Air Asia Flight Flight No: Qz7605 Almost Crashes

[cdnvic]

Jet fuel isn't explosive like gasoline...

Remember the TWA flight that exploded over Long Island (I think shortly after 9/11)? In addition to the theory that a terrorist might have brought down the jet with a hand-held rocket launcher, wasn't the other theory that some kind of electrical spark/ignition in the wing's electrical circuits blew up the fuel and brought down the jet? Witnesses recounted seeing a fireball in the sky. How does that theory mesh with your above statement? Help me here.

JP = Jet Fuel

Simple. If it had been gasoline in the photo above of the Air France crash, the explosion would have immolated the fuselage almost instantly. In the probable case of TWA800 you have an enclosed space with a direct spark such as inside a partially empty fuel tank. In this case the tank will burst violently causing severe damage to the airframe. Same effect if it's JP, gasoline, or sewer gas. Ignition inside a closed container equals a violent reaction.

Fuel spilling from a ruptured tank during a crash almost always spills out to the rear, leaving the front half of the aircraft flame free and safe to exit. JP burns at slightly more than half the temperature of gasoline, making the distance you need to be away from the flames significantly less to safely escape. The flashpoint of JP is also much higher than gasoline, so remaining fuel will not detonate as quickly as the fires heat unruptured fuel tanks.

Edited May 2, 2007 by cdnvic

[toptuan]

Thanks, very lucid explanation, which got through to me--the technological ignoramus that I admit to be.

So, it is probably safer to always select a seat near the front of an aircraft for quick egress in a crash, especially due to the possibility of a fuel tank rupture? I thought I chose that only because I liked to be first in line when deplaning under normal circumstances! Another good reason to be first in line!

If that's the case, I had heard also, that the back of the aircraft was usually safest to sit in, because the tail structure is usually the strongest. Many crash scenes show a reasonably intact tail section. Your thoughts?

I know we can't avert the grim reaper in a fool-proof way all the time, especially in the case of an air crash, but it doesn't hurt to increase the odds of survival. For that reason, I always put my inflight magazine down and listen to the flight attendants safety talk, although I've heard it a thousand times. Funny how those exits keep changing locations from aircraft to aircraft...

[tigerbeer]

this is quite an informative post. at least we can thank the OP for that !

i fly AirAsia almost every 3 to 4 times a year from chiang mai to KL. i can't thank airasia enough for it. plus with their new fleet of airbus coming in every now and then, there are more reasons to feel safer. oh and their air hostesses rock too ! love their outfit.

[lampard10]

Fact; well if it was possible. Also stated many times on many posts.

" A person can travel by air every day for 40,000 years before tipping the odds of being in an aircraft accident."

[cdnvic]

If that's the case, I had heard also, that the back of the aircraft was usually safest to sit in, because the tail structure is usually the strongest. Many crash scenes show a reasonably intact tail section. Your thoughts?

I can't say for certain on this as I'm not an engineer, but my insights say that the wings spread out much of the force of impact. Also, and centre wing box (the structure that the wings bolt to) is probably the strongest point on the whole airframe, and it must also afford an additional level of protection to the rear fuselage. Up front there is just the fuselage and it's relatively thin skin to take the stresses of impact. I see many accident photos where the front snaps off in front of the wing box.

[cm-happy]

Jet fuel isn't explosive like gasoline...

Remember the TWA flight that exploded over Long Island (I think shortly after 9/11)? In addition to the theory that a terrorist might have brought down the jet with a hand-held rocket launcher, wasn't the other theory that some kind of electrical spark/ignition in the wing's electrical circuits blew up the fuel and brought down the jet? Witnesses recounted seeing a fireball in the sky. How does that theory mesh with your above statement? Help me here.

The fuel vapors ignited from an electrical spark in the central wing tank.

[Levent]

Anyway, can someone tell me how an Aircraft 'nearly' crashes.

One of the strangest aviation terms used these days is 'near miss', to indicate that an accident nearly happened, such as a mid-air collision. Shouldn't it be 'near collision' instead?

