787 "teething troubles" statistics?

[scudpilot]

It's obviously widely known that the 787 has had it's had its fair share of teething problems (I know one person who has flown on a 787, and the flight had to turn back after an hour due to technical issues), but I wonder is the aircraft as bad as we are led to believe (that's how it seems to me) or is it a case of the media jumping on every issue, with the aircraft as it is considered newsworthy. Does anyone know of any statistics that may be available to compare the reliability of the 787 against other airliners.

[N210KD]

It's obviously widely known that the 787 has had it's had its fair share of teething problems (I know one person who has flown on a 787, and the flight had to turn back after an hour due to technical issues), but I wonder is the aircraft as bad as we are led to believe (that's how it seems to me) or is it a case of the media jumping on every issue, with the aircraft as it is considered newsworthy. Does anyone know of any statistics that may be available to compare the reliability of the 787 against other airliners.

Scud,

I'm not certain the 787 has had any more issues than any other commercial aircraft when first introduced. There's always the 'teething process' in which defects are discovered in virtually any product from automobiles to whatever begins with a Z. Engineers are human and there are bound to be oversights on their part. I've been a small aircraft mechanic for the last thirty years (never wanted to work for the airlines) and have seen far fewer defects than the automotive industry has had in the same period of time.

Also, here in America, we have a dieing news media that will publish almost anything that will scare the people. That surely does not help the situation because they are thriving on pure sensationalism.

[Intruder]

Article in the Seattle Times today said the 787 has a 98% reliability rate, similar to the 777 at the beginning. Not any hard data in the article, though.

[spottilludrop]

Thompson now stipulate a engineer accompanies every flight as a precaution

[BN2A]

Thomson don't, but maybe this 'Thompson' do?? Not to be confused....

;)

[PAXboy]

Boeing were late delivering the machine and needed to get it out to work ASAP. Further, they used a new kind of manufacturing and testing process. So more of the problems were discovered at work.

Then, and as N210KD says, the Press want anything - particularly if it might result in DEATH and PAIN. :hmm: The 787 was handed to them on a plate, not least as Boeing had done a very big PR launch tobrand the name, not the number. I have detailed that in other threads so won't bore you with it but it all backfired.

[Hotel Tango]

Also, here in America, we have a dieing news media that will publish almost anything that will scare the people.

I think that you will find this a worldwide epidemic!

[NWA SLF]

Boeing has said they have improved from 97% to 98% over the past 6 months and are equivalent to the 777 at the same stage, but they are striving to reach the current 777 99.7% readiness. The numbers seem incredible to me - I have not kept track of all the flights I have made when there was a mechanical delay but my estimate would be in the 90% - 95% range. In the 1980's our SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers - also covers aviation) chapter toured the TWA overhaul base in Kansas City. They had a chart listing the reliability rate of each airplane series. Lowest was the 747SP (I wasn't even aware TWA flew the 747SP) at 76% but none were over 95%. Maybe they are different measures - the TWA chart was for plane mechanically ready for an on-time departure.

[PAXboy]

NWA SLFMaybe they are different measures ... Ya think? :}
In the UK, the politicians have been re-defining statistical base lines for all of my life (and doubtless before it) and commercial companies do the same.

It's like the 'on time departure/arrival' thing and we all remember the 'Worlds favourite airline' campaign which was true - if you followed the line of counting they used. :D

[MrSnuggles]

Many of the battery troubles are because of the new bleedless design that affects battery performance (thus requiring "new" technology batteries) and not enough time to test things through really.

The electronical malfunctions I believe are due to the new insulation - teflon - that is very non-stick, but as everyone with a teflon frying pan knows, it is also very prone to minor flaws if handled a bit rough. Teflon can also suffer from so called "creep" which means that it literally creeps together, like a rubberband when tension is released. Both these properties I believe was not fully understood in the early design.

The geographical distribution of these problems is interesting. From a Scandinavian point of view it seems like Norway got the electrical malfunctions and Japan got the battery troubles. Other countries have had various problems, transponders not working correctly (Poland), pieces of plane falling off (India) etc.

It would be interesting to see a more comprehensive geographical view of the problems, compared to the delivery date. I'm just picking trends from my head and trust me, that is not always a very up-to-date place.. ;-D

[SloppyJoe]

The numbers seem incredible to me - I have not kept track of all the flights I have made when there was a mechanical delay but my estimate would be in the 90% - 95% range.

