Back to Squawk list
  • 28

Speculation: 787 Fire Caused by Errant Tool?

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. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

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.
"NOVA" on PBS did a report on loss of Air France 447 - overload/erronious readings by fly-by-wire CPUs...
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..
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!


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..