Information in this article, originally published May 25, 2006, was corrected on May 25, 2006. An earlier version of this story said that a proposed new FAA rule on aircraft fuel tank safety won't apply to Boeing 727 jets because they have no center fuel tank. In fact 727s do have a center fuel tank. The rule will not apply to them because the tank is not near a heat source.
NTSB investigates report of Boeing fuel-tank incident
A team of National Transportation Safety Board investigators is flying to Bangalore, India, to assist in the investigation of a reported wing fuel-tank explosion on a Transmile Airlines Boeing 727-200.
Transmile is a Malayasian air-cargo company. The incident occurred May 4 while the airplane was on the ground in Bangalore. There were no passengers and no one was injured.
The investigation comes just ahead of the 10th anniversary of the loss of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island, N.Y., with the deaths of all 230 people aboard that Boeing 747.
The plane was brought down by a midair explosion inside the center fuel tank — not the wing tank. The cause of the ignition inside the tank was never identified. Since then, prevention of fuel-tank explosions has been an intense focus at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
"The tragic TWA 800 accident in 1996 highlighted the vulnerability of transport aircraft fuel tanks," said NTSB acting chairman Mark Rosenker in a statement Wednesday.
"A decade later, the issue remains a major concern of the Safety Board and is on our Most Wanted List of safety improvements. I am hopeful what is learned in this investigation may provide added impetus for a resolution of this problem without further delay."
Fuel-tank explosions have been confirmed in two other deadly incidents. In 1990, the center fuel tank in a Philippine Airlines 737-300 exploded while the aircraft was taxiing for departure, killing eight passengers. Chafed wiring inside the tank was suspected.
In 2001, a Thai Airways 737-400 exploded at the gate at the Bangkok airport after its center fuel-tank pumps were left running when the tank was dry. Passengers had not boarded but a flight attendant died and six others were injured.
From a series of safety studies after the TWA 800 disaster, the FAA has issued more than 100 airworthiness directives to prevent potential ignition sources inside the tanks.
It has also proposed a rule that would mandate fuel-tank "flammability-reduction systems" on all commercial aircraft that have a center fuel tank and require retrofits on in-service aircraft. Center tanks are heated and more vulnerable to explosions than wing tanks.
var bnum=new Number(Math.floor(99999999 * Math.random())+1); document.write('');
"The risk is very small," said FAA spokeswoman Alison Duquette. "We feel that reducing the flammability of the tank is a safety net."
The most likely way of meeting the mandated requirement is the installation of inerting systems, which release nonflammable nitrogen gas into the space in the tank as the fuel level goes down in flight.
Boeing is now testing such an inerting system and expects in about six months to have it certified and ready to install on all new jets coming off its assembly lines.
Boeing's new 787 will have an inerting system in the wings as well as in the center tank. The A380 superjumbo will not have an inerting system, but Airbus intends to meet the reduced flammability requirement in other ways, said the FAA's Duquette.
The comment period for the FAA proposal ended earlier this month. The Air Transport Association, representing the airlines, submitted comments opposing the rule as not cost effective. The required retrofits on commercial fleet, which would be paid for by the airlines, would be costly at a time when airlines are losing billions of dollars.
Last fall, the FAA gave a preliminary estimate for the total cost for the U.S. fleet at approximately $808 million over 49 years, including $313 million for retrofitting.
If implemented, the new rule would apply to all Boeing jets and to Airbus A320s and A330s. Boeing air-safety spokeswoman Liz Verdier said the company will produce retrofit kits whether or not reduced flammability is made mandatory.
Boeing faces 727 safety inquiry Apparent fuel tank blast in India leads to federal action
May 26, 2006
The National Transportation Safety Board said Wednesday that it is sending a team of investigators to Bangalore, India, after the apparent explosion of a wing fuel tank on a Boeing 727.
Although the jet was on the ground and there were no passengers aboard, the incident raised fresh questions and concerns about a safety issue that has been at the forefront of the commercial aviation industry since the center fuel tank exploded on a TWA 747 shortly after it took off from Kennedy airport in New York on July 17, 1996. All 230 people on the jumbo jet died.
"The tragic TWA (Flight) 800 accident in 1996 highlighted the vulnerability of transport aircraft fuel tanks," Safety Board Acting Chairman Mark Rosenker said in a statement about the 727 incident.
"A decade later, the issue remains a major concern of the safety board and is on our most wanted list of safety improvements. I am hopeful what is learned in this investigation may provide added impetus for a resolution of this problem without further delay."
The incident occurred May 4 and involved a Transmile Airlines 727-200. The plane was being repositioned on the ground when the fuel tank in the left wing apparently exploded, the safety board said. No one was injured.
A Boeing Co. spokeswoman said Wednesday that the airplane maker learned about the incident only last week and notified the Federal Aviation Administration and the safety board. Boeing has investigators en route to India to assist in the investigation, spokeswoman Liz Verdier said.
The 727 is one of Boeing's oldest jets and few are still carrying passengers in the United States. But there are many 727s in service overseas.
In 1999, the FAA ordered emergency inspections of U.S.-registered 727s because of concerns about a possible fuel tank explosion.
Airlines were told to check aluminum tubes that carry electrical wires through the fuel tanks after mechanics found severe wearing of wires and holes in the tubing on two 727s. There were signs of electrical sparking around the holes.
document.write(''); A similar FAA directive had been issued a year earlier for Boeing's 737 when the same kind of wiring problem was found. The FAA also ordered checks of 747s and 767s.
The danger of fuel tank vapors exploding on commercial jetliners has been in the spotlight since TWA Flight 800. After its longest investigation in U.S. history, the safety board ruled that a spark of unknown origin likely ignited fuel vapors in the center fuel tank of the 747.
Since then, there have been other fuel tank explosions on commercial jetliners.
In 2001, a Thai Airways 737-400 exploded at the gate at the Bangkok airport. A similar explosion destroyed a Philippine Airlines 737 on the ground in 1999.
The FAA issued a proposed rule last year that would require operators and manufacturers of transport-category aircraft to take steps to reduce the likelihood of fuel-tank vapors exploding. This would be accomplished by using a fuel inerting system. An inert gas would be pumped into fuel tanks as they empty. Boeing is designing its 787 Dreamliner for such a system should it be required.
But the industry has resisted this move because of the cost.
Earlier this year, a study by a government-owned research group found that most efforts in this country to reduce the risk of a fuel tank explosion on commercial jets since the TWA incident have been ineffective.
"Unsafe conditions remain," the study by Sandia National Laboratories said. It examined 18 fuel tank safety directives for Boeing 737s and nine for Airbus A320 jets.
Only two or three reduced the probability of an explosion, the report said.
While eliminating fuel-tank vapors remains one of the safety board's "most wanted" safety improvements, cash-strapped airlines say the risks of such explosions are low and their costs to modify huge fleets of jets would be too great under the FAA's proposed rule.
It is not clear what the FAA will do next, but industry resistance could stall or kill implementation of the proposed rule.