Accidents and Catastrophes: The Hindenburg Disaster - Article Example

Accidents and Catastrophes: The Hindenburg Disaster Introduction Accidents and disasters may be caused by a variety of factors – some man-made, someare natural. Man-made disasters are sometimes credited to the actions or inactions of man which directly contribute to the occurrence of an accident or disaster. Such was the case in the Hindenburg disaster of 1937. This paper shall discuss this engineering disaster in relation to various points directly related to the analysis of accidents and disasters. It shall analyse the consequences of the Hindenburg disaster, showing what, how, and why such events occurred and led to the disaster. The consequences of this accident or catastrophe shall also be assessed, along with the implications if such disaster were to happen in Preston, calculating impact distances or evacuation zones. Discussion The Hindenburg is considered to be the largest airship or dirigible ever built (Rancer, 2007). It measured 804 feet long and 135 tall with a gas capacity of 7,062,100 cubic feet powered by four 1,100 horsepower diesel engines and held afloat by hydrogen bags (Rancer, 2007). The airship was named after the President of Germany, Paul von Hindenburg and was designed with the supervision of German airship expert Dr. Hugo Eckener. Eckener had a fond hope that the airship would ensure regular travel and passenger services across the North Atlantic. The ship was able to fulfil such goal with its regular transatlantic travels, making 10 flights in 1936 alone (Rancer, 2007). The Hindenburg was famed for its massive size, for its lavishness and its magnificence, with two decks stretching across the width of the airship and with beautiful interior features like a promenade, lounges, a smoking room, two berths, and a washbasin (Rancer, 2007). The Hindenburg made history when, on 6 May 1937, it made its first successful transatlantic travel and cruised triumphantly over Manhattan (Rancer, 2007). The passengers travelled for 60 hours during said transatlantic flight. While approaching the airfield in Lakehurst, New Jersey, it hovered at about 300 feet (Rancer, 2007). Then, the largest airship in the world took everyone by surprise by bursting into an explosive fire. Passengers jumped off the airship and various seamen rushed to rescue them. The landing and the disaster that followed was reported live by Herbert Morrison through a coast-to-coast live radio broadcast (Rancer, 2007). There were 97 people on board the airship and 35 of these passengers, and one person on the ground perished from the disaster (American Law and Legal Information, 2009). Much speculation about the cause of the disaster has been bandied about in the time and the years that followed the explosion; the main speculations being that it is either an accident or sabotage. Other speculations were also investigated and evaluated, but no official causes have been recorded on the disaster. The disaster brought about the ban of all airship travels by Hitler; this marked the end of travels through dirigible (Rancer, 2007). Theories/Causes of the Hindenburg disaster There are various theories which have been set forth by various analysts on the cause of this disaster. Static Spark Theory The static spark theory is considered to be the most probable theory on the disaster. This theory sets forth that “static electricity built up on the outer skin of the Hindenburg and could not be dissipated” (AeroSpace, 2009). Such accumulation then caused a change in the charge to between the airship and the ground. When the airship went through rainy weather over New Jersey, the dangling mooring ropes became wet and conductive. When such mooring lines touched the ground, the airship’s aluminum structure became grounded to the land allowing the extra electrical charge on the outer skin of the ship to pass to the internal structure (AeroSpace, 2009). Witness accounts lend credence to the theory when they report that they observed a bright glow along the tail section of the airship; this matches the ionization of air due to a strong electrical field around the external structure of the airship (AeroSpace, 2009). Supporters of this theory also point out that the external structure of the Hindenburg was not built in a way which would have allowed the charge to be evenly distributed throughout the ship’s surface (Zuttel, et.al., p. 16). The external of the ship was also separated from the aluminum frame through nonconductive ramie cords. When the ship passed through wet weather, the skin of the ship became charged (Zuttel, et.al., p. 16). The combination and interaction of such elements makes the static spark theory the most believable and likely explanation of the Hindenburg disaster. Lightning Theory The lightning theory has also been proposed as a possible explanation for the disaster. In fact, while the ship was flying, there were several reports of thunderstorms in the area (Kelly, 2009). Some theorists point out that the blue arc which was seen at the tail of the ship before it burst into flames was actually lightning. This lightning then caused the detonation of the hydrogen and henceforth the explosive fire which gobbled the airship (Kelly, 2009). However, this theory was not credited with as much truth because of the fact that the Hindenburg has gone through many lightning storms and was in fact hit by lightning several times, with hardly any incident at all (AeroSpace, 2009). Other theorists also dismissed the lightning theory because even though a lightning strike on the ship would burn a hole through the fabric, the painted fabric is not very flammable. They liken the lightning strike on the airship to a hand moving quickly over a flame without getting burned because the hand does not stay in the flame long enough to burn it (Dessler, 2004, p. 7). Engine failure theory The engine failure theory was suggested because ground crew noticed that “one of the engines, thrown into reverse for a hard tune, backfired, and a shower of sparks was emitted causing the ignition of the plasticized lacquer finish or the leaking hydrogen gas” (Gas Dynamics, 2009). However, like other theories, this supposition was also dismissed because engineers who undertook the post-disaster investigation found no evidence to support structural or mechanical failure. No faults in the electrical or wiring system were also found or observed throughout the ship’s travel across the Atlantic (AeroSpace, 2009). Hydrogen Theory Another popular theory being suggested for the Hindenburg disaster is that it was caused by hydrogen. This theory was actually agreed upon by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Gestapo as the most probable cause of this disaster (Brownie, 1997). Hydrogen is a highly flammable gas and when combined with the fuel being carried by the airship, it made for a combustible combination. This theory basically set forth that hydrogen lifting gas released intentionally or accidentally ignited the static electricity which was discharged from the Hindenburg’s external structure (Brownie, 1997). This theory was opposed by other experts because they point out that the Hindenburg fire burned red, where fire caused by hydrogen should burn blue or would actually be invisible. The above theories are all possible and viable theories which explain the Hindenburg disaster. The consequences of such disaster shall now be assessed accordingly. Consequences of the Accident The disaster immediately caused airship travel to be stopped by Hitler and by other commercial airship companies across the globe. And to this day, limited attempts to revive this mode of travel have been made. It was a devastating event in the field of lighter-than-air ships (Shaw, 2001, p. 15). In the aftermath of the disaster, the airship designers now focused on the future and exclusive use of helium gas in dirigibles. The use of less combustible gases was considered in the building of airships and of other modes of air travel. The disaster also spread the fear among the people surrounding explosions and flammable materials which cause airship disasters. “Using gas-filled compartments to maintain buoyancy was deemed an unreasonable risk for commercial flight” (Rave, 2009). The disaster however brought about major benefits to air travel with the development of North Atlantic travel by plane in the year that followed. After two years from the development of plane travel, weekly commercial flights between New York and Britain using Boeing 314 was started (Rave, 2009). The disaster triggered a different direction in the development of air travel and technology – which moved farther away from the use of air ships and combustible gases. Read More