Worldwide 787 fleet grounded!

[King on a Wing]

Just heard that the FAA has passed a Safety Directive grounding all 787's airborne worldwide with unmediated effect.
Apparently the fuel lines feeding fuel into the engines have developed a leak in a number of the airplanes flying commercially.
This is another shocker for Boeing.
The Boeing engineers compare this to a severe headache rather than a heart attack.
Wonder what that means and what it's gonna do for the reputation of the 787.
Very unlike the reliable 777 is this.

[fox niner]

Do you have a link somewhere?
The FAA site does not show any directives pointing in this direction.

[King on a Wing]

Let me see if this link works....

FAA orders airlines to inspect 787 Dreamliners for fuel leaks | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019828980_dreamlinerfaaxml.html)


Of course the groundings are subject to investigations and repairs. The faster the repairs the faster the Dreamliner takes to the Clouds!

[IFixPlanes]

Just heard that the FAA has passed a Safety Directive grounding all 787's airborne worldwide with unmediated effect. ...
Grounding? Your source must be awful. :(

Let´s judge this "problem" with the AD itself:
AD 2012-24-07 (http://1.usa.gov/THSJCe)

If you read above linked AD, you find :
- ...Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, ensure that the lockwire installation on the rigid and full flexible couplings is correct. ...
- ...Within 21 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the rigid and full flexible couplings for correct assembly, including replacement of the o-rings with new o-rings, confirmation that the proper retainer rings are installed in the full flexible coupling, a general visual inspection for damage of the blade seals, and all applicable corrective actions. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. ...I think that 7 days to check a lockwire und 21 days to do a 10 work-hour job is far away from grounding. ;)

[gorter]

They've ordered fuel line inspections and issued an airworthiness directive. Don't think they've grounded anything though.

As aircraft get more complex expect more teething problems. Fuel lines in 787, cracked wings in a380 I'm sure there will be other problems too

[criss]

First of all, FAA doesn't have the power to ground anything worldwide.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Now let me see, if Boeing has taken any notice of what a certain Irish airline has been getting up to, with some forums, l would expect a law suit in the coming days.
Best to read before trying to engage what is between the ears. :ugh:

[Max Torque]

It's just an AD. Completely normal on a new and complicated type.

Please note that if it was serious enough to put them all on the ground, the FAA as the original issuer of the type certificate, can ground the worldwide fleet by suspending or revoking that type certificate.

EASA grounded the Dassault Falcon 7X worldwide last year (at the request of the manufacturer) by doing exactly that.

Its an emergency brake and it works. Once the issue is addressed, the type cert is re-instated.

But this is just an AD. Move along.

[A and C]

I can't help thinking that this shows how little some of the people on this forum know about how the AD system works and at least one of the above it would seem can't read and understand the news report that he has gathered the information from, this is not a "worldwide grounding " it is a call for the aircraft to be inspected and if approprate rectification work to be carried out, no more than that.

I can't help thinking that the title of this forum was written by the same people who have been publishing pictures of aircraft with extended noses.

[andrasz]

Where are the moderators when you need them ...

Legitimate news get banished to obscure corners of the site within 15 minutes of posting, yet this managed to stay as the leading thread on Rumors & News for over twelve hours now... :rolleyes:

[Agaricus bisporus]

Just heard that the FAA has passed a Safety Directive grounding all 787's airborne worldwide with unmediated effect.
Apparently the fuel lines feeding fuel into the engines have developed a leak in a number of the airplanes flying commercially.

(My bold)

Well, if the literacy of this report is any guide to its contents it clearly won't contain much.

I'm curious how only those flying commercially leak? Is the fuel system somehow aware of the revenue status of the flight?

Oh dear oh dear.
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[lomapaseo]

What we have here is a failure to understand what a grounding is and why there are so few cases. Blame it on the press who play up the words to the point where they are meaningless to aviation readers.

Of course I have no Idea what the OP words unmediated effect means :confused:

[airship]

IFixPlanes wrote: I think that 7 days to check a lockwire und 21 days to do a 10 work-hour job is far away from grounding.

