glad rag
You beat me to it. The casual fit of the cabling, insuls, and loosely insulated coaxials is not confidence inspiring. I have seen residential knob and tube more squared away... After two foot long flames, forty minutes of fire, and copious smoke, the EE bay is that clean? It looks sanitized, post fire. The inspector is inspecting the area in front of the battery, not the battery station. The battery's install site is around to the left, and empty. I am surprised the photo was released, if it was thought to be calming, or to minimize the look of damage, I would have to disagree. |
@ Lyman
Well lets wait and see.....but it's the little things, like the screen bond/earth to the left going to the frame, crimp pointing horizontally-no drip loop, this stuff is BASIC basic wiring installation, standards are standards.
Seen it before in my old career, it can point to unskilled/minimally trained labor constructing the barrels, poor [or under pressure QA] signing it off.... And there's more, even in that lo res. Hope they get all this sorted. Competition improves the breed. |
It would be interesting to know what the adjacent systems ‘boxes’ control – elect distribution / power management, etc, and thus what potential there is for collateral damage from a battery fire ?
Does the elect bay have fire suppression or just containment for ETOPS ? Even with containment, the assumption that other services will remain available for long periods may be challenged with the evidence from this and previous incidents. |
The ground which caught glad rags eye caught mine. It appears to be a graft, or, occupies the insulated portion of the conductors. It attaches at the aluminum frame rail. Following the rail to its terminus at the bulkhead, we see evidence of fire or arcing. If the ground becomes hot (+/-) then the possibilty for dead short or polarity x suggests a source of lost power, or arcing/heat/ignition? Wherever that rail travels elsewhere? Shouldn't that suggest the need for isolation?
Some day some knucklehead is going to use those red taped connectors for a step. |
An A330 was completely destroyed by fire in her early days. It has nothing to do with the aircraft type. The 787 has outperformed the A380 so far, regarding technical issues.....
|
Boeing makes fine airplanes and this one will be fine too. The fire was associated with the APU battery. They will fix the problem. I have had electrical smoke in flight in a 757 so know how it instantly gets your attention.
The Swissair crash near Halifax happened about a year before my situation. I shut down non essential busses for galley, etc immediately before the checklist. Two weeks later our airline changed the checklist to do what I did. I always considered if necessary shut all generators off if the smoke is uncontrollable because if you can see out the window in VMC conditions you don't need anything. You just want to survive so SOP's can be discussed later at your hearing. |
Self-Vulcanizing Taped Connectors
Some day some knucklehead is going to use those red taped connectors for a step. http://nsa29.casimages.com/img/2013/...0441829982.jpg |
It ended up the Galley oven wiring had caused the insulation to burn so what I shut off with no checklist stopped the smoke. Now it is an immediate action.
|
Originally Posted by sevenstrokeroll
(Post 7619332)
...the last good boeings were made by douglas
There's a forest just outside Paris where you can kick over the topsoil and uncover small bits of DC-10 and even tinier fragments of the people who were on that DC-10 because Douglas didn't do their homework. And even then, having been called on not doing their homework, were given a mulligan by the FAA, promised they'd fix the problem and didn't. Say what you will about Airbus and Boeing, but any mistakes they've made in the last four decades pale in comparison with that. |
dozzy wannabe...glad you have to go back so far to find problems with douglas.
B737...flips upside down and kills everyone due to rudder problems AB320...settles into trees with top notch test pilots at controls AB330 lost while pilots can't recover from stall B767 thrust reverser extends in flight...all lost B747 improper repair, vertical fin blows off killing over 500 people Sure there are problems with douglas...but the inherent strength in the single digit (douglas) is wonderful...esp when compared with other planes. I seem to recall Gen Eisenhower giving credit to the Douglas C47/DC3 or Dakota as helping to win WW2...and that the Dakota was the first plane in the Queen's Jubilee flyover...An American plane. hmmmmmmmmmmmm |
My Boeings were very trusted by me. They never let me down once. I did not want to fly anthing else.
|
Originally Posted by sevenstrokeroll
(Post 7621389)
dozzy wannabe...glad you have to go back so far to find problems with douglas.
