Another 787 Fuel Leak

[AmericanFlyer]

News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_JAPAN_US_BOEING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-13-09-59-44)

[Lyman]

You know, that appears to be the same problem JAL had at Boston last Tuesday. It also reports about the same quantity of fuel loss. At some point, without alot more and accurate data, it starts to look like a line/operator issue.

[Rananim]

I think the lithium battery issue is certainly worth re-investigating which is what theyre doing.I dont think anything else is systemic to the dreamliner but rather the operator(any operator really).Boeing has a history of giving its A models to tried and tested local companies like Pan Am,United,SWA.They broke precedent with ANA and I think it was a mistake.New models always have teething trouble and you need those problems played out in your own backyard with people you know and trust implicitly.It must be a field day for Airbus which is a shame as they really dont deserve free publicity like that.

[gorter]

You know, that appears to be the same problem JAL had at Boston last Tuesday. It also reports about the same quantity of fuel loss. At some point, without alot more and accurate data, it starts to look like a line/operator issue.

Yes but with such a new aircraft, if it is an operator issue, then that's due to incorrect or insufficient guidance from oem.

[fantom]

It must be a field day for Airbus which is a shame as they really dont deserve free publicity like that.

Oh, really? Why not, if it's fact?

[FlightPathOBN]

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan Airlines Co (JAL) said on Sunday that a Boeing Co 787 Dreamliner jet undergoing checks in Tokyo following a fuel leak at Boston airport last week had leaked fuel during tests earlier in the day.
An open valve on the aircraft caused fuel to leak from a nozzle on the left wing used to remove fuel, a company spokeswoman said. The jet is out of service after spilling about 40 gallons of fuel onto the airport taxiway in Boston due to a separate valve-related problem.
In Boston, a different valve on the plane opened, causing fuel to flow from the centre tank to the left main tank. When that tank filled up, it overflowed into a surge tank and out through a vent.
The causes of both the incidents are unknown, the JAL spokeswoman added.
There is no timetable for the plane to return to service.

[Lyman]

Rananim +1

gorter.... That's true, and Boeing took a risk with the Dreamliner, a big one.

Advancing the technology involves risk on everyone's part. We'll need to see what's what after suitable experience is gained.....

And then see who blames the pilot group after twenty years. Boeing took expensive decisive action after BA038, UAL performed deferrable inspections during the same troubling time....

I do not disagree with corporate 'amnesia', but the aviation culture, especially pilots, have long memories.

Holding the bag, if required, is not for wimps. Likewise, dropping it and pointing fingers does not inspire confidence, long term....

[Squawk-7600]

Boeing has a history of giving its A models to tried and tested local companies like Pan Am,United,SWA.They broke precedent with ANA and I think it was a mistake.New models always have teething trouble and you need those problems played out in your own backyard with people you know and trust implicitly.It must be a field day for Airbus which is a shame as they really dont deserve free publicity like that.

Of the three airlines you mention above, one no longer exists, and another was bankrupt. ANA is an extremely capable airline with very good pilots and engineers, and is Japan's largest airline. Furthermore, there are a team of Boeing personnel who accompany the aircraft for the launch.

Why would you comment about Airbus like that? As mentioned by others, Boeing has taken an enormous risk in the 787 in a desperate attempt to catch up with Airbus. Yet many of the "features" the PR department spew out have been on Airbus FBW aircraft for years (for example turbulence dampening).

I've flown both Airbus and Boeing, both manufacturers produce very capable aircraft. However the "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goin'" good ol' boys who just won't let the over-built era of 1970s Boeing aircraft go, need to wake up to themselves that era has gone.

[olasek]

I think it is outright silly to think that Airbus will find any delight in 787 troubles, the same way as if Boeing was taking any pleasure in A380 problems.

[11Fan]

Indeed olasek,

Glass houses, Karma and all.......

[fdr]

without alot more and accurate data, it starts to look like a line/operator issue. LYMAN

How so?

