LOT B787 grounded over missing parts.

[tubby linton]

This blog has an article regarding missing fuel filters from two of LOT's 787s. It just makes you wonder about the control in Boeing's QC process.http://christinenegroni.********.de/2013/09/lot-dreamliners-spend-weekend-grounded.html
The article states that the aircraft had been delivered with the filters missing.

(Sorry but this website will not let me post the proper link)

[tubby linton]

I think that the author of both articles is the same person but it doesn't say much for the quality of Boeing's product if they cannot get this sort of thing right.

[LLuCCiFeR]

...and another happy customer: Norwegian Air calls in Boeing to explain Dreamliner glitches (http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2013/09/23/norwegian-air-boeing-dreamliner-problems/2854997/)

"We are going to tell them this situation is far from good enough," company spokeswoman Anne-Sissel Skaanvik told Reuters. "We have not had the reliability that we had expected from brand new planes, so something must happen, fast ... Clearly Boeing has not had good enough operative quality control."

[Mr @ Spotty M]

There are some errors in the report, in that it was not found by routine maintenance, unless you class troubleshooting a defect as routine. Then once the discovery with the first engine, you then check the other engine and then perform a fleet check, not routine maintenance in my book.
This all started last Wednesday afternoon and culminated in the fleet check on the other aircraft on return to WAW on Thursday.
What l cannot understand is why Boeing has not issued a world wide alert, not seen any BMOM issued, unless they informed operators direct.
I also think the article is a little out on the return to service dates, with Sunday and today l believe as the return to service dates.
Plus the following from ATWOnline.
Scandinavian low-cost carrier Norwegian Air Shuttle has confirmed reports it has summoned Boeing management representatives to Oslo later this week to address reliability issues that have dogged the carrier’s two new Boeing 787 Dreamliners.
Not surprised at all with that news, l wonder how TOM & BA are doing with there aircraft.
By the way EEngr you now know what news l said would brake over the weekend, just a day or so later than l thought:ok:

[Una Due Tfc]

Is this as much the fault of the engine manufacturer as Boeing? Are the engines delivered ready to go and installed by Boeing workers the same way an enine change is conducted at an MRO or are the Boeing boys and girls expected to do full examination of the engine systems before installation?

[tdracer]

The fuel filters are routinely replaced prior to delivery of a new aircraft.

That being said, this one is fishy. I've seen the 21.3 report, and it doesn't make LOT maintenance look good (sorry, I can't elaborate). It's possible that the aircraft was delivered w/o filters, but it is also possible they were removed but not replaced by LOT prior to the event.

At any rate, Boeing QA has launched an investigation.

[DaveReidUK]

Is this as much the fault of the engine manufacturer as Boeing? Are the engines delivered ready to go and installed by Boeing workers the same way an enine change is conducted at an MRO or are the Boeing boys and girls expected to do full examination of the engine systems before installation? According to the article's author (though not stated in the link in post #2):

"A source tells me during testing at Boeing in Everett, Washington, mechanics at the plane maker removed the engine's fuel filters and failed to re install them. The planes were then delivered to the airline and began flying in passenger service"

http://christinenegroni.blog[remove]spot.co.uk/ (http://christinenegroni.bl0gspot.co.uk/)

[fox niner]

Well, at least when you don't install those filters, it surely will result in some weight savings!:E

[J.L.Seagull]

The only issue in this story is that the author doesn't mention if it was the HP or LP fuel filter, but it's most likely to be the LP filter.

The 'discovered during routine maintenance' issue: It is entirely plausible! Assuming that there were no EICAS status messages, no flight deck effects, no maintenance memos, and no reports of abnormal behaviour from the crew (airplane's behaviour! :E)... then one can only assume that the plane would keep flying until it was grounded for routine maintenance such as an A-check. (Fuel filters are replaced on A-checks, not service checks or earlier).

At this time, an unsuspecting mechanic could easily open up the LP fuel filter housing and discover that there never was any filter installed!

On older trents (T700/T800), the fuel/oil heat exchanger assembly houses the LP fuel filter. Now, if you replaced one of those, it comes from the factory WITHOUT the fuel filter pre-installed. It's quite possible that the T1000 is the same.

I know so, because it's happenned in my previous company, and several planes flew perfectly well for up to 3 months before it was discovered - again - during routine maintenance! Lesson learnt!

Having said all of that, blaming Boeing (and not the fuel filter vendor, or engine manufacturer) is the right thing to do... not because Boeing's ethically ultimately responsible..blah blah... but because it's most likely that they opened up the fuel filter and forgot to put it back.

I say so, because after every major job performed inside a fuel tank - repairs, component replacements, leak checks (from inside), etc - it is policy to replace the LP fuel filters after a few hours of engine operation, just so that if you do leave anything in there, and it gets caught in the filter, you have a chance of getting it out quickly, and leaving a nice clean new filter for when the airplane resumes normal operations.

I would think that BUILDING the damn tank/wing is a major job, and Boeing would have a procedure to replace the filter after the first few engine runs.

At the end, it seems exactly like a Boeing QC/QA issue. Too much of this airplane has been outsourced, literally and figuratively. I've found boombox radios, flash lights, tools, etc., inside 777 pylons, fuel tanks, and empennages.

Let's hope with the 777X, the airplane manufacturer actually starts manufacturing airplanes itself!

[Mr @ Spotty M]

This has nothing to do with Boeing outsourcing, this issue is down 100% to Boeing as are other issues with the aircraft.
Now, as for the comments by tdracer, this has nothing to do with Maintenance carried out on the LOT aircraft, the routine replacement of the filters is not due until the a/c has reached 2000 FH, they are all short of that figure. :=
Those of us in the know, know exactly when the error was made by Boeing and that it will be easy for Boeing's QA department to discover.
J.L.Seagull you have hit the nail on the head, it is the same for the Trent 1000 as well. :D
As such there are no such thing as "A" or "C" checks any more, however most operators still package tasks into various packages, thus still calling them "A" or "C" checks. :ok:

[CNegroni]

I am the author of the article. I am updating the blog post as I learn new information, including replies from Boeing's spokesman.

[GlueBall]

...this issue is down 100% to Boeing as are other issues with the aircraft

So, the engine manufacturers are completely in the clear, eh? :ooh:

[DaveReidUK]

So, the engine manufacturers are completely in the clear, eh?If Rolls delivered those Trents with fuel filters fitted, what more do you suggest they could/should have done, then ?

[barit1]

Seagull:

At the end, it seems exactly like a Boeing QC/QA issue. Too much of this airplane has been outsourced, literally and figuratively. I've found boombox radios, flash lights, tools, etc., inside 777 pylons, fuel tanks, and empennages.

Not exactly new. During Lockheed's L-188 fix program (late 50s) misc. non-aeronautical hardware - a vacuum cleaner e.g. - were found in the tanks. :(

[tdracer]

Now, as for the comments by tdracer, this has nothing to do with Maintenance carried out on the LOT aircraft, the routine replacement of the filters is not due until the a/c has reached 2000 FH, they are all short of that figure. :=
On the 787 (and 747-8) there is no 'scheduled' interval for filter replacement - fuel filter maintenance (at least per the MPD) is "on condition" based on the filter delta P measurement. Typical interval for fuel filters is around 2000 hrs, but brand new airplanes tend to go through the first filters well short of that (Boeing recommends 200 hours for the first filter replacement on the 747-8).

But consider this: So far, two airplanes have been found to be missing three (out of four) filters. Both belong to the same operator who has a grand total of two airplanes. No other incidents have been reported (and the number of in-service 787s is approaching 100). If this was due to 'random' error at Boeing, what are the odds that if only two airplanes were affected, they'd both end up at the same operator that (so far) only has two airplanes?

Plus, as I noted before, the 21.3 report indicates some pretty shoddy maintenance practices prior to discovery of the missing filters.

[J.L.Seagull]

MSBBarrat and Spotty,

The reasons you both say that outsourcing is not the actual problem is EXACTLY why I think that outsourcing is the problem.

Bear with me on this: Outsourcing is inherently risky because you're adding another layer of swiss cheese which has more holes than cheese, and it's at the far end of the cheese layers that management have very little visibility of, and control over.

Barratt, the same human elements of forgetfulness and fallibility also rear their heads in the outsourcing model. Client companies have to trust the paper trail (and a few surprise audits if they can manage it), but the very fact that the work processes take place outside their own premises makes it that much more difficult for QC to do their job. The control and checks in place need to be more stringent, and the QC people need to be that much sharper.

