***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to the next one *****
I must apologise to any right wing members of this forum, its a Guardian link.
www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jan/09/boeing-dreamliner-fire-fuel-leak
Personally I don't think I would ever fly on a plane until the design has been flying for around 5 years. It seems it takes five years before all the problems are ironed out. For example early DC10 cargo door problems.
I find it quite ironic though over the years I have been following the development of the 787 and the A380 the Americans have always been so quick to call Airbus's dangerous crap after the 2009 Air France disaster.
So would you fly on a 787 Dreamliner (or nightmaremaker) today?
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 15 Aug 13 at 10:18
|
>> Airbus's dangerous crap after the 2009 Air France disaster.
Inexperienced pilots flew that into the sea though.... yes auto pilot disengaged because to icing up of sensors but a poorly trained pilot made serious mistakes.
You're forgetting the engine problems the A380 has had with Rolls Royce engines mind.
|
I didn't mention the Airbus engine problem as it was a Rolls Royce problem and its now been resolved, in fact as I understand it I think Rolls Royce tried to modify the engine designs without telling the operators as they did not want to cause fear and damage to reputation. Of course the Quantas fire meant they had to own up.
Of course the A380 has always suffered from wing mounting problems causing cracks but again the issue is now resolved. There may well be other faults with the A380 nobody knows about yet but they have been in commercial service for a good five years now.
|
Both aeroplanes are intrinsically safe. Interestingly, Air France managed to do nearly the same thing again last year when in a difficult situation the copilot put in a significant and prolonged rearwards input on the controls. That should worry you more than a battery fire in the APU. APUs are exceptionally reliable - so while ANY fire on an aeroplane is exceptionally dangerous, we can leave the APU running unattended because it will automatically shutdown and discharge the extinguishers.
You draw the parallels with the A380 - that plane flew to a safe landing despite the catastrophic damage to the wing. 57 separate ECAM errors, two engines in a degraded mode, one failed completely, plus numerous other problems. If it'll fly through that, well...
It's not a case of "which aeroplane would I fly on", it's "which airline would I fly with".
(I fly the A320 series so have a soft spot for the Airbus anyway... :-)
|
>> the copilot put in a significant and prolonged rearwards input on the controls.
Even I from the Flight Simulator on the ZX81 know not to do that! To avoid stall etc. is fairly obvious :-)
I'll have to find out what new routes you're likely to be flying. Won't say what airline you fly for on here of course ;-)
|
>> Both aeroplanes are intrinsically safe. Interestingly, Air France managed to do nearly the same thing
>> again last year when in a difficult situation the copilot put in a significant and
>> prolonged rearwards input on the controls. That should worry you more than a battery fire
>> in the APU.
Interesting point there FF. I suspect you'll already be aware of today's AAIB bulletin and the report on an Easy Airbus's heavy landing at Luton last February.
www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/january_2013.cfm
MAkes the same point as you do about the machine's capacity to print out a report immedaitely after landing.
What I found surprising was that there's no mechanical interlink between the two pilot's sidesticks.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 10 Jan 13 at 13:19
|
>> What I found surprising was that there's no mechanical interlink between the two pilot's sidesticks.
There's no mechanical link between the sidestick and anything is there? It's just a joystick isn't it? All electronic controls.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 10 Jan 13 at 13:38
|
>> There's no mechanical link between the sidestick and anything is there? It's just a joystick
>> isn't it? All electronic controls.
I appreciate that but am surprised 'feel' of other pilots inputs is not artifically replicated - though there is an aural and visual warning of dual inputs.
In this accident two pilots made opposing inputs during an aborted which the plane averaged out. If I read the report correctly the commander, who took control during the incident, was not as quick as he should have been selecting priority for his side stick after commanding the 'go around'.
Easy from the armchair though.
|
>> >> There's no mechanical link between the sidestick and anything is there? It's just a
>> joystick
>> >> isn't it? All electronic controls.
>>
>> I appreciate that but am surprised 'feel' of other pilots inputs is not artifically replicated
>> - though there is an aural and visual warning of dual inputs.
The problem with that is perhaps that both pilots would then let go of the stick...
The commander (in this case a training captain in the right seat) did not press his override button when he assumed control - had he done so the input from the left stick would not have been added.
I see the report speculates that the captain under training in the left seat might have suffered "hand confusion" as he initially pushed the stick and pulled the throttles, before reversing the actions. Maybe that's what happens who you are used to flying from the other seat...
Still it seems neither got it quite right, though no harm done - probably quite the opposite as they both learned something. Maybe there's a deeper meaning to the old chestnut "a good landing is when everybody walks away; a very good landing is when they can use the aircraft again".
|
|
We trust you Fursty to get us home safely.British pilots are ok! We hope.,;)
|
"So would you fly on a 787 Dreamliner (or nightmaremaker) today?"
Of course. Buy me a couple of tickets and I'll prove it.
Not sure about a Fiat Panda in Manchester traffic though - that is courting disaster. :-)
|
|
Yes, no problem, it wouldn't adversely influence my decision. I'd be very pleased in fact.
|
I don't think I would, the what don't they know about problem would still stick in my head. That said I am not sure if I would fly on an A380 yet due to the same problem.
And oi cheeky git about my Panda, its back on the road now causing misery to all in South Manchester :)
|
|
Wasn't it a problem on the Air France A380 that crashed that one pilot had input a massive up elevator and because the 'stick' was at his side and the input not replicated on the other side?
|
No A380 has crashed!
You're referring to the Air France crash from Rio too. It was not an A380 and was largely pilot error. That was an A330.
Seriously can a mod edit this thread otherwise someone will Google this thread and think an A380 has crashed.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 9 Jan 13 at 23:49
|
It does seem that Airfrance has had quite a bit of bad luck since the Concorde crash.
I have only ever flown on A319s and 737 700's but I found the A319s were a far nicer plane from the passenger point of view.
I think that A380 landed safely due to pilot skill as much as anything else.
|
>> It does seem that Airfrance has had quite a bit of bad luck since the Concorde crash.
Was it all bad luck? Concorde did have a vulnerability in it's fuel tanks and due to previous issues a fix was available. BA implemented this and it cost a lot... the AF Concorde's did not get this... had they then the catastrophe that happened might not have. Saved them some money I guess.
|
|
In the short term yep but the Concorde disaster must have ruined AIr Frances reputation even though from memory Continental got a lot of the place for it. It does seem BA do have a very good record especially when you consider how old some of their planes are, e.g their 747 400s.
|
They all scare me a bit although I've been in lots of them. Screw-driven aircraft seem safer to me but they are slower of course. And the more engines the better, two don't seem enough to me. Never liked the Boeing 737. Can't help wondering why Airbuses seem more reassuring, but they do. Perhaps it's just that their size carries conviction, as with a fat politician.
The Hercules felt safest of all, but it was slow, noisy and draughty. A member of its Algerian crew told me cheerfully that it could land anywhere. 'What, down there?' I said pointing at the trackless rocky wastes passing not all that far below. 'Anywhere,' the guy said. 'And take off again too. It's like a jeep.' He was exaggerating of course.
Four engines too, the right number in my book.
|
Public self-criticism is an arduous business. But I note that having said in another thread that I trust machines, I have confessed in this one to nervousness about flying.
Nothing to do with the machines though. I don't usually feel even a twinge of vertigo when in a flying aircraft. That is suspended, like disbelief when reading a decent work of fiction or watching a movie. No, what grates is the obvious thing: someone else doing the driving. The anxiety is always most intense at takeoff and landing, when the driver is earning his wages. I am always thinking, he's got away with it so far, but isn't this climb a bit on the steep side*?
A little knowledge is a dangerous silly thing, what, all you pilots? Heh heh...
* Speaking of which the overpowered Hercules, when occupied by a lightweight cargo of a few dozen bodies, can do a climb that feels almost vertical. Great machine.
|
You clearly wouldn't like the two engined 777 then! If you don't like to being in control, try being a retired pilot AND thinking you recognise the Captain's name as someone you suspended from RAF flying 30 years ago!
I do agree with you about take off and landing risks. Years ago when smoking was permitted aircraft I used to note that the no smoking light went off about 15 seconds after take off - haven't they got more important things to worry about, I used to wonder.
|
>> Years ago when smoking
>> was permitted aircraft I used to note that the no smoking light went off about
>> 15 seconds after take off - haven't they got more important things to worry about,
>> I used to wonder.
