Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5654710/

Topic: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: dwcontroller
Posted 2013-01-08 09:49:09 and read 25890 times.

Bad week for JAL...in Boston. Separate incident from the fire yesterday, looks to be a different B787. Alert 2 for a fuel leak from left wing on a departing aircraft. Returning to gate.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/01/0...s-jet-leaks-fuel-at-logan-airport/

[Edited 2013-01-08 09:49:40]

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: hnl2bos
Posted 2013-01-08 09:58:34 and read 25784 times.

Man, I hope the electrical incident isn't anything major. I'm supposed to fly on this flight in April.

Im guessing this one might be some ground crew error?

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Atlflyer
Posted 2013-01-08 10:08:20 and read 25571 times.

Another problem with the 787!

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: stlgph
Posted 2013-01-08 10:14:15 and read 25435 times.

from my news wires -

airport crews cleaning up fuel
plane towed back to the gate.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-08 10:17:03 and read 25361 times.

Another 787 incident seriously? She is going to get a reputation as a hanger queen.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: dwcontroller
Posted 2013-01-08 10:23:00 and read 25191 times.

JAL007 was on Taxiway November holding short RWY 22L.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-01-08 10:24:54 and read 25141 times.

Quoting hnl2bos (Reply 1):
Im guessing this one might be some ground crew error?

Perhaps. ANA had a (fuel / oil ??) leak some months ago but I'm not sure if that is the same problem.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-08 10:37:35 and read 24895 times.

Seems the DreamLiner is turning into a DreamLemon, sigh...

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-08 10:41:22 and read 24816 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 6):
Perhaps. ANA had a (fuel / oil ??) leak some months ago but I'm not sure if that is the same problem.

There was an AD regarding fuel leaks but I believe that all of the operators should have carried out the mandated checks by now.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: hnl2bos
Posted 2013-01-08 10:44:39 and read 24707 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 7):
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 4):

A bit over the top?

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-01-08 10:46:29 and read 24650 times.

Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 2):
Another problem with the 787!

Thanks for the astute observation.  

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: SCQ83
Posted 2013-01-08 10:46:33 and read 24647 times.

So are they now 2 JAL B787 in BOS? Will they bring a 3rd one? :S

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-08 10:48:51 and read 24594 times.

Quoting hnl2bos (Reply 9):

A bit over the top?

I hope so.

From the online sources:

Boeing shares were down 3.2 percent at $73.63 in afternoon trading. The stock fell 2 percent on Monday.

Seems like a good time to buy, says I.

[Edited 2013-01-08 10:53:20]

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: KC135Hydraulics
Posted 2013-01-08 10:59:59 and read 24338 times.

I really should invest in Boeing shares. They will eventually recover from this, and this will be forgotten.

The honor is found in the ends, not the means!

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: FlyingAY
Posted 2013-01-08 11:27:54 and read 23836 times.

I wonder what has been the dispatch reliability for the first 500 787 flights and how does that compare to the dispatch reliability of first 777 or A380 flights. Was the situation really this bad with those airframes too?

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: AADC10
Posted 2013-01-08 11:35:32 and read 23633 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 12):
Boeing shares were down 3.2 percent at $73.63 in afternoon trading. The stock fell 2 percent on Monday.

Seems like a good time to buy, says I.

Not necessarily. While the drop may be partially attributable to the 787 news, a majority of Boeing profit is from military contracts. What is more likely is that there is a concern about fourth quarter earnings.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Aither
Posted 2013-01-08 11:37:13 and read 23599 times.

Oil & Fire. Lucky enough it happened on 2 different aircraft.
Probably this event would not have been noticed without the electrical issue yesterday.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: dwcontroller
Posted 2013-01-08 11:41:28 and read 23508 times.

Update : 40 Gal of fuel leaked. Aircraft towed back to gate. Aircraft should depart later today. Hopefully this is a non-story by days end.

*towed back

[Edited 2013-01-08 12:16:53]

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-01-08 11:43:14 and read 23461 times.

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 14):
While the drop may be partially attributable to the 787 news, a majority of Boeing profit is from military contracts.

For 2011, Boeing IDS brought in $3.1 billion in profits with an average margin of 9.9%. Boeing Commercial brought in $3.5 billion and margins were at 9.7%

For the first three quarters of 2012, IDS was $2.3 billion / 9.5% while BCA was $3.5 billion / 9.9%.

So the (simple) majority of profits right now are from Boeing Commercial.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: asctty
Posted 2013-01-08 11:47:26 and read 23365 times.

Quoting dwcontroller (Reply 17):

Unfortunately it may end up being a non-story in minor fuel spill terms, but in Boeing 787 safety terms it just adds to the list. Perhaps if Boeing had met it's original delivery target, the percentage of incidents may not be as significant?
Just a thought  

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-01-08 11:51:05 and read 23290 times.

Quoting Aither (Reply 16):
Oil & Fire. Lucky enough it happened on 2 different aircraft.