From your link above: Estimated Costs
Action Labor cost Parts
cost
Cost per
product
Cost on U.S.
operators
Coupling inspection, o-ring
replacement, retainer ring
installation, blade seal
inspection, and lockwire
installation and blah blah...
10 work-hours X $85 per hour = $850 / parts cost $54 / cost per aircraft (only 3 aircraft registered in USA at this time) $904 / total cost for all 3 x USA registered aircraft $2,712
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the oncondition
actions specified in this proposed AD.

I'd question whether or not the "10 work-hours" required can be conducted concurrently (by say using 10 engineers - problem resolved in 1hr) or that this would involve disabling the aircraft from flying operations for 10 hours - a small fortune (loss) for airlines, especially the few operating this new Boeing...?! :confused:

I can almost imagine an Irish low-cost carrier contributing: "We were envisaging the replacement of some of our smaller Boeing B737s with B787s on certain routes. Unless the fuel leakages reach significant quantities, which cannot be recovered by simply adding 20 pence for access to the coin-operated toilets aboard our aircraft, sales of sandwiches recovered from the French autoroute opeartors the day before, or just excess baggage, we'll be reconsidering all options. Including relocating our HQ to Luxembourg for all online ticket sales. :(

[Capot]

Let's not be too hard on our fellow ppruners; explanations of the regulatory terminology used in relation to continued airworthiness do not come with the MS Flight Sim package.

[DaveReidUK]

I'd question whether or not the "10 work-hours" required can be conducted concurrently (by say using 10 engineers - problem resolved in 1hr) or that this would involve disabling the aircraft from flying operations for 10 hours - a small fortune (loss) for airlines, especially the few operating this new Boeing...?!

Neither.

10 engineers falling over each other all attempting to inspect the same engine fuel feed manifold coupling would be daft.

But equally, occupying one engineer for 10 hours, thereby tying up the aircraft for the same length of time, would be stupid - at the very least you could halve the required downtime by using two engineers and inspecting both engines at the same time.

[Chu Chu]

Who knows how accurate the 10 hours is in the estimate. Could just mean it's close to 10 than it is to 1 or 100.

[lomapaseo]

at the very least you could halve the required downtime by using two engineers and inspecting both engines at the same time.
Did I hear "O" rings mentioned

We better have a third inspector in there somewhere if both engines are going to be screwed up by maintenance at the same time :)

[grounded27]

First of all, FAA doesn't have the power to ground anything worldwide.

Yes but if a carrier does not comply with this A.D. and anything happens, the big turd sandwich is in their lap. They really can only fine domestic carriers up to the point of revocation of an operating certificate if the negligence gets bad enough.

[grounded27]

As for the 10 man hours, it is always a liberal estimate and can certainly be accomplished on the aircraft's next overnight without a hickup in service. This is no big deal.

Not like the A330 Air Transat Flight 236 that ended up a glider because of a fuel leak in the pylon.

[DaveReidUK]

Who knows how accurate the 10 hours is in the estimate.

That's why it's called an estimate. :)

No different from any AD that calls for inspection action and then, depending on the findings, possible corrective action.

[The Dominican]

Oh for the love of Christ! Airlines will spend 200 million dollars in an airplane and then ground it by putting off an inspection that requires a few man hours to complete:= have a nice day drama queens:rolleyes:

[DaveReidUK]

Airlines will spend 200 million dollars in an airplane and then ground it by putting off an inspection

Except that 787s aren't grounded and airlines aren't putting off inspections. :ugh:

[King on a Wing]

It is not an AD issued by Boeing. It is a Safety Directive. And it has to be implemented within one week. Until then the airplanes that do not comply stay on the ground pending repairs.
Needless to say it is a 24 hour job. But the plane WILL BE GROUNDED until it is implemented!
I know of at least 4 major airlines(including AI and QR) who have withdrawn their fleets from commercial ops pending completion of the task.
My 2 million worth..

[DaveReidUK]

It is not an AD issued by Boeing. It is a Safety Directive. And it has to be implemented within one week. Until then the airplanes that do not comply stay on the ground pending repairs.
Needless to say it is a 24 hour job. But the plane WILL BE GROUNDED until it is implemented!

