Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 131

Thread: More 787 issues

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    297
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20988117

    I hope this is just the FAA being over cautious.

    As with all new technology, there will always be period of ironing out.

    Kev.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    956
    I can't find on the FAA or NTSB website information that says they are investigating the 787 other than the incident on the battery fire.

    Is it just the BBC putting two and two together?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    956
    Since my last post, this has been posted on the FAA website.

    Press Release – FAA Will Review Boeing 787 Design and Production

    WASHINGTON – In light of a series of recent events, the FAA will conduct a comprehensive review of the Boeing 787 critical systems, including the design, manufacture and assembly. The purpose of the review is to validate the work conducted during the certification process and further ensure that the aircraft meets the FAA’s high level of safety.

    “The safety of the traveling public is our top priority,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “This review will help us look at the root causes and do everything we can to safeguard against similar events in the future.”

    A team of FAA and Boeing engineers and inspectors will conduct this joint review, with an emphasis on the aircraft’s electrical power and distribution system. The review will also examine how the electrical and mechanical systems interact with each other.

    “We are confident that the aircraft is safe. But we need to have a complete understanding of what is happening," said FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta. "We are conducting the review to further ensure that the aircraft meets our high safety standards.”

    The review will be structured to provide a broader view of design, manufacturing and assembly and will not focus exclusively on individual events. The review is expected to begin in Seattle, but may expand to other locations over the course of several months.

    FAA technical experts logged 200,000 hours of work during the 787 type certification and flew on numerous test flights. The FAA reviews 787 in-service events as part of our continued operational safety process.

    United Airlines is currently the only U.S. airline operating the 787, with six airplanes in service. The worldwide in-service fleet includes 50 aircraft.

    http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...m?newsId=14213

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Fife, Scotland
    Posts
    11,203
    I wonder if any of these issues could have something to do with the aircraft being in long term storage before delivery? Weren't the first 30 or so frames completed and stored in Seattle pending certification? Could such storage perhaps have had some adverse effects on the failing components?
    Bmused55

    Keep thy airspeed up, less the earth come from below and smite thee.

    My Blog
    My Designs

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    956
    I'd very much doubt it, other aircraft are grounded and reinstated without drama. I doubt the stored B787's even had batteries fitted until they were ready to be recommissioned.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    568
    I wonder what kind of compensation JAL and ANA will get from Boeing?
    As the WSJ pointed out, both airlines have tied their future success to this 1 aircraft (both airlines will be in the top 3 largest 787 operators).

    Also, why does it appear to be the Japanese 787s that have the majority of the issues? They make up ~50% of the global flying 787 fleet but appear to get ~75% of all the issues.
    Feel free to check out my aviation pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhr_spotter/ - comments welcome

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    568
    I knew I'd heard of cracked wind-shields somewhere before,
    http://avherald.com/h?article=45b190bb&opt=0
    Feel free to check out my aviation pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhr_spotter/ - comments welcome

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt-100 View Post
    Also, why does it appear to be the Japanese 787s that have the majority of the issues?
    Perhaps because they were the first to operate the B787, and thus have the highest hours?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    568
    So all these other faults are a joy in store for the likes of United, Qatar, Ethiopian, LAN and LOT once their aircraft hit higher hours to? Nice...
    Last edited by Deano; 11th January 2013 at 23:15. Reason: COC RULE 14
    Feel free to check out my aviation pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhr_spotter/ - comments welcome

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    956
    Well normally, a fault occurs, the manufacturer finds the cause, a repair is designed, an SB is issued and airlines incorporate it in their fleet.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    In a happy place
    Posts
    12,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Bmused55 View Post
    As has the A380 been called the Whalejet, but I don't use it as it's disrespectful.
    I've never heard it called that, but the nickname 'Hippo' seems to be in fairly widespread usage.
    You can't fool owls.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    802
    Doesn't it seem rather ridiculous that the discussion on this thread devolved into a discussion about composite structure, yet that hasn't been the source of any of these highly publicized problems so far? It seems to me that most of problem so far have been with components: a battery, a windshield.

    For the record, Airbus has used composite vertical stabilizers since the A300-600/A310 days. I believe that qualifies as primary structure. And the one on American A300 in NYC broke, something that hasn't happened yet to a Boeing (inflight failure of a primary composite structure). (Yes, I know the AA pilot mishandled the controls.)

    Finally, I believe the A380 also has Li-Ion batteries.

