Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MortMan
Not if they were supposed to have been performed three 100-hour checks ago.

Yes and no. Again, we have to look at the details, here (the devil's always in the details). The point of the requirement was to prevent wire chafing around the landing gear mechanisms. Cable ties or no cable ties, if there is constant rubbing of any component against a wiring bundle, over time, you will get chafing and wear.

According to the article, the inspections showed that with/without the new requirement, chafing was occuring. To avoid the potential for chafing, the wiring bundles would have to be re-routed away from the source of the chafing (i.e. the landing gear mechanism); simply adding cable ties every inch and orienting cable clamps on't do anything to prevent chafing/wear if the bundle is not removed from the source of the chafing. To do that would require all new wiring bundles to be installed that would take the A/C out of service for a longer period of time because, in most cases, wire splices are not permitted by the FAA. Wire bundles in aircraft tend to have almost zero extra length and tend to comply with very strict length requirements.

So, again, this is all for show and the FAA is just flexing its muscles to prove that it can. But, here's a question for you - How many politicians or FAA officials do you think were inconvenienced by this? My bet is NONE.

32 posted on 04/11/2008 9:17:17 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: DustyMoment
So, again, this is all for show and the FAA is just flexing its muscles to prove that it can.

Not to be contrary, but I see it the other way around. Making a further exception to the rule would be the result of some individual in the FAA flexing their muscles - and bypassing the plain meaning of the ruling. The inspections were either not done or done improperly. They are overdue.

I fail to see how enforcing a ruling in the face of violations of the ruling is "flexing muscle". It's a matter of compliance (in the certification sense of the word).

34 posted on 04/11/2008 9:41:10 AM PDT by MortMan (Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. - Alexander Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: DustyMoment
Another take.

The FAA was **seriously embarrassed** by letting SW sluf on exterior crack inspections - they (FAA) were accused of being too cozy...

How do you ‘prove’ you aren't too Cory?

Why screw the next guy in line of course.

It's about EGO, not safety....

QA is a nice thing, too many things tend to fall off of aircraft otherwise.

35 posted on 04/11/2008 9:50:37 AM PDT by ASOC (Training Storungen werden auf Papier notiert. Taktische Storungen werden im Stein geatzt. Gen Rommel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: DustyMoment
How many politicians or FAA officials do you think were inconvenienced by this? My bet is NONE.

Many within the FAA however if there were to be an incident because of the variance and those PMI's within the FAA let it ride unchecked.

37 posted on 04/11/2008 10:03:57 AM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: DustyMoment
2111USMC was inconvenienced by this.

I don't mind that my flight was 5 hours late. I don't even mind that they dumped me off at a closed airport this morning at 1:00 AM. What p!sses me off to no end, however, is my luggage not arriving with me.

Attention all airlines: People like to fly with their luggage!

47 posted on 04/11/2008 10:41:22 AM PDT by 2111USMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson