曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
integrity of the airframe is maintained and to incorporate
maintenance and inspection programs that follow industry best
practices and are FAA approved
[COMMENT 1 directed at Boeing] What about poor initial design?
Also, visual inspection was shown to inadequate to detect the type of
flaws that water may cause. Such as insulation cracking
[COMMENT 2 directed at Boeing] Are visual inspections sufficient
to give a complete picture of whether moisture is or has been present
in wiring? The intrusive inspections showed that visual inspections
do not work to discern the majority of wiring flaws.
With this is mind it seems negligent and wrong to take the position
that visual inspection is the “preferred NDT inspection method”
knowing that it does not work to discern the majority of wiring flaws
including and especially detecting flaws, nicks and cuts within a wire
bundle or under clamps, loss of continuity problems, and sometimes
does not reveal heat or arcing damage in wire insulation.
Though detailed visual inspections are an improvement, there are
many testing procedures and devices available today that go beyond
that. There should be no further delay in evaluating and incorporating
proven NDTs in wire inspection and maintenance programs
Furthermore, ALPA raises the issue that not all aircraft in need have
drip shields. Is this a manufacturer issue or an operator issue? Does
the OEM agree with this assessment?
OWNER REMARKS: OEM P3
The use of general and detailed visual inspections of wiring installed
in airplanes remains the preferred method of detecting actual or the
potential for damage to wiring. This preference accounts for the
present level of diagnostic equipment available to the industry, the
needs of the industry, and the potential for undetected damage to
result in failure. The OEMs vehemently disagree that this preference
is either negligent or wrong given the present options. However, as
stated previously, the OEMs continue to consider NDT methods
other than visual inspections as a method of identifying actual or
potential wiring faults.
In addition, the OEMs expect that the enhanced zonal analysis
process (EZAP) will likely both determine whether general or
detailed visual inspections are sufficient, and will likely result in
identification of post-delivery wiring installations and specify any
resultant wiring inspections.
8 April 19 2002 35
With regard to the comment regarding wiring protection, as with any
component installed on the airplane, except as cited within the
Configuration Deviation List contained within the Dispatch
Deviations Procedures Guide, they are required to be installed on the
airplane during revenue service. It is the responsibility of each
operator to ensure that the design integrity of the airframe is properly
maintained and to incorporate maintenance and inspection programs
that follow industry best maintenance practices. The OEM’s believe
that, although there exists the possibility that some protection may
have been inadvertently omitted on airlines undergoing extensive
modification, we believe that the existing maintenance procedures in
place at the airlines would dictate that such omissions would be rare.
We also believe that the effects of such an omission would be minor
in scope but still recognizable through normal or enhanced
maintenance activities.
Operators should use the guidance provided in the forthcoming
wiring inspection programs, coupled with the guidance contained
within the OEM standard wiring practices documents to either
identify damage caused from missing drip or heat shields, or identify
the conditions that would necessitate protection.
Finally, with regard to the comment concerning the installation of
post-delivery modifications, OEM design practices, and the resulting
guidance used to maintain those designs, are proprietary to the OEM.
The requirement to use these practices and procedures for designs
created by entities other than the OEM is inappropriate. However,
operators and STC applicants can consult the ESWPM for guidelines
in developing post-delivery modifications.
As far as post-delivery modifications are concerned, Airbus is
currently reviewing the ESPM content related to wire routing and
segregation and will include in the ESPM guidance and
recommendations in case of new wiring installation after delivery to
the aircraft.
2e3 OEM Investigate use of nondestructive testing to trouble-shoot suspect
wire installations. Review sources of potential contamination
Boeing - Presently available NDT/troubleshooting methods are
provided within the specific airplane maintenance manual chapter
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
航空资料20(43)
