Comments on: Comments, corrections, clarifications, and c*ckups http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/07/29/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 06:22:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: justin Larkin http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/07/29/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/#comment-22333 justin Larkin Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-22333 Oh, Ken Waite you silly duffer, I'm glad you're not teaching my kids science. Explosions can be as easily caused by physics as chemistry. No heat or combustible mixture is required just the ability for a gas to go very very quickly from a small space to a large space. But don't take my word for it, try hitting a scuba tank really hard and see what happens. If you have some self preservation instinct you can instead look here http://www.thescubaguide.com/gear/tanks/safety.aspx . From the information that's been released so far this is much more likely to be the kind of explosion that occured which is really kinda odd.<br /><br />These kinds of explosions are pretty rare even for the oft abused scuba tank and are usually the result of mishandling, corrosion, of lack of appropriate maintenance, not something I'd ever accuse QANTAS of (hmmm?). It's worth noting that the FAA advisory (CASA version here http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/OVER/B747/B747-349.pdf) was not concerned with a bottle failing explosively but rather that the supports which hold the cylinders may break at critical flight load conditions which could cause a leak which may support a vigourous fire or leave the crew without O2 in an emergency. They didn't anticipate the tank blowing a hole in the side of the plane.<br /><br />If an O2 tank is the culprit it either failed sponateously (really unlikely, especially in a high quality mainainance environment, but possible) or it fell and brokeeven though it should have been very secure by the subject of the airworthiness directive or something hit it which should have been secured. I don't hate QANTAS but I really hope that it has asked its engineers, who were recently offered a payrise about 1.5% below the CPI rate, to urgently check ALL supports and bottles. Oh, Ken Waite you silly duffer, I’m glad you’re not teaching my kids science. Explosions can be as easily caused by physics as chemistry. No heat or combustible mixture is required just the ability for a gas to go very very quickly from a small space to a large space. But don’t take my word for it, try hitting a scuba tank really hard and see what happens. If you have some self preservation instinct you can instead look here http://www.thescubaguide.com/gear/tanks/safety.aspx . From the information that’s been released so far this is much more likely to be the kind of explosion that occured which is really kinda odd.

These kinds of explosions are pretty rare even for the oft abused scuba tank and are usually the result of mishandling, corrosion, of lack of appropriate maintenance, not something I’d ever accuse QANTAS of (hmmm?). It’s worth noting that the FAA advisory (CASA version here http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/OVER/B747/B747-349.pdf) was not concerned with a bottle failing explosively but rather that the supports which hold the cylinders may break at critical flight load conditions which could cause a leak which may support a vigourous fire or leave the crew without O2 in an emergency. They didn’t anticipate the tank blowing a hole in the side of the plane.

If an O2 tank is the culprit it either failed sponateously (really unlikely, especially in a high quality mainainance environment, but possible) or it fell and brokeeven though it should have been very secure by the subject of the airworthiness directive or something hit it which should have been secured. I don’t hate QANTAS but I really hope that it has asked its engineers, who were recently offered a payrise about 1.5% below the CPI rate, to urgently check ALL supports and bottles.

]]>