787 fire at Boston Logan

You are correct. Every jet has had some problem with the windshields, especially the curved. The 767 had problems, and I believe that the 777 had a minor problem. These items not only take the loads from simply flying at M.80+ but from temperature deltas and the torsion of the the cab structure. I don't recall any problems with the 707,727,and 737 but, then, they were flat and much easier to analyze. Thinking back to other programs, the KC-135 had a few teething problems, some rather bizarre, but the public was never informed. The 727 was relatively trouble free and I can't remember any really serious problems with the airplane but there were some with flight crews. The 747 had numerous glitches but they were neutralized in time. Any time that technology is pushed in an airplane you're going to get some problems. In my opinion the 787 has two challenges, advanced technology in materials and systems, and a poorly conceived and poorly executed business plan.

 

Another fuel leak on a JAL 787 this time in Japan.

 

Yes, the 47 had big problems, not the least of which was fan cases that went out of round and caused big performance losses, not a safety issue but a huge problem none the less..

The customers always want big inprovements in performance, but then they don't want any risk.... Something about egg in their beer and their money back kind of thing... Big gains in performance ALWAYS come with higher risks, it's part of the territory.

It's not that you won't have teething problems, any new aircraft (or car for that matter) absolutely will. What is more important is how quickly and completely you address the problems, that will determine the fate of the product.

 

Flew on a 787 for for the first time today - UAL. I liked the airy interior, photochromatic windows, etc. I didnt like the seats though in Economy plus - my back started aching after 1 hour. Hopefully it was a one off experience though. Another negative is that the aisles are kinda narrow, I kept getting bumped by people walking across the aisles. For reference, it was 3-3-3 config in my area.

 

You dont think everytime that aircraft goes in for service mechanics arent losening and tightening fuel and hydrolic lines if only to get to other components or to do an inspection. More than once ive seen incompetent mechanics screw things up and blame it on bad engineering or falty components. Sometimes costing big dollars to reengineer things when the only thing done wrong was the installation.

Windshields are a tricky installation. Over torque a fastener and i could see it cracking real easy.

 

How many times do you think that airplane as been 'in for service'? The first ANA plane was delivered in Sept 2011. The first JAL plane was delivered in Mar 2012. At two flights a day the fleet leader hasn't even reached 1000 cycles.

 

That would be United's doing - the seats are customer supplied, and seating configuration is based on airline requirements.

 

It may not have been in for a D check but i would think its been in and out the shop multiple times for one thing or another. Thats a complicated piece of machinery. Even with an aircraft fresh out of the factory theres going to be squawks, much less one that has been in service for a year.

Plus who knows what was done to prepare the aircraft for delivery. Where aux tanks installed for the jump over the Pacific. Did some mechanic with a weeks experience and a pipe wrench losen a hydrolic or fuel line by mistake when he was supposed to be changing a filter or to repair some minor electrical glitch. Many variables.

 

RIGHT ON! One of the things that curdled my milk and that of my co-workers was the undoing of all the work to lighten the airplane when the airlines then added 2000 pounds of IFE (In- Flite Entertainment) junk equipment so the passengers could play games or watch a movie. On top of that they added more seats by shortening the pitch and jamming everybody's legs up under their chins. So, they are numb in their heads and their bodies. I apologize for the venting.

 

Here are some photos of the battery

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ntsb-releases-picture-of-charred-787-battery-box-381030/

http://www.ntsb.gov/img/headline/1-7-12_JAL787_APU_Battery.jpg

http://www.ntsb.gov/img/headline/1-7-12_JAL787_APU_Battery2.jpg

 

That's comforting.

 

No, not a D check, which will not occur for at least 6-8 yrs. Under a 1000 cycles a systems A check would not have even been scheduled yet. The airplane is in revenue service, so any maintenance would strictly be fixing a squawk and getting it back on line.