>>
That's 'cos it's automatic and will go out when the gear has completed the retraction sequence.
|
>>Years ago when smoking was permitted aircraft
I was a smoker, and used to smoke on aircraft. Although I can't say I was that fussed when it was phased out.
However, at that point I was commuting between Rio and either Paris, London or Amsterdam every two or three days.
Everybody except Air France said that you may ONLY smoke in your seat and you would be shot at dawn for smoking while standing up.
Yet Air France said that you may NOT smoke in your seat and must go and stand at the bar to smoke. Which, as it happens, was vastly more pleasant.
Of course, at about the same time, I was managing at a Pulp & Paper Plant in the Amazon. The flight up there used to stop at a seemingly arbitrary point on the way. And the pilot insisted, no exceptions, that we must open the back door if we wished to smoke while the plane was on the ground.
It took about 3 months for me to work out we only stopped to refuel.
|
>> Years ago when smoking was permitted aircraft I used to note that the no smoking light went off about 15 seconds after take off
As a heavy smoker for many years I always smoked on aircraft. Of course others did too in those days.
Tobacco cigarettes gave less 'satisfaction' for want of a better word in aircraft though. Something to do with the lower air pressure perhaps. I've noticed the same difference in the effects of tobacco and alcohol in high-altitude places too.
In a way it's almost a relief not to be allowed to smoke in most places the way it is these days. But I still complain and feel justified in complaining.
|
>>The anxiety is always most intense at takeoff and landing
The first doesn't worry me too much, but I know at some point we're going hit the ground, just how hard?
|
>> >>The anxiety is always most intense at takeoff and landing
>>
>> The first doesn't worry me too much, but I know at some point we're going
>> hit the ground, just how hard?
A landing is a controlled crash.
|
>> A landing is a controlled crash.
>>
Ah, I see you've flown with me before. Welcome back, Mr Zero, sir.
|
>>
>> Ah, I see you've flown with me before. Welcome back, Mr Zero, sir.
>>
I hate flying but you seem a decent cove FF, I'd put my trust in you. If it all went belly up at least we'd get a thread about us on here.
|
|
Doubt it, with both of you gone who's to report it.
|
>> Doubt it, with both of you gone who's to report it.
>>
Be on the news, wouldn't it?
"Two highly respected members of Car4play were among the victims. Survivors described them as heros and told how they gave their own lives while pulling disabled orphans from the burning wreckage to safety."
|
|
I hope you didn't put the survivors in my car.
|
>> I hope you didn't put the survivors in my car.
>>
Wouldn't you like a convertible?
|
>> >> Doubt it, with both of you gone who's to report it.
>> >>
>> Be on the news, wouldn't it?
>>
>> "Two highly respected members of Car4play were among the victims. Survivors described them as heros
>> and told how they gave their own lives while pulling disabled orphans from the burning
>> wreckage to safety."
>>
And wiv a bit o luck one of them sirvivers will buy the Power washer that has scared Humph orf.
|
I'd keep that pressure washer quiet Martin. They've only just stopped going on about my bike rack which I successfully "sold" nearly two years ago...Once they've got something on you it's like dogs with a bone...
:-)
|
The general consensus is that Concorde crashed because it was several tonnes overweight, had an aft centre of gravity out-of-limits, and because the engineer shut down an engine very close to the ground. The fire, though impressive, did not critically damage the wing or flight control surfaces.
Rattle, as I pointed out before, your issue is that you judge whether it's safe to fly by the age of the aeroplane, which is pointless unless we're harking back to 707s or something. Airlines don't like old planes because they're expensive to keep running. They're not unsafe. Everything - and I mean, EVERYTHING, is tracked, either electronically or on paper. Change a light bulb, and it's entered in the tech log. Pitch up slightly too fast on take-off, and the data rolls out of a little printer after landing.
Instead, you should be looking at the safety culture at the airline. EasyJet and Ryanair financially penalise their pilots if they call in sick, sometimes to the tune of a month's pay. Would you forgo that, or would you struggle on? From personal experience, you go in to work anyway.
In the UK, at least, you might fly on a brand new aeroplane - but with a brand new pilot. My first passenger flight was to Nice, with 152 hours total under my belt. At EasyJet or Ryanair, you might have someone with 200 hours who's fresh out of line training flying with a brand new Captain who's only got 2500 hours.
Do they have an open and just safety culture? EasyJet certainly do, as does (I believe) BA.
What are the cultural implications? For example, Air China or Pakistan International etc are, IMHO, intrinsically unsafe because the Captain is always right. If I think the Captain's made a mistake, or that there's a better course of action, I tell him (or her). Doesn't happen in the Far East.
Example (Airblue A321 crash in Islamabad):
In particular, the report noted that the captain ignored or did not properly respond to a multitude of Air Traffic Control directives and automated cabin warning systems. The report also claimed that the first officer passively accepted the captain's actions, after the captain on multiple occasions took a "harsh, snobbish and contrary" tone with the first officer and "berated" him.
Not sure if you watched the documentary about the BA 747 in for it's "D" check, but if it's still on iPlayer it's worth it.
But ultimately, it makes no difference whether it's Airbus or Boeing. Though AFAIK an Airbus has never crashed in line operations following loss of control, thanks to the flight control protections.
* I will, however, stick my nose out and say that I'd never fly on a Russian aeroplane. Whenever anything crashes in Europe nowadays, it's some form of vodka-fueled cold-war era jet.
|
|
Re Concorde, the general consensus I read is that, during take-off, the aircraft ran over a piece of metal which had fallen from another aircraft, shredded one or more tyres, pieces of which punctured a wing fuel tank and started a fire. It is very unlikely (IMO) that the aircraft could have been configured with the C of G out of limits and and I can find no report saying that this was the case or the cause.
|
Old article:
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/may/13/davidrose.focus/print
And the single most important contributory factor, the first link in the chain, is yet again not mentioned - the tanks 5 & 7 inlet valves being in the override position. If that hadn't been done; no hole in the tank, no fire, no engine problems, no gear problems ergo almost certainly no accident.
Boring explanation for paragraph above (I asked a BA ex-Concorde pilot this very question some years ago):
Concorde only took off with the CG in one of three positions. At higher weights it was always 54% (the aft limit IIRC) and to achieve that with full tanks you had to burn off your taxi fuel to "make a hole" and transfer fuel to achieve T/O CG. If you needed the fuel (always!) and/or taxi time was short (even at 7 tonnes/hr burn on the ground) then it could be a fraught process. It looks like the transfer forward was not complete in this case, and the inlet valves were left open, pumping fuel via full tanks and on up into the galleries. The galleries should have been full of (compressible) air, providing a shock cushion which would have protected against the hydraulic ram effect which the tyre carcass created and, as above, no hole in the tank and no accident.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Thu 10 Jan 13 at 10:37
|
>> Boring explanation for paragraph above
Wow FF. I thought you just pushed the engine levers forward and pulled the stick back, or is it becoming more like that with the modern planes?
|
>> It does
>> seem BA do have a very good record especially when you consider how old some
>> of their planes are, e.g their 747 400s.
>>
As a pretty frequent long haul traveller (on BA much of the time) I mourn the phasing out of the 747 400s. Can't beat the privacy of seats 62 A or K on the upper deck :-) Well, you can, but it involves flying First, which no employer I've worked for will pay for! The 777 replacements just aren't the same. Sure, they are newer, and often with better IFE, and undoubtedly cheaper to run as well. But the cabin is much more open, and so it feels less 'special'. For me there's also something comforting about a seeing a BA 747 at the airport when you're in a far away country - I must be getting old :-)
|
|
comforting about a seeing a BA 747 at the airport when you're in a far away country. Me too! 30 years ago the sight was a Gulf Air Tristar - very comfortable, reliable and popular with the crew too
|
>> It does seem that Airfrance has had quite a bit of bad luck since the
>> Concorde crash.
Its not called Air Chance for nothing.