The fire was inside an electronics bay. The fuel was from the left wing outside the airplane probably 50-100 feet away. Not even close to the sensationalism you are implying.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Lofty
Posted 2013-01-08 12:01:04 and read 23070 times.

How many passengers where on today's flight re booked from yesterdays flight? The passengers must be thinking this B787 is not very good and I want a different aircraft or JAL clearly can't look after their aircraft and which other airline are you going to book me on. Remember its not what we or the people in the industry think it is what the customer thinks.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-01-08 12:04:45 and read 22973 times.

For who wants to know: the plane with the fuel leak is JA824J.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: idlewildchild
Posted 2013-01-08 13:15:26 and read 21767 times.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 15):
Not necessarily. While the drop may be partially attributable to the 787 news, a majority of Boeing profit is from military contracts. What is more likely is that there is a concern about fourth quarter earnings.

The bigger threat to Boeing is the impending major downsizing of the US military. Between sequestation and a general need for far less military might than the USA currently has, it's likely Boeing is going to take a hit from the US government coffers more than need to worry about the commercial aviation side of the equation.

Quoting Lofty (Reply 22):
How many passengers where on today's flight re booked from yesterdays flight? The passengers must be thinking this B787 is not very good and I want a different aircraft or JAL clearly can't look after their aircraft and which other airline are you going to book me on. Remember its not what we or the people in the industry think it is what the customer thinks.

Not to be icky but that's why I wrote the other day (prior to JL/BOS incident) I'm giving the 787 a year to get the kinks out before I book one. Too many new things and between the United pilot who told me the SA)">UA birds were all grounded on 12/27 with chronic fuel leaks and issues and the fire in Boston, I'm passing for awhile.

Fortunately my next trip is on SA/A346 JFK-JNB come February and Boeing 737s inside South Africa!

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: SWALUV
Posted 2013-01-08 13:18:42 and read 22355 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 23):
JA824J

Does anyone know when the aircraft was delivered?

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: xaapb
Posted 2013-01-08 13:22:25 and read 22855 times.

On it's way to Narita:

http://es.flightaware.com/live/flight/JAL7

Greetings

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: motif1
Posted 2013-01-08 13:28:00 and read 23564 times.

Quoting idlewildchild (Reply 24):
The bigger threat to Boeing is the impending major downsizing of the US military. Between sequestation and a general need for far less military might than the USA currently has, it's likely Boeing is going to take a hit from the US government coffers more than need to worry about the commercial aviation side of the equation.

Don't you worry about Boeing! Japan and India are about to spent huge money modernizing their armies in the near future. I hope that would make it less urgent for the US to wage wars since the military complex would be busy fulfilling foreign orders.

Regarding the 787s in questions: isn't the fuel leak due to maintenance error? I don't know about the electrical fire. Could be a problem with the design.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: GSPflyer
Posted 2013-01-08 13:29:15 and read 23823 times.

Looks like the flight is on its way to NRT, about 4 hours late. Hopefully Boeing gets these issues sorted out.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/JAL7

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-01-08 13:49:28 and read 23153 times.

Quoting SWALUV (Reply 25):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 23):
JA824J

Does anyone know when the aircraft was delivered?

September 25, 2012.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: n471wn
Posted 2013-01-08 14:04:27 and read 23018 times.

Quoting idlewildchild (Reply 24):
Not to be icky but that's why I wrote the other day (prior to JL/BOS incident) I'm giving the 787 a year to get the kinks out before I book one. Too many new things and between the United pilot who told me the SA)">UA birds were all grounded on 12/27 with chronic fuel leaks and issues and the fire in Boston, I'm passing for awhile.

I must say this is not the kind of response I would expect from a seasoned traveler and an a.netter.....

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Scipio
Posted 2013-01-08 15:46:05 and read 20038 times.

Quoting n471wn (Reply 32):
I must say this is not the kind of response I would expect from a seasoned traveler and an a.netter.....

I think it is a very rational response, in particular from a seasoned traveler and a.netter.

My doctor once told me that, as a principle, he doesn't prescribe medications that have been on the market for less than five years. It is a prudent principle: let others find out what the unknown risks are.

The aircraft enthusiast in me wants to fly on the latest and the newest airplane. The rational side of my brain says that my doctor is right, and it is better to hold back and let others find out whether newer really means better...

The Comet and Thalidomide are good examples (in very different areas) of why newer may not necessarily mean better.

It is the individual responsibility of each of us to strike a balance between our preferences for adventure/novelty and safety. It's not up to others to make judgments about people's decisions in this regard.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-01-08 15:59:44 and read 19759 times.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 35):
I think it is a very rational response, in particular from a seasoned traveler and a.netter.