That's nonsense.

Either the aircraft is grounded [it isn't] or there is a deadline on compliance with the AD, there wouldn't be any point in doing both.

US-registered 787s subject to the AD can legally fly for 7 days (from the AD effective date of 5th December) before action to ensure that the lockwire installation is correct, and for 21 days before ensuring correct assembly of the engine fuel feed manifold rigid and full flexible couplings.

If operators elect to action the AD before the deadline then that is up to them, but until then they can continue to fly the aircraft if they wish.

[Lyman]

If I operated 787s in commercial carriage, and was telexed a mandatory inspection, I would be looking in the document for the time issues, and seriously try to comply. Willful disregard of an AD is bad form.....

The rest is semantics. It's in the DIRECTIVE.

[green granite]

Perhaps someone will explain the subtle nuances of the phrase at the end of paragraph G which says:

(g) Inspection

Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with Action 1) of Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-12-0838-01B(R2), including Attachment A, dated November 25, 2012.
(1) Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, ensure that the lockwire installation on the rigid and full flexible couplings is correct.
(2) Within 21 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the rigid and full flexible couplings for correct assembly, including replacement of the o-rings with new o-rings, confirmation that the proper retainer rings are installed in the full flexible coupling, a general visual inspection for damage 7
of the blade seals, and all applicable corrective actions. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

And para J:

(j) Special Flight Permit

Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane can be modified, provided the lockwire is correctly installed on the engine fuel feed manifold rigid and full flexible couplings in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

If the Aircraft are not grounded why does it need a special permit to fly?

[BOAC]

KoaW - do us all a favour and put us out of our misery please. Highlight the words in the AD that say the a/c is grounded until inspected?

For heavens sake - as andrasz said, where are the mods when you need them?

Even the Seattle times KoaW quotes says
"The safety directive, to be published Wednesday, gives airlines a week to check fuel-line system fastening wires and 21 days to check connectors inside the pylons that hold the engines."

Again, courtesy of Ifix, here is the AD (http://1.usa.gov/THSJCe)

gg - I am no engineer, but to me that says if you find something wrong, don't fly it until you fix it. The 'special' is to allow a/c that might be going over the 7/21 days at a non-service place to be flown to one where it can be done - otherwise it would be 'grounded'..

This should be in the Spectators Balcony.

[green granite]

Thanks BOAC.

[BOAC]

As I say, gg - E&OE of course - not an engineer, but I'm sure one will be along shortly!

[fantom]

Who cares when you can have an Airbus ?

[BOAC]

Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen - it could be a bumpy ride to 'Spottersville':)

BBC News - Airbus A380 fleet should be grounded, say engineers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16452878)

[atakacs]

For heavens sake - as andrasz said, where are the mods when you need them?
Probably compiling lists of IPs to be handed over to Ryanair... :(

[DaveReidUK]

Perhaps someone will explain the subtle nuances of the phrase at the end of paragraph G which says:

Within 21 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the rigid and full flexible couplings for correct assembly, including replacement of the o-rings with new o-rings, confirmation that the proper retainer rings are installed in the full flexible coupling, a general visual inspection for damage of the blade seals, and all applicable corrective actions. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

OK, reasonable question, your confusion is understandable.

Think of it as a Catch-22. An operator can wait 21 days, but no longer, before performing that particular inspection and, if necessary, applying any corrective actions. No check within 21 days means the aircraft is then grounded.

But if the check is done sooner, and a fault is found, the operator can't then fly the aircraft for the remainder of the 21 days before carrying out rectification - that must be done before the next flight.

[Capn Bloggs]

Airlines will spend 200 million dollars in an airplane and then ground it by putting off an inspection

Except that 787s aren't grounded and airlines aren't putting off inspections.
Dominican was posing a rhetorical question, Dave. He wasn't suggesting they actually ground them.

[Willoz269]

I wonder if it is more indicative of a problem with Boeing's quality control.

