Passenger wrote:sean1982 wrote:Passenger wrote:The press reports, the press calls it a serious incident, and you blame them -and those who agree with them- because the airworthiness was not at stake. No sir. It's the damned right of the press to report about aviation incidents that they regard as abnormal and unsafe. Not that long ago, a Dutch court even ruled that the press is indeed the public watchdog for such aviation incidents.
Sure ROFL. All they do is keep the misconceptions, that you support here so vividly, alive. But hey ... As long as the money from spectacular headlines rolls in ... Right? It has nothing to do with "being a watchdog" or even giving "correct information" (they cant even get the day right on this one), but generating money. Like every other commercial entity
Well, the final report states that it was a serious incident indeed. So it wasn't "a misconception" and a non-event, and the press was damned right to play public watchdog when an aircraft part falls out of the sky and authorities refuse to give details.
From the Final Safety Investigation Report:
Classification: Serious incident
Cause: The in-flight and undesired detachment of the LH inboard flap/inboard seal plate was due to the failure of the attachment bolts of the pno 67279-7 plate adaptor. This was caused by the use of NAS 517 bolts instead of the Boeing-prescribed BACB30NN5K23... Boeing engineering stated that there was no documentation generated by Boeing supporting the use of NAS517 bolts instead of BACB30NN5K23 bolts. Boeing have also reviewed the in-service communications and did not find any correspondence where Boeing allowed the use of NAS517 bolts instead of BACB30NN5K23 bolts in this installation."
Analysis: Boeing engineering stated that there was no documentation generated by Boeing supporting the use of NAS517 bolts instead of BACB30NN5K23 bolts. Boeing have also reviewed the in-service communications and did not find any correspondence where Boeing allowed the use of NAS517 bolts instead of BACB30NN5K23 bolts in this installation. Boeing has compared the NAS517 and BACB30NN5K23 bolts if used for the assembly of the 737 flap plate installation.
* These bolts are comparable in strength (160KSI-180KSI) and are similar in size.
* Boeing does not recommend using NAS517* instead of BACB30NN* bolts for exterior surface installations.
BACB30NN* is a titanium aluminum pigment coated fastener.
* NAS517 fastener is a Cadmium-plated alloy steel fastener. The Cadmium plating is a sacrificial coating (A corrosion prevention method in which a metal coating is subjected to preferential corrosion as a means of protecting the substrate metal).
* There is a potential for losing the Cadmium plating, which could result in corrosion and ultimately reducing bolt strength.
* The specified torque for the BACB30NN5K23 bolts in the 737 Flap plate installation is 150 in/lbs.
The close examination of the remaining bolt head shows the presence of corrosion and fatigue beach marks.
The maintenance program does not require a systematic removal of the plate adaptor pn 67279-7, and of the inboard flap, inboard seal plate. Therefore, these parts may remain installed for a very long period. Since the fasteners attaching the plate adaptor are hidden under the inboard flap, inboard seal plate, their deterioration can escape detection.
Safety message: AAIU(Be) advises the Belgian Part-147 Maintenance Training Organisations to use the content of this report to highlight the importance of following the IPC prescriptions when selecting fasteners.
Link - repeated:
http://mobilit.belgium.be/sites/default ... _final.pdf
It was a misconception that at any point the aicraft was in danger and so yes, pure scaremongering. In the lines off: Aircraft nearly crashes at it battles fierce winds at airport (and than you see a video of a go-around)
A serious incident is defined as:
An incident involving circumstances indicating that there was a high probability of an accident
An accident is defined as:
an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which:
b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:
dversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component
As this was only classed the as a serious incident, we can conclude that: yes the aircraft lost a piece. No, at no time was the aircrafts' structural strenght, performance and flight characteristics in danger and it didn't need major repair for it to get rectified. In other words, scaremongering. Official ICAO definitions btw, you're welcome