    The only place I've ever heard the 787 referred to as the plastic pig is on this board.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    WestNorEastSouth
    Posts
    4,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Bmused55 View Post
    The Embraer's carbon composite wing tip impacted and sliced clean through the aluminium wing of the 737.
    Strength is not the same as Fatigue issues - I have been an a/c engineer for 40+ years and I have big reservations about modern 'composite' primary structure - and that is not even considering the case of smoke inhalation due to (say) a fuselage fire...you do not really want to be near a composite fire !

    Plastic pig is a pretty standard insult about 'plastic' aircraft - ask the RAF what they think about their Grob 115 propellers at the moment...they fly right over my Hangar whilst in the circuit (when not grounded ) and the prop noise is very variable between different a/c !

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    8

    How Long Will that Take for the FAA to Come Out With Report?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThreeSpool View Post
    Since my last post, this has been posted on the FAA website.
    I reckon we have to wait 9 months for a report by the bureaucrats. Better safety than sorry, I reckon. But is the 787 getting this press because it is "the 787" and is relatively new. If the same event happened to a 737, would we get so much press?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Fife, Scotland
    Posts
    11,203
    Quote Originally Posted by smspro View Post
    ...But is the 787 getting this press because it is "the 787" and is relatively new. If the same event happened to a 737, would we get so much press?
    Yes to the first, probably not to the second.
    We got a blow by blow account of the A380 too.

    These are the first all new programs from the big two in the new world of 24/7 reporting, social media and mass hysteria. We'll hear about ever single rivet drop on the A350 too and every program from now on.

    What doesn't help is newspapers and websites regurgitating old information as new, then using a sensational headline to grab viewers/readers.
    Last edited by Bmused55; 15th January 2013 at 07:28.
    Bmused55

    Keep thy airspeed up, less the earth come from below and smite thee.

    My Blog
    My Designs

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    956
    Aviation Week has published an overview of the incidents affecting the B787.

    Factbox: Recent Safety Incidents For Boeing's New 787

    January 14, 2013

    Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner is the pride of the company’s passenger jet fleet, but a series of incidents in the last few months have raised questions about its safety and image. Following is a list of the events:

    2012

    July - A General Electric Co (GE.N) engine on a 787 in North Charleston, South Carolina, breaks during a preflight test. The National Transportation Safety Board rules it a “contained” failure, meaning the broken pieces did not exit through the engine wall. GE orders inspections of the engines. The Federal Aviation Administration stops short of grounding planes for inspections.

    December 4 - A United Airlines (UAL.N) 787 with 184 people aboard is forced to make an emergency landing in New Orleans after experiencing electrical problems.

    December 5 - U.S. regulators say there is a manufacturing fault in 787 fuel lines and advises operators to make extra inspections to guard against engine failures.

    December 13 - Qatar Airways grounds one of its three 787s after finding the same electrical problem that affected the December 4 United flight.

    December 17 - United confirms finding an electrical problem in a second plane in its 787 fleet.

    2013

    January 7 - A parked 787 operated by Japan Airlines (9201.T) catches fire at Boston Logan International Airport after a battery in an auxiliary power system explodes.

    January 8 - A second 787 operated by Japan Airlines leaks fuel at Logan, forcing it to cancel its takeoff and return to the gate. The plane departs later.

    Following a safety inspection, United finds a wiring problem in the same electrical system that caused the January 7 fire in Boston, the Wall Street Journal reports.

    January 9 - Japan’s All Nippon Airways Co (9202.T) cancels a 787 flight scheduled for a domestic trip within Japan due to brake problems.

    January 11 - A cockpit window on an ANA 787 cracks during a Japanese domestic flight. The plane lands safely with no injuries.

    A separate ANA 787 springs an oil leak from its left engine, which is discovered after the plane lands safely.

    The U.S. Department of Transportation says the 787 will undergo a comprehensive review of its critical systems.

    January 13 - The Japan Airlines 787 that leaked fuel in Boston on January 8 experiences another, separate fuel leak while undergoing checks in Tokyo.

    http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....536207.xml&p=1

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    3,020
    A shame this. I've been a lifelong AI man, but the 777-300 and the 787, have really grown on me of late. Hopefully these probs can be solved relatively quickly. As I said in my previous post, when do 'teething problems' become something greater?
    "Behold! The Wings of Horus"

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Fife, Scotland
    Posts
    11,203
    When said problem causes death or injury or a crash landing, etc perhaps?

