It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Boeing said it worked closely with the FAA to monitor the fleet for potential safety issues and take appropriate actions. But it said the 777-200ER Malaysia Airlines aircraft did not have that antenna installed and was not subject to the FAA order.
Thus, Boeing did not heed the 16inch crack as warning to check forgeign 777s- just the US ones.
reply to post by gardener
Airplanes are subject to how the owner maintains it...no one forces them though which is the crime, you can't pull a plane over...
Boeing isn't to blame here, they tell the owner how they see the older planes failing and the owner is supposed to correct the issue with a licensed mechanic, similar to auto's only way more expensive.
One slight problem is that Boeing is not responsible for aircraft maintenance other than the aircraft version of a recall. Maintenance is performed by the owner or a company hired by the owning entity.
The reason I created this thread is to address their excuse as to why the MH370 flight's 777 was not inspected.
Boeing gave the reason as that it does not have the antennae installed, and was not subject to the FAA order.
Well, guess what? Boeing does have a SATCOM antennae installed in that location!
'a' but not 'the'
Big difference? Remains to be seen; they could have said they don't have the type of SATCOM antennae referenced in FAA directive, but instead they simply say they don't have the antennae and are not subject to the FAA order.
Which begs the question, what's the likelihood they are now inspecting their fleet in that area even though they have different antennas installed NOW? =D