FAA Grounds 787s
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.hexcel.com/Resources/Data...ite_Repair.pdf
This explains in A LOT OF DETAIL how the repair is effected.
This explains in A LOT OF DETAIL how the repair is effected.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But would that level be available at most airports?
This happens a lot with other systems on various aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, the repair process from Boeing has been posted on Pprune in other threads.
COMPOSITES IN THE AIRFRAME AND PRIMARY STRUCTURE
"In addition to using a robust structural design in damage-prone areas, such as passenger and cargo doors, the 787 has been designed from the start with the capability to be repaired in exactly the same manner that airlines would repair an airplane today — with bolted repairs. The ability to perform bolted repairs in composite structure is service-proven on the 777 and offers comparable repair times and skills as employed on metallic airplanes. (By design, bolted repairs in composite structure can be permanent and damage tolerant, just as they can be on a metal structure.)
In addition, airlines have the option to perform bonded composite repairs, which offer improved aerodynamic and aesthetic finish. These repairs are permanent, damage tolerant, and do not require an autoclave. While a typical bonded repair may require 24 or more hours of airplane downtime, Boeing has taken advantage of the properties of composites to develop a new line of maintenance repair capability that requires less than an hour to apply. This rapid composite repair technique offers temporary repair capability to get an airplane flying again quickly, despite minor damage that might ground an aluminum airplane."
and this is informative....
http://www.niar.wichita.edu/chicagow...0&%20Oakes.pdf
COMPOSITES IN THE AIRFRAME AND PRIMARY STRUCTURE
"In addition to using a robust structural design in damage-prone areas, such as passenger and cargo doors, the 787 has been designed from the start with the capability to be repaired in exactly the same manner that airlines would repair an airplane today — with bolted repairs. The ability to perform bolted repairs in composite structure is service-proven on the 777 and offers comparable repair times and skills as employed on metallic airplanes. (By design, bolted repairs in composite structure can be permanent and damage tolerant, just as they can be on a metal structure.)
In addition, airlines have the option to perform bonded composite repairs, which offer improved aerodynamic and aesthetic finish. These repairs are permanent, damage tolerant, and do not require an autoclave. While a typical bonded repair may require 24 or more hours of airplane downtime, Boeing has taken advantage of the properties of composites to develop a new line of maintenance repair capability that requires less than an hour to apply. This rapid composite repair technique offers temporary repair capability to get an airplane flying again quickly, despite minor damage that might ground an aluminum airplane."
and this is informative....
http://www.niar.wichita.edu/chicagow...0&%20Oakes.pdf
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 30th Apr 2013 at 19:35.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank You That was VERY informative
Aviation Week's 'Things with Wings' blog, 6 May
But wait - there's more.......
What were Boeing thinking of?? (My bold)
Also. should perhaps mention that the NTSB has since said that the request for the scans
The NTSB has issued an "urgent" procurement request to have a Maryland company perform computed tomography (CT) scans starting May 6 on as many as 48 Boeing 787 lithium-ion battery cells.
The work signals a rush for the Board to find a root cause for the battery issues that grounded the fleet as airlines begin revenue service with modified 787s this month and into June.
"[The tests] must also be completed within the shortest timeframe possible to provide the fastest possible receipt of this information to avoid potential future accidents involving this type of aircraft battery," says the NTSB in a "sources sought" notice published on May 3.
The work signals a rush for the Board to find a root cause for the battery issues that grounded the fleet as airlines begin revenue service with modified 787s this month and into June.
"[The tests] must also be completed within the shortest timeframe possible to provide the fastest possible receipt of this information to avoid potential future accidents involving this type of aircraft battery," says the NTSB in a "sources sought" notice published on May 3.
Highlighting the continued concern in the aviation industry about lithium-ion battery technology, the NTSB mandated that the contract be issued to a local company, as the cells cannot be shipped via air cargo.
Also. should perhaps mention that the NTSB has since said that the request for the scans
was not meant to signal an acceleration of its efforts to find the root cause of 787 battery problems from January. Rather, the agency says document contained “contracting language” meant to quickly secure funding for the work. The Board is correcting the language in the request, and says there is no new information on the investigation
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fresh this evening :
and :
Boeing (NYSE: BA) has rolled out of the factory the first 787 Dreamliner to be built at the increased production rate of seven airplanes per month. The airplane, which rolled out earlier this week, is the 114th 787 to be built overall and the 100th 787 to be built at the Everett, Wash., factory.
Boeing's 787 program is on track to achieve a planned 10 per month rate by year-end. The production rate accounts for airplanes built at the Everett Final Assembly facility, the Everett Temporary Surge Line and Boeing South Carolina.
To date, 50 787s have been delivered to eight airlines. The program has more than 800 unfilled orders with 58 customers worldwide.
Boeing's 787 program is on track to achieve a planned 10 per month rate by year-end. The production rate accounts for airplanes built at the Everett Final Assembly facility, the Everett Temporary Surge Line and Boeing South Carolina.
To date, 50 787s have been delivered to eight airlines. The program has more than 800 unfilled orders with 58 customers worldwide.