Firstly, I note you go back further to find something particularly good made by Douglas... ;) B737...flips upside down and kills everyone due to rudder problems AB320...settles into trees with top notch test pilots at controls AB330 lost while pilots can't recover from stall B767 thrust reverser extends in flight...all lost B747 improper repair, vertical fin blows off killing over 500 people Sure there are problems with douglas...but the inherent strength in the single digit (douglas) is wonderful...esp when compared with other planes. I seem to recall Gen Eisenhower giving credit to the Douglas C47/DC3 or Dakota as helping to win WW2 |
And here we go!
Oh dear, Dozy's here and this thread is now guaranteed to go on for another five pages.
Dozy will give you all the answers, in his opinion, - yours don't matter. Time to move on ? |
Fire is not a metric that screams..?
From Reuters:
(Reuters) - Boeing Co rolled out the Dreamliner's chief engineer to try to quell concerns about the new jet following three mishaps in as many days, including an electrical fire that caused severe damage to a plane. At a news conference on Wednesday, the engineer, Mike Sinnett, defended the 787, the world's first plastic plane, and said its problem rates are at about the same level as Boeing's successful 777 jet. Relatively few technical problems prevent 787s from leaving a gate within 15 minutes of scheduled departure time, he said. "We're in the high 90 percents," he said. "We're right where the 777 program was" at this stage. The prevalence of more significant issues, such as a battery fire, is in the same order of magnitude as previous programs, he added. "There's no metrics that are screaming at me that we've got a problem." Sinnett explained in detail how the lithium ion battery system that burned on Monday was designed by his team to be safe and prevent smoke getting into the cabin in the event of a fire during a flight. "I am 100 percent convinced that the airplane is safe to fly," he said. Asked why smoke entered the cabin on Monday, Sinnett said the plane lacked cabin pressure to expel smoke because it was on the ground. In that scenario, "We expect that there would be sufficient time to evacuate the plane safely," Sinnett said. Sinnett sounds to me more like a political spin doctor than an engineer. Hopefully, the real Boeing engineers working for him will provide the corrective action to return the B787 to a safe air transport vehicle and bolster Boeing's reputation for safety before corporate profit. |
Apparently Mr Sinnett is 787 Chief Project Engineer. So maybe he thinks about whether it's projected to be perfectly safe, rather than it is perfectly safe.
|
Sinnett explained in detail how the lithium ion battery system that burned on Monday was designed by his team to be safe and prevent smoke getting into the cabin in the event of a fire during a flight. As opposed, presumably, to those battery systems that are designed to be unsafe and allow smoke to get into the cabin in the event of a fire during a flight ? Asked why smoke entered the cabin on Monday, Sinnett said the plane lacked cabin pressure to expel smoke because it was on the ground. Apparently Mr Sinnett is 787 Chief Project Engineer. |
"In case of fire, you will find lithium ion batteries located beneath your seat"
|
The prevalence of more significant issues, such as a battery fire, is in the same order of magnitude as previous programs, he added. "There's no metrics that are screaming at me that we've got a problem." "Prevalence" = commonness, frequency, regularity, currency, universality, ubiquity, common occurrence, pervasiveness, extensiveness, widespread presence, rampancy, rifeness, profusion, predominance, hold, rule, sway, mastery, primacy, ascendancy, preponderance, popularity Now, forgetting for the moment engine-related issues, because those are not in the control of an airframer, I cannot remember any previous Boeing programme that has had such serious "issues" as this one. Right at this moment I would walk rather than risk being on board a 787 in flight. And STILL no-one can indicate to me exactly how this aircraft can qualify under ETOPS... Disclaimer, not a pilot, no aptitude. |
Fate is the Hunter remains one of my favorite aviation books almost 50 years after I first read it as a kid. And fate has thrown the aviation world a big bone here.... this battery fire occurred on the ground and not at FL410 over the Aleutian Islands or off Kamchatka. And even with this fire on the ground, it was quickly discovered and dealt with before the entire aircraft could be destroyed, greatly hampering the process of discovering the cause.
