What FAA actions being taken toward TWA 800 explusion?

Answer 1

An inerting system is a device that attempts to increase the safety of a fuel tank, ball mill, or other sealed or closed-in tank that contains highly flammable material, by pumping nitrogen, steam, carbon dioxide, or some other inert gas or vapor into its air space in order to displace oxygen. The effect of these systems is either to eliminate the oxygen completely, or to reduce it to a negligible level. Without sufficient oxygen in the tank, the fuel cannot ignite, and explosions cannot occur. It was developed by Charles Kimmel, an engineer who spent nearly 50 years in the aerospace industry. This system was implemented largely over concern over static electricity discharges during in-flight refueling, and over fires that might start during aerial combat.
.
Kimmel first pitched an inerting system to passenger airlines in the early 1960s. His proposed system for passenger aircraft would have used nitrogen. However, the Federal Aviation Administration refused to consider Kimmel's system after the airlines complained it was impractical. Indeed, early versions of Kimmel's system weighed 2,000 pounds--which would have probably made an aircraft too heavy to fly with passengers on it. However, the FAA did almost no research into making fuel tanks inert for 40 years, even in the face of several catastrophic fuel tank explosions. Instead, the FAA focused on keeping ignition sources out of the fuel tanks.
.
The FAA did not even consider lightweight inerting systems for commercial jets until the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800. The crash was blamed on an explosion in the center wing fuel tank of the Boeing 747 used in the flight. This tank is normally used only on very long flights, and only a small amount of fuel was in the tank at the time. A small amount of fuel in a tank is more dangerous than a large amount, since fuel has a higher specific heat capacity, and is slower to heat up than an air mixture. Investigators concluded there was an electrical fault inside the fuel tank which caused a spark, which set off an explosion. This may have been exacerbated by high temperatures caused by the aircraft's air conditioning unit. The National Transportation Safety Board's final report on the crash was highly critical of the FAA and aviation industry's emphasis on eliminating ignition sources from the outside, while ignoring the flammable vapors inside the fuel tanks. If there had been no oxygen in the tank, the NTSB argued, the crash may not have occurred.
.
After the Flight 800 crash, a 2001 report by an FAA committee stated that U.S. airlines would have to spend US$35 billion to retrofit their existing aircraft fleets with inerting systems that might prevent future such explosions. However, another FAA group created a comparatively inexpensive, simplified nitrogen-based inerting system prototype that did not require an air compressor, and weighed from 100 to 250 pounds (45 to 113 kg), utilizing air from the engines to displace some oxygen with nitrogen, and costing from US$140,000 to US$225,000, depending on fuel tank capacity. Boeing commenced testing a derivative system of their own, performing successful test flights in 2003 with several 747 aircraft.
.
The new, simplified inerting system was originally suggested to the FAA through public comment. It uses a hollow fiber membrane material that separates nitrogen-enriched air from oxygen. This technology had already been in use for generating oxygen-enriched air for medical purposes.
.
Unlike the inerting systems on military aircraft, this inerting system would run continuously to reduce fuel vapor flammability whenever the aircraft's engines are running; and its goal is to reduce oxygen content within the fuel tank to 12%, lower than normal atmospheric oxygen content of 21%, but higher than that of inerted military aircraft fuel tanks, which is a target of 9% oxygen.
.
After what it said was seven years of investigation, the FAA proposed a rule in November 2005, in response to an NTSB recommendation, which would require airlines to "reduce the flammability levels of fuel tank vapors on the ground and in the air". This was a shift from the previous 40 years of policy in which the FAA focused only on reducing possible sources of ignition of fuel tank vapors.
.
Although the airlines could technically comply with this rule in a number of ways, the rule was aimed at getting the new inerting systems installed on large aircraft. The proposed rule would affect all future large fixed-wing aircraft designs, and require a retrofit of more than 3,200 Airbus and Boeing aircraft with center wing fuel tanks, over seven years. The FAA had initially planned to also order installation on cargo aircraft, but this was removed from the order by the Bush administration.
.
The FAA estimated the cost of the program at US$808 million over the next 49 years, including US$313 million to retrofit the existing fleet. It compared this cost to an estimated US$1.2 billion "cost to society" from a large airliner exploding in mid-air. The proposed rule comes at a time when nearly half of the U.S. airlines' capacity is on carriers that are in bankruptcy.
.
The order affects aircraft whose air conditioning units have a possibility of heating up the center wing fuel tank. Some Airbus A320 and Boeing 747 aircraft are slated for "early action". Regarding new aircraft designs, the Airbus A380 does not have a center wing fuel tank and is therefore exempt, and the Boeing 787 has a fuel tank safety system that already complies with the proposed rule.
.
The FAA has stated that there have been four fuel tank explosions in the previous 16 years -- two on the ground, and two in the air -- and that based on this statistic and on the FAA's estimate that one such explosion would happen every 60 million hours of flight time, about 9 such explosions will probably occur in the next 50 years. The inerting systems will probably prevent 8 of those 9 probable explosions, the FAA said.
.
Before the inerting system rule was proposed, Boeing stated that it would install its own inerting system on airliners it manufactures beginning in 2005. Airbus had argued that its planes' electrical wiring made the inerting system an unnecessary expense.
.
If the rule goes into effect after a four-month period of public comment, it will have taken nearly a decade since the explosion of Flight 800 for the new safety rule to go into effect.
.

Answer 2

Accident investigation, together with the responsibility for making recomendations that should prevent a recurrence, is the business of the NTSB, not the FAA. The NTSB issued their final report on August 23rd 2000 and that is the end of the direct action.

Work is ongoing to prevent the possibility of further explosions in empty tanks. The current favorite is filling the tanks with nitrogen.

Answer 3

I remember seeing the TV news footage of the NTSB piece together of surviving TWA Flight 800 debris--and clearly saw supportive evidence that suggested a possible missile strike brought this plane down. These whistle blowing investigators are experts in their forensic science field; any efforts to dismiss or debunk their new claims are going to be next to impossible challenging, much less credible. Imagine the flying Civil Court lawsuits from surviving family of TWA 800 victims, IF it ever got proven the government shot this plane down, because they wanted someone on board dead. This is a pretty logical reason why the government wants to keep the truth about TWA 800 silenced.

Answer 4

Aside from the dude with the whole essay. LOL there is not much the FAA can do to prevent the TWA crash. The crash was caulsed by faulty wireing. This depends on the age and mantnence of the aircraft witch is completly up to the airline. However more intence inspections have been in afffect since the incident.

Answer 5

The FAA is only focusing on trying to remove possible sources of ignition.

Inerting systems are being re-designed so that they are lighter and cheaper. But most airlines and the FAA argue that the cost is not worth the risk.

Answer 6

Don't run the center tank dry. Keep about 1000 lbs of fuel in the center tank. If the pump is covered in fuel, there will be no vapors to ignite. (Or you can replace the center pumps with new ones.)

This is pretty much the gist of the AD that the FAA has issued for one aircraft type in dealing with this problem.

Answer 7

none! the FAA only can fine or file for criminal action if infact it was a violation of FAR'S( federal Aviation Regulations).They Can requirer maintenance changes.But this is usually Based on scale of saftey vere's cost.I must add that the saftey boards findings of a fuel tank explostion due to faulty wiring is still under debate.