  

There's risk in everything. How one handles that risk is key. After the DC-10 grounding I avoided DC-10s as much as possible for a few years, but still rode them when the alternative was either unreasonably more expensive or inefficient schedule-wise. I simply kept my risk to flying on a DC-10 as low as possible. The 787 mishaps are beginning to see history repeat itself as far as my travel choices are concerned.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: uta999
Posted 2013-01-08 16:01:14 and read 19685 times.

Boeing need a plan B

Here goes:

Sack the 787 management team and bring the original 777 team from the 1990s out of retirement

Put the 787 wings and engines on a shortened 777SP and bring all sub assembly back in-house.

Use everything that works on the 777 again on the new model

Make all aeroplanes out of metal

Don't use batteries or any materials that are lighter

Don't use composites except where they work on the 777

The 787 is an accident waiting to happen.

Please rebrand it as the 777SP

The Triple 7 has yet to suffer a fatal accident. That is incredible and should be built on, not replaced

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: copter808
Posted 2013-01-08 16:19:58 and read 19222 times.

Quoting uta999 (Reply 37):
The Triple 7 has yet to suffer a fatal accident. That is incredible and should be built on, not replaced

Yes, it's fatal accident record is exactly the same as the 787! It just has been in service a far shorter time.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-01-08 16:26:18 and read 19015 times.

Quoting uta999 (Reply 37):
Boeing need a plan B

can not tell if that was a joke or just a result of oxygen shortage. Who would want a plane designed and built by 70-80 year olds?..

How many planes are held or returned to the terminal for minor problems.. based on the assumption here if a plane had a problem with a piece of vendor designed and built hardware, one should fire the a/c designers/manufacturing guys but not the vendor? that would be like blaming Apple because some second tier software didn't work as advertised....

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: AirMailer
Posted 2013-01-08 16:26:44 and read 19288 times.

Sounds like UA may have found something:

"UPDATE II: In another line of bad news for Boeing coming out today – a scoop from the WSJ’s Jon Ostrower and Jack Nicas:

United Airlines found improperly-installed wiring on one of its Boeing Co. 787s, as operators of the new jet inspected their fleets in the wake of the electrical fire suffered Monday on a Japan Airlines Co. Dreamliner parked at Boston airport, according to a person with knowledge of the U.S. carrier’s actions.
...

The person said United found an improperly installed bundle of wires that connect to the APU battery, a unit that JAL and fire officials said ignited the blaze on the Dreamliner at Boston’s Logan International Airport after passengers had deplaned."

Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intel...mliner-mishap-fuel-leak-in-boston/

[Edited 2013-01-08 16:32:58]

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2013-01-08 16:38:55 and read 18682 times.

There is some extreme sensationalism about grounding airplanes and abandoning the program for something as small as a 40 gallon fuel leak and associated relatively short delay.

Fuel leaks occur every day. This could be as simple as 40 gallons dumped overboard when the airplane started moving from the jettison system because the plane was fueled up near max capacity. It is only news because the media loves covering notable airplanes and airlines. A delay to cover for a small fuel spill is not evidence to ground an airplane or affect stock price in my opinion.

If this was a 777, no one would have cared.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: n471wn
Posted 2013-01-08 17:15:48 and read 17825 times.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 35):
It is the individual responsibility of each of us to strike a balance between our preferences for adventure/novelty and safety. It's not up to others to make judgments about people's decisions in this regard.

I guess I just have too much respect for mathematics and odds-----I would take my chances on any aircraft anytime and anywhere. If you think you will die in a commercial plane crash operated by a world quality airline then you should play the lottery and plan on winning

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Scipio
Posted 2013-01-08 17:36:23 and read 17380 times.

Quoting n471wn (Reply 44):
If you think you will die in a commercial plane crash operated by a world quality airline then you should play the lottery and plan on winning

It is the individual responsibility of each of us to decide whether or not we want to play the lottery  

I don't play the lottery, and I will be hesitant to board a B-787 for some time to come. I'm at peace with the rationality (from my personal perspective) of both of these choices, and I'm at peace with the fact that you may have other preferences...

As a 20-year old, I did several parachute jumps. I'm glad I did them, but at my current age I do not want to take the risk anymore (the risk of injury worries me a lot more than the risk of dying).

This is my personal preference at the current stage of my life, and it is your individual responsibility to withhold judgment on my personal preferences with regard to the risks I am willing to take  

[Edited 2013-01-08 17:48:02]

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-01-08 17:42:30 and read 17219 times.

Quoting n471wn (Reply 44):
If you think you will die in a commercial plane crash operated by a world quality airline then you should play the lottery and plan on winning

That's a false comparison because the lottery doesn't have the same changing risk elements. The general risk of dying in a plane crash is something like 1:10 million. Those odds change suddenly when the electronics bay beneath you is on fire in flight, or an engine separates from the wing on takeoff.

The goal of managing risk appropriately is to avoid situations where there may be a chance of your risk numbers changing against you. Whomever underwrites your insurance policies understands that. They don't play the numbers, they manage the numbers.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-01-08 17:47:47 and read 17116 times.

