Worldwide 787 fleet grounded!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Over the Pacific mostly
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh for the love of Christ! Airlines will spend 200 million dollars in an airplane and then ground it by putting off an inspection that requires a few man hours to complete
have a nice day drama queens
have a nice day drama queens
Airlines will spend 200 million dollars in an airplane and then ground it by putting off an inspection
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On a Wing!
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not an AD issued by Boeing. It is a Safety Directive. And it has to be implemented within one week. Until then the airplanes that do not comply stay on the ground pending repairs.
Needless to say it is a 24 hour job. But the plane WILL BE GROUNDED until it is implemented!
I know of at least 4 major airlines(including AI and QR) who have withdrawn their fleets from commercial ops pending completion of the task.
My 2 million worth..
Needless to say it is a 24 hour job. But the plane WILL BE GROUNDED until it is implemented!
I know of at least 4 major airlines(including AI and QR) who have withdrawn their fleets from commercial ops pending completion of the task.
My 2 million worth..
Last edited by King on a Wing; 9th Dec 2012 at 17:27.
It is not an AD issued by Boeing. It is a Safety Directive. And it has to be implemented within one week. Until then the airplanes that do not comply stay on the ground pending repairs.
Needless to say it is a 24 hour job. But the plane WILL BE GROUNDED until it is implemented!
Needless to say it is a 24 hour job. But the plane WILL BE GROUNDED until it is implemented!
Either the aircraft is grounded [it isn't] or there is a deadline on compliance with the AD, there wouldn't be any point in doing both.
US-registered 787s subject to the AD can legally fly for 7 days (from the AD effective date of 5th December) before action to ensure that the lockwire installation is correct, and for 21 days before ensuring correct assembly of the engine fuel feed manifold rigid and full flexible couplings.
If operators elect to action the AD before the deadline then that is up to them, but until then they can continue to fly the aircraft if they wish.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I operated 787s in commercial carriage, and was telexed a mandatory inspection, I would be looking in the document for the time issues, and seriously try to comply. Willful disregard of an AD is bad form.....
The rest is semantics. It's in the DIRECTIVE.
The rest is semantics. It's in the DIRECTIVE.
Last edited by Lyman; 9th Dec 2012 at 19:28.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps someone will explain the subtle nuances of the phrase at the end of paragraph G which says:
(g) Inspection
Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with Action 1) of Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-12-0838-01B(R2), including Attachment A, dated November 25, 2012.
(1) Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, ensure that the lockwire installation on the rigid and full flexible couplings is correct.
(2) Within 21 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the rigid and full flexible couplings for correct assembly, including replacement of the o-rings with new o-rings, confirmation that the proper retainer rings are installed in the full flexible coupling, a general visual inspection for damage 7
of the blade seals, and all applicable corrective actions. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
And para J:
(j) Special Flight Permit
Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane can be modified, provided the lockwire is correctly installed on the engine fuel feed manifold rigid and full flexible couplings in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
If the Aircraft are not grounded why does it need a special permit to fly?
(g) Inspection
Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1)
and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with Action 1) of Boeing Multi Operator Message MOM-MOM-12-0838-01B(R2), including Attachment A, dated November 25, 2012.
(1) Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, ensure that the lockwire installation on the rigid and full flexible couplings is correct.
(2) Within 21 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the rigid and full flexible couplings for correct assembly, including replacement of the o-rings with new o-rings, confirmation that the proper retainer rings are installed in the full flexible coupling, a general visual inspection for damage 7
of the blade seals, and all applicable corrective actions. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
And para J:
(j) Special Flight Permit
Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane can be modified, provided the lockwire is correctly installed on the engine fuel feed manifold rigid and full flexible couplings in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
If the Aircraft are not grounded why does it need a special permit to fly?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KoaW - do us all a favour and put us out of our misery please. Highlight the words in the AD that say the a/c is grounded until inspected?
For heavens sake - as andrasz said, where are the mods when you need them?
Even the Seattle times KoaW quotes says
"The safety directive, to be published Wednesday, gives airlines a week to check fuel-line system fastening wires and 21 days to check connectors inside the pylons that hold the engines."
Again, courtesy of Ifix, here is the AD
gg - I am no engineer, but to me that says if you find something wrong, don't fly it until you fix it. The 'special' is to allow a/c that might be going over the 7/21 days at a non-service place to be flown to one where it can be done - otherwise it would be 'grounded'..
This should be in the Spectators Balcony.
For heavens sake - as andrasz said, where are the mods when you need them?
Even the Seattle times KoaW quotes says
"The safety directive, to be published Wednesday, gives airlines a week to check fuel-line system fastening wires and 21 days to check connectors inside the pylons that hold the engines."
