Thread: Airline News

No explosives found on NY plane returned to gate

NEW YORK (AP) — A jetliner bound for Madrid was returned to Kennedy International Airport as a precaution Thursday evening after a passenger reported strange wiring in the bathroom, but no explosive device was found, law enforcement officials said.

Delta Flight 126 left the gate at about 8 p.m. and returned over an hour later. A U.S. Marshal was onboard the plane, and the New York Police Department bomb squad and FBI met the flight as a swarm of law enforcement vehicles crowded the plane and the 206 passengers were evacuated.

The wires were determined to be non-explosive but apparently didn't belong to the plane, said Paul Browne, chief spokesman for the NYPD. Investigators briefly questioned two passengers, a woman who reported having difficulty breathing at the time the wires were discovered, and a man who apparently had been the last to use the bathroom. Officials were concerned the woman may have been creating some sort of diversion, but that was determined not to be the case. The male passenger denied having anything to do with the wires. Both passengers were released.

The Transportation Security Administration said the plane taxied to a remote location and passengers were escorted off. "The aircraft was searched with negative results," the TSA said in a statement.

Delta spokeswoman Sarah M. Lora said in a statement that the flight was returned to JFK "out of an abundance of caution" and that "the flight landed safely."

Dearest Bob, whether the kooks have any other theories on Wikipedia is irrelevant, with the plane at the bottom of the Atlantic in pieces, the NTSB had to make their best guess with the bits they retrieved and an investigation of the circumstances that caused the crash.

Probably under some serious pressure from the FAA, themselves hand picked so as not to upset Boeing, they came up with this wishy washy verdict, which saved Boeing untold millions in 747 modifications under an FAA mandate to modify the aircraft.

Yet still Boeing don't give a shit, and ignored the FAA directive. It's not up to them to choose which ones to ignore or not.

So fuck them.

Presumably too busy with the (late) 787.

Oh and here is the official report findings which are substantially more detailed and informative than Wikipedia's summary. If you want I'll post the recommendations as well.

The "probable" aspect appears to come from them not being able to *definitively* identify the exact location of the short circuit.

3. Conclusions
3.1 Findings
1. The flight crew was properly certificated and qualified and had received the training and off-duty time prescribed by Federal regulations. No evidence indicated any
preexisting medical or behavioral conditions that might have adversely affected the flight crew’s performance during the accident flight.

2. The airplane was certificated, equipped, and dispatched in accordance with Federal regulations and approved TWA procedures.

3. At the time of the accident, there were light winds and scattered clouds in the area, but there were no significant meteorological conditions that might have disrupted the
flight.

4. The in-flight breakup of TWA flight 800 was not initiated by a preexisting condition resulting in a structural failure and decompression.

5. The in-flight breakup of TWA flight 800 was not initiated by a bomb or a missile strike.

6. The fuel/air vapor in the ullage of TWA flight 800’s center wing fuel tank was flammable at the time of the accident.

7. A fuel/air explosion in the center wing fuel tank of TWA flight 800 would have been capable of generating sufficient internal pressure to break apart the tank.

8. The witness observations of a streak of light were not related to a missile, and the streak of light reported by most of these witnesses was burning fuel from the accident
airplane in crippled flight during some portion of the postexplosion preimpact breakup sequence. The witnesses’ observations of one or more fireballs were of the
airplane’s burning wreckage falling toward the ocean.

9. The TWA flight 800 in-flight breakup was initiated by a fuel/air explosion in the center wing fuel tank.

10. Boeing’s design practice that permits parts less than 3 inches long in any direction to be electrically unbonded may not provide adequate protection against potential
ignition hazards created by static electricity generated by lightning or other high-energy discharges. Conclusions 307 Aircraft Accident Report

11. It is very unlikely that the flammable fuel/air vapor in the center wing fuel tank (CWT) on TWA flight 800 was ignited by a lightning or meteor strike; a missile
fragment; a small explosive charge placed on the CWT; auto ignition or hot surface ignition, resulting from elevated temperatures produced by sources external to the
CWT; a fire migrating to the CWT from another fuel tank via the vent (stringer) system; an uncontained engine failure or a turbine burst in the air conditioning packs
beneath the CWT; a malfunctioning CWT jettison/override pump; a malfunctioning CWT scavenge pump; or static electricity.

12. Electromagnetic interference from radio frequency sources external to TWA flight 800 did not produce enough energy to ignite the fuel/air vapor in the center
wing fuel tank.

13. Electromagnetic interference from personal electronic devices played no role in igniting the fuel/air vapor in TWA flight 800’s center wing fuel tank.

14. It is unlikely that electromagnetic interference from aircraft system wiring played a role in igniting the fuel/air vapor in TWA flight 800’s center wing fuel tank.

15. Existing standards for wire separation may not provide adequate protection against damage from short circuits.

16. A short circuit producing excess voltage that was transferred to the center wing tank (CWT) fuel quantity indication system wiring is the most likely source of ignition
energy for the TWA flight 800 CWT explosion.

