Boeing
PR is going strong pushing how safe the plane is with six redundant generators. Trying to have it both ways, I guess.
Exactly the reason I call Bull**** on ANYTHING that comes , unsubstantiated, out of the Boeing mouthpieces.
IMHO, this once-proud company is being sold down the river by a bunch of city slickers.
(deafening muteness on the P.M.Alternators,as well....if an ENGINEER had been consulted ,before releasing this diarrhoea, you can be sure he will have corrected the TRUE redundancy -figures,and ADDED the Alty's.
As O E so rightly points out, the redundancy-level is only down to the motive-power.....Granted, If one starter/gen. croaks, that engine only loses HALF it's generating-capacity.....but if both engines DID stop...you lose the lot and rely on the APU battery's integrity , plus the RAT.
The scenario is extremely unlikely ,but the regulatory authorities have determined that it's a REAL POSSIBILITY and therefore LEGISLATED PROTECTIVE MEASURES to mitigate the risk.
An unstable battery in a tin box, does not, IMHO, demonstrate any moral, legal or financial will to comply with the spirit.
Maybe i'd fly on it in 5 years time.