Quoting Lofty (Reply 22):
How many passengers where on today's flight re booked from yesterdays flight?

I wouldn't expect many at all. This flight runs with very high loads so there wouldn't have been many empty seats for yesterday's passengers. I suspect that the majority of passengers were re-routed via other cites yesterday.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: dfambro
Posted 2013-01-08 17:53:35 and read 16970 times.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 35):
My doctor once told me that, as a principle, he doesn't prescribe medications that have been on the market for less than five years

Hmm, there are quite a few diseases with major advances in standard of care in the last 5 years. You'd voluntarily pass on them on principle? I can see an argument for not prescribing drugs outside of approved on-label uses for the first 5 years, but that would still be very conservative.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 35):
The Comet and Thalidomide

These examples are 50+ years old. Risk assessment and testing is light-years more advanced now than it was then. Both incidents triggered major improvements in design and testing in their respective fields. Nothing remotely as consequential as Thalidomide will happen again in the pharma industry.

I've flown on a JAL 787 and am looking forward to my next trip.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: aviateur
Posted 2013-01-08 18:00:57 and read 16924 times.

Ah yes, here we go. There's no denying the 787's electrical issues are potentially troubling. However, it's both good (somewhat) and bad (mostly) that so much attention is now focused on the plane. From this point on, pretty much every malfunction involving a 787, no matter how insignificant, will be seized upon by the media.

As for other early-on problems, how about those of....

Comet
747
DC-10
A380

My take on the BOS fire is up on my home page, if anybody wants to see it.

PS

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: CCA
Posted 2013-01-08 18:14:15 and read 16678 times.

The fact the airport manager used the word vent makes me think this wasn't a leak, just full tanks and the design doing doing what it's meant to. It's been covered on airliners several times showing aircraft venting fuel during taxi when they have full tanks. The problem is uninformed people don't know how aircraft fuel tanks are vented especially the media.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Scipio
Posted 2013-01-08 18:21:13 and read 16479 times.

Quoting dfambro (Reply 48):
Hmm, there are quite a few diseases with major advances in standard of care in the last 5 years. You'd voluntarily pass on them on principle? I can see an argument for not prescribing drugs outside of approved on-label uses for the first 5 years, but that would still be very conservative.

Of course, this is a pragmatic rather than dogmatic principle, as illustrated by the very fact that he explained his thinking to me and left the final decision up to me (instead of not even talking about the option of newer drugs). If you're facing a life-threatening disease, and a new medicine is your only hope, of course you go for it.

The principle applied to non-life-threatening illnesses, and in cases in which there were alternatives: established older drugs versus newer drugs that promised better results. His approach was to opt for the older drugs until sufficient time had passed by (i.e., data accumulated) to fully understand the side-effects of the newer drugs. He considers five years on the market "sufficient time/data".

When it comes to diagnostic tools, he is much less conservative, and keen to use the latest available...

It is very much comparable to aviation. If you can get to the same destination with well established and proven aircraft such as the B747-400, B777, and A330 versus a new aircraft that offers better comfort but faces "teething problems" such as the B787, his logic argues in favor of the former option.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: aviateur
Posted 2013-01-08 18:23:02 and read 16380 times.

Quoting CCA (Reply 50):
The fact the airport manager used the word vent makes me think this wasn't a leak, just full tanks and the design doing doing what it's meant to.

I was thinking that too, except that the overflow was obvious enough to prompt at least one pilot to report it via ATC. Forty gallons isn't terribly much, but unless there's a peculiarity about the 787 I'm not aware of, it's a lot to be venting.

Not that it ought to be a news story. This NEVER would have made the news if not for the media now being hypersensitive to anything involving a 787.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Wisdom
Posted 2013-01-08 18:48:44 and read 16005 times.

The B787 has had far more issues since its EIS than the A380.
If they have so many more small issues, it's only a matter of time for bigger issues to come up.

Any news on the magnitude of the damage to the JL 787 after the fire? Any damaged frames or bulkheads??
On the A330's, the batteries are located very close to the APU, hence in the very back of the cargo compartment, close to the aft bulkhead. One of the reasons is to avoid running long wires between the batteries and the APU, so I'm guessing this should also be the case on the 787?

I have always said it, those electrical window-blinders are going to be a nightmare to maintain and are going to cause AOG situations (for instance frozen on the darkest setting, night operations requiring outside visibility). I see them being replaced in the future by more traditional windows, and new trim panels that can hold mechanical blinders.
That must have been the mistake of the century.

I'm not even going to talk about carbon dust. CFRP produces carbon dust at every friction with any material (more or less).
Carbon dust particles are very small and have sharp edges, which result in them embedding themselves into smooth surfaces. I don't want to think about how carbon dust can affect the proper operation of an aircraft. Carbon dust is so small that it would easily flow through your typical filter.