ANA is to resume services with its Boeing 787 fleet from 1st June, 2013, following the successful completion of a series of battery system modifications, safety checks and test flights. The reintroduction of the 787 aircraft will result in partial amendments to ANA's summer flight schedule for international and domestic services.
ANA will also introduce the Dreamliner onto a further three international routes from this summer – Narita to Beijing and Shanghai and Haneda to Taipei – bringing the number of overseas destinations served by the 787 to five.
Osamu Shinobe, President and CEO of ANA, said “We are pleased to announce that our 787 aircraft will be reintroduced on scheduled flights from June onwards. ANA’s priority is the safety of our passengers. Our engineers have worked closely with Boeing to undertake the required improvements and we are fully satisfied with the safety of our 787 fleet.”
ANA will also introduce the Dreamliner onto a further three international routes from this summer – Narita to Beijing and Shanghai and Haneda to Taipei – bringing the number of overseas destinations served by the 787 to five.
Osamu Shinobe, President and CEO of ANA, said “We are pleased to announce that our 787 aircraft will be reintroduced on scheduled flights from June onwards. ANA’s priority is the safety of our passengers. Our engineers have worked closely with Boeing to undertake the required improvements and we are fully satisfied with the safety of our 787 fleet.”
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Placerville, CA
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been waiting for this (more CT scans) to surface!
A short sentence somewhat buried in the report on the CT scan of the failed battery from Boston mentioned a recommendation to do extensive CT scans on "normal" batteries. I think that the analyst saw some unexpected or unexplained things in the "undamaged" front battery of the same aircraft. That battery underwent non-destructive testing only to provide a reference comparison for analyzing the failed cells.
A short sentence somewhat buried in the report on the CT scan of the failed battery from Boston mentioned a recommendation to do extensive CT scans on "normal" batteries. I think that the analyst saw some unexpected or unexplained things in the "undamaged" front battery of the same aircraft. That battery underwent non-destructive testing only to provide a reference comparison for analyzing the failed cells.
Last edited by inetdog; 10th May 2013 at 07:07.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lasernigel...
This was my first question, about composite structures on aircraft,having witnessed a lifetime of damage inflicted by ground service vehicles.
Blunt impact,
not reported by culprit!.....Certainly will sharpen our walk-around skills,....me thinks! 
This was my first question, about composite structures on aircraft,having witnessed a lifetime of damage inflicted by ground service vehicles.
Blunt impact,
not reported by culprit!.....Certainly will sharpen our walk-around skills,....me thinks!
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been waiting for this (more CT scans) to surface!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bali H'ai
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Face Saving
The routes identified in Post 1813 are all less than 1200nms, one is less than 1000nms.
Not ETOPS material, go to top of climb and glide to the destination.
ANA have already claimed the 787 fiasco is hurting them, the above routes will probably hurt more.
Not ETOPS material, go to top of climb and glide to the destination.
ANA have already claimed the 787 fiasco is hurting them, the above routes will probably hurt more.
JAL is telling its customers that although nobody knows what went wrong Boeing has addressed all possible faults. See Identification of All Probable Causes and Development of Corrective Actions | Safety and Flight Information | JAPAN AIRLINES Corporate Information.
My own views were published last week at Dreamliner's nightmare run The article is based on testimony at public hearings plus info from NTSB data dump beforehand especially http://dms.ntsb.gov/public%2F54000-5...1%2F524338.pdf
My own views were published last week at Dreamliner's nightmare run The article is based on testimony at public hearings plus info from NTSB data dump beforehand especially http://dms.ntsb.gov/public%2F54000-5...1%2F524338.pdf
Last edited by Jetdriver; 14th May 2013 at 04:30.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
The engineers have a device called a Ramp Damage Checker. It is an ultrasound device, very simple to use, and will indicate to a line engineer whether or not specialist investigation is required.
Last edited by Ngineer; 14th May 2013 at 02:42.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ozaub : very good article. Resumes in a few words the mess they ( we , in fact) are in. The article could have been named : "the failure of the regulators". But maybe some good will come out of all this .
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there is no obvious signs of damage, then there very likely is no damage. CFRP (and laminates like GLARE used on the A380) is (are) more resilient to impact than Al is.
Last edited by Kiskaloo; 14th May 2013 at 14:50.
ATC Watcher
This may turn out to be where most of the interesting changes will occur. Will the FAA revisit their ODA (Organization Designation Authorization) process? Or will they continue with their process oriented certification model. "As long as you do what you say you are going to do, its approved."
Meanwhile, the NTSB is pursuing the technical issues. But they are doing so only in an advisory capacity. Should they actually find something important, will the FAA mandate a change? Probably. But for future designs, the regulatory body with the technical expertise (NTSB) is sitting outside the loop. Until there's an incident. Then, they'll get to contribute.
I thought this was a regulatory model we were supposed to be moving away from.
the failure of the regulators
Meanwhile, the NTSB is pursuing the technical issues. But they are doing so only in an advisory capacity. Should they actually find something important, will the FAA mandate a change? Probably. But for future designs, the regulatory body with the technical expertise (NTSB) is sitting outside the loop. Until there's an incident. Then, they'll get to contribute.
