Another 787 Fuel Leak
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wallisellen, Switzerland
Age: 75
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know, that appears to be the same problem JAL had at Boston last Tuesday. It also reports about the same quantity of fuel loss. At some point, without alot more and accurate data, it starts to look like a line/operator issue.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the lithium battery issue is certainly worth re-investigating which is what theyre doing.I dont think anything else is systemic to the dreamliner but rather the operator(any operator really).Boeing has a history of giving its A models to tried and tested local companies like Pan Am,United,SWA.They broke precedent with ANA and I think it was a mistake.New models always have teething trouble and you need those problems played out in your own backyard with people you know and trust implicitly.It must be a field day for Airbus which is a shame as they really dont deserve free publicity like that.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: far too low
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but with such a new aircraft, if it is an operator issue, then that's due to incorrect or insufficient guidance from oem.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan Airlines Co (JAL) said on Sunday that a Boeing Co 787 Dreamliner jet undergoing checks in Tokyo following a fuel leak at Boston airport last week had leaked fuel during tests earlier in the day.
An open valve on the aircraft caused fuel to leak from a nozzle on the left wing used to remove fuel, a company spokeswoman said. The jet is out of service after spilling about 40 gallons of fuel onto the airport taxiway in Boston due to a separate valve-related problem.
In Boston, a different valve on the plane opened, causing fuel to flow from the centre tank to the left main tank. When that tank filled up, it overflowed into a surge tank and out through a vent.
The causes of both the incidents are unknown, the JAL spokeswoman added.
There is no timetable for the plane to return to service.
An open valve on the aircraft caused fuel to leak from a nozzle on the left wing used to remove fuel, a company spokeswoman said. The jet is out of service after spilling about 40 gallons of fuel onto the airport taxiway in Boston due to a separate valve-related problem.
In Boston, a different valve on the plane opened, causing fuel to flow from the centre tank to the left main tank. When that tank filled up, it overflowed into a surge tank and out through a vent.
The causes of both the incidents are unknown, the JAL spokeswoman added.
There is no timetable for the plane to return to service.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rananim +1
gorter.... That's true, and Boeing took a risk with the Dreamliner, a big one.
Advancing the technology involves risk on everyone's part. We'll need to see what's what after suitable experience is gained.....
And then see who blames the pilot group after twenty years. Boeing took expensive decisive action after BA038, UAL performed deferrable inspections during the same troubling time....
I do not disagree with corporate 'amnesia', but the aviation culture, especially pilots, have long memories.
Holding the bag, if required, is not for wimps. Likewise, dropping it and pointing fingers does not inspire confidence, long term....
gorter.... That's true, and Boeing took a risk with the Dreamliner, a big one.
Advancing the technology involves risk on everyone's part. We'll need to see what's what after suitable experience is gained.....
And then see who blames the pilot group after twenty years. Boeing took expensive decisive action after BA038, UAL performed deferrable inspections during the same troubling time....
I do not disagree with corporate 'amnesia', but the aviation culture, especially pilots, have long memories.
Holding the bag, if required, is not for wimps. Likewise, dropping it and pointing fingers does not inspire confidence, long term....
Last edited by Lyman; 13th Jan 2013 at 16:29.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing has a history of giving its A models to tried and tested local companies like Pan Am,United,SWA.They broke precedent with ANA and I think it was a mistake.New models always have teething trouble and you need those problems played out in your own backyard with people you know and trust implicitly.It must be a field day for Airbus which is a shame as they really dont deserve free publicity like that.
Why would you comment about Airbus like that? As mentioned by others, Boeing has taken an enormous risk in the 787 in a desperate attempt to catch up with Airbus. Yet many of the "features" the PR department spew out have been on Airbus FBW aircraft for years (for example turbulence dampening).
I've flown both Airbus and Boeing, both manufacturers produce very capable aircraft. However the "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goin'" good ol' boys who just won't let the over-built era of 1970s Boeing aircraft go, need to wake up to themselves that era has gone.
Last edited by Squawk-7600; 13th Jan 2013 at 20:17.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is outright silly to think that Airbus will find any delight in 787 troubles, the same way as if Boeing was taking any pleasure in A380 problems.
Last edited by olasek; 13th Jan 2013 at 20:38.
without alot more and accurate data, it starts to look like a line/operator issue.
How so?
JAL & QATAR have had leaks. Leaks have occurred in 3 different locations, with different in to plane service providers, with 2 different aircraft... at least 2 different leak points... not too sure that there is a strong correlation there in respect to line/operator, and there is precious little pointing to cause-effect relationship.