[rak sa_ngop]

Back in the mid seventies I worked at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough UK (famous for the bi-annual airshow). One of the projects I as involved in was testing anti-misting kerosene (AMK). Basically there are three air crash scenarios, take off and landing where most people survive the crash but die in the fire and mid flight where everyone dies. So if you can stop the fuel burning you will save lives for two out of three scenarios and that is easy to do with the addition of a long chain polymer to prevent the formation of a vapour cloud.

Unfortunately non-flammable kerosene is not very good at powering aircraft up into the sky so you need a degrader adead of the engine to break down the polymer chains and allow the fuel to burn.

There were problems to overcome but the tests were going well, however the airlines killed it off on economic grounds plus you'd need double fuel storage facilities at every airport to cope with AMK and regular fuel buring aircraft. It appears that Mr Joe Average is more interested in saving ten quid on his flight to Benidorm than pay for a safer journey.

I remember seeing on British TV about 20 years ago a trial of this anti-misting fuel using a full-size airliner in a simulated crash. (was it Tomorrows World?)

The whole bl**dy thing blew up!

Didn't look like the tests were going too well to me.

[Levent]

I remember seeing on British TV about 20 years ago a trial of this anti-misting fuel using a full-size airliner in a simulated crash. (was it Tomorrows World?)

The whole bl**dy thing blew up!

Didn't look like the tests were going too well to me.

That was a radio-controlled Boeing 707, if I am correct, which was lined up with a runway and then crash-landed without its gear extended...

[moonoi]

Every landing is no more than a controlled crash anyway

[cdnvic]

Back in the mid seventies I worked at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough UK (famous for the bi-annual airshow). One of the projects I as involved in was testing anti-misting kerosene (AMK). Basically there are three air crash scenarios, take off and landing where most people survive the crash but die in the fire and mid flight where everyone dies. So if you can stop the fuel burning you will save lives for two out of three scenarios and that is easy to do with the addition of a long chain polymer to prevent the formation of a vapour cloud.

Unfortunately non-flammable kerosene is not very good at powering aircraft up into the sky so you need a degrader adead of the engine to break down the polymer chains and allow the fuel to burn.

There were problems to overcome but the tests were going well, however the airlines killed it off on economic grounds plus you'd need double fuel storage facilities at every airport to cope with AMK and regular fuel buring aircraft. It appears that Mr Joe Average is more interested in saving ten quid on his flight to Benidorm than pay for a safer journey.

I remember seeing on British TV about 20 years ago a trial of this anti-misting fuel using a full-size airliner in a simulated crash. (was it Tomorrows World?)

The whole bl**dy thing blew up!

Didn't look like the tests were going too well to me.

Part of the problem was that it had more fuel on board than in a normal landing situation, and the aircraft didn't stay under control and broke up at a fairly high speed. Fire or no fire, that crash was not going to be very survivable. It was also done with a very old 707 which is more than 50years behind todays technology.

The US Navy uses JP5, the anti-misting fuel because it's much higher flashpoint makes it is much safer inside the hull of a carrier. They don't even allow aircraft that have been refuelled by Air Force tankers (that don't carry JP5) to be stored below deck. The higher flashpoint is very important when passengers are exiting an aircraft after a crash landing.

Edited May 2, 2007 by cdnvic

[bkkandrew]

Jet fuel isn't explosive like gasoline...

Remember the TWA flight that exploded over Long Island (I think shortly after 9/11)? In addition to the theory that a terrorist might have brought down the jet with a hand-held rocket launcher, wasn't the other theory that some kind of electrical spark/ignition in the wing's electrical circuits blew up the fuel and brought down the jet? Witnesses recounted seeing a fireball in the sky. How does that theory mesh with your above statement? Help me here.

No, I believe that this crash was due to rudder failure, attributed to incorrect training to pilots on how to correct turbulance caused by flying in another aircraft.s wake...

[cdnvic]

Jet fuel isn't explosive like gasoline...

