Back to Squawk list
  • 28

Speculation: 787 Fire Caused by Errant Tool?

נשלח לפני
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The fire on a Boeing Co. 787 Dreamliner test flight two weeks ago resulted from a short circuit caused by a tool mistakenly left in an electrical equipment cabinet on the plane, according to French newspaper La Tribune. ( עוד...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Gene spanos 0
Let's see - tails hitting the rnwy upon landing, engine fires, cracked cockpit windshield,
engine failure,,,,wow! Its safe to fly alright.

Just spoke with a career certfied jet aircraft repairman - he does not care for the drive by wire - either.
peter knauth 0
"NOVA" on PBS did a report on loss of Air France 447 - overload/erronious readings by fly-by-wire CPUs...
Matt Comerford 0
The 777 is fly by wire with many successful years flying without fatalities.
Iskra 0
So what does a mechanic (I am also a aircraft mechanic) know about fly-by-wire. Think about it. I am a test pilot for my airline on a fly-by-wire aircraft. Did you know that the airplane I fly does not need the fly-by-wire to continue to fly. Oh by the way, it's an Airbus.
skylloyd 0
If this being the case of a tool in a cabinet, did Boeing get rid of there QA, which is what they have been trying to do for years..
Karl Lehenbauer 0
As I recall, NASA found a tool inside a panel in one of the Apollo capsules during a teardown after the Apollo 1 fire, although I didn't find it with a couple quick googles. I did find "The Ingress-Egress Log disclosed several instances where tools and equipment were carried into the spacecraft, but the log did not indicate these items had been removed." and a finding that "Inspection personnel did not perform a prescheduled inspection with a checklist before hatch closing."
krebilly 0
has anyone else noticed the continued use of the word 'errant' in the titles of articles the past few days. guess the editor learned a new word last week.
sparkie624 0
Can you say the word ASAP. Appears as a Mechanic and Assigned inspector may need to file one. As a mechanic/Avionics Tech, I know allot about fly by wire, and I would have to say that I am a little uncomfortable with it. With all the computers driving these things and I know they have redundant systems to drive and backup redundant systems, but none the less, and old saying comes to mind: "To Error is human, to really screw up requires the use of a computer". I know every day I work with FCC's, FMA's, ADC's, and many other pieces of avionics. Even though I know it relieves cockpit workload, does it also make us too dependant on them as well. Take Air Canada with a fuel qty mel due to a computer, and ran out of fuel on a 767, Forget the airline, but in south america, entered the wrong data into an FMS and headed off to the wrong airport (Preformed a perfect CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain), Another Captain flying both IRS's on BOTH on 1 and #1 IRS Failed (BTW, IRS 2 was good, switch was in wrong position by mistake.) Rolled on to his back on a 737, nosed into a mountain. Computers don't always help us!

כניסה לאתר

עדיין אין לך חשבון? הירשם כעת (ללא תשלום) כדי ליהנות מתכונות מותאמות-אישית, מהתראות טיסה ועוד!
אתר זה משתמש בקוקיות. המשך השימוש והניווט שלך באתר מביע את הסכמתך לכך.
האם ידעת שמעקב הטיסות של FlightAware נתמך על ידי פרסום?
תוכל לעזור לנו לוודא ש-FlightAware יישאר חינמי בכך שתאשר קבלת מודעות מ אנו מתאמצים מאוד להקפיד על כך שהמודעות שלנו יהיו רלוונטיות ולא מטרידות כדי ליצור עבורך חוויית משתמש מעולה. מהיר וקל לכלול את המודעות של FlightAware ברשימה הלבנה ואפשר גם לשקול את האפשרות ליצור חשבונות פרמיום.