Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:45 From: "john r." <firstname.lastname@example.org> Organization: silence References: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1998.1213@ohare.Chicago.COM>, C. Marin Faure <email@example.com> writes > However, I wouldn't be surprised if >the 747's system has by now incorporated many of the improvements >introduced on the 777. The 747 CMC is nothing like as comprenhensive as the 777. It will stay that way untill a major upgrade of the 747 - a long awy off I hope. >We recently interviewed the maintenance director of an Asian 777 >operator. He told us, "We also operate the Airbus A320, which is a very >advanced, computerized airplane. The A320 can identify which system has a >problem. But the 777 can identify which PART has a problem. This makes >it very easy for us to keep the airplane flying." Oooh er, I wander how often the maintenance director has actually used the system? While the 777 is much better than the 747-400 and neither plane can be maintained without the CMC, both suffer from a nasty habit of "forgetting" defects. I guess they are considered low grade and so are dumped once the defect is cleared but it undermines your confidence when somone has seen the message and the plane wont admit to it. I ask my guys to record anything befor they try to clear, so we know where to start, next time. As for positive identification, its difficult to know if its the unit faulted or the unit that identifies the fault. The 777 is better in this. -- john r.