Back to Squawk list
  • 22

Boeing’s 777 at Risk of Fuel-Tank Explosion as US Urges Fix

Submitted
Regulators are directing US operators of Boeing Co. 777 widebody jets to repair aircraft to address concerns about potential fuel-tank explosions, according to a filing Monday. A proposed airworthiness directive from the US Federal Aviation Administration calls for operators to inspect the jets and install Teflon sleeves and cap fasteners to certain parts of the center, left and right main fuel tanks, according to the filing. The order would apply to 282 aircraft, the FAA said. (www.msn.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


gregoryheld
Greg Held 9
I like Boeing just wondering why Boeing did not do this when they built the triple 7. It kinda sounds like some of the problems the 787 had
ewrcap
David Beattie 3
They 787 has a fuel inerting system. Not sure about the triple. As far as “all the problems” with the 787, there were two battery fires due to poor QC at the Japanese battery maker YUASA. (Oddly enough, both occurred on Japanese airlines). They were fixed, no more problems…ever. In the meantime, Boeing built a stainless steel “sarcophagus” around the battery in case another runaway occurs. It hasn’t.
wiregold
wiregold 4
How about adding insulating washers to mount power distribution panel in the 87 and not realizing they insulate the ground path. Pretty sloppy engineering as in somebody overlooked fundamental current flow.
nasdisco
Chris B 2
On the sarcophagus, Lithium burns at 3500 degrees, stainless melts at half that. There had to be another reason for these boxes.
staphory
Chris Phillips 3
Maybe the issue wasn’t discovered until the aircraft was in use for a while.
ewrcap
David Beattie 3
Good point. TWA 880 aircraft was 25 years old when it exploded. The oldest 777s are 27 years old. Not sure who is flying the fleet leaders.
dvbavcon
Dean Brossman -7
Not trying to be insulting. Did you know everything when you were born or do you learn as you go?
toz100
Do you really think that learning by doing is the right approach to air safety?
dvbavcon
Dean Brossman -3
Unless you know how to see the future, it is the only way we have.
wiregold
wiregold 5
Sounds like Elon's style; let's see what happens and fix it after it crashes ...
Good engineering actually does see the future and takes action to prevent catastrophic failure.
wiregold
wiregold 4
"Not trying to be insulting" and then proceeds to hurl insult. Boeing learned as is was going on the MAX 8. They're still not delivering triples, 87s, 37s, and what's up with the boom on the KC 46 ... not to mention Starliner taking another $90 million hit. That thing is $400 million in the red and it's still not delivered crew to ISS.
augerin
Dave Mathes 1
....awww, minor details...
augerin
Dave Mathes 0
...now that's an interesting question...
nasdisco
Chris B 9
Nobody wants another TWA 800 scenario, but seems the ingredients are built in.
E1craZ4life
Edward Bardes 2
Do modern fuel probes rely on equipment that serve as potential ignition sources?
dvbavcon
Dean Brossman 3
No, but they are wired to the fuel Quantity system. So in any place where these wires could come in contact with any wire with power applied to it, they must be shielded. They are already shielded their entire length, but these actions add another layer.
RECOR10
RECOR10 -6
Yes, so, we must ban jet fuel.
jkeifer3
Joe Keifer 3
No. Just develop a better anti-misting kerosene.
johntaylor571
John Taylor 5
It's not about misting. It's about empty tanks that are full of vapors that can ignite with an internal spark of an electric fuel pump. We lost more than one KC-135 due to the same issue.
dvbavcon
Dean Brossman 17
This is the type of action that is ongoing on all type of aircraft and a headline like that is only to sensationalize a common issue.
jkeifer3
Joe Keifer 6
I remember back in the day when the placement of the fuel tank in the Ford Pinto behind the rear axle caused quite a hullabaloo when people started dying and Ford knew about the issue but chose not to fix it to save a few bucks per car.

Not fixing the issue up front was probably a decision driven by program management and not engineering just like Challenger and Columbia.
augerin
Dave Mathes 1
...well, that's Ford and the Pinto, go figure...the 2nd para scratches some old wounds bro...
RECOR10
RECOR10 1
Under the same premise they got rid of the original JetSki (stand up)...must protect you...from you. Why not ban sharp pencils? Seriously - this is just not a big issue.
jkeifer3
Joe Keifer 7
I agree. My only point was that if program managers were also safety engineers a lot of this stuff wouldn't happen in the first place.
KineticRider
Randy Marco -2
YOU do need protection from YOU... you are a sad piece of...
cordery
Alan Cordery 7
Whether related or not, Boeing is a textbook case about screwing up a once great company through greed. Top management and the Board are responsible for this. If it’s Boeing, I aint going no more.
georgewilhelmsen
The AD follows the service bulletin on the same subject. It’s nothing blown into something as usual.
ferminbf
ferminbf 2
Aircrafts used to be designed by engineers whereas in present days are designed by influencer managers
johntaylor571
John Taylor 2
Same cause of several lost KC-135's years back.
dvbavcon
Dean Brossman 3
The Sky is falling, the sky is falling!
CapeCodder
CapeCodder 2
Just the latest Boeing fiasco.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss