← Back to Squawk list
  • 9

FAA Proposes $13.7 Million Civil Penality Against Boeing

Submitted
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a civil penalty of $13.57 million against The Boeing Company for failing to meet a deadline to submit service instructions that would enable airlines to further reduce the risk of fuel tank explosions (avstop.com) More...

A M
News junkieOutspokenPromoterAutobiographer

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


sr22pilot1
sr22pilot1 1
Nice video, Boeing still owns the bus
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
nickpiszczek
nicholas piszczek 1
Clearly I would believe that Boeing knows more about these issues then the FAA and that the government imposing deadlines on paperwork only forces a rush to judgement whereby the FAA enforces an unnecessary fine and no one is the least safer. Bureaucracy at its finest.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
mpradel
Marcus Pradel 1
The FAA fining Boeing for delays in complying with a non-issue created to cover-up a terrorist attack? sounds like adding insult to injury!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
AccessAir
AccessAir 1
The FAA has a lot of gall imposing a fine when they have blood on their hands with regards to 9/11...
I was the lax FAA Regs that allowed blades under four inches in length to be carried in carry-ons (box cutters) that made way for the hi-jackers to take over those flights....
Yeah, funny that this comes on the Anniversary of the flight 800 downing....
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
genethemarine
Gene spanos 0
Wow.....Who's side are they on ??
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 -3
Geez, Here we go again... A Plane is blown up by a missile, military denies everything, and the airline industry has to pay for it. This is total crap. That is a 100% total BS, I have said it from the beginning and will say it again. There were 3 eye witnesses. One was a trained military observer, all saw the same light (missile) from the ground headed towards TWA 800. After being interviewed by the FBI they all changed there stories. Give me a break.... I have worked part 121 on all sorts of Boeing, Bombardier, McDonald Douglas a/c, specialized in Fuel Qty and Fuel Systems. I have heard crap before, but this tops it all.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
nickpiszczek
nicholas piszczek 2
Absolute Rubbish...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 -2
have you ever worked in a planes Fuel tank? and how many years experience?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
nickpiszczek
nicholas piszczek 2
Are we to assume that you were directly involved with the Investigation of the TWA-800 center fuel tank, furthermore...not only privy too but have firsthand account knowledge of up to and including counseling with agencies involved with the investigation? I need not insert myself inside fuel tanks to understand what a healthy education of Aviation,Physics/Electrical engineering provides me. Conspiracy theory's are the weaker mans way out and we need less of those that promote them. Just cheap talk amongst media and a citizenry that choose corruption over sanity no matter how much hard evidence is provided to them.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
AccessAir
AccessAir 1
The downing of flight 800, whether by accident or intentional, is the subject of a massive cover up....Just like the Russians did with Korean Airlines flight 007 in 1983....And the French authorities have done with the crash of the Concorde!!!!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
I feel and also many of the FAA that I have talked to that the Fuel Tank explosion as a result of fuel tank wiring is BS. I will stand by it and firmly believe it. If there was ever a government cover up... This is. Sorry man.. The way I see it is impossible for that to have happened. It was NOT a fuel tank explosion for the inside. The fuel tank exploded from something outside. I was not involved with that investigation.. If you do not understand how the system works, then yes, you have to be inside the system to understand it. It is impossible for fuel tank wiring, pumps, or probes to have caused this action... It is total BS.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
JD345
JD345 2
Come up with a plausible reason why TWA800 was shot down by a missile.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Terrorist Attack. Government wanted to down play it like it never happened, so blamed it on a perfectly good airplane.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
JD345
JD345 1
Government playing down a terrorist attack... thanks for trying.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Not Trying... UnDocumented Facts. If you believe that our government won't lie to us, then you have been under a rock for way too long.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mpradel
Marcus Pradel 0
TWA wasn't the target, it was about 20 minutes late.

The real target was an El Al Israel Airlines flight which had this original timeslot.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
JD345
JD345 1
Based on what? Terrorist debriefing reports?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
nickpiszczek
nicholas piszczek 2
Have you ever read the investigation report? By your tone it sounds like you have some experience. What do you find so difficult to comprehend about a center fuel tank condition that was rendered so ripe for a catastrophic explosion that with an aged fleet of 74's operating in that specific conditions it wasn't just how but when?. The science and the facts are valid...while the latter arguments are erroneous, misrepresented, unclear and in some cases flat out fabricated. I mean this in no way to be snide, I am genuinely interested in a validated opinion. I am quite capable of a technical discussion that has merit.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Yes I have read it. Why I feel that way is simple. There is no fuel pump voltage that could make it into the tank, so there is no way there could have been fuel there. This was a center tank in question, it was empty, therefore the pumps were off. The fuel probes measure simple capacitance by a computer. The impedance of this (or resistance in layman's terms)is in the neighborhood of 100 Meg Ohms. There is no voltage to speak of, and what little there is, will not produce a spark. I have purposely put high impedance volt meters to see what is being send down the line and there is nothing there.. No more than a normal volt meter puts out. The idea the probes could have done this is crazier that saying Bill Clinton never had sex. As far as the aging fleet of the 74's is not really a concerning fleet. All a/c have to be well maintained, and part 121 a/c have to be maintained to much higher standards. Even though the age of that a/c. that wiring was probably not original. I have replace more fuel harness that you could imagine... It is a long tough tedious job. I have never had one to make a spark, and I have tried to make a spark with them... Never could do it. Like I say, a volt meter shows nothing.

