25 years ago I watched them, (well technically I watched them re-install, not remove the vertical stab) on the second Air Force One 747 so that it would fit in a hanger in Wichita. They didn't use any fancy tooling - a portable crane and lots of people. I didn't watch the whole thing (it was something like an all-day procedure) but I know it was completed successfully.

When I asked it this was unique, I was told "not particularly" - there are a lot of hangers put there that can take the length and width but not the height of a 747.

tdracer is spot on, we used to back in the 70s routinely swing the Vertical Stab over on B720 & B707 aircraft to get the aircraft into the corner of the hangar.
By the way, l have recently been at a conference held by Boeing on the B787 and someone asked within Boeing if they could info us what is going on with the a/c.
He was told Boeing is not allowed to comment, it is up to the operator to give details.
Guess it lies with the insurers, airline & Boeing to come up with a plan.

I think all the above has now become irrelevant. It looks as if work is underway to repair it where it stands: http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWT9ytwIQAEurvq.jpg:large

think that looks more like the white paint going on !

Quick, before anyone twigs what airline it belongs to ! :ugh:

It is not Boeing's aircraft - they sold it. So decisions will be based on the Insurer and the owner Ethiopian, I would not be surprised if Honeywell is not being drawn in by a claim against their insurers due to the ELT being blamed. All this insurer to insurer negotiation takes an inordinate length of time. The only information Boeing could give is costs of various repair options and their expected outcomes.

I would suspect that Boeing would really like to have that fuselage barrel for strength testing by an independent assessor so they could set customer's minds at rest on the effect of an airborne fire (and perhaps quieten the peanut gallery). But it is not Boeing's decision.

For a professional aviation website some of the comments above surprise me, there seems to be a total lack of understanding of just how much you can do in terms of repairing aircraft ( be it composite or metal).

I can only assume that this is a reflection on today's throw away culture and the fact that people no longer fix things. I notice this cultural change most in the young FO's I fly with most are driving almost new cars that are maintained professionally, at their age I was riding old motorcycles that without constant attention from myself simply would not run.

Ian W
 

I know its not Boeing's aircraft and l did not say it was.
You seem to be little naive of Boeing's involvement with regards to the insurer.
The aircraft can only be repaired with repair instructions from Boeing.
The Insurer and Boeing will work out the repair with its costs and then relay that to the owner Ethiopian (if they do own it).
Ethiopian could decide to write it off, but they will only receive the money that the insurer is willing to pay.

In spite of the appearance that posters are sniping at each other, if you merge some of these posts together there are some pretty good assessments here.


:ok:

I understood that some of the bigger MROs/airlines had received design approval for repairs on type. I could be wrong of course.

Rumours are that the repair patch (for want of a better word) arrived at LHR on far eastern airline (SIA?) last week.

For all this talk about insurer's liability for the fire damage, I presume the aircraft is actually still under manufacturers warranty. It was only delivered in November 2012, less than 8 weeks later it was grounded, returned to service in April 2013, and 11 weeks after that a component had a fire. I would have thought it was still very much Boeing's warranty liability at that point.

It may be. On the other hand, look at all the generator sets parked alongside; as if someone is planning to do some serious work. And isn't it ironic, that when you look closely at the right hand edge of the photo, there is another aircraft. Another Ethiopian!

Something else about that photo: the steps to L1 door are from DNATA which makes me think Dubai rather than Heathrow. Mind you I haven't been to Heathrow for five or six years - has DNATA established a foothold at Heathrow?

Dunno about the steps but the control tower is a bit of a giveaway! :)

DNATA are all over Heathrow now. When I first saw them there, I had the same surprise. I had always associated them with Abu Dhabi & Dubai.

If true, that would pretty much rule out replacement of the tail barrel section - there is only one aircraft out there that can carry the 787 barrel sections and that is the Boeing Large Cargo Freighter (LCF - better known outside Boeing as the "Dreamlifter").

I figure Airbus was quite happy that Boeing came up with the LCF - it's the only airplane out there that's more :mad: ugly than the A380 :E.

Parking fees
 

Since we did get the conversation on the insurance aspects who pays the parking fees for the time the aircarft remains at Heathrow? Even with a discount the cost could be pretty high if the airport does not give a discount.

I beg to differ, the A350 with the A380 cockpit section shoehorned onto it looks worse. And painting the window surround black in an effort to make it look as slick as the 787 doesn't cut it! The whole plane looks out of balance.

Another view of the repair from @MPSinthesky

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWig9I1IEAAPWCk.jpg:large

LCF vs 380
 

I heard Mike Carriker say that when they first flew the Dreamlifter into a french airport they had painted a third row of windows on the side. Not sure if it was true, but a great idea!

Slightly more complex than a sheet of aluminium and a rivet gun.:eek:

Cows

Agree and a lot more expensive.

Presume there is going to be need to control internal and external temp and humidity if a composite repair is done too (hence the scaffolding frames going up?) that ain't gonna be cheap through the UK winter!

Looks like forward scaffold is for staging internal components in and out of the aircraft.
The aft scaffold is for conducting structural repairs.

They are building a regular tent city there behind the aircraft.

I suspect that once the repair gets under way, the Met Police will be leant on not to publish any more photos taken by their helicopter pilots.

Fenland787
 

You could not be more wrong about the control of the temp & humidity for the final stages of the repaires. I would put the cost of doing so at £1500-2500.