    Boeing are venturing into new territory with their 787. There was bound to be issues. Let the fleet grow and gather miles and data. With time, all the bugs will be ironed out.
    Bmused55

    Keep thy airspeed up, less the earth come from below and smite thee.

    My Blog
    My Designs

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Wythenshawe nr Manchester Airport
    Posts
    530
    http://news.sky.com/story/1038642/dr...rgency-landing

    Another emergency landing, how long before they are all grounded for checks, reminds me of the time they grounded DC10's

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Wythenshawe nr Manchester Airport
    Posts
    530
    Sky reporting that All Nippon have grounded all there 787's

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Wythenshawe nr Manchester Airport
    Posts
    530
    and now JAL have grounded there 787's

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    802
    Quote Originally Posted by pauldyson1uk View Post
    http://news.sky.com/story/1038642/dr...rgency-landing

    Another emergency landing, how long before they are all grounded for checks, reminds me of the time they grounded DC10's
    As I recall, the DC10 was grounded by the regulatory authorities....ie., all DC10's were grounded. In this case, two airlines have voluntarily chosen to ground their aircraft.....which begs the question: what criterion will be sufficient for flights to resume?

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    In a white Sprinter trawling the cosmos!
    Posts
    2,108
    Boeing said to be "delighted" at successful field test of plastic pig's chute deployment ... a spokesman says "we had always planned to test the safety chutes in an "in service" environment"
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/0...90F01620130116

    I'll get me coat!!!

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Fife, Scotland
    Posts
    11,203
    I've been following reports and passenger statements. It seems the crew overreacted on this occasion. They got a faulty battery indicator on the flight deck and diverted for that. Then someone mentioned smoke and a full evac was ordered. So far, none of the witnesses have mentioned ever seeing smoke. This is now backed up by the airline officially stating that there was no smoke seen, just a smell. Article here

    IMO, the full evacuation seems to have been an overreaction by the PIC. I can understand the decision given the recent events, but it was still an overreaction. If I wanted to evacuate every time I smelled something strange on a plane, I'd never fly!
    Last edited by Bmused55; 16th January 2013 at 10:46.
    Bmused55

    Keep thy airspeed up, less the earth come from below and smite thee.

    My Blog
    My Designs

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    3,020
    It would appear that there are now some urgent issues to be addressed with this aircraft. The ANA crew obviously thought that the evacuation was necessary, after all, none of us were there at the time.

    I'm sure that Boeing are working 24/7 on this, to get these problems sorted. Its a nice aircraft, and its pioneered a lot of new technology. Sometimes, its not easy to be the first in a new field.
    "Behold! The Wings of Horus"

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    568
    Bmused, maybe we have a difference of opinion? But if I were the pilot who received a faulty battery indication and a smell (less than a week after a JAL battery caught fire) I'd probably evacuate too.

    Why would you wait to see smoke before evacuating? Surely by then you're compromising the safety of your passengers and crew? In 2011? The captain of a VS A330 ordered a full evac on the runway at LGW after some battery alarms went off. Turns out it was a faulty circuit breaker.
    Last edited by Matt-100; 16th January 2013 at 14:16.
    Feel free to check out my aviation pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhr_spotter/ - comments welcome

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    956
    Worse still, you could delay like the flight crew of Saudia Flight 163 and end up with an altogether far worse disaster.

    I don't think there is any need to second-guess the crew.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    802
    This is aviation: The crew has always been second guessed, the crew will always be second guessed.

    Given the "wired" nature of the Japanese media and how informed the public is on whatever their mainstream media happens to be feeding them, its not out of the realm of possibility at all that the crew over-reacted. Their companies have now one-upped the overreaction of the crew with the groundings.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Fife, Scotland
    Posts
    11,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt-100 View Post
    Why would you wait to see smoke before evacuating? Surely by then you're compromising the safety of your passengers and crew?
    Conversely, an evacuation can and often does result in injury to some passengers. You could argue that a completely unnecessary evacuation can likewise compromise the safety of the passengers, especially if you let them spill out onto an active taxiway!

    All reports now completely retract the smoke claims. It was an error message and smell that prompted the pilots to divert (prudent move) and eventually evacuate (over reaction).
    Bmused55

    Keep thy airspeed up, less the earth come from below and smite thee.

    My Blog
    My Designs

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Wythenshawe nr Manchester Airport
    Posts
    530
    BBC are reporting that the FAA have grounded all US operated 787's due to fire risk, how long before the ban is worldwide.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES