Qatar 787 smoke
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dubai
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BIG hush up
Days after this incident, there is still no authentic news. There is one piece from "improved_climb". But Nil further. The silence from Boeing is deafening. You cannot expect anything from Qatar press or Qatar airways. What about their other big mouth Al Jazeera TV. They are quick to jump on such news if it were outside of their main base at Qatar.
Is this good for aviation safety? I wrote when the JAL incident took place that "Boeing is unlucky that this battery fire happened in Boston, and the press jumped on it straight away. Even the fire brigade tweeted pictures. If the same battery fire was on a Qatar aircraft in Qatar, the world would have heard about it only after 2 weeks "
Wasn't I right? Is there no one from Qatar airlines on Pprune? It can't be true.
Is this good for aviation safety? I wrote when the JAL incident took place that "Boeing is unlucky that this battery fire happened in Boston, and the press jumped on it straight away. Even the fire brigade tweeted pictures. If the same battery fire was on a Qatar aircraft in Qatar, the world would have heard about it only after 2 weeks "
Wasn't I right? Is there no one from Qatar airlines on Pprune? It can't be true.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...there is still no authentic news...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Karel:
Do not forget that it could be question of survival for some of them - including Boeing. Careless information can trigger an avalanche.
Do not forget that it could be question of survival for some of them - including Boeing. Careless information can trigger an avalanche.
Quite so. This is a real Comet moment for Boeing:
BBC ON THIS DAY | 19 | 1954: 'Metal fatigue' caused Comet crashes
The continuing Comet incidents, which cost many lives, sealed the fate of British and European jet production for decades. It meant that Boeing and M.D. could enter the market and overtake any jet designs from Europe, and the name 'De Havilland' was consigned to history. It was the end of an era.
Boeing faces the same problem today, but has been lucky in that there have been no airframe losses as yet. This is how important these decisions are, for the fate of a company and perhaps all of US aviation may depend on the results of these investigations. But this is a strategy that could go either way: It could well save the company. But if keeping the fleet in the air results in one going down in flight.....
It is not a decision I would like to take.
Last edited by silverstrata; 28th Jul 2013 at 10:41.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: El Dorado
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on analogy SilverStrata! The Comet was indeed quite revolutionary for it's time, but as history shows, it was one step too much.
Here's an interesting quote from Donald Rumsfeld:
I assume that the 787 is (self)certified using known knowns as certification rules, but then I'm curious what and how many unknown unknowns regarding plastic electric jets are out there, waiting to either be discovered or found out the hard way... 
Here's an interesting quote from Donald Rumsfeld:
There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that the Comet's chief designer R.E. Bishop specified Reduxed windows but de Havilland's management thought it was too risky to rely solely on the relatively new Redux process and insisted on a "belt and braces" approach with the addition of rivet plates and rivets. Sadly in this case it was innate caution which led to the cracks forming and causing the tragedies.
The 787 is widely heralded as the most advanced airliner, but many of the technologies used have been proven in other situations, but now seem to be more prone to issues when they are all combined in the same plane, a plane with a more humid atmosphere, far greater reliance on electrics, and possibly assembled too fast because of delays and set-backs.
The 787 is widely heralded as the most advanced airliner, but many of the technologies used have been proven in other situations, but now seem to be more prone to issues when they are all combined in the same plane, a plane with a more humid atmosphere, far greater reliance on electrics, and possibly assembled too fast because of delays and set-backs.
I assume that the 787 is (self)certified using known knowns as certification rules, but then I'm curious what and how many unknown unknowns regarding plastic electric jets are out there, waiting to either be discovered or found out the hard way... 
Every single plane eventually turns up the unkown unknows in its service life, some quicker than others. In spite of the variables of "when" the regulatory continued airworthiness process ADs etc. is designed to maintain an acceptable level of safety.
After this level is met the rest of the story is economics to the users. So your question about how many, is what makes investing risk in a company and has little to do with flight safety.
You cannot expect anything from Qatar press or Qatar airways.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joy:
My understanding is that the Comet's chief designer R.E. Bishop specified Reduxed windows but de Havilland's management thought it was too risky
My understanding is that the Comet's chief designer R.E. Bishop specified Reduxed windows but de Havilland's management thought it was too risky
Like De Havilland's pioneering methodology, Boeing (and others nowadays) have decided to build the demonstrator(s) and the first production aircraft at the same time, to save on costs. But this means that it is difficult to radically change the design if problems arise, as production aircraft are already on the assembly line. It is inevitable that given this production fait accompli, that engineering compromises are made rather than the design being radically overhauled.
Witness the wing-root strengthening problem with the 787, which had all the hallmarks of a bodge rather than a design. While the fastener problem demonstrated educational/quality issues in production. Development issues like this are not an issue on a prototype, but are a real headache when you have already made two dozen ship-sets of parts...
