e., container cost, tare weight, repair, operability, and maintainability.  This analysis will ensure that specifications for a hardened container can meet a reasonable life-cycle cost.  Further work with industry will help ensure that the existing specification is appropriate.


User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1818 times:

They're saying that yes, ULDs can be made which can contain the explosion of an explosive larger than those the security systems are designed to detect. We knew that. You could stick 3" armor plating in there and it would be rather blast safe.

Then they go on to "will continue to be developed [...] to adress airline operational issues". That's the big catch there, conveniently pushed aside with one sentence. How many revenue pax are the airlines willing to bump off the flights to fly explosion-proof ULDs around the world? How much cargo? How will those ULDs be handled on the ground? How will they be maintained? A lot of unanswered questions there...

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1808 times:

After seeing the test footage of an uncontained explosion in a pressurized 747, it always seemed like a good idea to me. I realize they'd have to rob Peter to pay Paul in the weight/revenue issue.

Sure would be great if lives were worth more than dollars.

Thanks for the comments.

ER


User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

Unfortunately, everything has a price tag. Sure, we can go all out, making aviation the safest thing on earth. Hmm, it is already one of the safest forms of transportation but you get the drift. However, it will cost a sh*tload of money. And how many lives could be saved if all that money was used somewhere else?

Another way of viewing it. Imagine an airline which goes all-out, implementing everything they can to make things absolutely safe. The downside is that you'll have to pay three times as much, check in six hours early, no carryons and you'll be stripsearched each flight, including the infamous rubber glove process. Do you think that airline would get many passengers?

The harsh reality is that we'll never be able to make anything totally safe. It's always a trade-off.

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineRatzz From Sweden, joined Sep 1999, 198 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1788 times:

You guy´s keep talkin´´bout "safe" ULD´s,but what about all the smaller a/c´s that doesn´t use ULD´s?
The subject in this thread was explosive-proof bins....now assuming we´re talking compartments...

If that should be the case....good luck in finding an airline who would i.e re-fit a let´s say any version of the 737 with kevlar/armour platings...

No range,no payload,no passengers....

I´m bound to agree that if the industry one day can come up with a reasonable cost/weight deal as per ULD,it might payoff on any "heavy"passenger jets,but on smaller aircrafts.....

Beeing a ramprat,I know all to well how miserable the ULD´s get after a few months in service.Just the fact that you handle them somewhat carefully,doesn´t automatically mean that the next guy does the same..
Wich utimately leads to the fact that almost everywhere you look,you can´t find a mint conditioned ULD(unless it´s brand new and hasn´t been used yet).
Instead you´ll find ULD´s with all possible sorts of damage,from minor scratches to dents,and on to serious cracks in their framework...and guess what.....
those are still in service...´cause as long as you can load bags or mail or cargo in them...the airlines use them...
When an airline runs out of useable ULD´s,they might end up loading the bags on pallets secured with a pallet net..thus creating even more work for us ramprats.

A non explosive-proof ULD still costs a lot,regardless of size & model.

So,in conclusion,personally I think that the airlines&airport authoritys will continue to implement other means of security,such as:
-earlier check in.
-x-raying of all bags&mail&cargo.
-tighter airport control of all personel in direct contact with an aircraft.
-matching of all bags.
-stricter limitations to carry-ons.

Some (if not all)of these above listed actions are already implemented on allmost every airport in the world,more or less thanx to the Sept.11th tragedy.


User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1781 times:

Ratzz,
heya, ex ramprat here as you might have guessed.  Smile

We're talking ULDs since the FAA report quoted was about ULDs rather than cargo bay lining.

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Explosive-proof Cargo Bins.
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...
Opening The Cargo Bins After Pushback posted Fri Jan 6 2006 02:14:15 by Mx330
Concorde Cargo Bins, Cargo Capacities posted Thu May 15 2003 01:48:43 by Acidradio
A380 Overhead Bins - Turbulence Proof? posted Sat Apr 2 2005 03:35:04 by N243NW
757 Cargo Hold posted Mon Nov 20 2006 05:27:50 by QantasA380
Conversion From Cargo To Passenger posted Thu Nov 9 2006 06:04:11 by Himmat01
High Density And/or Valuble Cargo posted Fri Nov 3 2006 01:13:43 by 3DPlanes
B767 Cargo Hold Question posted Mon Oct 23 2006 09:34:54 by Don
Production Of Large Cargo Doors posted Sat Oct 14 2006 20:21:05 by A342
Typical Cargo On Cargo Planes posted Tue Sep 19 2006 18:53:17 by HKA
Why Are Cargo Planes More Expensive? posted Sat Sep 16 2006 22:24:46 by Fly707

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format