I'm also very skeptical about the prolonged aircraft life of CFRP. It's been on military aircraft for a long time, but what military aircraft has seen nearly the same cycles as a typical airliner? It's been on civil airliners but mostly on non-load-bearing and on parts that weren't affected by repetitious pressurisation cycles.

What to say about the all-electric concept? As if there weren't enough electrical issues already, now you want to run heavy A/C systems that keep an entire aircraft pressurized, through wires. What if you have a complete black-out at FL370 in the middle of the Pacific, caused by for instance a fire at whatever point these wires meet, cross or come anywhere near eachother? Fly the rest of the journey at FL100 and run out of fuel?

I know that bleed ducts would be able to bear with a small electrical fire, and if they were to leak, you either lose one side or they leak inside the fuselage, keeping the aircraft pressurised...

[Edited 2013-01-08 18:51:36]

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: sxf24
Posted 2013-01-08 20:11:18 and read 14797 times.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 54):
Any news on the magnitude of the damage to the JL 787 after the fire? Any damaged frames or bulkheads??

I have heard - unofficially - that the damage is minimal and would have been even less if the firefighters hadn't used axes.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 54):
I have always said it, those electrical window-blinders are going to be a nightmare to maintain and are going to cause AOG situations (for instance frozen on the darkest setting, night operations requiring outside visibility). I see them being replaced in the future by more traditional windows, and new trim panels that can hold mechanical blinders.

The window shade components can be snapped in and out and replaced in minutes. Traditional shades require a removal of seats and sidewalls for replacement or repair, which can take several hours.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: F9animal
Posted 2013-01-08 21:11:55 and read 13847 times.

Thank god the fire on this bird happened on the ground! Had it been at 35, 000 feet over the Pacific.... Not too concerned about the fuel issue. These fires are very alarming! The airplane is becoming a laughing stock anymore. I dont think Boeing Execs can downplay this anymore. The customers are growing very impatient.

[Edited 2013-01-08 21:37:12]

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: jetmech
Posted 2013-01-09 00:23:05 and read 12100 times.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 54):
It's been on civil airliners but mostly on non-load-bearing and on parts that weren't affected by repetitious pressurisation cycles.

CFRP may not have been used for the fuselage of a commercial widebody prior to the 787, but it is used widely used on a number of in service commercial types as primary structure, namely, as the material for the horizontal and vertical stabilisers of the B777, A380, A330/A340 and A320. The A380 centre wing box is also made from CFRP.

Fatigue and cyclic loads and the accomodation of such are just as important for these structural elements as they are for the fuselage

Regards, JetMech

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Captainmeeerkat
Posted 2013-01-09 01:11:43 and read 11548 times.

Quoting CCA (Reply 43):
The fact the airport manager used the word vent makes me think this wasn't a leak, just full tanks and the design doing doing what it's meant to

How are these vents controlled? Electrically?

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: CCA
Posted 2013-01-09 02:07:05 and read 11126 times.

The vents are open all the time it's where the air goes out as the fuel goes in during refueling and where the air goes in when the aircraft burns fuel off, the naca scoop associated with the vent also provides a positive head of pressure in the tank during forward motion.

There is a surge tank designed to capture overflow fuel but once this is full fuel has nowhere to go but out the vent.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Omar Alex Saffe - Spot This!
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gustavo Kaufmann - Contato Radar



[Edited 2013-01-09 02:29:40]


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Durning
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Guilherme Bystronski


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carlos A. Morillo Doria
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Baker



[Edited 2013-01-09 02:37:03]

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Captainmeeerkat
Posted 2013-01-09 02:21:05 and read 10781 times.

Quoting CCA (Reply 51):
The vents are open all the time it's where the air goes out as the fuel goes in during refueling and where the air goes in when the aircraft burns fuel off, the naca scoop associated with the vent also provides a positive head of pressure in the tank during forward motion.

Thanks for the explanation!  

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-01-09 03:38:49 and read 10067 times.

Quoting CCA (Reply 51):
There is a surge tank designed to capture overflow fuel but once this is full fuel has nowhere to go but out the vent.

The venting on the Starlifter seems to be a little more then normal  Wow! 

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-01-09 04:51:11 and read 9338 times.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 46):
The B787 has had far more issues since its EIS than the A380.

Any data to back up that statement?

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 46):
If they have so many more small issues, it's only a matter of time for bigger issues to come up.

Really? Once your car's muffler falls off, you're sure that the wheels will be falling off too?

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Kaiarahi
Posted 2013-01-09 05:26:45 and read 9011 times.

Quoting Wisdom (Reply 46):
Any news on the magnitude of the damage to the JL 787
Quoting sxf24 (Reply 47):

I have heard - unofficially - that the damage is minimal

There's a photo of the damage on the "smoking" thread.