The big tent is about keeping the workers dry and walm during the preparation work.

I rather suspect they have blown that budget already...

No figures in here but it is interesting to consider some of the prior commentary.

Boeing Switches To Repair Mode After 787 Fire

Nice article, and recommended reading - even if it only summarises the questions rather than providing answers. The possibility of performing a patch repair to allow for a ferry flight to Boeing's facilities for a more permanent solution is an intriguing one.

Romulus
 

You will note that I said that was for the final post cure part of the repair and adressing the temp & humidity issues, as with all things composite the real work is in the preparation...........and you won't be doing that on the cheap !!

I believe that somewhere in the process that the aircraft is going to return to PAE. Whether it be for some type of re-certification or to do a final structural analysis on the repair. Then clean and replace heat and smoke damaged interior parts. Just a guess.

Cost, I suspect there is some negotiations between Honeywell, Boeing, Ethiopian and the insurance company with Ethiopian getting some kind of guarantee of performance of the aircraft after the Boeing repair. I would doubt that Ethiopian would accept flying around a multi-thousand pound weight penalty for doubled panels to repair the damage on a new aircraft for the rest of its life.

So far other than the external pictures we have no real idea of the actual structural damage to the fuselage and the heat damage to the rest of the aircraft. We can guess from the number of containers, tents and scaffolding that this is going to be a major time consuming and costly repair.

There were a couple 787 tail barrel sections parked outside the office building today. Comparing those to the published pictures of the Ethiopian airplane, notice forward of the aft door, there are a few windows and then a 'missing' window? The 'missing' window is the break where the fuselage pieces are joined. At least externally, the worst of the fire damage appears to be aft of that joint.

Again, not knowing what the internal damage looks like - I'm leaning towards the most cost effective fix being to replace that tail barrel section. Either on site at Heathrow, or if the GSE is too complex, a temp fix to get it back to Everett or Charleston where the tooling is available.

Even if it's a $100+ million price tag, compared to a new 787 it would still likely make economic sense (recall the A380 $150 million/18 month repair bill after the Qantas turbine failure)

I think this is going to be a complete repair with a fully airworthy aircraft the result and it will occur where it sits now.

Everyone is agonizing over the structural repair feasibility and some are speculating that the aircraft will be made ferryable and flown elsewhere.

If they were going to ferry the aircraft, you would see a much smaller operation. It doesn't have to be pretty to ferry an aircraft. A ferryable aircraft does not have to meet full airworthiness standards. It merely needs to be demonstrated to the applicable airworthiness authorities that it is capable of the ferry mission.

The interior of the aircraft is going to be stripped from the aircraft and processed in those tents or in an industrial setting as appropriate to the component. Actual fire damaged components are going to be scrapped and replaced, not overhauled. Same for interior furnishings that are not recoverable due to smoke damage. Part of the delay in starting the repairs had to be the process of gathering the known replacement items.

When the interior is out, and the exterior preparations made, the structural repair will commence. There will be sufficient design engineering staff on site to advise and coordinate on any unexpected discoveries.

I would be personally surprised if the structural repair lasts more than 60 days, and by ~90 days the aircraft should be back together and ready for flight, but I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the subject. I've only been involved in aviation for half a century.

Fire doesn't care about manufacturing joints, so it might be premature to rule out significant damage forward of the tail break. I wouldn't be surprised if not only Section 48, but also Section 47 is deemed unrepairable and is replaced.

http://i.bnet.com/blogs/787-sections.jpg

I would agree that it's not going to fly out of Heathrow in a factory-fresh state. I can't see a permanent repair being carried out, whether or not it involves replacing major parts of the structure, al fresco during the British autumn and winter.

Not that economics is the sole consideration, any more than it was for the Qantas A380.

1 Lump or 2 ?
 

tdracer


Just looking back at the original photos of the incident and what tdracer has confirmed, that the missing window was a join. It does appear that the area of damage extends forward of this joint, and you can see a 'band' of where the charring hasn't penetrated the outer layer - presumably where either the reinforcement ring is. Given this is a highly stressed area, could they be looking at 2 sections "if" they end up replacing rather than repairing....?

Either way, it should be fun (not) for them working under canvas if the hard winter forcasts are correct. :sad:

A lot of negativity !
 

I'm very glad that most of the people posting above don't work for me, the negative attitude is remarkable.

It will be interesting to see the course of action that Boeing take with the aircraft, I fear that the metalcentric lobby has won the day if the whole fuselage section is going to be replaced but I guess we will never know if this is driven by political or technical reasons.

As to working in a "tent" that is no problem as long as you double skin it and have the appropriate heating rigged up.........done that...... No drama.

Reliably informed that the tail was removed from ET-AOP today in the first part of the repair work.

Yes - the vertical stabilizer, to be precise.

Photo here: ET-AOP EGLL 18-10-13 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I take it as given this exercise is more than just a repair/return to service to ET-AOP.

It is also Boeing's experiment in major structural repair of composites. As such, the first objective may see some overkill.

Apparently Boeing has a tech team who goes around and does major repairs in the field. National Geographic had a show which documented the replacement of an aft pressure bulkhead on a 767 by removing the aft sections. I found it pretty interesting. Course, on this one you can't use 5,000,000 rivets on this to put it all back together, but generically it wouldn't be the first time that they'd split a hull at a seam, done work, and put it all back together somewhere other than at the factory.