This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision | Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
the_can_of_paint_modifier [2012/03/25 01:42] tom |
the_can_of_paint_modifier [2012/03/25 01:45] tom |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
One paragraph, on Page 9 of the [[http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A\DOT_56GB\airplane%20accidents\websearch\070964.pdf|Civil Aeronautics Board Aircraft Accident Report]] deserves a good amount of scrutiny, as I find it extremely confusing: **"An inflight fire existed in the passenger-occupied portion of the cabin. The only flammable liquid carried as a part of the airplane above the fuselage floor is hydraulic fluid in a reservoir located in a compartment between the carry-on luggage rack and the lavatory. The reservoir was damaged by impact and fire and was empty. Another source of flammable liquid known to have been aboard the aircraft was a one-gallon can containing a commercial paint modifier. This can was recovered in the wreckage area, crushed with no evidence of fire damage to either the can or its paper wrapping."** | One paragraph, on Page 9 of the [[http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?file&fn=8&name=S%3A\DOT_56GB\airplane%20accidents\websearch\070964.pdf|Civil Aeronautics Board Aircraft Accident Report]] deserves a good amount of scrutiny, as I find it extremely confusing: **"An inflight fire existed in the passenger-occupied portion of the cabin. The only flammable liquid carried as a part of the airplane above the fuselage floor is hydraulic fluid in a reservoir located in a compartment between the carry-on luggage rack and the lavatory. The reservoir was damaged by impact and fire and was empty. Another source of flammable liquid known to have been aboard the aircraft was a one-gallon can containing a commercial paint modifier. This can was recovered in the wreckage area, crushed with no evidence of fire damage to either the can or its paper wrapping."** | ||
- | The first part of the above paragraph, that mentioned the hydraulic fluid reservoir, specifically stated that the reservoir was empty. The last part of the above paragraph mentions a one gallon can //containing// a flammable paint modifier. If one were to parse words, the first operative word is "containing", which I take to mean the one gallon vessel still held liquid. The second operative word is "crushed". I'm left to wonder how a can, containing a liquid, could still be viable in the sense that the liquid would still remain present in the can in spite of the can being crushed. | + | The first part of the above paragraph, that mentioned the hydraulic fluid reservoir, specifically stated that the reservoir was empty. The last part of the above paragraph mentions a one gallon can //containing// a flammable paint modifier. If one were to parse words, the first operative word is "containing", which I take to mean the one gallon vessel still held liquid. The second operative word is "crushed". I'm left to wonder how a can containing a liquid could still be viable in the sense that the liquid would still remain present in the can in spite of the can being crushed. |
In my opinion, the ambiguity is exacerbated because the report fails to state, without equivocation, whether or not the can of paint modifier is empty-which is how the reservoir that "carried" the hydraulic fluid was described. | In my opinion, the ambiguity is exacerbated because the report fails to state, without equivocation, whether or not the can of paint modifier is empty-which is how the reservoir that "carried" the hydraulic fluid was described. |