Urgent 737 AD following China Airlines fire
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Urgent 737 AD following China Airlines fire
A 24 day compliance time would suggest that this is a serious concern.
http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airw...7/B737-307.pdf
http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airw...7/B737-307.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So as a novice in such matters, given the a/c is about 5 yrs old, what are the warranty implications here?
This is serious, and clearly a repeatable problem so are Boeing up for a new or heavily discounted a/c from this?
J
This is serious, and clearly a repeatable problem so are Boeing up for a new or heavily discounted a/c from this?
J
given the a/c is about 5 yrs old, what are the warranty implications here?
This is serious, and clearly a repeatable problem so are Boeing up for a new or heavily discounted a/c from this?
This is serious, and clearly a repeatable problem so are Boeing up for a new or heavily discounted a/c from this?
Probably more like maintainence issues instead. My guess incorrect procedures being followed during reassembly.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
linedriva
That was the thought underlying my post, and this must have been a known problem, I can't seem to download the pdf again, however I seem to recall a date well before the fire in Japan and a similar instance of a breach into the fuel tank.
27/09 is quite likely correct about poor maintenance......in which case where are they being worked on......
and given recent QF issues up north what does this tell you
J
Not a bad investigation time. 8 days to identify the cause of a fire and instigate an AD.
27/09 is quite likely correct about poor maintenance......in which case where are they being worked on......
and given recent QF issues up north what does this tell youJ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has now been tightend further to a 10 day compliance limit after other aircraft have been found with damage, including Australian registered.
Revised FAA Emergency AD here:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...Emergency).pdf
.
Revised FAA Emergency AD here:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...Emergency).pdf
.
Last edited by VBA Engineer; 29th Aug 2007 at 10:54.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Boeing inspection, subsequently made madatory within 24 days by FAA Emergency AD 2007-18-51 has now been escalated by Emergency AD 2007-18-52 to within 10 days and repeat every 3,000 flight cycles on the basis of initial inspection results.
Those initial inspections uncovered several other cases of detached hardware; in some cases on recently delivered aeroplanes that would not normally have had any maintenance work carried out in this area.
Tells me that some people are somewhat hasty with their opinions.
Those initial inspections uncovered several other cases of detached hardware; in some cases on recently delivered aeroplanes that would not normally have had any maintenance work carried out in this area.
and given recent QF issues up north what does this tell you