You have to know what they base this on. Does readiness mean any defect or only a defect that causes a cancellation. A delay of 10minutes, 20, 60, 120, where is the line drawn. I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not a cut off at the scheduled time of departure or it would be no where near 99.7%. Also many defects are carried for a few days and after a specific time period they would cause the aircraft to be grounded if not fixed. How do they take account of these?

Modern airliners are amazingly reliable considering their sophistication. I often get in one that has been flying for days with only an hour or there abouts on the ground to change passengers and crews every 10 hours. Without a doubt the ones where I work spend far longer in the air than they do on the ground throughout their life.

[cheesebag]

I'm booked on a Tom 787 later in the year and rather looking forward to it.

[Mike Tee]

Good Luck !!.

[bvcu]

For dispatch reliability up to 15 minutes is 'on time'. Bet the railways wish they could use that !

[TURIN]

Many of the battery troubles are because of the new bleedless design that affects battery performance (thus requiring "new" technology batteries) and not enough time to test things through really.


Nothing to do with the bleedless design.
All to do with ensuring a backup system that is based on more electrical systems instead of Hydraulic.
Oh, and saving weight.



Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[bvcu]

the main issue for electrical back-up power is having electric brakes. i would guess that was the main reason they werent able to revert to a traditional battery when the problems occurred. Dont recall any new type not having problems at the start and especially with new technology ! Well remember lots of issues on 747-400 and 777 when they were new , but both have been very good aircraft for a long time now.

[MrSnuggles]

TURIN, bvcu

You are of course correct. There are other features than bleedless engines that requires more battery power - and the wish to decrease weight IS an issue.

[One Outsider]

Many of the battery troubles are because of the new bleedless design that affects battery performanceWhere do people get this stuff from?

[PAXboy]

If i recall correctly, the machine requires changed procedures when being towed? If so, getting the correct information to (and understood by) all those around the world who might be involved? Not a trivial exercise.

[joy ride]

For me there is a slight difference between teething troubles and fundamental aspects of the design and specification of a plane. Teething troubles occur, are cured, and the plane is thus improved; windshields and panels can be replaced.

Sadly at present I have continuing concerns about fundamental parts of the 787's design and spec: the exceptionally complex electrical system, including the batteries and charging system, and the possibility of toxic poisoning should there ever be a serious operational fire. I think the 787 is a great airliner but with an Achilles Heel.

[MrSnuggles]

Where do people get this stuff from?

AERO - 787 No-Bleed Systems (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_07/article_02_1.html)

[One Outsider]

Which have absolutely nothing to do with "Many of the battery troubles are because of the new bleedless design that affects battery performance" which is nonsense. It's one thing to link to something on the internet, it's quite another to understand it.

[Bye]

oddly enough the so called "no Bleed" system would mean that you can't run close enough to the surge line to be efficient and when the VFSG comes on load the engine would be prone to surge especially if accelerating N2 or N3.

so of course to counter this and allow operation a bit closer to the surge line, the Trent 1000 "no Bleed" engine has 5 bleed valves, 3 at IP8 and 2 at HP3.

these bleed valves are scheduled by N2, N3 rpm, T24 IP inlet Temp, and VFSG load, and dump into the by-pass duct rather than the cabin.

[TURIN]

Almost all jet engines have bleed control valves. Nothing to do with it being a bleedless aircraft design.

There is one bleed on the engine for the engine inlet cowl anti-ice system by the way.

[Bye]

Almost all jet engines have bleed control valves. Nothing to do with it being a bleedless aircraft design.

then why claim its a bleedless engine in the first place:rolleyes:

it has everything to do with the claim of being a bleedless "engine" if you understand the claims made for why its bleedless.

There is one bleed on the engine for the engine inlet cowl anti-ice system by the way

the HP3 take off butterfly valve for anti-ice is not considered a bleed, it is a deliberate take off, selectable by the pilot of hot air, there are many such take offs of air through the gas path for various uses non of which are considered or even described in the drawings as "bleeds" even though the gas ends up overboard if used.

you may call it a bleed, that is your right but it is not a bleed.

bleeds are generally used to described un-intentional or un-wanted loss of gas flow, removing the gas from the 5 bleeds is not for use but is to manage the surge risk and is thus un-wanted as when in operation they lower the efficiency of the compressor and thus increase the fuel consumption.

on the T1000 as we now waste that energy dumped over board, instead of using it to pressurise the cabin, that energy has to come from somewhere else, that being the VFSG. fortunately in the cruise phase the bleeds will stay shut and the engine is operating at optimum for the phase for the longest time.