17. Silver-sulfide deposits on fuel quantity indication system components inside fuel tanks pose a risk for ignition of flammable fuel/air vapor.

18. The ignition energy for the center wing fuel tank (CWT) explosion most likely entered the CWT through the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wiring, and,
although it is possible that the release of ignition energy inside the CWT was facilitated by the existence of silver-sulfide deposits on an FQIS component, neither
the energy release mechanism nor the location of the ignition inside the CWT could be determined from the available evidence.

19. Failure modes and effects analyses and fault tree analyses should not be relied upon as the sole means of demonstrating that an airplane’s fuel tank system is not likely to
experience a catastrophic failure.

20. A fuel tank design and certification philosophy that relies solely on the elimination of all ignition sources, while accepting the existence of fuel tank flammability, is
fundamentally flawed because experience has demonstrated that all possible ignition sources cannot be predicted and reliably eliminated.

21. Operating transport-category airplanes with flammable fuel/air mixtures in fuel tanks presents an avoidable risk of an explosion.Conclusions 308 Aircraft Accident Report

22. The placement of heat-generating equipment under a fuel tank containing Jet A fuel can unnecessarily increase the amount of time that the airplane is operating with a
flammable fuel/air mixture unless measures are in place to either (1) prevent the heat from entering the center wing fuel tank (CWT) or (2) eliminate the flammable vapor
inside the CWT.

23. The condition of the wiring system in the accident airplane was not atypical for an airplane of its age, and the airplane was maintained in accordance with prevailing
accepted industry practices.

24. Until recently, insufficient attention has been paid to the condition of aircraft electrical wiring, resulting in potential safety hazards.

25. The issues defined in the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aging Transport Non-Structural Systems Plan are important safety issues that must be fully addressed
through appropriate changes, including rulemaking.

3.2 Probable Cause

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the TWA flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.

Contributing factors to the accident were the design and certification concept that fuel tank explosions could be prevented solely by precluding all ignition sources and the design and certification of the Boeing 747 with heat sources located beneath the CWT with no means to reduce the heat transferred into the CWT or to render the fuel vapor in the tank nonflammable.

It's amazing what Boeing and the airlines get away with. And this is from 2006!

Planes still flying with same problem as TWA 800

July 14, 2006

Ten years after the explosion of TWA Flight 800, the very problem that led to the disaster still has not been fully fixed -- despite a warning from the Federal Aviation Administration that it is "virtually certain to occur" again without additional safeguards.
In fact, the FAA predicts that without its recommended safety changes four more TWA-type disasters are likely to happen over the next 50 years.
The FAA wants jetliners equipped with a nitrogen safety system to prevent explosions by removing oxygen from fuel tanks. The agency would require the new safety system in new planes coming off the assembly line, as well as the retrofitting of 3,800 large U.S. passenger jets.

"We're looking at potentially something that could prevent in the future another explosion from ever happening in the United States fleet," John Hickey, the FAA's director of aircraft certification, told "CNN Presents" as part of an investigative documentary airing Saturday and Sunday.

The biggest opposition to the changes has come from the airlines, which have criticized the FAA for using what it says are "fatally flawed" statistical assumptions that overstate the risk of future explosions.
"Neither the FAA's safety analysis nor benefit-cost analysis justifies the proposed rule," the Air Transport Association, which represents the airlines, said in its response to the FAA this past May.
While the FAA has not yet made a final decision, Boeing, which has built nearly three-fourths of the jetliners in use around the world, told CNN it will install a nitrogen safety system on its new planes -- with or without an FAA mandate -- because it is "the right thing to do."

A spokesman for Airbus, Boeing's Europe-based competitor, said it has never had a fuel tank explosion but that it will comply if the FAA orders the additional safety measures.
TWA 800 exploded on July 17, 1996, shortly after takeoff from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport on a flight bound for Paris, killing all 230 people aboard. After an exhaustive investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the Boeing 747 was the victim of a center fuel tank explosion, most likely caused by a spark in its vapor-filled center tank.

Numerous safety improvements have been made on fuel tanks since then, with manufacturers, the airlines and the FAA focusing on preventing sparks from reaching the tanks.


According to the NTSB, a fuel tank explosion happens on average every four and a half years. In May 1990, six years before TWA 800, a center tank exploded on a Philippine Airlines 737 shortly before take off, killing eight people. Four years and eight months after TWA 800, the center tank of a Thai Airways jet exploded on the ground, killing one person.

"If you go strictly by the average number of weeks and months between fuel tank explosions, we are overdue," said Bob Swaim, one of the NTSB's lead investigators.


