Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Boeing tells FAA it does not believe 737 MAX wiring should be moved
Boeing Co (BA.N) told the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration it does not believe it needs to separate or move wiring bundles on its grounded 737 MAX jetliner that regulators have warned could short circuit with catastrophic consequences, people familiar with the matter said on Friday. (uk.reuters.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
The abysmal CEO is finally out, when will the feckless BOD be replaced -- possibly sued by shareholders and stakeholders, e.g., supply chain folks that have been laid off. Unbelievable! BTW, my company has owned two (2) B-747s, which were great airplanes, so I am not biased against Boeing, per se.
Boeing has the chutzpa to tell the regulator??? Unmitigated gall of them, they (the board and CEO)should be eating a fair share of humble pie.
Zero credibility here
as i read this , and reflect on all of the other design problems that have been found ( MCAS , Programming )i feel that the FAA is seeking revenge , for Boeing lying and deceiving the FAA , that Boeing could certify their own aircraft . The resulting fall-out and discoveries of Problems , has infuriated the FAA . But while i use the word Revenge , i don't want to suggest that it is unfair . Quiet the opposite . Boeing built a bad Aircraft , knew it and lied to the FAA , efectively damaging their stellar reputation . Rest assured , Boeing will never pull this stunt again ..............DGR
Boeing has reason for once. The whole thing shouldn't be moved AND STAY ON THE GROUND FOREVER :P
I believe there were five or six incidents of electrical arcing on Boeing 777s which were caused (according to Boeing) by "...incorrect installation of a wiring harness/bundle probably during manufacture".
One of these resulted in an in-flight cargo compartment fire over Australia in October 2017. In that incident "Discharging the fire bottles in the forward cargo space ....had nil effect on this occasion as the source of the electrical arcing was in the sealed zone between the cargo ceiling panel and the passenger floor compartment, not in in the cargo compartment."
See www.atsb.gov.au/media/5774692/ao-2017-101_final.pdf
I apologise if anyone is offended but I am posting the information below twice as I believe it is very relevant to this topic.
According to the investigation into the July 1996 TWA 800 (25 year old 747-100) explosion, a "high voltage" (115/120 volt) wire in the same harness/bundle as a low-voltage sensor wire, over years of airframe operation during which insulation in adjacent wires can chafe, can cause a short circuit which might result in arcing. In the case of TWA 800 such a short-circuit is claimed to have been the source of an electric current which caused a tank-sensor spark which ignited the explosion that destroyed the 25 year old a/c
In 2017 a 4 year old 777-300 in Australia experienced an inflight cargo compartment fire because insulation on a 115 volt wire chafed through against a screw. There were five other incidents of 777 wiring arcing because of chafing. To quote the Incident report "...subsequent investigation conducted by Boeing found that the wire bundle W5279 had been incorrectly routed, likely during aircraft manufacture, and had not been installed as per the design drawings...".
I am under the impression that there may be at least one fly-by-wire control wire adjacent to a high-voltage wire in the harness/bundle under discussion in the NG and Max.
One of these resulted in an in-flight cargo compartment fire over Australia in October 2017. In that incident "Discharging the fire bottles in the forward cargo space ....had nil effect on this occasion as the source of the electrical arcing was in the sealed zone between the cargo ceiling panel and the passenger floor compartment, not in in the cargo compartment."
See www.atsb.gov.au/media/5774692/ao-2017-101_final.pdf
I apologise if anyone is offended but I am posting the information below twice as I believe it is very relevant to this topic.
According to the investigation into the July 1996 TWA 800 (25 year old 747-100) explosion, a "high voltage" (115/120 volt) wire in the same harness/bundle as a low-voltage sensor wire, over years of airframe operation during which insulation in adjacent wires can chafe, can cause a short circuit which might result in arcing. In the case of TWA 800 such a short-circuit is claimed to have been the source of an electric current which caused a tank-sensor spark which ignited the explosion that destroyed the 25 year old a/c
In 2017 a 4 year old 777-300 in Australia experienced an inflight cargo compartment fire because insulation on a 115 volt wire chafed through against a screw. There were five other incidents of 777 wiring arcing because of chafing. To quote the Incident report "...subsequent investigation conducted by Boeing found that the wire bundle W5279 had been incorrectly routed, likely during aircraft manufacture, and had not been installed as per the design drawings...".
I am under the impression that there may be at least one fly-by-wire control wire adjacent to a high-voltage wire in the harness/bundle under discussion in the NG and Max.
Boeing is scary