philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Oct 27, 2019 9:41:04 GMT 1
9 out of 42 would be a huge percentage (21 %, when previous results were < 5%). I hope this is a a wrong report or a non-typical case. |
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Oct 27, 2019 12:01:33 GMT 1
9 out of 42 would be a huge percentage (21 %, when previous results were < 5%). I hope this is a a wrong report or a non-typical case. Well they are inspecting the highest cycle ones first, so you would expect a higher % than the average. |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Oct 27, 2019 12:14:27 GMT 1
Well they are inspecting the highest cycle ones first, so you would expect a higher % than the average. I thought they were inspecting only high-cycle aircraft ... You may be right, though, there may be sizable differences between high-cycle and very high-cycle aircraft. |
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Oct 27, 2019 12:59:10 GMT 1
Well they are inspecting the highest cycle ones first, so you would expect a higher % than the average. I thought they were inspecting only high-cycle aircraft ... You may be right, though, there may be sizable differences between high-cycle and very high-cycle aircraft. There are two inspection regimes, one for frame with 30,000 cycles and above, they should be all done by now, and one for frames above 22,600 and up to 29,999 cycles, they are to be inspected inside of 1,000 cycles. So we can expect further frames to come up with cracks. There are also more frames reaching 22,600 cycles. |
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Nov 8, 2019 5:18:55 GMT 1
To ensure 0 false negative, I think AD will be revised for more planes to check
|
|
|
|
Post by fanairbus on Nov 8, 2019 9:54:27 GMT 1
08 November, 2019 SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com BY: Jon Hemmerdinger Boston www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-congress-raises-new-serious-concerns-with-787-a-462080/US lawmakers have asked the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide information about two potentially "catastrophic" safety concerns involving the 737 Max and 787 – issues unrelated to the Max's grounding. A 7 November letter to FAA administrator Stephen Dickson from the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure lays out the concerns, which involve rudder cable protection on the 737 Max and the 787's lightning protection. "Both appear to involve serious, potentially catastrophic safety concerns raised by FAA technical specialists that FAA management ultimately overruled after Boeing objected", says the letter. "These incidents raise questions about how the agency weighs the validity of safety issues raised by its own experts compared to objections raised by the aircraft manufacturers."
It's becoming diffiuclt to know where to post these! I posted a 787 safety issue yesterday under B787 General, now this for potentially both 737 and 787 threads. Perhaps a thread 'Boeing quality' may capture whatever is to come?!
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Nov 8, 2019 13:29:04 GMT 1
To ensure 0 false negative, I think AD will be revised for more planes to check Indonesia and Lion Air have come under a lot of flak for their safety lapses concerning the MAX saga. But good on them for taking this proactive approach and checking their fleet for cracks despite the AD not covering it. A sort of a moral victory over the FAA I suppose who've not caught it themselves. |
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959 
|
Post by s543 on Nov 8, 2019 18:03:26 GMT 1
Uhhh - another BAD news for Boeing.
I wonder what will the other operators find on other younger ones.....
|
|
|
|
Post by bmw801 on Nov 11, 2019 12:15:49 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by fanairbus on Nov 11, 2019 12:27:42 GMT 1
Are rusty bolts replaced?
|
|
