Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United 787 Ship 902 Diverted Enroute IAH-EWR  
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3217 posts, RR: 16
Posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 42482 times:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N26902

Enroute divert on UA1146 IAH-EWR into MSY. Does anyone know why??

222 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 42428 times:

Per my friend at MSY, it was a mechanical diversion. I'm going to try to go get a few shots.

User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10937 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 42227 times:

Quote poster from Flyertalk who was on board:

I was on Flight 146 (787 #3902) this morning, when we had a power/electrical issue. We've ended up being diverted to MSY and they are bringing in a replacement aircraft to continue on. About 75 minutes into the flight the electrical power flickered a couple of times and then I noticed us making a long right hand turn. I was expecting us to be headed back to IAH. Once the AVOD got rebooted I checked the online map and it showed us headed to MSY with a landing in 30 minutes. Up till this point no announcement had been made, so on the way back from a trip to the washroom, I asked one of the FA's when they would be making an announcement about the diversion. She was shocked that I knew about it, and asked how did I know. I calmly replied that the flight map now shows us heading for a MSY landing at 9:25. A few minutes after this, one of the FA's announce the diversion.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...02-diverted-msy-flight-1146-a.html

  



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinexjramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2473 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 41746 times:

I'm sure the crew had justification, but why in the world would they divert to MSY when the distance between their turn to MSY and what would have been back to IAH was negligible? Coupled with the storms that went thru MSY a little bit ago, that wasn't a very smart move.


Look ma' no hands!
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 41584 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting xjramper (Reply 3):
but why in the world would they divert to MSY when the distance between their turn to MSY and what would have been back to IAH was negligible?

Likely UA's protocol is to divert to the nearest airport able to safely handle the aircraft in the event this type of malfunction takes place. It will be a while until word leaks out exactly what the issue was but it was obviously on the list of immediate diversion/landing for this a/c with this airline.


User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 41466 times:

I'm going to preface this picture by saying I have a terrible camera and I was taking this through a chain link fence over a mile away.



From the parking garage. Almost a good shot.



User currently offlineBraniffMSY From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 41278 times:

It diverted due to multiple electrical failures. I was on one of the 787's on 05Nov and we were delayed for 1.5 hour as well at ORD due to something related to the electrical system. Although United claimed it was 'environmental aircraft damage'. Not sure what that covers?

User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1890 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 41184 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Multiple failures could mean a lot of things. It makes me wonder if there was a electrical junction/controller that failed which caused the system to fail over to the back up requiring the diversion.

Hopefully the design is modular and a new controller is sitting at IAH and can be plugged in. Otherwise, sounds like Boeing is flying something out from SEA.


User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3088 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 40996 times:

Here is the permanent link:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...6/history/20121204/1330Z/KIAH/KEWR

Guess they sent a 762 to replace,

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...2/history/20121204/1715Z/KIAH/KMSY

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 5):

Good try anyway.

This is the first 787 in MSY right?



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineBraniffMSY From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 40806 times:

This is the first 787 ever at MSY.
Trying to determine if the United 787's have had any other diversions anywhere since they entered service with the carrier.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 40648 times:

Quoting BraniffMSY (Reply 6):
Although United claimed it was 'environmental aircraft damage'.

Bird Strike?



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 40693 times:

Here's one more courtesy of a friend of mine.



User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3088 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 40341 times:

Runway 10/28 was closed due to maintenance and I guess they didn't want the shorter 19, so they cleared the vehicles off of 10/28 and the aircraft landed on runway 10. Crew reported 182 souls on board. United 1146 Heavy. It's in the Live ATC archives, 1500-1530Z has it all. Pilot asked ground crew to check for "discoloration or dripping plastic", yikes.  Wow!
Quoting xjramper (Reply 3):
I'm sure the crew had justification, but why in the world would they divert to MSY when the distance between their turn to MSY and what would have been back to IAH was negligible? Coupled with the storms that went thru MSY a little bit ago, that wasn't a very smart move.

The crew declared an emergency so I guess MSY was the nearest suitable airport as required.



[Edited 2012-12-04 12:27:55]


The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2477 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 40257 times:

Possibly a lightning strike? How would a CFRP airframe hold up to one?


A landing EVERYONE can walk away from, is a good landing.
User currently offlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1925 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 40018 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 12):
Pilot asked ground crew to check for "discoloration or dripping plastic",

lighting strike must the cause.... an Electrical failure is a serious issue and sometimes going back to your base is not an option hence the diversion to MSY, also consider that the pilots are very new on that plane and they might get some problems understanding some failures, maybe it´s even a failure that has never happen before and they don´t know how to react... So better to be on ground asap.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3072 posts, RR: 37
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 39775 times:

Quoting migair54 (Reply 14):
lighting strike must the cause....

How so?



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1925 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 39421 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 15):
How so?

when you have a lighting strike you can see de-coloration in the exact place where the strike hit the plane with a bit of like burning marks as well, and if the crew was asking for that is because the felt something like that or they really suspect about that,

however i should have said: Lighting strike could be the cause.....