Boeing prepares to begin 'challenging' 787 structural modification effort
Boeing delays 787 first flight and battles fastener issue
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joy ride et al,
As one who was at De Havillands at the time, albeit as a lowly engineering apprentice serving his six months in the"Repairs and Defects" department, I would note that back in those days,departments had both the sense and sensibility to be named for what they did, rather than some of the somewhat evasive and grandiose departmental titles of these sad days in aviation.
For example, we had a "Stress Department", who, gosh, calculated stresses and strains, for example and a Personnel department who handled personnel. Now stress office has been re-identified as Structures ( a rather generic term and, to some of us, a rather meaningless term). Further, Personnel Departments have become "Human Resources", yet another meaningless and self aggrandizing term, And finally, at Boeing, where titles abound in that hidebound bureaucracy, good old"Materials and Processes" from decades ago was elevated to yet another grandiosity as "Boeing Materials Technology" decades go.
At Boeing this had the unfortunate, but foreseeable result that the stressmen there forgot their overall responsibilites as engineers, whichwasand is to learn and be totally competent in a myriad of material properties, hence now are shadows of true stressmen in this old stressman's book.
Now I wish to switch gears and return to the original thread, as seems the proper and central point of my writing this note. Some have bemoaned the inertia, and that is a kind term for it, of the regulatory agencies and I agree that this is a key concern,of course. to both high-class pilots and we lowly engineers.
However, I would note that there are ways to accelerate this process without waiting eons and decades for such agencies an,in the case of the terrible 747-400F Dubai Tragedy and that path is via an ethical and responsible company operating or flying such aircraft with inherent and hazardous design defects and regulatory laxness and, in the Dubai post-crash environment, I would point specifically and with high praise to the UPS company, whose aircraft was involved. UPS, in conjunction with its pilot's union, acted swiftly and responsibly years prior to the final crash report just issued to correct and recitify obvious safety hazards of their 747's. They changed to full fce masks for pilots plus fitted the excellent EVAS system which the airframe manufacturer had earlier refused to do.
Both of these items are probably key elements to enabling freighter pilots to have a reasonable chance of emergency landing in such smoke filled cockpits. Obviously further improvement can and should be made concerning much greater hardening and protecting flight controls and oxygen supply systems,while simultaneously adding fire dousing systems to Class E compartments.
And we as both pilots and engineers can do our bit by specifying our freighter carriers to be UPS ,for example and advertising and promulgating such facts to both our friends and community concerning the excellent actions by UPS and its pilots union. FEDEX is also taking fine actions also in fire suppression.
In summary, there are ways to greatly accelerate safety and correct deficiencies if ethical and responsible companies and proactive pilots unions work in concert and we, in turn, can reward and recognise them by giving them all our freight and carrier business whilst refusing all others, who do not follow their lead. I hope this note is of utility.
Thank you, both UPS and your excellent Pilots Union and all honor to your fallen pilots.
As one who was at De Havillands at the time, albeit as a lowly engineering apprentice serving his six months in the"Repairs and Defects" department, I would note that back in those days,departments had both the sense and sensibility to be named for what they did, rather than some of the somewhat evasive and grandiose departmental titles of these sad days in aviation.
For example, we had a "Stress Department", who, gosh, calculated stresses and strains, for example and a Personnel department who handled personnel. Now stress office has been re-identified as Structures ( a rather generic term and, to some of us, a rather meaningless term). Further, Personnel Departments have become "Human Resources", yet another meaningless and self aggrandizing term, And finally, at Boeing, where titles abound in that hidebound bureaucracy, good old"Materials and Processes" from decades ago was elevated to yet another grandiosity as "Boeing Materials Technology" decades go.
At Boeing this had the unfortunate, but foreseeable result that the stressmen there forgot their overall responsibilites as engineers, whichwasand is to learn and be totally competent in a myriad of material properties, hence now are shadows of true stressmen in this old stressman's book.
Now I wish to switch gears and return to the original thread, as seems the proper and central point of my writing this note. Some have bemoaned the inertia, and that is a kind term for it, of the regulatory agencies and I agree that this is a key concern,of course. to both high-class pilots and we lowly engineers.
However, I would note that there are ways to accelerate this process without waiting eons and decades for such agencies an,in the case of the terrible 747-400F Dubai Tragedy and that path is via an ethical and responsible company operating or flying such aircraft with inherent and hazardous design defects and regulatory laxness and, in the Dubai post-crash environment, I would point specifically and with high praise to the UPS company, whose aircraft was involved. UPS, in conjunction with its pilot's union, acted swiftly and responsibly years prior to the final crash report just issued to correct and recitify obvious safety hazards of their 747's. They changed to full fce masks for pilots plus fitted the excellent EVAS system which the airframe manufacturer had earlier refused to do.
