Most dangerous Boeing defect since 1990s 737 hardovers?

Thanks Matt for that link. I assumed that the short was within the mask container not outside it.

Rgds Cking

I don’t think the moment an AD comes in all operations should grind to a halt to fit in the repairs and I’d quite happily board a 777 tomorrow. But it does stop and make you think how quickly things can change and you shouldn’t stay complacent where safety is concerned.

*Actually, perhaps it was almost inevitable with the A330? I believe Airbus received 27 reported incidents regarding faulty Thales pitot tubes prior to issuing the AD? Boeing has had just 2 previous crew mask short circuiting induced cockpit fires. http://avherald.com/h?article=408ec81b

You are on the right track. In my experience….26 years in the industry, in the U.S., here is what happens…….A problem is noted in the field and reported through channels…..engineers (the degreed kind) evaluate, and if necessary, issue a service bulletin, which is generally optional compliance…….if the problem continues, more SB’s are issued……if, after a period of time, the problem continues, an AD may be issued……Airworthiness Directives are mandatory compliance……having said that, the methods of compliance may vary…..for example, in this case there might be a repetitive inspection that is required every 50 flight hours until the “terminating” action, ie., the modification that re-routes the wires, etc., and upon completion of that action, no further special inspections are necessary.

If a reported discrepancy is very serious, the whole SB process might be bypassed and an AD might be issued immediately. In an extreme case, and emergency AD might be issued which requires inspection or terminating action prior to further flight.

If an accident occurs, and during the course of the investigation, focus is brought upon some component or system which has a series of SB’s or AD’s on it, well, thats a smoking gun. AF 447 and the Paine Stewart accident are textbook examples.

Fleet Technical Management along these lines are routine at a large airline….these issues are being worked all the time. A few years ago, Southwest caused a lot of pain for all the other airlines when they were accused of being too cozy with their local FAA, who supposedly gave them too much levity in complying with required maintenance actions. After that happened, the FAA came in with a very heavy hand at all carriers, to the extent that a lot of passengers were inconvenienced with no positive effect on safety. But hey, it sold newspapers, and now the same bureaucrats (the federal government) are in charge of health care.

The 777 is a fantastic aeroplane and its impeccable safety record is testament to modern technology (it was the first commercial aircraft to be designed entirely using computers).

An aircraft which (until 3.5 years ago) also had an impeccable safety record was the A330. Airbus had issued an airworthiness directive about AA series Thales pitot tubes.
The week before AF447 went down AF engineers got their first batch of AB series Thales pitot tubes. The doomed aircraft (F-GZCP) was just 2 months away from its scheduled repair.

I don’t think the moment an AD comes in all operations should grind to a halt to fit in the repairs and I’d quite happily board a 777 tomorrow. But it does stop and make you think how quickly things can change and you shouldn’t stay complacent where safety is concerned.

*Actually, perhaps it was almost inevitable with the A330? I believe Airbus received 27 reported incidents regarding faulty Thales pitot tubes prior to issuing the AD? Boeing has had just 2 previous crew mask short circuiting induced cockpit fires. But, both those fires occurred pre-departure… Whilst uncommon, it is more serious as both aircraft have ended up write-offs
http://avherald.com/h?article=408ec81b

Oh, stop being so dramatic!

I’d love to see the chaos that grounding over 900* of the safest aircraft would cause. The fact is a fault has occurred, an incident occurred and the manufacturer and regulatory bodies have investigated with the result being a repair being required.

I’d quite happily board a 777 tomorrow, just as 1000s of other will. 🙂

*I’ve just read that it’s 280 aircraft that are affected.

Your assuming that the area hasn’t be (repetitively) inspected during the course of the aircraft’s life.

One would assume this to be the case with the burnt out aircraft also?

In fact, I would think most airlines would carry out an inspection of the area on a overnight stop and based on the finding either carry out there AD repair or wait for it’s next scheduled maintenance input.

I would hope in terms of safety nothing is assumed?

Fair points but I would rather know the aircraft was safe when I fly on it.

Your assuming that the area hasn’t be (repetitively) inspected during the course of the aircraft’s life. In fact, I would think most airlines would carry out an inspection of the area on a overnight stop and based on the finding either carry out there AD repair or wait for it’s next scheduled maintenance input.

So let me get this straight…

Some airlines are bleating about cost.
The fault will be fixed within 24 months on all aircraft.

Another example of thombstone technology. 24 months could see a fatal accident happen. They should be grounded and fixed now. I wouldn’t be expected to travel on a bus with a brake defect. It seems I can fly on an aircraft with a life threatening one.

@bloodnok, yeah that’s my bad; I miss-took unsleeved wires for uninsulated. Quite a difference, you are correct.

together didn’t think twice about dangling uninsulated wires in-front of the oxygen canisters.

I have to admit your writing style and use of language would indicate someone who has little or nothing to do with aircraft or maintenance at all.

It would be nice if you could point out where it says the wiring was ‘uninsulated’ anywhere in the reports quoted.

Please notice the sarcastic smiley. I’ll leave you all to it. You deserve each other.

Point 1: You use the term ‘engineers’…. quite often you’ll find its monkeys which work in a factory, ie. Mexican wiring looms in A380’s causing problems…. Engineers are the ones who are correcting the faults…. :.

As an ex-worker in an aircraft factory, that’s pretty derogatory. A lot of ex colleagues have gone on to be licenced engineers.