Rattle you'r a grade a sissy wimp, you are too scared to drive on Motorways let alone make educated guesses about what planes to fly on.
|
|
There's a very good drama documentary on YouTube about the A380 incident. Made by an Aussie TV company.
|
|
Thompson are introducing the Dreamliner on some routes soon AND charging extra for the flights! On the basis that a flight involves sitting in a cramped seat for a few hours I'd not be bothered about whether it was made of metal or composites nor would I pay extra for the latter!
|
|
Nor me - flew on a Thomson 767 to Greece - dreadful. Had some superannuated hippie's crotch in my face at one point. An unwholesome experience.
|
With scheduled flights it is possible to select 'better' seats by using the website 'seat guru' during online check in.
I also believe in fate and would fly in anything, but as one poster said, the airline is more important and to date i have never flown with any airline which would cause any anxiety. If your numbers up etc etc
|
|
Just out of curiosity I have flown on BA 747 and KLM MD11 recently. I reckon both were quite old but perfectly adequate in cattle class.
|
>> Nor me - flew on a Thomson 767 to Greece - dreadful. Had some superannuated
>> hippie's crotch in my face at one point. An unwholesome experience.
I've never been to Greece, couldn't have been my superannuated hippie's crotch.
|
>> There's a very good drama documentary on YouTube about the A380 incident. Made by an
>> Aussie TV company.
>>
Yes, that documentary is spot on and gives a very good indication of exactly what things would have been like on board.
|
I think that A380 landed safely due to pilot skill as much as anything else.
Even the most skilful pilot needs something that will stay aloft, and the Qantas A380 did. The AF A330 would have stayed up too; the inquiry's transcript of the three pilots steadily making things worse is chilling reading. Putain! They say that a lot.
So yes, I'd fly on a 787. And I have flown on every Airbus type and all the Boeings bar the 777. They're all safer per trip (not just per kilometre) than the taxi to the airport. Just a pity they're not as comfortable - where I get to sit anyway. And somehow, airline economics being what they are, I can't see the 787 changing that.
|
My wife was a very nervous flyer. She would fly but was nervous - but how else would you get abroad easily!
Then some years ago she worked in the technical library for aircraft maintenance. And saw what went into maintaining planes, including seeing them worked on like on that 747 programme mentioned. Realising what went into aircraft maintenance she was no longer nervous.
But you'd not get me onto planes of any Russian airline! Or some others in the world. It's not the planes that are the problem per se it's the maintenance! I'd have thought much of an old plane will be replaced over time apart from the airframe.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 10 Jan 13 at 11:47
|
|
For me the ideal would be a Russian Pilot, in a BA jet. Its said that every russian pilot has seen, been involved in, and survived more severe aircraft defects than any commercial pilot anywhere.
|
|
When I was a student in the USSR, I had Soviet friends at the Kiev Air Academy, can't quite recall it's proper name, but it supplied pilots to Aeroflop (sic) and the military. It was well known that the Russian tradition of drinking a large shot of neat vodka before embarking upon a long journey was adhered to by most pilots just before a take-off. Nobody thought it dangerous - quite the opposite. It was thought to bring good luck for the journey.
|
As I work for Airbus of course I wouldn't fly on the 787 :-)
Seriously though, the thought of an in-flight fire does scare me, and the FAA had concerns (and took a lot of convincing) over the use of lithium ion batteries.
Ref Concorde I have a colleague who used to work in customer support. Tells me BA would take any mods / improvements offered regardless of cost, whereas air chance.......
|
Well it is looking likely that soon, nobody will be flying on a 787. More problems been discovered today, including a crack near a window.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20988117
|
|
Should point out I meant the crack was on the window, not near it. So probably just an isolated incident, but either way the American authorities are not happy.
|
>> Should point out I meant the crack was on the window, not near it. So
>> probably just an isolated incident, but either way the American authorities are not happy.
Window cracks are not unknown on other types but the catalogue of recent problems doesn't look good for what's still a small fleet.
|
|
Maybe some of the things the composite airframe allowed were not well thought out. I'm thinking the larger windows here. Aluminium bodied planes have smallish windows for a reason. Maybe they should have put in smaller windows on the Dreamliner too.
|
|
I flew to Istanbul on a Turkish Airlines plane which was delayed for an hour because of "a technical problem". On arrival it taxied for what seemed like miles to the Turkish Airlines maintenance hanger and we were bussed to the terminal. I have often wondered what was wrong with that plane, not that they would tell the punters. Our next jaunt involves four legs by 777 and also a seaplane (DH Otter) air taxi.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 11 Jan 13 at 13:49
|
>> Maybe some of the things the composite airframe allowed were not well thought out. I'm
>> thinking the larger windows here. Aluminium bodied planes have smallish windows for a reason. Maybe
>> they should have put in smaller windows on the Dreamliner too.
Cracked windows on any plane is quite common. I know of one where the pilots window flew out and the plane landed while the co-pilot had one hand on the pilot and one hand on the stick,
|
|
Seems a bit inappropriate for the co-pilot to have been molesting the pilot while he was trying to cope with a situation like that to me.
|
>> Seems a bit inappropriate for the co-pilot to have been molesting the pilot while he
>> was trying to cope with a situation like that to me.
He was holding onto the pilots legs to prevent loosing him overbpard.
|
Impressive !
That would concentrate anyone's mind wouldn't it?
|
In 1999 two airline mechanics were trying to smuggle narcotics in the coffee maker in the plane. Unfortunately, the crew and passengers drank coffee during the flight and ended up completely comatose. The plane started to dive out of control. It was pure luck that a couple of guys from first class had declined coffee and had vodka and orange instead. They'd never had any pilot training, apparently they were in a band or something and they managed to get the plane under control and land the damned thing. Amazing. FBI met them on the tarmac and arrested the two mechanics.
I've seen that documentary dozens of times.
|
>>I've seen that documentary dozens of times.
That the one with Leslie Neilsen in it?
:-)
|
>> >>I've seen that documentary dozens of times.
>>
>> That the one with Leslie Neilsen in it?
>>
>> :-)
Dave never gets past this bit.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4Ox4cyOxWA
|
"Dave never gets past this bit."
Shame I've never done the Mile High. Although I've done the Two Metre Below countless times on the Piccadilly Line.
But this is the documentary to which I was referring. Is that you and the missus boarding at 0.38 seconds?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQ_3sBZEm0
|
>> But this is the documentary to which I was referring. Is that you and the
>> missus boarding at 0.38 seconds?
>>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQ_3sBZEm0
nah, my missus is so hot you would have PE.
|
>> I know of one where the pilots window flew out and the plane landed while the co-pilot had one hand on the pilot and one hand on the stick,
BA, BAC111, something to do with the wrong size rivets used when replacing the window IIRC?
I remember boarding a Dan Air BAC111 and noticing the pilots window had a milky appearance like an early, old Moggie Minor windscreen that had started to de-laminate.
|
>> Cracked windows on any plane is quite common. I know of one where the pilots
>> window flew out and the plane landed while the co-pilot had one hand on the
>> pilot and one hand on the stick,
BAc 1-11 G BJRT over Didcot.
It wasn't a crack, the engineer had used undersized bolts.
www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/1-1992%20G-BJRT[2].pdf
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 11 Jan 13 at 14:09
|
>> It wasn't a crack,
Did you see the window when they recovered it? It looked pretty cracked to me.
|
This could potentialy be a disaster for the world wide ecomeny, if the 787's are grounded for a while the UK would loose out too, BA has a big order, Rolls Rolls make a lot of the engines etc.
Either way I bet Boeings financial backers are a bit worried at the moment. I think it is just a lot of isolated problems and they probably rushed to get into production because of all the delays.
|
>> This could potentialy be a disaster for the world wide ecomeny, if the 787's are
>> grounded for a while the UK would loose out too, BA has a big order,
>> Rolls Rolls make a lot of the engines etc.
>>
>> Either way I bet Boeings financial backers are a bit worried at the moment. I
>> think it is just a lot of isolated problems and they probably rushed to get
>> into production because of all the delays.
>>
>>
Rushed......it was 2 years late entering service
Impact to Rolls wont be to bad - its just one aircraft out of the many they supply. They had been struggling to keep up with demand on some programmes
|
>>This could potentialy be a disaster for the world wide ecomeny,
For the whole wide world? Oh dear. How on earth did we survive before the 787. It is as dangerous for the world economy as you driving with a mirror missing. Local chaos only.
> I bet Boeings financial backers are a bit worried at the moment
I bet they're not, even if it did work that way.
Calamities are usually fairly simple, if not easy, to deal with. Its insidious deterioration which gets them in the end.
|
>>Calamities are usually fairly simple, if not easy, to deal with. Its insidious deterioration which gets them in the end.
