FAA compromises on safety standard to benefit 787

[globetrotter]

The stringent fuel spark risk safety measures imposed after the TWA crash of 1996 has been loosed as it cannot be applied on 787 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... cation=rss

[matey11]

Just to clarify these are standards only for the USA as you will find only the Inerting system on aicrafts flying into the united states. Easa also have such a program but its far more relax then the rules FAA lays down. So no panic I would say.

[globetrotter]

Anyways the hypocricy of that nation has no limits it seems.

[regi]

well, it will last untill holes appear in the fuselage as with this B-737.
http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/960/Buitenland ... -737.dhtml
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/04/02/ar ... l?hpt=Sbin

[RedTail707]

Anyways the hypocricy of that nation has no limits it seems.

Wow, such a mature attitude, thats like someone saying all "Eurotrash " are bad people !,
anyway the 787 will be as safe any other aircraft flying, once it completes all certification.

[AVION1]

anyway the 787 will be as safe any other aircraft flying, once it completes all certification.

Naif......

[AVION1]

Anyways the hypocricy of that nation has no limits it seems.

+1

[RoMax]

I don't really get why some of you are so negative about this decision. To be clear, the EASA doesn't use this strict rule and everytime the FAA certifies a new aircraft they have to make an exeption on this rule because until now not any aircraft has ever been able to meet this (relatively new) rule. To give an exemple from Airbus. The A380 doesn't meet this rule either, but why didn't you ever heard something about that, because the A380 was certified before this strict rule was in use and because the EASA rules are not that strict as the FAA rules.

But yes, I would say there are things wich could be better. Like the fuel-tank inerting system wich is very effective to avoid fire in a fuel tank. And the system used on the B787 is very innovative and is working great. But despite recommendations of Boeing the FAA rules don't require this system full time. When the system is broken the aircraft can fly for 10 more days, Boeing didn't like that either but they can only make recommendations, it's the FAA wich makes the rules. This is not a fundamental safety system, but the FAA rule should be more strict here. Other issues with the B787 design are are already solved. And the B787's structural protection is tested like never ever happened before, exactly because of the doubts about the safety of the B787.

So my conclusion is: the B787 is as "unsafe" as any other flying object. And until we have found 'the magical safety system' every flying/floating/driving will stay "unsafe".