Another 787 electrical/smoke incident (on ground)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another 2 since?
BBC are saying , 2 more incidents since? for a total of 5 this week?
apparently 2 ANA 787`s have more issues - a windscreen has cracked with a `spider web` cracking in front of the pilot in flight and oil was seen leaking on a taxi`ing aircraft after landing?
I don't recall the 777 having so many potentially serious issues in 1 week!
@Ivanbogus
according to
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Type index > ASN Aviation Safety Database results
no A330 has been destroyed by fire? and in fact other than the AF incident , only 2 other loss of life - 1 of which was when it was being test flown , the other was a controlled decent into the ground
apparently 2 ANA 787`s have more issues - a windscreen has cracked with a `spider web` cracking in front of the pilot in flight and oil was seen leaking on a taxi`ing aircraft after landing?
I don't recall the 777 having so many potentially serious issues in 1 week!
@Ivanbogus
according to
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Type index > ASN Aviation Safety Database results
no A330 has been destroyed by fire? and in fact other than the AF incident , only 2 other loss of life - 1 of which was when it was being test flown , the other was a controlled decent into the ground
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EEngr - which 757 crash was caused by QC problems at Boeing? Other then the two blocked pitots (which are not QC related), I do not recall and could not find any 757 crashes due to techinical problems win the ASN database.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the mountains of Switzerland
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion it wasn't a A-330 that has been destroyed by fire.
I was flying from Geneva to CDG with a nice forecast: sky clear and good visibility. Half way to Paris we received a wx-message indicating the visibility deteriorating. It was the 20 January 1994 when an A340-211 F-GNIA was lost to fire during servicing at Charles de Gaulle Airport and creating a sudden fog condition with it's smoking fire...
I was flying from Geneva to CDG with a nice forecast: sky clear and good visibility. Half way to Paris we received a wx-message indicating the visibility deteriorating. It was the 20 January 1994 when an A340-211 F-GNIA was lost to fire during servicing at Charles de Gaulle Airport and creating a sudden fog condition with it's smoking fire...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The nightmare liner, reminds me of a old song.
It is currently a ugly duckling and one day it will develop into a beautiful Swan.
This aircraft is having technical issues with every airline operating it and if each one was reported by the BBC or here on Prune it would be never ending.
The high number of components being replaced and the issues being found which result in Boeing QA having to take action is a alarming.
My guess is, all operators have been asked to remove both the main and APU batteries, inspect them and reinstall as per the AMM. This also makes sure they have been installed correctly.
A number of us that have knowledge of the day to day operation of this aircraft, are very happy that our own Airline cancelled its order.
I am confident that Boeing and its partners (Vendors) will end up with a great product, but l fear it is going to takes years and not months to achieve.
It is currently a ugly duckling and one day it will develop into a beautiful Swan.
This aircraft is having technical issues with every airline operating it and if each one was reported by the BBC or here on Prune it would be never ending.
The high number of components being replaced and the issues being found which result in Boeing QA having to take action is a alarming.
My guess is, all operators have been asked to remove both the main and APU batteries, inspect them and reinstall as per the AMM. This also makes sure they have been installed correctly.
A number of us that have knowledge of the day to day operation of this aircraft, are very happy that our own Airline cancelled its order.
I am confident that Boeing and its partners (Vendors) will end up with a great product, but l fear it is going to takes years and not months to achieve.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No mention of the oil spill after landing. Isn't it a confusion with the fuel spill before take-off? If so, already accounted for in the "3 in a week".
About the windscreen, see => here. 24th Dec. Not in the week. Unless another occurence, but I don't think so, it would have been reported elsewhere, given the current attention of the press to the 787.
[edit] and I was wrong thinking that... About the windscreen, see => here. 24th Dec. Not in the week. Unless another occurence, but I don't think so, it would have been reported elsewhere, given the current attention of the press to the 787.
My bad.- the oil spill was in fact a leak inside an engine generator (see BBC news quoted in the post below), so no confusion with the fuel spill @ Boston.
- according to NYT linked below : "Earlier on Friday, A.N.A. reported cracks in the cockpit window of a 787 (...), the third time that cracks had appeared in the windshield of one of the 17 787s operated by A.N.A.". So, not the same incident as on Dec. 24, but another occurence of the same type.
I stand corrected. Thanks Twitcher & Romulus for bringing more sources.
