4 ms·

How do we know the FAA hasn’t taken no notice? Does the whistleblower present any evidence? How about the air carriers? Do they fail to test their systems durin

How do we know the FAA hasn’t taken no notice? Does the whistleblower present any evidence? How about the air carriers? Do they fail to test their systems during their frequent inspections? One requirement of an air carrier certificate is that they have to check this stuff and sign off on it.

chopin 7y ago
What I know from how an oxygen generator works, you cannot reliably test those destruction free. So you would have to take some out and trigger them. I would be reluctant to believe that this is the procedure.
- eecc 7y ago
  Randomizes destructive testing is a perfectly fine and established procedure.
  - chopin 7y ago
    Yes, I know, but is this the required procedure for this part? It's definitely more expensive than some visual or electrical inspections. That's why I said I'm reluctant that this is the procedure.
    - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
      > Yes, I know, but is this the required procedure for this part? Please stick to working on front end UI. You scare me.
- soapboxrocket 7y ago
  The 787 doesn't use generators, they use sealed single use oxygen cylinders. This is a newer version of the 787 system https://www.rockwellcollins.com/Products-and-Services/Commercial-Aviation/Cabin-Interiors/Oxygen-and-PSU-Systems/Passenger-Oxygen-Systems/PulseOx-passenger-oxygen-system.aspx https://www.rockwellcollins.com/Products-and-Services/Commer...
  - chopin 7y ago
    Thanks. However if they are sealed I would assume that you can't test them destruction free, either.
    - soapboxrocket 7y ago
      Yes and no. There is a BIT for each unit, (now I don't know the exact details, but this is how I understand/remember it) but the pyrotechnic devices is tested by running a low level current through it to see if it has been fired/failed. The actual seal is verified via testing prior to aircraft certification, and checked in production using helium.

chopin 7y ago

What I know from how an oxygen generator works, you cannot reliably test those destruction free. So you would have to take some out and trigger them. I would be reluctant to believe that this is the procedure.

eecc 7y ago
Randomizes destructive testing is a perfectly fine and established procedure.
- chopin 7y ago
  Yes, I know, but is this the required procedure for this part? It's definitely more expensive than some visual or electrical inspections. That's why I said I'm reluctant that this is the procedure.
  - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
    > Yes, I know, but is this the required procedure for this part? Please stick to working on front end UI. You scare me.
soapboxrocket 7y ago
The 787 doesn't use generators, they use sealed single use oxygen cylinders. This is a newer version of the 787 system https://www.rockwellcollins.com/Products-and-Services/Commercial-Aviation/Cabin-Interiors/Oxygen-and-PSU-Systems/Passenger-Oxygen-Systems/PulseOx-passenger-oxygen-system.aspx https://www.rockwellcollins.com/Products-and-Services/Commer...
- chopin 7y ago
  Thanks. However if they are sealed I would assume that you can't test them destruction free, either.
  - soapboxrocket 7y ago
    Yes and no. There is a BIT for each unit, (now I don't know the exact details, but this is how I understand/remember it) but the pyrotechnic devices is tested by running a low level current through it to see if it has been fired/failed. The actual seal is verified via testing prior to aircraft certification, and checked in production using helium.