[DaveReidUK]

you may call it a bleed, that is your right but it is not a bleedEngine air take-off for ECS and ice protection has been called bleed air by the industry for as long as I can remember.

http://code7700.com/images/g450_cowl_anti-ice_bleeds.png

[Bye]

The diagram you show is not a Trent 1000 so is of course irrelavant to the thread.

The diagram you show has the anti-ice taken off the bleed so is correctly known as bleed air.

The TRENT 1000 does not use BLEED air for the anti-ice.

The reason is that to improve cruise efficiency of the compressor, the bleed valves remain closed. this means there is no air available from the bleeds for anti-ice.

So we put a separate air off take at HP3 on the compressor to feed the anti-air.

Look at your own diagram and then you might understand how the off take on it is from a bleed source and is correctly called bleed air.

But the T1000 does NOT use bleed air for anti-ice and is not the same as the diagram you produce.

[DaveReidUK]

But the T1000 does NOT use bleed air for anti-ice and is not the same as the diagram you produce.You'd better tell EASA and the FAA, then.

The Trent 1000 Type Certificate specifies the "Maximum Permissible Air Bleed Extraction" (for engine cowl anti-ice), expressed as the maximum % of core mass air flow for various TET values.

[Bye]

it actually states.


10. Maximum Permissible Air Bleed Extraction:

The Trent 1000 does NOT supply compressor air for airframe ventilation (Cabin Bleed), but does supply
compressor air for the purpose of preventing ice build-up on the engine nacelle (Cowl Thermal Anti-Ice
(CTAI)).

The nacelle thermal anti-icing flow demand is modulated via a regulating valve.

item 10 is a category on the certificate, the statement below clearly says it does not supply cabin bleed, and clearly calls it compressor air, NOT BLEED.

and the following table is just a generic table that is common to the certificates allowing people like yourself to have a comparison to older engines.

Cowl Thermal Anti-Icing Bleed Off takes for Normal and Abnormal operation

Engine Power Setting
TET (K)
Maximum Cowl Thermal Anti Ice Flow
% Core Mass Flow (W26)
Idle to 1430 2.67
1430 to 1785 2.67 to 1.25 varying linearly
1785 to 1820 1.25 to 0.54 varying linearly
1820 and above 0.54

NB “W26” represents the air mass flow through the core of the engine.

Boeing also call it a bleed and many other people will also call it a bleed, but the manufacturer of that system does NOT.

In the industry we do not call modulated air off takes a bleed anymore, there are reasons for this, a lot of money was spent on marketing the "bleedless" engine and it will take time to change the industry to get to grips with it.

alongside the marketing there are other reasons.

as i said before if you want to call it a bleed, go ahead its up to you. we can only try to educate people as to the correct nomenclature and hope the people who resist change will eventually get on board with the correct terminology. and for the record i can point to a lot of variations on certificates to manufacturers terminology, like calling a battery a battery when it is not a battery at all, but there you go.

We have tried to differentiate the T1000 system by not calling it a bleed anymore.

on the T1000 it is modulated flow on demand, where as bleed flow is not, its waste air flow to avoid surge.

[MrSnuggles]

It's one thing to link to something on the internet, it's quite another to understand it.

I admit, my choice of words may have been inappropriate to a native English speaker.

Still:

Bleedless engines ==> more battery power needed to do stuff*.

I hope that is clear enough.


*"Stuff" that was previously done by using bleed air in some form. Some of these stuffs are mentioned very well in my link. But OK, among them are cabin pressurisation, some cockpit instruments, some hydraulic pumps and de-icing systems.

I will now leave this discussion to the more fluent English persons.

[DaveReidUK]

Boeing also call it a bleed and many other people will also call it a bleedThank you, my point precisely.

As the Bard said, "a rose by any other name..." :O

[Bye]

Engine air take-off for ECS and ice protection has been called bleed air by the industry for as long as I can remember.

no that was your point i believe, which was factually innacurate in that engine cowl de-ice air off take on the Trent 1000 is not called a bleed by the manufacturer, but is mistakenly called so in a couple of places including a Boeing article and by you.

which you obviously now agree with by your bard quote.

