Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Faa/boeing 787 Safety Stitch-up

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Faa/boeing 787 Safety Stitch-up

Old 10th Feb 2009, 22:24
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Age: 55
Posts: 516
Faa/boeing 787 Safety Stitch-up

Can anyone suggest a reason why:

The FAA has quietly decide to loosen the stringent
fuel-tank safety regulations written after the fuel
tank explosion of TWA800.

Ex employees of Boeing now working for the FAA
are not happy.
mickyman is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2009, 22:41
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: london
Posts: 179

Maybe to hurry up the orders!!

whattimedoweland is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2009, 22:58
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,219
The FAA has quietly decide to loosen the stringent
fuel-tank safety regulations written after the fuel
tank explosion of TWA800.

I thought that the FAA coulld not relax any regulation without public comment from knowlegeable folks like yourself.

Have you checked the Federal Register to see if they are asking for comment before deciding what is in the best interests of the public?

Or is it possible that what you are refering is not a regulation?

could you post more specifics and sources about what you are refering?
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2009, 23:21
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: somewhere in Western Canada
Posts: 199
Boeing news | FAA to loosen fuel-tank safety rules, benefiting Boeing's 787 | Seattle Times Newspaper
CaptW5 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2009, 01:01
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,575
Hmmm, rather than there actually being a defined problem, it appears to me that more than a few personal egos are the problem...
411A is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2009, 02:43
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,219
from the Seattle Times reference

The FAA's Bahrami insisted that the policy change has been crafted to work for all airplane manufacturers with no special treatment of Boeing.
Well there are regulations and then there are FAA ideas for acceptable compliance (policy).

If you want to relax the regulation then you need to put forth a reason for equivalent safety being provided and let the world see what you propose and comment.

OTOH if you realize that later on that your preferred method of compliance won't cut it, then you can change it and still show that you meet the intent of the rule. There are many subjective arguments to be made here and one does need to see both sides before forming a defensible opinion.

In my view there are plenty of safety experts around having to do with aircraft certification standards to weigh in on something in the public domain. So I'm not very interested in abreviated arguments cited in a news article.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2009, 15:20
  #7 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 898
A comic was fired from "Saturday Night Live" after he said they had found the ignition source of TWA-800 - a missile.

There have been a lot of people, including TWA workers and maintenance and engineering at other airlines, who did not and do not believe the FBI/FAA conclusions.

Replacement with nitrogen can't hurt.

Graybeard is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2009, 16:49
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South East
Age: 50
Posts: 40
I'm not up to speed on how the airframe is composed ref carbon composites and fasteners on the 787 and it maybe totally different to todays aircraft.... But whenever inspections are carried out on todays aircraft post lightning strikes, there's more often than not damage to fasteners/skin on the fuselage and sometimes damage to carbon composite structure such as thrust reverser halves which normally requires them to be changed. Sometimes the belly fairing glass fibre panels have damage around fastener heads where the aluminium flash coating has been previuosly damaged.

I'm sure Boeing have done there sums and will fully test the airframe in high static/ lightning conditions but i can't help but think that no airframe bonding is 100% and hidden damage caused by static build up/ lightning strikes may cause structural failures, all be it minor, in the future.

As for composite wing structure, it would be interesting to see how the bonding is carried out between fasteners and structure and what precautions are required during manufacture and maintenace to allow correct bonding during fastener installation and replacement.

As heavy maintenance check intervals are increased and less intensive will there be more stringent checks post lghtning strikes than todays aircraft as i would imagine composite failure would tend to propogate from minor damage far quicker than aluminum alloys, specially in primary structure exposed to not only dynamic and pressurisation loads but also all kinds of contaminents from de-icing fluid to toilet sewage?
Alwaysairbus is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2009, 18:21
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
My 5p worths not a lot!

Nothing to do with the fact that boeing's fix infringed a patent owned by Airbus then????

So forgetting the fuel, what about the flying controls located in/on the wings? The carbon structure's integrity post strike?? At least it's not FBW so that's out of the equation.

The more you look at the companies history, Grandfather rules bypassing decades of safety legislation etc, etc it starts to look less than appealing.

Last edited by glad rag; 11th Feb 2009 at 18:58. Reason: Infringed
glad rag is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.