Re: TWA Flt800 - Boeing Comments on Fuel Tank?

Date:         06 Jan 97 01:47:45 
From:         riffraff@eskimo.com (David R. Hendrickson)
Organization: Seattle - It's not Hell, but you can see it from here!
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1996.3118@ohare.Chicago.COM>, "Bilal Yousuf"
<Bilal-yousuf@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> In article <airliners.1996.2884@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Heath Smith
> <heath@ismi.net> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone tell me what the latest comments are out of Boeing regaurding
> > the NTSB suggestion that the main fuel tank was "possibly" ingnited by
> > static electricity?
> >
> Boeing's position is that all sources of energy are desiged out of the fuel
> system by way of proper grounding, jumper wires etc. I believe they are
> right, but ground jumper wires and protective designs are never restored to
> their proper factory conditions in service.
>
> We mechanics are just not that carefull.

you really should speak for yourself.  *I* am and most mechanics i know ARE
that careful.

granted, maintenance manual service limits are different from factory
drawing limits, but they are FAA approved limits none-the-less.  if the
work you're doing isn't in limits then it should be fixed and if you're
signing off work that's not in limits per approved documents, you're asking
for trouble.  i've seen people lose their jobs over things that might be
considered trivial, but the FAA doesn't mess around when it comes to pencil
whipping...

please don't take this as a personal attack or a lecture.  with all media
attention these days on "maintenance personel" after an accident, i really
hate being a "we mechanic" and we mechanics must be careful, do our jobs
correctly and work "behind the scenes" as we always have.

dave

     David R. Hendrickson      riffraff@eskimo.com

     Making your life look better by comparison since 1967