As the Bard said, "a rose by any other name..."

Juliet argues that the names of things do not matter, only what things "are"

and what things are, are not a bleed, but as i said people can call it what they like, but "are" not a bleed. :ugh:

[TURIN]

Bye,
I think you are in a minority of one there.
Whether it is a surge bleed valve or a systems bleed valve is irrelevant.
The anti ice bleed valve is selectable in exactly the same way as the HP bleed valve, or modulating pressure control valve.
Yes, the Trent 1000 is more efficient because it does not use bleeds for air con or running hydraulic pumps, but it still has surge bleed control valves like any other engine.

Mr Snuggles.
The 787 battery does not replace any of the pneumatic systems previously powered by bleebyd air from the engines.
The APU battery will start the APU and run some external lights during battery only towing.
The main battery powers essentials instruments, some external lights (during towing) and emergency brakes.

[Bye]

Whether it is a surge bleed valve or a systems bleed valve is irrelevant.

very wrong indeed.

The anti ice bleed valve is selectable in exactly the same way as the HP bleed valve

wrong again, the HP anti surge valves are NOT pilot selectable, the anti ice air take off is. and is available continuously for selection.

Yes, the Trent 1000 is more efficient because it does not use bleeds for air con or running hydraulic pumps

wrong again, the Trent 1000 is more efficient for other reasons, the transfer of HVAC from the cabin bleed does not use less fuel, it uses more for the same amount of cooling as the generating system and HVAC compressors are less efficient as a system, what it does allow though is better modulation of the HVAC system when less people are on board or less cooling is required.

Again with the hydraulic its the overall system that allows more efficient use, but for the same energy consumption the engine uses more fuel.

also as the radial shaft now has to carry over 500 HP it is less efficient as a power take off system.

but it still has surge bleed control valves like any other engine.

which is exactly what i said in my first post on this subject :ugh:

and emergency brakes.

what emergency brakes ?

the brakes are electrically actuated and can be operated by battery power alone, i'm not aware of any emergency brakes being fitted to the aircraft.

but then i'm in a minority of one :cool:

[DaveReidUK]

but then i'm in a minority of oneDon't worry about it, we realised that more than a year ago when you spent several days here on PPRuNe trying unsuccessfully to convince the world that momentum was a force. :ugh:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/501013-why-heavier-aircrafts-take-longer-slow-down-air-5.html#post7538238 (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/501013-why-heavier-aircrafts-take-longer-slow-down-air-5.html#post7538270)

[TURIN]

Troll alert!
Back under your bridge Bye.

Its a shame because there are genuine aircraft enthusiasts who lurk here and enjoy the "facts".
But every now and again, a "Bye" turns up.

Sad.

Seeya.

[Bye]

funny how people like you and William resort to insults when you are wrong.

shows us everything we need to know about you.

GB

[TURIN]

Oh for crying out loud!
You don't know the difference between a surge bleed control valve and a HP bleed valve.
You claim that because the T1000 uses bleedless architecture, it needs surge bleed control valves. Utterly bogus. All engines have surge bleed control valves. The 787 is different, the Trent 1000 & GENx have no utility bleeds except the cowl anti ice. But they still have surge bleed control valves (and VIGV/VSBs but that's another story).
I did not insult you, I call you a troll because you display the attributes of a sciolist in your argument.



Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[TURIN]

Quote:

Whether it is a surge bleed valve or a systems bleed valve is irrelevant.

very wrong indeed.

Quote:

The anti ice bleed valve is selectable in exactly the same way as the HP bleed valve

wrong again, the HP anti surge valves are NOT pilot selectable, the anti ice air take off is. and is available continuously for selection.



Quote:

and emergency brakes.

what emergency brakes ?

the brakes are electrically actuated and can be operated by battery power alone, i'm not aware of any emergency brakes being fitted to the aircraft.

but then i'm in a minority of one

Here, you are confusing the surge bleed control valves (which are controlled automatically and scheduled by the ECS) and a HP valve which is selected by cockpit switches. The 787s do NOT have HP VALVES.

Emergency brakes POWER is from the battery. Jeesus what a pedant!



Posted from Pprune.org App for Android