Regulators have largely ignored a series of dangerous incidents in which cockpit windshields in commercial airliners shattered in mid-flight, sometimes forcing emergency landings, according to an American Airlines pilots' group.
Since 2004, at least 10 windshields have had problems on Boeing 757s, mostly the result of wiring problems with windshield heaters that cause smoke to fill the cockpit and sometimes make those windshields crack. Four incidents have been on American Airlines planes, according to the National Transportation Safety Board.
An American Airlines flight from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, made an emergency landing on January 30 this year after the cockpit filled with smoke.
The inner pane of the co-pilot's window shattered as the plane came in to land in Palm Beach, Florida. One of the crewmembers was injured by glass and six passengers were treated for smoke inhalation.
Another pilot told CNN he had a similar experience on a 757 more than two years ago, but did not want to be identified for fear of retaliation.
The FAA, meanwhile, has issued a proposed airworthiness directive for inspection and corrections to windshield heaters, not just on 757s, but also on Boeing 767s and 777s.
"We will work with the manufacturer to provide a solution for operators, if the existing solution is not adequate," the FAA said in a statement to CNN.
But the FAA did not address why it has taken this long to address the problem, since Boeing flagged it as an issue as early as 2004 -- the first time the NTSB also took notice.
A safety recommendation sent by the NTSB to the FAA last September gives details of the problems, many linked to the wiring of the windshield heaters. The recommendation also mentions promises by Boeing to send out service bulletins and pledges by the FAA to make the Boeing suggestions mandatory.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21715 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 11042 times:
According to AA pilots group. The same pilots group who is trying to get all their "loans" back, etc.
The FAA is looking into the problem and looking to develop a plan to address it. It's not being ignored.
And it will impact the 767 too.
As for "After 737 and 777..." the problem with UA's 777 has nothing to do with it being a 777! It's everything to do with someone omitting an item on a checklist. It is everything to do with fire suppression system, something on every plane. Had UA forgotten a line on the A320 checklist, we'd be talking about the A320 right now...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
AirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10901 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4): As for "After 737 and 777..." the problem with UA's 777 has nothing to do with it being a 777! It's everything to do with someone omitting an item on a checklist.
And the "item on a checklist" happened to be on one specifically for the 777.......so thus it has to do with being a 777, unless one wants to play with words. However, it equally has to be said that no-one has claimed it being any sort of weakness in the 777, so why the totally unnecessary defensiveness?
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4): Had UA forgotten a line on the A320 checklist, we'd be talking about the A320 right now...
Why am I not surprised that somehow an Airbus was brought into the discussion.......mind you, "had UA forgotten a line on the A320 checklist", I'd be prepared to bet that suddenly, to some, it would miraculously have had everything to do with it being an A320!!
Rwy04LGA From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 10650 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 5): However, it equally has to be said that no-one has claimed
No one has claimed anything, but the IMPLICATION is clear. Otherwise, why refer to the other Boeing products? You don't see the implication???
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 5): Why am I not surprised that somehow an Airbus was brought into the discussion
Because the OP stressed Boeing and the only other manufacturer of equal standing is Airbus. The problem is NOT with the 777 but with a checklist. IF the aircraft in question was an A320, the topic would on the A320 and that would be equally incorrect as the problem would still be the checklist, not the A320. But the OP implies that there is a pattern of problems with Boeing products, and that is false. Again, the problem is with the checklist. And what's the problem of comparing A v B? If someone made inaccurate implications against your beloved Airbus, you would not take umbrage? Why does it not surprise me that an Airbus lover is 'sensitive' (stress on the s's). And why bother reading a thread filled with so many 7's?
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
Undrtkrav8tr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8518 times:
From Where I am sitting in Colleyville, TX looking out my office window (3 miles from DFW) I am seeing plenty of 757's and 737's Departing as usual for this time of the Morning...Sounds like these two "whistle blowers" are looking for high paying consulting jobs and thus why they thrust themselves into the spotlight. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Also, it seems funny to me that AA pilots are the ones complaining. Don't they make enough money already for working 2 weeks a month? I havent heard of any 757's going down. Has anyone else?
Starrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1139 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5780 times:
The news media has latched on to the inspection issue. "AIRLINES AT RISK! UNINSPECTED PLANES ENDANGER PASSENGERS !!!!ONEZ!"
Nevermind that we haven't lost a mainline aircraft in the US since 2001. Now the news media has figured out a way to play on people's fear of flying even when planes are NOT crashing. Hundreds of millions of successful passenger trips without a loss on mainline flights and yet they are in mortal danger.
MedAv From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4557 times:
The 'events' with the 737 and 777 have been completely unrelated and if any of these media alarm people knew what they were doing and could comb through all the incident and maintenance records of all ac's they'd have plenty of "alarming" stories to write about every ac ever built.
I highly doubt safety was much compromised on these triple 7's (in realspeak, not mediaspeak), but UAL chose to come out with it front and center because they don't want egg on face like WN.
Catdaddy63 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4510 times:
10 windshield problems is about four years? This is overreaction by the press at it's worst. How many 757 flights are there daily? I would believe that the 77L/W in flight shut down rate is a similar number if not higher. This is certainly not something to ground a fleet over but certainly an area for inspection and repair if needed.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12710 posts, RR: 80
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2613 times:
Quoting Catdaddy63 (Reply 14): 10 windshield problems is about four years? This is overreaction by the press at it's worst. How many 757 flights are there daily? I would believe that the 77L/W in flight shut down rate is a similar number if not higher.
I'll buy you the car of your choice if the 77L/W IFSD rate is anywhere close to that low.