From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 11:54:37 MDT
James Rogers wrote:
>
> On 5/25/02 10:29 PM, "spike66" <spike66@attbi.com> wrote:
> > If this latest 747 crash turns out to be another flight 800-like
> > fuel tank explosion, the old Boeing boys have a real problem
> > on their hands. Not much chance of blaming an errant missile
> > this time.
Note that the crash was sudden, no time for the crew to radio for help,
and it happened over open water.
>
> The situation with the spate of Boeing crashes related to the same
> subsystems is pretty curious if you look into it. Most of the airframe
> designs that have been crashing (like TWA 800) have had decades of
> essentially flawless service i.e. these are thoroughly proven system
> designs.
>
> What makes the story interesting, and what many people don't know, is that
> there is an ongoing FBI investigation into the apparent fact that Boeing has
> been the victim of industrial sabotage. I don't know the details of this,
> but I do know that the FBI has been investigating the intentional sabotage
> of parts both within their own manufacturing facilities and in their
> distribution chain, including some parts that have been implicated in some
> rather spectacular failures. Mind you, this type of crap is not exactly
> unprecedented. My guess would be that it is a campaign being conducted by a
> government associated with Airbus (the separation between government and
> industry being very fuzzy in most of Europe). It could very well be a
> random accident, but if it was anything else, this is what I would guess.
>
> Again, the only reason I'm guessing that this is a likely scenario is that
> 1) this type of sabotage between European and American business is not even
> remotely unprecedented, 2) many of the Boeing airframes that are currently
> having "problems" are old and proven systems, and 3) the US government has
> an ongoing investigation into the apparent intentional sabotage of Boeing
> parts at a couple different points in the supply chain with some indication
> that foreign governments are involved.
THe primary problem with this, though, is that an 'old, proven' system
can still suffer from materials fatique and degradation. In the case of
the fuel system wiring, that system in particular is prone to
catastrophic failure due to a materials choice which should have been
corrected more than ten years ago. The fuel pumps and tank sensors
wiring uses kapton insulation, a material which is prone to degradation
and can be explosive under over-current conditions when sufficiently
aged (I myself have witnessed several such incidents on kapton insulated
circuits while in the Air Force), and for this reason the Air Force and
US Navy have both phased out and replaced wiring using this insulation
by the early 1990's. The civil aviation industry continues to use this
type of wiring, though.
While in the Air Force in the late 1980's, I worked on F-15's
manufactured in 1976. Their kapton insulated landing gear and landing
light wiring was notorious for explosively catastropic failures, and we
were underway in replacing this wiring while I was on active duty. For
civil aircraft of similar ages and service records, I can only expect
similar failures. It is my opinion that Flight 800 exploded because of
the Kapton insulation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:23 MST