Considering the airplane flies non-stop Boston-Narita on regularly scheduled service no aux tanks were required for the jump over the Pacific. I can also, with almost 100% confidence, state that disconnecting any fuel line to repair some minor electrical glitch is not necessary. If I'm wrong then Boeing is going to have some serious fleet support issues with this airplane.

 

Aux tanks? Why? It flies much farther than that in regular service.

They use pipe wrenches on HYDRAULIC lines?

 

God help any Boeing mechanic who shows up on the line with a pipe wrench.

 

Im not talking about Boeing mechanics, Have you ever looked in the tool box of mechanic from a third world county. Eye opening experience.

 

Im just pointing out possibilities. What i am saying is once that aircraft leaves the factory and ends up in foriegn hands anything is possible. And who ever is doing the maintinence will always cover there rears first.

 

You are correct, once the airplane leaves the factory it is no longer Boeing's airplane and things can happen to it. Also right regarding the possible low level of mechanics " out there". I didn't think of that.

 

...and I was just trying to show you how to spell hydraulic...

 

While ive never actually seen this exact scenario ive have seen things quite similar.

Aircraft lands at foreign airport low on hydraulic fluid. Local mechs are called to service hydraulics and find hydraulic fluid under one of the engines. They pop the cowling and find a weeping line. This is a pretty common problem because the fittings around the engine are always heating and cooling. This may or may not be the reason hydraulic fluid is low. Everytime you open the hydraulic system you get air in the system and sometimes its takes a flight to work the air out of the system resulting in low fluid levels. I dont know about 787's but on MD's if you dont bleed the hydraulic tank after service you get a false fluid level reading. Easy fix, tighten hydraulic line fitting, service hydraulics, charge customer for a couple hours labor. Send aircraft on its way. But things are a little slow for the mechs and they see a chance to to charge the customer for more than a couple hours labor. They decide to pull the line, check for cracks and replace the O rings, dumb mechs dont know you dont lube Skydroll O rings with a petroleum based lube. A few hundred hours later the line is leaking again because the O rings have started to deteriorate. Only this time the leak is much worse and airline is claiming bad engineering.

Its one thing if the 787 problems occurred a few days after delivery. But a year after delivery. Who knows what the aircraft has been though and who has worked on it.

Even the battery fire. Im just speculating but in order for a battery to catch fire like that im thinking something had to short out. And something caused that short. Id want to see every maintinence record of anything that was done to anything even slightly related. And even then you may not find the true cause because like i say, the mechs have no trouble with a little paper work shuffle.

The 787 is the finest commercial aircraft ever produced. Makes an AB look like yesturdays tech. Of couse there is going to be a few problems but to blame falty engineering before a full investigation. I call bull.

 

A growing percentage of the US registered fleet are now maintained by foreign MRO's. I'd trust the Japanese before most of the others.

 

Seems like another 787 had an incident. The BBC is reporting it as breaking news, that this one happened in flight, and it made a safe emergency landing in Japan without any injuries.

I wonder if there are any common faults that appeared on both this plane and the one at Boston.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Sorry for the spelling, Dumb s---t X mechanic. But i was a pretty good mech in my time. Used to get job offers from all over the world.

Do you remember that golfer, Pane something who's privet jet lost pressurization. Then we heard something about somebody working on the air conditioning system the day before. Then we never heard anything else about it. Dollars to donuts who ever worked on that system had something to do with it. Happens all the time.

When i was in the business i worked on aircraft from just about every major airline in the world. The quality of maintenance varies greatly. Lufthansa, SAS, you could eat off those engines. Anything south of the US border, your better off walking.

 

Payne Stewart.

All the best,
Andrew.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Battery warning message in latest incident.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/dreamliner-787-makes-emergency-landing-in-japan-due-to-battery-problem/2013/01/15/237b5c68-5f7c-11e2-9dc9-bca76dd777b8_story.html

The 777 is the finest commercial aircraft ever produced.

 

Looks like both ANA and JAL are grounding there entire fleets of Dreamliners after the latest in flight emergency.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21038128#TWEET527941