FAA Says More On Those 02 Canisters
cli...@cari.net
The following article was posted on the Valujet Flight 592 Memorial
Website at
http://www.flight592.com/Flight592Discussion-Current/_disc5/00000146.htm
FAA Says More On Those 02 Canisters
From: John D. King <jki...@mediaone.net>
Date: 07 Jun 1998
Time: 08:37:49
Remote Name: 24.128.16.6
Comments
More On those Canister Tests The NTSB said they did not test those
canisters but adopted the FAA's tests and conclusions. The NTSB Final
Report is in but not the FAA's tests on those canisters. The August
19, 1997 NTSB Report said the canisters started that fire but now a
April 6, 1998 FAA FOIA release says the FAA has yet to release its
Draft Report of Preliminary Tests "with single canisters and multiple
canisters packed in a cardboard box that were conducted in a open
area."
In a production more worthy for a TV movie than a accident
investigation, the FAA was quick to release that July 1996 video of a
raging fire in a many times larger DC-10 cargo compartment left open
for camera purposes. Worst yet, the FAA says here, that "There is no
written report describing the 3 full-scale fire tests." Party, this
may be that in these "tests" the activating pins had to be pulled.
Whereas on 592, the presumption is made that they were jostled out.
Yet no FAA or NTSB tests were conducted to test this theory. An
independent lab (Inalab Inc.) tried, but could not !
Indeed, a disclaimer is built in to this April 6, 1998 FOIA release
when the FAA said "Therefore, it is difficult to relate the test
measurements to the conditions that might have existed inside a
closed, small Class D cargo compartment." If these FAA Tests were
integral to the claim that hot canisters started that fire, how come,
among the so many references to those dangerous 02 canisters, there
are no references to these all important FAA Tests in that Final
Report ? Instead, FOIA requests were necessary.
The foundation to the entire canister claim is how hot do they get
when activated? When there should be no contradictions on this, there
are many. First, the only independent agency, Inalab Inc. of Hawaii,
says far less than 400 F. Second, a Feb. 3, 1997 FAA FOIA letter to me
says 400 F. Sufficient to cook pizzas ?, yes, but these temperatures
are too low to start a fire. Yet continuing NTSB references to this
temperature, says its 500 F. Although the NTSB deferred to the FAA for
these tests, it continues to use this higher, but undocumented 500 F
temperature, why ? Mr. Hall has said of the TWA 800 hearing in
December 1997 that "this is an exercise in accountability". Why would
the NTSB publish a Final Report on ValuJet so quickly, and without the
full and written report on oxygen canister tests from the FAA that
they asked them to do ?
That last FAA FOIA release follows. Disregard the first two
paragraphs.
U.S. Department William J. Hughes Technical Center Atlantic City Int'l
Airport of Transportaton New Jersey 08405 Federal Aviation
Administration
APR 6 1998
CERTIFIED-RETURN RECEIPT Z 103 304 468
Mr. David Evans Managing Editor, Aviation Group Phillips Business
Information, Inc. 1201 Steven Locks Road Potomac, Maryland 20854
Dear Mr. Evans:
This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
for (1) records relevant to deceleration tests conducted in November
1997 of a 12-foot section of a Boeing 737 to assess the structural
integrity of seats, floors and overhead bins; and (2) records
associated with the ValuJet 592 flight. Your request was assigned FOIA
control number 1998-005131CT.
As explained to you during your Telephone conversation with Maureen
Carroll, FOIA Coordinator, the report associated with the first part
of your request is not finalized. The William J. Hughes Technical
Center is in the process of reviewing the draft report and expects the
final report to be released in June 1998. You agreed to accept the
final report upon its release.
Regarding the second part of your request for records relevant to the
ValuJet 592 flight, at the request of the National Transportation
Safety Board, the Technical Center conducted 3 full-scale tests
related to the in-flight fire accident of May 1996. In a strict sense
the tests did not simulate a Class D cargo compartment since the cargo
door was left open to facilitate video/photographic coverage, and the
size (volume) of the test was far greater than the cargo compartment
in the accident aircraft, and what is allowed by regulation for Class
D compartments. Therefore, it is difficult to relate the test
measurements to the conditions that might have existed inside a
closed, small Class D cargo compartment.
(page) 2 There is no written report describing the 3 full-scale fire
tests. However, the following records are enclosed:
Enclosure 1. Oxygen Generator Testing. This is a description of the
fire load for each test. Note that in tests 1 and 3 a sustained fire
did not occur. Also, under test 5 there were 2 attempts that did not
result in a sustained fire.
Enclosure 2. Temperature, heat flux, and gas profiles for tests 2, 4,
and 5.
Enclosure 3. A video of the above-mentioned tests 2, 4, and 5.
Finally, a report has been drafted which describes preliminary tests
with single canisters and multiple canisters packed in a cardboard box
that were conducted in an open area. That report has not been
finalized nor reviewed prior to publication. It will be available in
approximately 3 months.
This completes our action on this request. If you have any questions
regarding this response, please contact Maureen Carroll, FOIA
Coordinator, at (6C9) 485-4854, or by facsimile at (609) 485-4011.
Sincerely,
Kaye Jackson Manager, Appraisal and Planning Staff Enclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last changed: June 13, 1998