JAL & QATAR have had leaks. Leaks have occurred in 3 different locations, with different in to plane service providers, with 2 different aircraft... at least 2 different leak points... not too sure that there is a strong correlation there in respect to line/operator, and there is precious little pointing to cause-effect relationship.

In relation to the premise of top flite US carriers being used for testing out the "A" versions, would think that had more to do with the marketing of the manufacturer than any local level of excellence biasing the EIS program roadmap. PAN AM and UNITED have as much or more history of line/operations anomalies as the quoted users. JAL and ANA have excellent maintenance programs, taking quality management to heart... the only remarkable error in maintenance in JAL's modern history was the 742SR wacky pressure bulkhead repair conducted exactly to the manufacturers erroneous guidance, with disastrous results, to pax and crew, and the maintenance director who committed Seppuku. JAL and ANA line/operations programs are pretty darn good, not perfect, but impressive on a global stage.

The B787 program will improve in due course, as all product entries do, following the U shape reliability bucket in the time domain.

[Lyman]

It appears I was premature. Thanks. I'll watch.

[Fratemate]

without alot more and accurate data, it starts to look like a line/operator issue.

I'm not on a Lyman witch hunt but I would add that in all my travels I have never seen better maintained aircraft than those in Japan. I haven't worked for JAL but the other team certainly puts a good number of major players to shame and I've got no reason to think JAL aren't just as fastidious. Working for the Japanese has its challenges in certain areas but maintenance has never been one of those.

We'll now find out the valve manufacturing company is Japanese but I never said they were perfect :)

[Chris Scott]

It may not be relevant to this case, but as a former pilot I can remember sometimes getting slightly confused with the complexities of valve operation during some refuelling operations on various airliners. (Do I hear sniggers from former F/Es?) Although 2-pilot aircraft have automatic fuel distribution during refuelling, there are times when adjustments have to be made. These may involve using defuelling valves and tank pumps to shunt the fuel around. And then there have been occasions when crews have tried to squeeze a bit of extra fuel in by one means or another, when range is being pushed to the limit...

As I think sevenstrokeroll pointed out some days ago on another thread: the trouble is that on some aircraft, once fuel starts pouring overboard from the vent-surge tank, a syphon is set up that tends to persist for an embarrassing period. (This can even happen if you have correctly loaded full outer tanks with cold fuel on a sunny day.)

[Squawk-7600]

Chris I'd suggest you're speaking of a bygone era. I can honestly say I've never had to dick around with the refuelling system of any modern jet I've flown. I have no idea of how it works on the 787, but I can pretty much guarantee it's all fully automatic. Likewise, the only time I've had to use the defuelling system is when dumping fuel.

[Spooky 2]

Chris Scott, you can be sure that a BOS to HND/NRT trip does not even come close to requiring max fuel on the. 787. More than likely the fuel load was in the region of 185K+/- 5K and the capacity of the aircraft is 225K. Just a WAG, but pretty close none the less.

[BRE]

Boeing used overseas airlines as launch customer as far back as the 737-100.

[Chris Scott]

Spooky 2,
Thanks for that estimate. What order of payload is it based on? How many hours from Boston to Tokyo at between 3% and 5% extra per hour?

Squawk-7600,
Yes, I mentioned the automatic distribution (during refuelling) in my post. But if a new a/c is going to have teething problems, the refuelling system is not necessarily exempt from them. Also, electrical power interruptions (during refuelling) can cause problems.

I was deliberately avoiding specifics, as I also know nothing of the B787 fuel system. However, the defuel valves or valve I was loosely referring to - perhaps defuel/transfer valve is a better description - enables you to pump fuel from a tank or tanks back into the refuelling gallery, and thence to another tank or tanks.

[Spooky 2]

Chris,

My crystal ball says about 13.0 @.85 with a 20Kt HW, 10% Flag & 30 min hold. Payload? How about 65K for payload. No ETOPS data factored in this guess. In other words no additional fuel for a ETOPS diversion. The 787 will at times need extra fuel at lower alts simply because it is so fuel efficient at alt that the delta becomes a little larger than say a 777 over the same route under similar diversion scenarios.