Had to read that twice. Thought we were back on catamites again.
I don't think it will hurt them unduly though no doubt their PRs are spinning madly. The bugs will be fixed, and the economics of the thing will determine its eventual success.
|
>>and the economics of the thing will determine its eventual success.
The world has a shockingly short memory.
I always wonder how much Manchester United supporters remember of the first year in Ferguson's reign within their current success driven loyalty.
And that, my friends, is how you do thread drift.
|
>> I know of one where the pilots window flew out and the plane landed while the co-pilot had one hand on the pilot and one hand on the stick,
Was that the one that diverted into Southampton? Because I was on the M27 as it flew over.
|
>> Was that the one that diverted into Southampton? Because I was on the M27 as
>> it flew over.
>
Yes, landed single pilot @ SOU with a cabin crew member holding on to Captain's legs.
Incredibly, Capt survived with hypothermia/frostbite and broken arm/hand.
|
|
Did the bloke hanging out the window wave to you?
|
>>Did the bloke hanging out the window wave to you?
I distinctly heard him call to me as he passed overhead. Although he had my name wrong.
|
|
Actually, I think he was right.
|
nooo,not what I had in mind.
|
>>nooo,not what I had in mind<<
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!!
|
|
There's an upcoming or very recent movie called Flight. It's sort of schlock but I thought very good in most ways, and unusual. A combination of excitement/suspense, a broad but humane take on addictions and a rather moral, er, moral. Terrific in fact, although perhaps not everyone's cup of tea.
|
Was that the incident that prompted the Sun headline 'Pilot sucked through cockpit window'? I remember Alan Coren quoting that with fruity relish on The News Quiz.
As for Aluminium bodied planes have smallish windows for a reason
yes, but that reason is to minimize fatigue caused by multiple cycles of pressurization, depressurization, thermal expansion and contraction. A composite body is much less prone to this, which is why the 787 can support a higher, more comfortable cabin pressure (and, with less corrosion to worry about, higher humidity too.) Larger windows should not be a problem - just ad they're not on turboprop planes that don't fly so high.
|
Even the BBC, who know a good bandwagon when they see one, have only managed to scrape up 7 impacted flights.
So, if 7 out of n flights were impacted over the last 2 years, that would give us a percentage.
How does that percentage compare with the 747 in its first year? Or the A320 which I seem to remember had a difficult first quarter?
A lot of media waffle about not much, I suspect.
As was said earlier, I don't care what plane I'm on, I just want to know who is operating it. And that an intelligent, risk-aware pilot who wants to live as much as I do is flying it.
|
Press Release – FAA Will Review Boeing 787 Design and Production
WASHINGTON – In light of a series of recent events, the FAA will conduct a comprehensive review of the Boeing 787 critical systems, including the design, manufacture and assembly. The purpose of the review is to validate the work conducted during the certification process and further ensure that the aircraft meets the FAA’s high level of safety.
“The safety of the traveling public is our top priority,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “This review will help us look at the root causes and do everything we can to safeguard against similar events in the future.”
A team of FAA and Boeing engineers and inspectors will conduct this joint review, with an emphasis on the aircraft’s electrical power and distribution system. The review will also examine how the electrical and mechanical systems interact with each other.
“We are confident that the aircraft is safe. But we need to have a complete understanding of what is happening," said FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta. "We are conducting the review to further ensure that the aircraft meets our high safety standards.”
The review will be structured to provide a broader view of design, manufacturing and assembly and will not focus exclusively on individual events. The review is expected to begin in Seattle, but may expand to other locations over the course of several months.
FAA technical experts logged 200,000 hours of work during the 787 type certification and flew on numerous test flights. The FAA reviews 787 in-service events as part of our continued operational safety process.
United Airlines is currently the only U.S. airline operating the 787, with six airplanes in service. The worldwide in-service fleet includes 50 aircraft.
Chew the bits out of that PR release.
|
Spot on. Loads of issues every day, and to be fair, some of the 787 issues reported not "majors"
When the A380 entered service there were a few incidents, but it wasn't until the engine issue that it gained much coverage
I imagine that the FAA's public statement was more based around pressure to be seen to be doing something rather than major concerns. If the were really concerned they could ground the fleet
|
|
Everyone has been looking at the Dreamliner through a large magnifying glass because of the problems Boeing had in design and construction. The smoke was visible then, and everyone is now looking for the fire.
|
... an intelligent, risk-aware pilot who wants to live as much as I do...
Two pilots on my plane, please. But I'll take that as a specification.
|
>> Two pilots on my plane, please. But I'll take that as a specification.
>>
And an alcoholic ex Vietnam helicopter pilot on the passenger list who can take over the controls and heroically land the thing should both pilots succumb to food poisoning during the flight.
|
|
You would like the movie Flight RR. Has some of those elements in it.
|
>> You would like the movie Flight RR. Has some of those elements in it.
>>
Every airplane movie I've ever seen has those elements in it, plus the obligatory nun and the little boy on his way to have a heart transplant.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21038128
Oh dear - what a nightmare !
Japan grounds all of theirs...
|
Now it's starting to look like more of a problem for Boeing. There are multiple problems, many of them electrical... they need to come up with a fix quick. All planes could be grounded which might not be a bad thing for Boeing.
The delays to the planes going into production was all electrical (wiring?)... I wonder if this has any connection to the problems?
|
It seems the modern safety systems have worked though. 20 years ago that 787 that made the emergency landing yesterday may well have crashed because what ever was causing the heat source may have started a fire and consumed vital parts of the engine. It was only because of all the modern sensors and smoke detectors that the pilot new there was an issue.
The BBC have compared it with the A380 teething problems, but as far as I remember apart from the Rolls Royce engine issue there was never any major issues causing an entire fleet to be grounded.
|
All 787s have not been grounded - just two Japanese airlines. Although might follow suit. The A380's were all grounded for those using the Rolls Royce engines at one point.
I doubt this would have resulted in a fire on the 787s that spread to the engines along the wings. Wasn't the fire/smoke in the hold?
|
>> It was well known that the Russian tradition of drinking a large
>> shot of neat vodka before embarking upon a long journey was adhered to by most
>> pilots just before a take-off. Nobody thought it dangerous - quite the opposite. It was
>> thought to bring good luck for the journey.
>>
I recall seeing a documentary on Aeroflot and how it was running in the post-Soviet era. The film crew went with a pilot to his house and they all got thoroughly blotto over dinner.
The following morning at the airport, with the crew nursing fierce hangovers, the same pilot shows up to fly their plane. He offered round a hip flask, which they all decline, before taking a belt himself.
"Are you really OK to take a drink before flying?"
"Of course", indicating the antiquated Ilyushin aircraft outside, "there's no way I'd get into one of those things without having a stiff drink first.".
|
>> For me the ideal would be a Russian Pilot, in a BA jet. Its said
>> that every russian pilot has seen, been involved in, and survived more severe aircraft defects
>> than any commercial pilot anywhere.
>>
That's because the kit they use is carp, as is the maintenance of it. Also this is precisely why you don't want a Russian pilot. They're brought up not to trust the automated systems and most of the important safety stuff these days is automated.
This resulted in a very high profile mid-air collision over CH not so long ago. Russian pilot ignored TCAS instructions......
|
>> This resulted in a very high profile mid-air collision over CH not so long ago.
>> Russian pilot ignored TCAS instructions......
>>
2002.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_%C3%9Cberlingen_Mid-Air_Collision
ATC told the a/c to descend. TCAS said climb. Pilot obeyed ATC. The TU154 passenger jet hit a 757 cargo whose pilot had followed his TCAS instruction.
TCAS should take precedence you would imagine - in controlled airspace a TCAS advisory logically means an ATC failure, or it wouldn't occur in the first place.
Resident pilot may clarify.
|
The 787 is of a largely carbon composite construction.
As we all know, incorrect curing of large scale carbon composite assemblies can easily lead to weakness. See the Philips' "wave piercing" yacht and a recent Airbus A340 composite tail failure for graphic examples.
I'll be waiting until either these things have been flying a while or they've had their series of crashes and Boeing have had the fact that this is one production process that cannot be sweated for time/cost beaten into them with the clue stick by the NTSB.
|
|
USA FAA grounds all 787s due to the battery risks.... progress.
|
I have not studied enough about the engineering to fully understand it but as I understand it the batteries are lithium and the FSA have been worried about heat issues even during the design process.
