Simviation Forums

Jesus! I didnt realize how dangerous are the fuel tanks of the heavys,I hope someone saw the great and special presentation by CNN (Not the new war in israel and the libano)it was about why does the big Boeing  airbus,and the rest of other Don't place a nitrogen pumper into the fuel tank to take out  the oxigen fron the tanks so they wont be no more catastrofes? I didn't realize how many plane has blown up for that reason including the flight 800 of TWA 10 years ago

this is the only real solution to this very dangerous situation,and always the Burocracy wins they all claim that they are rebuilding all the cables away from the tanks ,........stupid solution because the fuel itself contain static electricity,

BTW my CNN is the same as your in English and you must all seen it from coast to coast too,..Is in Live

please coments & opinions are welcome

i did not. but bureaucracy does not work. their goal is the more income less expenses. and that means sacrifice. shame.:-/ i would quote muphry's law but that might offend some people.
ansteve1

I remember reading a report on this several years ago. The main problem with retrofitting is the cost & I believe it's the airlines that object to doing it. Apparently Boeing will be fitting a fuel-inerting system to new aircraft from 2007. According to this article it will be at no extra cost. http://www.airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=5&id=7045

I didn't realize how many plane has blown up for that reason including the flight 800 of TWA 10 years ago

According to the above article there have been two fuel tank explosions on jetliners since the TWA incident in 1996. Both occurred while the aircraft were on the ground.

That's why I ask ,about CNN I saw ,I mean they said its been more that 30 incidents since the 60's , I was very suprise you know maybe they report as it happend for a different causes but they interview many experts and many former comercial pilot from all over the world,and they said that many accident ,when they gety the final report they don't mach seems like they hide it from the realityy so they (CNN & Expert not from FAA) presume thats the real cause,could be blowing tanks

Was very interesting and of couse scary...I hope they repeat it.....

I saw it too.  They have repeated it today as well.  Its interesting and a bit scarey to think of.  Especialy when youll be blasting over the Pacific on a 747 in a couple weeks

I always thought they would put safety ahead of dollar signs....guess I was wrong :-/

Isnt there 2 flight 800s that have gone down after departing JFK

I haven't seen the CNN documentary but unless they have new evidence I have no reason to doubt the official figures. In my experience this type of programme distorts the facts for its own agenda. There is a very strong anti-aircraft lobby right now & it's growing stronger.

I always thought they would put safety ahead of dollar signs....guess I was wrong :-/

Welcome to the real world. However, air travel is still by far the safest form of transport. You're more likely to get killed on the way to the airport.

However, air travel is still by far the safest form of transport. You're more likely to get killed on the way to the airport.

yes I heard that millons of times

It's true that you're safer in a plane than anywhere else. For example, if you are a nerd and you are in attending elementary or middle school, you are more likely to be damaged by bullies than by a plane accident. Besides, there are pilots out there that have a lot of experience in handling tough situations. For example, remember not long ago that a passenger jet was landing and it had its front tire set on fire while landing and the pilot did an excellent job at keeping the plane straight and level?

It all comes down to the following; Do you have the time and money to spend 3 to 6 days crossing the Atlantic by ship, or 6 hours by aircraft or 3 days driving from the East to the West Coast or 4 hours flying. Time is money, money is time.
How many people drive a 4X4 still in the knowledge that in an accident they have a very good chance of rolling over? Regardless we/they still jump in and drink coffee at 35000 feet in a pressurised cigar tube or press the gas pedal and head out to the highway.
CNN are after ratings, just like Dispatches on Channel 4 with Ryanair, who posted record profits 6 months after Dispatches highlighted security and safety shortcomings.

Matt

I'd much rather cross the Atlantic by boat than by plane. And it's one helluva fast ship to be able to cross in 3 days. Five or six is more realistic.

I'd much rather cross the Atlantic by boat than by plane. And it's one helluva fast ship to be able to cross in 3 days. Five or six is more realistic.

Normandie 3 days 23 hours 2 minutes    Average speed  30.58kts

Queen Mary 3 days 21 hours 48 minutes Average speed 30.99kts

United States   3 days12 hours 12 minutes  Average speed  34.51kts

BLUE RIBBON 20 July 1998

Cat-Link V car ferry 2 days, 20 hrs 9 mins = Average 41.284 knots (Used one of those Sea Cats last week to cross from France to the UK. 800 PAX and 200 cars. We averaged 36kts and crossed in 50 minutes  from start to stop. I stood on the stern.......man the power. Each hull was throwing up 15 ft fantails.)

Matt

Fastest under sail is 4 days 8 hours 23 minutes by Orange II. Record was completed only last week and took 9 hours off the previous best that was a record for over a decade.

On the same trip they also took the record for the greatest distance travelled in 24 hours. 766.8 miles at an average of over 31 knots.



Anyway, you've just prooved that it is a helluva fast ship to do it in three days.

Most ships top out below 30 knots these days as there is no contest for the fastest passage.

At least on a ship you have some of the comforts of home and things to do for that 4 days.  Never been on one myself and dont plan to

But just like going anywhere in the US.  Pretty much averages out to an hour in the air equals a day of driving on the road.  Not including traffic jams, construction, and all the other fun you find