Worldwide 787 fleet grounded!
 

Just heard that the FAA has passed a Safety Directive grounding all 787's airborne worldwide with unmediated effect.
Apparently the fuel lines feeding fuel into the engines have developed a leak in a number of the airplanes flying commercially.
This is another shocker for Boeing.
The Boeing engineers compare this to a severe headache rather than a heart attack.
Wonder what that means and what it's gonna do for the reputation of the 787.
Very unlike the reliable 777 is this.

Do you have a link somewhere?
The FAA site does not show any directives pointing in this direction.

Let me see if this link works....

FAA orders airlines to inspect 787 Dreamliners for fuel leaks | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times


Of course the groundings are subject to investigations and repairs. The faster the repairs the faster the Dreamliner takes to the Clouds!

Grounding? Your source must be awful. :(

Let´s judge this "problem" with the AD itself:
AD 2012-24-07

If you read above linked AD, you find :
I think that 7 days to check a lockwire und 21 days to do a 10 work-hour job is far away from grounding. ;)

They've ordered fuel line inspections and issued an airworthiness directive. Don't think they've grounded anything though.

As aircraft get more complex expect more teething problems. Fuel lines in 787, cracked wings in a380 I'm sure there will be other problems too

First of all, FAA doesn't have the power to ground anything worldwide.

King on a Wing
 

Now let me see, if Boeing has taken any notice of what a certain Irish airline has been getting up to, with some forums, l would expect a law suit in the coming days.
Best to read before trying to engage what is between the ears. :ugh:

It's just an AD. Completely normal on a new and complicated type.

Please note that if it was serious enough to put them all on the ground, the FAA as the original issuer of the type certificate, can ground the worldwide fleet by suspending or revoking that type certificate.

EASA grounded the Dassault Falcon 7X worldwide last year (at the request of the manufacturer) by doing exactly that.

Its an emergency brake and it works. Once the issue is addressed, the type cert is re-instated.

But this is just an AD. Move along.

A little knowlage......
 

I can't help thinking that this shows how little some of the people on this forum know about how the AD system works and at least one of the above it would seem can't read and understand the news report that he has gathered the information from, this is not a "worldwide grounding " it is a call for the aircraft to be inspected and if approprate rectification work to be carried out, no more than that.

I can't help thinking that the title of this forum was written by the same people who have been publishing pictures of aircraft with extended noses.

Where are the moderators when you need them ...

Legitimate news get banished to obscure corners of the site within 15 minutes of posting, yet this managed to stay as the leading thread on Rumors & News for over twelve hours now... :rolleyes:

(My bold)

Well, if the literacy of this report is any guide to its contents it clearly won't contain much.

I'm curious how only those flying commercially leak? Is the fuel system somehow aware of the revenue status of the flight?

Oh dear oh dear.
:ugh::ugh::ugh:

What we have here is a failure to understand what a grounding is and why there are so few cases. Blame it on the press who play up the words to the point where they are meaningless to aviation readers.

Of course I have no Idea what the OP words means :confused:

IFixPlanes wrote: From your link above: I'd question whether or not the "10 work-hours" required can be conducted concurrently (by say using 10 engineers - problem resolved in 1hr) or that this would involve disabling the aircraft from flying operations for 10 hours - a small fortune (loss) for airlines, especially the few operating this new Boeing...?! :confused:

I can almost imagine an Irish low-cost carrier contributing: "We were envisaging the replacement of some of our smaller Boeing B737s with B787s on certain routes. Unless the fuel leakages reach significant quantities, which cannot be recovered by simply adding 20 pence for access to the coin-operated toilets aboard our aircraft, sales of sandwiches recovered from the French autoroute opeartors the day before, or just excess baggage, we'll be reconsidering all options. Including relocating our HQ to Luxembourg for all online ticket sales. :(

Let's not be too hard on our fellow ppruners; explanations of the regulatory terminology used in relation to continued airworthiness do not come with the MS Flight Sim package.

Neither.

10 engineers falling over each other all attempting to inspect the same engine fuel feed manifold coupling would be daft.

But equally, occupying one engineer for 10 hours, thereby tying up the aircraft for the same length of time, would be stupid - at the very least you could halve the required downtime by using two engineers and inspecting both engines at the same time.

Who knows how accurate the 10 hours is in the estimate. Could just mean it's close to 10 than it is to 1 or 100.

Did I hear "O" rings mentioned

We better have a third inspector in there somewhere if both engines are going to be screwed up by maintenance at the same time :)

Yes but if a carrier does not comply with this A.D. and anything happens, the big turd sandwich is in their lap. They really can only fine domestic carriers up to the point of revocation of an operating certificate if the negligence gets bad enough.

As for the 10 man hours, it is always a liberal estimate and can certainly be accomplished on the aircraft's next overnight without a hickup in service. This is no big deal.

Not like the A330 Air Transat Flight 236 that ended up a glider because of a fuel leak in the pylon.

That's why it's called an estimate. :)

No different from any AD that calls for inspection action and then, depending on the findings, possible corrective action.

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:rolleyes:

Except that 787s aren't grounded and airlines aren't putting off inspections. :ugh:

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..

That's nonsense.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Thanks BOAC.

As I say, gg - E&OE of course - not an engineer, but I'm sure one will be along shortly!

Who cares when you can have an Airbus ?

Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen - it could be a bumpy ride to 'Spottersville':)

BBC News - Airbus A380 fleet should be grounded, say engineers

Probably compiling lists of IPs to be handed over to Ryanair... :(

OK, reasonable question, your confusion is understandable.

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.

Dominican was posing a rhetorical question, Dave. He wasn't suggesting they actually ground them.

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?

Sometimes it doesn't work that way. I could see 2 engineers (one per side) completing the check in 5 hours. Just add it to an overnight stop somewhere.

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...

Old news and past history, nothing came of it.

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. :=

Not really.

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