FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1962
1962 - 0352.PDF
354 FLIGHT International, 8 March 1962 AIR COMMERCE . . . the previous month, Mr Morris went on to say: '"... under the particular circumstances of this accident I think it would have been almost a miracle if there had not been a major fire with gasoline or JP.4." At this point in time turbine aircraft were, of course, flying in many countries and, inevitably, some accidents were happening. Those who had eyes to see noticed that lives were being saved through the use of kerosine fuel. Mr Morris had concrete cases to talk about, and discussion of these and other accidents naturally became a feature of all subsequent meetings where turbine fuels were under review. The following brief extracts are taken from a discussion which took place at the Symposium on Aircraft Fire Hazards held at the RAE, Farnborough, in April 1955. MR F. B. GREATREX (Rolls-Royce Ltd): "On the question of which fuel presents the greater fire hazard, kerosine or petrol, with kerosine in a crash landing there is a chance of escaping, but not with petrol." MR w. o. GLENDINNING (Graviner Manufacturing Co Ltd): "I agree with Mr Greatrex; with the crash case kerosine is much less dangerous." Now for a further contribution, this time American, from a major oil company. In June 1956 MR A. R. OGSTON of the Esso Export Corporation read a paper in Boston before the fifth Aviation Seminar of the National Fire Protection Association. The following brief extract is taken from the summary: "From the fire safety viewpoint, kerosine has therefore a distinct advantage over JP.4." In March 1957 came another contribution from the Shell Co in the form of an article "The Choice of Fuels for Turbine-Engined Airliners" written by MR E. L. BASS and published in Shell Aviation News. The following is extracted from Mr Bass's summary: "In the case of a crash, providing it is of insufficient violence to cause extensive atomization of the fuel, kerosine is safer than wide-cut gasoline." In September 1957, a meeting of great significance was held in Stockholm, under the chairmanship of Mr Knut Hagrup of SAS, to discuss the turbine fuel requirements of European operators. It was attended by BO AC, BE A, Air France, KLM, Sabena, Swissair and SAS, and also by representatives of the major oil companies, including Messrs Ogston and Bass of Esso and Shell respectively. As was to be expected these two gave powerful support to kerosine on grounds of safety. MR K. HAGRUP: "From Mr Bass we also got the impression that kerosine is definitely more safe than JP.4, even in a major crash." MR E. L. BASS: "I think there is no doubt about it and it is sub stantiated by the technical data we have been looking at." In explaining the reasons why BEA did not use JP.4, MR BARNARD, the BEA representative, concluded by saying: "The most important reason, however, was that we considered kerosine a more safe fuel." The chairman, Mr Hagrup, summing up on behalf of the airlines Count Nicolai Carandini, president of Alitalia, made a presentation of a replica of the Fontana del Tritone in Rome to Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, chairman of BEA, on February 23. This was to commemorate the many years of close association between the two airlines said: "It did not take us a long time to decide that kerosine was the safer one." This remark is of considerable significance, for it implies that the airlines unanimously accepted the evidence of kerosine safetv so powerfully put before them by the oil companies and by BEA. Indeed, they all returned home to recommend to their respective managements the adoption of kerosine. It is all the sadder, there fore, to recall how Mr Hagrup admitted, only three years later (Lucerne, IATA thirteenth annual technical conference, May 1960), that because JP.4 was tending to become cheaper, in some places, "the finance people want us to tank the aircraft with kero sine in one place and JP.4 in another." Inevitably, at a later IATA meeting (Copenhagen, sixteenth a.g.m., September 1960), Mr Hagrup vigorously asserted that no one can possibly tell whether one fuel can be safer than another. In September 1960 MR M. G. BEARD, American Airlines' assistant vice-president safety, addressing the American Chemical Society in New York, claimed that a statistical analysis of 86 world wide civil accidents (53 with gasoline, 33 with kerosine) had shown that kerosine fuel had resulted in a lower fire rate than had been experi enced with aviation gasoline. Also fatalities were less likely to occur with kerosine. Kerosine Safety Demonstrated In a later address, given before that influential American body, the National Fire Protection Association (Detroit, annual meeting, May 1961), Mr Beard expanded his analysis to cover 103 accidents (61 with gasoline, 42 with kerosine). Again, the conclusions were the same, and this leads directly to our next extract. MR GEORGE TRYON, technical secretary of the NFPA, in an article in Fireman for September 1961, wrote in reference to Mr Beard's analysis: "These percentages and figures show a substan tial crash fire safety factor in favour of kerosine as compared with Avgas." Now this is of great significance, for hitherto the NFPA had been reluctant to concede a safety advantage to kerosine. It should be remembered that American domestic operators (as opposed to international operators) all use kerosine in their turbine-powered aircraft. This has meant that in the past two years there have been, on American soil, some spectacular demonstrations of kerosine safety. As a result of the interest stimulated by these accidents, and by the American Airlines' analysis, a re-appraisal has had to be made; and the NFPA, at long last, were prepared to admit that kerosine had the advantage. Mr Tryon concluded: "We believe, however, that his [Mr Beard's] conclusions are valid and that kerosine offers a safety advantage over other grades of aviation fuels." Finally, what of the passenger? What has he to say about all this? Readers will recall the accident at Idlewild in January 1961, where an Aeronaves de Mexico DC-8 crashed outside the airport after failing to become properly airborne. From that burning wreck escaped more than 100 passengers, two of whom, a MR RUSHEN and a MR MITCHELL, were world travelling business colleagues. So impressed were these gentlemen by the fact that they survived that Mr Rushen wrote to Lord Brabazon: "I am frequently called upon to visit different parts of the world and consequently have often discussed with my colleagues, particularly with Mr Mitchell, your television programme on the subject of JP.4/kerosine as a fuel for jets. We have also followed with interest the controversy which appears to have been raging since. At that time we little realized that we were ourselves to experience most vividly the correctness of all you had been saying, although our sympathies had always been very much on your side. Mr Mitchell and I were two of the British passengers in the Mexican DC-8 jet which recently crashed at Idlewild, and we are both utterly convinced that we owe our lives, as do all the other passengers, to the fact that this partic ular aircraft was powered by kerosine and not by JP.4 or any similarly volatile propellent." So there we have it: many quotations from people associated with well-known embracing aircraft and engine manufacturers, oil companies, airlines and an airworthiness authority, and from ordinary passengers. But with the initiative passing to the Ameri cans where, it may be asked, are the British voices now, those voices which spoke so loudly and clearly in the fifties? Why are they now silent? The two fuels have not changed their essential properties.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
