From: rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com   
      
   Guybrush Threepwood wrote:   
      
   > John Mazor wrote:   
   > > "Eeyore"  wrote in   
   > ...   
   > > I'm not and engineer so I can't rebut or prove the technical   
   > > points in his filing, but one obvious error did jump out.   
   > > He characterized nitrogen interting for fuel tanks as a   
   > > "band-aid" to meet safety requirements for the B-787, a   
   > > band-aid that isn't necessary on aluminum planes.  But there   
   > > have been several fuel tank explosions on aluminum   
   > > airliners - most notably the "B-as-in-Boeing"-747 in   
   > > TWA800 - that probably would have been prevented by   
   > > inerting.  For a 46-year Boeing employee that's a pretty   
   > > glaring mischaracterization so at that point I stopped   
   > > reading.   
   >   
   > Nitrogen inerting is also investigated on aluminium planes....   
   >   
   > the lightning strike protection indeed is a big issue on carbon fibre   
   plastic parts....or aircraft..:-)   
      
   Yes, it brought down a Bristow helicopter that had a carbon fibre part fail   
   (part of the tail rotor).   
   Apparently the plane was originally certified with an aluminium part in that   
   location.   
      
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristow_Flight_56C   
      
   Graham   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)