Post-grounding 787 Dreamliner problems

Depends on why they replaced it. If they sucked something thru the engine that damaged the blades is not that uncommon of a cause for a replacement.

Thomson had to replace one of the engines on a new 787 when it sucked a bird through the engine and found damage to the blades post flight.

Incident: Thomson B788 at Cardiff on Jun 25th 2013, bird strike

 

I was wondering that too...it seems like almost every one of the big problems faced by the 787 have been electrical - often resulting in a fire. Could it be surging the main bus up and down over the limits of the batteries and the components?

 

Most of the problems with the 787 are vendor problems that have surfaced because of insufficient quality control procedures at the vendor level and incoming quality control. Not what it was in the past.

 

Well if nothing else this stuff doesn't seem quite as scary as the engine trouble and wing crack issues in the A380.

 

I should have been more concise in my statement. The 787 program architecture and concept is totally different than all others. The 777 program is solid and productive, as is the 767,737, and 747. The 787 will be good too but it will have to go through some aggressive corrections in the supplier side. The airplane is well engineered and a good concept. Execution needs and is getting some effective adjustments in the afore mentioned areas. This airplane is a winner.

 

Now my question is in the past would Boeing go and open up avionics and other equipment from outside vendors to make sure that it was assembled correctly?? I would think not as it might cause the potential of damaging the equipment or a vendor getting upset that there intellectual property being reversed engineered.

 

Known for a while, but more topical now...

After Heathrow Fire, Repairing Dreamliner Is Boeing?s Next Challenge - Corporate Intelligence - WSJ

I would think that it is enormously expensive to replace this section. It may make economic sense to scrap it. What does that mean for fleets going forward?

CW

 

In addition to expense it will add wt and will likely be visible to the discerning eye. It will also not be as strong, although it will meet all regulatory requirements. Included with the repair will be additional periodic inspection requirements, re more maintenance costs.

Given that the event was a 'from the factory' issue the airline has a lot of room to pressure Boeing. Doubt if they can get a whole new airplane but they could require a factory rebuild of the aft fuselage.

But not to worry, Boeing already has a spare airplane ready to go. There is at least one brand new Ethiopian Airlines 787 sitting on the ramp at Boeing. Looks like it just came out of the paint hangar a few days ago.

 

Still not looking good here. I know the complexity of a plane like this is beyond compare almost, but I certainly don't recall such a bad start for any others.

>8^)
ER

 

Boeing's spokesperson said that the 787 is only achieving a 95% dispatch. In other interviews they say this is on par with the 777 when it was introduced. However, that's not accurate. The 777 was treading at 96.5% and not long after 98%.

The 787 which has been flying since late 2011 is still trailing the 777 with no end in sight regarding reliability across the board.

Dreadful. Norwegian is *****ing. JAL is *****ing. Qatar is *****ing. It won't end...

 

Never a good sign when a panel falls off in-flight:

AI Dreamliner touches down... with a gaping hole - Bangalore Mirror

 

That panel is not retained by rivets. You can see the flange in the foreground with what appears to cam lock fastener openings. Inside the exposed area it looks like AC packs and this would have nothing to do with the batteries. One must examine how the maintenance was done on the aircraft since it is now in the hands of an operator. Just my guarded impression from can be seen in the picture.

 

You're right Bob - I only post this because you know the media will have a field day with it, especially in light of all (and the continued) problems with the 787.

Two years into service at this point, and the problems don't seem to be subsiding.

 

I have just verified that it was the access panel to the AC bay. For this panel to depart the airplane without damaging anything indicates that it was improperly installed or maybe not at all. To be able to take a panel off a parked 787 and install it on another 787 aircraft indicates a maintenance failure, NOT THE AIRPLANE .

 

I'm guessing that the author of the article has no idea what the difference is between a rivet and a cam-lock fastener.

 

The public reading this doesn't understand the difference between a rivet and a cam-lock fastener. Even if the author did, and explained it, public sees "panel falls off of 787 in flight"

 

And isn't in the airlines best interest to suggest that's what happened, rather than allude to the fact it could have been a maintenance issue?

The second side of this story is Boeing's and it would be "interesting" to hear them weigh in.

>8^)
ER

 

I think that you are absolutely correct and no amount of correction will change it.

 

Bob, here's hoping the 777-8/9X has a smoother launch and EIS.

 

I am no longer a part of the current 777 program so I can't speak with much knowledge about it. It is a different animal from the 787 and it has the lineage of a program that was the benchmark of how to design and build an airplane. Good people are working on the derivatives and I feel that they are an extension of what started well and so far is producing a winner.

 

Just saw this.

What is the smoke?

WAIT... Wrong picture!!

That is NOT the plane... that's an open cargo door on the JA plane in the US, not the Air India plane. WTH????


Boeing?s Dreamliner Hits New Problems in India?s Skies | Wall St. Cheat Sheet