So guys as you can see the AD is quite detailed. I am sure those who are not bored yet will be able to nut through the technical data, you Pilots are almost as technically minded as us poor cousins. For those who have been following affairs.....the FAA and Boeing have come under heavy criticism for not undertaking proper oversight in relation to the MAX and the new MACS system. Corporate capture is the word I hear being used. This is basically where the regulator goes easy on their friends and as a result in this case, 2 planes have crashed before they acted, and that was only when Donald stepped in. Saying that, we are concerned that FAA are not exactly being as proper as they should be in all dealings they have with Boeing, apparently EASA have the same concerns.
So back to the 738 pickle forks. About 6 weeks ago this issue emerged. 3 x 737NG aircraft had been found with cracks to this primary structure component. Each aircraft had over 35,000 landings. On that basis FAA called for inspections within 7 days for all NGs with over 30,000 landings and within 1000 cycles for those over 22,600 landings. Remember.....those figures were based on 3 cracked aircraft.....over 35,000. If the original 3 aircraft had been aircraft with 27,000 landings, the checks would have been ordered for much younger aircraft.
Qantas had no aircraft with 30,000 landings. They were not "pulling forward" these inspections early because they put safety first. They weren't even undertaking these checks because, as per the AD, they didn't need to. A crack was found inadvertently (and management were angry with the Engineers for finding it). The entire scope of the AD was now in question. FAA had originally thought that the only aircraft with these problems had over 35,000 landings. The first Qantas plane found with the crack was alarming, the second one created a pattern as it also had well under the urgent 30,000 landings.
The issue is serious. The AD does not permit a plane with cracks to fly. Hence, if you don't find cracks, you can still fly and for airlines this means they can continue to generate revenue even if the structure is cracked. So you cannot fly with these cracks.....one may wonder why.....you can see from the posted AD why -
if not addressed, could result in failure of a Principal Structural Element (PSE) to sustain limit load. This condition could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane and result in loss of control of the airplane.
These aren't my words, this is the FAA. In short, your wing could separate from the fuselage. Anyone who still thinks my comments were over the top should stop reading here. If you want to continue to believe the
PR from Qantas, feel free to do so but please do not fly a plane or claim to be able to fix one. I want the people entrusted with my safety aware of the consequences of everything we do.