In December 1996, not even six months after the TWA 800 tragedy, the NTSB strongly recommended the installation of a nitrogen safety system to reduce fuel-tank flammability across the fleet of U.S. commercial aircraft.
Similar systems had been installed on military planes as far back as the 1960s. Those systems pumped nitrogen gas into the fuel tanks to force out the oxygen. Without sufficient oxygen, even a spark cannot cause an explosion, because nitrogen does not burn.
The FAA put together two advisory boards to study such systems for commercial jets.
"You may have been able to install a system in the airplane," said Basil Barimo, a vice president for the Air Transport Association. "But at the same time, you couldn't put passengers on it because it was too heavy."
Hickey added, "The conclusion in both of those groups is that it was not practical, and the costs were in the 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-billion dollar range."

The FAA estimates that an explosion of a fully-loaded passenger aircraft, such as a 747 or Airbus A380, would "result in death and destruction causing societal loss of at least $1.2 billion based on prior calamities." The cost of retrofitting the existing fleet of 3,800 aircraft with nitrogen systems is estimated at $140,000 to $220,000 per plane.
Wayne Rogers, who lost his daughter and two granddaughters aboard TWA 800, blames the aviation industry and the FAA for waiting far too long to address the problems of fuel tank flammability.

"They put a price on my daughter's head -- and my granddaughters'. That doesn't sit well with me," he said.

In the years since TWA 800, engineers at the FAA have been able to adapt the nitrogen safety systems used on military planes for a practical application in passenger jets. The new system is light enough and small enough that the FAA says it should now be mandatory.
"Our philosophy is to address aviation safety threats whenever practicable solutions are found, especially when dealing with intractable and catastrophic risks like fuel tank explosions that are virtually certain to occur," the FAA said in a statement last November.
Without the new generation nitrogen system -- or some other method to reduce the flammability of vapors in fuel tanks -- the FAA predicts that four more air disasters like TWA are likely over the next 50 years and that there is "a nearly 40 percent probability of five or more accidents."
Although the likelihood is small that a flight would explode again as TWA 800 did, the FAA said fuel tanks on 3,800 large commercial airliners collectively pose a dangerous risk and should be fixed.
"Human life is very important to me and anyone who's involved in aviation safety," Hickey said. "I'm very proud of how we've managed to continuously improve aviation safety through the years."

Don't remember the Thai one. Will look it up.

Interesting presentation here (slides only). Looks like the technology has been around and accepted since 2004.

Boeing in focus as Airbus orders hit $16.9 billion | Fox News

"As one of aviation's foremost showcases comes to a close, the world's largest plane makers have secured fewer lucrative orders than last year because of ongoing concerns about the global economy.

Some of the largest deals this year that took place at the Farnborough International Airshow in England are expected to affect thousands of suppliers in Southern California that make aircraft parts.

Aerospace giants Boeing Co. and Airbus reported orders valued around $52 billion at Farnborough, which kicked off Monday and will run through Sunday. That's a pittance compared with deals made at last year's Paris Air Show — Farnborough and Paris alternate each year — where the plane makers racked up orders valued around $94 billion."


Airbus Wins $16.9 Billion in Orders - WSJ.com

"FARNBOROUGH, England—Airbus said it won orders and commitments for a total of 115 aircraft valued at $16.9 billion at this week's Farnborough air show.

The orders confirmed strong recent demand for revamped versions of Airbus's A320 and A330 passenger jets from airlines hungry for more fuel-efficient jets but were far below the $72.2 billion notched at the Paris air show last year.

The tally for the European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. EAD.FR -1.45% unit also lags behind that of Boeing Co. BA -1.15% which has announced orders for 220 jetliners valued at $20.6 billion at list prices, mostly for current and new versions of its 737 single-aisle plane. Both manufacturers routinely discount more than 50% from the list price for big customers.

Airbus's intake at this year's show included memorandums of understanding for 61 aircraft valued at $5.8 billion and firm purchase orders for 54 aircraft, at $11.1 billion.

"I believe this was a good show," Airbus Chief Executive Fabrice Bregier said Thursday. Airbus knew it wouldn't repeat last year's success in signing up customers for its A320neo re-engined single-aisle jet, he said. Airbus has 1,454 orders for the A320neo while Boeing has 649 for the rival 737 Max"

Continues.....

^&^^Lets just say there are many different ethnic groups in Holland: South Americans, Africans, Arabs, Asians and others.

The worst ones are the Protestants IMHO. But of course any of the others, especially those to whom they have a great distaste of the US, could have done it.

Just getting my group in first. If they really wanted fun they should have put hallucinogenics in the food/water.

If you ever want to identify the "Flying Marshal" on US airplanes, he's/she's the one who doesn't eat or drink anything.



It seems tha The four US Delta flights rustled up an alternative gourmet and equally nutrious "meal", Pizza, as a substitute.

Follow the red line.


Gold went down US25 and then up US20 yesterday , nice little earner. It may do something like the same today? All thanks to Mr bernakie's 1 hour speech.

I was asked why I was happy, there were insinuations that I was a drunkard or was high on the devils drugs.

Just pointing out that there are other highs available at your local web page.

Now what do you know about the Trent Engined 380 being subject to multiple "maintenance" checks, is that better?

Or failing that what about "Fibonacci Retracements"