What it be a major major engineering exercise to use a different type of battery at this stage?
What is the battery for? The APU?
|
>> What it be a major major engineering exercise to use a different type of battery at this stage?
It will be a weight, size and packaging issue to change the type of battery. Lithium ion or lithium polymer (or whichever type the 787 uses) will not be easy to replace. To have enough power an alternative battery technology just might not fit in the space.
But they're going to have to do something.
|
The A380 uses Li-ion batteries, but they only power the emergency lighting.
I'm not clear what the batteries are used for on the 787, but I am aware that they support far more than the emergency lighting.
I think part of the issue is that they are in a state of charge / discharge during flight
|
There were some vicious comments by many Americans directed at Airbus on various internet forums when the A380 was having issues.
The childish part of me can't get the word "karma" out of my head.....
|
about 50 in service, more or less 3 departures a day, so 4500 flights in the last month.
3 minor issues.
I can understand the caution, but lets not have everybody climbing out of their prams.
|
Rather embarrassingly I had forgotten that the 787 had a lot of new systems powered by electricity rather than bleed air.
Hydraulic Presurisation
Anti Ice
Air Con / Cabinn Presurisation
Hydraulic Pumps
(taken from Boeing's site)
IIRC the brakes are also electrically actuated
|
>>USA FAA grounds all 787s due to the battery risks.... progress.
As an aside, they can only ground those operated by US Carriers (and perhaps those flying into the US), although obviously the other carriers / authorities would take note due to legal responsibility issues.
|
|
I may be mistaken but I believe the Indians have grounded theirs....and the Japanese of course.
|
|
All have been grounded, National Air Safety boards will take/follow the advice of the FAA, because its an American certified aircraft.
|
Not particularly relevant to this discussion, but if you don't read this, then have a look. Always an interesting perspective...
www.businessinsider.com/
|
>> >>USA FAA grounds all 787s due to the battery risks.... progress.
>>
>> As an aside, they can only ground those operated by US Carriers (and perhaps those
>> flying into the US), although obviously the other carriers / authorities would take note due
>> to legal responsibility issues.
>>
For the FAA to do that to a US manufacturer is a big (and last) step. EASA etc will all have followed suit with no challenge
|
>>For the FAA to do that to a US manufacturer is a big (and last) step
Not so much.
If they did not ground it, and then sometime down the line it turned out that it was a HUGE problem and started killing people, then the FAA could be sued for not shutting it down earlier.
So, when the FAA ground something it means that they think that there *might* be a problem, but not necessarily that there is, and its more of an early step than a last because as soon as it appears that there *might* be a problem then they run legal liability risks if they don't do so.
Of course, they face a liability from Boeing if they shut it down wrongly, but those are a) lower and b) 20 year down the line.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 17 Jan 13 at 19:09
|
>> >>For the FAA to do that to a US manufacturer is a big (and last)
>> step
>>
>> Not so much.
>>
>> If they did not ground it, and then sometime down the line it turned out
>> that it was a HUGE problem and started killing people, then the FAA could be
>> sued for not shutting it down earlier.
Even so, its the first time they have taken this step since 1979, with the DC10. Its the fire risk that has them squeaky bum, specially as they had expressed the same fears with the batteries pre certification, that could leave them well open to recriminations.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 17 Jan 13 at 19:36
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjAtBiTSsKY
Then see
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS6KA_Si-m8
Have a nice flight!!! ( from the USA FAA )
I amazed this FAA item has not be aired on a news channel.
Perhaps it might frighten a few folks of flying anywhere.
|
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjAtBiTSsKY
>>
>> Then see
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS6KA_Si-m8
They want to use these to power electric cars....
|
>> So, when the FAA ground something it means that they think that there *might* be
>> a problem, but not necessarily that there is, and its more of an early step
>> than a last because as soon as it appears that there *might* be a problem
>> then they run legal liability risks if they don't do so.
>>
>> Of course, they face a liability from Boeing if they shut it down wrongly, but
>> those are a) lower and b) 20 year down the line.
>>
In my dealings with certification authorities I can tell you that the air framer treats them like god. They are to be obeyed and appeased at every opportunity because without their support you have no business.
Its not for the FAA to be sure the aircraft is unsafe before they make a call, its for the air framer to demonstrate to the authorities that it is safe
|
I remember actually replying to one of those aviation forums a couple of years back when the A380 had that engine fire. They were all going on about scarebus and saying how crap they are. I think my reply was something like "just wait till the 787s are in service".
|
|
I see that Thompson are introducing them on some routes and plan to impose a surcharge for flying in one. My immediate thought was if I am going from from A to B in a metal/plastic structure with the same seat pitch I certainly wouldn't pay extra for a 787. At the present rate they won't be using them at all or they may have to offer a discount!
|
Exactly, Melders: whatever the cabin ambiance, pressure or humidity, the experience will be made or - more likely - broken by the operators and how tightly they decide to pack people in. Boeing designed the 787 to offer more width in an eight-abreast layout than the A330, which barrel-scrapers like Thomson have taken as their cue to cram in nine abreast. So you'll not only have the seat in front reclined into your knees, but you'll have to negotiate with your neighbour over who gets the armrest and the shoulder room.
On the other hand, I'm sure ANA Business Class is delightful.
|
Its ok, I hear Thompson are planning on replacing the 787s with Comet MK1s as they are safer :).
|
|
Indeed WDB, I hadn't even considered that the pleb haulers would pack in an extra seat per row! A friend of my was caught in the New York storm a few weeks ago and his revised return to UK involved flying in row 46 of economy of an A380. Not a pleasant experience he reported. An A380 has 100+ catering trolleys per flight according to a documentary I watched!
|
Stuck in Munich. Snow unbelievable here and they couldn't keep up. Literally digging aeroplanes out...
2000 or more people stranded here overnight, chaos predicted at Heathrow.
Unbelievably the only plane that left was an Aeroflot, who called up and said he didn't need deicing to the general disbelief of everyone else. Criminal negligence IMHO.
|
>>Criminal negligence IMHO.
Or somebody who is used to flying under much worse conditions and understands how his machine behaves in a mild German winter?
I flew Aeroflot in 2011 and was very impressed by their brand-new craft.
|
|
I wouldn't say that, pretty dodgy not deicing the wings. Not something you would want to take a chance on.
|
|
Especially from Munich airport given the disaster that befell that 50s flight
|
>> Especially from Munich airport given the disaster that befell that 50s flight
Is the official German verdict on that one still icing?. UK has long decided the real cause was slush ahead of the mainwheels preventing acceleration.
Different airport as well. FF is likely to be at the new Franz Josef Strauss airport. The MUFC disaster was at the Munich Riem.
|
>> >>Criminal negligence IMHO.
>>
>> Or somebody who is used to flying under much worse conditions and understands how his
>> machine behaves in a mild German winter?
>>
>> I flew Aeroflot in 2011 and was very impressed by their brand-new craft.
>>
I don't think so. This was heavy snow which froze to cold-soaked wings in temperatures below -5. No other aircraft went, and it's not a case of "understanding how his machine behaves", it's negligent.
No other aircraft left that night without deicing. Even a thin layer of frost on the upper surface of the wing increases the stall speed by as much as 20%.
Regardless of the above, it was an A320 and Airbus prohibit take off with any contamination on the wing whatsoever. We've tried for years to get them to allow us to fly with a tiny patch of frost over the landing gear and they refuse, so a wing covered in snow has no chance.
|
>> Indeed WDB, I hadn't even considered that the pleb haulers would pack in an extra
>> seat per row! A friend of my was caught in the New York storm a
>> few weeks ago and his revised return to UK involved flying in row 46 of
>> economy of an A380. Not a pleasant experience he reported. An A380 has 100+ catering
>> trolleys per flight according to a documentary I watched!
>>
A380 is certified for 853 pax. As far as I am aware only one operator is considering this, and the ones in service are between around 450 and 560 depending on the operator and their chosen layout / split between cabins
|
A380
Aussie roll and take off at night. Looks good a full screen
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJylJWwe1h0
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21115383
The battery in question made by a Japanese company - particularly well known to motorcyclists. At least it's not a British designed component.
|
No but it seems the generator which is also being investigated was manufactured in the USA by a British owned firm.
