Another 787 Fuel Leak
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, but one last thing. I doubt very much that the statement regarding "trapped" fuel (which was itself a quote) was intended as a swipe. While some posters can be combative, I am certain this was not the intent here.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may not be relevant to this case, but as a former pilot I can remember sometimes getting slightly confused with the complexities of valve operation during some refuelling operations on various airliners.
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 16th Jan 2013 at 02:06.
...
Not to interject anything into a disagreement between two other members, but I'd like to point out that the above quote (re-quoted by Squawk-7600) was taken from a post I made regarding an article I read about the BOS fuel spill incident. As I am not involved (nor do I wish to be) in this dispute between the two members, quoting from my post to make an argument about what someone posted must be an error on the part of Squawk-7600. Kindly take your fight outside boys or I'll be forced to join in!
the reason for the BOS fuel spill was an uncommanded activation of a fuel transfer valve which allowed fuel pumped from a "belly" tank (I thought Boeing called them "center" tanks) to overfill a wing tank.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No error on my behalf Hawky, you cited an article, I quoted your citing. Admittedly I trusted the fact you did not fabricate the story. Normally I'd include the member's name in quoting, but I haven't found a way to do that on the forum software that isn't somewhat cumbersome and I didn't think it was necessary. I noted you did the same.
At this point I am well and truly regretting saying anything at all, indeed am rapidly coming to the conclusion that I should have formed long ago; that there are some people with too much time on their hands who will simply argue for the sake of it, and I should best spend my time on more constructive activities!
At this point I am well and truly regretting saying anything at all, indeed am rapidly coming to the conclusion that I should have formed long ago; that there are some people with too much time on their hands who will simply argue for the sake of it, and I should best spend my time on more constructive activities!
Originally Posted by Squawk-7600
I should best spend my time on more constructive activities!
Yes some folks can be a little obtuse. But then we're all subject to being guilty of that on occasion.
As to my previous post regarding the BOS fuel spill article, it was me quoting Avweb quoting Reuters quoting JAL (I sure couldn't make THAT up!)
Hey Squawk, here's how you can quote another poster by name:
1) Copy and paste selected text to be quoted and wrap the quote tags around it.
2) Copy and paste the screen name of the poster to be attibuted into the quote tag preceding the quoted text then type the = sign preceding the user name.
example: [QUOTE=Squawk-7600]
Note that NO spaces are entered. Give it a try!
As to the matter of taking non-standard steps to cause an automatic refueling system to distribute fuel to various tanks differently than it otherwise might, there are always workarounds possible. But in normal ops on most airline equipment made in the last couple of decades, it's just as you say. The fueler simply sets the pre-select to the desired quantity in Kgs and pumps until it stops. But give a qualified A&P mechanic (engineer outside the US) the AMM with system schematic and applicable wiring diagram...
BTW, I are a A&P mech! (besides that pilot stuff)
Anyway Squawk, take 2 aspirin and check back in the morning. It's not as bad as you think.... Is it?
Last edited by westhawk; 16th Jan 2013 at 05:14.
'Morning, Squawk-7600,
No offence intended! But perhaps you should consider choosing your words more carefully?
Quote from yesterday (my bold):
“These days neither the refueler nor the pilots determine how much fuel goes where, the aircraft decides that for itself. I've done countless flights where fuel has become trapped in areas we don't want it, but that's just tough luck.”
Quote from today:
"I did not appreciate the oblique swipe regarding taking off with trapped fuel."
Assuming the type of aircraft you fly is not subject to secrecy laws, could you tell us lesser mortals what it is, and explain precisely what you mean, to avoid any further misunderstanding?
When refuelling – automatic or manual – hiccups, it can obviously be for a variety of reasons. If it’s due to the malfunction of a valve, that may or may not affect the integrity of the fuel system for the planned flight. Let’s wait for more information (not holding our breath...) before we attribute the blame entirely to the manufacturer.
In the early stages of operation of an aircraft type, unexpected faults are at a premium. When you are at an outstation, with or without type-qualified mechanics immediately available, having the aircraft towed to the hangar is an unpopular option.
FlightPathOBN, quote:
“I havent noticed very many modern commercial ac, especially on the order of a 787, where the pilot is fueling the ac...”
Agreed! Why should I get my white gloves grimy, with guys like you around?
It seems very unlikely in this case at somewhere like BOS. But I’ve sometimes had to do it on A310s and A320s in your absence, including testing the fuel sample offered by the bowser operator. I doubt the B787 refuelling system is fundamentally different.
No offence intended! But perhaps you should consider choosing your words more carefully?
Quote from yesterday (my bold):
“These days neither the refueler nor the pilots determine how much fuel goes where, the aircraft decides that for itself. I've done countless flights where fuel has become trapped in areas we don't want it, but that's just tough luck.”
Quote from today:
"I did not appreciate the oblique swipe regarding taking off with trapped fuel."
Assuming the type of aircraft you fly is not subject to secrecy laws, could you tell us lesser mortals what it is, and explain precisely what you mean, to avoid any further misunderstanding?
When refuelling – automatic or manual – hiccups, it can obviously be for a variety of reasons. If it’s due to the malfunction of a valve, that may or may not affect the integrity of the fuel system for the planned flight. Let’s wait for more information (not holding our breath...) before we attribute the blame entirely to the manufacturer.
In the early stages of operation of an aircraft type, unexpected faults are at a premium. When you are at an outstation, with or without type-qualified mechanics immediately available, having the aircraft towed to the hangar is an unpopular option.
FlightPathOBN, quote:
“I havent noticed very many modern commercial ac, especially on the order of a 787, where the pilot is fueling the ac...”
Agreed! Why should I get my white gloves grimy, with guys like you around?
It seems very unlikely in this case at somewhere like BOS. But I’ve sometimes had to do it on A310s and A320s in your absence, including testing the fuel sample offered by the bowser operator. I doubt the B787 refuelling system is fundamentally different.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Scott
Howdy. I agree that Operations will play an important part in the eventual determination. Both with Fuel, and Battery/Electrical......
Nothing that has transpired in the 787's intro has defied past experience, or state of the art, or even best practice.
It is inconceivable that (fueling especially) will produce any unknown and unforeseen coincidences. That means operator involvement is a given, good bad or indifferent....Plenty of hands on the bag, as yet....
Howdy. I agree that Operations will play an important part in the eventual determination. Both with Fuel, and Battery/Electrical......
Nothing that has transpired in the 787's intro has defied past experience, or state of the art, or even best practice.
It is inconceivable that (fueling especially) will produce any unknown and unforeseen coincidences. That means operator involvement is a given, good bad or indifferent....Plenty of hands on the bag, as yet....