The airplane sips fuel compared anything out there now.:ok:

[BOAC]

Spooky - "10% Flag" is new to me. What is it please?

[Spooky 2]

Here is a quick and dirty definition per the FAA Part 121 Regs. There are a couple of alternatives this but it's not worth going into those under this particular discussion. I'm sure there are equivalent requirements under most regulatory organizations.

FUEL REQUIRED TO:

(1) To fly to and land at the airport to which it is released;
(2) After that, to fly for a period of 10 percent of the total time required to fly from the airport of departure to, and land at, the airport to which it was released;
(3) After that, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport specified in the flight release, if an alternate is required; and
(4) After that, to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 1,500 feet above the alternate airport (or the destination airport if no alternate is required) under standard temperature conditions.

[BOAC]

Thanks - we in the UK call that contingency and it is 'normally' 5% - whether that changes for Ultra Long Haul I do not know. Where does 'FLAG' come from?

[Spooky 2]

US Supplemental or Scheduled International carrier that fly the US Flag on the airplane. (Decal of course). Kind of old school but the term is still used and refered to as such.

[misd-agin]

Also called 'enroute reserve'.

Different releases will have 5% or 10% 'enroute rsv fuel'. Ten is standard, FAA B43/44 releases/re-releases allow 5%.

[JW411]

BOAC:

Maybe I can help, maybe I can't.

In Laker, CAA rules required a 5% contingency to be carried for the part of the route where no enroute alternates existed. So, for a DC-10 flying from LGW to JFK we were required, in effect, to carry 5% of the fuel burn between SNN and YQX which amounted to about 2,000 lbs.

When I flew identical DC-10s for a US Flag carrier (Part 121), we were required to carry 10% of the entire fuel burn from LGW to JFK.

This simply could not be done whilst carrying a decent (identical) payload so we used the Reclear Flightplan System. The ATC flight plan would be filed from LGW to YQX with full reserves. We also carried a flight plan for the entire trip to JFK.

So, approaching YQX, if the fuel on board equalled the fuel required to make the non-stop flight (IE: you now only needed 10% of the burn from YQX to JFK then the flight could continue after being recleared by the despatcher.

If not, then we would reclear to BGR and, ultimately, to BOS by which time all that was required was 10% of the burn from BOS to JFK.

It was an unwieldy system but it worked. I never failed to make the direct flight.

Incidentally, if it was a Supplemental Flight (Part 135) then the captain could make the decision to reclear without consulting the despatcher.

[Spooky 2]

Individual Operators can request relief as you have described. This then becomes a part of their OpsSpecs. Obviously going from KLAX to EGLL and carrying the 10% is a significant penalty if applied for the whole, say eleven hours as opposed to the coast out, coast in segment.

Keep in mind that we are talking about 10% of the time in minutes and not 10% of the fuel in LBS/KGS.

[Squawk-7600]

In Long-haul operations fuel planning as you described is not unusual. It can often cause some considerable head scratching for those used to the more simplistic short-haul operations. The easiest way to view it is that at all times enroute the aircraft will have sufficient fuel to reach AN airport suitable for landing (with its associated requirements such as Wx holding etc) plus 10%, plus normal fixed reserves. However that airport may not, and initially almost certainly on ultra-long haul ops won't, be the destination airport. The latter will only become the airport suitable for landing plus 10% during the later stages of the flight. Different operators will then have varying requirements with regard alternate carriage, but that's another story. Without a similar fuel policy, ultra-long haul operations would be effectively impossible.

As a matter of interest, what is the 787s fuel average burn in tonnes/hr?

[TURIN]

As a matter of interest, what is the 787s fuel average burn in tonnes/hr?

Should be an answer here somewhere...

Pprune-B787 Performance (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/500312-787-performance.html)

[westhawk]

It was reported on Avweb this morning that Reuters reports that JAL says (talk about third hand info!) that the reason for the BOS fuel spill was an uncommanded activation of a fuel transfer valve which allowed fuel pumped from a "belly" tank (I thought Boeing called them "center" tanks) to overfill a wing tank. Upon arrival back in Tokyo, the same aircraft spilled fuel on the ramp after a valve used to defuel the aircraft opened. JAL has grounded that particular airplane until the cause of these fuel system malfunctions is identified and corrected.