I also completely agree with you about things like toolbox checks, etc... but that's my point. Who's to say that such practices will be religiously followed when the work is outsourced, regardless of what any paperwork may show.

Example: All those infuriating call centers in India... Brilliant in theory, but crap in practice. By the time top management get to know about the disgruntled customers, and then clean up the call center companies, it too little too late.


Boeing also does a lot of 'insourcing' or internal-outsourcing (for lack of a better term). What I mean is: a huge percentage of the workforce on the factory floor (fitters, machinists, assembly staff) are temp staff on hourly wage contracts. There's a massive hire-and-fire culture thats dependent on the current workload on the floor.

This means that there's always a lot of new guys who can get be trained, but do not have the experience that aviation requires. They are then laid off at the next downturn, and when Boeing needs to hire again, it's most likely that those same guys will not be around.

Sometimes, entire production teams can consist of just one experienced leader and 4 or 5 newbies. Sobering!

So, to prove what I'm saying here's an example I saw for my self on the 787 line. At around 2.5yrs of delay when the issue of wing delam was discovered, Boeing decided to get their design staff more closely involved with the assembly line, so that any issues from re-designed structures/components could be addressed more quickly.

They moved their CAD stations, desks and all, on to the factory floor, right next to the airframes being assembled. If a worker had a problem with a part, he could walk right up to a designers desk and drop it there and show him the problem. Some management and QC staff were also moved to the floor to ensure that a tight ship was run... and it worked.

What's wonderful is that it proved that if you take ownership of your problems and keep things close, you're capable of amazing things.... and what's really sad is that they did this in hindsight as a crisis management task, and not something that should have been incorporated into the work culture from day 1.

@ barit1: HA HA HA!!! Vacuum cleaner?! That takes the cake!

[Una Due Tfc]

Sorry to be pedantic tdracer, but LOT have more than 2 of them (I think they have 5?) and they are the company with the filter issue. Norwegian only have 2 of them and their issues are more generalised

[fflyingdog]

Many years ago I had the dubious pleasure of being a tank rat at Brize on VC10's,we did quite often find flotsam in tanks ,a coffee table complete with a deck of cards floating around in centre tank springs to mind, also news papers (the Sun obviously) ,tools complete with etchings, but no bodies although it would have been of little surprise. Happy days .

[EEngr]

So, the engine manufacturers are completely in the clear, eh?I suppose that depends on what the standard assembly process is and why/if Boeing mechanics pulled the original filters.

If this is, as some have suggested, a standard procedure (replace filters after a few hours of engine run), then there should be some job paperwork and QA signoff covering it.[1]

If this was done for some out of sequence reason, then there is (was, back in my day) a series of LRU replacement procedures one must follow to do the work and ensure things got put back together again.[2]

[1] Back in the '90s, Boeing made an attempt to adopt the Japanese (Toyota) just-in-time manufacturing processes. One feature of this is that, for planned work, tools and parts are provided in job-specific containers (or tracking). So the mechanic would be issues new filters along with the job paperwork. Nobody runs off to the supply window to fetch the filters mid job. So leaving the job with a couple of 'spare parts' should have more than a few eyebrows raised.

[2] One of my jobs at Boeing was to put in place an LRU test system, which provides the shop floor with a set of instructions needed to do troubleshooting and get things put back together correctly again. When I left, the process we had in place was very fast and efficient. But the IT people love to re-engineer stuff, so our system was one of many due to be overhauled. Whether they got it right or not, I can't say. Also, out of sequence work is anathema to the schedule driven world of management. There are two ways of handling it: Make it fast and simple so as to get it over with in a minimum of time. Or make the shop floor people jump through numerous management hoops to discourage 'extra' work. Here again, our approach was to keep it simple. But I can't say if things changed in the decade where I wasn't able to keep an eye on the place.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

I do not know where you get your duff information from with regards to routine fuel filter maintenance.
I can not state for the B747-8, but l can with 100% accuracy for the B787 tell you that both the LP and HP fuel filters are replaced at 2000 FH & 30000 FH respectively.
Just in case you think l am writing bull:mad:, the MRBR/MPD task numbers for RR powered B787s are as follows, 73-205-01 & 73-205-02 for LP filter and 73-210-01 & 73-210-02 for HP filter.
Now for the second correction, LOT have 5 a/c in service and have had a total of 11 engines fitted. All engines currently fitted were checked last week, with only the engine on repair at RR requiring a check if not already done so.
The only mystery is why only one engine at fault on SP-LRC, when both FOHE were changed after the test flights, due to contamination.
The FOHE are supplied without the LP filter being fitted and the norm is the AMM procedure (which Boeing publishes) has a step to install the filter as part of the FHOE replacement.
However Boeing does not use the AMM and relies on job cards for all its requirements, first step for Boeing QA to look at.
We know that 5 engines had the FOHE replaced at some point after engine delivery from RR, 3 found to have LP filters missing.
As l have pointed out none of the LOT a/c have reached 2000 FH and have not had any of the filters replaced.
SP-LRB has today returned to service after the engine component changes and all engine inspections were carried out, plus the original defect was finally fixed.
My belief is that a Boeing working party has been involved in returning the a/c to service.
It also looks like your 21.3 report you talk of, is pretty much fiction.

[A A Gruntpuddock]

Never had to work on anything larger than my car engine, but one thing springs to mind.

If the filters were missing, what replaced them?

Had to be something or surely the fuel would just spray everywhere!

Presumably any authorised part would only be for temporary use (eg testing) and not legal for flight?

[L1649]

The filter is contained within a metal housing, in this case a fuel/oil heat exchanger, so there would just be a space where the filter fits. They are not like a car's oil filter!

[cockney steve]

Oh dear, Mr. Gruntpuddock, you've led a sheltered life!

I'm pretty sure Doctor Findlay's car would have had a metal housing containing a disposable filter element. (usually retained by a single, central bolt) Carton usually contained new rubber seals for the canister to seat on, seal for the central bolt and sometimes there would be a spring-loaded pressure-pad and seal to hold the element up to the fixed part of the housing.

the spin-on disposable cartridge, usually incorporating a blockage-bypass valve and an anti-draindown valve is a relatively recent introduction and there are a surprising number of vehicles in service which still use the element-type filter.

this Aircraft system would appear to be fundamentally the same, albeit with multiple elements.

[tubby linton]

A LOT 787 operating a flight from Toronto was made to land in Keflavik today due to being denied entry into Norwegian airspace because of aircraft identification issues.The flight was operated at FL 270 so I wonder what the problem was?

[cyflyer]

This just spotted

Norwegian Air takes Dreamliner out of service after breakdowns - Yahoo Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/norwegian-returns-dreamliner-boeing-breakdowns-114526153.html)

[CargoFlyer11]

LOT Dreamliner Lands in Iceland on Identification System Issue - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-29/lot-dreamliner-lands-in-iceland-on-identification-system-issue.html?cmpid=yhoo)


A LOT Polish Airlines SA Dreamliner flying to Warsaw from Toronto made an unscheduled landing in Iceland due to a problem with the aircraft’s onboard identification system.
The Boeing Co. 787 aircraft landed at the Keflavik airport after Norway denied permission to fly over its airspace because of the faulty system, LOT spokeswoman Barbara Pijanowska-Kuras said by phone today. The identification system sends out information about a plane to air-traffic control staff and helps identify the aircraft in the air. The Polish airline sent two planes to Iceland to transport the passengers, she said.
The state-controlled carrier has bet heavily on the use of Dreamliners to cut costs and help restore the struggling airline to profit. LOT is already in talks with Boeing to get compensation for losses from a three-month global grounding of the Dreamliner fleet over electrical faults earlier this year.
LOT, which currently operates five Dreamliners, reported daily losses of $50,000 from the grounding when its first plane was stranded in Chicago after the inaugural flight.
The incident follows Norwegian Air Shuttle AS (NAS)’s announcement yesterday that it is taking one of its Dreamliner planes out of service for repairs. The company said it will lease an Airbus A340 to ensure all scheduled flights keep running between Scandinavia and the U.S. and Thailand.
Norwegian Air is grappling with technical glitches on the Dreamliner, from cockpit oxygen supply issues that delayed a flight to New York from Oslo on Sept. 22, to brake difficulties that affected a second 787 in Sweden this month. The global fleet of Dreamliners was grounded earlier this year after some batteries on planes operated by Japanese carriers caught fire.
To contact the reporter on this story: Pawel Kozlowski in Warsaw at [email protected]
:rolleyes:

[lomapaseo]

A LOT 787 operating a flight from Toronto was made to land in Keflavik today due to being denied entry into Norwegian airspace because of aircraft identification issues.The flight was operated at FL 270 so I wonder what the problem was?