There is a report that the serious fire on the cockpit of an Egiptair 777 was possibly caused because a clamp supporting the first officer's wiring to the mask light panel was missing, not sleeved and a large wiring loop found. Boeing delivered around 280 B777 with this error, which goes against the design.

Now we have the 787 with fuel line connectors not properly installed. Wonder how much all this is costing Boeing?

[Romulus]

I'd question whether or not the "10 work-hours" required can be conducted concurrently (by say using 10 engineers - problem resolved in 1hr)

Sometimes it doesn't work that way. I could see 2 engineers (one per side) completing the check in 5 hours. Just add it to an overnight stop somewhere.

Of course, it may be like pregnancy, no matter how much the key party may desire it to be so there is no opportunity for 9 women to be pregnant 1 month each on her behalf...

[Romulus]

Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen - it could be a bumpy ride to 'Spottersville'

BBC News - Airbus A380 fleet should be grounded, say engineers

Old news and past history, nothing came of it.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Yes it is all to do with quality control, as all three inspections are from incorrect installation.
The simple answer to your post DaveReidUK is Yes, up until the the inspection you are assuming the installation is correct.
You have to put the parts back together correctly, as Boeing should have done in the first place. :=

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, up until the the inspection you are assuming the installation is correct.

Not really.

The only assumption you, as an airline, may implicitly be making is that the FAA's assessment that the aircraft can be flown for another 7/21 days before the inspection is a reasonable one. That doesn't imply any expectation of what the inspection will find.

Or, if the airline disagrees with that assumption, it does the check sooner, if not immediately (though that could equally be done for other reasons ).

[lomapaseo]

The assumption in the creation of the Service Bulletin is that you may or may not have a defective aircraft and if you do it may or may not fail in an unsafe manner in a given period of time.

If you exceed that time frame the probability of it failing increases to an unreasonable contribution in average risk compared to all other risks for both known and unknown problems.

There is always the underlying assumption that some un-inspected aircraft are free of the defect and/or that if the defect is present it will not fail and/if it does fail that it will not create an unsafe condition.

note: this kind of logic is way beyond "spectator balcony" stuff and suitable for the Safety forum

[walterthesofty]

Can this not be moved to a more suitable forum, At least then we might get some input from people with a bit of technical expertise instead of the normal spotter /sim half wits putting their halfbaked pennyworths in

[Skipness One Echo]

Why don't you put some useful input yourself kevlarcarl/simonchowder/walterthesofty?

Anything you can contribute that's interesting? Go on?

Why this individual is allowed to continue cyber-bullying spotters is beyond me. He's been banned twice already and every post in here is just anti spotter. Just ban him mods come on!

For a 44 year old man he has the grammar and mentality of a ten year old.

[DaveReidUK]

instead of the normal spotter /sim half wits putting their halfbaked pennyworths in

Just what I'm thinking, Walter.

[VeroFlyer]

entire worldwide fleet? There can only be like 10 of them flying!

[walterthesofty]

Calm down skippy, Im merely saying this is not really the best forum to discuss issues such as this far better on the techlog or engineers forum where the chance of uninformed knapsack and bino input is reduced:ok:

[treadigraph]

entire worldwide fleet? There can only be like 10 of them flying!


More like 40 or 50... JAL, ANA, Ethiopian, LAN Chile, LOT, Air India, Qatar and United all have some flying now.

[Skipness One Echo]

Calm down skippy, Im merely saying this is not really the best forum to discuss issues such as this far better on the techlog or engineers forum where the chance of uninformed knapsack and bino input is reduced
Why are you even in this thread? I am sick of your continous slagging of people like me. I am spotter mate, proud to be one.

If you *really* thought that, one assumes you're clever enough to start your own thread in that forum and link back asking for professional input from engineers. I suspect your usual spotter baiting is the only reason. Every single post in this forum, clearly marked as "Spectators Balcony (Spotters Corner)" is patronising and detrimental. Given your past history of being banned twice, as kevlarkarl and then as simonchowder, I think you're lying.

