By: Ship 741
- 13th January 2013 at 00:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: bazv
- 13th January 2013 at 06:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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 :rolleyes:) and the prop noise is very variable between different a/c !
New
Posts: 8
By: smspro
- 15th January 2013 at 05:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How Long Will that Take for the FAA to Come Out With Report?
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?
By: Bmused55
- 15th January 2013 at 07:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...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.
By: ThreeSpool
- 15th January 2013 at 12:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: MSR777
- 15th January 2013 at 12:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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?
By: Bmused55
- 15th January 2013 at 14:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
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?
By: Bmused55
- 16th January 2013 at 10:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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!
By: MSR777
- 16th January 2013 at 11:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: Matt-100
- 16th January 2013 at 14:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: Ship 741
- 16th January 2013 at 22:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: Bmused55
- 16th January 2013 at 23:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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).
By: Ship 741
- 17th January 2013 at 02:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My prediction is this grounding will be relatively short.....probably replace the batteries with NiCads (may have to add some capacity) for the short term while they redesign the Li-Ion batts, if they ever go back to them.
BTW, which company manufactured the batteries?
I agree that the evacuation was an over-reaction. Some of the folks on here commenting have no idea how many "odor" events there are every day at the airlines. The 757/767/747 fleets alone have had countless diversions due to blown/shorted out recirc fans.
On the 787, there hasn't been any hull losses, there hasn't been any passenger deaths or serious injuries. "The system" is working. I predict this will be a minor blurb in the history of the 787 program.
Posts: 796
By: Ship 741 - 13th January 2013 at 00:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 6,044
By: bazv - 13th January 2013 at 06:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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 :rolleyes:) and the prop noise is very variable between different a/c !
Posts: 8
By: smspro - 15th January 2013 at 05:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How Long Will that Take for the FAA to Come Out With Report?
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?
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 15th January 2013 at 07:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 15th January 2013 at 12:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aviation Week has published an overview of the incidents affecting the B787.
Posts: 2,886
By: MSR777 - 15th January 2013 at 12:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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?
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 15th January 2013 at 14:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 528
By: pauldyson1uk - 16th January 2013 at 01:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://news.sky.com/story/1038642/dreamliner-forced-into-emergency-landing
Another emergency landing, how long before they are all grounded for checks, reminds me of the time they grounded DC10's
Posts: 528
By: pauldyson1uk - 16th January 2013 at 02:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sky reporting that All Nippon have grounded all there 787's
Posts: 528
By: pauldyson1uk - 16th January 2013 at 05:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
and now JAL have grounded there 787's
Posts: 796
By: Ship 741 - 16th January 2013 at 07:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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?
Posts: 2,098
By: Tartan Pics - 16th January 2013 at 08:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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/2013/01/16/uk-boeing-ana-idUKBRE90F01620130116 :D
I'll get me coat!!!
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 16th January 2013 at 10:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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!
Posts: 2,886
By: MSR777 - 16th January 2013 at 11:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 569
By: Matt-100 - 16th January 2013 at 14:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 16th January 2013 at 14:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 796
By: Ship 741 - 16th January 2013 at 22:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 16th January 2013 at 23:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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).
Posts: 528
By: pauldyson1uk - 16th January 2013 at 23:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BBC are reporting that the FAA have grounded all US operated 787's due to fire risk, how long before the ban is worldwide.
Posts: 796
By: Ship 741 - 17th January 2013 at 02:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My prediction is this grounding will be relatively short.....probably replace the batteries with NiCads (may have to add some capacity) for the short term while they redesign the Li-Ion batts, if they ever go back to them.
BTW, which company manufactured the batteries?
I agree that the evacuation was an over-reaction. Some of the folks on here commenting have no idea how many "odor" events there are every day at the airlines. The 757/767/747 fleets alone have had countless diversions due to blown/shorted out recirc fans.
On the 787, there hasn't been any hull losses, there hasn't been any passenger deaths or serious injuries. "The system" is working. I predict this will be a minor blurb in the history of the 787 program.