3 ms·

> You would be shocked to learn how many faults an aircraft can have at a given time and still be allowed to take off. Yep. Next time you fly, look through the

> You would be shocked to learn how many faults an aircraft can have at a given time and still be allowed to take off. Yep. Next time you fly, look through the cockpit door as you board for maintenance tag-outs -- usually red flags with 'INOP' labeling, most likely on the circuit breaker panels above the pilots. The Gimli Glider incident occurred partially because of a circuit breaker tag-out in the 767 fuel quantity indicator system. Aircraft manufacturers and regulators produce a Minimum Equipment List which stipulates what is required for flight. If you get your hands on one for the plane you're on, you might be surprised to discover what _isn't_ on it and what is permitted to fail. It's heavy, but here's an older American MEL for the 737 family: http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/mmel/b-737%20r54a.pdf http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/mmel/b-737%20r54a.pdf Pages 35-1 and 35-2 offer some interesting reading about the passenger oxygen system, for example.

jdsully 7y ago
In the Gimli glider case the aircraft wasn't legally allowed to take off. The pilots also deferred the decision on whether to take off to the maintenance crew who are not the ones authorized to make that decision. The pilots were initially demoted because of that but were restored due to public pressure. There was mitigating circumstances though, the procedures were frequently being revised (the 767 was brand new) and previously it had been permissible to take off without a fuel indicator. None of this takes away from the huge achievement of their landing. Simulator runs show the landing was near impossible. Had Captain Pearson not been an experienced glider pilot its likely they would have ditched in the river, and the historical survivability of water landings are not good.