SINGAPORE: Singapore Airlines (SIA) and Scoot have checked the fuel switches of the Boeing 787 aircraft in their fleets, SIA said on Tuesday (Jul 15).
This comes after the release of a preliminary report on Jul 12 into the Air India crash last month that killed 260 people, which thrust Boeing engine fuel cutoff switches into the spotlight.
The report showed that the crash occurred because the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner’s fuel control switches were moved from the "run" to "cutoff" position, starving the engines of fuel.
It raised the question of how the switches could have been flipped, given the design of these controls.
In response to CNA queries, SIA said: “As a precautionary measure, SIA and Scoot have carried out and completed checks on the fuel switches of the Boeing 787 aircraft in our fleet.”
“The safety of our customers and staff is our top priority,” it added.
CNA has contacted SIA to ask about the outcome of the checks, as well as the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) for comment.
SIA’s move follows that of other airlines inspecting the fuel switches of their own fleet.
India on Monday ordered its airlines to examine fuel switches on several Boeing models after several Indian and international airlines began making their own inspections.
South Korea said it would order a similar measure, while Japan’s JAL said it would “implement any necessary inspections based on its findings”.
On Sunday, citing a document and sources, Reuters reported that the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Boeing have privately issued notifications that the fuel switch locks on Boeing planes are safe.
The FAA's notification to Civil Aviation Authorities, seen by Reuters, said: "Although the fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models, the FAA does not consider this issue to be an unsafe condition that would warrant an Airworthiness Directive on any Boeing airplane models, including the Model 787."
The preliminary report showed that the switches to the engines were moved from the “run” to the “cutoff” position almost simultaneously which starved the engines of fuel.
In the cockpit recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he cutoff the engine. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.
The plane quickly began to lose altitude.
The report did not say how the switches could have flipped during the flight.
Both switches transitioned back from “cutoff” to “run” seconds later, but it was too late to stop the plane’s descent.
In a 2018 advisory, the FAA had recommended, but did not mandate, operators of several Boeing models, including the 787, to inspect the locking feature of the fuel cutoff switches to ensure they could not be moved accidentally.
The Air India preliminary report said the airline had not carried out the FAA’s suggested inspections as it was not a mandate.
In an internal memo on Monday, Air India CEO Campbell Wilson said that the investigation into the crash is “far from over”.
He added that the airline is open to further inquiries and warned against “premature conclusions”.
Continue reading...
This comes after the release of a preliminary report on Jul 12 into the Air India crash last month that killed 260 people, which thrust Boeing engine fuel cutoff switches into the spotlight.
The report showed that the crash occurred because the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner’s fuel control switches were moved from the "run" to "cutoff" position, starving the engines of fuel.
It raised the question of how the switches could have been flipped, given the design of these controls.
In response to CNA queries, SIA said: “As a precautionary measure, SIA and Scoot have carried out and completed checks on the fuel switches of the Boeing 787 aircraft in our fleet.”
“The safety of our customers and staff is our top priority,” it added.
CNA has contacted SIA to ask about the outcome of the checks, as well as the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) for comment.
Related:
SIA’s move follows that of other airlines inspecting the fuel switches of their own fleet.
India on Monday ordered its airlines to examine fuel switches on several Boeing models after several Indian and international airlines began making their own inspections.
South Korea said it would order a similar measure, while Japan’s JAL said it would “implement any necessary inspections based on its findings”.
On Sunday, citing a document and sources, Reuters reported that the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Boeing have privately issued notifications that the fuel switch locks on Boeing planes are safe.
The FAA's notification to Civil Aviation Authorities, seen by Reuters, said: "Although the fuel control switch design, including the locking feature, is similar on various Boeing airplane models, the FAA does not consider this issue to be an unsafe condition that would warrant an Airworthiness Directive on any Boeing airplane models, including the Model 787."
THE REPORT
The preliminary report showed that the switches to the engines were moved from the “run” to the “cutoff” position almost simultaneously which starved the engines of fuel.
In the cockpit recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why he cutoff the engine. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.
The plane quickly began to lose altitude.
The report did not say how the switches could have flipped during the flight.
Both switches transitioned back from “cutoff” to “run” seconds later, but it was too late to stop the plane’s descent.
In a 2018 advisory, the FAA had recommended, but did not mandate, operators of several Boeing models, including the 787, to inspect the locking feature of the fuel cutoff switches to ensure they could not be moved accidentally.
The Air India preliminary report said the airline had not carried out the FAA’s suggested inspections as it was not a mandate.
In an internal memo on Monday, Air India CEO Campbell Wilson said that the investigation into the crash is “far from over”.
He added that the airline is open to further inquiries and warned against “premature conclusions”.
Related:
Continue reading...