FAA - Boeing 737 "Emergency Airworthiness Directive"

[Must...Fly!]

EMERGENCY inspections of 600 Boeing 737 planes are being conducted worldwide following concerns a faulty mechanism could render the aircraft uncontrollable.

Australian carriers Qantas and Virgin Blue have been affected by an “emergency airworthiness directive” issued by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding the issue, but insist passengers won’t be affected by the checks.

The order was issued following an incident on March 2 when a Ryanair 737-800 en route from the Netherlands to Madrid experienced severe vibrations and had to make an unscheduled landing in Belgium.

Extensive damage to the left elevator, a movable flap on the horizontal tail that controls the pitch of the airplane, was found.

The FAA is now concerned the “unsafe condition” is “likely to exist or develop on other planes of the same type design”, the airworthiness directive stated.

“Severe vibration in this attach point is suspected of allowing rapid wear of the joint, and resulted in failure of the attach lugs,” Ali Bahrami, Manager of Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, said in the order.

“This condition, if not corrected, could result in a loss of aircraft control and structural integrity.”
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority confirmed the FAA order will apply to Australian carriers Qantas and Virgin Blue.

Only seven of 41 Qantas 737s affected by the order will need to be checked within the 12 day period, Qantas spokesman Tom Woodward said.

“We don’t expect it will affect operations at all. Passengers won’t be delayed,” Mr Woodward said.
The remaining 737 fleet will be checked according to Qantas’s normal aircraft maintenance timetable.

Virgin Blue operates around 30 737-800 aircraft as well as a large number of the 737-700s.
Boeing spokeswoman Sandy Angers said the company supports the FAA’s order and remains committed to the safety of its aircraft.

“The interim measures serve to ensure that safety continues at the highest levels while we work diligently to determine a permanent resolution for this issue,” Ms Angers said.

The directive affects approximately 600 Next-Generation 737s, Ms Angers said.

The order applies to Boeing 737-600, 700, 700C, 800, 900 and 900ER series planes.

The planes must be inspected within 12 to 30 days.

Emergency checks for Qantas, Virgin Blue 737 planes | News.com.au

Gotta have a chuckle at the incorrect punctuation towards the end of the article!

And the first comment is;

another reason why I will only fly with carriers who operate Airbus planes

Tempted to write a scathing reply to that idiotic statement. Airbus' list is as long as Boeing's...

 

[samh004]

A decent photo on the article too

good to see action has been taken from the original incident very quickly.

 

[tuppaware]

They didn't want to have another one of those 'Rudder' Freeze and Reversal problems they had in the late 90's and early 2000. It was something like 4 crashes because the problem wasn't identified.

We all know that the 737 is one of the safest planes in the world.

 

[harvyk]

Tempted to write a scathing reply to that idiotic statement. Airbus' list is as long as Boeing's...

I wouldn't bother replying... No news is well known for allowing idiot statements through whilst quickly blocking any reasonable arguement.

As for this issue, meh. I'm sure that on every plane flying the world there are hundreds of yet to be identified issues and any one of them could cause the plane to fall from the sky, on the 737 there is now only 99 other issues which are waiting to be identified. That said, planes don't fall from the sky on a daily basis, thus I have no problem hopping onto them.

 

[markis10]

Its a wonder nonews did not try to tie it to the engine out at CBR:

Qantas 737-400 from Melbourne makes one-engine landing at Canberra Airport | Herald Sun

It was after all a "hair-raising experience"

 

[harvyk]

Its a wonder nonews did not try to tie it to the engine out at CBR:

Qantas 737-400 from Melbourne makes one-engine landing at Canberra Airport | Herald Sun

It was after all a "hair-raising experience"

Gee, I would have thought that would have been an almost wet dream for nonews... A qantas plane in an emergency landing after a engine shut down, and pax who are happy to say how happy they are they survived. It's almost a trifecta.

 

[mannej]

The comments regarding Airbus v Boeing are fairly amusing

 

[Must...Fly!]

The comments regarding Airbus v Boeing are fairly amusing

Aren't they just?

Jess I have never heard of an aircraft engineer who doesn't want to fly on a Boeing but you'd be surprised at the number who won't go near an Airbus - irrespective of whether it's an A330 or A320. What are your other reasons (besides today's article) for only choosing to fly on Airbus aircraft?

lol?

and harvyk - i didnt bother putting anything in...waste of time.

 

[anat0l]

I just flew 4 737s last weekend.

I've had more chance of being killed due to being hit by a bus, a tropical cyclone, or a falling coconut.

In any case, I suppose I shouldn't laugh or humour - this is rather serious. Since it doesn't affect the entire fleet of 737s, it must be due to a batch or a part with particular date etc.

