• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
06:40PM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesFAA issues safety warning after fires on Boeing 737s

Back to Squawk list

FAA issues safety warning after fires on Boeing 737s

Submitted
WASHINGTON - The FAA issued a safety alert for Boeing 737 jetliners after electrical fires broke out on at least three planes due to incorrectly installed clamps that caused wires to rub together. The FAA ranked the fires a "serious event" and "potentially hazardous situation which can cause serious injury and damage to (an) aircraft." (www.komonews.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Boeing has really been in the "hot seat" lately.
genethemarine
Gene spanos 1
More fires on board.....I wonder why this never made the front page....?
Can we issue an air safety warning to the collar communities here too.
jetwiresneverburn
jetwiresneverburn 1
A fire on board an aircraft classified as a 'non event' is like saying someone with cancer is 'under the weather.' Are you fu<£in serious?
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
Yes, but note that this is all on much older and out of production a/c. I wonder how many a/c had this problem, I doubt very many... How many of these planes are still flying... I would put this in the category of NON EVENT.
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
I was referring to the fact that this was so few, over such a long span of time. I not saying that a fire is a NONEVENT, but for the few times it has happened to these a/c it is a NONEVENT in the classification that it is not news worthy. Make note the "FAA Issued a safety alert..." Not an AD. An AD forces a Mandatory Change, what they issued was more of a recommendation if you want to.

The title of this article is misleading... It WAS NEVER a WARNING, just a little friendly advice... you can take it if you want to... If this was a real event in the eyes of the FAA it would have been a AD.

Seeing how you are fairly new around here for term 'AD' reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airworthiness_Directive
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Yea, I noticed they were old. Boeing has just had the fates working against them lately. Everybody has bumps.
rad2
Roger Deeringer 1
Also, were the clamps original or replacements. If a result of MX, who did it?
jetwiresneverburn
jetwiresneverburn 1
I know what an AD is, but thanks for the offer of a free aviation lesson, I'm sure it would've been worth the price of admission.
I have over 7,000 hrs in the left seat of turbine A/C, so while I may be new here (& soon to be absent, since wasting time w/ amateurs isn't what I was looking for), I am not new to the subject.
Contacting departure, good day.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
You know what an AD is, but do you know what an FAA Safety Alert is? There is a world of difference.

Being a FlyBoy with 7000 hours is not too bad, I assume most of that is part 91 or 135, but have been in the Maintenance industry now for over 28 years working part 121 for 3 major airlines and currently working as a Maintenance Controller.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
These a/c have been through heavy maintenance MANY times and chances are the clamps had been removed many times.... the chances of these being original or very low. As for who did it... Hard to tell.. A wide spread enough for the FAA to get in the middle of it is obviously not just one person, so the manuals may need changes, or maybe something altered on the plane to make it more clear.
rh77
Richard Harrell 1
I agree - it sounds like a story with recent keywords that would "shock and amaze". We all know the safety and reliability of the now "Classic" series 73s, which is bolstered by a statistically large sample size. As mentioned, where is the actual fault? Maintenance procedures, replacement part selection, guidance docs...