Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Icewind

Fuel Tanks

Recommended Posts

I doubt there are any civilian operators that still have the "self-sealing" bladders in their bell products. They are heavier and have goo between 2 layers to fill small bullet holes, they may have been more robust due to the 2 layers though. The installation of bladder type tanks is a form of crashworthiness as the previous tanks were just metal or incorporated into the fuse/wings and would split and spill much easier.

 

I would argue that the 206 series fuel systems are crashworthy due to the configuration of laced in bladders and floating sump plates which will break away from the structure during a crash. THE INSTALLATION OF AN EXTERNAL RANGE EXTENDER RENDERS THIS SYSTEM UNSERVICEABLE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I would argue that the 206 series fuel systems are crashworthy due to the configuration of laced in bladders and floating sump plates which will break away from the structure during a crash."

 

Unfortunately, that is an argument that you will not win and an opinion that could burn you....

 

Some good basic research for you would be one of the many reports written by Roy G Fox who was the Chief of Flight Safety for Bell Helicopters Textron Inc., or Dennis Shanahan the past director of the US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory.

 

Kinda like the red pill or the green pill in the Matrix - be prepared for what you will learn....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Unfortunately, that is an argument that you will not win and an opinion that could burn you....

 

 

 

 

Oh clever, burn me :rolleyes: It's my opinion for one and secondly, as compared to integral metal tanks, they are more crashworthy.

 

I haven't read every report ever about fuel systems but my working knowledge is adequate for me to make an informed opinion. We do what we can to mitigate risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like a new ARAC group in the U.S. will be looking at this issue:

 

New Task Assignement: Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group

 

 

SUMMARY: The FAA assigned the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) a new task to provide recommendations regarding occupant protection rulemaking in normal and transport category rotorcraft for older certification basis type designs that are still in production. The FAA amended regulations to incorporate occupant protection rules, including those for emergency landing conditions and fuel system crash resistance, for new type designs in the 1980s and 1990s. These rule changes do not apply to newly manufactured rotorcraft with older type designs or to derivative type designs that keep the certification basis of the original type design. This approach has resulted in a very low incorporation rate of occupant protection features into the rotorcraft fleet, and fatal accidents remain unacceptably high. At the end of 2014, only 16% of U.S. fleet had complied with the crash resistant fuel system requirements effective 20 years earlier, and only 10% had complied with the emergency landing requirements effective 25 years earlier. A recent fatal accident study has shown these measures would have been effective in saving lives.

 

This notice informs the public of the new ARAC activity and solicits membership for the new Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...