Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 12878 posts, RR: 57 Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2570 times:
< speculation >
- Different material composition compared to fuse.
- Far enough away from source of fire that the fire services managed to keep the fire from reaching the wings.
- Fire started in fuse tank, not wing tanks.
< /speculation >
My real self is a Blood Elf Mage in Azeroth. Meet him on Boulderfist.
SlamClick From United States, joined Nov 2003, 9936 posts, RR: 72 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2530 times:
It appears also that the CFR crews were able to contain the fire, they were just unable to put it out until after it had consumed most of the fuselage. Possibly they were also able to keep it from burning into the tanks.
I was wondering much the same thing as I watched the video of it burning. The fire seemed to be mostly confined to the cabin area. And we thought they made the upholstery out of fire resistant materials!
Flightopsguy From United States, joined Jan 2005, 316 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2450 times:
Usually the center tank is emptied first. But I really don't know the 340. Could the ignition source have been the overheated main gear brakes? Ever see the max brake energy trial films? The brakes actually glow white and as the perf book sez "may catch fire".
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3569 posts, RR: 35 Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2446 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
The trim tank will empty of any fuel it contains during descent as the a/c passes through FL 245 or FMGS <75mins to destination. This fuel will transfer either to the wings, if there is space, or the centre tank if the wings are full. As mentioned the Centre Tank will empty first followed by the Inner Wing Tanks with the Outer Tanks tranferring to the inners when Inner Tank qty reaches 3.5 Tonnes.
Fokker Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2391 times:
Contrary to what the NTSB wants you to believe, there isn't enough oxygen in the fuel tanks to support combustion. I wouldn't expect them to burn (or explode for no reason) unless they were ripped open.
Skydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 630 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2386 times:
Quoting Fokker Lover (Reply 7): Contrary to what the NTSB wants you to believe, there isn't enough oxygen in the fuel tanks to support combustion. I wouldn't expect them to burn (or explode for no reason) unless they were ripped open.
That's interesting. I always thought aircraft fuel tanks were vented, I was not aware they are made inert.
Bhill From United States, joined Sep 2001, 466 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2386 times:
Not to be a smart ass, but the physics dictated they did not get hot enough..either because of the lack of fuel or O2..seems the fire fighters made sure that either they kept it cool enough or put enough foam on to starve the O2 supply..suffocation..works the same way in humans on the mitochrondial level
Fokker Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2374 times:
Quoting Skydrol (Reply 8): That's interesting. I always thought aircraft fuel tanks were vented, I was not aware they are made inert.
You are correct they are vented to atmosphere to equalize pressure. That doesn't mean that the oxygen comes rushing in though. Open up a freshly drained tank and use a sniffer. You'd be surprised at how low the oxygen percentage is. We enter tanks at 19% up to 21%, Above 21% the explosion hazard increases. Below 19% you go to sleep and die. I've sniffed out tanks that were 2% oxygen when I opened them.
Go to sleep maybe, but you won't die. A dip from 21% to 19% translates into an effective altitude increase of about 7000 feet from current (based on partial pressures)...Unless you're in Denver or are a chain-smoker, that shouldn't pose too much of a problem.
Also, when we exhale, the oxygen content of our breath is still about 19% or so...how would something like CPR work if it wasn't? You can easily keep someone alive with that amount of oxygen in the air.
SlamClick From United States, joined Nov 2003, 9936 posts, RR: 72 Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2234 times:
Quoting MrChips (Reply 11): when we exhale, the oxygen content of our breath is still about 19% or so...how would something like CPR work if it wasn't? You can easily keep someone alive with that amount of oxygen in the air.
Two answers:
1. When we do CPR we are not holding the air in our lungs long enough to transfer the oxygen. It is just a quick intake and explusion.
2. You said it yourself - partial pressure of oxygen. We will breathe into the patient at more than one atmosphere. Result is more than enough oxygen to revive them.
You are spot-on about the slightly reduced pressure. People live in places in the Andes or Himalayas with only a little adaptation for the reduced atmospheric pressure. They are not a separate species.
