Back to Squawk list
  • 13

FAA Orders Angle Of Attack Sensor Upgrades To Older Boeing Aircraft

제출됨
 
The AD will apply to certain Boeing aircraft, including the 727, 757, 767-300, -300F and 400ER series. (simpleflying.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


bobinson66
The FAA will save countless lives by requiring new AOA sensors on all 272s.
sanukjim
does this sound like the FAA are trying to cover their ass after screwing up by not doing their job correctly by letting Boeing do their own inspections for the last several years ?
djames225
No..this sounds exactly like Sharon posted..the FAA gave a bit of leeway to Boeing to certify some processes, and seems Boeing "over extended" that! Same as cops giving a bit of leeway on letting you go above speed limit a bit...over extend that "bit" too many times and they make your wallet a living hell.
JMARTINSON
No, it doesn't sound anything like what Sharon posted. It sounds exactly like this:

"This issue was identified some time ago by Boeing, who issued service bulletins in relation to the problem. The alert service bulletins for each model were issued within the last six months. Clearly, the servicing has not been carried out by all operators, which is why the FAA has now sought to mandate the part replacement, so that operators have no choice to comply."

Boeing can only advise, but the FAA can force the issue. The only leeway here involves the airlines who haven't done the work.

I know Boeing bashing is fun, but when you have to invent things in order to do it maybe it would be best to just wait for the next article.
djames225
I am far from being anti-Boeing, no one is inventing anything and I am sticking with what I said. Part of her excerpt " screw with a government agency, they will make your life a living hell in other ways." The FAA gave leeway to Boeing to self certify areas of aircraft for past several years. It was done on a trust basis. In light of what's happened with the B737MAX, the KC-46 tanker and now, it seems, other Boeing built craft, I'd say that trust is leaking badly. BTW, Boeing issues the SB, and its up to them to follow up, not just US registered. The FAA is pushing the issue with US registered airlines as that is all it has the "powers" to do, but they are doing so in short order. And no US operator still flys a B727.

"This issue was identified some time ago by Boeing, who issued service bulletins in relation to the problem. The alert service bulletins for each model were issued within the last six months." If identified some time ago, why has the SB only been issued within last 6 mths, especially on older craft? Why has the FAA stepped up it's timetable to make US registered airlines comply? Usually they are given longer than 6 mths. Because it's making Boeing appear in the news and limelight, again.
sgbelverta
They went back to the 727 for this requirement? Proves my previous postings that when you screw with a government agency, they will make your life a living hell in other ways. I bet the FAA has a dedicated person going through every old complaint against Boeing, looking for more stuff to drag out. And Boeing can't blame anyone but themselves.
JMARTINSON
Good point, Sharon. This must have really caught Boeing by surprise.

"This issue was identified some time ago by Boeing, who issued service bulletins in relation to the problem. The alert service bulletins for each model were issued within the last six months. Clearly, the servicing has not been carried out by all operators, which is why the FAA has now sought to mandate the part replacement, so that operators have no choice to comply."
FrankHarvey
Back in the 1980s I was a member of a group that sued a Federal agency. Two Agents visited my office and spent a full day with me going through my records. They took some of my papers with them. A week later one of them returned my papers (judging by the pencil marks they'd gone through them in detail) and spent another full day reviewing their "findings". After all that the penalties and interest etc was just about $2,800, which I could have contested, and would have been justified, because I just could not find some supporting documents. But it was easier just to pay the $2,800 than to waste more time, or go to court, with all the expense, and time, that would have entailed.

Don't upset the Feds.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

djames225
WTH are you rambling on about now? We are talking about the FAA and you go off on a wild tangent, again, about Airbus...smh

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
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..
종료