Qatar 787 smoke
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's back according to Flightaware.
Like the sarcastic comment from Plane Talking.
"Sufficiently minor to keep it grounded for 10 days".
Qatar Dreamliner 787 A7-BCB is back in the air after 10 days | Plane Talking
Like the sarcastic comment from Plane Talking.
"Sufficiently minor to keep it grounded for 10 days".
Qatar Dreamliner 787 A7-BCB is back in the air after 10 days | Plane Talking
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qatar Air’s 787 Dreamliner Back in Service After Parts Replaced
"Qatar Air’s 787 Dreamliner Back in Service After Parts Replaced By Deena Kamel Yousef - Jul 31, 2013 5:20 AM PT
Qatar Airways Ltd., which pulled one of its Boeing 787 Dreamliners out of service ten days ago, said the plane resumed flying today after replacing some parts.
A delay in shipping one of the components to Qatar Airway’s hub in Doha, Qatar, caused the plane to be taken out of service since July 22, the carrier said in an e-mailed statement today, without specifying which parts were required.
“Qatar Airways confirms that its Boeing 787 Dreamliner A7-BCB has reconvened service after a number of technical components required replacement,” it said. Once the component had arrived, it required three days of post-assembly and testing.
Qatar Airways said last week that it found a “minor” technical issue while the plane was on the ground, without providing details. The incident followed a spate of mishaps for the Boeing 787, including a fire on board an Ethiopian Airlines-owned Dreamliner this month and a three-month grounding of the global fleet after batteries caught fire.
Qatar Airways currently has six Boeing 787 Dreamliners in its fleet and 54 on order, according to its website.
Qatar Airways Ltd., which pulled one of its Boeing 787 Dreamliners out of service ten days ago, said the plane resumed flying today after replacing some parts.
A delay in shipping one of the components to Qatar Airway’s hub in Doha, Qatar, caused the plane to be taken out of service since July 22, the carrier said in an e-mailed statement today, without specifying which parts were required.
“Qatar Airways confirms that its Boeing 787 Dreamliner A7-BCB has reconvened service after a number of technical components required replacement,” it said. Once the component had arrived, it required three days of post-assembly and testing.
Qatar Airways said last week that it found a “minor” technical issue while the plane was on the ground, without providing details. The incident followed a spate of mishaps for the Boeing 787, including a fire on board an Ethiopian Airlines-owned Dreamliner this month and a three-month grounding of the global fleet after batteries caught fire.
Qatar Airways currently has six Boeing 787 Dreamliners in its fleet and 54 on order, according to its website.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good thing of a composite airframe is, that you can not build prototypes or test samples "by hand to finer tolerances". You need production tooling, you need production molds and mandrels. Additionally hand layup will never ensure finer tolerances. So we can be quite sure that the 787 test samples are very much like the early production airplanes. Since then, the design has been refined of course, affecting the newer serial numbers.
Anything with respect to humidity and fire resistance should be very close to the tested condition for any new 787.
Anything with respect to humidity and fire resistance should be very close to the tested condition for any new 787.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Liverpool
Age: 44
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qatar 787 A7-BCB
Hello all
Rumours are doing the Rounds about the Qatar B788 above that was grounded since 27th july
It appears this was in fact an on board fire but under the floor space at the rear of the aircraft.
Has anyone else heard of this ? And the fact Qatar and or Boeing have tried to cover it up
Rumours are doing the Rounds about the Qatar B788 above that was grounded since 27th july
It appears this was in fact an on board fire but under the floor space at the rear of the aircraft.
Has anyone else heard of this ? And the fact Qatar and or Boeing have tried to cover it up
I've been following this tread and not on holiday, but seems no real info on what the actual cause and circumstances of this "event" were. My thoughts originally were that perhaps it was another of those "electrical panel" events, but as per usual with the 787, no in depth info to be found, or am I missing something as well ?.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peakcrew
I suppose you would want to have a full breakdown of every minor incident from all airframe manufacturers or your 'confidence' would be shattered?
Substantial information on this does not seem to have been released. It does not increase my confidence, unfortunately.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
@Ian W
I think that's a little harsh. The 787 has a history of smoke/fire incidents. The global fleet was grounded - of course it's going to be under scruitiny!
This incident, allegedly, involved smoke from a panel which resulted in the aircraft being grounded for an extended period. When the (delayed?) parts arrived it took a further 3 days to fix - not that minor?
