after a catalogue of incidents, the FAA yesterday issued an Airworthiness Directive which requires all Air Safety Administrations to adhere to ( the same if an Airworthiness Directive had been issued by any other Administration). The effect is to ground every single 787 around the Globe until serious Safety Issues have been addressed.
Boeing keep putting out reports that the Aircraft is Safe, but myself, as an Aerospace Functional Safety Consultant, and all of my Colleagues affirm, some of these incidents are serious enough to have grounded the Fleet days ago.
The focus currently is on the Lithium Ion batteries, that on this aircraft are the sole mitigation if the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) should fail... and do not forget that the battery backup on these airliners are Safety Critical because evrything (all control and Control Surfaces) are dependent on electrical energy for activation.
The fuel leak just a week ago, was highlighted as a potential Safety Critical situation by the FAA to Boeing, before the leak ocurred. Boeings response to this was lazy at best, criminal if their had been an accident as a result.
We all expect "teething problems" when a new aircraft enters service (I refer to the Airbus A380), but not when there is a catalogue of potentially catastrophic failures in such a short period of time.
I have to ask: Where in the Safety Case were these Failure Modes captured? Where are the Fault Tree Analysis', WHO signed off the Analysis as being comprehensive, WHO signed off the Functional Hazard Analysis', WHAT Trade - Offs were accepted by the FAA, ...
The FAA and EASA, CAA, must ALL have accepted the Boeing Safety Case - were they lied to, was contradictory - data withheld??
I, for one, would love to see the Safety Case presented by Boeing to the Certification Authorities, because I am certain that I could find the errors, no matter how well hidden...
I would like to hear the viewpoint of MID and 747-400 on these issues if they are around
Edited by keithisco, 17 January 2013 - 05:02 PM.