Speculation: 787 Fire Caused by Errant Tool?

Let's see - tails hitting the rnwy upon landing, engine fires, cracked cockpit windshield,
engine failure,,,,wow! Its safe to fly alright.

Just spoke with a career certfied jet aircraft repairman - he does not care for the drive by wire - either.

"NOVA" on PBS did a report on loss of Air France 447 - overload/erronious readings by fly-by-wire CPUs...

The 777 is fly by wire with many successful years flying without fatalities.

So what does a mechanic (I am also a aircraft mechanic) know about fly-by-wire. Think about it. I am a test pilot for my airline on a fly-by-wire aircraft. Did you know that the airplane I fly does not need the fly-by-wire to continue to fly. Oh by the way, it's an Airbus.

If this being the case of a tool in a cabinet, did Boeing get rid of there QA, which is what they have been trying to do for years..

As I recall, NASA found a tool inside a panel in one of the Apollo capsules during a teardown after the Apollo 1 fire, although I didn't find it with a couple quick googles. I did find "The Ingress-Egress Log disclosed several instances where tools and equipment were carried into the spacecraft, but the log did not indicate these items had been removed." and a finding that "Inspection personnel did not perform a prescheduled inspection with a checklist before hatch closing."

has anyone else noticed the continued use of the word 'errant' in the titles of articles the past few days. guess the editor learned a new word last week.

Can you say the word ASAP. Appears as a Mechanic and Assigned inspector may need to file one. As a mechanic/Avionics Tech, I know allot about fly by wire, and I would have to say that I am a little uncomfortable with it. With all the computers driving these things and I know they have redundant systems to drive and backup redundant systems, but none the less, and old saying comes to mind: "To Error is human, to really screw up requires the use of a computer". I know every day I work with FCC's, FMA's, ADC's, and many other pieces of avionics. Even though I know it relieves cockpit workload, does it also make us too dependant on them as well. Take Air Canada with a fuel qty mel due to a computer, and ran out of fuel on a 767, Forget the airline, but in south america, entered the wrong data into an FMS and headed off to the wrong airport (Preformed a perfect CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain), Another Captain flying both IRS's on BOTH on 1 and #1 IRS Failed (BTW, IRS 2 was good, switch was in wrong position by mistake.) Rolled on to his back on a 737, nosed into a mountain. Computers don't always help us!