In relation to the premise of top flite US carriers being used for testing out the "A" versions, would think that had more to do with the marketing of the manufacturer than any local level of excellence biasing the EIS program roadmap. PAN AM and UNITED have as much or more history of line/operations anomalies as the quoted users. JAL and ANA have excellent maintenance programs, taking quality management to heart... the only remarkable error in maintenance in JAL's modern history was the 742SR wacky pressure bulkhead repair conducted exactly to the manufacturers erroneous guidance, with disastrous results, to pax and crew, and the maintenance director who committed Seppuku. JAL and ANA line/operations programs are pretty darn good, not perfect, but impressive on a global stage.
The B787 program will improve in due course, as all product entries do, following the U shape reliability bucket in the time domain.
Last edited by fdr; 13th Jan 2013 at 21:35.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 日本
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
without alot more and accurate data, it starts to look like a line/operator issue.
We'll now find out the valve manufacturing company is Japanese but I never said they were perfect
Refuelling hiccups
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. (Do I hear sniggers from former F/Es?) Although 2-pilot aircraft have automatic fuel distribution during refuelling, there are times when adjustments have to be made. These may involve using defuelling valves and tank pumps to shunt the fuel around. And then there have been occasions when crews have tried to squeeze a bit of extra fuel in by one means or another, when range is being pushed to the limit...
As I think sevenstrokeroll pointed out some days ago on another thread: the trouble is that on some aircraft, once fuel starts pouring overboard from the vent-surge tank, a syphon is set up that tends to persist for an embarrassing period. (This can even happen if you have correctly loaded full outer tanks with cold fuel on a sunny day.)
As I think sevenstrokeroll pointed out some days ago on another thread: the trouble is that on some aircraft, once fuel starts pouring overboard from the vent-surge tank, a syphon is set up that tends to persist for an embarrassing period. (This can even happen if you have correctly loaded full outer tanks with cold fuel on a sunny day.)
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Suitcase
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris I'd suggest you're speaking of a bygone era. I can honestly say I've never had to dick around with the refuelling system of any modern jet I've flown. I have no idea of how it works on the 787, but I can pretty much guarantee it's all fully automatic. Likewise, the only time I've had to use the defuelling system is when dumping fuel.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Scott, you can be sure that a BOS to HND/NRT trip does not even come close to requiring max fuel on the. 787. More than likely the fuel load was in the region of 185K+/- 5K and the capacity of the aircraft is 225K. Just a WAG, but pretty close none the less.
Spooky 2,
Thanks for that estimate. What order of payload is it based on? How many hours from Boston to Tokyo at between 3% and 5% extra per hour?
Squawk-7600,
Yes, I mentioned the automatic distribution (during refuelling) in my post. But if a new a/c is going to have teething problems, the refuelling system is not necessarily exempt from them. Also, electrical power interruptions (during refuelling) can cause problems.
I was deliberately avoiding specifics, as I also know nothing of the B787 fuel system. However, the defuel valves or valve I was loosely referring to - perhaps defuel/transfer valve is a better description - enables you to pump fuel from a tank or tanks back into the refuelling gallery, and thence to another tank or tanks.
Thanks for that estimate. What order of payload is it based on? How many hours from Boston to Tokyo at between 3% and 5% extra per hour?
Squawk-7600,
Yes, I mentioned the automatic distribution (during refuelling) in my post. But if a new a/c is going to have teething problems, the refuelling system is not necessarily exempt from them. Also, electrical power interruptions (during refuelling) can cause problems.
I was deliberately avoiding specifics, as I also know nothing of the B787 fuel system. However, the defuel valves or valve I was loosely referring to - perhaps defuel/transfer valve is a better description - enables you to pump fuel from a tank or tanks back into the refuelling gallery, and thence to another tank or tanks.
Last edited by Chris Scott; 14th Jan 2013 at 10:27. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris,
My crystal ball says about 13.0 @.85 with a 20Kt HW, 10% Flag & 30 min hold. Payload? How about 65K for payload. No ETOPS data factored in this guess. In other words no additional fuel for a ETOPS diversion. The 787 will at times need extra fuel at lower alts simply because it is so fuel efficient at alt that the delta becomes a little larger than say a 777 over the same route under similar diversion scenarios.
The airplane sips fuel compared anything out there now.
My crystal ball says about 13.0 @.85 with a 20Kt HW, 10% Flag & 30 min hold. Payload? How about 65K for payload. No ETOPS data factored in this guess. In other words no additional fuel for a ETOPS diversion. The 787 will at times need extra fuel at lower alts simply because it is so fuel efficient at alt that the delta becomes a little larger than say a 777 over the same route under similar diversion scenarios.
The airplane sips fuel compared anything out there now.