From: email@example.com (Pete Coe) Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: 10 Jan 96 02:01:40 References: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
firstname.lastname@example.org (Jean-Francois Mezei) writes: >In the case of Tower Air, the crew supposedly decided that an evacuation was not >necessary since fire did not errupt immediately after the crash and they could >wait inside the plane instead of evacuating. >QUESTION: in the event of an incident such as the Tower Air (fully fueled, and > probably leaking due to engine damage), if fire does not erupt > immediatly, is it safe to assume that it will not erupt at all ? I'm no expert but I had been led to believe that aviation fuel has an extremly high flashpoint, to the point that you could actually use it to extinguish a fire. It only becomes flamable when it is atomized, or wicked. Quite literally you could stand in a pool of jet fuel and throw lit matches into it. In the case of the tower crash where the weather outside was extreme, it was probably safer for the passengers to stay inside the shelter of the plane than to risk exposure and escape injuries on the outside of the plane. Still, I don't know if I would be so sure of the answer if I was on the plane.