In the article 'Cathay delay blamed for jet engine blaze' (South China Morning Post, February 7), your headline writer has arrived at a conclusion that is not even hinted at anywhere in the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department (CAD) report on the engine fire aboard CX289 on May 28, 1995. The CAD report does not refer to delays, nor does it attribute any blame to Cathay Pacific.
At no time prior to the incident was a mandatory requirement to replace the combustor liner and heatshield issued; a voluntary-compliance bulletin was issued and Cathay Pacific immediately began a programme to comply, as is standard procedure with these types of notices.
However, your reporter implies that foot-dragging by Cathay Pacific was the main cause of the incident.
What your reporter fails to mention is that the service bulletin recommended replacing the combustor liner and heatshield at the end of the normal lifespan of the part, and that both engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce and the CAD were quite happy for the continued operation of the earlier standard of combustor liner subject to satisfactory on-wing and workshop inspection programmes, with which Cathay Pacific fully complied. The nature of the incident with CX289 was completely outside previous industry experience and, thus, resulted in the mandatory service bulletin, with which Cathay Pacific is in compliance.
Cathay Pacific has shown no hesitation in the past to take drastic measures to ensure the reliability of its fleet and there is no question that safety will remain our highest priority.
C. F. KWAN Manager Corporate Communication Cathay Pacific