I have bought a few of their batteries for alarm panels etc. Ours lasted from 1991 to 2012 when I wired the complete alarm system. I replaced it with another Yussa one! Not really the same is it though, a £10 alarm battery to a god knows how much plane battery. The battery probably costs as much as a house in Chelsea.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Mon 21 Jan 13 at 22:19
|
|
Batteries made by this company are considered to be the best in the business at one time in motorcycling circles.
|
Looks like only the brave will be flying in it for the next few months.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21571545
.....getting approval for the redesigned batteries could take several months.
...Given what most know about aircraft certification processes, six months would be sort of quick
Japan's All Nippon Airways (ANA) has said it will cancel all Boeing 787 flights until at least the end of May,
|
An interesting summary by
Martin Aubury is a retired aeronautical engineer whose career in aircraft design and airworthiness spanned 50 years.
www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/dreamliners-nightmare-run-20130509-2jb30.html
|
|
Another old lesson not learnt. Or being re-learnt as well.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 14 May 13 at 11:03
|
Essentially they don't know the root cause, so don't know how to fix it and have put the batteries it in a sealed tin box on the assumption they are going to catch fire again.
Now, on that basis, how happy are you to fly on one?
|
|
The real issue is how they got this far. Too much self regulation is at the root of it.
|
|
If NiCd batteries are safer than Li-ion ones, why Boeing is not switching over to NiCd??
|
It is efficiency and life factors which are more compelling, perhaps?
www.diffen.com/difference/Li-ion_vs_NiCad
|
>> If NiCd batteries are safer than Li-ion ones, why Boeing is not switching over to
>> NiCd??
>>
I don't think they have the space envelope available.
|
Memory effect may be a consideration too. The lithium ion cell does not suffer from this so are idea for applications where one wants the full capacity and to get it, keep the battery on charge.
NiCads want to be charged, drained to nearly flat and re-charged.
|
>> Memory effect may be a consideration too.
Not really, a maintenance regime fixes that, loads of aircraft parts are swopped and reworked after x amount of flight cycles. The problem Boing have is that large chunks of the plane are now electrically controlled, so they need maximum amps for minimum weight and space. Nicads just don't cut it in that respect.
|
|
I don't think anyone has mentioned Ni-MH batteries. Why are they unsuitable?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 15 May 13 at 20:55
|
Weight per kWh stored. About 50% better for Li-ion compared to Ni-MH.
|
|
Sounds reasonable, thanks doc.
|
|
I presume Boeing have been installing even better (and more expensive) Li-ion tech in their military hardware for some time and felt confident to fit the safer, less energy-dense versions in the 787.
|
If it is a Dreamliner that's shutdown Heathrow - oh dear. Hot temperatures can't have helped but the plane obviously has serious design issues.
EDIT: I see it is a Dreamliner now. Ground them again then?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 17:35
|
|
That is a very serious set-back to the whole project IF the fire is anything to do with the batteries, again
|
|
Yes it could just be someone has burned the Filet Mignon in First class, but if its a battery, this is very very serious damage to Boeing.
|
|
I don't think you can tell from the pics online, but they have soaked the back end. And the battery is in the back end, I think it's next to the APU bay.
|
One line of enquiry apparently being followed to establish whether a passenger's shoes self combusted after they were mistakenly left there following a transatlantic flight having been removed for the first time after being exposed to desert heat for a fortnight. Little is known of the passenger but it is thought he subsequently caught a connecting flight to Glasgow.
Passengers on the London to Glasgow flight reported a distinct aroma redolent of rotting fish circulating in the cabin.
Enquiries continue.
:-)
|
>> Appears that the batteries are not in the area of the fire.
>> The crew rest area just under the top skin is exactly where the fire was
>>
Oh no its NOT !!
Latest info says that the crew rest area option was not fitted on this aircraft.
It might be a galley fault that started the problem ?
It was noisy last night with all the late late departures in my area.
flights still struggling out after 0100 hours
|
>> Appears that the batteries are not in the area of the fire.
>> The crew rest area just under the top skin is exactly where the fire was
AAIB special report published today. Source of damage appears to be the aircraft's Emergency Locator Transmitter.
www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s5_2013___boeing_787__et_aop.cfm
Work continues to determine precise cause.
|
|
Looks like batteries are involved though, albeit different ones - "disruption to battery cells" in the ELT. Lithium manganese dixoideones. Maybe that shouldn't be surprising.
|
See I was right when I said batteries earlier - just different ones.
This incident could have happened in the air presumably.... and no fire detection equipment near the problem ELT unit... and the fire burned a hole in the tail section.... Hmmm. No I don't think I'd like to fly on one yet.
Presumably the same unit is found on other aircraft though?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 18 Jul 13 at 17:27
|
|
I think I saw a report that said it had been in use for 11 years.
|
We'll probably find that the location in the 787 is part of the issue.... parked on a hot day at Heathrow etc. But they are either unlucky (but it's happened in a 787 now) or there is something that needs to change.
You'd have thought the ELT unit would be off when on the ground and the plane is to all intents and purposes off.
|
|
whats more worrying is the way the hull burned through, there is talk that the entire airframe might be written off.
|
>> whats more worrying is the way the hull burned through, there is talk that the
>> entire airframe might be written off.
>>
Yep. I don't know enough about composite airframes to know how you fix damage like that. Pretty sure that Boeing will repair it whatever the cost though. To have a hull loss on a model so young wouldn't look good.
Did anyone anyone find out why the Thompson flight turned back? Appeared to be well into its flight before the decision was made
|
I understood the ELT was off but as above "disruption to battery cell".
Similar description would fit the bloated battery I recently swapped out from my work Blackberry... that was, I suspect, at risk of bursting before too long.
|
>> You'd have thought the ELT unit would be off when on the ground and the
>> plane is to all intents and purposes off.
>>
One of it's requirements would be a permant power supply, too many scenerios where relying on a wow switch might mean it's doesn't forfill it's purpose.
|
>> One line of enquiry apparently being followed to establish whether a passenger's shoes self combusted
>> after they were mistakenly left there following a transatlantic flight having been removed for the
>> first time after being exposed to desert heat for a fortnight. Little is known of
>> the passenger but it is thought he subsequently caught a connecting flight to Glasgow.
Could have been a Scotsman making chips after being deprived of proper scran for a fortnight.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 18:52
|
>> >> One line of enquiry apparently being followed to establish whether a passenger's shoes self
>> combusted
>> >> after they were mistakenly left there following a transatlantic flight having been removed for
>> the
>> >> first time after being exposed to desert heat for a fortnight. Little is known
>> of
>> >> the passenger but it is thought he subsequently caught a connecting flight to Glasgow.
>>
>>
>> Could have been a Scotsman making chips after being deprived of proper scran for a
>> fortnight.
>>
Great, now I'll get my shoes confiscated at security along with my yoghurt.
|
About this time last year, I'd been working at a trade show in Berlin. It was held on the now disused apron of the old Templehof Airport and was to all intents and purpose outside. I was there for 3 days and somehow I'd managed to forget to pack any spare shoes and so spent the whole period in 30 odd degress of heat on my feet all day everyday from morning till night in the same pair of heavy-ish leather boots.
On the last day, we packed up our trade stand in the still searing heat and made our way to the airport to catch a flight back to the UK. By this time my feet were, well, more or less a biohazard.
At airport security, the guy asked me to remove my boots. I said I would comply with pleasure but it was his call...
|
It gets quite a bit worse than that, I had no idea about the Heathrow issue as I was too busy following this.
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/florida-bound-thomson-boeing-787-dreamliner-5076706
Really is about time they just banned the 787s until they know what is causing these issues, now the Manchester one doesn't sound like it is a battery issue, and we don't know what caused the Heathrow fire but it does not look good.
|
I always thought the batteries were a stupid idea, better orf with proper engines if you ask me.
Unless they are Prat and Whitney of course.
|
>> I always thought the batteries were a stupid idea, better orf with proper engines if
>> you ask me.
>>
>> Unless they are Prat and Whitney of course.
>>
There is a proper engine in the tail. But it needs batteries to start it (current draw is in the region of 700A at 28V even on the dinky A320), so the 787 with its bigger APU needs chunky batteries.