It's not unreasonable to want more information about this incident - the silence only serves to add to this aircrafts "difficult" entry into service.
I think that's a little harsh. The 787 has a history of smoke/fire incidents. The global fleet was grounded - of course it's going to be under scruitiny!
This incident, allegedly, involved smoke from a panel which resulted in the aircraft being grounded for an extended period. When the (delayed?) parts arrived it took a further 3 days to fix - not that minor?
It's not unreasonable to want more information about this incident - the silence only serves to add to this aircrafts "difficult" entry into service.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian - if this were a "little" incident I wouldn't care. However, I don't consider this to be "little because:
1. There was smoke from an unpowered plane ...
2. ... of a type that has had fire problems before ...
3. ... which had the entire fleet grounded for months ...
4. ... for which there are serious question marks as to the efficacy of the solution, aaaand
5. The actual plane involved took days to repair.
I don't know what you would call "minor", and maybe this falls within your criteria. However, given the PR nightmare that the 787 is becoming, the silence is counter-productive. Apologists aren't helping the case.
1. There was smoke from an unpowered plane ...
2. ... of a type that has had fire problems before ...
3. ... which had the entire fleet grounded for months ...
4. ... for which there are serious question marks as to the efficacy of the solution, aaaand
5. The actual plane involved took days to repair.
I don't know what you would call "minor", and maybe this falls within your criteria. However, given the PR nightmare that the 787 is becoming, the silence is counter-productive. Apologists aren't helping the case.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologists aren't helping the .
I see primarily a collection of UK 'experts' squirming because they do not have enough info, how dare Qatar and Boeing keep all the relevant info from this deeply influential party of aviation aficionados.
Like the world out there gives a hoot what is written on this forum.
I wonder how many repetitive posts will follow from all these folks slighted by the fact they don't have everything on the silver platter.
Last edited by olasek; 10th Aug 2013 at 21:10.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@olasek: .My reasoning is set out in my previous post - where is yours? I've seen your other posts on this topic; you genuinely seem to think the 787 is Boeing's gift to the world, and any concerns are petty. You refuse to see any other point of view, and come across as defensive - that is why I say that apologists aren't helping the situation. Defensiveness is often caused by covering up knowledge and/or fear (though I accept that sometimes righteous indignation can look like defensiveness).
I don't know your background, nor why you are so aggressive when people like me express doubts about a plane that KEEPS SHOWING SMOKE WHERE NONE SHOULD BE!! Sorry for shouting, but it is a really important point that should not be brushed under the carpet. So yes, I do think full information on the cause and damage of the smoke on this aircraft should be made public. Firstly for the benefit of users, so they (we) can make informed decisions about what to fly on, and secondly for the benefit of confidence in the companies concerned. It would look much better if the information is given openly, rather than being leaked - and, as someone mentioned above, this is news across the western world and so of interest to a far greater number of people than here.* Whether you like it or not, this is something that is tainting the reputation of what should be a fine aircraft, and this current lack of information just feeds suspicion (which Airbus execs will be making use of ...)
*By the way, contempt for people posting on here shows arrogance.
I don't know your background, nor why you are so aggressive when people like me express doubts about a plane that KEEPS SHOWING SMOKE WHERE NONE SHOULD BE!! Sorry for shouting, but it is a really important point that should not be brushed under the carpet. So yes, I do think full information on the cause and damage of the smoke on this aircraft should be made public. Firstly for the benefit of users, so they (we) can make informed decisions about what to fly on, and secondly for the benefit of confidence in the companies concerned. It would look much better if the information is given openly, rather than being leaked - and, as someone mentioned above, this is news across the western world and so of interest to a far greater number of people than here.* Whether you like it or not, this is something that is tainting the reputation of what should be a fine aircraft, and this current lack of information just feeds suspicion (which Airbus execs will be making use of ...)
*By the way, contempt for people posting on here shows arrogance.
Last edited by peakcrew; 10th Aug 2013 at 21:19.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peakcrew
It would appear that you have your information mixed. My understanding was that the aircraft was powered on stand A14 and the crew received a lot of EICAS warnings and shut down. Then there is some confusion with some saying the fire was 'in the cockpit' and others that the fire was 'in a rear electronics bay' the same as the test flight that diverted to Laredo, and others that there actually was no fire.
