Tuesday, November 03, 2015

I realize these two events were worlds apart. But, there was a recent fire with a jet on a USA runway. This incident in Egypt and the one in the USA were smaller airlines. Is there a possibility the quality of jet fuel needs to be examined? Was there a recent professional standard changed?

World Jet Fuel Specifications - 2005 (click here)

Aviation Fuel Standard Takes Flight - Sept/Oct 2011 (click here)

...What’s Ahead

The D7566 specification lays out a framework for the aviation industry to make use of HEFA- and Fischer-Tropsch-processed blendstocks, and other potential synthetic fuel components that may become part of D7566 in the future.
Oil companies, refiners and producers of aviation turbine fuel and new alternative fuel producers will use the new specification in their operations to manufacture the fuel. These fuels are recertified, usually by the refinery or transportation company, as D1655 fuels as they move into the distribution infrastructure that moves aviation turbine fuel from producers to end users. “The airline has ultimate responsibility for ensuring the fuel meets the specification before loading it on the aircraft,” says Rumizen.
Now the biggest challenge facing the industry is the investment required to scale up production and produce the quantities of fuel needed to make an impact in the industry....

There may be different changes and more recently. There is also the issue of QUALITY. Is there a difference in quality from supplier to supplier. With different incidence so far from each other it most probably would be an industry standard that changed and allowed a different quality.

The date the jet is manufactured might be an issue with new fuels. I still think the fueling process is in question in the runway fire in the USA and I really believe the damage done to the tail SECTION of the jet in the Egypt incident has a strong possibility of influence.

Also, the damage done 14 years ago can result in suspicion in the Egypt incident when in fact it might be something more subtle. It is just that the damage will show up again in the investigation. It should show up, BUT, is it conclusive to the cause of the crash. There was obviously a fire or explosion according to a USA satellite image.

When I stated I thought there might be a Russian satellite and it was the USA that came forward does not mean Russia doesn't have their own satellite; they just didn't share it with the public.