A couple of observations and opinions:

Okay, the xfer valve thing at BOS I can understand. For some unknown reason a xfer valve opened and a wing tank was overfilled causing fuel to exit via the vent. I've seen this happen a couple of times when a crewmember tried to pack the wings and didn't stop in time. In this case JAL is quoted as stating that the valve operated "uncommanded" and are looking for the cause. Makes sense.

But the fuel spill after arrival in Tokyo is less clear. A "defueling" valve is traditionally used to allow defueling of the aircraft through the single point refueling receptacle. I'd be interested to know how a "defueling valve being open can cause a fuel spill. An open "jettison" valve is an entirely different matter though! I'll be interested to see whether something was lost in the translation in the reporting of this incident or perhaps the function of a defueling valve has been redefined.

[Squawk-7600]

Should be an answer here somewhere...

Pprune-B787 Performance

Thanks for that, I hadn't read any real life figures, only the pre-launch dreams. The thread was enlightening as I too would have expected much better unit costs over something like the A332. There has been so much hype (perhaps BS is a better description for it) coming out of Seattle's PR department surrounding this aircraft I for one am a little disappointed. I've yet to take a ride in one, but it had better be good is all I can say!!

Yes a failure of a valve/electronics associated with the fuel system would make sense. "Operator error" on the other hand does not.

[Chris Scott]

Squawk-7600, quotes...

Yesterday:
"Chris I'd suggest you're speaking of a bygone era. I can honestly say I've never had to dick around with the refuelling system of any modern jet I've flown. I have no idea of how it works on the 787, but I can pretty much guarantee it's all fully automatic."

Today (1):
"Yes a failure of a valve/electronics associated with the fuel system would make sense."

Quite: that's when you may have to "dick around" with the system, and that's when it's all too easy to make a mistake.

Today (2):
" 'Operator error' on the other hand does not [make sense]."

Joint effort, perhaps?

[Lyman]

Competence, preparation, procedures.....

Backing away from operations by crew, line, or builder does not inspire confidence.

When did it become more important who was left holding the bag?

That used to be roundly condemned, not supported.

Fix it.

[Self Loading Freight]

Has data been gathered on what fuel's actually remaining on landing? A decent statistical analysis on a good sample of normal flights that complete without incident might be a good counterpoint to the assumptions implicit in regulatory and company policy. Could also help identify routes, operators or a/c type which consistently edge towards a less safe regime. Evidence-based aviation, and all that...

[Spooky 2]

SLF, please tell us what your talking about? Does this have anything to do with the 787? :confused:

[Squawk-7600]

Chris I hear what you're saying, and while I'm also not familiar with the 787 aircraft, on other contemporary aircraft I fly the fuel simply doesn't work as I think you believe. It's not like the "old" days where the refueler determines how much fuel will go in different tanks. These days neither the refueler nor the pilots determine how much fuel goes where, the aircraft decides that for itself. I've done countless flights where fuel has become trapped in areas we don't want it, but that's just tough luck. The only manual input on behalf of the refueler is to preselect the required fuel. Based on the information that has been released, it's almost certain that a valve or associated control has failed as part of that automatic process. I'm not sure why you seem to be constantly trying to implicate operator error. If the aircraft had a failure such that manual intervention of the refuelling distribution was required, assuming that is even possible without determined engineering intervention, it would also almost certainly make that a no-go item given the subsequent affect on the fuel system. That is just the way the fuel systems in modern aircraft work; brilliant and completely idiot proof when it works, wheeled back into the hangar when it doesn't.

[Chris Scott]

Squawk-7600,

I'm not trying to implicate the operator, the manufacturer, or anyone else. I'm pointing out that there is a multitude of possibilities. You, on the other hand, seem to be implying that the fault can only be 100% Boeing.

(You also imply that I know nothing about the refuelling of modern a/c, and have never done it. Isn't that somewhat presumptious?)

