Originally Posted by
SLF3
Shouldn’t this be a time bound AD? The NTSB are clear this is a safety issue and the Boeing temporary fix doesn’t inspire confidence. Is there a shortage of replacement units and a reluctance to ground anffected aircraft pending delivery of them? The experts on here sound more relaxed about this than I would expect them to be, and I’d like to understand why. Is it ‘only’ an issue on the ground after landing?
I'd personally agree that the temporary solution sounds a bit like "hit it wiv an 'ammer and if that don't cure it, hit it harder!" - a tried and tested (if non-approved) engineering solution in some cases (certainly in the Mil)!
Re spare actuators, I suspect that, with JIT, there are probably not that many of these things floating round; just those destined for production a/c currently on the line + a few spares. The latter number will have been determined in the R&M estimates for the actuator during initial design and, again, assuming a low predicted failure rate, that number will be quite low driven by economics. Re the overall approach I'm sure the Safety Engineers (my role when I ran my section looking at where bits were ...... as well as looking at failure modes, failure rates, trends, etc, etc of in-service equipment) will have been all over this and, yep, this is what they will have determined as the cost-effective way forward.
Originally Posted by
Ollie Onion
Ground the bloody thing, how many issues do you need before the 737 just gets scrapped.
I can just imagine Boeing when this event took place - "Oh no, not another thing!" - as well as the subsequent conversation with Collins when the reason it happened came to light........! I can see Oliver Hardy being quoted!