Last edited by AlphaZuluRomeo; 11th Jan 2013 at 13:02.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: EGMH..a down, not yet out, formerly awesome airfield
Age: 55
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News - Dreamliner plane review ordered by US regulators
Dreamliner plane review ordered by US regulators
US regulators have ordered a review of the 787 Dreamliner plane after a series of incidents put a question mark over the safety of Boeing's flagship plane.
The review by the Federal Aviation Administration will look at the design and manufacture of the planes.
It is not clear whether the planes in the air at the moment will be grounded.
An electrical fire, a brake problem, a fuel spill and cracks in the cockpit's windshield have affected Dreamliner flights in the past week.
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is one of the most advanced aeroplanes ever created. Much of it is made from very strong, light carbon-fibre composite material.
However, a spate of technical issues has hurt its image. On Friday, two new problems were found, adding to Boeing's woes.
On Friday, All Nippon Airways reported a crack in the window on the pilot's side of the cockpit. It caused no problems for the 237 passengers and nine crew on a flight from Tokyo's Haneda airport to Matsuyama, but the return flight was cancelled
The same airline said another Dreamliner flight, shuttling between Haneda and the southern Miyazaki prefecture, experienced a delay due to an oil leak from a generator inside an engine
On Wednesday, ANA cancelled a 787 flight from Yamaguchi to Tokyo because of a brake problem
On Tuesday, Japan Airlines cancelled a Boston to Tokyo flight after about 40 gallons (151 litres) of fuel spilled
An electrical fire broke out on board a Japan Airlines Dreamliner on Monday shortly after it landed in Boston, following a flight from Tokyo
Last year, a United Airlines flight was forced to make an emergency landing because of an electrical problem
In December, Qatar Airways grounded one of its 787 Dreamliners after several manufacturing faults caused electrical problems similar to those that affected the United plane.
Last month, the head of Qatar Airways criticised Boeing in an interview with the BBC over several manufacturing faults that have resulted in the grounding of one of its three 787 Dreamliner aircraft.
Dreamliner plane review ordered by US regulators
US regulators have ordered a review of the 787 Dreamliner plane after a series of incidents put a question mark over the safety of Boeing's flagship plane.
The review by the Federal Aviation Administration will look at the design and manufacture of the planes.
It is not clear whether the planes in the air at the moment will be grounded.
An electrical fire, a brake problem, a fuel spill and cracks in the cockpit's windshield have affected Dreamliner flights in the past week.
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is one of the most advanced aeroplanes ever created. Much of it is made from very strong, light carbon-fibre composite material.
However, a spate of technical issues has hurt its image. On Friday, two new problems were found, adding to Boeing's woes.
On Friday, All Nippon Airways reported a crack in the window on the pilot's side of the cockpit. It caused no problems for the 237 passengers and nine crew on a flight from Tokyo's Haneda airport to Matsuyama, but the return flight was cancelled
The same airline said another Dreamliner flight, shuttling between Haneda and the southern Miyazaki prefecture, experienced a delay due to an oil leak from a generator inside an engine
On Wednesday, ANA cancelled a 787 flight from Yamaguchi to Tokyo because of a brake problem
On Tuesday, Japan Airlines cancelled a Boston to Tokyo flight after about 40 gallons (151 litres) of fuel spilled
An electrical fire broke out on board a Japan Airlines Dreamliner on Monday shortly after it landed in Boston, following a flight from Tokyo
Last year, a United Airlines flight was forced to make an emergency landing because of an electrical problem
In December, Qatar Airways grounded one of its 787 Dreamliners after several manufacturing faults caused electrical problems similar to those that affected the United plane.
Last month, the head of Qatar Airways criticised Boeing in an interview with the BBC over several manufacturing faults that have resulted in the grounding of one of its three 787 Dreamliner aircraft.
Poster toffeez is right on the docket:
Pages 57842 - 57844 of the Special Conditions pertaining to the FAA Certification of the Boeing 787 are very informative. Even a layman would find it hard to not realize that many requirements of these Special Conditions have been well and truly breached with the JAL battery smoke, explosion/fire and the associated conditions and damage.
It will be very informative about the Political will and the teeth of the FAA in watching its reaction to enforcing its own Regulations in trying to protect the traveling public and at the same time not causing commercial damage to the US's National aircraft manufacturing treasure...namely, Boeing.
For those with the inclination and the interest may read more at:
Federal Register/Vol 72, No. 196/Thursday, October 11, 2007 Rules and Regulation
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. NM375 Special Conditions No. 25–359–SC]
Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787– 8 Airplane; Lithium Ion Battery Installation
Google is your friend.
re FAA Special Conditions for 787 certification (2007)
"The FAA shares the commenter's (ALPA) concern over a fire
erupting in flight. The regulations and the rigid requirements defined
in these special conditions are intended to prevent lithium battery
fires on board the aircraft. We have made no change as a result of this
comment."