Both of these items are probably key elements to enabling freighter pilots to have a reasonable chance of emergency landing in such smoke filled cockpits. Obviously further improvement can and should be made concerning much greater hardening and protecting flight controls and oxygen supply systems,while simultaneously adding fire dousing systems to Class E compartments.
And we as both pilots and engineers can do our bit by specifying our freighter carriers to be UPS ,for example and advertising and promulgating such facts to both our friends and community concerning the excellent actions by UPS and its pilots union. FEDEX is also taking fine actions also in fire suppression.
In summary, there are ways to greatly accelerate safety and correct deficiencies if ethical and responsible companies and proactive pilots unions work in concert and we, in turn, can reward and recognise them by giving them all our freight and carrier business whilst refusing all others, who do not follow their lead. I hope this note is of utility.
Thank you, both UPS and your excellent Pilots Union and all honor to your fallen pilots.
Last edited by Jetdriver; 28th Jul 2013 at 17:21.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: redmond
Age: 88
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DEMONSTRATOR AIRCRAFT ???
Another problem that the 787 shares with the Comet, is the reluctance to build a demonstrator and test it, before embarking upon production airframes.
For example - the 737 747 767 777 787 all had multiple planes in various stages of production( assembly line ) before the first one flew.
Thats why its a major gamble bringing out a really new model ( not a derivitive ) since the major tooling, assembly fixutures, sub contractors, etc have to be in place and IN production by the time the first one flies
Amoung the first 4 or 5, one goes to static test, one goes to fatigue test, two or three typically fly- and are later refurbished and sold
Boeing kept the first 707 and used it for flight test of a wide range of things, as in tanker, etc - it is now in aerospace museaum in wash dc.
I don't recall any significant problem turning up in more than 2 aircraft in commercial service. The odds are probably that none of the problems we're seeing would have manifested themselves in a demonstrator. Even if one had, it would almost certainly been seen as an isolated issue. It seems unlikely that a broader issue with the electrical system, -- if there is one -- would have come to light in a demonstrator.
Another problem that the 787 shares with the Comet, is the reluctance to build a demonstrator and test it, before embarking upon production airframes.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: South of the River
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure Boeing will sell off their 787 prototypes at some stage.
Even Airbus sold most of the A320 series prototypes (some of them years later).
Modern companies would not sit on such assets for too long once they have passed their effective use as a prototype.
Even Airbus sold most of the A320 series prototypes (some of them years later).
Modern companies would not sit on such assets for too long once they have passed their effective use as a prototype.
Last edited by A Nonny Mouse; 29th Jul 2013 at 11:16.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Eastern Anglia
Age: 75
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM
Not correct. Boeing built SIX 787 prototypes, line numbers 1 to 6
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They say it will be back in service in two days: Qatar Dreamliner snags : TTR Weekly
The story is all over the world's media now: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=qa....MpiVkF51mpA.O
The story is all over the world's media now: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=qa....MpiVkF51mpA.O
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cambridge, UK
Age: 45
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another problem that the 787 shares with the Comet, is the reluctance to build a demonstrator and test it, before embarking upon production airframes.
Last edited by JonnyT1978; 29th Jul 2013 at 15:45.
Wasn't part of the problem with the Comet that it was a demonstrator
Boeing has suffered from time to time from management building a firewall between engineering and manufacturing. It has been, "Release the damned drawings and get out of out hair" all too often. Engineering's response has been to step away from the QA process and expect manufacturing to work around poorly thought out designs on their own. Back in my days there, manufacturing had their own 'shadow' engineering group to fix stuff that the design people tossed over the fence.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: redmond
Age: 88
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
demonstrator issue
Wasn't part of the problem with the Comet that it was a demonstrator (i.e. pre-production one-off) which was built to finer tolerances (hand-built rather than using the jigs and tools for mass production) than the final production run airframes, meaning that 'bugs' in the design did not show up until the Comet was in service?
Thumbnail - had to do with square corners on windows versus rounded- result was a stress riser - and no ' crack stoppers " pressurization cycles fatigued body panels.
but this is way off topic.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sussex UK
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming that QR & Boeing may well end up seeing each other in court over compensation for delays and disruption, it is probably best that the CEOs do not go public at this stage over this latest 'incident'.
Haiving said that, the only 'free press' in the GCC is in Kuwait - and we could debate how free? But that's another story....
It's no surprise that local media fail to cover local stories.
Haiving said that, the only 'free press' in the GCC is in Kuwait - and we could debate how free? But that's another story....
It's no surprise that local media fail to cover local stories.