I can imagine flight identification issues but I can't think of what an aircraft identification issue would be. Were they saying they were a B777 instead of a B787?

[wiggy]

I can imagine flight identification issues but I can't think of what an aircraft identification issue would be

I'm guessing perhaps there's just a bit of ambiguity in the statement or in translation...I guess it was most probably a "straightforward" transponder and/or ADS problem.

[DaveReidUK]

I can imagine flight identification issues but I can't think of what an aircraft identification issue would be. Were they saying they were a B777 instead of a B787?Aircraft ID is the term used to denote Item 7 on the flightplan i.e. the callsign.

[tubby linton]

I find it hard to believe that they were not allowed to complete the flight as a one off waiver or did the extended flight at FL 270 mean they didn't have enough fuel to reach Warsaw.

[peter we]

That being said, this one is fishy. I've seen the 21.3 report, and it doesn't make LOT maintenance look good (sorry, I can't elaborate). It's possible that the aircraft was delivered w/o filters, but it is also possible they were removed but not replaced by LOT prior to the event.

Are you making this up, or did this 'secret report' fail to realize that LOT don't maintain the 787, which again falls within Boeing responsibility as Monarch are approved by Boeing?

"LOT’s U.K.-based airplane-maintenance subcontractor, Monarch Aircraft Engineering, found a fuel filter missing in each of the two Rolls-Royce engines on one 787."

[M609]

I find it hard to believe that they were not allowed to complete the flight as a one off waiver or did the extended flight at FL 270 mean they didn't have enough fuel to reach Warsaw.

You do realize that primary radar coverage is more or less a thing of the past? Allowing a non transponder aircraft in would effectively level cap all the airspace it transits for all other aircraft. Very few overland ACC controllers have current procedural ratings, so the LOT aircraft would inconvenience a lot of other aircraft. (Contingency procedures for handling non transponding aircraft often involve "generous" separation minima.....)

Best let LOT get all the inconvenience......

[oceancrosser]

A LOT 787 is sitting in KEF with a u/s Transponder, two a/c from LOT, apparantly an Embraer and a 737 have picked up the passengers.


Earlier today LOT flight LO42 (B787 Dreamliner) from Toronto to Warsaw was forced to land in Keflavik, Iceland because the aircraft was denied entry into Norwegian airspace.
Playback: Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! (http://www.flightradar24.com/2013-09-29/09:00/12x/LOT42)
...

I would imagine the 787 has 2 xpdrs, so apparently both failed. It is still in KEF almost 6 hours after the "rescue" aircraft arrived from WAW, so either no spares in WAW or it is a question of something more than swapping LRUs.
I would also think that a "fresh" flight crew arrived with the incoming a/c.

Apologies, did not notice the other thread.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Boeing has nothing to do with the day to day maintaining of the LOT B787 fleet.
The contract for the maintenance was won by MAEL and not Boeing.

[tdracer]

Quote:
That being said, this one is fishy. I've seen the 21.3 report, and it doesn't make LOT maintenance look good (sorry, I can't elaborate). It's possible that the aircraft was delivered w/o filters, but it is also possible they were removed but not replaced by LOT prior to the event.


Are you making this up, or did this 'secret report' fail to realize that LOT don't maintain the 787, which again falls within Boeing responsibility as Monarch are approved by Boeing?


21.3 reports are considered proprietary - but I don't think there is any place in the Boeing approved maintenance procedures that would allow maintenance to clear a no-dispatch fault - without doing any maintenance or troubleshooting - and dispatching the airplane.

[oceancrosser]

Apparently SP-LRA left KEF this morning as LOT9001 to WAW. :D

[Skyjob]

Aircraft ID incorrect sounds like a Mode S issue

[peter we]

21.3 reports are considered proprietary

Yet you have apparently published its conclusion

Plus, as I noted before, the 21.3 report indicates some pretty shoddy maintenance practices prior to discovery of the missing filters.

By who, exactly?

Not quite related, but there are enough 787 threads

Budget airline Norwegian Air Shuttle is taking one of its brand new Dreamliners out of long-haul service and demanding that Boeing repair the plane after it suffered repeated breakdowns, the carrier said on Saturday.

Boeing said the repairs would take "a matter of days".

Norwegian Air Shuttle will instead lease an Airbus A340 from HiFly to keep its long-haul business going, a spokesman said.

Norwegian Air Takes Dreamliner Out of Service After Breakdowns (excerpt) (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/148332/troubles-keep-piling-up-for-boeing-787.html)

[olasek]

[I find it hard to believe that they were not allowed to complete the flight as a one off waiver or did the extended flight at FL 270 mean they didn't have enough fuel to reach Warsaw.
It had nothing to do with altitude, Norwegian ATC simply refused to let them through even though they passed through busy airspace in US/Canada with inop transponder (on a waiver using special procedures). There was an interview today on Polish TV with the captain of this 787, he did not have high praise for Norwegian ATC.

I would imagine the 787 has 2 xpdrs, so apparently both failed
The problem was in the antenna itself, the problem was known at the time of (or shortly after) takeoff.

[B767PL]

Norway not allowing the A/C to pass through its airspace with an INOP transponder is a complete joke, and a poor reflection on Norwegian ATC, especially after the A/C having made its way all the way over the Atlantic through various airspace.

:ugh:

[oceancrosser]

So you see no difference between a "procedural" non-radar Oceanic Airspace and a class A domestic radar airspace?

[olasek]

Huh??
They transitioned through radar-controlled class A airspace both in US and Canada and similarly over Iceland.

[ATC Watcher]

Re LOT Transponder issues.
I have not seen the incident report yet , but if the (newspapers) reported facts are correct the fact that it was at 270 could indicate loss of RVSM status already. The "ID" is probably a loss of transponder(s) , not an issue in oceanic airspace but in class A later on , especially in SSR-coverage only airspace.
But if it was only the Norvegians that refused the a/c ( if this is indeed a fact ) they could have easily reroute via UK controlled airspace. So there must me a bit more to the "refuse entry " story.
Not sure of the fuel comsuption delta between 380 and 270 on a 787. ( maybe someone here in the know can calculate ) and therefore if they could reach VAW without touching their reserves.

So it could be just transponder problems leading to automatic loss of RVSM early in Flight, leading to no reserve to continue flight at 270 all the way to destination. If this was the case, not a real big issue, and correct decision to divert..

[oceancrosser]

I am assuming they left their origin with an operative transponder. Where it failed, I have not seen. Might have been shortly before the Oceanic Entry Point.

[olasek]

I am assuming they left their origin with an operative transponder
Your assumption is incorrect. :sad:

[ATC Watcher]

Your assumption is incorrect

If you are right then they knew from the outset they were not going to go above FL290 all the way to VAW, then my fuel scenario is also incorrect. (unless the winds are 270 were much lower than expected.)

[olasek]

They weren't in any way altitude restricted going through US/Canada airspace.

[ATC Watcher]

Then their transponders were working, not having an altitude reporting mode S transponder ( 25 ft accuracy) automatically cancels your RVSM status.

[olasek]

No, they weren't working. Period. The captain was very clear about their situation when he was speaking with the reporter, I guess the FAA/Canadian controllers were highly accommodating and capable/willing to handle the situation. Please stop contradicting facts that were clearly enumerated by the captain of this particular flight. :ugh:

[ATC Watcher]

Not contradicting, fishing for info :E seems I was lucky,

So if what you say is correct, the a/c took off with its both SSR INOP , so with no TCAS either, was cleared into RVSM airspace and provided with 2000ft sep all the way, the Canadians later accepted this situation but the Icelandic did not and a/c was desecended to 270 below RVSM. Later the Norwegians refused the a/c with no transponder in their airspace. Am I getting warmer ?

The ATC situation aside, if both SSR were INOP on dep the chances that the problem was an electrical one , as opposed to avionics failure, is high.
So back to electrical issues.:(

[VNAV PATH]

Seems getting cooler ..ATC Watcher .

According to LOT 42 flightaware profile , aircraft never flew higher than FL 270.

[ATC Watcher]

OK, have to go fishing again : :E
Olasek and Flightaware are not compatible. Who is the correct one ?

[10W]

If an aircraft has an INOP transponder, I certainly wouldn't let it head off across the Atlantic without making sure that the ATC authorities on the other side of the pond could accept it.

The UK would refuse the flight also as it would have to pass through an area where there is no primary radar available and no way of seeing the aircraft.

TCAS and ground based conflict detection or trajectory based ATC systems would also be compromised by this flight. Much safer to assess the risk and refuse entry if the airspace is too complicated, too busy, or safety margins are eroded to an unacceptable level.

The pilot in command would also be knowingly breaking the equipment carriage laws in Europe, unless he had obtained dispensation in advance to operate with a reduced MEL. He took the gamble that 'in advance' would be a rolling approval as each agency co-ordinated ahead of the aircraft's passage, whereas if he or his company had checked with each agency before departure, they would have known earlier that a refusal was on the cards somewhere down the line.

[golfyankeesierra]

Wonder what made them decide to depart anyway? Kids birthday, wife in labor, threatened with termination?
I would say "call me when you fixed it".

[dervish]

It just makes you wonder about the control in Boeing's QC process


Nothing new there. Followers of the Mil thread will know Boeing QC failures cost MoD 6 lives in a 1987 crash in the Falklands. MoD chose not to pursue the issue to avoid embarrassing a major foreign supplier but that did both MoD and other customers no favours. It merely encouraged the status quo, on both sides.

[Art E. Fischler-Reisen]

Anyone know why the 787 parked up at EMA today had someone in a very tall "cherry picker" paying very close attention to the fin/rudder? Was this merely a very conscientious pilot doing his pre-flight inspection? I doubt it.

[No Fly Zone]

Perhaps there is some protocol for R&R'ing the fuel filter shortly after the engine's First Run, or perhaps after taxi tests, but not first flight. I'm only guessing! I guess the engines can operate without them, but my car sure won't! Why on earth would a Boeing maintenance engineer remove a filter with out replacing it? Or logging it with all of the above and grounding the airplane at Paine Field. Did Boeing's warehouse simple run out of filters? I cannot be that simple. For this and several other reasons, LOT is taking Boeing to task and bashing them a bit. As much as I love Boeing and their products, this behavior is beyond my understanding. Formal engine logs begin with the first mounted start and they never end. Was there no detailed inspection before First Start? What the heck am I missing? Boeing is just not that stupid.
Every flight is supposed to be preceded by and external examination and a log check. Was the no-filter detail in the log book? Since this is a new airplane, going back to engine hour zero should not be that difficult. What is in the log books? I want to know!

[BARKINGMAD]

Alas it may be what is NOT in the log books.

When the paperwork takes longer than the job sometimes, then there's a chance that the penwork will be skipped/forgotten/lost by distraction and workload.

Like the fatigued sleeping pilots, our "spanners" at all levels in most companies are being pressured to do more, with less, in shorter time, to keep the beancounters happy.

We wait with interest the reports on the LHR Airbus cowlings accident and the speculated NLG downlock pin incident.

A fresh reading of the total oil loss incident to G-OBMM and the similar Caribbean Tristar incident could be compulsory reading for todays engineering/airline management.

Same goes for the sub-contractors working for Mr Airbus, Mr Boeing and the car factory down the road.

Once again I ask that we direct our fire away from the line and up the food chain where it should be targeted?

Keep that picture of relevant CEO(s) being led off to a gaol sentence, handcuffed and manhandled, in your minds, it's hopefully going to happen soon?!

[bvcu]

Not quite as simple as being posted [and i have no inside knowledge on this case] , everything is not in the log book !!!! a lot of this will be in a 'workpackage' , which will consist of cards with all the jobs and certification on. when its all finished the paperwork is signed up and the logbook signed. to my knowledge of new deliveries the logbook is different for every operator and regulatory jurisdiction, so the manufactiurer uses their own paperwork system until acceptance by the operator who then initiates the logbook when the initial C of A etc is issued .So it appears to be a paperwork system error , much of which these days is computer generated. Not really very different to most airline systems in reality , generally its only going to be line work thats in the tech log, i.e defects or a filter change that doesnt come due during a scheduled check.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

Read my post #23.
The engines were flown with the LP fuel filters installed, throughout the test flying prior to delivery.
Due to an Airworthiness Limitation, which requires the FOHE to have a borescope inspection carried out on the left engine after 20 flight hours and on the right engine at 40 flight hours. This borescope inspection is to check for debris from the fuel tanks covering the inlet screen of the FOHE, due to an oversight during the certification process.
When these inspections were carried out debris was found on two aircraft, so both the FOHE were replaced.
The FOHE assembly contains the LP fuel filter assembly, which does not contain a filter when the assembly is despatched from the OEM.
You have to fit a filter after you install the FOHE, which Boeing did not do so on 3 of the 4 FOHE, no idea why one was fitted, maybe that FOHE was removed from a serviceable engine and did not come from the store.
Yes the engine behaves perfectly without the filters fitted, provided the fuel is clean, no more debris from the fuel tanks.
However once they were found to missing, RR demand various components to be changed and inspections which include borescope of the fuel delivery nozzles.
Boeing is not going to be able to portion blame to sub contractors in this case, it will have to take it on the chin.

[fenland787]

Barkingmad is right, but it is a shame someone will end up in jail - a shame because that will mean a bunch of people have died - before it is understood.

I have spent a while since heading back from my time in Everett trying to understand how a great company like Boeing who, let's face it, should know a thing or two about how to build an airplane, got in such a mess. I keep coming back to one simple thing, the (too many) layers of program management seemed to divorced from, and disrespectful of, the engineering/production side of the operation.

I worked intensively for eight years on both sides of that divide and saw it on a daily basis. That is the point, it was a divide, this was not a company operating as a coherent team, almost a 'them and us' feeling at times.

So, do I have a solution? Actually yes, and this is my age and background showing, but it is really very simple:

1/ Nobody gets to be a program manager until they have done some real work, in the engineering department, on the line or wherever so they can learn how the thing they are meant to be running actually works (or doesn't).

Industry in general needs to understand that an MBA is valueless in itself and will not make you a manager. If you can add an MBA to your real time-served skills, on the line, engineering, operations or whatever, then an MBA will help you be a much better manager, but it must be that way round.

2/ Top level management must always have a balance of skills, no one discipline (e.g. financial) must dominate, and again the same rules apply, all these folk should be time-served people who have got the scars and the T-shirts!

But, as I tend to sign off, I'm just an engineer with a lot of scars and T-shirts, what would I know?

[glad rag]

Cracking post fenland :D

[EEngr]

trying to understand how a great company like Boeing who, let's face it, should know a thing or two about how to build an airplane, got in such a mess.Lets just start calling them McDonnell-Douglas and get over all the confusion. Douglas Aircraft was a great company and built some fine products back in its day. But look what happened to them when the McDonnell family stepped in.

[Evanelpus]

Fenland, that's probably the most sensible post I've seen in a while.

BAe at Hatfield started to employ graduates for positions of Superintendant and above on the shop floor. Whilst they proved they could study and get a qualification, they couldn't cut the mustard faced with a problem on the line surrounded by fitters effing and blinding. I saw one dissolve under these circumstances and it was a quite sad to see.

[ironbutt57]

So...any info on how many engines were found to be missing this part fleet wide ?

[joy ride]

Cracking post fenland!

For quite a while it has been fashionable for management to believe that they should NOT know about the shop floor, just how to "manage". This is current throughout industry, and made worse by speculative profiteering buy-outs. The result is businesses being run by people who know little or nothing about the company's product or service, then make decisions about how the actual work should be done, and when things go wrong they point the finger at the workforce and award themselves bonuses for sorting out the problem.

When I learned that Boeing management had moved to Chicago to be away from the shop floor, this said it all about modern management.

[pee]

The result is businesses being run by people who know little or nothing about the company's product or service, then make decisions about how the actual work should be done, and when things go wrong they point the finger at the workforce and award themselves bonuses for sorting out the problem.
Right. But you don't think it's just an aircraft industry-specific problem, do you? The incompetency seems to be an issue everywhere, unfortunately, with politicians in front row, I'd say.

[joy ride]

pee, I also wrote "This is current throughout industry" and I quite agree about its strong presence among politicians.

I should add that I am in part a Manager. Or rather a "Self-Manager"!

[Pinkman]

Pee is right. This is generic to any industry and it is in part because of the inability in industry to attach a value to experience (scars & T-shirts) to be able to compete with the perceived value of a tertiary qualification and pay people accordingly.