Fact of the investigation that really makes me wonder... 3 separate witness, not related in anyway shape or form. One was a Military pilot on maneuvers at the time in the vicinity in a military helicopter, and a another 3rd person on the shore saw a streak of light travel from the ground to the plane at the time of the explosion. After being interviewed by the FBI they all changed there story. If the FBI wanted the true story, they would not have had 3 complete changed stories, especially from a trained military pilot.

TWA 800 is a shame and I feel for all the families, but bottom line, it was not a faulty plane, but a Terrorist act that the government covered up to say it never happened.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
KauaiGolfer
KauaiGolfer 3
And one of the witnesses on the ground who claimed to see a SAM was not just a former Naval Aviator, but a CAG. The professionally made "CIA video that came out just a couple of days later showing "exactly" what happened, just made it smell worse. We will never know for sure what really happened, but I don't believe the official story for a second.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Agreed. They spent a lot of money to show there version of what happened... And the area of the plane supposedly hit was never found.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
nickpiszczek
nicholas piszczek -1
The facts are there...period. The long list of conspiracy/missile strike/terrorist and whatever else you want to throw at it have been refuted and do not stand up to the shortlist of recovered wreckage,physical evidence [95%] and examinations of recovered passenger remains [100%] The complexities of the investigation, the amount of witness testimonies that can not be discounted make it even more so difficult..Understood. I do not discount the mess that 4 competing government agencies made out of the process either, they are the number one reason for no definitive conclusion. The FBI's arrogance is always noted where they are involved, the culture that exists within these agency's is shameful as Americans. Do not allow these guys to skewer your brain. FBI, NTSB, FAA, CIA and DOD...Trying to get these separate cultures to work together and come up with the correct answer is NOT possible. Ever. Each one has a separate agenda and the collective mess they leave combined with a sensationalized media who have no ability to cover aviation related news properly leave the public hanging from the conspiracy oak.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Yes, 95% recovered... But not the are where they say a missile entered the a/c. Without that, they have nothing to prove this theory. Just because the Government says it does not make it true. The facts are not there, What facts were not there they made up out of Fiction. Stephen Spielberg could not have done better.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
nickpiszczek
nicholas piszczek 0
Your point is this; You do not believe that what is provided as factual evidence... is fact. That's a wholly different topic altogether and is at the core of your conspiracy theory.

Here is what you are asking reasonable people to believe: 1) Thousands upon thousands of Government officials including Navy and Coast Guard personnel/officers including Pentagon/DOD officials; collectively lied and were able to contain and willfully guard against discovery of a missile launch destroying a U.S. flagged civilian airliner. One thing humanity should teach you... people love to talk and always do especially when paid to do so... I do not dispute the severe lack of integrity that the investigation maintained but the holes in it were not generated by a missile.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
nickpiszczek
nicholas piszczek 3
I found this debate with you engaging on a positive level. I also realize its a moot point to continue and will agree that we disagree. I will not convince you...you will not convince me. We both will agree that TWA-800 still stinks and to this day there can be no satisfaction from an awful event. I have had personal relationships with pilots/friends on Pan Am 103. I understand the emotion here.

Signing out on the topic...all the best.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I agree, this has been a positive debate and I do agree that we will not convince either way. I have been working Large Aircraft for over 28 years, of which all of it has been specializing in Electrical, and 25 years in avionics. I have and currently work maintenance control, and have worked in the maintenance department of 5 airlines, 3 majors and 2 regional airlines.

One thing I do believe we agree on is to close this debate. No winner here, but we have sure spread some info. All the best to you.. I am sure we will find another topic in the future.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Under orders, yes, they will say what they are told to say. I firmly believe that. I do not accept the findings, and I believe it to be a total fabrication to slam a perfect plane in the name of protecting America from further harm.

I would further say that for that scenario to have happened, it would have resulted in multiple wiring failures. 1.) Fuel Tank wiring would have had to been faulty... If it were, the indicators would have been incorrect. 2.) Another wiring fault inside the fuselage and 3rd a non related wiring fault at the same time inside the fuselage. If this had been the case, there would have been a spike (either up or down) just prior to the explosion, and the crew would have immediately seen a drop or severe rise in fuel quantity. They did recover the FDR and nothing was there to show this. If there had been, it would have been true proof. That did not happen.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware
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