Tweet
Originally posted by elaw
View Post
-
If a person expects that the sprinkler in his garage will help with his kitchen fire, "lay" is not exactly the adjective that I would use to describe that person.[/QUOTE]
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials --- -
Yes but this was NOT engine fire for God sake!!!Originally posted by elaw View Post
Didn't you all see the videos? Or are we talking of a different case here?
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
The thing that puzzles me is the lack of evidence (at least in the photos I've seen) of a large fuel spill. If it was a pool fire, I'm assuming it was just residual fuel downstream of the fuel spar valve (closed by the fire handle) spilling from a damaged line. If a tank was ruptured I would expect to see more evidence of fuel spillage.Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
Do a bit more reading on that. Flammability is a real issue here and Boeing is looking further into it following the 787 ELT fire.It seems to me that there was very little "real" source of energy for the fire other than the jet fuel. The composites have fire retardants that make then unable to sustain fire by themselves. They can burn but with an external source of energy, because their burning takes more energy than it creates.Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
Too nit-picky Gabe.
You've got an engine burning kerosene in it's burner cans...
The engine blows apart severing fuel lines, and creating sparks and you get a nice spectacular fire to put in your dramatic breaking-news report.
It sure as hell IS an engine-related fire, even though it's not a true textbook definition engine fire as we know it.
I agree that the press generally sucks in using overly dramatic headlines, missing facts, and making a good effort to learn something meaningful and accurate...but conversely, "Engine fire" is probably a fair term.
...now, does the press need to interview some hell-better aeroengineer who will say, "the fire suppression system addresses fire HERE, and would not be expected to address a fire THERE (and two or three supporting statements)...sure.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
The only way CNN gets a pass here is if the fire switch didn't work, i.e it failed to close valves and circuits to isolate and disable the engine. The article says nothing about this however.Comment
-
Actually I have to admit I haven't watched the videos but have looked at a lot of still photos and it appears the bulk of the fire was not within the engine but between it and the fuselage.
That's not to say the fire didn't originate in the engine and spread... or it's possible the engine ejected something that punctured a fuel tank in the wing and the fire started at or near the point of impact.Be alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric LawComment
-
CNN - Cable News Nonsense
I rest my case:Comment
-
Fixed.Originally posted by Evan View Post
By the way 1985...I'll paraphrase an article I read:
"The control tower could be heard on the CVR telling Delta 191 to go around, but for some reason, the pilots chose to ignore the order"
So, same ole stuff, 30 years later (yeah, maybe they're even BETTER at missing the boat today)
...and, another favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSBRZJqLp5o
More factual, less hype?Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
We should think about that for a moment...Originally posted by James Bond View PostLes règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
And that's without JP-1.Originally posted by James Bond View Post
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
abc news report video:
- Usual dose of nonsense.
- Video taken from inside the plane.
- I can tell you that I would have been guilty of NOT complying with the instructions of the crew.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---Comment
-
The ones to sit tight...Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
OR
...the ones to leave your carry-on's behind?
You know, we are guilty of wanting it both ways:
..."taking your carry on is a violation of FAR's, blah blah blah"...
..."sitting there NOT opening the emergency exit, when you might only have 90 (60? 30?, 15?) seconds before the smoke gets you...to hell with FAR's, crew instructions, and CRM while the captain calmly secures the engines and evaluates the fire versus the risk of a twisted ankle or skinned knee (or passengers getting sucked into the good engine) from an emergency evacuation"...Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
...as long as we're discussing instructions to sit tight, remain calm and not touch the emergency exits, here's some incidents that would get my parlour-talking-ass-hat mind thinking REAL HARD about jumping ship, when the much safer option is to indeed sit tight.Originally posted by 3WE View Post
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
...found a link on another forum saying holes in the side of the engine and that they picked up high-pressure compressor parts off the runway...Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
Comment