I've thought about this constantly. I'm 60 next year and as most of you know I'm a fuels guy. The graduates that I mentor know nothing. I mean, really nothing. They know how to work ten varieties of smart phone etc. but I cant teach them..even the bright and willing ones, because there is no operating experience, no context, to anchor anything into. We have our own children of the magenta line too...

They say "you make it look so easy". Maybe, but I've been there on live plant when the panel alarms have gone off and I've sh*t myself wondering what the hell was going on. That's how you learn, and learn to think predictively and its also how you generalize to other situations that helps you cope when it hits the fan.

Fenland said it all: get your stripes first.

[SLF-Flyer]

Fenland is 100% correct. I have a son who has a BSc. in Mechanical Engineering. I am pleased to say that as part of the course, he had to get his hands dirty. He has moved up the management chain, but still can be found on the shop floor when thing go wrong with the plant. Trying to design out the problem and giving a hand to put it back together in an effort to understand the problems the fitters have to face.

A few years ago he was put on a plane to America to look at a plant run by his parent company. He came back very depressed at the “I am a manager, you will do what I say” instead of listening to what the problem really is and the lack of quality control.

Here in the UK we still are well behind in quality control. One reason is the lack of good engineers and management that just will not listen to ways of improving a product, due to the cost in the short term.

Out of 30 students that started on his mechanical engineering course, only 7 graduated at the end of the 4 years. Alas engineering is not as attractive in the take home pay stakes as other occupations, but it can be very rewarding when you do get it right and you can say “I did that.”

His hero is James Dyson, just look at how he revolutionized the vacuum cleaner.

[Dimitris]

SLF-Flyer and Fenland,
maybe add to the list of problems the fact that 'planes' are referred to as 'products'?

Can someone older than me remember when manufacturers started making 'products' instead of planes, cars, jet engines, mobile phones etc etc...?

[DaveReidUK]

maybe add to the list of problems the fact that 'planes' are referred to as 'products'?A "product" is, by definition, simply something that is produced. While I agree that it's not terribly descriptive, it's a perfectly legitimate way to describe something that clearly has been manufactured.

Though if you had reserved your opprobium for so-called "financial products", or even what the airlines describe as their "product" (i.e. service) then I would have to agree with you. :O

Oh and the "Production Engineer" has been a respected member of the profession for centuries.

[fenland787]

it's not just us:
BBC News - Police chief direct recruitment 'to bypass constable rank' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24524841)
So the way it's been working for the last 180(!) years is now found to be wanting - it looks like no one is learning?:ugh:

[joy ride]

^ Even the Police! I said earlier that it is fashionable to think that managers do not need to know about what they manage, and that is a pretty extreme example. Clearly things have to get a whole lot worse before these numpties start learning.

[Volume]

Can someone older than me remember when manufacturers started making 'products' instead of planesMust have been related to the introduction of the SAP software, which can only handle "products", even if has been a service...
But it is even an aviation term in the regulations, if it is a "product" it is an airplane, helicopter glider etc. If it is "parts and appliances" it is an engine, APU, hydraulic valve, instrument, seat belt etc.
However, the manufacturers have stopped "making" products anyway, they just assemble them these days...

[tubby linton]

More poor production?
AI Dreamliner touches down... with a gaping hole - Bangalore Mirror (http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/cover-story/AI-Dreamliner-touches-down--with-a-gaping-hole/articleshow/24162063.cms?)

[Chris Scott]

Tubby,

Some readers of that item in the Bangalore Mirror are arguing that it is a quick-release inspection panel. If it is 8ft x 4ft, it's unlikely to be a hinged one. The holes surrounding the aperture certainly look like those for seating dzus fasteners, or similar.

I'm finding it difficult to establish from the photo which area of the fuselage belly is being shown, but it might be the centre-section falsework/fairing. No doubt some of the B787 engineers on this thread will clarify.

[DaveReidUK]

The holes surrounding the aperture certainly look like those for seating dzus fasteners, or similar.

I agree.

Dzus fasteners have worked well for the last 80 years, they aren't known for coming undone in flight.

I have a feeling that the reason the panel hasn't been found yet is that it's on a shelf in the corner of the hangar ...

[fenland787]

No doubt some of the B787 engineers on this thread will clarify.Wish I could, I must have ducked under it zillions of times on my way to the aft EEbay hatch but I agree them there 'oles look much more like Dzus fasteners than rivets and the speed of replacement could support that?

On the grounds that even the most ineffectual walk-round could not have missed an 8 x 4 foot hole I hope there isn't a maintenance chap in Delhi trying hard to remember if he went round and finished all the fasteners after doing the four corners?

[Heathrow Harry]

Always though that moving HQ from Seattle to Chicago was bound to lead to a dis-connect with the engineers and their tradition............

[fenland787]

I have a feeling that the reason the panel hasn't been found yet is that it's on a shelf in the corner of the hangar ... My first thoughts too, especially given the amount of damage around the hole - i.e. none - but then my thoughts above regarding a walk-round made me think otherwise. I mean, not even a pilot could miss an 8 x 4 hole?....runs for cover.....:E

[poorjohn]

Dimitris -
SLF-Flyer and Fenland,
maybe add to the list of problems the fact that 'planes' are referred to as 'products'?

Can someone older than me remember when manufacturers started making 'products' instead of planes, cars, jet engines, mobile phones etc etc...?My (un)favorite is when people became "human resources". I imagined us bar-coded and lined up on the shelves along with cartons of copy-machine paper and janitorial supplies.

[oliver2002]

Anyone near that aircraft in DEL pre-deaprture would have noticed a 8x4 hole in the fuselage....!?! :ugh:

[DaveReidUK]

Anyone near that aircraft in DEL pre-departure would have noticed a 8x4 hole in the fuselage....!?!You mean, like we used to say about Airbus engine cowl door latches ?

An access panel that had torn itself out, for example during a hard landing, would not do so without leaving some residual airframe damage which in all likelihood would have made fitting a replacement panel more than simply a plug-and-play exercise.

[tdracer]

Was the previous departure per chance before sunrise? A lot easier to miss something like that after dark.

The apparent lack of secondary damage suggests that the missing panel was either:
a) Not installed, or
b) Loosely installed by only a few fasteners.

Either of which would imply maintenance error.

[Mr @ Spotty M]

If a DGCA official thinks that panel was held on by rivets, it is no wonder aviation in India is a mess. :ugh:

[Una Due Tfc]

Just out of curiosity, what kind of increase in fuel burn would we be talking about with that panel missing? Would the crew notice? And if so would they just put it down to unfavourable winds or worse than forecast temps?

[tdracer]

Just out of curiosity, what kind of increase in fuel burn would we be talking about with that panel missing? Would the crew notice? And if so would they just put it down to unfavourable winds or worse than forecast temps?


Based on some flight testing we did on the 747-8, the difference wouldn't be dramatic - maybe a percent or so in fuel burn - although it would tend to confuse things like the autothrottle since aircraft drag would be meaningfully higher than what the automatics expect (e.g. speed capture would take longer).

I saw a report today that they found the panel on the runway - but after some of the other published information (such as the panel being hinged and held in place by rivets) I'm pretty skeptical of anything that gets published.....:ugh:

[DaveReidUK]

I saw a report today that they found the panel on the runway - but after some of the other published information (such as the panel being hinged and held in place by rivets) I'm pretty skeptical of anything that gets publishedRightly so.

According to this report:

Mid-air scare as Dreamliner panel falls off - The New Indian Express (http://newindianexpress.com/nation/Mid-air-scare-as-Dreamliner-panel-falls-off/2013/10/16/article1837899.ece)

The panel not only fell off in "mid-air", but in doing so scared those on board (how?) and "created a hole in the cargo hold". Hmmm.

[oliver2002]

A little bit of better news:
The Boeing Company : Fuselage panel falls from Boeing 787 Dreamliner in flight | 4-Traders (http://www.4-traders.com/THE-BOEING-COMPANY-4816/news/The-Boeing-Company--Fuselage-panel-falls-from-Boeing-787-Dreamliner-in-flight-17366314/)

Most interesting bit:
"It was the mid-underwing-to-body fairing located on the belly of the airplane on the right side," Boeing spokesman Doug Alder said. The part "provides a more aerodynamic surface in flight."