The same batteries also need to provide sufficient power to keep critical computers and control services active in the event of a double (technically quadruple) generator failure until the power conduits can be rerouted.
|
>> There is a proper engine in the tail. But it needs batteries to start it
>> (current draw is in the region of 700A at 28V even on the dinky A320),
>> so the 787 with its bigger APU needs chunky batteries.
>>
Don't you use a GPU?
|
>> Don't you use a GPU?
The last time I saw a GPU in routine civil use was in the era of the Viscount/F27/Avro 748.
Jets, from the 1-11 or 737 onwards had auxiliary power units and were self sufficient on the ground. IIRC BEA Scottish Division Viscounts had heavy duty batteries so as o avoid need for ground support at remote destinations, in particular Campbeltown.
|
|
We must be overly safe then. Every a/c I can think of has had a GPU for the see off. Although we could use the ground battery for starting the APU, no-one did unless it was a land away. GPU were/are normal for ECU start.
|
|
We do, 90% of the time. But for engine start the aircraft is disconnected from ground services. Or the plug has fallen out. Or never plugged in in the first place. Or someone forgot to put the 50p in the meter. Or the aeroplane has been parked at a remote stand overnight with no fixed ground power or GPU.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Fri 12 Jul 13 at 21:39
|
>>There is a proper engine in the tail. But it needs batteries to start it
Thanks for that explanation FF, I was (trying) to be funny of course about the batteries but, it's interesting to now know exactly what their function is.
|
I was there for 3 days and somehow I'd managed
>> to forget to pack any spare shoes and so spent the whole period in 30
>> odd degress of heat on my feet all day everyday from morning till night in
>> the same pair of heavy-ish leather boots.
The horror eh? ;-)
OT how was LV earlier on this year, hope you enjoyed it.
|
|
LV still to come next month.
|
>> LV still to come next month.
>>
Ah right keep us in the loop when you do go :-)
|
|
Humph, I bought new shoes when I was in USA!!!
|
|
Did the shop offer to dispose of the old pair for you, Bobby? Or did they not have a hole deep enough - even one of those in the Rockies they use for the nukilar stuff?
|
AAIB have come up with a cause, so it seems. Another dodgy bit of tech.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23364389
|
|
In particular another battery/electrical problem. Quick fix, de-activate the emergency locator transmitter that helps locate the aircraft in an emergency situation. Great thinking there!
|
Tech maybe, but I believe that part is in use in other aircraft and has never had any issues at all. It is made by Honeywell and is used in 777s from memory.
www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/18/us-boeing-dreamliner-honeywell-idUSBRE96H12B20130718
Not quite sure if Boeing are to blame for this one, although it won't do the reputation of the 787 any good.
|
|
Its not new tech, its well proven for year, its reliable and its in use in nearly every plane around.
|
>Its not new tech, its well proven for year, its reliable and its in use in nearly every plane around.
Bolted to an aluminium airframe, not composite.
I wonder if the 787 has a problem with return current paths?
|
|
Another JAL 787 has made an unusual turn-around in Canadian air-space today. Flight Radar mention it.
|
Landed safely now, apparently a maintenance message appeared on the cockpit.
Not sure if it is anything newsworthy other than the fact it was 787. If that was an A330 or 777 I doubt anybody would have even mentioned it, I would imagine fly backs are quite routine.
|
|
According to a statement by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration quoted by local Boston station WCVB, the plane had a fuel pump problem. The crew decided to return to Boston after an indicator light came on signaling that there may be an issue.
|
|
It's becoming the "give a dog a bad name" syndrom now - echos of the Comet ?
|
>> It's becoming the "give a dog a bad name" syndrom now - echos of the
>> Comet ?
Or, more recently, the DC10.
|
|
I remember the Private Eye cartoon on the DC10 - This is your Chaplin speaking"
|
>> I remember the Private Eye cartoon on the DC10 - This is your Chaplin speaking"
I thought that must be too subtle for me - PE often is - then I realised you meant chaplain. Or did you? I feel a bit of a Charlie.
|
And yet Airlines are keen to put them back in the sky, keen to buy more, the FAA are prepared to allow almost any defect, any bodge, turn every blind eye, rewrite the rule book, threaten and lobby every other aviation body like mad to keep them 'airworthy"
Why so you may ask?
1/ Its American
2/ Its very fuel efficient and cuts the cost per pax a lot.
3/ Its American and its a Boeing.
This will be the case even if they lose a hull and all souls. It will get trickier if they lose a second one.
Here is a forecast, in writing for the future. The Ethiopian Airlines plane involved in this will, at some time in the future, 100% guaranteed, fall from the sky messily due to structural failure around the tail.
|
>> Here is a forecast, in writing for the future. The Ethiopian Airlines plane involved in
>> this will, at some time in the future, 100% guaranteed, fall from the sky messily
>> due to structural failure around the tail.
>>
>>
That may be a bit rash Z. Boeing will see this one right even if it means a complete replacement of large chunks of the fuse. Whether, as with Comet, carbon will bite later is another question.
Your right though that the incident has revealed a vulnerability for carbon fibre. How many other concealed potential hotspots are there in a 787?
Would also be interesting to learn (and I suspect full AAIB report will cover this) of any other failures of similar Li powered ELTs and how a conventional aluminium fuse would cope with localised heating to degree suffered by ET AOP.
BTW, are you aware of any report yet on the Blue Islands ATR incident you witnessed last year?
|
Of course the DC10 went on to be a perfectly safe plane as did the Comet 4 for the generation.
|
>> Of course the DC10 went on to be a perfectly safe plane as did the
>> Comet 4 for the generation.
As long as you didn't fly on comet 1, 2, or 3.
I loved the comet 4b tho, those silver and red Dan Dair ones were stunning, did a few thousand miles inside one of them!
My all time fav? The Viscount. HUGE windows, loads of leg room, really smooth.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 19 Jul 13 at 10:17
|
While browsing around for info on repairing Carbon fibre composite materials I came across this, which I didn't find even slightly reassuring!
"Despite its high initial strength-to-weight ratio, one structural limitation of CFRP is its lack of a fatigue endurance limit. As such, failure cannot be theoretically ruled out from a high enough number of stress cycles. By contrast, steel and certain other structural metals and alloys do have an estimable fatigue endurance limit. Because of the complex failure modes of such composites, the fatigue failure properties of CFRP are difficult to predict. As a result, when utilizing CFRP for critical cyclic-loading applications, engineers may need to employ considerable strength safety margins to provide suitable component reliability over a sufficiently long service life."
|
>> While browsing around for info on repairing Carbon fibre composite materials I came across this,
>> which I didn't find even slightly reassuring!
>>
>> "Despite its high initial strength-to-weight ratio, one structural limitation of CFRP is its lack of
>> a fatigue endurance limit. As such, failure cannot be theoretically ruled out from a high
>> enough number of stress cycles. By contrast, steel and certain other structural metals and alloys
>> do have an estimable fatigue endurance limit. Because of the complex failure modes of such
>> composites, the fatigue failure properties of CFRP are difficult to predict. As a result, when
>> utilizing CFRP for critical cyclic-loading applications, engineers may need to employ considerable strength safety margins
>> to provide suitable component reliability over a sufficiently long service life."
What "no fatigue limit" normally means is that there is no level of stress which, given enough cycles, would not cause failure - unlike steel for example for which, if stress is kept below the limit, can endure a theoretically unlimited number of cycles.
It's not unique. Aluminium has no fatigue limit.
That doesn't mean that the number of safe cycles can't be estimated or is not very high, even for high stresses. It's generally assumed that cycle frames made from carbon fibre will last longer than those made from aluminium.
It is a journey of discovery in aircraft though - and there might be some surprises. I'm not sure how easy it is to test either, cf. crack testing of metal components.
|
>> >> Here is a forecast, in writing for the future. The Ethiopian Airlines plane involved
>> in
>> >> this will, at some time in the future, 100% guaranteed, fall from the sky
>> messily
>> >> due to structural failure around the tail.
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> That may be a bit rash Z. Boeing will see this one right even if
>> it means a complete replacement of large chunks of the fuse.
They failed with rebuilding badly damaged aluminium hulls, two fell out of the sky at a later date with structural failure They have no idea of what heat does to composite hulls, they have no idea how far back to cut it and they have no idea how to repair what will be such a large area. They can't rebuild it in situ at LHR, the only option they have is to slap a giant ally patch on it and somehow fly it back to Seattle. They will do everything they can to prevent a hull loss, at whatever cost, this thing will be back in the air again and the fix is going to fail 5, 10, 15, 20 years down the line.
