Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5005 times:
FAA to loosen fuel-tank safety rules, benefiting Boeing's 787
Tomaso DiPaolo, NATCA's aircraft-certification national representative, charges that when FAA engineers raised their safety concerns internally management simply removed them from the team developing the new policy.
The FAA ignored its own technical people, he said, while making sure Boeing agreed with the policy change.
"It's another example of the FAA getting too close to industry," said DiPaolo. "It appears that whatever Boeing wants, Boeing gets."
Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4979 times:
How many planes have we lost due to this? While I think the NTSB generally does good work, this rule is a case of them taking advantage of a situation to try and force unneeded requirements. The FAA realized they overreacted. No other authority requires this for certification, and no other transport category aircraft complies with this.
Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4909 times:
There's a lot of "he said, she said" going on in that article. I'd be willing to bet that the 787 will be the safest yet in terms of fuel tanks. And for people to suggest that there be no MEL relief whatsoever for a system that protects only in very low probability situations in unrealistic.