You're just a little bully sniping at the margins Walter, haven't ever read anything from you to suggest otherwise. If I have time later I'll compile a Top 20 of your cheapest shots. It's easy to show your game for what it is. Playground nonsense from a bloke in his 40s.

[lomapaseo]

Way too personal

[walterthesofty]

Best ignore him, reacting only feeds his venom. He has some bee in his bonnet about me, constantly tries to get me banned for some reason ,thankfully the mods seem wise to him.

[DaveReidUK]

Im merely saying this is not really the best forum to discuss issues such as this far better on the techlog or engineers forum

Actually, this thread did start on one of the technical forums, and was subsequently moved here by the mods.

That's how we managed to get to post #42 before we had your helpful contribution.

[purplehelmet]

its no great suprise he has a bee in his bonnet (as many others on here do) about you really is it? you have been trolling on this forum for the last few years under the names of simonchowder, kevlarkarl, and now as walterthesofty.
biggest wum on pprune.

[chuzwuza]

What's a wum?

[srobarts]

wum = wind up merchant

[Skipness One Echo]

As per below. I had enough of this rubbish at school, I don't think we should tolerate it as adults. He's got multiple profiles and form and yet he still gets to wind people up with impunity. There's loads more if you look. He's an unpleasant individual who trolls *only* in this thread with language which would see him sacked if he was to behave like this face to face with any colleague. I think it's right we challenge him.

http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/502403-worldwide-787-fleet-grounded-3.html#post7567678
instead of the normal spotter /sim half wits

http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/501007-thompson-556-returning-man.html#post7533943
make a few of these nutters think twice

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/476064-monarch-3-a-54.html#post7533935
the odd obsessed crank

http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/497948-bad-luck-jet2.html#post7470450
the knapsack and bino brigade

http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/494971-aviation-enthusiasts-left-intimidated-while-viewing-st-athan-2.html#post7405206
Whatever you charge some of these types will always try to avoid paying which is why robust action by the police is required to reinforce the point airports are not spotter playgrounds

http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/494971-aviation-enthusiasts-left-intimidated-while-viewing-st-athan.html#post7403506
Sadly many spotters seem to think airports exist solely to enable them to collect reg numbers and do not seem aware of the chaos they cause

http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/494971-aviation-enthusiasts-left-intimidated-while-viewing-st-athan.html#post7402398
some of these anoraks are a total menace


http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/432986-large-prop-plane-going-into-lhr.html#post6044997
a large amount of tosh posted by the clueless as that thread contains

[lomapaseo]

I believe now that any thread that gets moved to this forum is the kiss of death :uhoh:

Time for me to move on

[grounded27]

And all inspections have probably been complied with by now anyways.

[wiggy]

You can argue forever more whether somebody is a "wum" or not, it doesn't alter the fact that the OP shouldn't showed a complete lack of understanding of the AD process and shouldn't have produced the post that started this thread.

Without question the spotters ( and yes, I was one once at Ringway) are definitely the best folks to answer questions on..spotting. The technical stuff really is definitely better left for the pros...

[DaveReidUK]

And all inspections have probably been complied with by now anyways.

Reportedly, all the inspections had actually been done before the AD was issued, it having been preceded months earlier by the Boeing SB, so the entire thread has been somewhat academic (though instructive in other respects). :)

[Simtech]

Without question the spotters ( and yes, I was one once at Ringway) are definitely the best folks to answer questions on..spotting. The technical stuff really is definitely better left for the pros...

Some of us are both... :)

[Ridge Runner]

Some of us are both...

very much so. In fact many are. :)

RR

[BOAC]

Some of us are both... - it is a shame that 'us' didn't step in when this ridiculous thread was on R&N and get the

OP's title changed
OP's total confusion sorted out.
The facts straight

before it needed to come here. Industry does not need this sort of rubbish.

[Dave Barnshaw]

Qatar 787 A7-BCL was on it's first service to LHR, and landed this morning , so, that's one not grounded.:=:=

[Willoz269]

Qatar Dreamliner Grounded on Fault Echoing United Jet (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-13/qatar-airways-boeing-787-grounded-with-same-fault-as-united-jet.html)