Crash at Amsterdam airport....

[Eric Mc]

hman said:

10 Pence Short said:

Racingdude009 said:

Eric Mc said:

Fuel vapour can be a problem but jet fuel is actually not very flamable. When you look at the number of aircraft which have crashed short of runways or overshot runways, I woul;d guess that in most of these accidents, where serious structural damage was incurred, a fire ensued.

I am pretty sure the initial investigation will want to know why a fire DIDN'T occur in this accident.

Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 25th February 10:43

Modern aircraft have got pretty good fuel tanks the same type used in race cars so fire is increasingly rare in accidents.

I am sure Eric will be delighted you enlightened him.

Where do you think that type of fuel tank technology was first used?

Fires still happen - anyone remember the Air France Airbus A340 runway overun at Toronto three or so years ago?

[Rude-boy]

Slightly off topic, but I think relevant enough not to need a new thread…

I am sure that the feasibility of installing an active fire suppression system to jets has been looked at more than a few times yet I can’t ever recall hearing of a new aircraft being fitted with one. Why is this?

[oldskool]

Rude-boy said:

Slightly off topic, but I think relevant enough not to need a new thread…

I am sure that the feasibility of installing an active fire suppression system to jets has been looked at more than a few times yet I can’t ever recall hearing of a new aircraft being fitted with one. Why is this?

Statistically its cheaper to compensate the families of dead passengers.

[hman]

Eric Mc said:

hman said:

10 Pence Short said:

Racingdude009 said:

Eric Mc said:

Fuel vapour can be a problem but jet fuel is actually not very flamable. When you look at the number of aircraft which have crashed short of runways or overshot runways, I woul;d guess that in most of these accidents, where serious structural damage was incurred, a fire ensued.

I am pretty sure the initial investigation will want to know why a fire DIDN'T occur in this accident.

Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 25th February 10:43

Modern aircraft have got pretty good fuel tanks the same type used in race cars so fire is increasingly rare in accidents.

I am sure Eric will be delighted you enlightened him.

Where do you think that type of fuel tank technology was first used?

Fires still happen - anyone remember the Air France Airbus A340 runway overun at Toronto three or so years ago?

I was laughing at the fact that someone was trying to correct your oracle like knowledge of all things avaiation.

OK?

[Rude-boy]

oldskool said:

Statistically its cheaper to compensate the families of dead passengers.

In part i would agree with that, but then the same could be said about life jackets. I mean just how many did they use in the Hudson incident? Even one of the first off who knew he was jumping into the water and had one within 2 feet of him didn't grab one of them, nor a seat cushion.

[Eric Mc]

hman said:

Eric Mc said:

hman said:

10 Pence Short said:

Racingdude009 said:

Eric Mc said:

Fuel vapour can be a problem but jet fuel is actually not very flamable. When you look at the number of aircraft which have crashed short of runways or overshot runways, I woul;d guess that in most of these accidents, where serious structural damage was incurred, a fire ensued.

I am pretty sure the initial investigation will want to know why a fire DIDN'T occur in this accident.

Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 25th February 10:43

Modern aircraft have got pretty good fuel tanks the same type used in race cars so fire is increasingly rare in accidents.

I am sure Eric will be delighted you enlightened him.

Where do you think that type of fuel tank technology was first used?

Fires still happen - anyone remember the Air France Airbus A340 runway overun at Toronto three or so years ago?

I was laughing at the fact that someone was trying to correct your oracle like knowledge of all things avaiation.

OK?

Aah - the shortcomings of the English langauge. When I said "you" I was referring to "you plural" rather than "you in particular" so I wasn't having a go at you personally.

[hman]

Eric Mc said:

hman said:

Eric Mc said:

hman said:

10 Pence Short said:

Racingdude009 said:

Eric Mc said:

Fuel vapour can be a problem but jet fuel is actually not very flamable. When you look at the number of aircraft which have crashed short of runways or overshot runways, I woul;d guess that in most of these accidents, where serious structural damage was incurred, a fire ensued.

I am pretty sure the initial investigation will want to know why a fire DIDN'T occur in this accident.

Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 25th February 10:43

Modern aircraft have got pretty good fuel tanks the same type used in race cars so fire is increasingly rare in accidents.

I am sure Eric will be delighted you enlightened him.

Where do you think that type of fuel tank technology was first used?

Fires still happen - anyone remember the Air France Airbus A340 runway overun at Toronto three or so years ago?

I was laughing at the fact that someone was trying to correct your oracle like knowledge of all things avaiation.

OK?

Aah - the shortcomings of the English langauge. When I said "you" I was referring to "you plural" rather than "you in particular" so I wasn't having a go at you personally.

ok.

[minimatt1967]

Just goes to show accidents still happen even with a well proven airframe like the 737!

[off_again]

minimatt1967 said:

Just goes to show accidents still happen even with a well proven airframe like the 737!

Depending on how you want to slice and dice the statistics, the 737 is actually one of the most crashed airliners....


But then again, its also one of the most numerous and flown some of the most air miles! Depends on your view point I suppose.

[Eric Mc]

minimatt1967 said:

Just goes to show accidents still happen even with a well proven airframe like the 737!

This particular aircraft was pretty much brand new as well.

The 737 first flew in 1967 and has been developed through numerous versions and upgrades.
The original version, the 737-100 was only built in fairly small numbers but the series 200 was massively successful.
Both the 100 and 200 were powered by low bypass (and noisy) Pratt and Whitney JT8D turbofans.

In the early 80s a new breed of 737s arrived with the series 300,400 and 500 which featured a new glass cockpit and more efficient, quiet and more powerful CFM56 high-bypass turbofans.

The current versions are the 600, 700 and 800 which are essentially upgrades on the 300/400 and 500 with more advanced versions of the CFM56 and modernised flightdecks.

The 737 is the most produced airliner in history.

Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 25th February 11:31

[10 Pence Short]

Eric Mc said:

minimatt1967 said:

Just goes to show accidents still happen even with a well proven airframe like the 737!

This particular aircraft was pretty much brand new as well.

Hope they took out gap insurance.

[minimatt1967]

off_again said:

minimatt1967 said:

Just goes to show accidents still happen even with a well proven airframe like the 737!

Depending on how you want to slice and dice the statistics, the 737 is actually one of the most crashed airliners....


But then again, its also one of the most numerous and flown some of the most air miles! Depends on your view point I suppose.

The 737 is the most popular commercial airliner? I tend to look at these things on a percentage basis and the 737 still appears to have good record for safety. 289 incidents out of over 5000 planes built amazing really!!

[Hedders]

10 Pence Short said:

Eric Mc said:

minimatt1967 said:

Just goes to show accidents still happen even with a well proven airframe like the 737!

This particular aircraft was pretty much brand new as well.

Hope they took out gap insurance.

Would they get two payouts, being that there are two gaps in the aircraft?

[4hero]

some more photos

[scotal]

4hero said:

some more photos

How close are those houses? I thought the ones that border the a20 must be bad enough.

[Eric Mc]

I think the long lens being used will make them look closer than they really are.

[oobster]

BBC News 24 just showed a body covered up with a sheet in the field.

Dutch TV is reporting 5 fatalities.

[Tony*T3]

Is that bloke with the red top on giving CPR?

answers own question - no

Edited by Tony*T3 on Wednesday 25th February 11:51

[minimoog]

oobster said:

BBC News 24 just showed a body covered up with a sheet in the field.

Dutch TV is reporting 5 fatalities.

...whereas The Times is now reporting no fatalities and a 'miracle'.

Edit: and 5 mins later they've changed it again to 5 dead.

Edited by minimoog on Wednesday 25th February 12:05

[Roop]

Looks like the engine came off. No wonder it crashed.

As for fire suppression systems, basically they add weight. The airlines drive the development of this stuff as they ultimately decide whether for the same pax capacity they want fire suppression or IFE, catering etc. Invariably, IFE and food win.

In the crash photos I see no fire retardant foam anywhere which leads me to believe that very little fuel has leaked from the aircraft. Given the structure is badly deformed and at least one of the engines has been torn off you have got to wonder why there's no fuel spill...

Edited by Roop on Wednesday 25th February 12:05