Fokker Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2218 times:
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 13): People live in places in the Andes or Himalayas with only a little adaptation for the reduced atmospheric pressure.
Absolutely true, but they don't have to be concerned about volatile organic compounds(VOC's). Being in a confined area there are more issues than just lack of oxygen. Plus jet fuel doesn't ignite as easily as you would think.
All EPA guys, please close your eyes. I once dumped a quart of jet fuel on the concrete and tried to light it. It took a real damn effort to finally get it to burn.
Fokker Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2210 times:
I also forgot to ad that 19% is our safety cut off point for not wearing a forced air breathing system. I'm sure that there is a margin of error built in there. A lot of the times we wear the masks just to keep cool and combat the fumes which are nauseating. No matter what the meter is reading.
777236ER From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 12706 posts, RR: 51 Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2196 times:
Re. oxygen,
21%, normal concentration. 17%, respitaion volue increased, muscular coordination diminished, more effort required for attention and clear thought. 12-15%, shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, quickened pulse, fatigue upon exertion, loss of muscular coordination. 10-14%, faulty judgement. 10-12%, nausea and vomitting, exertion impossible. 6-8%, collapse and unconsciousness, but rapid treatment can prevent death. 6-3%, death in 6-8 minutes. 2-3%, death in 45 seconds.
SlamClick From United States, joined Nov 2003, 9936 posts, RR: 72 Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2191 times:
Quoting Fokker Lover (Reply 14): All EPA guys, please close your eyes. I once dumped a quart of jet fuel on the concrete and tried to light it. It took a real damn effort to finally get it to burn.
I read once that Sir Frank Whittle once stood in a big puddle of jet fuel with a lighted cigar to demonstrate how much safer than avgas it was. That true?
Avioniker From United States, joined Dec 2001, 1096 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1916 times:
Fokker Lover,
Your choice of moniker showing a love for an aircraft that kept too many mechanics too busy aside;
I'm delighted to see that someone remembers why the engineers in the 40's and 50's knew that it was perfectly safe to run wiring through fuel cells because they couldn't possibly cause combustion.
Anyone who remembers their Jr. High science classes (as were taught in the 50's and 60's before they needed a bigger, more important sounding name like "Middle School") knows that any hydrocarbon based fuel in an enclosed area will expand exponentially to fill the area until pressure is equalized and displace the lighter air and oxygen making combustion virtually impossible.
One of the demonstrations used in the Air Force's POL school was attempting to ignite JP4 in a bucket with any type of open flame. The deeper the bucket the more difficult to achieve combustion. We were encouraged to throw lit matches into a 2.5 gallon bucket with one gallon of JP4 in it. They went out before hitting the liquid fuel. The only time we could get the vapours to iginte was when we threw the match while it was still flaring immediately after being struck.
One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; Date unknown.
While certain hydrocarbons will produce a mixture too rich or too poor to burn at usual temperatures when in an enclosed space, it is not as simple as "enclosed hydrocarbons do not burn".
KhenleyDIA From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 388 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1822 times:
Another thing that I didn't see pointed out is that if there was a fire inside the plane, it would have been hard to reach. The contents inside the cabin of the plane burn REALLY well and can take a while to put out. Not to mention, access to the plane at first was difficult, at best. Since all people were out, no point in endangering other lives to save a ruined airplane.
KhenleyDIA
Why sit at home and do nothing when you can travel the world.
Kaddyuk From Wallis And Futuna Islands, joined Nov 2001, 4124 posts, RR: 27 Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1791 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12): Wing fuel is always used last since it decreases wing bending moment and thus decreases stress on the wing.
Nope, Wing Fuel costs nothing to carry. Because Mr Newton says so.
Because the wings are the carrier of the fuse, if you are going to add weight to an aircraft (through more fuel) add it to the wing tanks. that is why wing tanks are bigger than the centre tanks and also why airlines avoid filling the center tank before the wings.
Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 12878 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3569 posts, 
From United States, joined Nov 2003, 9936 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 630 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Jan 2005, 1198 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 388 posts, 
From Wallis And Futuna Islands, joined Nov 2001, 4124 posts, 