If the aviation world and Boeing ignore the gift that fate has presented to it because of the massive financial implications and repercussions, that will be folly to the highest degree. If I heard today that the 787 fleet was grounded until a solution was found, I would understand perfectly. But at a minimum, these airplanes should be routed so that immediate landings can be made in the event of another fire. As SR111 showed and the AC DC-9 at CVG, even that may not be enough when your ship is burning in flight! There are only a couple of dozen 787s flying today, and at least two of them have had a fire in the aft electronics bay. Fate has been kind... the test ship was able to land in Texas back in 2010 (crew evacuated with slides) and the JAL ship was between flights and on the ground. We cannot count on fate being so kind the next time! |
I do agree, RobertS. I think.
Just one small correction: There are only a couple of dozen 787s flying today, And of course Boeing is planning to deliver a lot more, as we speak. A very interesting situation developing. airsound |
Thanks, airsound. I should have looked up the deliveries, but the larger point is unchanged. There are not many of them out there, and these are not just random issues or "teething" problems.
|
It's over half of the number of A380s out there now. Not such a bad ramp up recently.
|
dozzy
by the way, the rudder on the 737 was not mitigated by a higher vapp. crossover speeds were raised demanding the ineficient use of flaps. yes the DC8 could extend inboard thrust reversers inflight, but not with devastating results. and I said single digit douglas ( not including the later MD) The method of construction on the douglas was very strong...can't think of any pop tops like aloha 737. but, back to the thread...haven't seen much response to the fuel portion I brought up. |
yes the DC8 could extend inboard thrust reversers inflight, but not with devastating results. Vliegtuigongeval op 04 JUL 1966 met Douglas DC-8-52 ZK-NZB - Auckland International Airport (AKL) |
And STILL no-one can indicate to me exactly how this aircraft can qualify under ETOPS... |
Strictly speaking, neither is rudder hardover or inflight thrust reverse. Or the success ratio of engineers trying to pitch market acceptance and relative entry performance. Slagging the T7 to make the 787 look like one of the crowd, does this guy know Dozy?
Two of these aircraft had inflight emergencies due to fire, and landed well ahead of some ETOPS minimums. Why did these flights not press on, and gain some impressive buzz re: airworthiness? Missed opportunity? Since we heard marketing and OT performance from the project engineer, maybe this time a PR person to interpret the technology? In my opinion, things were at a manageable level until some dimbulb decided to task an engineer with sales, and lecturing out of his field.... It could have been a ploy...Make corporate look so dumb, the actual issues disappear from the discussion... By the way, the engineer said Boeing relies on cabin pressure to keep smoke out of the cabin. That's a neat trick with doors open, and a couple hundred people inside, waiting to leave. The fact that there is atmospheric communication between the cabin/cockpit, and the battery bays at all, is troubling. Both emergency landings involved smoke in the cabin, at altitude, no? 35,000 feet? |
Smoke in the cabin ...
... probably saved this airplane. All of the fire/smoke detection and suppression systems that flight crews depend on in flight didn't appear to do a bit of good in this recent case. With nobody on the flight deck to notice alarms (if any were even operational in this mode), all that was left was some observant cleaning crew.
While this isn't as serious (from a loss of life point of view) as a fire in flight, I'm certain that airlines are not going to be happy about having their latest capital investments spontaneously combust while parked at the gate. |
From an early release, there were mechanics present when the fire was noticed, as well as Cabin Cleaners.
