787 navigation-location issue
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the ICAO document it's a Class C risk as assessed using Airservices Australia's own risk management framework. You are unlikely to find that published anywhere but according to the ICAO document it has four levels A, B, C and D. It states that A is unacceptable and D is acceptable but we need to guess about B and C. We can assume that C is tolerable as they weren't required to use the mitigation they had previously identified and we know the Chief ATCO was required to agree so C appears to be a tolerable risk if signed off at a senior level.
It is interesting that one ANSP identified a Class C risk and the other states that they never imagined that possibility in their hazard analysis. I can see that different safety management systems might give different interpretations of the risk but to not even consider the possibility suggests shortcomings in the hazard analysis process. I hope that is a one off and their hazard analysis is a bit more thorough for other operational risks.
It is interesting that one ANSP identified a Class C risk and the other states that they never imagined that possibility in their hazard analysis. I can see that different safety management systems might give different interpretations of the risk but to not even consider the possibility suggests shortcomings in the hazard analysis process. I hope that is a one off and their hazard analysis is a bit more thorough for other operational risks.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTF Am I Missing?
I've been following this issue and I guess I'm still missing one critical part. Reports and Boeing information suggest that only SOME 787s are affected. To my eye that suggests that they have a fix and have already applied it to SOME airplanes. While it could be as simple as a revised software load, it might also be a hard-coded (hardware) modification that is required. Either way, it appears that they know what needs to be done. The next leap has to be, So Why Has it Not Already Been Applied to the Entire Fleet? This is a new fleet, so the fix is Boeing's responsibility, either last week or next week. Again, What Am I Missing? Is this not already FAR past the need for a formal AD?
Last edited by No Fly Zone; 27th Dec 2015 at 09:31. Reason: Clarity and Missing Letters
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Nav Canada first detected a problem on 1 July 2014 when controllers noticed a 787 appearing to deviate up to 38nm" July 2014?!!
"Boeing has no control over if or when an operator chooses to implement a voluntary service bulletin, the company says."
How hard could it be to get in touch with the owner of every 787 and make sure every aircraft gets the upgrade? It would seem to be in the best interest of Boeing and the 787 owners.
"Boeing has no control over if or when an operator chooses to implement a voluntary service bulletin, the company says."
How hard could it be to get in touch with the owner of every 787 and make sure every aircraft gets the upgrade? It would seem to be in the best interest of Boeing and the 787 owners.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When my partnership added ADS-B in & out to our PA-28-181 we were not suppose to use it for IFR until it passed a quality check from the FAA.
To their credit, the FAA makes it easy to accomplish the check just by sending an email to them.
The controllers here in Central Texas do use ADS-B for aircraft separation, even when the aircraft is out of radar coverage.
To their credit, the FAA makes it easy to accomplish the check just by sending an email to them.
The controllers here in Central Texas do use ADS-B for aircraft separation, even when the aircraft is out of radar coverage.
