Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site noscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!noscvax!hammond
From: hammond@noscvax.UUCP (John A. Hammond)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Plane FLAME
Message-ID: <825@noscvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Mar-85 18:45:55 EST
Article-I.D.: noscvax.825
Posted: Mon Mar  4 18:45:55 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Mar-85 10:42:56 EST
References: <5169@tektronix.UUCP>
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 18

> 
> In early December (1984) the FAA intentionally crashed an old passenger
> jet in California.  The plane was fitted with extensive instruments,
> mannequins, and dummies to evaluate the effectiveness of a fuel additive
> to prevent fires.  The aircraft burst into flame on impact.  After the
> explosion the head of the FAA apparently decided
> 
> 	a.  to require more testing and evaluation.
> 	b.  to proceed with plans to require the additive.
> 	c.  to take the train.
> According to THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, December 3, 1984, the answer was (b).

Did you read the part where the additive had to be removed
from the fuel in real time.  Apparently, one of the drawbacks
of the additive is that the flame suppression characteristic
also makes it hard to burn.  What happens if the additive
remover fails shortly after takeoff?  I think I'll take the
train.