Quoting uta999 (Reply 32):
Use everything that works on the 777
Quoting uta999 (Reply 32):
Don't use batteries

FYI, 777s have batteries. So does every commercial airliner - treadmills and hamsters take up too much space.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: ASA
Posted 2013-01-09 07:38:13 and read 7213 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 54):
Really? Once your car's muffler falls off, you're sure that the wheels will be falling off too?
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 56):
FYI, 777s have batteries. So does every commercial airliner - treadmills and hamsters take up too much space.

hahaha ... you guys are running a stand-up show here! 

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: sqsfo
Posted 2013-01-09 07:43:30 and read 7198 times.

We Americans must be eating shit at this point for our disgusting attitude at the A380 some 5 years ago when it faced problems as well.

After so many problems with the 787 at JAL, is it even feasible for them (in the short term period) to be operating the Tokyo-Boston Run? I mean such unanticipated problems costs millions.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2013-01-09 08:00:43 and read 6913 times.

Quoting sqsfo (Reply 58):
After so many problems with the 787 at JAL, is it even feasible for them (in the short term period) to be operating the Tokyo-Boston Run? I mean such unanticipated problems costs millions.

So many problems with 787 at JAL?? Can you please explain that? All I know of was the battery incident two days ago and the fuel thing yesterday was apparently fuel venting so that's not even an issue. I had a flat tire on my car the other day, maybe I should return it to BMW and get a Prius instead. (There's a desperate need for a sarcasm font in this world).

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: JAAlbert
Posted 2013-01-09 08:12:51 and read 6755 times.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 42):
As for other early-on problems, how about those of....

Comet
747
DC-10
A380

Don't forget the 727. It suffered a few crashes early in it's career that were linked to the handling characteristics of the plane. As I recall, unknown to Boeing and pilots the 727 handled differently during landing -- and were susceptible to crashing. Once new procedures were in place, the plane went on to become a safe and reliable transport for decades.

Quoting CCA (Reply 43):
The fact the airport manager used the word vent makes me think this wasn't a leak, just full tanks and the design doing doing what it's meant to.

The plane also left on its flight after a four hour delay which supports the venting statement. Had it been a fuel line leak, I don't think the plane would have been cleared to leave the same day.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: bellancacf
Posted 2013-01-09 09:11:11 and read 5925 times.

If it turns out that this is an instance of overfill/venting, would it be appropriate to edit the title of this thread: "leak"?

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Flying Belgian
Posted 2013-01-09 09:48:58 and read 5442 times.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/08/tr...ner-fuel-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: abba
Posted 2013-01-09 10:11:58 and read 5263 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 36):
If this was a 777, no one would have cared.


Had it been an A380......

What we are seeing here is that when the press first gets started covering incidents then no matter how small an incident they will give us the full Monty. The story starts rolling by its own energy.

Boeing to a large extent brought it on their own head. They claimed - in the press - that they has come up with the most revolutionary plane that history had ever seen capable of totally revolutionize the entire industry. They called their new creation the "Dream liner" forgetting that each and every journalist is just looking for an excuse to name it the "Nightmare Liner". Journalists by their nature LOVE the bad story. They organized the role out on the 7-8-7 - and then everything went pear shaped as it it proved to be made up of mostly gaffa tape. The press felt - rightly - abused by Boeing's PR. And now is the time for revenge.

The Boeing spin doctors simply forgot the golden rule of handling the press: invite them to your wedding - and they will be there in force when they are to cover your divorce. Compare how little it has been noticed that the 350 has been delayed. Airbus has learned the lesson the hard way from the 787 and the 380 and the consequences of the hype they created.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: ASA
Posted 2013-01-09 10:19:39 and read 5216 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 63):

BREAKING NEWS: JAL 7 (Operated by a 787) doing BOS-NRT today was delayed by 11 minutes, taking off at 12:11PM instead of 12PM. (Like I said, there's a need for sarcasm font on this site).

TRUE BREAKING NEWS: JAL 787 flights frequently delayed since Obama reelection!   

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: CM
Posted 2013-01-09 10:22:09 and read 5193 times.

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 59):
There's a desperate need for a sarcasm font in this world.

The best comment in this entire thread. Thanks for hiding a nugget in among the debris.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: RDH3E
Posted 2013-01-09 10:26:02 and read 5168 times.

Quoting idlewildchild (Reply 23):
the United pilot who told me the SA)">UA birds were all grounded on 12/27 with chronic fuel leaks and issues

The United pilot who told you that is full of it. There were 12 scheduled 787 departures on 12/27, all 12 operated, granted there were 7 delays, (All less than 60 min). So hopefully this is a friend of yours and you can ask him why he is spreading blatant falsehoods.

[Edited 2013-01-09 10:26:29]

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-01-09 16:50:57 and read 4792 times.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 60):
Quoting aviateur (Reply 42):
As for other early-on problems, how about those of....

Comet
747
DC-10
A380

Don't forget the 727. It suffered a few crashes early in it's career

In its first 5 years of service there were 10 727 hull losses with 456 fatalities.