If you've deliberately got airborne with fuel that "has become trapped in areas we don't want it", I don't call that "just tough luck". But I can think of other ways of describing it.

On the other hand, to suggest that any need for manual intervention in the refuelling process (because the automatics have hiccupped) would invariably mean its being "wheeled back into the hangar" is plain nonsense.

[Squawk-7600]

Oh goodness me, Chris let it go! You win, happy now? :rolleyes:

Nice attempt at a swipe, but your comments about the trapped fuel indicates you clearly know nothing about how some modern aircraft's fuel systems work, but whatever you say. I simply pointed out the most likely scenario.

PS ... and no I 'm not being presumptuous. Having gone through a generational change of aircraft I thought I'd respectfully point out how things have changed with the recent crop of aircraft. Meanwhile this is how you described yourself

As a retired ex-A320 driver (1988 - 2001) ...

[DozyWannabe]

@Squawk-7600:

You might want to reconsider giving Chris a hard time. He may have finished his career commanding short-haul types, but that does not preclude him being an F/O on long-haul types (including modern types) prior to 1988.

Now - as far as I can tell Chris has said nothing more than it would be wise to keep an open mind until more information becomes available, and I have a tough time finding anything wrong with that statement.

[EDIT : As someone who has been (wrongly) accused of "shilling for Airbus" in the past, and bearing in mind your post #9, please realise that I'm not in this for manufacturer politics!]

[GuilhasXXI]

Can anyone tell me how many 787's have had this problem ?

[Squawk-7600]

Sigh :ugh:

Dozy I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time, however what goes around comes around.

This was what was said

It may not be relevant to this case, but as a former pilot I can remember sometimes getting slightly confused with the complexities of valve operation during some refuelling operations on various airliners. (Do I hear sniggers from former F/Es?) Although 2-pilot aircraft have automatic fuel distribution during refuelling, there are times when adjustments have to be made. These may involve using defuelling valves and tank pumps to shunt the fuel around. And then there have been occasions when crews have tried to squeeze a bit of extra fuel in by one means or another, when range is being pushed to the limit...

Having been through that myself I can empathise. However, once again, I was simply pointing out that the latest generation of aircraft are NOT normally refuelled like that anymore. Instead of operator error, the most likely scenario was a failure of either a valve or its controller. Low and behold this statement was subsequently made

... the reason for the BOS fuel spill was an uncommanded activation of a fuel transfer valve which allowed fuel pumped from a "belly" tank (I thought Boeing called them "center" tanks) to overfill a wing tank.

I'm sorry if I have dented any egos in how the operation of contemporary aircraft may have changed in respect to how we used to do things. However I did not appreciate the oblique swipe regarding taking off with trapped fuel. For that member's information, on the particular aircraft I was referring to "shunting fuel around" is very much an engineering function and I have never witnessed a flight delayed as a result of requiring trapped fuel to be repositioned by the engineers.

Now, maybe we can get back on topic?

[DozyWannabe]

Sure, but one last thing. I doubt very much that the statement regarding "trapped" fuel (which was itself a quote) was intended as a swipe. While some posters can be combative, I am certain this was not the intent here.

[FlightPathOBN]

It may not be relevant to this case, but as a former pilot I can remember sometimes getting slightly confused with the complexities of valve operation during some refuelling operations on various airliners.

I havent noticed very many modern commercial ac, especially on the order of a 787, where the pilot is fueling the ac... :8

[DozyWannabe]

Maybe not, but they're certainly monitoring the gauges if they're available!

[westhawk]

... the reason for the BOS fuel spill was an uncommanded activation of a fuel transfer valve which allowed fuel pumped from a "belly" tank (I thought Boeing called them "center" tanks) to overfill a wing tank.