Again, if a 8x4ft panel would be missing pre-departure at that spot... :ugh:

[poorjohn]

Body panel falls off Boeing 787 Dreamliner in flight - Yahoo Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/body-panel-falls-off-boeing-787-dreamliner-flight-135941408--finance.html) The Reuters article says The eight feet by four feet (2.4 metres by 1.2 metres) piece of fuselage fell from the underside of the jet and landed within the perimeter at India's Bangalore airport, officials said.

[DaveReidUK]

If indeed the panel "landed within the perimeter at India's Bangalore airport" it's very strange that we haven't seen any photos of it yet.

Not to mention those pulled rivets. :ugh:

[fenland787]

it's very strange that we haven't seen any photos of it yet.
Not to mention those pulled rivets. We'll see 'em soon - as soon as they've finished photoshopping out the Dzus fasteners

[EEngr]

it's very strange that we haven't seen any photos of it yet. Unless its in a maintenance shop somewhere, forgotten to be replaced before flight. And now a major embarrassment to someone.

If it fell off in mid flight, someone in some village has a new patch for their roof. Just in time for the next monsoon season.;)

[DaveReidUK]

Unless its in a maintenance shop somewhere, forgotten to be replaced before flight. And now a major embarrassment to someone.But at least they would then be able to put it back on the aircraft that they robbed the replacement one from ... :O

[underfire]

Looking through the comments, and the images a few things come to mind...

One, I am with everyone on the panel never being installed, even a few fasteneres, it would rip off and take something with it. It is interesting to note that there was no warning in the flightdeck about this...(sortof amazing the insulation held intact)

Second, the reference to the pilot walking around the aircraft. I have been on many domestic, validation , and obs assessment flights, and the pilots enter the aircraft down the chute like everyone else. I have yet to notice a pilot do a walkaround on an aircraft, nor one on the tarmac... Where is this coming from?

Edit: as far as pictures, probably the last thing you want to show in India is a removable panel that seats 4 comfortably...

(just thinking...if you had the panel in your hand back at the shop, what would you do with it...hmmmm....)

[Chris Scott]

Quote from underfire:
Second, the reference to the pilot walking around the aircraft. I have been on many domestic, validation , and obs assessment flights, and the pilots enter the aircraft down the chute like everyone else. I have yet to notice a pilot do a walkaround on an aircraft, nor one on the tarmac... Where is this coming from?

Not sure where and what you mean by being on "domestic, validation and obs assessment flights"? It is common practice in airlines for the complete flightcrew to start off by entering the a/c, often using the same route as the passengers will be using. Personal effects need to be stowed, cockpit safety checks performed (I'm not referring to the full cockpit checks), and it is useful to consult the Tech Log to ascertain the current status of the a/c before one crew member commences the external check. AFAIK, all airline ops involve an external check by a member of the flight crew.

[DWS]

Found on runway after a ' hard' lanbding.

(Reuters) - A body panel fell off a Boeing (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=BA.N&lc=int_mb_1001) (BA.N (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=BA.N)) 787 Dreamliner operated by Air India AIRID.UL as it came into land on Saturday, the latest glitch for the high-tech jet that has suffered a string of mishaps since its introduction two years ago.
The eight feet by four feet piece of fuselage fell from the underside of the jet and landed within the perimeter at India's Bangalore airport, officials said.
The pilots of the plane, carrying 148 passengers and crew from Delhi to Bangalore, did not realize the panel was missing until the flight landed, The Times of India reported. . . .:p

[hifly787]

tdracer
your option b turning out to be correct. loosely fastened with less than the required number of screws. No evidence of hard landing.

[DaveReidUK]

The eight feet by four feet piece of fuselage fell from the underside of the jet and landed within the perimeter at India's Bangalore airport, officials saidSorry, but simply repeating the same agency quote from a different publication doesn't make it any more true.

I say again, if the panel has been found, why have we not seen any photos of it ? :ugh:

This latest "news" has all the hallmarks of a face-saving/damage limitation (no pun intended) exercise.

If, as is being suggested, the aircraft left DEL with the panel attached, albeit with only a few of the fasteners engaged (there are around 30 altogether), then there is no way that they could have pulled through and allowed the panel to detach without collateral damage to the airframe, damage which must then have been ignored when fitting the replacement panel to get the aircraft flying again.

Sorry, but I don't buy that.

[LiveryMan]

New information from some one on the ground at BLR at the time:

An AI A320 arrived at 1600 with the replacement panel from a sister ship and the "stricken" 787 eventually took off around 1730.

To my mind, this means it was a simple "put panel in hole, do up fasteners" job.

Would a fully secured panel ripping off in flight really do so little damage, that a replacement would be refitted without any apparent hassle?

I get the impression that it would leave torn off pieces of itself behind, as well was buckled fastener anchors, torn holes where the fasteners attach to the structure, etc. All of which not shown in the picture and certainly not compatible with simply offering up the replacement and fastening it up within 1.5 hours.

But that's just my laymen's observation.

[Baron 58P]

The latest on the "panel" - ATW today -http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_10_16_2013_p0-627548.xml

[LiveryMan]

Found within the perimeter of the airport.

In other words, it could not has been very secure in the first place :ugh:

But what the Indian authorities are saying makes no sense.
The panel is held on with screw fasteners. Not rivets. Else you'd have to drill them out each time you wanted to check the PACKs.
So why are they saying it fell off due to a riveting fault?

Do they want to try and blame Boeing so they can claim innocence and more compensation money?

[DaveReidUK]

The latest on the "panel" - ATW today -http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_10_16_2013_p0-627548.xmlIt's not often that you come across the words "latest" and "Aviation Week" in the same sentence. :O

"a riveting flaw in the panel covering the heat exchanger unit could have caused the panel to detach from the fuselage"

Riveting stuff, indeed.

[Ian W]

Found within the perimeter of the airport.

In other words, it could not has been very secure in the first place :ugh:

But what the Indian authorities are saying makes no sense.
The panel is held on with screw fasteners. Not rivets. Else you'd have to drill them out each time you wanted to check the PACKs.
So why are they saying it fell off due to a riveting fault?

Do they want to try and blame Boeing so they can claim innocence and more compensation money?

Someone will be really regretting releasing the picture of the hole showing no damage and no broken rivets or fasteners. Without that picture many posts here would be blaming Boeing.

I wonder if someone finding the panel in the hangar could have decided that a quick ride around the perimeter road to 'drop it off' was a good idea?

[LiveryMan]

From what my Indian friend tells me about how businesses go about their business in India, that would not surprise me in the slightest!

Corruption, extortion and lies are acceptable business practices in India! :rolleyes:

[Chris Scott]

How much longer can Boeing respect norms of confidentiality of comms between them and their customer, one wonders? They must be seething...

[LiveryMan]

Perhaps not Boeing's fault after all:

AI blames engineer for Dreamliner panel fall, suspends him

Engineer suspended for panel falling off Air India's Dreamliner | Firstpost (http://www.firstpost.com/business/ai-blames-engineer-for-dreamliner-panel-fall-suspends-him-1179645.html)

An aircraft maintenance engineer, who was the last to handle the panel which fell off a Delhi-Bangalore Air India flight last Saturday, has been suspended. In all probability, this engineer “forgot to screw back this panel”, an airline official told Firstpost. This official also said though the incident was regrettable, it never had “any safety implications since the panel fell off when the aircraft had already landed on the runway.

[fenland787]

I guess I should be printing up some more PPRuNe "I told you so" T-shirts?Perhaps not Boeing's fault after all:

AI blames engineer for Dreamliner panel fall, suspends him But still the press add on the "latest setback after batteries and fires" tag followed by this little gem:
Whether the panel actuall (sic) fell off because of engineering negligence or because of some defect in the aircraft – Air India needs to handle these planes very very carefully to retain its flight schedules.

[BOAC]

All getting very confusing! Where exactly was the panel found?
a) In an engineering office
b) On Delhi airport's runway
c) On Bangalore' runway?

[Chris Scott]

Yes, BOAC sums up the confusion perfectly. Quote from Firstpost:
This official also said though the incident was regrettable, it never had “any safety implications since the panel fell off when the aircraft had already landed on the runway.
(my emphasis).

If enough Dzus fasteners had been secured to hold the panel on for the flight (say, one at each corner), what sort of landing would cause it to fall off?

[DaveReidUK]

If enough Dzus fasteners had been secured to hold the panel on for the flight (say, one at each corner), what sort of landing would cause it to fall off? An Air India one ? :O

But, joking aside, I still don't buy this "fell off, but without causing any collateral damage to the aircraft" nonsense.

