Kapton

[Cyberman]

I was reading a very interesting article last night about Kapton, which is used in the insulation material for the wiring of the Airbus aircraft. Some experts believe that failure of this wring may be responsible for some very strange software events over the past few years on the Airbus and may have contributed to the loss of the Air France flight from Rio to Paris a few weeks ago. I learned that there have been at least six major events similar to this on Airbuses over the past two years whereby autopilot has been lost. In most cases the aircrew were able to recover control after a number of seconds and land safely but many passengers have been severely injured through temporary loss of control of the aircraft.

NASA use Kapton on space shuttle wiring and are making the shuttle aircraft obsolete very soon due to this. Kapton has been used on the Airbus for many years and a team stripped down an old aircraft and found that the insulation was extremely defective after years of wear and tear.

I will think twice before flying on an Airbus from now on.....

[gingerjedi]

I will think twice before flying on an Airbus from now on.....

I wasn't aware that airlines specify which type of aircraft you should expect on any given day?

Anyway:

14 January 1985. A British Monarch Airlines Boeing 757, on a flight from the Canary Islands to Luton has a serious wire bundle explosion. Smoke begins to enter the passenger cabin. The pilot manages to make a forced landing in Portugal. A subsequent investigation shows that "loo-blue" dripped on to Kapton wiring beneath the lavatory. Wet arc tracking occurred and the bundle exploded.

10 January 1998. An American United Airlines Boeing 767 en route from Zurich to Washington makes an emergency landing at Heathrow and the passengers are safely evacuated by chute. The cabin crew reported smoke in the forward galley. Investigators subsequently found 36 wires were damaged by heat or fire.

5 November 1990. Philippine Airlines Boeing 737. As the plane is being pushed back for flight there is an explosion in the fuel tank "probably" from faulty wiring creating a spark that ignited fuel vapor. Eight passengers died.

28 May 1996. A Dutch-registered Boeing 767 was forced to make an unscheduled landing at Boston following numerous electrical anomalies including false illuminated warning lights, false display indicators, uncommanded autopilot disconnects and failure of flight instruments.

17 March 1991. Delta Airlines. A fire breaks out in a Lockheed Tri-star en route from Frankfurt to Atlanta. The plane diverts to Goose Bay for an emergency landing. The "most probable" cause of the fire was electrical arcing in an electrical wire bundle under the cabin.

This is a short list. Panorama has investigated one further catastrophe - the world's sixth-worst air disaster in which 301 people were burnt to death. Our conclusions are that the evidence points beyond reasonable doubt that this was a classic Kapton-induced event.

On 19 August 1980, a Saudia (Saudi Arabian Airlines) Tri-star took off from Riyadh Airport for Jeddah. There was a a fire in the rear cargo compartment. The captain returned to Riyadh. Flames had broken through the cabin floor and the cabin was filling with smoke.

Which modern passenger airliners don't use this stuff? I can't find any, I guess its Margate for you from now on.

Seriously though, it is a disgrace that commercial pressure is obviously keeping these aircraft flying and the odd regrettable accident is deemed acceptable.

[centurian]

I wasn't aware that airlines specify which type of aircraft you should expect on any given day?

I'm sure when they see they are carrying Cyberman as one of their passengers, they'll give him a choice of aircraft, flight crew and flight attendants

Seriously though, it is a disgrace that commercial pressure is obviously keeping these aircraft flying and the odd regrettable accident is deemed acceptable.

I think there's a term for that - they calculate how how it costs to fix it - and then how much it costs them in terms of compensation for crashes that might occur - and then decide based upon that.

But the simple fact is - if every possible precaution was taken, then about 80% of flights would probably be cancelled due to the slightest possible warning indicator and the cost of a ticket to the US would be more than your house.


Do you really believe that RyanAir's cost approach have absolutely zero impact on safety (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1343517.ece). But despite this people still fly them, so accept the risk because they are paying less.

[gingerjedi]

I turns out Boeing stopped using it in 93' so it does make you wonder why Airbus continued to use it?

In January 2008 a study commissioned and published by the FAA concluded that Kapton "should not be used in airborne applications."

Happy holidays.

[centurian]

In January 2008 a study commissioned and published by the FAA concluded that Kapton "should not be used in airborne applications."

I bet if Beoing had been the one's still using it and Airbus had gotten rid of it - then the language of the report would be somewhat different.

However, it seems there is a genuine concern with it, so Airbus should stop using it - and have a programme to ensure that it is made in existing aircraft.

[sasguru]

More ill-informed speculation and bollux from the Chief Cretin.
Oi, Cretin, there's a reason why you haven't been very succesful in life - its because you're thick.

Stick to stuff within your intellectual capacity.

Ta.

[OwlHoot]

.. I will think twice before flying on an Airbus from now on.....

If you think twice, it'll take so long you'll miss the flight anyway

[DiscoStu]

If you think twice, it'll take so long you'll miss the flight anyway

[Cyberman]

Just a reminder. Don't fly on an Airbus !!

[expat]

...
I think there's a term for that - they calculate how how it costs to fix it - and then how much it costs them in terms of compensation for crashes that might occur - and then decide based upon that.
...

Cost-benefit analysis.

The wrong decision is fixable. Ford did the same with the Pinto US car: they realised that a poor design in the fuel tank would allow rear-end crashes to cause fatal fires. The design fault was easily fixable with an extra protective collar, but the recall would be expensive. Ford calculated that it would be cheaper just to pay out on the lawsuits from victims' families.

When this was revealed, people got so angry at Ford's callous disregard for life that juries started making huge awards (one was $125 million), so Ford's cost-benefit calculation shifted a bit.