Again, courtesy of Ifix, here is the AD
gg - I am no engineer, but to me that says if you find something wrong, don't fly it until you fix it. The 'special' is to allow a/c that might be going over the 7/21 days at a non-service place to be flown to one where it can be done - otherwise it would be 'grounded'..
This should be in the Spectators Balcony.
Last edited by BOAC; 9th Dec 2012 at 19:46.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen - it could be a bumpy ride to 'Spottersville'
BBC News - Airbus A380 fleet should be grounded, say engineers
BBC News - Airbus A380 fleet should be grounded, say engineers
Perhaps someone will explain the subtle nuances of the phrase at the end of paragraph G which says:
Within 21 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the rigid and full flexible couplings for correct assembly, including replacement of the o-rings with new o-rings, confirmation that the proper retainer rings are installed in the full flexible coupling, a general visual inspection for damage of the blade seals, and all applicable corrective actions. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Within 21 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the rigid and full flexible couplings for correct assembly, including replacement of the o-rings with new o-rings, confirmation that the proper retainer rings are installed in the full flexible coupling, a general visual inspection for damage of the blade seals, and all applicable corrective actions. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Think of it as a Catch-22. An operator can wait 21 days, but no longer, before performing that particular inspection and, if necessary, applying any corrective actions. No check within 21 days means the aircraft is then grounded.
But if the check is done sooner, and a fault is found, the operator can't then fly the aircraft for the remainder of the 21 days before carrying out rectification - that must be done before the next flight.
Originally Posted by Dominican
Airlines will spend 200 million dollars in an airplane and then ground it by putting off an inspection
Originally Posted by Dave Reid
Except that 787s aren't grounded and airlines aren't putting off inspections.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if it is more indicative of a problem with Boeing's quality control.
There is a report that the serious fire on the cockpit of an Egiptair 777 was possibly caused because a clamp supporting the first officer's wiring to the mask light panel was missing, not sleeved and a large wiring loop found. Boeing delivered around 280 B777 with this error, which goes against the design.
Now we have the 787 with fuel line connectors not properly installed. Wonder how much all this is costing Boeing?
There is a report that the serious fire on the cockpit of an Egiptair 777 was possibly caused because a clamp supporting the first officer's wiring to the mask light panel was missing, not sleeved and a large wiring loop found. Boeing delivered around 280 B777 with this error, which goes against the design.
Now we have the 787 with fuel line connectors not properly installed. Wonder how much all this is costing Boeing?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by airship
I'd question whether or not the "10 work-hours" required can be conducted concurrently (by say using 10 engineers - problem resolved in 1hr)
Of course, it may be like pregnancy, no matter how much the key party may desire it to be so there is no opportunity for 9 women to be pregnant 1 month each on her behalf...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOAC
Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen - it could be a bumpy ride to 'Spottersville'
BBC News - Airbus A380 fleet should be grounded, say engineers
BBC News - Airbus A380 fleet should be grounded, say engineers
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it is all to do with quality control, as all three inspections are from incorrect installation.
The simple answer to your post DaveReidUK is Yes, up until the the inspection you are assuming the installation is correct.
You have to put the parts back together correctly, as Boeing should have done in the first place.
The simple answer to your post DaveReidUK is Yes, up until the the inspection you are assuming the installation is correct.
You have to put the parts back together correctly, as Boeing should have done in the first place.
Yes, up until the the inspection you are assuming the installation is correct.
The only assumption you, as an airline, may implicitly be making is that the FAA's assessment that the aircraft can be flown for another 7/21 days before the inspection is a reasonable one. That doesn't imply any expectation of what the inspection will find.
Or, if the airline disagrees with that assumption, it does the check sooner, if not immediately (though that could equally be done for other reasons ).
The assumption in the creation of the Service Bulletin is that you may or may not have a defective aircraft and if you do it may or may not fail in an unsafe manner in a given period of time.
If you exceed that time frame the probability of it failing increases to an unreasonable contribution in average risk compared to all other risks for both known and unknown problems.
There is always the underlying assumption that some un-inspected aircraft are free of the defect and/or that if the defect is present it will not fail and/if it does fail that it will not create an unsafe condition.
note: this kind of logic is way beyond "spectator balcony" stuff and suitable for the Safety forum
If you exceed that time frame the probability of it failing increases to an unreasonable contribution in average risk compared to all other risks for both known and unknown problems.
There is always the underlying assumption that some un-inspected aircraft are free of the defect and/or that if the defect is present it will not fail and/if it does fail that it will not create an unsafe condition.
note: this kind of logic is way beyond "spectator balcony" stuff and suitable for the Safety forum