[Edited 2012-12-04 13:29:13]

User currently offlineJosh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 39077 times:

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 11):

"Which line do we stop at????"   

Wouldn't a lightning strike on a 787 have different effects (or less of an effect) because of the composite skin as compared to a lightning strike on a conventional aluminum-bodied plane?


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 38706 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 12):
Pilot asked ground crew to check for "discoloration or dripping plastic", yikes.

This is starting to sound a bit more serious than the usual new type teething problems - It will be interesting to see how long the repairs take....

Quoting BraniffMSY (Reply 9):
Trying to determine if the United 787's have had any other diversions anywhere since they entered service with the carrier.

There was a thread posted a few weeks ago regarding Air India's problems with the 787 in which it was repeatedly claimed that United were having no problems with it. I'm starting to wonder how accurate that is....


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 38526 times:

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 17):
Wouldn't a lightning strike on a 787 have different effects (or less of an effect) because of the composite skin as compared to a lightning strike on a conventional aluminum-bodied plane?

VERY much so. The plane has a metal mesh system to wick lightning away from critical areas.

NS


User currently offlineSTEVE7E7 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 478 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 38103 times:

Didn't a test 787 suffer a fire in the same electrical bay during flight testing?

I hope for Boeings sake this is an isolated incident.


User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3088 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 38053 times:

It's on Av Herald now,

http://avherald.com/h?article=45a0903f&opt=0

though it does not mention at this time that this was an emergency landing and not just a diversion.



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 37994 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 7):
It makes me wonder if there was a electrical junction/controller that failed which caused the system to fail over to the back up requiring the diversion.

The 787, like most modern large jets, uses a parallel electrical architecture. It's not a matter of primary/backup, it's a matter of multiple parallel systems that each take some share of the total aircraft load. In the event of failures, the faulty system is either isolated or ganged together with it's neighbor (i.e. share a generator) depending on the nature of the failure.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 7):
Hopefully the design is modular

It is.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 13):
Possibly a lightning strike? How would a CFRP airframe hold up to one?

Very well. The 787 has been hit by lightning several times already.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 14):
maybe it´s even a failure that has never happen before and they don´t know how to react...

The flight crew has no detailed visibility into the electrical system; at the level they can see, there is an EICAS message for every failure that requires tehm to take action and a defined procedure to follow for that message. It's very difficult to think of a plausible scenario where the crew didn't know how to react, even if they didn't know the precise nature of the failure.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 16):
when you have a lighting strike you can see de-coloration in the exact place where the strike hit the plane with a bit of like burning marks as well

That can happen with a lightning strike but isn't guaranteed. Especially if it's a lower power strike that attaches to particularly conductive bits (lip skins, fin leading edge, etc.).

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 17):
Wouldn't a lightning strike on a 787 have different effects (or less of an effect) because of the composite skin as compared to a lightning strike on a conventional aluminum-bodied plane?

The detailed current flows are different (it's not skin flow like it would be in solid aluminum) but the gross airplane-level behavior is basically the same.

Tom.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 37739 times:

Quoting STEVE7E7 (Reply 20):
Didn't a test 787 suffer a fire in the same electrical bay during flight testing?

I hope for Boeings sake this is an isolated incident.

Yes - I believe that incident was blamed on FOD being left inside an electrical panel so it should be a one off incident...


I've just listened to the ATC recordings for this incident - I'm still none the wiser to what went on, but it doesn't look like a minor electrical problem. The crew actually direct ground staff to inspect the outside of the rear avionics bay for evidence of fire..


User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6963 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 37354 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 23):
Yes - I believe that incident was blamed on FOD being left inside an electrical panel so it should be a one off incident...

The fire was a one off but the fact it shut down almost everything led to some changes I seem to remember.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2976 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 38180 times:

Interesting. I'm scheduled to be flying on that plane this Thursday EWR-IAH. I hope they fix it on time...


AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 447 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 37862 times:

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 17):
"Which line do we stop at????"  

I can't tell what aircraft the line they stopped at was designed for (I imagine it doesn't say 787 on the pavement!). Interesting that they used airstairs to deplane passengers as opposed to the jetbridge...


User currently offlinedreyes78 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 38145 times:

Of course this happens on my only day off this week.....

Photo courtesy of my coworker....



dreyes78
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 981 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 36971 times:

Quoting xjramper (Reply 3):

I'm sure the crew had justification, but why in the world would they divert to MSY when the distance between their turn to MSY and what would have been back to IAH was negligible? Coupled with the storms that went thru MSY a little bit ago, that wasn't a very smart move.

That's out of line - you weren't there. Given that the crew was looking for damage ("discoloration"), it's a smart move to get the plane on the ground.

Some of United's (sCO) most experienced crews including captains and check airman are operating the aircraft right now.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently onlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 908 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 36543 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 18):
This is starting to sound a bit more serious than the usual new type teething problems - It will be interesting to see how long the repairs take....

No its really not ... amazing how 1 diversion brings out the 787 doomsdayers ...

