Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

FAA Grounds 787s

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

FAA Grounds 787s

Old 24th Apr 2013, 18:19
  #1741 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
torque the bolt head from behind the flange? good luck with the ones on the bottom....
FlightPathOBN is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2013, 18:36
  #1742 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 378
torque the bolt head from behind the flange?

The bolt heads are facing out.

You seem hell bent on trying to stir up concern when none is warranted.

Surely you don't honestly believe the engineers gave no thought to the assembly and maintenance considerations of the enclosure?
Machaca is online now  
Old 24th Apr 2013, 18:47
  #1743 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
With all the wisdom and engineering knowledge (nudge, nudge, wink wink) on this forum
well, at least it would have the bolt down lid on the top, so in case of an electrolyte leak, when you took the lid off, it wouldnt drain out onto the floor....

The bolt heads are facing out
well, there you have it....I found a clear picture of this, and I am wrong...it looked like the bolt heads were on the inside of the flange....

and I will get new spectacles tomorrow

Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 24th Apr 2013 at 18:53.
FlightPathOBN is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2013, 21:16
  #1744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 2,606
Pedant mode on...
Surely, one would torque tighten the nut, not the bolt.
TURIN is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2013, 21:17
  #1745 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 2,606
Or are they captured nuts?

My eyes need testing too.
TURIN is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2013, 21:54
  #1746 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Since it does not appear they are using washers, one would apply the torque value to the bolt, not the nut.

Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 24th Apr 2013 at 21:56.
FlightPathOBN is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2013, 02:32
  #1747 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canberra
Posts: 113
thread drift (torque values)

It depends. If the materials under both the nut and the bolt are the same, it will (mostly) matter little. If the materials are different, then you need to read the manual about bolt / nut placement and which is 'torqued'.
layman is online now  
Old 25th Apr 2013, 03:11
  #1748 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 525
Exclamation

Just for reference, Mitsubishi reckons a strong shock, eg battery dropped from a height of one meter in the testing process is enough to cause overheating. I wonder if Boeing and Yuasa have looked into this behind the scenes. (Hard landings?)
Mitsubishi to recall hybrids for battery problem -NHK WORLD English-

Last edited by jolihokistix; 25th Apr 2013 at 03:12.
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2013, 03:58
  #1749 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 89
I very much doubt it as they would not be expecting a 1 meter drop.....
ITman is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2013, 17:05
  #1750 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
FAA Lifts 787 Grounding

The FAA today has formally lifted the AD grounding the 787, allowing UA to resume revenue flights at their discretion. EASA, JTSB and other agencies are expected to follow shortly:

FAA clears Boeing battery fix, ending 787 flight ban | Reuters
Kiskaloo is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2013, 17:23
  #1751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 9,792
The FAA today has formally lifted the AD grounding the 787
Surely the original AD remains in force, given that its objective is to prohibit operation of unmodified aircraft ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2013, 19:16
  #1752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Dave,

Actually no, United Airlines says it flew one of its 787s to a Boeing facility in San Antonio on Tuesday for the battery fix it needs to resume flying.

United (UA) #6850 ? 23-Apr-2013 ? KLAX - KSKF Flight Tracker ? FlightAware

So your are only allowed to fly a grounded aircraft when you want to.

On a side note, today the FAA estimated the cost to fix each ac is $465,000. Quite the box

Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 25th Apr 2013 at 19:16.
FlightPathOBN is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2013, 20:36
  #1753 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 378
FAA approved non-passenger flights for the 787 last week.
Machaca is online now  
Old 25th Apr 2013, 21:28
  #1754 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,910
On a side note, today the FAA estimated the cost to fix each ac is $465,000
Would that be parts only, as the labour costs for a fix away from a Boeing plant would obviously be considerably higher than a factory fix.
TSR2 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2013, 21:35
  #1755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 2,606
That's just the costs of getting the coke machines flown out to remote...


Posted from PPRuNe.org App for Android
TURIN is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2013, 05:04
  #1756 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 675
Op-Ed piece in today's NY Times from James E. Hall, James E. Hall, a safety and crisis management consultant, who was chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001.

...the F.A.A.’s recent decision to approve Boeing’s plans to fix the lithium-ion battery seems shortsighted and represents a complete failure of government oversight.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/op...t-the-faa.html
Mark in CA is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2013, 09:16
  #1757 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kent
Age: 56
Posts: 489
From the NY times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/op...t-the-faa.html
Boeing initially estimated that there was the potential for one battery failure incident in 10 million flight hours. As it turned out, smoke and fire broke out in batteries on two separate 787’s in just the first 52,000 flight hours.
I think I will be making an effort to avoid 787s until they've clocked up a significant number of hours without any battery fire/smoke incidents (contained or not) - if any occur it'll be until they fix the root cause.

OC619
OpenCirrus619 is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2013, 15:08
  #1758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: above it all
Posts: 365
Japan gives OK to resume flights, but this bit seems interesting:

Japan is requiring ANA and JAL to take additional safety measures, including installation of a system that allows monitoring of battery voltage on the ground and test flights of all 787 aircraft. A first test flight is expected Sunday.
Japan allows airlines set to resume 787 flights - AviationPros.com
Finn47 is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2013, 21:04
  #1759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,020
Glad to see you won't be riding on 787's soon. What will you be riding that makes you feel secure, safe and without being in danger. How are getting to the airport BTW?

Last edited by Spooky 2; 26th Apr 2013 at 21:05.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 27th Apr 2013, 00:52
  #1760 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 74
Posts: 401
Originally Posted by Spooky 2
Glad to see you won't be riding on 787's soon. What will you be riding that makes you feel secure, safe and without being in danger. How are getting to the airport BTW?
For me, 777--nice aeroplane. Or 744, for the vintage feel. No point in incurring avoidable risk.
FlightlessParrot is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.