It was not established who these mechanics represented. My assumption was JAL, or contract. When this situation becomes only about loss of Capital investment, I stop flying. |
FWIW in Corporate America a Project Engineer "engineers" the project. His job is to squeeze the best possible compromise out of the real engineers to meet his budget and schedule.
At best he's a super-engineer who perfectly understands what all the disciplines are telling him and what all that babble means in terms of building an excellent airplane, and leaps tall buildings with a single bound. At worst, it's all babble to him, but he makes the decisions anyway because that's his job. In any case the Senior of him sits with upper management, with all that means in terms of making platitudinous noises when The Press is present. |
poorjohn. Yes, thanks. There is a BS in Interdisciplinary Studies in the family.
Apropos? My point is that damage control can cause its own damage. It is too early to polish this turd. |
kbrockman...
FWIW I wrote INBOARD...the accident report indicated number 4 engine was reversed...that is not an inboard engine. and it is a training accident...training is different than normal passenger operations. |
OT but FWIW the DC8-40 series (RR Conway powered) was certified for in-flight reverse on all four with thrust at MCT.
|
angryrat , I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that 'review'. I was at Boeing after a 757 crash when the FAA handed Boeing its head on a platter over QA issues. Back then, our manufacturing certificate was at risk. But we (I was a part of the engineering group tasked with straightening things out) pulled that one out of the fire.
It sounds like things went downhill after I left. I should have told them, "Don't make me come back there!" on my way out.;) The problem is: The last time, it was corrective action plus a civil penalty because management said, "We didn't know it was in violation of regulations". You can't use that excuse twice. People may have changed, but institutional memory is supposed to bridge the generational gap. |
The method of construction on the douglas was very strong...can't think of any pop tops like aloha 737. About 1980 a DC9-80 test flight landed at Edwards AFB dropping its tail on the runway, and leaving the fuselage in pieces. That Douglas airplane was new. The the Aloha was very high time, had far more cycles than any other 737 fleet with similar hours, and also had corrosion issues. |
FAA should ground them now.
Pulling the plug would give Boeing an out, mandating them to do the battery replacement which would cost each airline a seat or two in weight.
The FAA should do this in the interests of protecting not only the passengers but also the manufacturer. Last not least, casualties created by the current battery system would discredit the agency itself. A design mistake can creep into a piece of equipment, it is no big problem to admit it and yank it out. |
reparit
the DC980 incident/accident at edwards is interesting...an FAA pilot flying the plane exceeded design limits on touchdown. the aloha was within limits but failed. and you don't see the same failure mode in the douglas ...take a close look at the fuselage of the douglas and see the ''finger laps'' used...no such construction on the 737 |
Originally Posted by PJ2
the DC8-40 series (RR Conway powered) was certified for in-flight reverse on all four with thrust at MCT.
Why on earth would anybody want that certification point? Runway change=high on slope? :} |
[Not a pilot--discard or ignore if necessary] At this stage are there not about four scenarios? 1) The plane was designed with the idea that batteries sometimes smoke and everything worked as it should have. 2) The battery failed because 2a) it or 2b) the installation was defective. 3) The battery failed because of improper procedures. 4) The battery failed because the design concept was flawed.
While, 3) should presumably not be allowed to happen, it might be forgiven if someone invented a novel mistake. I presume that 4) is unlikely or the aviation authorities never would have allowed it to the production stage. Can any of these be ruled out yet? |
re FAA Special Conditions for 787 certification (2007)
"The FAA shares the commenter's (ALPA) concern over a fire
erupting in flight. The regulations and the rigid requirements defined in these special conditions are intended to prevent lithium battery fires on board the aircraft. We have made no change as a result of this comment." Seems likely the FAA screwed up this time. To many free lunches? . |
The DC9-80 incident occured duringperformance trials when they were trying to get the shortest landing figures. Technique was to come in at Vat and chop the power at 50ft. It fell out of the sky and, effectively, crashed and the newly lengthened fuselage broke in two. Bit late on the round out Hoskins! Lessons were learned.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:22. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.