Remember the TWA flight that exploded over Long Island (I think shortly after 9/11)? In addition to the theory that a terrorist might have brought down the jet with a hand-held rocket launcher, wasn't the other theory that some kind of electrical spark/ignition in the wing's electrical circuits blew up the fuel and brought down the jet? Witnesses recounted seeing a fireball in the sky. How does that theory mesh with your above statement? Help me here.

No, I believe that this crash was due to rudder failure, attributed to incorrect training to pilots on how to correct turbulance caused by flying in another aircraft.s wake...

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the TWA flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aar0003.htm

[cdnvic]

I think you are talking about AA 587 that crashed in 2001.

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_de...erican+Airlines

[Jimjim]

I really am not a conspiracy theorist, but there is a lot of evidence that the Clinton administration covered up the real reason for the crash of that TWA flight. But, we'll never really know the truth.

And bag to the OP, this whole thread could use a lot of clarification from the lady who said she almost crashed and the actual details. Could you get that for everyone OP?

[Jimjim]

I think you are talking about AA 587 that crashed in 2001.

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_de...erican+Airlines

Nope, AA 587 didn't crash into the sea, and the one with the theory about a rocket launcher did. I forgot to add that the evidence points to a Navy ship accidentally bringing that TWA flight down as it was attempting to bring down a small aircraft full of explosives that was attempting to ram the airliner. That's the theory anyway.

The one toptuan was attemting to reference was TWA 800, 17 July, 1996. It crashed off the coast of Long Island, not on land, and it was during Clinton's reign.

Edited May 2, 2007 by Jimjim

[kratindaeng]

dontcha just love positive exposure!

[cdnvic]

I think you are talking about AA 587 that crashed in 2001.

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_de...erican+Airlines

Nope, AA 587 didn't crash into the sea, and the one with the theory about a rocket launcher did. I forgot to add that the evidence points to a Navy ship accidentally bringing that TWA flight down as it was attempting to bring down a small aircraft full of explosives that was attempting to ram the airliner. That's the theory anyway.

The one toptuan was attemting to reference was TWA 800, 17 July, 1996. It crashed off the coast of Long Island, not on land, and it was during Clinton's reign.

If you take off the "I hate Bill Clinton" glasses and re-read the topic you'll find that you've gotten lost.

Just what we need. American politics spoiling an informative thread.

[Jimjim]

I think you are talking about AA 587 that crashed in 2001.

http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_de...erican+Airlines

Nope, AA 587 didn't crash into the sea, and the one with the theory about a rocket launcher did. I forgot to add that the evidence points to a Navy ship accidentally bringing that TWA flight down as it was attempting to bring down a small aircraft full of explosives that was attempting to ram the airliner. That's the theory anyway.

The one toptuan was attemting to reference was TWA 800, 17 July, 1996. It crashed off the coast of Long Island, not on land, and it was during Clinton's reign.

If you take off the "I hate Bill Clinton" glasses and re-read the topic you'll find that you've gotten lost.

Just what we need. American politics spoiling an informative thread.

Nope, you clearly haven't researched this yourself so I suggest you give it a rest. I don't have "I hate Bill Clinton" glasses. I suggest you read Bob Sanders book. Where have I gotten lost? I was just informing you the correct flight the guy was referring to and the theories behind it. I'm not here to disucss those theories any more.

I was the one who posted asking the OP to clue us in with more information. Nice flame, though. You're doing great. You're getting lost. I was just giving the info and responding to toptuan but I have nothing more to say on that subject so get bent.

Edited May 2, 2007 by Jimjim

[cdnvic]

Nice flame, though. You're doing great. You're getting lost. I was just giving the info and responding to toptuan but I have nothing more to say on that subject so get bent.

Poor thing. If you think that's flaming you better install Net Nanny for a little extra protection because if that's how you respond to a mild rebuke then there's some terrible traumas waiting for you out there.

[Jimjim]

Your comments were way off base and it has nothing to with my views on politics. By your reaction I can see you have nothing constructive to add but condescension, which is a sign of weakness and low self-esteem. I hope you can feel better about yourself now. Now let's get back to the original topic.

