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.