The 'fire problems' before due batteries and the ELT neither of which seem to be related to either of the reports above.
The entire fleet was grounded due the battery issues - that the authorities FAA, EASA and Japanese agree is fixed. They do not appear to have any serious question marks - perhaps you could elucidate on why the FAA should ground the 787 again? Remember neither the FAA certification people who cleared the aircraft under intense political pressure to 'get it right this time', nor Boeing who imported tens of external electrical and Li-Ion battery experts, can afford to have another battery fire.
The aircraft took several days to return to service, possibly due to the 'experts' running tests to find out why the failure occurred, identifying spares that were needed that may not be normal LRU spares so required sourcing from somewhere, then ensuring that the fault did not recur - As above Boeing cannot afford to get this wrong so with pressure from Boeing senior staff, they may have made an excruciatingly pedantic job of testing, fault identification, repair and regression testing and acceptance testing.
I would think that Boeing is more concerned about satisfying its customers - who are still ordering and staying with orders for the 787, than they are concerned about uninformed members of the peanut gallery like us,
It seems that some aircraft are given a bad name by pundits and critics which can be extremely hard to shake off. The Harrier was rubbish - until it succeeded in the Falklands and is still operating with the US Marines. Similarly the Osprey was a killer, should not be allowed into battle etc etc, but is now the favoured VSTOL of the Marines doing things that no other aircraft can with a survivability that has silenced the critics.
Figures for the 787 are not as bad as some other aircraft albeit with a grounding.
Ian - if this were a "little" incident I wouldn't care. However, I don't consider this to be "little because:
1. There was smoke from an unpowered plane ...
2. ... of a type that has had fire problems before ...
3. ... which had the entire fleet grounded for months ...
4. ... for which there are serious question marks as to the efficacy of the solution, aaaand
5. The actual plane involved took days to repair.
I don't know what you would call "minor", and maybe this falls within your criteria. However, given the PR nightmare that the 787 is becoming, the silence is counter-productive. Apologists aren't helping the case.
1. There was smoke from an unpowered plane ...
2. ... of a type that has had fire problems before ...
3. ... which had the entire fleet grounded for months ...
4. ... for which there are serious question marks as to the efficacy of the solution, aaaand
5. The actual plane involved took days to repair.
I don't know what you would call "minor", and maybe this falls within your criteria. However, given the PR nightmare that the 787 is becoming, the silence is counter-productive. Apologists aren't helping the case.
The 'fire problems' before due batteries and the ELT neither of which seem to be related to either of the reports above.
The entire fleet was grounded due the battery issues - that the authorities FAA, EASA and Japanese agree is fixed. They do not appear to have any serious question marks - perhaps you could elucidate on why the FAA should ground the 787 again? Remember neither the FAA certification people who cleared the aircraft under intense political pressure to 'get it right this time', nor Boeing who imported tens of external electrical and Li-Ion battery experts, can afford to have another battery fire.
The aircraft took several days to return to service, possibly due to the 'experts' running tests to find out why the failure occurred, identifying spares that were needed that may not be normal LRU spares so required sourcing from somewhere, then ensuring that the fault did not recur - As above Boeing cannot afford to get this wrong so with pressure from Boeing senior staff, they may have made an excruciatingly pedantic job of testing, fault identification, repair and regression testing and acceptance testing.
I would think that Boeing is more concerned about satisfying its customers - who are still ordering and staying with orders for the 787, than they are concerned about uninformed members of the peanut gallery like us,
It seems that some aircraft are given a bad name by pundits and critics which can be extremely hard to shake off. The Harrier was rubbish - until it succeeded in the Falklands and is still operating with the US Marines. Similarly the Osprey was a killer, should not be allowed into battle etc etc, but is now the favoured VSTOL of the Marines doing things that no other aircraft can with a survivability that has silenced the critics.
Figures for the 787 are not as bad as some other aircraft albeit with a grounding.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: El Dorado
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly enough, this blog pictures a Qatar 787 departing on a delivery flight to....Victorville.
Is Qatar perhaps refusing to accept more 787's, or is this normal ops?
