ANA fire extinguisher wiring faults
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANA fire extinguisher wiring faults
Wiring Defect Found In ANA Dreamliner Fire Extinguishers JAL Aborts Helsinki-Bound Flight After Announcement
Faulty wiring has been discovered in the fire extinguishers aboard three
Dreamliners owned by All Nippon Airways (ANA). The discovery prompted Japan
Airlines to abort a Dreamliner flight en route to Helsinki Wednesday.
The problem aboard the ANA 787 was discovered before a scheduled departure
from Haneda airport in Tokyo for Frankfurt, Germany. It was repaired and the
flight later was allowed to depart. Subsequent inspections uncovered similar
issues in two other Dreamliners owned by ANA, which operates 20 of the
airplanes.
The French news service AFP reports that JAL recalled its Helsinki-bound
flight following the announcement, and that it would be inspecting its 10
Dreamliners for defects.
The problem could lead to a malfunction in the airplane's engine
fire-suppression systems, according to an ANA spokesman.
Faulty wiring has been discovered in the fire extinguishers aboard three
Dreamliners owned by All Nippon Airways (ANA). The discovery prompted Japan
Airlines to abort a Dreamliner flight en route to Helsinki Wednesday.
The problem aboard the ANA 787 was discovered before a scheduled departure
from Haneda airport in Tokyo for Frankfurt, Germany. It was repaired and the
flight later was allowed to depart. Subsequent inspections uncovered similar
issues in two other Dreamliners owned by ANA, which operates 20 of the
airplanes.
The French news service AFP reports that JAL recalled its Helsinki-bound
flight following the announcement, and that it would be inspecting its 10
Dreamliners for defects.
The problem could lead to a malfunction in the airplane's engine
fire-suppression systems, according to an ANA spokesman.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one who is somewhat concerned that 21st century Management Systems (Quality and Compliance) don't seem to capture some rather disturbing breakdowns in manufacture and/or maintenance process?
..... and before I get moderated, this isn't me having a pop at the 787. It is me querying the whole industry.
..... and before I get moderated, this isn't me having a pop at the 787. It is me querying the whole industry.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Age: 77
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CGB
You are not the only one.
There is another thread that, for reasons that escape me, has been moved to the Spotters Corner:
http://www.pprune.org/spectators-bal...r-problem.html
There is another thread that, for reasons that escape me, has been moved to the Spotters Corner:
http://www.pprune.org/spectators-bal...r-problem.html
Last edited by willl05; 15th Aug 2013 at 21:20. Reason: Spelling
Back to the 737 BMI , which resulted in 737/757's found with crossed wiring and extinguisher pipes crossed as well in a couple of cases. Hard to credit but its a low cost assembly industry. Skilled people cost , one of the reasons for the Charleston factory to get costs even further down. Its not just Boeing its the industry .
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: redmond
Age: 88
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem was/is fire bottles- not wiring
Boeing Traces Improperly Assembled Engine-Fire Extinguishers to Supplier's Bottles
No 'Safety-of-Flight Issue,' Jet Maker Says, Because of Redundant SystemsBy
Dreamliner operators have been conducting inspections recommended by Boeing of engine fire-extinguishing systems after three All Nippon Airways 9202.TO +0.48% jets were found to be improperly configured. An ANA 787 flight on Wednesday returned to its gate after the crew received a caution indication. Inspectors later found that the fire extinguisher nozzles were routed to the wrong engines.
European Pressphoto Agen
Boeing 787s congregating at Tokyo International Airport earlier this year; Boeing fingered a supplier for the improperly wired fire-extinguishing systems found on a number of 787s
The plane maker said in a written statement that the improper assembly, which has been confirmed to have been found on three ANA jets in Japan, "does not present a safety of flight issue because the bottles are not the only means of fire extinguishing for engines and there are multiple redundancies within the fire extinguishing system.
A Boeing spokeswoman said activating the 787's engine fire- extinguishing system "does not disable or impact [the engine's] performance."
"Regardless, improperly configured components are not acceptable and this issue is being addressed promptly," said the company's statement. "Boeing will follow standard disciplined procedures to understand how this discrepancy occurred and ensure it is not repeated."
United Continental Holdings Inc., which operates seven 787s, found "at least one" jet with improperly assembled extinguishers, according to one person familiar with its inspections.
A spokeswoman for United declined to comment on the airline's inspections, which continued Thursday.
Write to Jon Ostrower at [email protected]
No 'Safety-of-Flight Issue,' Jet Maker Says, Because of Redundant SystemsBy
- JON OSTROWER
Dreamliner operators have been conducting inspections recommended by Boeing of engine fire-extinguishing systems after three All Nippon Airways 9202.TO +0.48% jets were found to be improperly configured. An ANA 787 flight on Wednesday returned to its gate after the crew received a caution indication. Inspectors later found that the fire extinguisher nozzles were routed to the wrong engines.