Without knowing how rigid the panel is (and its weight), it's hard to say how many engaged fasteners (out of the 30 or so) would have been sufficient to hold it on without sagging halfway along the long edge - more than 4, I would suggest.

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/thumb/msid-24162139,width-600,resizemode-4/hole.jpg

And of course the alternative scenario - that it wasn't refitted at all after maintenance, and missed on the walkaround - might simply mean that the F/O, unlike the poor engineer, is better connected and knows where some of the bodies are buried.

[fenland787]

If enough Dzus fasteners had been secured to hold the panel on for the flight (say, one at each corner), what sort of landing would cause it to fall off? Too right, so where was it found? If I had to guess (which in light of all the confusion is as good a way as any) I'm going for Delhi with a combination of BOAC's option (a) 'engineering office' and Ian W's 'quick ride around the perimeter road to drop it off'!

Edit - If it was found at Bangalore, would it be crazy to suggest, given this was reportedly found during the prep for the onward flight, that someone removed it at Bangalore for whatever reason, went for a cup of chi tea and then someone else moved the airplane and spotted it....Nooo, that couldn't happen....

[BOAC]

Should be fairly easy to establish the 'office' conspiracy - is it bent, buckled and scarped or not?

[DaveReidUK]

Should be fairly easy to establish the 'office' conspiracy - is it bent, buckled and scraped or not?You're kidding, of course - if the panel is in pristine condition, there's no way we're ever going to be allowed to see a photo of it.

[BOAC]

Conversely, if it is bashed about..........................(will there be frantic hammering and 'bashing' noises:))

Was there a post saying it was to be fitted to the 'robbed' 787? Cannot be that badly damaged, then.

[oliver2002]

They cannibalised a newly delivered but not in service 787 in DEL to replace the 'missing' part and the original aircraft went back into service. So the frame is definitely not damaged. Even more confusing.

[LiveryMan]

My guess is some ramp rat at the destination airport saw the missing panel, got the wrong idea took a photo and sold it to the local rag. Reporter then makes up his/her own story.

Presto: Media frenzy.

[oliver2002]

Some speculations.... http://christinenegroni.********.co.uk/2013/10/from-india-to-dreamliner-factory-in.html

[DaveReidUK]

Disappointingly sloppy journalism from the usually reliable Negroni.

Whatever the final facts that emerge from this sorry tale, the one place that the smoking gun isn't to be found (this time) is at Boeing.

[Diamond Bob]

Looks like somebody forgot to screw the panel on.

Engineer suspended for panel falling off Air India's Dreamliner | Firstpost (http://www.firstpost.com/business/ai-blames-engineer-for-dreamliner-panel-fall-suspends-him-1179645.html)

[DaveReidUK]

Looks like somebody forgot to screw the panel on.

Engineer suspended for panel falling off Air India's Dreamliner | Firstpost (http://www.firstpost.com/business/ai-blames-engineer-for-dreamliner-panel-fall-suspends-him-1179645.html)Already linked in post #108.

That article raises more questions than it answers.

[fruitloop]

30 Dzus fasteners .........Suffering sucatash Batman...I guess that Boeing had to find some way to "lose" weight !! Curious as to the Panels weight !

[fenland787]

Composite panels weigh nothing (well almost) and are very stiff but wouldn't the aero loads dominate over panel mass when figuring out fastenings on an airplane skin panel?

...over to someone who knows....

[Chris Scott]

fenland787,

Am no engineer, and know nothing specific to the B787. In the absence of a reply from someone who is and does, however, I'll try to answer your question.

The original photo from the Indian newspaper that Dave Reid has now posted appears to show some part of the fuselage centre-section fairings (falsework). Speaking in general of large airliners, they normally house divers systems equipment such as air-conditioning ducting (and packs, but not sure that applies to the B787), hydraulic reservoirs and accumulators, access to centre (fuel) tank furniture, L/G-door release handles, etcetera. When the main L/G is not in transit, the gear doors typically close to form a smooth profile with the centre-section fairings.

The fairings include panels for maintenance access to some parts of the aforementioned systems. Some panels which are likely to be opened frequently are hinged at the front, and have quick-release fasteners at the back. These are never as large as 4' X 8'. Removable panels of that size are secured by many fasteners, which in my experience are usually of the Dzus type, or similar, necessitating the use of a screwdriver (sometimes with a proprietary head).

The air loads on these panels should always, I think, be upwards/inwards. Damage would be likely only if the leading edge of the panel was hanging down, while the rest of it was secured.

[olasek]

Composite panels weigh nothing (well almost)
Not true.
They weigh only slightly less than their aluminium counterpart.

[TURIN]

The fairings include panels for maintenance access to some parts of the aforementioned systems. Some panels which are likely to be opened frequently are hinged at the front, and have quick-release fasteners at the back. These are never as large as 4' X 8'. Removable panels of that size are secured by many fasteners, which in my experience are usually of the Dzus type, or similar, necessitating the use of a screwdriver (sometimes with a proprietary head).

Not necessarily.

B777 Air Con access panel is hinged and is substantially bigger than 8' x 4'.

It ain't hinged at the front neither. ;)

[Chris Scott]

Ah, TURIN,

I gather from another thread that you work on B787s. Can you tell us from the photo which panel it is?

[TURIN]

"Work on" is probably pushing the definition a bit Chris. Since I got my type rating I've not laid hands on one. :*

It's obviously next to the air con pack and fwd of the landing gear but I'm really not sure without consulting the AMM.

[DaveReidUK]

Courtesy of airliners.net, here's a photo showing the panel in question. The arrows are the OP's, not mine, but they point to the correct location.

Best viewed in conjunction with the photo of the AI aircraft earlier in the thread for orientation.

http://www.airliners.net/uf/119112/middle/phpznJAAW.png

[tonytales]

That's a big panel but not an unusual thing. Years ago at KJFK I was on the EAL ramp and looked up and across the field to see a DC-10 climbing away. Then, from its belly a large panel departed and went skimming its way down toward Jamaica Bay.
I called the tower but by then several DC-10 types had departed and they didn't know which one. Turned out to be an AA flight to KLAX,
There used to be (maybe still is) a neighborhood anti-airport group near KJFK that had a rented house and on the lawn had a display of a variety of aircraft pieces that had fallen on their neighborhood. Flap vane segments, antenna, side doors from landing gear, etc. If you don't screw or attach it right, it may come off in flight.

[DWS]

the av week articcle says

A preliminary investigation by India’s aviation regulatory agency of an Oct. 12 incident involving an Air India Boeing 787 indicates that a riveting flaw in the panel covering the heat exchanger unit could have caused the panel to detach from the fuselage.

Thats pure BS - photos elsewhere in media show some sort of proprietary female fastner receptcles . In aluminum- nutplates ( ( used to hold a nut in a blind fastener area ) are typicalym riveted inm the permanent structure, and some type of special scre/bolt used to secure panels used for access or closeout.

If rivets were used to hold ' nutplates of some type " , failure of a few rivets would not be a big deal, rather allowing ' nut' to rotate.- BUT NOT COME UNDONE - OR BE TORGUED UP.

Bottom line - whatever was not done or fastened had ZIP to do with rivets.

The article was written by the same types who said the panel was lost in flight between airports.

[Spacepope]

Saw this news article on another site. Interesting and relevant quote:
Investigations have since revealed that the 8-foot x 4-foot panel, part of the plane's belly, had been secured with only five screws instead of the usual 17.

Less riveting error and more extra parts at the end of the job, it seems.

Missing Dreamliner belly piece found in Bangalore - Pune Mirror,Pune Mirror (http://www.punemirror.in/article/2/20131021201310210126036719c953701/Missing-Dreamliner-belly-piece-found-in-Bangalore.html)

[EEngr]

Less riveting error and more extra parts at the end of the job, it seems.Are the 787 fasteners in question captive screws/fasteners? I've seen Dzuz/Camloc type fasteners in s few applications and the preference seems to be to use captive fasteners.

No 'spare parts' in the pocket and (in most cases) the unlatched fasteners project out from the panel whereas the latched ones pull in flush. This gives a visual check of any left loose.

