Seems that the FAA conducted a study on the fire hazard potential from the use of FRHs on commercial aircraft last year. Don't know if it was brought up on this site, but some may find their study results to be interesting.
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/tn06-18.pdf
Use of FRH on Commercial Aircraft
I'm not sure I've seen that exact same report, but I think I did see something similar.
The funny thing is, I received an email from someone at the FAA asking if I knew if MREs and their heaters were safe to use on airplanes. I did some googling and found a link to a document put out by the FAA with similar findings to the PDF you linked.
I just read through your PDF and I have a couple of issues with it:
1. Look at Figure 1 - the picture of the cargo container on fire. That's the same picture from the "Meals, Ready to Explode" website:
http://www.cargolaw.com/2001nightmare_mre2.html
If you read those webpages carefully, you'll see this wasn't a shipment of "MREs" - it was a whole cargo container full of just FRHs. So while the picture is accurate in that lots of FRHs can catch fire like this if improperly exposed to water, it's *not* a picture of MREs on fire.
2. Look at figure 2. Would it have killed them to use an actual MRE and not a heater-meal like MRE? I think their results would have been more accurate if they had used an FRH that takes regular water instead of that salt water packet. As the heater meals are designed, all you have to do is puncture the salt water packet and the liquid can get to the exposed heater. But with real MREs and FRHs, you also have to puncture/rip the FRH bag to expose the heating element because the it's sealed up inside the bag.
But sloppy investigative work aside, their conclusion is still valid:
The funny thing is, I received an email from someone at the FAA asking if I knew if MREs and their heaters were safe to use on airplanes. I did some googling and found a link to a document put out by the FAA with similar findings to the PDF you linked.
I just read through your PDF and I have a couple of issues with it:
1. Look at Figure 1 - the picture of the cargo container on fire. That's the same picture from the "Meals, Ready to Explode" website:
http://www.cargolaw.com/2001nightmare_mre2.html
If you read those webpages carefully, you'll see this wasn't a shipment of "MREs" - it was a whole cargo container full of just FRHs. So while the picture is accurate in that lots of FRHs can catch fire like this if improperly exposed to water, it's *not* a picture of MREs on fire.
2. Look at figure 2. Would it have killed them to use an actual MRE and not a heater-meal like MRE? I think their results would have been more accurate if they had used an FRH that takes regular water instead of that salt water packet. As the heater meals are designed, all you have to do is puncture the salt water packet and the liquid can get to the exposed heater. But with real MREs and FRHs, you also have to puncture/rip the FRH bag to expose the heating element because the it's sealed up inside the bag.
But sloppy investigative work aside, their conclusion is still valid:
It is evident from the tests that the release of hydrogen gas from these MREs is of a sufficient quantity to pose a potential hazard onboard a passenger aircraft.
Yeah, just goes to show that stealing pictures from websites has gone mainstream and is not beyond the virtue of government workerskman wrote:I just read through your PDF and I have a couple of issues with it:
1. Look at Figure 1 - the picture of the cargo container on fire. That's the same picture from the "Meals, Ready to Explode" website:
http://www.cargolaw.com/2001nightmare_mre2.html
Actually I think the usage of a self-heating meal was a good choice as it is what they are more likely to encounter with a passenger having one stashed in their luggage. I've routinely stuck some sort meal in my carry-on for years for those times when you get to a hotel late at night and room service is no longer available, or internationally when you arrive similarly late at a hotel that has no room service and the restaurants are closed. As for using a FRH on an airplane or any other closed environment, my common sense would tell me that releasing hydrogen gas into such an environment is not good.kman wrote: 2. Look at figure 2. Would it have killed them to use an actual MRE and not a heater-meal like MRE? I think their results would have been more accurate if they had used an FRH that takes regular water instead of that salt water packet. As the heater meals are designed, all you have to do is puncture the salt water packet and the liquid can get to the exposed heater. But with real MREs and FRHs, you also have to puncture/rip the FRH bag to expose the heating element because the it's sealed up inside the bag.
Though if a heater could be developed that did not emit an offensive odor or dangerous emissions, it would probably be a giant step in passengers not having to rely on airlines for in-flight meals (not that there is much of that on US flights these days.)Actually I thought it was kind of hilarious that the FAA would have needed to conduct a study to figure out that hydrogen gas could be ignited. They could be on the verge of discovering the cause to the Hindenberg accident.kman wrote:But sloppy investigative work aside, their conclusion is still valid:It is evident from the tests that the release of hydrogen gas from these MREs is of a sufficient quantity to pose a potential hazard onboard a passenger aircraft.
I'm also a fan of taking some MRE entrees with me when I fly - or if I'm going to another country and just want to eat something quickly when I'm on a strange travel schedule.
I'd be happy to take an entree (sans FRH, of course) on an airplane and eat it except for one thing...the gnawing fear that the one time I try to eat an entree on a plane, I'll get one of those that's gone bad without the tell-tale of the swelling package. I've heard stories of this happening and it gives me the willies - smells so bad people had to change hotel rooms. I can't imagine that happening on an airplane.
Then again, it couldn't be much worse than my flight last week. I was sitting a few seats away from the lavatory and some older guy obviously had intestinal issues because during this 2 hour flight he went to the lav twice and after both times, I had to smother my face with a pillow just to filter out the air.
I'd be happy to take an entree (sans FRH, of course) on an airplane and eat it except for one thing...the gnawing fear that the one time I try to eat an entree on a plane, I'll get one of those that's gone bad without the tell-tale of the swelling package. I've heard stories of this happening and it gives me the willies - smells so bad people had to change hotel rooms. I can't imagine that happening on an airplane.
Then again, it couldn't be much worse than my flight last week. I was sitting a few seats away from the lavatory and some older guy obviously had intestinal issues because during this 2 hour flight he went to the lav twice and after both times, I had to smother my face with a pillow just to filter out the air.
Oh sorry, I should have been clearer. The foods that I've put into my carry-ons have been current date shelf stable foods like those tuna or chicken lunch kits with crackers or other foods that could be eaten cold. Though with more recent developments and what I've learned from this site, I suspect I'll be carrying those retort tray dishes with an FRH, or a canned item with a HBB and a FRH. That and the little towns that roll up the streets at 9PM often have a 24 hour Wal*Mart
kman wrote:...the gnawing fear that the one time I try to eat an entree on a plane, I'll get one of those that's gone bad without the tell-tale of the swelling package.