FAA Pushes Back On Boeing Exemption for 787 Safety Flaw ✈ FlightAware

← Back to Squawk list

FAA Pushes Back On Boeing Exemption for 787 Safety Flaw

Soumis il y a environ 5 mois

The US Federal Aviation Administration is pushing back on a request by Boeing for a temporary exemption from a safety regulation to allow the GE Aviation-powered version version of the 787-10 to enter service on schedule in August. (www.flightglobal.com) Plus d'info...

pilotjag

23 commentaires des membres

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

jbqwik il y a environ 5 mois 8

Anybody remember the battery fire? Boeing pushed for and got a special waiver for unresolved battery issues. And then a fire. Actually, several battery fires (counting the ones before certification).
Short-term memory at Boeing? Or more likely selective memory loss. But not at the FAA, who took heat over the battery debacle.
What bothers me is that, with the battery mess, Boeing had plenty of data and professional advice warning about the problems but they pushed-on anyway. Seems like a similar mindset here.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

lecompte2 il y a environ 5 mois 7

Looks like the legal department or the bean counters are running the show at Boeing

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

bentwing60 il y a environ 5 mois 0

They did move to Chicago!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

AWAAlum il y a environ 5 mois 2

There's still a large Boeing presence here in Seattle.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Bill Bailey il y a environ 5 mois 1

Because the City if Seattle and King County kept piling on the taxes until they left, they thought that well would never run dry.
It finally did and ran the Company out of town.
Not that I agree with what the Lazy B did, but I understand why.
I left there for pretty much the same reason.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

bentwing60 il y a environ 5 mois 3

I bet you didn't move to Chicago though!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Bill Bailey il y a environ 5 mois 2

Nope, So. Idaho.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

jet4ang il y a environ 5 mois 6

Money means everything. Greed is so out of control that common sense is out the window. Look at our govt. How pathetic!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

David Cruz il y a environ 5 mois 8

Thank God I am nearing the end of my aviation career. I am fearful of the day when the pilot is taken completely out of the decision making or operational loop of controlling the aircraft. Why do engineers believe that they can design or program equipment to account for every conceivable variable or contingency. Why not rely on the best computer in the world. The original MK I brain which every pilot has...or should have.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

bentwing60 il y a environ 5 mois 3

The current spate of ab-initio hiring and the demand for more and more says the current MK1 comin in the door will not have the experience or background of the old ones, and so far they haven't shown that they are up to the task when the automation fails. AF447 always provides a solid reference point.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

John Smith il y a environ 5 mois 3

Exactly. What would the computer have done on US Airways 1549 or United 232 ?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

Graeme Smith il y a environ 5 mois 3

I hate to tell you this - but the computer stopped Sully over-flaring the Airbus just before it made contact with the water. It was a combined effort. Which is not to detract from Sullenberger AND Skiles CRM and ADM. Just that the computer was part of the team too.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

sparkie624 il y a environ 5 mois 2

They would have probably have stalled and spun in...

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

AWAAlum il y a environ 5 mois 1

I agree with most that you say, however, that which will "account for every conceivable variable or contingency" does not exist...not man...not machine. At least not yet.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

rapidwolve il y a environ 5 mois 4

Again, this just shows that Boeing Boneheads (most call them bean counters) care more about their almighty dollar and bottom line.. "so what if the engine shuts down due to a glitch in the software, let's work around it until the bug is resolved" SMH

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

wavagp il y a environ 5 mois 4

These exemptions should not be allowed unless 100% airworthy. Powerplant probs?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Gary Hjelm il y a environ 5 mois 3

From my point of view, then it seems that the questions being asked by the FAA to Boeing are fair. The GE engine needs to be safe, before it can be added to the total package by the FAA, and Boeing. No one should have to worry that an engine is going to fail during icing conditions. Instead of hoping and wishing that this engine will be safe, then it will have all parties agreeing that the engine is safe, for the crews of the aircraft, as well as each passenger.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

sparkie624 il y a environ 5 mois 3

Thanks for sharing... Looks like they are willing to try anything!

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

John Lashnits il y a environ 5 mois 1

A known software bug that prevents a restart? In icing conditions? Why would anyone consider that a reasonable thing to allow in passenger-carrying service? There should be no exemption.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

Guy Cocoa il y a environ 5 mois 1

The FAA will propose a compromise: Airlines can fly with the software problem, but no ETOPS until it is fixed.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

rapidwolve il y a environ 5 mois 1

I wonder how many airlines will want to use a 787-10 for short hops across the country, thou.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Parent•Report

chalet il y a environ 5 mois 1

Whaaaaaat?. These fools at Boeing are asking for an accident similar to the Air France 330 Flight 447 that plunged into the South Atlantic a few years ago. NO WAY JOSE.

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report

David Apps il y a environ 5 mois 1

Are exemptions the reason why Boeing was allowed to use the RR Trent engines?

Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report