सभी
← 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) और अधिक...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Sign me up! I will gladly be the first to fly on the 737 MAX when it is returned to service. It will be the safest plane on the planet!
I'll only fly on them if the crew are willing to do so and the seats are the same price or less than the competition
Good luck trying to get people to fly on a 737 MAX if and when they fly again
Regardless of the length of time similar bundles have been in service without serious loss of life, it’s now recognized as a “weak link”, & should absolutely be treated as such.
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.
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.
> 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.
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 !)
This is all about merit badges at this stage of the game. The key points of this investigation were understood many many months ago and to my knowledge from the outside looking in, appear to have been addressed. But that really doesn't matter at this point as long as the other parties involved continue to sweep their actions under the rug. The FAA will continue to dredge through the certification debris looking for every needle in the haystack. If every aircraft model flying were treated in this same manner, You All would be taking the trains/boats/automobiles because there wouldn't be an aircraft in the air at the moment. This stuff goes on all the time and is rectified without anyone ever hearing about it in most cases.
Shouldn't some of you be off doing your CSI on the corona-cold-virus and toilet paper "shortage" to see what the Chicoms are frantically trying to hide form the rest of the world? That would certainly be of greater value to humankind to get to the bottom of that debacle. Jeez.
Critical thought...R.I.P.