Dropknee, there was no smoke in the cockpit.
Tekling, I have no ground to question your report, but please keep in mind it is anecdotal and doesn' t automatically speak for the organization as such.
I think controversies between engineering and the cpt are part of the system, they are unavoidable. I think Cathay Maintenance is alright, in my experience, but ok, thats anecdotal as well if you like
Oriental Flyer,
you are entitled to your opinion, no question. Take the aircraft or don't. If you would have refused the flight from Shemya that would have been also fine. That is my point: in Cathay you can not accept an aircraft, you can refuse to operate. I do not know of any case this has led to personal problems.
Landflap and Airprofit, there was a damaged recuircuit fan. It smelled, so they landed in Pasy. Then, after hours on ground, they continued to Anc I believe. Thats it. What more information do you need? My point is: what is the big fuss? These fans fail occasionally, and then you can smell it for a few seconds. I am not questioning the decision to go to Shemya, far from it, just saying there was no actual danger.
Mng Mole: is that a hard rule, only 5 posts = management? Interesting. For the record: my point is that this kind of travesty is hurting our totally justified position elsewhere, where it counts, in the present negotiations. I said it in my post, we need to chose our battles, and not just blindly shoot at everything that moves.
No actual danger ?
Really ? We knew this this for sure when the aircraft departed SYA for ANC ? How ? Did a MX crew qualified on the 777 find, isolate, and inspect (with Boeing's blessing if necessary) what had happened and effect field repairs ?
Did the crew know this for sure prior to departing for ANC that the problem was fixed ? Was the aircraft THOROUGHLY inspected following an in-flight fire (a reportable event by NTSB standards--and based on where this occurred they would have the appropriate primary jurisdiction) and properly signed off by maintenance personnel qualified on the 777 and subsequently accepted by the skipper following this event ? Was there a complete lack of coercion toward continuing the flight ? Were they completely sure prior to dispatching for the second flight (and properly dispatched with all the I's dotted and T's crossed) that the electrical power to the offending circuit (s) had been properly secured (by MX) and what the offending circuits actually were ?
Was the source of the smoke and fumes positively identified (by aircraft inspection) and crew (and passengers) offered medical attention as needed ?
I agree a recirc fan packing it in is probably not a huge deal. But was the crew certain of this (and that there was no lingering smoldering in the ducting or fan) after a thorough aircraft inspection ?
FWIW Smoke and fume events are a big deal amongst US carriers. And not to be taken casually.
And recirc fans are specifically addressed as a potential source of in-flight fire in FAA AC_120-80A
49 CFR 830 delineates the reporting requirements for accidents and incidents which occur in US jurisdictional areas. 830.5 is the section where immediate notification is required.
Did this happen as a part of the event as it was required ? (I am sure in time an ASR would address this but I wonder how the NTSB--or FAA-- after notified would look at the re-dispatch of an airplane which had encountered an in-flight fire unless that aircraft had had a proper and comprehensive inspection) :
§830.5 Immediate notification.
The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office,1 when:
....
(4) In-flight fire;