>> BTW, are you aware of any report yet on the Blue Islands ATR incident you
>> witnessed last year?
No, been checking the AAIB, no sign of a report or bulletin.
|
I get confused with a lot of the accidents so I can't remember any specific crash, but I know there have been many cases of repair planes dropping out of the sky. There was one I seem to remember where the rivets were not properly done causing them to stress and metal around them to crack.
I know it is also harder to spot cracks on composites as well but they do have the technology to do it, it just can't be done by the naked eye unless the crack is very bad.
How much does it actually cost to build a 787 from scratch? I know they cost many 100s of millions to buy, but I am guessing most of that goes towards R&D and profit rather than the actual cost of manufacturer.
|
To be fair one of the structural failures and consequent was crash was due to a poor repair. This re the JAL 747 in which over 500 people died. This is the one you are referring to Rattle
The aircraft was involved in a tailstrike incident at Osaka International Airport seven years earlier, which damaged the aircraft's rear pressure bulkhead.
The subsequent repair of the bulkhead did not conform to Boeing's approved repair methods. The Boeing technicians fixing the aircraft used two separate doubler plates, one with two rows of rivets and one with only one row when the procedure called for one continuous doubler plate with three rows of rivets to reinforce the damaged bulkhead.
However, with the current level of knowledge of the technique and effectiveness or repairs to composites I think we should all be very leery of flying a repaired 787!
Last edited by: Meldrew on Fri 19 Jul 13 at 10:28
|
Meldrew that is one :) Thanks.
Could the airline object to having the aircraft repaired? I assume it is under warranty so Boeing are responsible for the aircraft? (the 787 fire one).
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Fri 19 Jul 13 at 10:31
|
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32 says the repair to the Australian A380 cost $139m!
Goodness knows what this will cost!?
|
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32 says the repair to the Australian A380 cost $139m!
>>
>> Goodness knows what this will cost!?
>>
You should have seen the damage, though... wiring bundles thick as your arm sheared clean through.
Goes to show that the A380 is built like a tank, though.
|
I don't think aircraft come with a warranty, as such. They come with product support. at a price.
The price might be Nil, in some circumstances
|
|
or all rolled into a single buy and fly annual lease price (specially for carriers like Ethopian, they dont have the maint facilities). Either way you don't buy aircraft like that.
|
>> I don't think aircraft come with a warranty, as such. They come with product support.
>> at a price.
>> The price might be Nil, in some circumstances
>>
I thought that too, but I was on a brand new aeroplane yesterday which bore a sticker saying, "This aircraft is under warranty", so I guess I was wrong!
|
They come with a warranty. Normally two years against defective parts but might be more depending on the contract.
|
"They come with a warranty. Normally two years against defective parts"
I don't usually bother with the extended warranty...
|
100,000 miles is about 14 days for a dreamnightmareliner.
|
>> They failed with rebuilding badly damaged aluminium hulls, two fell out of the sky at a later date with structural failure They have no idea of what heat does to composite hulls, they have no idea how far back to cut it and they have no idea how to repair what will be such a large area. They can't rebuild it in situ at LHR, the only option they have is to slap a giant ally patch on it and somehow fly it back to Seattle. They will do everything they can to prevent a hull loss, at whatever cost, this thing will be back in the air again.
An unpressurised trip back to Seattle ?
Or will it be risked at cruise altitude ?
Maybe fly it out after dark?
|
If the pilots have their own oxygen supply from tanks couldn't they still fly at cruise attitude and not have the cabin pressurised?
|
>> If the pilots have their own oxygen supply from tanks couldn't they still fly at
>> cruise attitude and not have the cabin pressurised?
>>
>>
>>
Only if they wanted to freeze to death on the way over.
|
|
I didn't think of that :). Oh well the pilots can always go to Go Out Doors first and buy a fleece :D.
|
Above about 25000 ft one not only needs oxygen but it must be supplied under a positive pressure which requires a tightly fitted, leak free oxygen mask sealed to the face. When I flew Canberra PR9s above 45,000 feet I had to wear one of these. tinyurl.com/p5mm9fe
Not at all comfortable
Last edited by: Meldrew on Fri 19 Jul 13 at 14:25
|
>> Not at all comfortable
Fairly stylish as hats go though Meldrew. You have to suffer a bit to be beautiful, they say.
I didn't know you'd been a Canberra pilot... chapeau! Very handsome and wicked-looking aircraft, as it were big brother to a twin-engined stubby-winged strike fighter whose name escapes me for the moment.
Of course you must have been career RAF. Although I was relieved at the time, I have sometimes regretted not doing national service. People used to say it 'would have made a man of me'. Judging by the experience of two or three friends, it would more likely have made a seedy squaddie, matelot or erk out of me. Some of us are singularly lacking in initiative, 'character' and OLQs, not to mention fitness and keenness.
|
|
tinyurl.com/o4yodyd Used to get to over 60,000 ft in this, wearing all that kit, over places where they are still fighting 50 years later and with an older than me navigator who wasn't happy flying with a very sprog pilot and in an aircraft for which there was no 2 seat trainer!
Last edited by: R.P. on Fri 19 Jul 13 at 16:59
|
I hope your navigator was more effective than that link, Melders.
};---)
I've always liked the look of the Canberra too - something graceful and organic about it. (Is it the Starfighter you're thinking of, AC? Pointier and more Flash Gordon-looking but similarly svelte. Or the rounder, less stubby Meteor?) The Midlands Air Museum, near which I used to live, has a couple on display. They look remarkably insubstantial close-to, for something that flew so high and so far - and which, in some version, carried such a gruesome cargo.
|
Link just needs the final fullstop removed. But still can't see where the navigator was hiding.
Is he lying inside with a periscope?
|
The canberra looks positively cuddly and benign next the most vicious and evil looking large aircraft ever made - The Victor. It look like it will spear you death then bite your arm off.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Raf_victor_in_1961_arp.jpg
|
|
Shame they couldn't have kept one of those flying instead of that Vulcan thingy!
|
|
This a small piccy but the link works tinyurl.com/msk8rrc
|
|
Fixed the original link now - be locking this one off shortly to start a fresh nightmare thread.
|
Meteor perhaps. Rounder wingtips than a Canberra, but quite short non-swept-back wings with an engine half way along each one... but the name is the problem, I'm really not sure after all this time.
Yes, that was it, I've Googled it. In production not long after the end of WW2, and I was taken to see them at Colerne aerodrome outside Bath at a young age. Jet planes were super-new at that time. I was appalled by the volume and type of noise they made just running up their engines at a standstill.
|
|
Flying death traps - huge attrition - badly designed cockpits - they wouldn't listen to the brave guys who had to fly them !
|
There were some grisly loss rates just after WW2. In 1946 the RAF lost almost 1000 aircraft (written off) and over 600 aircrew were killed. Another figure I have come across relates to all losses in one year but the likelihood is that most of them would have Meteors.
1953 was a bad year, 486 aircraft lost with 334 fatalities.
|
One assumes those loss rates didn't become public for many years.
These days the media (unless muzzled by D notices or threats of assassination) would be screaming the place down. But not then. It was a different concept of patriotism.
On the whole I prefer the modern one, although that old stuff has certain advantages.
|
>> There were some grisly loss rates just after WW2. In 1946 the RAF lost almost
>> 1000 aircraft (written off) and over 600 aircrew were killed. A
There was infamous night in the 50's, 1 RAF station lost 7 Hunters in one nights flying. The meteor was pretty bad for accidents, I think there a station scrap yard full of them at one point.
|
I was always a little disappointed I never got to work on 39 Sqn. Came close but never got there, always wished that I did. Good hanger bash for their disbandment. The last PR9 is at Marham with a fancy paint scheme.
I thought there were a couple of trainers Meldrew, the T4? Unless you meant there was no T9.
|
|
There was no T9, as you say. However, it was allegedly, only called a Canberra to get it into the defence budget. It was built by Shorts in Belfast, it had two Lightning engines without the reheat, full power controls with no manual reversion, autopilot and some other nice toys. One read the notes, did some tech lectures and then went and flew it. Great fun!
|
787 - Would you fly on one? - rtj70
