Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Boeing to separate 737 MAX wire bundles before jet's return to service
Boeing plans to separate 737 MAX wiring bundles, flagged by regulators as potentially dangerous, before the jet returns to service, two people familiar with the matter told Reuters on Wednesday. (uk.reuters.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
TWA 800 (if you believe the official report). Swissair 111. Google "Kapton insulation" or "Chafing wire bundles". There are scores of reports of fires. Now with FBW you can have crossfeed into critical servos, even with DC eddies if there is different wiring in multiple generators (Boeing took a while to be convinced of that one !)
If I google "Kapton insulation", will I learn how many decades it's been since the stuff was last installed in a commercial airliner?
Hi JMartinson
It was just a series of quick examples that came to mind while I was running a mind-dump response post. I couldn't remember the British a/c that had the DC crossfeed because of different generator wiring either or the 757 events . There are a bundle of reasons why wiring location, proximity and insulation are critical.
With respect, I withdraw the Kapton reference.
Frank
It was just a series of quick examples that came to mind while I was running a mind-dump response post. I couldn't remember the British a/c that had the DC crossfeed because of different generator wiring either or the 757 events . There are a bundle of reasons why wiring location, proximity and insulation are critical.
With respect, I withdraw the Kapton reference.
Frank
> removing what is now recognized as a weak link shouldn’t even be a topic of discussion
What if the process required to remove that "weak link" also presents a certain amount of risk? Shouldn't we compare the risks to see which is less?
Oh, right, of course not. Because Boeing.
Just because the idiot reporters and editors at reuters forgot to mention it (aka do their job) for 16 articles in a row doesn't mean it's not there.
What if the process required to remove that "weak link" also presents a certain amount of risk? Shouldn't we compare the risks to see which is less?
Oh, right, of course not. Because Boeing.
Just because the idiot reporters and editors at reuters forgot to mention it (aka do their job) for 16 articles in a row doesn't mean it's not there.
The fact that Boeing spent weeks / months resisting this change suggests that it has learnt very little about the need for a return to a "safety first" approach to aircraft design and construction. After all the focus on the 737 MAX design , it will probably be one of the safest planes to fly in, but it will take many years for the travelling public to trust Boeing to keep it that way.
The existing wiring bundle in the tail of the MAX is unchanged from the 737 NG, and has 216 million hours of safe flying under its belt. Exactly how much reassurance do you need?
Good Ole Pendulum effect. The same entities that certified the plane with what was obviously serious problems, will now question the safety of the paint color.
I was only commenting on and disagreeing with the oft heard suggestion that all of the scrutiny this plane is getting will imbue it will some amazing level of safety. I argue that a well built 737 can at best match the safety of modern airliners, because no matter what enhancements Boeing makes, it is still fundamentally a 1960s design (e.g., installing an electric motor in a Ford Falcon won't turn it into a Tesla).
To turn a blind eye to the issue is like saying “I never wore a seatbelt in my life, & I’m fine!”
Sooner or later, EVERYTHING mechanical fails. It’s a fact of life that’s absolute. Disasters are almost always a chain of events, & removing what is now recognized as a weak link shouldn’t even be a topic of discussion.
That no souls have been lost as a result YET, is fortunate.
For those that say “Leave it well enough alone.” are hiding their heads in the sand.
Fix it. Period.