http://www.hexcel.com/Resources/Data...ite_Repair.pdf

This explains in A LOT OF DETAIL how the repair is effected.

Very interesting. But would that level be available at most airports. Looks a very comprehensive way of repairing.:ok:

I would guess not. It sounds very sophisticated/complicated. My guess (uneducated of course), is a specialized 'team' would have to be sent in the make the field repair.

This happens a lot with other systems on various aircraft.

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

Thank You That was VERY informative:ok::ok:

Aviation Week's 'Things with Wings' blog, 6 MayBut 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

Fresh this evening :
and :

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.

Lasernigel...
This was my first question, about composite structures on aircraft,having witnessed a lifetime of damage inflicted by ground service vehicles.

Blunt impact, :ugh: not reported by culprit!.....Certainly will sharpen our walk-around skills,....me thinks! :eek:

There's been nothing more really than has been discussed here. Despite the ironies involved in shipping, I am quite curious to hear what if anything is found.

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.

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

So a baggage / waste-water / catering guy has a ding with the fuselage and notices no obvious signs of damage and decides not to report it (maybe because he is on the minimum wage or some other rediculous conditions and is worried about the implications). No problem.....the engineer will obviously pick-up any unforseen damage pre-departure with his pocket device, AKA - the "Ramp Damage Tester". Totally awesome!!!

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 .

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.

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.
:(

Still other views on this are;



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.

Lightweight impact yes.

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. :hmm:

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.

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.