I thought this was a regulatory model we were supposed to be moving away from.
This may turn out to be where most of the interesting changes will occur. Will the FAA revisit their ODA (Organization Designation Authorization) process? Or will they continue with their process oriented certification model. "As long as you do what you say you are going to do, its approved."
Meanwhile, the NTSB is pursuing the technical issues. But they are doing so only in an advisory capacity. Should they actually find something important, will the FAA mandate a change? Probably. But for future designs, the regulatory body with the technical expertise (NTSB) is sitting outside the loop. Until there's an incident. Then, they'll get to contribute.
I thought this was a regulatory model we were supposed to be moving away from.
Meanwhile, the NTSB is pursuing the technical issues. But they are doing so only in an advisory capacity. Should they actually find something important, will the FAA mandate a change? Probably. But for future designs, the regulatory body with the technical expertise (NTSB) is sitting outside the loop. Until there's an incident. Then, they'll get to contribute.
I thought this was a regulatory model we were supposed to be moving away from.
There are level of technical expertise. I wouldn't go to far in assigning a greater or lesser level to the FAA or NTSB
From a regulatory standpoint the FAA has more than the NTSB, while from an investigation standpoint the NTSB has more depth than the FAA and from a design standpoint(what actually can be done) Boeing tops them both. From a working standpoint the FAA participates in the investigation process and selects top level product related engineering candidates from world wide resources in their "specialist" categories.
So who's right? neither even including Boeing. The way we get at this is to include the issues in a ,"special condition" that applies to all manufacturers. That not only evens the playing field but ferrets out where all the expertise lies in ARAC style meetings concluding with public comment.
For me I am quite content for the FAA to use this process to solicit comments and not to attempt to force anything on them via internet chat forums.
I really doubt that the NTSB will participate since by expressing acquiescent to an issue may diminish their ability to conduct an impartial investigation should it turn out wrong.
#1821
Kiskaloo
If there is no obvious signs of damage, then there very likely is no damage. CFRP (and laminates like GLARE used on the A380) is (are) more resilient to impact than Al is.
Kiskaloo
If there is no obvious signs of damage, then there very likely is no damage. CFRP (and laminates like GLARE used on the A380) is (are) more resilient to impact than Al is.
If something with momentum and large mass hits it at more than 2 mph yer in trouble.
Well, that's what Boeing told us anyway.
The suits are going to have to get their heads round the idea that sacking someone for reporting a ding is a very very bad idea around this beast.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Special Conditions
Iomapaseo
Your description of the process does not coincide with my understanding and experience.
A Special Condition is applicable only to a specific type or variant.
It is initially agreed between the Applicant and the Regulatory Authority behind closed doors.The first draft is then circulated to lots of other parties for comment.
The comments are then usually consigned to the waste paper bin.
When AIA and the Applicant are satisfied with the SC the FAA falls into line and it becomes part of the basis of certification for the product.
The SC may then be used as the basis for an SC on other certifications, and in the fullness of time may form an update to the Regulations.
I'm afraid your description of the SC process did not include the enormous lobbying power of US Industry and the relative frailty of the FAA.
Your description of the process does not coincide with my understanding and experience.
A Special Condition is applicable only to a specific type or variant.
It is initially agreed between the Applicant and the Regulatory Authority behind closed doors.The first draft is then circulated to lots of other parties for comment.
The comments are then usually consigned to the waste paper bin.
When AIA and the Applicant are satisfied with the SC the FAA falls into line and it becomes part of the basis of certification for the product.
The SC may then be used as the basis for an SC on other certifications, and in the fullness of time may form an update to the Regulations.
I'm afraid your description of the SC process did not include the enormous lobbying power of US Industry and the relative frailty of the FAA.
Last edited by CAAAD; 15th May 2013 at 09:04.
CAAD
of course you are somewhat correct ... but it works both ways. The rest of the industry (Boeings competitors and the public intelligencia) are not about to let a manufacturer get an upper hand on introducing a new and untested concept into the market.
I've had my say in commenting on Special Conditions and had little problem in turning a one sided argument. On the other hand I've have personally reviewed in total a raft of comments on a Special Condition and most of these were filed without technical knowledge or understanding and should have been binned.
In the end I have faith in the process except for the possibility that the key players e.g. Boeing and the regulator misled themselves and any public comments to that effect were devoid of data. This process is not a voting process, it's based on technical knowledge that can be vetted.
I'm afraid your description of the SC process did not include the enormous lobbying power of US Industry and the relative frailty of the FAA.
I've had my say in commenting on Special Conditions and had little problem in turning a one sided argument. On the other hand I've have personally reviewed in total a raft of comments on a Special Condition and most of these were filed without technical knowledge or understanding and should have been binned.
In the end I have faith in the process except for the possibility that the key players e.g. Boeing and the regulator misled themselves and any public comments to that effect were devoid of data. This process is not a voting process, it's based on technical knowledge that can be vetted.