Back to Squawk list
  • 11

FAA requires Boeing 777 operators to inspect pitch rate sensors

A new airworthiness directive issued by the US Federal Aviation Administration requires Boeing 777 operators to inspect and potentially replace the aircraft's dual pitch rate sensors (PRS). The directive, which applies to 777-200LRs, -300s, -300ERs and 777 freighters, comes in response to reports received by the agency of dual failures of the sensors. ( 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

jbqwik 4
regards the Asiana incident.. decades ago it took equal parts courage, intelligence, enthusiasm and skill to pilot a plane. Software automation has slowly, inexorably dulled and distorted those requirements. IMO it's not the sensors, it's the (millions) lines of code that should be removed and *not replaced. Get back to more hands-on. If we could fly planes like the B-36, B-58 (et al) then surely a twin jet can't be out of the question.
Apologize for my rant: Damn coffee maker stopped working :-(
I don't see how this directive is connected to the Asiana 214 accident.
preacher1 1
Read the tail end of the article
Yes, I was referring to the article. The airworthiness directive is about PRS failures that cause autopilot disconnect. How is that related to Asiana 214? Additionally, the AD doesn't even affect 200ERs. Poorly written article IMHO.
preacher1 2
About the last paragraph and some is devoted to the 214 dummies, laying that off as a possible cause. Anybody with any Boeing time at all has known about that and the various modes. Those so called pilots are just grasping at straws and by doing this, the FAA just opens up a lawsuit patch to Boeing when none was there. The AD does not mandate replacement, just inspection and replace if necessary. Bunch of BS as these are items of regular inspection anyway.
preacher1 1
It's kinda like the knee jerk 1500 hour rule after the Colgan crash, if it hadn't been for the crash, it wouldn't be there.
preacher1 3
I guess something had to come out of the 214 crash to cover the Dummies butts that we in the pointy end of the thing and open up a channel for Boeing to get the lawsuits easier.
linbb 1
Now now, you know soon that all the news outlets will be on the side of those poor pilots that for no reason, LOL, you called dummies. The grand jury verdict and the forthcoming violence to follow may overshadow this though. I fully agree about the lack of pilot training that goes on at times and that is what needs to be addressed fully. Biggest thing about the Colgan crash was the pay scale that didn't allow pilots to be paid a decent wage. Had a flight instructor that flew for a local carrier that received food stamps due to his wages.
preacher1 1
The AD is for inspection only, repair if needed, and would have been done anyway. It only came to the forefront because of these jobobs on 214 that had no business being in the pointy end of a 777 anyway making excuses. It just gives a quicker lawsuit channel to Boeing now, however frivolous.
Article only mentions the Asiana incident, doesn't say AD was issued in response to that situation. The Federal Register makes no mention of the Asiana accident. The Asiana pilots apparently did not understand the autothrottle. The AD involves sensors that could affect the autopilot. Correlation does not imply causation...


還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!