EdSett100;
At post #48 you stated:
"I am aware that QQ suggested a gauge in their report, because the individual they spoke to about this aspect of their investigation was a flight engineer. He also added that, as an eng, he is interested in everything that can happen in the aircraft and that it would be useful to know if a closed valve had leakage, so that he could report it when he landed. Thats all very well, for the purpose of monitoring one system, but there has to be additional failures before that defect contributes to a fire leading to a crash. We do not mitigate against double or triple failures. We will not use up resources just to provide the air engineer with another "useful" gauge look at. "
Then at post #67
"The officer who recommended the mod is a ground engineer because the incident with XV249 occured during ground maintenance. Had he been a flight engineer (and I'm not suggesting that the investigating offcer shoud have been an FE), I know that the thought of guarding the switch would not have entered his mind"
In the first case you seem to reject the idea, because it is a Flt Eng's view, and then you reject the second suggestion because it came from a ground engineer. What type of engineer do you accept? Surely fitting a sensor would satisfy both and improve flight safety. You are not mitigating against a "double" failure, but a "single" fuel leak onto a high temp cross-feed pipe caused by a pre-existing shut off valve defect. This defect would not be detected by any pre or post flight inspection.
To accept additional monitoring, is not a sign of unprofessionalism, or going soft, it is common sense. Just to remind you that airworthiness is defined as the ability of an aircraft to operate without significant hazard to aircrew, or to the general public over which it is flown.
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 29th Jun 2009 at 14:18.