Not to interject anything into a disagreement between two other members, but I'd like to point out that the above quote (re-quoted by Squawk-7600) was taken from a post I made regarding an article I read about the BOS fuel spill incident. As I am not involved (nor do I wish to be) in this dispute between the two members, quoting from my post to make an argument about what someone posted must be an error on the part of Squawk-7600. Kindly take your fight outside boys or I'll be forced to join in!:)

[Squawk-7600]

No error on my behalf Hawky, you cited an article, I quoted your citing. Admittedly I trusted the fact you did not fabricate the story. Normally I'd include the member's name in quoting, but I haven't found a way to do that on the forum software that isn't somewhat cumbersome and I didn't think it was necessary. I noted you did the same.

At this point I am well and truly regretting saying anything at all, indeed am rapidly coming to the conclusion that I should have formed long ago; that there are some people with too much time on their hands who will simply argue for the sake of it, and I should best spend my time on more constructive activities!

[westhawk]

I should best spend my time on more constructive activities!

Perhaps so Squawky, but what would you do after that?

Yes some folks can be a little obtuse. But then we're all subject to being guilty of that on occasion.

As to my previous post regarding the BOS fuel spill article, it was me quoting Avweb quoting Reuters quoting JAL (I sure couldn't make THAT up!) :=

Hey Squawk, here's how you can quote another poster by name:

1) Copy and paste selected text to be quoted and wrap the quote tags around it.
2) Copy and paste the screen name of the poster to be attibuted into the quote tag preceding the quoted text then type the = sign preceding the user name.

example: [QUOTE=Squawk-7600]
Note that NO spaces are entered. Give it a try!

As to the matter of taking non-standard steps to cause an automatic refueling system to distribute fuel to various tanks differently than it otherwise might, there are always workarounds possible. But in normal ops on most airline equipment made in the last couple of decades, it's just as you say. The fueler simply sets the pre-select to the desired quantity in Kgs and pumps until it stops. But give a qualified A&P mechanic (engineer outside the US) the AMM with system schematic and applicable wiring diagram...

BTW, I are a A&P mech! (besides that pilot stuff)

Anyway Squawk, take 2 aspirin and check back in the morning. It's not as bad as you think.... Is it? :cool:

[johnriney]

Has data been gathered on what fuel's actually remaining on landing?

[Chris Scott]

'Morning, Squawk-7600,

No offence intended! But perhaps you should consider choosing your words more carefully?

Quote from yesterday (my bold):
“These days neither the refueler nor the pilots determine how much fuel goes where, the aircraft decides that for itself. I've done countless flights where fuel has become trapped in areas we don't want it, but that's just tough luck.”

Quote from today:
"I did not appreciate the oblique swipe regarding taking off with trapped fuel."

Assuming the type of aircraft you fly is not subject to secrecy laws, could you tell us lesser mortals what it is, and explain precisely what you mean, to avoid any further misunderstanding?

When refuelling – automatic or manual – hiccups, it can obviously be for a variety of reasons. If it’s due to the malfunction of a valve, that may or may not affect the integrity of the fuel system for the planned flight. Let’s wait for more information (not holding our breath...) before we attribute the blame entirely to the manufacturer.

In the early stages of operation of an aircraft type, unexpected faults are at a premium. When you are at an outstation, with or without type-qualified mechanics immediately available, having the aircraft towed to the hangar is an unpopular option.

FlightPathOBN, quote:
“I havent noticed very many modern commercial ac, especially on the order of a 787, where the pilot is fueling the ac...”

Agreed! Why should I get my white gloves grimy, with guys like you around? ;) It seems very unlikely in this case at somewhere like BOS. But I’ve sometimes had to do it on A310s and A320s in your absence, including testing the fuel sample offered by the bowser operator. I doubt the B787 refuelling system is fundamentally different.

[Lyman]

Chris Scott

Howdy. I agree that Operations will play an important part in the eventual determination. Both with Fuel, and Battery/Electrical......

Nothing that has transpired in the 787's intro has defied past experience, or state of the art, or even best practice.

It is inconceivable that (fueling especially) will produce any unknown and unforeseen coincidences. That means operator involvement is a given, good bad or indifferent....Plenty of hands on the bag, as yet....

[BOAC]

In danger of losing track with all these 787 threads, so I hope this is the right one..............has the reason for the two spills been identified?