My point in #12 was it can’t be seen as that serious of a threat to re-occurr. Otherwise the authorities would have made it an immediate AD…not 18 months.

They must think it can wait until the next time the aircraft is in for heavy servicing.

Ah, the second bit of my post wasn’t directed at you. More of a general comment. 😮

But I’m not saying the 777 fleet should be grounded – 18 months is a reasonable time frame.

Also, you don’t just ground an aircraft to complete an AD. These can easily be incorporated into the aircraft’s maintenance schedule at an appropriate time. It is safe to say an aircraft will have a maintenance input at some point within 18 months.

Where does anyone say anything to the contrary? 😉

Matt, I think you are being overly sensationalist. I’m sure everyone agrees that it was a serious defect. It could have had disastrous effects. However, I am sure Boeing knew it was a problem area and I am sure many more wiring defects were picked up during routine inspections.

Also, you don’t just ground an aircraft to complete an AD. These can easily be incorporated into the aircraft’s maintenance schedule at an appropriate time. It is safe to say an aircraft will have a maintenance input at some point within 18 months.

1) The term ‘Engineer’ is correct. Perhaps a dictionary definition first?
“Noun:
A person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or public works.”
Are the Boeing workers not, ‘Building machines’?
I use the term also as this is what the media like to use http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/01/uk-boeing-union-idUKBRE8B003A20121201 , but if it’s ‘monkeys’ you want?

2) I don’t think I’m being sensationalist when you consider this could have happened at any stage during the flight. There was nothing the crew did to onset the fire, it was a random event and could therefore happen again.
Just because airlines have been given an 18 month deadline, doesn’t mean they’ll use all 18 months. The airlines have whole teams of engineers that prioritise and organise replacement schedules. Some will probably have already had the replacement installed by now.

3) Well that’s just incorrect. The cost of having a fatal crash far outweighs the cost of grounding a fleet. If it didn’t no fleet would ever be grounded.
When Qantas grounded its A380s in 2010, it cost the airline A$80 million (£52m) in lost revenue. …Compare that to the loss of a $300 million jet + law suits + damage to reputation.
But I’m not saying the 777 fleet should be grounded – 18 months is a reasonable time frame.

I wouldn’t place them anywhere else in the cockpit, I’m just a little surprised the Boeing engineers fitting the aeroplanes together didn’t think twice about dangling uninsulated wires in-front of the oxygen canisters.

I didn’t think I was being sensationalist, perhaps you could state exactly where you think I have been? This is more serious than the normal bullitins, the norm being anything from malfunctioning toilet tanks to overheating wiper motors.

In 2007, Airbus issued a 36 month time frame in which to replace Thales pitot tubes on all A330s and A340s… Turned out to be a few months too long :rolleyes:

Point 1: You use the term ‘engineers’…. quite often you’ll find its monkeys which work in a factory, ie. Mexican wiring looms in A380’s causing problems…. Engineers are the ones who are correcting the faults…. :rolleyes:

Point 2: Sensationalism – Boeing are fixing the problem and have given the airlines a suitable timeframe in which to do the work. The maximum deflections of 737 rudders were not understood fully for a long time, fleets were grounded, more than a couple of aircraft lost…. This is a problem which has been discovered and is being fixed. “Most dangerous Boeing defect since….” Bo[[ocks. I assume you’re either a ground handler, cabin crew, or someone who flies a bit.

Point 3:
*Cost to ground the fleet, both in future sales, confidence of Boeing products, AND airlines operating costs from lack of revenue, even for one day while the problems are immediately rectified: Billions
*Cost of compensating 500 families and replacing an aircraft: Millions…. IF one crashes in the next 18 months.
I know which I’d pick if I was operating a business.

Can I point out that it can’t be THAT dangerous

Hmm… Have you seen the pictures?

Also, the event you mention happened in 2011.

I bring it up as the final report was released today.

airlines have 24 months to correct the problem

It’s actually 18 months, United’s request was denied.

“United Airlines requested we increase the compliance time for the
replacement of the oxygen hoses from 18 months to 24 months. The
commenter stated that based on parts availability and its normal
maintenance schedule, it believes that 24 months would be an
appropriate interval for the timely accomplishment of the actions while
maintaining an adequate level of safety.”
“We disagree with increasing the compliance time. As stated
previously, in developing the proposed compliance time, we considered
the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance
schedules for a timely accomplishment of replacement of the oxygen
hoses.”

The pilots unions were working on getting it reduced to 12 months.

I wouldn’t place them anywhere else in the cockpit, I’m just a little surprised the Boeing engineers fitting the aeroplanes together didn’t think twice about dangling uninsulated wires in-front of the oxygen canisters.

I didn’t think I was being sensationalist, perhaps you could state exactly where you think I have been? This is more serious than the normal bullitins, the norm being anything from malfunctioning toilet tanks to overheating wiper motors.

In 2007, Airbus issued a 36 month time frame in which to replace Thales pitot tubes on all A330s and A340s… Turned out to be a few months too long :rolleyes:

Can I point out that it can’t be THAT dangerous if airlines have 24 months to correct the problem? It it were, the FAA, CAA, etc would have done something.

Also, the event you mention happened in 2011.

I’ll also point out that nearly 1000 777s have been built since 1994…and to date none have had a fatal mishap (knock wood). That’s a better record than the 330 has.