Again, all I was doing was informing everyone as to what flight toptuan was referring to, as the correct information had not been given.

You're right it's not a flame but you suggested I re-read the topic. Have you? Many of your comments had nothing to do with OP as well but I wasn't complaing as you were responding to a post, which is all I was doing so get off your high horse and let's get back on topic.

[cdnvic]

Again, all I was doing was informing everyone as to what flight toptuan was referring to, as the correct information had not been given.

You corrected a non-existing error. Had you been reading you would have seen that. Lets retrace the steps;

1. We discuss the crash of TWA800 and it's causes.

2. bkkandrew states that TWA800 crashed due to incorrect rudder application in wake turbulence.

3. I post the results of the NTSB investigation into TWA800 correcting bkkandrew's statement.

4. I make a further post to clarify to bkkandrew which accident he was mistaking for TWA800. This was AA 587, which did crash due to incorrect rudder application in wake turbulence.

Show me where incorrect info was given?

[spacebass]

Working for the airlines and in the same area as Air Asia I just checked with one of the managers in crew scheduling regarding this particular flight. QZ7605 was not 7 hours late but 20 minutes late and other than that showed no incidents for this flight. All data from every flight is input for FAA and for customer complaints or any incidents on board no matter how small. Data shows QZ7605 scheduled for departure from KUL(LCCT) at 2115 and arrivial at JKT at 2215. Doors closed at 2140 and the air at 2151. Time was made up during the flight due to light traffic and arrived at JKT at 2235. This is what the computer shows. Go figure???

This response overlooks the fact that Air Asia could have cancelled this ladies flight and maybe two or three others , a not uncommon practice ( according to the taxi driver who picked me up from an on time flight to Phuket I had waited six hours to board) of Air Asia.

How could an industry professional not address this possibilty............go figure!

[PhilHarries]

Back in the mid seventies I worked at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough UK (famous for the bi-annual airshow). One of the projects I as involved in was testing anti-misting kerosene (AMK). Basically there are three air crash scenarios, take off and landing where most people survive the crash but die in the fire and mid flight where everyone dies. So if you can stop the fuel burning you will save lives for two out of three scenarios and that is easy to do with the addition of a long chain polymer to prevent the formation of a vapour cloud.

Unfortunately non-flammable kerosene is not very good at powering aircraft up into the sky so you need a degrader adead of the engine to break down the polymer chains and allow the fuel to burn.

There were problems to overcome but the tests were going well, however the airlines killed it off on economic grounds plus you'd need double fuel storage facilities at every airport to cope with AMK and regular fuel buring aircraft. It appears that Mr Joe Average is more interested in saving ten quid on his flight to Benidorm than pay for a safer journey.

I remember seeing on British TV about 20 years ago a trial of this anti-misting fuel using a full-size airliner in a simulated crash. (was it Tomorrows World?)

The whole bl**dy thing blew up!

Didn't look like the tests were going too well to me.

You're correct but totally wrong.

The test aircraft was brought down under remote control in the desert in a area laced with bluddy great steel spikes like anti tank barriers. The on board video footage showed one of the engines passing straight through one of those spikes. Under those conditions all that rotational energy converted to heat (you can neither create nor destroy energy merely change it's form) would have almost ignited water. What they didn't show on TV, because it ain't sensational, was the many thousands of litres of unburnt fuel pumped out of the wreck after the fire was extinguished. What they also didn't tell you, again because it is not entertaining, is that had the aircraft's internal fittings, seats and carpets etc, been of flame retardant material most of any passengers aboard that aircraft in a crash on flat ground would have probably survived.

I too recall the days of Tomorrow's World but it is worth remembering that it was entertainment not education nor science.

The commercial use of AMK, or JP5, was killed off by the airlines who were/are unwilling to invest in safety as it's cheaper to pay out compensation for the few accidents that do happen.