Seems likely the FAA screwed up this time. To many free lunches?
"The FAA shares the commenter's (ALPA) concern over a fire
erupting in flight. The regulations and the rigid requirements defined
in these special conditions are intended to prevent lithium battery
fires on board the aircraft. We have made no change as a result of this
comment."
Seems likely the FAA screwed up this time. To many free lunches?
It will be very informative about the Political will and the teeth of the FAA in watching its reaction to enforcing its own Regulations in trying to protect the traveling public and at the same time not causing commercial damage to the US's National aircraft manufacturing treasure...namely, Boeing.
For those with the inclination and the interest may read more at:
Federal Register/Vol 72, No. 196/Thursday, October 11, 2007 Rules and Regulation
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. NM375 Special Conditions No. 25–359–SC]
Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787– 8 Airplane; Lithium Ion Battery Installation
Google is your friend.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excerpted from the NY Times article supra,
All Nippon Airlines of Japan reported cracks in the cockpit window of a 787 Dreamliner heading from Tokyo to Matsuyama, the third time that cracks had appeared in the windshield of one of the 17 787s operated by the airline.
The cracks were on the outermost of five layers that compose the cockpit windshield and did not endanger the aircraft, said Megumi Tezuka, a company spokeswoman.
Moreover, she said, cracks of this kind are not unique to the 787 Dreamliner; cracks have appeared in other aircraft types operated by All Nippon from time to time.
The cracks were on the outermost of five layers that compose the cockpit windshield and did not endanger the aircraft, said Megumi Tezuka, a company spokeswoman.
Moreover, she said, cracks of this kind are not unique to the 787 Dreamliner; cracks have appeared in other aircraft types operated by All Nippon from time to time.
In a separate matter, Japan Airlines said that an incident on Tuesday involving a fuel leak on a 787 was because one of four fuel valves connecting two tanks had been left open. This caused fuel to flow into a surge tank near the wing tip and out a vent. The plane was towed back to its gate but eventually left Boston for Tokyo after a delay of nearly four hours.
Last edited by SaturnV; 11th Jan 2013 at 13:27.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ut Sementem Feeceris
So does anyone have any statistics regarding windscreen cracks? A fleet of 17 aircraft in service for 13 months having three occurrences does seem high. Same airframe? Have any of the other operators experienced problems? Is this a screen manufacturing/design fault or a "mounting" issue?
In terms of stresses, with the 787 being a predominantly long haul bird the number of pressurisation cycles will be lower than a shorthaul equivalent? Additionally the 787 is pressurised to a lower deltaP than "conventional" airliners.
Something fundamental going on here - or just unlucky?
In terms of stresses, with the 787 being a predominantly long haul bird the number of pressurisation cycles will be lower than a shorthaul equivalent? Additionally the 787 is pressurised to a lower deltaP than "conventional" airliners.
Something fundamental going on here - or just unlucky?
Wasn't it to a lower cabin alt? Hence a higher ΔP ?
http://www.boeing.com/farnborough201...7_interior.pdf:
the 787 will be pressurized (increased pressure to create the lower altitude) to a maximum cabin altitude of 6,000 feet.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the DC980 incident/accident at edwards is interesting...an FAA pilot flying the plane exceeded design limits on touchdown.
the aloha was within limits but failed.
and you don't see the same failure mode in the douglas ...take a close look at the fuselage of the douglas and see the ''finger laps'' used...no such construction on the 737
the aloha was within limits but failed.
and you don't see the same failure mode in the douglas ...take a close look at the fuselage of the douglas and see the ''finger laps'' used...no such construction on the 737
The DC9-80 test flight touched down with a sink rate of 12 FPS. While this was a bit faster than intended, the resulting breakup was far worse than anticipated. Being unacceptable later production incorporated improvements.
The Aloha 737 flight had an in-flight failure of the upper lobe of the monocoque from the aft edge of the entry door to the leading edge of the wing. Newspapers published shocking pictures taken on approach showing the passengers sitting in seats while totally exposed from the floor and above. The crew managed a normal landing with only the fuselage structure below the cabin floor remaining to keep the cockpit, and forward seated passengers in place. This was not a structural design problem. It was an aging aircraft maintenance issue that became a new industry wide program that changed how such aircraft are maintained.