Is Qatar perhaps refusing to accept more 787's, or is this normal ops?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shenzhen China
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Condensation basics
Condensation turning to ice on an aircraft outer panel would lower humidity if the system is trying to maintain 15% it will keep pumping in more moisture or fail to remove moisture above 15% to replace the water loss to the ice on the outer panel. An air conditioner de humidifier gets no ware near -50 outside temperatures. They cope with the ice because they run on and off in cycles preventing build up. When your fridge is low on gas it runs all the time and you have all seen a big block of ice on the cooling part.
Second problem is the carbon skin as a metal aircraft descends the skin will quickly heat up evaporating any water or ice in the decent stage, however a carbon skin will be like a plastic cup in a dishwasher notice anything plastic in the dishwasher is still wet when it’s finished, The natural insulation of plastic which has been used to calculate the insulation requirements means it cannot retain enough heat from the dry cycle to evaporate the water , Hence the ice melts but stays as water on the panel. Hence the rain inside on the ground. A more serious problem would be an aircraft weight and balance changing to a dangerous level. Lucky business is at the front and you can upgrade people.
A check could be made on a flight perhaps on the polar routes seeing just how much ice is building up on the outer skin inside, on a normal SLF hopefully I'm wrong or a easy solution can be found its a fine aircraft.
Second problem is the carbon skin as a metal aircraft descends the skin will quickly heat up evaporating any water or ice in the decent stage, however a carbon skin will be like a plastic cup in a dishwasher notice anything plastic in the dishwasher is still wet when it’s finished, The natural insulation of plastic which has been used to calculate the insulation requirements means it cannot retain enough heat from the dry cycle to evaporate the water , Hence the ice melts but stays as water on the panel. Hence the rain inside on the ground. A more serious problem would be an aircraft weight and balance changing to a dangerous level. Lucky business is at the front and you can upgrade people.
A check could be made on a flight perhaps on the polar routes seeing just how much ice is building up on the outer skin inside, on a normal SLF hopefully I'm wrong or a easy solution can be found its a fine aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Ian.
You say,
I admit that I cannot find this information anywhere easily (though my time for in-depth research has been a bit short over the last couple of days. However, it doesn't detract from my basic thesis - more information would be better, not worse. It is being regarded as a cover-up, which isn't good.
Later, you say,
This is something I most definitely haven't said, on this thread or anywhere else. I am not a Boeing-hater: I actually prefer Boeing to Airbus, since they seem much better "screwed together". I was looking forward to my first flight on a 787, and still am, but now only after a couple of years smoke-free. However, there are some serious questions about whether Boeing have done too much too soon with this aircraft, and the fact that the Japanese have found problems with the wiring on some of their fleet doesn't help. More information, not less, is the way to deal with this. I have a lot of experience in the health service, and I know that covering things up, or merely seeming to, is the way to get a bad name that will come and bite you on the a
e.
Maybe, but *we* are the customers too - just a bit further down the line. It would take no effort to release some information that clarifies the situation. As you also said in your very kind post, there is no certainty as to what happened, or where, under what circumstances. But hell, what does passenger confidence matter?
First of all, a plane that keeps showing smoke is *always* going to get a bad name. There is a problem. Look, I can cope with engines letting go - it is something that airframes are designed to cope with. They are not, and cannot, be made to cope with fire. An engine loss in flight is, depending on exactly where it happens, survivable with few or no injuries. A fire in flight is never going to have that result due at least to the toxic by-products - the best result will be smoke-inhalation injuries. In a frame made of material that will burn at a temperature obtainable by a good oven, that concern is magnified. However, one of the ways to "shake off" a bad name is openness on the part of all concerned. It may be getting to the point where it is too late - the 787 may always be tarred with this brush. All it needs is for someone to come up with a catchy nick-name (and I haven't seen one yet), and its future may be sewn up.
You say,
It would appear that you have your information mixed. My understanding was that the aircraft was powered on stand A14 and the crew received a lot of EICAS warnings and shut down.
Later, you say,
... perhaps you could elucidate on why the FAA should ground the 787 again?
e.
I would think that Boeing is more concerned about satisfying its customers - who are still ordering and staying with orders for the 787, than they are concerned about uninformed members of the peanut gallery like us,
It seems that some aircraft are given a bad name by pundits and critics which can be extremely hard to shake off.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peakcrew...
I don't know what you would call "minor", and maybe this falls within your criteria.
Once we had been grounded three (3) days for a tiny cracked passenger door window, only a 30 minute repair job. But it took 2 days for the replacement to arrive, and another day's hold by customs. But still only a "minor" repair incident.