Out of curiosity I looked at some other western jet types and tabulated hull losses for all reasons and total fatalities during the first 5 years after entry into service. Only looked at Airbus for non-US types.

.........Hull losses Fatalities
707.......10.................456
720.........4.................170
727.......10.................568
737........2....................45 (1 was non-fatal)
747........3....................59 (2 were non-fatal terrorist incidents; aircraft blown up on the ground)
757........0.....................0
767........0.....................0.
777........0.....................0
717........0.....................0

DC-8......8..................458
DC-9......8..................459
DC-10... 4..................346 (3 non-fatal; all fatalities in the TK crash near Paris)
MD-80...1...................180
MD-90...1.....................1 (fire after landing, passenger carrying gasoline in a bottle)

L-1011....2...................99 (one was a fire, parked aircraft)

CV-880...2....................4 (both training flights, one non-fatal)
CV-990...1....................0 (fire, parked aircraft)

A300.......0....................0
A310.......0....................0
A318.......0....................0
A319.......0....................0
A320.......3..................182
A321.......0....................0
A330.......1....................7 (Airbus test flight)
A340.......1....................0 (fire, parked aircraft)
A380.......0....................0

[Edited 2013-01-09 17:44:44]

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: kenadams
Posted 2013-01-09 18:31:49 and read 4565 times.

Condensed, subtitled recording of the ATC conversations surrounding this incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3-1RM5t0Ys .

I found it interesting that the JAL crew was unaware of the problem (though they had reported unspecified trouble) and was alerted to the fact by an AA.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: celestar
Posted 2013-01-09 20:38:19 and read 4395 times.

Dear Viscount, I am not sure your record of hull loss is correct or credible.
Under A300, at least China Airlines lost 2 hull, hundreds are killed. One in Nagoya and another one at Taoyuan, Taiwan

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2013-01-09 21:55:47 and read 4280 times.

Quoting kenadams (Reply 70):

I found it interesting that the JAL crew was unaware of the problem

The problem they asked to hold for was probably a fuel pump or transfer valve indication, and were focusing on that when they were told they were venting fuel.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-09 22:59:16 and read 4216 times.

Quoting celestar (Reply 71):
Dear Viscount, I am not sure your record of hull loss is correct or credible.

No its not, Airfrance overran an A340 in canada with no fatalities, another A340 destroyed in colombo during civil war, another written of in testing accident in Toulouse So thats 3 off the top of my head.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: FlyingAY
Posted 2013-01-09 23:03:48 and read 4201 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 68):
hull losses for all reasons and total fatalities during the first 5 years after entry into service
Quoting celestar (Reply 71):
Dear Viscount, I am not sure your record of hull loss is correct or credible.
Under A300, at least China Airlines lost 2 hull, hundreds are killed. One in Nagoya and another one
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 73):
No its not, Airfrance overran an A340 in canada with no fatalities

celestar and BoeingVista, did these happen within 5 years of the EIS? I didn't think so...

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: HAWK21M
Posted 2013-01-09 23:23:49 and read 4160 times.

The snags on the B787 are nothing towards the new Technology used or Material Improvements on the type in comparism to the B777s......Then what is it that is adding to the unreliability....Its known that the Pack/Bleed issues exist,Now some fuel leaks, there was a Short circuit which was blamed on a tool left behind during tests.....

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-10 00:12:58 and read 4099 times.

Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 72):

celestar and BoeingVista, did these happen within 5 years of the EIS? I didn't think so...

Really?

Look at the dates of introduction of the A340-600 and you will find two write offs in November 2007 first revenue service was August 2002 so pretty much close enough. This shows why arbitrary statistics are generally worthless.

Anyway the Qatar A340-600 was a HGW version which was only certified in 2006 and W/O in 2007 so this is definitely within the 5 years

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: ASA
Posted 2013-01-10 06:45:40 and read 3788 times.

I saw the original 787 in question still parked next to BOS Terminal E last night ...
any words on when it will be ready to depart?

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: RDH3E
Posted 2013-01-10 07:37:20 and read 3659 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 73):
Look at the dates of introduction of the A340-600 and you will find two write offs in November 2007 first revenue service was August 2002 so pretty much close enough. This shows why arbitrary statistics are generally worthless.

However, that's not even close to the EIS of the A340 model line, which is FAR more relevant to this discussion.

"Airbus delivered the first A340, a −200, to Lufthansa on 2 February 1993."

So you're quoting an incident that is almost 15 years after EIS of the A340.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: BoeingVista
Posted 2013-01-10 09:28:02 and read 3518 times.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 75):
However, that's not even close to the EIS of the A340 model line, which is FAR more relevant to this discussion.

No, none of this is relevant to the discussion of a 787 fuel leak in Boston.

Whats the point of looking at five year hull losses of aircraft introduced in the 60's and attempting to draw a conclusion to an aircraft introduced 50 years later that has only been in service just over 1 year?

