FAA orders Boeing to check 1000 B737s for defective parts?

[FLEXPWR]

Anything related with latest Bali mishap? Or to the Al Jazeera documentary about parts for critical fuselage areas that could have been manufactured not to specs?

FAA Orders Inspections on Boeing's 737 Aircraft - WSJ.com

FAA orders inspection of Boeing 737 tail planes

Flex

[Black Sheep One]

I watched the Al-Jazeera documentary a couple of years ago and found it quite disturbing. Here's the link:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0&feature=relmfu

[BOAC]

See http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...down-bali.html - currently immediately above your post. DRuk explains.

[IFixPlanes]

The aircraft in Bali has the line number 4350.
The AD points to a rear spar attach pin installed on line number 1 to 3534.
And these aircrafts have to be inspected prior to the accumulation of 56,000 total flight cycles on the pin, or within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later.

[Walnut]

I am not sure if this directive covers the "butt straps" which are used to tie the various sections of aeroplanes together. They are strengthening pieces of metal which overlap the joints, ie the fwd fuselage to the wing box etc. I have noticed there has been an alarming increase in 737s breaking at these points in minor crashes. They are obviously weak points in an a/c and as such need to be oversized and stronger than the surrounding structure. The TV program mentioned above is well worth viewing.

[KBPsen]

I am not sure if this directive covers the "butt straps" which are used to tie the various sections of aeroplanes together.

Had you followed the links provided in the opening post or just used Google for a minute or two you wouldn't be unsure.

I have noticed there has been an alarming increase in 737s breaking at these points in minor crashes.

I suppose you can show some solid data to support this claim and it isn't just something you pulled out of an old hat you found.

[Walnut]

KBPsen

Suggest you look at "B787 faces new risks on ETOPS" thread 36 posted by Jackx123 dated 31/3. I truely wonder if Boeings manufacturing is as sound as it should be.?

[FlightPathOBN]

Here is the AD...

2013-07-07 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17411; Docket No. FAA-2012-0933; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-107-AD.

[tbaylx]

Who gives a crap where the aircraft breaks in a crash? simple, don't crash the aircraft and it won't break up. If it isn't failing during operations (and they haven't) then you have no point other than to troll.

Also this aircraft had 200 hours on it or so....the AD refers to a potentially improperly applied anti corrosion coating, so even if this aircraft was affected by the AD ya really think in 200 hours a improperly applied coating is going to allow the part to fail? I don't and neither does Boeing since you have 3000 cycles (up to several years depending on sector length) to comply with it.

[Kiskaloo]

Walnut

I truely wonder if Boeings manufacturing is as sound as it should be?

They don't seem to be any worse than Airbus, who have had a number of Airworthiness Directives issued for:

• February 2013 - Corrosion found on belly fairings in the A380.
• March 2013 - A330 Horizontal]Stabilizer Strut Cracks which could jeopardize the horizontal tail plane.
• March 2013 - Oil residue between the stator and the rotor parts of the position resolvers of the angle of attack (AOA) vane, which was a result of incorrect removal of the machining oil during the manufacturing process of the AOA resolvers on all A320 family aircraft.

[DozyWannabe]

So, just for the sake of clarity let's agree that this AD has nothing to do with the Al-J report. For those that are concerned about that particular film I'll reproduce an email reply I sent to the person who sent it to me:

Originally Posted by DW (email)

Hmm... I don't doubt the whistleblowers' story for a second - it pretty much ties in to the rise of the MBA generation in management and their lack of understanding with regard to anything other than the bottom line.

However the film does make a few factual errors and over-reaches in places. The two most glaring errors that I could see were the claim that the Turkish accident was an overrun (it was in fact a stall on approach), and their misuse of the old AMK test footage as a demonstration of the strength of the B707 (actually a B720) fuselage. The AMK crash sequence cannot be compared to the three NG accidents because of the yaw factor in the former, meaning that the main stress loads on the B720 fuselage were transverse rather than longitudinal on impact.

The over-reach is not with the problems presented by the whistleblowers themselves, and that part may well bode ill for the future - but the attempt to connect with the three NG accidents is at best very flimsy. I did a quick check after viewing and confirmed that the fuselage separation was not just consistent with those three accidents, but also with Kegworth (which was a B734 "Classic"). The rear failed in the same way at Manchester, and the famous Aloha 737 "convertible" failed at roughly the same place at the front - both of these were B732 (aka "Jurassic") models. This leads me to question whether those frames may just be prone to being fracture points due to the way the B737 fuselage is, and has always been, designed.

Interesting stuff though, for sure!

So - with that hopefully out of the way, let's talk horizontal stab rear spar attach pins! A subject on which I must admit, I got nuthin'.

[Lonewolf_50]

Who gives a crap where the aircraft breaks in a crash? simple, don't crash the aircraft and it won't break up.

Sir, did it sadden you to have to post that to a professional pilot's forum?

Wilbur Wright wept.