Boeing 777 faults

rocky


Joined: 17/10/2007
Posts: 1749

Message Posted:
13/03/2009 18:15

Can you believe it that they have identified a fault in the 777 which has caused two incidents. As the modified part from Rolls Royce will not be available for twelve months they have decided to continue to fly the planes rather than withdraw them... Does this make sense?

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
13/03/2009 18:31

not to you and i , but they will have calculated the risk factor??

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
13/03/2009 18:43

Hi Rowlo re msg 2



are you as much of an aviation power unit expert as you are on the Cyprus Q ?



Anyway.. here's a link re the Rolls Royce Trents fitted to 777's



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7941137.stm



Post edited. AJ

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11280

Message Posted:
13/03/2009 20:50

RE msg 1, rocky >>> Can you believe it that ***they*** have identified a fault in the 777 which has caused two incidents. As the modified part from Rolls Royce will not be available for twelve months ***they*** have decided to continue to fly the planes rather than withdraw them... Does this make sense? <<<



===> No, indeed, your posting doesn't make sense: ***they***, ***they***, ***they***. Who are ***they***? Postings like this one are just cheap gossip when you don't give the source to check. It happens time and time again on this board.

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
13/03/2009 20:56

Post edited. AJ

Tootie


Joined: 28/08/2008
Posts: 2037

Message Posted:
13/03/2009 20:58

LOL! This thread is going well and its friday, Calm down folks its still early. Ha Ha



toot

Coachie



Joined: 29/07/2008
Posts: 2135

Message Posted:
13/03/2009 21:25

dutch crusader..It is the NTSB in the US who have made this claim.I cannot give you a link cos I read in the papers.Can only recall one episode,unless the other was in the US..

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
13/03/2009 21:29

Tootie, it'll get worse later, when they all get home from a Friday night out. Stick around ))

Coachie



Joined: 29/07/2008
Posts: 2135

Message Posted:
13/03/2009 21:45

Perhaps a bit of Concorde technology from the 60,s is required.Concorde used to fly at altitudes between 50-60000 ft wher it is a little colder than 40000ft that the current planes fly at.Because she was flying supersonic the skin used to get quite hot,so they used to pump the fuel around the varios tanks whic in turn kept the skin cooler and it pre heated the fuel prior to going into the engines.Never heard of Concorde having any icing in the fuel systems...

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
13/03/2009 21:49

why cant they adopt the nasa technology ???

rocky


Joined: 17/10/2007
Posts: 1749

Message Posted:
13/03/2009 23:30

DC you are always complaining it must be those clogs your postings are hardly inspiring and message three covered the point adequately with the reference point. Although I could have added it initially I overlooked that deliberately and was purley seeking views. If you can read and follow the news you should have seen it anyway and not need the link. Your postings are very repetative in critising others.

rocky


Joined: 17/10/2007
Posts: 1749

Message Posted:
13/03/2009 23:32

by the way dc your posting also added the usual nil value

rocky


Joined: 17/10/2007
Posts: 1749

Message Posted:
13/03/2009 23:35

dc would you prefer the name of the individuals who identified the problem or the body they are employed by just so I know for my next posting.