|
|
Post by lesterpk on Oct 16, 2012 13:15:14 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Oct 16, 2012 18:45:19 GMT 12
From the first link "The report reveals that the "improper and illegal" placement of dangerous canisters on the Air NZ flight from Vancouver to Auckland could have destroyed it." This is about shipping of oxygen generation gear. Question. Why would the RNZAF be responsible for "improper and illegal" placement of said equipment? If said equipment was coming from a supplier it would be the suppliers responsibility. Now the second link Now the story is that illegal shipping of oxygen generation gear was on an Auckland to Vancouver flight. These two stories were run on the same day - today Tuesday 16th October 2012 and both written by David Fisher. Finally the third link again dated today Tuesday 16th October 2012 and written by David Fisher. He's written three stories which could have been covered well in one. I'm questioning his motives and I think the RNZAFs interests aren't his priority. I get the impression he's throwing shit and seeing what sticks. |
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Oct 17, 2012 11:32:46 GMT 12
This is the same David Fisher that we have discussed here before.
He put his name to an article about the Trislander aborted take-off at Pauanui.
Although it is basically a silent event his version had people running for safety as the aircraft lunged at them with the engines screaming in reverse.
In reality I doubt the kids even noticed it.
I have very little faith in any of his 'reporting'. You would think the newspapers would soon tire from the complaints.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Oct 17, 2012 11:42:49 GMT 12
That 1996 ValuJet crash. It was more than just the cannisters that brought it down. I take it Mr fisher never read that report.
We don't get too many bad reports regarding defence down here in the Press, unless it is copied straight from an other papers damming story.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 17, 2012 11:50:49 GMT 12
Are not these deadly "cannisters" still in world-wide use, with pretty well every jet (and many of the larger turbo-prop?) airliner in the world being fitted with a full complement of these dangerous critters right above the seat of every occupant, including all crew members. in case of sudden decompression? Tell me I am wrong! Have they been replaced by something else since the 1990s?
David D
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Oct 17, 2012 11:58:54 GMT 12
There is a potential hazard - Valujet Flight 592 crashed (at least partly) as a result of inporoperly declared O2 generators packed in the hold and triggering: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592The issue is well known amongst airline circles and clear processes should be in place around handling such cargo, so is actually a serious incident. |
|
atgv
Flight Sergeant
Posts: 29
|
Post by atgv on Oct 17, 2012 12:10:18 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Oct 17, 2012 12:22:38 GMT 12
as if that would happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2012 14:46:57 GMT 12
Close down the air force and hand it over to the army or navy... If he has beef with the NZDF, I hope he realises that the navy and army are under the same wider leadership.... It's sad that the good reputation that each service has world wide never sees the light of day. It's sad that only the people in the industry or who are fully informed will really know the professionalism of the NZDF.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Oct 17, 2012 18:38:18 GMT 12
Mr Carson needs to build a bridge... and get over it!  |
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Oct 17, 2012 19:49:49 GMT 12
There is a potential hazard - Valujet Flight 592 crashed (at least partly) as a result of inporoperly declared O2 generators packed in the hold and triggering: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592The issue is well known amongst airline circles and clear processes should be in place around handling such cargo, so is actually a serious incident. Agreed. Much as I hate to side with a reporter with form like this, if the details are as reported this is totally unacceptable from a health and safety/hazard awareness viewpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 17, 2012 20:21:51 GMT 12
Mr Carson needs to build a bridge... and get over it! While I agree with you, I also feel sorry for him. First he loses his son in an accident; and secondly the media keep going to him for his 'insightful' comments, which honestly just make him look stupid. The media should leave him alone and stop using him as an easy target for a guaranteed statement. It isn't doing him or the memory of Ben any good at all. |
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Oct 18, 2012 8:04:19 GMT 12
On the subject of oxygen generators, can it be confirmed that these are the identical item installed (in their dozens, if not hundreds) as a matter of course and without any comment in practically every modern airliner in service in the world today, and located above every passenger as required by law? I agree that when carried as freight (as was the case in the disatrous Everglades incident) all proper procedures should be complied with, but to hear the hysteria being generated at the moment (as opposed to oxygen), one could be excused for thinking that any oxy generator carried aboard any aircraft was almost certain to explode within minutes of take off, and if it didn't then it had failed in its sole purpose for being. I believe that in the Everglades case the generators were u/s items being returned to the maker (or a qualified contractor) for assessment and reconditioning or destruction, as the case may be.
David D
|
|
|
|
Post by sqwark2k on Oct 18, 2012 8:57:06 GMT 12
From Wikipedia:
Commercial aircraft provide emergency oxygen to passengers to protect them from drops in cabin pressure. Chemical oxygen generators are not used for the cockpit crew. In narrow body airliners, for each row of seats there are overhead oxygen masks and oxygen generators. In wide body airliners, such as the DC-10 and IL-96, the canisters and oxygen masks are mounted in the top portion of the seat backs, since the ceiling is too high above the passengers. If a decompression occurs, the panels are opened either by an automatic pressure switch or by a manual switch, and the masks are released. When the passengers pull down on the mask they remove the retaining pins and trigger the production of oxygen.
The oxidizer core is sodium chlorate (NaClO3), which is mixed with less than 5 percent barium peroxide (BaO2) and less than 1 percent potassium perchlorate (KClO4). The explosives in the percussion cap are a lead styphnate and tetrazene mixture. The chemical reaction is exothermic and the exterior temperature of the canister will reach 260 °C (500 °F). It will produce oxygen for 15 to 20 minutes.[1][2] The two-mask generator is approximately 63 mm (2.5 in) in diameter and 223 mm (8.8 in) long. The three-mask generator is approximately 70 mm (2.8 in) in diameter and 250 mm (9.8 in) long.
Accidental activation of improperly shipped expired generators caused the ValuJet Flight 592 crash. An ATA DC-10, Flight 131, was also destroyed while parked at O'Hare Airport, on August 10, 1986. The cause was the accidental activation of an oxygen canister, contained in the back of a broken DC-10 seat, being shipped in the cargo compartment to a repair station. There were no fatalities or injuries because the plane contained no passengers when the fire broke out.
For your fun aviation fact of the day, did you know there are only 19 Oxygen outlets and masks for 68 passengers on the ATR? Not only that, but the cabin crew have to come down the cabin and manually deploy the masks if required. And I'm pretty sure the ATR doesn't have O2 generators, just a couple of air tanks with compressed air, or I'd be pretty dark not to be informed of such a potential hazard in my office....
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Oct 18, 2012 10:38:24 GMT 12
And I'm pretty sure the ATR doesn't have O2 generators, just a couple of air tanks with compressed air If you are referring to a gaseous Oxygen system like almost every other pressurised passenger aircraft has had in this country for the past 60 years that would be correct. I am rated on several medium sized jet and turbo-jet aircraft. They all have that system. I have never worked on an aircraft with chemical generators and likewise never got involved with the LOX system either. The A4 guys would have. Checking and topping up the Oxygen is a common task for the night shift guys. 1850 psi is a good figure. *** EDIT*** I think my reference above should really be to medium size pressurised aircraft. Obviously the larger aircraft, carrying more pax, would have to carry much larger capacity making the use of the chemical generators more practical. Possibly above 120 seats or so. What do the Airbus' have ? |
|
|
|
Post by classicman on Oct 18, 2012 10:54:04 GMT 12
On the 747 we have gaseous oxygen for the pax and crew. Great big bottles under the floor, so no nasty oxy generators.
I wouldn't worry about the lack of masks on the ATR. They rarely get higher than the mid 20000's where your time of useful consciousness (should the aircraft depressurise) is still measured in minutes. Plenty of time to descend rapidly to lower levels.
Up in the mid to higher 30000's your time of useful consciousness without oxygen is only seconds, hence the need for masks for every passenger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Radialicious on Oct 18, 2012 11:16:48 GMT 12
Our B737's have chemical oxygen generators above each row of seats for passenger use in an emergency. When the masks drop, as per the instructions, the masks must be pulled down to fire off the initiator and start the flow of oxygen. The resulting chemical reaction produces the O2 and an awful lot of heat can be generated as a result. Crew are trained to expect the cabin to smell odd as the generators 'cook off' any dust that has settled on them over the years.
The difference between the normal operation and accidental operation is pretty obvious. In their mountings in the cabin they are ventilated and essentially separated from one another. In a cargo hold, they are possibly boxed together where accidental operation of one will probably trigger a chain reaction amongst the others. The resultant fire is very hard to contain and suppress. As we know, fire needs fuel, oxygen and heat. As a result these generators are perfect for starting and sustaining fire. Because they contain and produce the three elements of fire, extinguishing that fire is very difficult.
Airliner crew smoke hoods also have a chemical O2 generator and we are trained to be careful when removing one from your head after use because of the burn risk. We are also taught to place the hood in a suitable place to cool down after use.
The chemical O2 generator is perfectly safe in its place in the cabin but can be incredibly dangerous if stored and transported incorrectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Oct 24, 2012 15:51:48 GMT 12
I just heard on Radio New Zealand National that having investigated this case, New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority will not be prosecuting anyone over it.
What has annoyed the hell out of me about this case is the media, all of them, have spun this story to reflect badly on the Air Force. They have constantly referred to it as 'the RNZAF' or 'the Air Force' as having placed the item on the Air Nerw Zealand aircraft. It is clearly an individual who has made the error, not the entire RNZAF. They are all under pressure to perform due to budget cuts and lowered staffing, and it may even have been a civilian contractor who made the error - but the media blames the entire Air Force's safety culture.
Only this week some munter brought an artillery shell back from a tropical island that he foind while diving and it wasn't till he declared it at Customs that anyone was aware, and the bomb squad shut down part of Auckland Airport. Here the media rightly blames him, not the airline. There was a lot more risk of explosion on the plane from a 70 year old live artillery shell in someone's luggage!
|
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Oct 24, 2012 20:43:05 GMT 12
What has annoyed the hell out of me about this case is the media, all of them, have spun this story to reflect badly on the Air Force. They have constantly referred to it as 'the RNZAF' or 'the Air Force' as having placed the item on the Air Nerw Zealand aircraft. It is clearly an individual who has made the error, not the entire RNZAF. Sorry Dave, but it does reflect badly on the Air Force. Individual or not, contractor or not, like it or not they are representing the organisation. There is a right way to do things and a wrong way. |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Oct 25, 2012 15:50:03 GMT 12
Yep and said individual(s) should be disciplined for bringing the service into disrepute. In my day it was Sect 61 of the Air Force Act - Conduct prejudice to the good order and discipline of the RNZAF. I know that act well - it appeared on my charge sheet frequently ;D
|
|