European Pressphoto AgenBoeing 787s congregating at Tokyo International Airport earlier this year; Boeing fingered a supplier for the improperly wired fire-extinguishing systems found on a number of 787s
The plane maker said in a written statement that the improper assembly, which has been confirmed to have been found on three ANA jets in Japan, "does not present a safety of flight issue because the bottles are not the only means of fire extinguishing for engines and there are multiple redundancies within the fire extinguishing system.
A Boeing spokeswoman said activating the 787's engine fire- extinguishing system "does not disable or impact [the engine's] performance."
"Regardless, improperly configured components are not acceptable and this issue is being addressed promptly," said the company's statement. "Boeing will follow standard disciplined procedures to understand how this discrepancy occurred and ensure it is not repeated."
United Continental Holdings Inc., which operates seven 787s, found "at least one" jet with improperly assembled extinguishers, according to one person familiar with its inspections.
A spokeswoman for United declined to comment on the airline's inspections, which continued Thursday.
Write to Jon Ostrower at [email protected]
Does not pose a safety hazard!!!!!!!! Well what would it be then if you have an engine fire!!!!!! That does not go out on the first shot because its routed incorrectly!!!!! Fire the other one and hope that it is routed right. Boeing I will not be flying your jets for a while until you get your checking people on the right track.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kent
Age: 61
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think many SLF will be a "little concerned" that the Dreamliner which has a reputation (justified or not) for spontaneously catching fire has now also been found to have defective fire fighting equipment 
I thought we (Boeing) had all this wiring and QA stuff ironed out 25 years ago. It was mis-wired fire systems then. Its mis-wired fire systems now. What did they do? Retire everyone who had the answer?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon my ignorance of the issue, but if you pull the fire extinguisher on an engine that is not on fire, will it shut down that engine? IE: If Engine 1 is on fire, you pull the handle and it discharges on Engine 2, will it shut down Engine 2?
Pardon my ignorance of the issue, but if you pull the fire extinguisher on an engine that is not on fire, will it shut down that engine? IE: If Engine 1 is on fire, you pull the handle and it discharges on Engine 2, will it shut down Engine 2?
Pulling the fire handle shuts down fuel and hydraulically isolates that engine. Rotating the handle fires the Halon bottle - if the Halon goes to the wrong engine it won't have an adverse affect on that engine - just waste the Halon. Rotating the handle the other way fires the other bottle which should extinguish the fire (assuming it doesn't have the same error).
The functional test at the aircraft level insures the aircraft wiring is correct. The fire bottle is an LRU - functional tests don't normally check the LRU. The vendor is supposed to verify the LRU wiring is correct.
Dump on Boeing all you want, but I'd bet good money that vendor supplies Halon bottles to brand A as well, and that brand A functional tests wouldn't catch a cross wired bottle either.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Secessionist Republic of Western Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify this for me and any others- I take it that the bottles are co-located away from the engines, and the Halon is piped to the engines; thus there is the possibility of the control wiring from the cockpit being in error thus discharging the wrong bottle, and also the piping from the bottles could be in error sending the Halon to the wrong engine- in fact they both could be crossed and all would be hunky-dory fire-wise except the wrong engine would auto shut down!
Where is the Halon actually directed to? Into the fan cowl or to multiple areas?
Where is the Halon actually directed to? Into the fan cowl or to multiple areas?
I don't work the 787, and I don't have any 'inside' info - what I know about this incident is what I've read in the news.
That being said, standard design on a twin is two bottles - one per wing in the inboard wing leading edge area. There is piping from each bottle to each engine - separate squibs in each bottle determine which engine the Halon goes to. From what I've seen in the news, the wiring on the bottle was reversed - such that the #1 squib actually fired #2, and visa-versa. As I noted earlier, the functional tests check the wiring to where it connects to the bottle. And the once-per-day fire system test basically checks continuity - there is no way to tell if the squibs are cross-wired (I'm actually a little curious how they discovered the problem - I'm guessing there was an unrelated fault with the system and during troubleshooting someone noticed something not right with the bottle wiring).
Once the Halon reaches the engine, there is a system of tubing that directs it to various undercowl locations with the requirement that all undercowl areas reach a Halon concentration of at least 5%. As you might imagine, the cert test to demonstrate this functionality is non-trivial.
The Halon system is intended to extinguish a fire in the undercowl area, external to the actual engine - nothing goes inside the engine. Directing Halon to a normally operating engine won't have any adverse affect other than wasting the Halon.
