FAA orders Boeing to check 1000 B737s for defective parts?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vega Constellation
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA orders Boeing to check 1000 B737s for defective parts?
Anything related with latest Bali mishap? Or to the Al Jazeera documentary about parts for critical fuselage areas that could have been manufactured not to specs?
FAA Orders Inspections on Boeing's 737 Aircraft - WSJ.com
FAA orders inspection of Boeing 737 tail planes
Flex
FAA Orders Inspections on Boeing's 737 Aircraft - WSJ.com
FAA orders inspection of Boeing 737 tail planes
Flex
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The East
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA orders Boeing to check 1000 B737s for defective parts?
I watched the Al-Jazeera documentary a couple of years ago and found it quite disturbing. Here's the link:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0&feature=relmfu
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0&feature=relmfu
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...down-bali.html - currently immediately above your post. DRuk explains.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: near EDDF
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft in Bali has the line number 4350.
The AD points to a rear spar attach pin installed on line number 1 to 3534.
And these aircrafts have to be inspected prior to the accumulation of 56,000 total flight cycles on the pin, or within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later.
The AD points to a rear spar attach pin installed on line number 1 to 3534.
And these aircrafts have to be inspected prior to the accumulation of 56,000 total flight cycles on the pin, or within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure if this directive covers the "butt straps" which are used to tie the various sections of aeroplanes together. They are strengthening pieces of metal which overlap the joints, ie the fwd fuselage to the wing box etc. I have noticed there has been an alarming increase in 737s breaking at these points in minor crashes. They are obviously weak points in an a/c and as such need to be oversized and stronger than the surrounding structure. The TV program mentioned above is well worth viewing.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not sure if this directive covers the "butt straps" which are used to tie the various sections of aeroplanes together.
I have noticed there has been an alarming increase in 737s breaking at these points in minor crashes.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KBPsen
Suggest you look at "B787 faces new risks on ETOPS" thread 36 posted by Jackx123 dated 31/3. I truely wonder if Boeings manufacturing is as sound as it should be.?
Suggest you look at "B787 faces new risks on ETOPS" thread 36 posted by Jackx123 dated 31/3. I truely wonder if Boeings manufacturing is as sound as it should be.?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somehwere on the planet
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who gives a crap where the aircraft breaks in a crash? simple, don't crash the aircraft and it won't break up. If it isn't failing during operations (and they haven't) then you have no point other than to troll.
Also this aircraft had 200 hours on it or so....the AD refers to a potentially improperly applied anti corrosion coating, so even if this aircraft was affected by the AD ya really think in 200 hours a improperly applied coating is going to allow the part to fail? I don't and neither does Boeing since you have 3000 cycles (up to several years depending on sector length) to comply with it.
Also this aircraft had 200 hours on it or so....the AD refers to a potentially improperly applied anti corrosion coating, so even if this aircraft was affected by the AD ya really think in 200 hours a improperly applied coating is going to allow the part to fail? I don't and neither does Boeing since you have 3000 cycles (up to several years depending on sector length) to comply with it.
Last edited by tbaylx; 15th Apr 2013 at 17:56.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walnut
They don't seem to be any worse than Airbus, who have had a number of Airworthiness Directives issued for:
I truely wonder if Boeings manufacturing is as sound as it should be?
- February 2013 - Corrosion found on belly fairings in the A380.
- March 2013 - A330 Horizontal]Stabilizer Strut Cracks which could jeopardize the horizontal tail plane.
- March 2013 - Oil residue between the stator and the rotor parts of the position resolvers of the angle of attack (AOA) vane, which was a result of incorrect removal of the machining oil during the manufacturing process of the AOA resolvers on all A320 family aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, just for the sake of clarity let's agree that this AD has nothing to do with the Al-J report. For those that are concerned about that particular film I'll reproduce an email reply I sent to the person who sent it to me:
So - with that hopefully out of the way, let's talk horizontal stab rear spar attach pins! A subject on which I must admit, I got nuthin'.
Originally Posted by DW (email)
Hmm... I don't doubt the whistleblowers' story for a second - it pretty much ties in to the rise of the MBA generation in management and their lack of understanding with regard to anything other than the bottom line.
However the film does make a few factual errors and over-reaches in places. The two most glaring errors that I could see were the claim that the Turkish accident was an overrun (it was in fact a stall on approach), and their misuse of the old AMK test footage as a demonstration of the strength of the B707 (actually a B720) fuselage. The AMK crash sequence cannot be compared to the three NG accidents because of the yaw factor in the former, meaning that the main stress loads on the B720 fuselage were transverse rather than longitudinal on impact.
The over-reach is not with the problems presented by the whistleblowers themselves, and that part may well bode ill for the future - but the attempt to connect with the three NG accidents is at best very flimsy. I did a quick check after viewing and confirmed that the fuselage separation was not just consistent with those three accidents, but also with Kegworth (which was a B734 "Classic"). The rear failed in the same way at Manchester, and the famous Aloha 737 "convertible" failed at roughly the same place at the front - both of these were B732 (aka "Jurassic") models. This leads me to question whether those frames may just be prone to being fracture points due to the way the B737 fuselage is, and has always been, designed.
Interesting stuff though, for sure!
However the film does make a few factual errors and over-reaches in places. The two most glaring errors that I could see were the claim that the Turkish accident was an overrun (it was in fact a stall on approach), and their misuse of the old AMK test footage as a demonstration of the strength of the B707 (actually a B720) fuselage. The AMK crash sequence cannot be compared to the three NG accidents because of the yaw factor in the former, meaning that the main stress loads on the B720 fuselage were transverse rather than longitudinal on impact.
The over-reach is not with the problems presented by the whistleblowers themselves, and that part may well bode ill for the future - but the attempt to connect with the three NG accidents is at best very flimsy. I did a quick check after viewing and confirmed that the fuselage separation was not just consistent with those three accidents, but also with Kegworth (which was a B734 "Classic"). The rear failed in the same way at Manchester, and the famous Aloha 737 "convertible" failed at roughly the same place at the front - both of these were B732 (aka "Jurassic") models. This leads me to question whether those frames may just be prone to being fracture points due to the way the B737 fuselage is, and has always been, designed.
Interesting stuff though, for sure!
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 16th Apr 2013 at 22:26.
Who gives a crap where the aircraft breaks in a crash? simple, don't crash the aircraft and it won't break up.
Wilbur Wright wept.