[rak sa_ngop]

Back in the mid seventies I worked at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough UK (famous for the bi-annual airshow). One of the projects I as involved in was testing anti-misting kerosene (AMK). Basically there are three air crash scenarios, take off and landing where most people survive the crash but die in the fire and mid flight where everyone dies. So if you can stop the fuel burning you will save lives for two out of three scenarios and that is easy to do with the addition of a long chain polymer to prevent the formation of a vapour cloud.

Unfortunately non-flammable kerosene is not very good at powering aircraft up into the sky so you need a degrader adead of the engine to break down the polymer chains and allow the fuel to burn.

There were problems to overcome but the tests were going well, however the airlines killed it off on economic grounds plus you'd need double fuel storage facilities at every airport to cope with AMK and regular fuel buring aircraft. It appears that Mr Joe Average is more interested in saving ten quid on his flight to Benidorm than pay for a safer journey.

I remember seeing on British TV about 20 years ago a trial of this anti-misting fuel using a full-size airliner in a simulated crash. (was it Tomorrows World?)

The whole bl**dy thing blew up!

Didn't look like the tests were going too well to me.

You're correct but totally wrong.

The test aircraft was brought down under remote control in the desert in a area laced with bluddy great steel spikes like anti tank barriers. The on board video footage showed one of the engines passing straight through one of those spikes. Under those conditions all that rotational energy converted to heat (you can neither create nor destroy energy merely change it's form) would have almost ignited water. What they didn't show on TV, because it ain't sensational, was the many thousands of litres of unburnt fuel pumped out of the wreck after the fire was extinguished. What they also didn't tell you, again because it is not entertaining, is that had the aircraft's internal fittings, seats and carpets etc, been of flame retardant material most of any passengers aboard that aircraft in a crash on flat ground would have probably survived.

I too recall the days of Tomorrow's World but it is worth remembering that it was entertainment not education nor science.

The commercial use of AMK, or JP5, was killed off by the airlines who were/are unwilling to invest in safety as it's cheaper to pay out compensation for the few accidents that do happen.

Just out of interest, what was the date of that unsuccesful test.

Thanks

[cdnvic]

It was in 1984

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Real...worthiness.html

[Jimjim]

Again, all I was doing was informing everyone as to what flight toptuan was referring to, as the correct information had not been given.

You corrected a non-existing error. Had you been reading you would have seen that. Lets retrace the steps;

1. We discuss the crash of TWA800 and it's causes.

2. bkkandrew states that TWA800 crashed due to incorrect rudder application in wake turbulence.

3. I post the results of the NTSB investigation into TWA800 correcting bkkandrew's statement.

4. I make a further post to clarify to bkkandrew which accident he was mistaking for TWA800. This was AA 587, which did crash due to incorrect rudder application in wake turbulence.

Show me where incorrect info was given?

Sorry, I was reading my smug friend.

I had believed you were referring to toptuan's post and not bkkandrew's as you only said "you" when you were saying it was AA 587 and therefore it was not clear to whom you were responding. You made no reference to bkkandrew's post except in the post right before that one and therefore it looked as if you were responding to the person who started the TWA topic. I was trying to correct him and you, but I guess you didn't need correcting, except for your original assessment of my post about the TWA flight.

Now let's give it a rest.

Edit to add that I was giving the most probable cause of TWA 800 going down. The official report says something "may" have happened, but what is most probable is a rocket from a U.S. Navy ship. This has happened before such as when a U.S. Navy ship accidentally brought down a Middle Eastern airline from Iran or Jordan I think (in waters of the Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean). Accidents happen, even with the military. The solution in this case, though, was that the plane went down in U.S. waters so they were able to cover it up.

Edited May 3, 2007 by Jimjim

[sbk]

So, I guess the answer to the OP here is that the AirAsia flight did not nearly crash? It certainly hasn't been reported upon anywhere.

[Jimjim]

Well, I wish he would get some details from his friend so we can all find out instead of talking about other nonsense. The OP has not posted again since the first post.

[Jai Dee]

Some off-topic posts have been deleted.

Please stick to the subject matter in discussions, and leave off-topic speculation out of this thread thank you.