This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C6BE54.F4F205B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just watching a show on the cause of flight 800 blowing up back in 1996. =
They say the cause is most likely aged 300 Volt cabin lighting wire
thats in the same routing bundle as the fuel sensor wire that leads into =
the fuel tank. Once the insulation breaks down in both sets of wiring, =
potential for 300V exsists on the low voltage fule sensor wires inside =
the tank, which is what they think was the ignition source of that =
explosion.
Since then, they can verify similar fuel tankexplosions every 4 years =
for the last decade or so in this type of aircraft with this kind of =
aged wiring. The Navy used the same wiring in the F-14 fighter jets, but =
had them all removed in the late 1970's. The commercial industry figured =
in a passenger plane environment , the tolerances are not as critical, =
so they put it on the shelf as a problem to resolve at a later date, and =
to this day the date has never come. According to one NTSB =
investigator's research, we are overdue for another explosion for about =
2 years now.
Estimated cost to overhaul and correct the unsafe condition in all =
effected aircraft is over 300 million dollars.
Why cant they just place a high voltage sensor (or even a fuse as an =
interm solution) on the fuel tank sensors that will trip once an unsafe =
voltage is present near the sensor? Actually, no one has really done any =
tests using a discarded fuel tank to see if 300V from the cabin lighting =
is enough to spark the sensor and cause the explosion...and I am =
surprised the NTSB or FAA has not mandated such a test to confirm the =
theory at this point. Could it be because they have doubt it will fail =
and the conspiracy theory of a misslie will become more powerful? I am =
not so certain of the missile theory because the explosion took place in =
late July, and the fuel could already be at a higher then normal =
temperature by sitting at JKF on the runway for a long time in the =
swealtering July heat.....but big question would be if 300 volts was =
placed on that kind of sensor, will it arc and spark enough to cause =
that? Famlies of victims of this tradegedy need to keep pressuring the =
government officials to follow through with their theories so they can =
one day have resolution or be closer to it, with the event of their =
loss.
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C6BE54.F4F205B0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Just watching a show on the cause of =
flight 800=20
blowing up back in 1996. They say the cause is most likely aged 300 Volt =
cabin=20
lighting wire</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>thats in the same routing bundle as the =
fuel sensor=20
wire that leads into the fuel tank. Once the insulation breaks down in =
both sets=20
of wiring, potential for 300V exsists on the low voltage fule sensor =
wires=20
inside the tank, which is what they think was the ignition source of =
that=20
explosion.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Since then, they can verify similar fuel=20
tankexplosions every 4 years for the last decade or so in this type of =
aircraft=20
with this kind of aged wiring. The Navy used the same wiring in the F-14 =
fighter=20
jets, but had them all removed in the late 1970's. The commercial =
industry=20
figured in a passenger plane environment , the tolerances are not =
as=20
critical, so they put it on the shelf as a problem to resolve at a later =
date,=20
and to this day the date has never come. According to one NTSB =
investigator's=20
research, we are overdue for another explosion for about 2 years =
now.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Estimated cost to overhaul and correct =
the unsafe=20
condition in all effected aircraft is over 300 million =
dollars.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Why cant they just place a high voltage =
sensor (or=20
even a fuse as an interm solution) on the fuel tank sensors that will =
trip once=20
an unsafe voltage is present near the sensor? Actually, no one has =
really done=20
any tests using a discarded fuel tank to see if 300V from the cabin =
lighting is=20
enough to spark the sensor and cause the explosion...and I am surprised =
the NTSB=20
or FAA has not mandated such a test to confirm the theory at this =
point.</FONT>=20
Could it be because they have doubt it will fail and the conspiracy =
theory of a=20
misslie will become more powerful? I am not so certain of the missile =
theory=20
because the explosion took place in late July, and the fuel could =
already be at=20
a higher then normal temperature by sitting at JKF on the runway for a =
long time=20
in the swealtering July heat.....but big question would be if 300 volts =
was=20
placed on that kind of sensor, will it arc and spark enough to cause =
that?=20
Famlies of victims of this tradegedy need to keep pressuring the =
government=20
officials to follow through with their theories so they can one day have =
resolution or be closer to it, with the event of their=20
loss.</P></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C6BE54.F4F205B0--
|