I don't know how 'unique' the 787 bottle configuration is, but I won't be surprised if other aircraft models are affected.
edited to add some more detail
Tim
That being said, standard design on a twin is two bottles - one per wing in the inboard wing leading edge area. There is piping from each bottle to each engine - separate squibs in each bottle determine which engine the Halon goes to. From what I've seen in the news, the wiring on the bottle was reversed - such that the #1 squib actually fired #2, and visa-versa. As I noted earlier, the functional tests check the wiring to where it connects to the bottle. And the once-per-day fire system test basically checks continuity - there is no way to tell if the squibs are cross-wired (I'm actually a little curious how they discovered the problem - I'm guessing there was an unrelated fault with the system and during troubleshooting someone noticed something not right with the bottle wiring).
Once the Halon reaches the engine, there is a system of tubing that directs it to various undercowl locations with the requirement that all undercowl areas reach a Halon concentration of at least 5%. As you might imagine, the cert test to demonstrate this functionality is non-trivial.
The Halon system is intended to extinguish a fire in the undercowl area, external to the actual engine - nothing goes inside the engine. Directing Halon to a normally operating engine won't have any adverse affect other than wasting the Halon.
I don't know how 'unique' the 787 bottle configuration is, but I won't be surprised if other aircraft models are affected.
edited to add some more detail
Tim
Last edited by tdracer; 17th Aug 2013 at 05:35.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stranger and stranger, without open access to any 787 documentation on the 'net it's quite difficult to actually work out how the 787 system is designed.
Is it a single, remote double headed bottle then plumbs to either engine? Or does each engine have it's own bottle? is that bottle double headed to it's own engine for redundancy? [my bet].
Thought for the day.......ANA do seem to be going through their 787's with a very fine tooth-comb [as well they might].......
Is it a single, remote double headed bottle then plumbs to either engine? Or does each engine have it's own bottle? is that bottle double headed to it's own engine for redundancy? [my bet].
Thought for the day.......ANA do seem to be going through their 787's with a very fine tooth-comb [as well they might].......
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is that bottle double headed to it's own engine for redundancy? [my bet].
Certification probably requires that each bottle must be able to feed both engines, yes, exactly for redundancy. You do want to be able to discharge both bottles at the same engine. I doubt Boeing had any freedom here to do otherwise.
Last edited by olasek; 17th Aug 2013 at 08:13.
ANA fire extinguisher wiring faults
As other posters I am really curious to know how this problem was discovered in the first place. Being I obviously fairly new airframes they would have not gone through any heavy maintenance yet. Anyone ?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
atakacs
It was found while trouble shooting a fault indication prior to despatch.
The bottle has two heads which contain the squibs, one is the L/H Head and the other is the R/H head.
Due to errors previously with plugs fitted to the incorrect head over the years, the heads cannot have the incorrect plug connected, thus stopping maintenance errors when the bottles or squibs are replaced (or so they thought).
However in this instance, my guess at bottle assembly by the OEM, they fitted the L/H head in the R/H position on the bottle and the R/H head in the L/H position.
Now should it have been picked up during testing, not if you used the wire idents, but if you used other methods by using AMM & IPD descriptions it would be a yes.
ANA managed to find it, so Boeing could have done so prior to delivery
The short term fix if you do not have replacement bottles, is to swap the wires at the plugs over.
The bottle has two heads which contain the squibs, one is the L/H Head and the other is the R/H head.
Due to errors previously with plugs fitted to the incorrect head over the years, the heads cannot have the incorrect plug connected, thus stopping maintenance errors when the bottles or squibs are replaced (or so they thought).
However in this instance, my guess at bottle assembly by the OEM, they fitted the L/H head in the R/H position on the bottle and the R/H head in the L/H position.
Now should it have been picked up during testing, not if you used the wire idents, but if you used other methods by using AMM & IPD descriptions it would be a yes.
ANA managed to find it, so Boeing could have done so prior to delivery
The short term fix if you do not have replacement bottles, is to swap the wires at the plugs over.
Folks,
These things happen, and are not confined to Boeing.
First one I ever heard of was a 1049G Connie.
Next was a Viscount 700.
Saw miss-wiring (both engine anti-ice and cargo fire bottles) on a B767-200.
Long weekend aeroplanes, it shouldn't happen, but it does.
Even the most cunning experience-based design defenses will have the occasional lapse.
Tootle pip::
These things happen, and are not confined to Boeing.
First one I ever heard of was a 1049G Connie.
Next was a Viscount 700.
Saw miss-wiring (both engine anti-ice and cargo fire bottles) on a B767-200.
Long weekend aeroplanes, it shouldn't happen, but it does.
Even the most cunning experience-based design defenses will have the occasional lapse.
Tootle pip::