The article never mentioned how many DJ planes were affected. Surely not their entire fleet, of course.

 

[harvyk]

The article never mentioned how many DJ planes were affected. Surely not their entire fleet, of course.

I liked how they gave an approx number of DJ 737-800's, but then just said "a large number of 737-700's" It's almost like the writer person (can't use the word journalist when it come to nonews) did a 30 second google search for facts and then gave up, as who really cares about details once the initial (and appropriate) fear has set into the mind of the ill-informed (but absolute armchair traveller) reader.

 

[openseat]

They didn't want to have another one of those 'Rudder' Freeze and Reversal problems they had in the late 90's and early 2000. It was something like 4 crashes because the problem wasn't identified.

We all know that the 737 is one of the safest planes in the world.

Was that the problem where 737s would suddenly invert and the tail was blamed?

 

[samh004]

The article never mentioned how many DJ planes were affected. Surely not their entire fleet, of course.

I liked how they gave an approx number of DJ 737-800's, but then just said "a large number of 737-700's" It's almost like the writer person (can't use the word journalist when it come to nonews) did a 30 second google search for facts and then gave up, as who really cares about details once the initial (and appropriate) fear has set into the mind of the ill-informed (but absolute armchair traveller) reader.

According to wikipedia:

21 737-700’s and 33 737-800’s.

Wasn’t hard at all!

 

[anat0l]

According to wikipedia:

21 737-700’s and 33 737-800’s.

Wasn’t hard at all!

Errr....that's the total number of 737s (of each type) that DJ has.

I'm talking about the fact that the article mentions how many QF 737s are affected by this FAA directive, but a similar estimate or number is not given for DJ.

Unless the whole DJ fleet is being affected, but I doubt that.

 

[harvyk]

According to wikipedia:

21 737-700’s and 33 737-800’s.

Wasn’t hard at all!

No it's not, it just screems sloppy journalism, something that can be confirmed with 30 seconds in front of a computer, and yet they didn't bother. Makes me wonder what other details they failed to check up on...

 

[samh004]

Errr....that's the total number of 737s (of each type) that DJ has.

I'm talking about the fact that the article mentions how many QF 737s are affected by this FAA directive, but a similar estimate or number is not given for DJ.

Unless the whole DJ fleet is being affected, but I doubt that.

But the article states that:

The order applies to Boeing 737-600, 700, 700C, 800, 900 and 900ER series planes.

Seeing as, according to wikipedia, DJ only operates 737-700’s and 737-800’s, then it is the entire DJ fleet, no?

Other than Embraer’s of course.

 

[tuppaware]

But the article states that:



Seeing as, according to wikipedia, DJ only operates 737-700’s and 737-800’s, then it is the entire DJ fleet, no?

Other than Embraer’s of course.

The air worthiness directive might only apply to parts in a period of time. If for example if the part had been serviced within x-time and replaced with a newer brand of part then the safety warning might not mean anything.

Was that the problem where 737s would suddenly invert and the tail was blamed?

Yeah, Boeing 737 rudder issues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the course of the investigation of Flight 427, the NTSB discovered that the PCU's dual servo valve could jam as well as deflect the rudder in the opposite direction of the pilots' input, due to thermal shock, caused when cold PCUs are injected with hot hydraulic fluid. As a result of this find, the FAA ordered that the servo valves be replaced and that new training protocol for pilots to handle unexpected movement of flight controls be develope

 

[medhead]

Errr....that's the total number of 737s (of each type) that DJ has.

I'm talking about the fact that the article mentions how many QF 737s are affected by this FAA directive, but a similar estimate or number is not given for DJ.

Unless the whole DJ fleet is being affected, but I doubt that.

The artilce says that the whole qantas fleet is affected so I'd say it is safe to assume that the whole DJ fleet is also affected

Only seven of 41 Qantas 737s affected by the order will need to be checked within the 12 day period

41 aircraft are affected and 7 have to be checked within 12 days. Qantas website tells me they have 41 737-800s.

 

[markis10]

According to wikipedia:

21 737-700’s and 33 737-800’s.

Wasn’t hard at all!

Wikipedia should never be used as an authoritive source as its only as good as the information it gets loaded with:

Virgin Blue operates a fleet of 53 Next Generation Boeing 737
Virgin Blue Our Fleet

PLanespotters and other links show a varying fleet, its late but I counted 58 on the aircraft register, so perhaps thats why the fleet numbers were so vague.

 

[Flying Fox]

A decent photo on the article too

good to see action has been taken from the original incident very quickly.

The laws of probabilities say that they would have to get the pic correct eventually