[DWS]

My Kinda Sorta Mea Culpa for Previous 787 Post - Flying Lessons (http://blog.seattlepi.com/flyinglessons/2013/10/19/my-kinda-sorta-mea-culpa-for-previous-787-post/)

Note photo - bottom line - NOW seems to be panel was NOT reinstalled after some sort of maintenace in that area


The fact that this panel was removed on every one of 89 Boeing 787s to conduct a manufacturer-ordered modification of the environmental control system (http://www.flightglobal.com/features/787dreamliner/systems/) to correct a problem of condensation and poor drainage led me further to believe the news account that the panel came off a brand new 787.
Early Friday morning Rabinowitz sent me a link to a story in First Post (http://www.firstpost.com/business/ai-blames-engineer-for-dreamliner-panel-fall-suspends-him-1179645.html), reporting that an Air India mechanic has been suspended for removing the panel and failing to put it back. How a four by eight foot gaping hold was not detected during the pilot walk around prior to the flight is mystifying for me as it is for some of you who have commented on this story....

[DaveReidUK]

Early Friday morning Rabinowitz sent me a link to a story in First Post (http://www.firstpost.com/business/ai-blames-engineer-for-dreamliner-panel-fall-suspends-him-1179645.html), reporting that an Air India mechanic has been suspended for removing the panel and failing to put it back.That's a little premature.

Regardless of what we might think, the media in general, and that article you quote in particular, haven't so far alleged that the panel was removed and not refitted.

In fact that First Post (http://www.firstpost.com/business/ai-blames-engineer-for-dreamliner-panel-fall-suspends-him-1179645.html) article specifically talks about:

"the panel which fell off a Delhi-Bangalore Air India flight last Saturday"

"a panel on a Boeing 787′s fuselage flew off when the aircraft was winging its way from Delhi to Bangalore"

"This latest incident of a panel falling off the brand new Dreamliner aircraft"

They'll get there in the end, I have no doubt. But not yet:

Investigations have since revealed that the 8-foot x 4-foot panel, part of the plane's belly, had been secured with only five screws instead of the usual 17.Leaving aside the fact that they aren't screws, and the photo that the world has seen of the AI 787 underside shows at least 25 fastener receptacles visible, the same article goes on to say:

"According to Air India officials, panels such as the one that came off the Dreamliner are ... tightened with a heavy-duty electric screwdriver using the prescribed torque to keep them locked firmly in place."

Torquing quick-release fasteners ? Now I've heard everything.

After several days of reading the Indian media, my faith in the Daily Mail is restored. :ugh:

[fenland787]

Torquing quick-release fasteners ? Now I've heard everything.

Well, only if the fasteners were actually Dzus type 1/4 turn or similar.
Some of the panels I had reason to remove from the underside of the wing occasionally were, indeed, held in place with torqued up screw fastenings. It all depends whether the panels are expected to be removed for routine maintenance or not I suspect.

[cockney steve]

any threaded fastener wll wear/ work-harden it's mating thread, given enough use.

there is no reason to suppose that panels not intended for regular removal,would be attached with a fastening-system designed for repeated use.

therefore the press-bullcrap is self-evidently, just that-sensationalist rubbish to sell "news"papers.
A Dzus fastener, by it's very design, is either secured or free...there's no way (unless badly worn/damaged) they can "come loose" If the panel was, indeed, partially secured, the secured fasteners would show considerable damage or rip out in their entirety.....saw no signs of that in the picture, but I'm old and my eyesight isn't as keen as it was....my Labrador and white stick didn't detect any damage either. :}

[fruitloop]

....my Labrador and white stick didn't detect any damage either.
I concur ...

[dervish]

This quote is utterly frightening.

This official also said though the incident was regrettable, it never had any safety implications since the panel fell off when the aircraft had already landed on the runway.

[ironbutt57]

Meaning somebody connected had not properly re-installed the panel...

[fenland787]

This official also said though the incident was regrettable, it never had any safety implications since the panel fell off when the aircraft had already landed on the runway. Presumably the same argument would apply to the wing?

[Interested Passenger]

the next plane to land may dispute that

[DaveReidUK]

The moral of the tale is: if you're going to tell porkies, you need to have a good memory in order to avoid contradicting yourself.

The story coming out of India has changed at least 3 times. First, nothing was found on the runway at BLR. Then, the panel was apparently found several miles from the destination.

Now, it seems, it was found on the runway after all, but somehow it didn't present any hazard to the aircraft itself or to any other arriving/departing flights. How very convenient. :ugh:

I don't suppose we will ever learn the truth.

[TURIN]

The 787 does not use quick release fasteners. Almost all panels are secured with titanium countersunk bolts (or screws, depends on your definition).
All to save weight and of course, titanium doesn't react with CFRP.

[DaveReidUK]

The 787 does not use quick release fasteners. Almost all panels are secured with titanium countersunk bolts (or screws, depends on your definition).That's interesting. So presumably, unlike a Dzus-type fastener which normally stays attached to whatever it's fitted to, the screws* that attach the panel in question aren't captive, i.e. when released they are then free and would normally be collected and bagged ready to refit the panel later ?

So, if we believe the accounts that the panel was refitted to the aircraft after removal, but with considerably fewer than the correct number of screws (which I'm still sceptical about), that begs the question of what happened to the rest of the fasteners, and why any sane AME would fit just a few and not the remainder..

* in the days when I used to get my hands dirty, a screw was anything that you tightened or torqued by applying force to the head, as opposed to holding it still and winding a nut on the other end.

[EEngr]

the panel was refitted to the aircraft after removal, but with considerably fewer than the correct number of screws We prefer to call it 'weight savings'.

Thank you. Signed,
Management
;)

[joy ride]

So could it perhaps be that as a different fastening method is used, a mechanic perhaps was not following a known operational sequence, and this led to the problem?

I'm not trying to cast blame on manufacturer for changing to a different fastener, or absolve a mechanic of potential blame, just curious as to what could have caused this failure. A new and unfamiliar component or process can throw anyone!

[DaveReidUK]

So could it perhaps be that as a different fastening method is used, a mechanic perhaps was not following a known operational sequence, and this led to the problem?Screws (albeit not titanium ones) have been used to secure access panels since Pontius was a pilot. :O

Apart from anything else, an AME when faced with a panel, an aircraft, and a bag of screws doesn't really need to be told what to do with them, other than possibly the torque setting value, and if all else fails there's always the Maintenance Manual.

[tdracer]

Since this is an unhinged panel - I'm sure the mechanic in question had one or more 'helpers' holding the panel in place while he stalled a few screws to hold it in place - just enough that the helpers could stop and go do something else. I'm thinking after he did that, he was distracted and simply forgot to install the remaining fasteners.

[joy ride]

Cheers Dave, ... as I thought but was just trying to guess why this might have occurred, I thought perhaps a different type of fastening from that expected in that location might have thrown the mechanic; the scenario in tdracer's reply sounds plausible to me.

As a practical man, this incident gives me a distinct feeling of "there but for the grace of God go I". However much I train myself not to be distracted, something unexpected can still cause trouble!

[fenland787]

Now, it seems, it was found on the runway after all, but somehow it didn't present any hazard to the aircraft itself or to any other arriving/departing flights. How very convenient. I guess I'm just old and cynical but given the apparent lack of damage and speed of replacement I still don't buy into the 'fell off on landing due to not enough bolts' bit - unless 'not enough' means zero of course but, as DaveReid says, I doubt we'll ever find out the truth.

[Volume]

the panel was refitted to the aircraft after removal, but with considerably fewer than the correct number of screws

We prefer to call it 'weight savings'.Actually we call it "process optimisation" as it saves weight, labour and inspection time, parts...

[deeceethree]

The moral of the tale is: if you're going to tell porkies, you need to have a good memory in order to avoid contradicting yourself.

The story coming out of India has changed at least 3 times. First, nothing was found on the runway at BLR. Then, the panel was apparently found several miles from the destination.

Now, it seems, it was found on the runway after all, but somehow it didn't present any hazard to the aircraft itself or to any other arriving/departing flights. How very convenient.

I don't suppose we will ever learn the truth.
I guess I'm just old and cynical but given the apparent lack of damage and speed of replacement I still don't buy into the 'fell off on landing due to not enough bolts' bit - unless 'not enough' means zero of course but, as DaveReid says, I doubt we'll ever find out the truth.

I sense that many posters are just now beginning to understand that when it comes to Indian officialdom, face-saving comes further up the list than honesty and integrity. The corruption and incompetence in so much of Indian society, including aviation, as attested to me by Indian work colleagues (I have been in aviation for over 30 years, and visit India regularly ...) is how b0ll0cks excuses like those behind this incident come about.

Nevertheless, having one's porkies uncovered in this way is not considered a bar to holding office in India. In fact, one is unlikely to have gained office in the first place without the behaviour being displayed by officials pronouncing on this incident. :rolleyes: