Support for Fuel Tank Inerting

Joy Finnegan’s article in the August edition of Aviation Maintenance caused me to arise from my couch and respond accordingly.

If ever a student of the English language is looking for an example of the verb “vacillate,” the FAA along with the airlines and aircraft manufacturers’ attitudes towards fuel tank inerting provides it.

Over 30 years ago, in response to a series of jet aircraft accidents involving fuel system fire and explosion and serious loss of life, the FAA formed a committee of airline industry and aircraft manufacturer representatives to study the cause of these accidents and determine a course of action to prevent such occurring again in the future.

The team studied 30 jet aircraft accidents and, while it was opined that no single solution offered the most comprehensive solution, inerting of the fuel tank and vent system showed the most promise. The FAA successfully performed tests on a DC9 fitted with such a system. This resulted in FAA NPRM 74-16 dated April 1974 requiring improved fuel tank and vent system explosion protection. Needless to say, the AIA, ATA, IATA, and the British CAA challenged the NPRM since the proposal was contrary to the findings of the FAA/Industry Committee and nothing was done.

Since that time, there has been considerable improvement in the development of a viable fuel tank inerting system and several aircraft accidents, with substantial loss of life that might have benefited from a fuel tank inerting fire suppresion system, have also occurred.

Now we are faced with the advent of the super-jumbo jet airplane carrying up to 600 passengers, and still nothing has been done because the FAA and the airlines, along with the manufacturers, are arguing over the estimated cost of installing and maintaining such a system.

Many years ago the FAA estimated that a human life lost in an aircraft accident was worth nearly $3 million. Multiply that number by 600 and the potential cost from an aircraft accident involving a fuel system fire or explosion in the super-jumbo jet becomes “real” numbers.

The cost of installing and maintaining such a system is miniscule by comparison. In addition, it is certainly less than that which has been spent over the intervening years installing and maintaining passenger entertainment systems.

There is no valid reason why new aircraft (Airbus 380, Boeing 787, etc) cannot be delivered with a working fuel tank inerting system and the FAA, if it really wants to fulfil its resposibility to the travelling public, and having again demonstrated the viability of the new system should not legislate such.

Keith Grayson
Scottsdale, AZ

The Papa Whiskey story was very interesting. I couldn’t resist [writing], as an Airbus A319/320/321 pilot. Every takeoff requires a full flight control check by each pilot while still monitoring the “Flt Control” system display in the flight deck. To answer your question, you can see aileron movement (up only) on the A319 and A320. But it’s not possible on the A321 when seated up front!

David Hykle
Winnipeg, Manitoba (Canada)