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: RDH3E
Posted 2013-01-10 09:36:15 and read 3503 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 76):
Whats the point of looking at five year hull losses of aircraft introduced in the 60's and attempting to draw a conclusion to an aircraft introduced 50 years later that has only been in service just over 1 year?

The A340 is not from the 60's..... but I digress. I do not believe that thread of the discussion is relevant to the 787 anyways.

[Edited 2013-01-10 09:36:48]

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-10 10:46:48 and read 3335 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 69):
The problem they asked to hold for was probably a fuel pump or transfer valve indication, and were focusing on that when they were told they were venting fuel.

It would appear so, as a JAL spokesman said "the cause of the fuel leak in Boston was a faulty valve".
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...pe=RSS&feedName=marketsNews&rpc=43

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: s5daw
Posted 2013-01-10 11:26:25 and read 3252 times.

What would that mean during an ETOPS flight, 2 hours from the land?

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-10 13:03:03 and read 3136 times.

Sorry, off topic but where is today's JAL BOS-NRT headed?
http://fr24.com/JAL7

flightaware has her heading back on a NW tracking, don't know which is accurate:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/JAL7

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-01-10 13:16:43 and read 3088 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 70):
Quoting celestar (Reply 71):
Dear Viscount, I am not sure your record of hull loss is correct or credible.

No its not, Airfrance overran an A340 in canada with no fatalities, another A340 destroyed in colombo during civil war, another written of in testing accident in Toulouse So thats 3 off the top of my head.

Yes it is correct. You didn't read my post. I said the data covered the FIRST 5 YEARS SINCE ENTRY INTO SERVICE.

It was prompted by comments referring to the 727s problems during it's first couple of years of service.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-01-10 13:20:25 and read 3066 times.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 73):
Anyway the Qatar A340-600 was a HGW version which was only certified in 2006 and W/O in 2007 so this is definitely within the 5 years

Qatar Airways has had no A340-600 hull losses.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: s5daw
Posted 2013-01-10 14:10:55 and read 2941 times.

Quoting flood (Reply 80):
Sorry, off topic but where is today's JAL BOS-NRT headed?

That is indeed strange. Flightaware and Flightstats have similar position logs.
Last entry is as 8:33PM UTC, 180 knots at 22,600 feet.

Tracking glitch?

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: kanban
Posted 2013-01-10 15:22:18 and read 2777 times.

Looks like it's going to Paine Field for spare parts       question is are there passengers aboard? could they be going to Seatac and changing planes ?

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-01-10 15:31:29 and read 2747 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 82):
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 73):
Anyway the Qatar A340-600 was a HGW version which was only certified in 2006 and W/O in 2007 so this is definitely within the 5 years

Qatar Airways has had no A340-600 hull losses.

It was prior to delivery so wasn't technically a QR airplane.

Quoting kanban (Reply 84):
question is are there passengers aboard? could they be going to Seatac and changing planes ?

Probably not considering that JL doesn't serve SEA.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: flood
Posted 2013-01-10 15:37:06 and read 2717 times.

Quoting kanban (Reply 84):
Looks like it's going to Paine Field for spare parts

lol... looks like it was just a glitch somewhere, aircraft back on expected routing. Sorry folks, as you were  

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-01-10 15:40:38 and read 2685 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 85):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 82):
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 73):
Anyway the Qatar A340-600 was a HGW version which was only certified in 2006 and W/O in 2007 so this is definitely within the 5 years

Qatar Airways has had no A340-600 hull losses.

It was prior to delivery so wasn't technically a QR airplane.

I'm still unaware of any A340-600 intended for QR involved in an accident prior to delivery. One was written off before delivery to EY (Etihad).

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: BoeingGuy
Posted 2013-01-10 15:48:41 and read 2649 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 87):
I'm still unaware of any A340-600 intended for QR involved in an accident prior to delivery. One was written off before delivery to EY (Etihad).

Okay, you win. It was EY. We were mistaken. Did IB have an A340-600 accident at UIO too?

Quoting s5daw (Reply 79):
What would that mean during an ETOPS flight, 2 hours from the land?

What are you referencing? That would be 120 minute ETOPS but I'm not sure what context you are referring to.

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-01-10 15:55:37 and read 2634 times.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 88):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 87):
I'm still unaware of any A340-600 intended for QR involved in an accident prior to delivery. One was written off before delivery to EY (Etihad).

Okay, you win. It was EY. We were mistaken. Did IB have an A340-600 accident at UIO too?

Yes, landing overrun at UIO in 2007. It was written off as the location made it too difficult to repair. That one was slightly beyond the first 5 years of A346 service which was the parameter I used for the data I extracted.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20071109-0

Topic: RE: Japan Airlines Fuel Leak Boston
Username: iowaman
Posted 2013-01-10 18:31:55 and read 2478 times.

This thread has ran its' course and has veered way off topic. I will archive this thread as the actual topic it was started for has been well covered earlier in the thread.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/