"Initial inspections showed that there was no fire in the aft electrical equipment bay, where the problem was reported, and no sign of electrical "arcing," or electricity flowing incorrectly, according to a person familiar with the situation"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...bre8b318k-20121204,0,6491437.story


User currently offlineEASTERN747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 563 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 36569 times:

WTF?????? The flight is diverting from the planned flight and the FA;s know nothing? Panic in the cockpit, maybe/ Just takes a simple announcement from the cockpit. HELLO COCKPIT,,,, we can see where we are going and what about channel 9? I'm glad my company let's me have several options when they send me out. Wow UA.....I know there are mechanical problems, weather stuff etc. BUT let me know....Just say as a precaution we need to go #### to check it out. One more black eye UA.

User currently offline7gm7 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 35795 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 25):

Hope so. Similarly, I am on UA flt. 1737 EWR-IAH next Tues 12/11.....same thoughts here...


User currently offlinedreyes78 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 35938 times:

Now the fire trucks came out to the plane.....



dreyes78
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6137 posts, RR: 9
Reply 33, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 35476 times:

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 30):
The flight is diverting from the planned flight and the FA;s know nothing?

go back and re-read....F/As knew but they hadn't announced to the passengers yet.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 34, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 35572 times:

Quoting STEVE7E7 (Reply 20):
Didn't a test 787 suffer a fire in the same electrical bay during flight testing?

There is zero evidence (so far) that the issue on United was actually in the aft electrical bay. The flight crew did ask for an inspection during the event but there is no warning indication available to the flight crew that would localize a failure to the aft equipment bay. The statement in Reply 29 seems to indicate that there were no findings in the aft bay (or anywhere else, for that matter).

Tom.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 35302 times:

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 29):
No its really not ... amazing how 1 diversion brings out the 787 doomsdayers ...

When and where did I say anything about the 787 being "doomed"?

I said that this looks to be more than simple teething trouble, which it does. The fact that they are looking for evidence of fire and electrical arcing in a brand new aircraft is concerning to say the least. Faulty cockpit door locks, software glitches - these are "teething" troubles which cause delay and inconvenience. Fires in avionics bays cause premature landings and occasional death.

[Edited 2012-12-04 18:30:12]

User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 34961 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 35):
The flight crew did ask for an inspection during the event but there is no warning indication available to the flight crew that would localize a failure to the aft equipment bay.

Surely there must be some sort of fire indicator in the EE bay.

The flyertalk guys pointed out that Flightaware shows the aircraft started drifting down 5,000 feet from 41,000 6 minutes before it began the turn for MSY so maybe a bit of decision time involved here.

[Edited 2012-12-04 19:01:54]


BV
User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 37, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 34762 times:

Well, there's a jetway attached now.



User currently onlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 908 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 34614 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 36):
When and where did I say anything about the 787 being "doomed"?

You didn't

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 36):
I said that this looks to be more than simple teething trouble, which it does.

What facts are you using to develop this hypothesis ? I just ask because every news source is stating that there was no evidence of fire or electrical melt downs.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 36):
software glitches

How do we know that it wasn't yet ?

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 30):

Duuuude ... we get it , you don't like UA. Lets focus on what happened with the 787 and not turn this into another UA bashing thread.


User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5127 posts, RR: 28
Reply 39, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 34571 times:

Quoting STEVE7E7 (Reply 20):
Didn't a test 787 suffer a fire in the same electrical bay during flight testing?

I hope for Boeings sake this is an isolated incident.
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 23):
I've just listened to the ATC recordings for this incident - I'm still none the wiser to what went on, but it doesn't look like a minor electrical problem. The crew actually direct ground staff to inspect the outside of the rear avionics bay for evidence of fire..

I will chime in and shed some light on this incident. It has been very well covered up so to speak. I will make it short and sweet. Had the aircraft been airborne 2 more minutes, it would have gone down. I got this information from a very reliable source that is very high up in the Boeing Company. It was pure skill in the cockpit that got that aircraft on the runway. That is all I am willing to share about the incident, as I should probably not even have shared as much as I have here.  



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 40, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 34134 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 41):
I will chime in and shed some light on this incident.

I assume you're referring to the test flight, not today's UA flight?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1079 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 33894 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 41):
I will chime in and shed some light on this incident. It has been very well covered up so to speak. I will make it short and sweet. Had the aircraft been airborne 2 more minutes, it would have gone down. I got this information from a very reliable source that is very high up in the Boeing Company. It was pure skill in the cockpit that got that aircraft on the runway. That is all I am willing to share about the incident, as I should probably not even have shared as much as I have here.

If that's the case, why didn't they land in MEM, LIT, JAN, MLU, SHV, etc which were all much closer than MSY?



My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 33620 times:

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 43):

If that's the case, why didn't they land in MEM, LIT, JAN, MLU, SHV, etc which were all much closer than MSY?

The same reason that SR111 didn't make for the closest airport, sometimes you don't know how much time you have until the post morten.

I am not saying that I put any credence in post 41 though



BV
User currently offlineHNL-Jack From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 33540 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 41):
That is all I am willing to share about the incident, as I should probably not even have shared as much as I have here.

That is exactly right, don't share what you really know nothing about.



Grew up in the business and continued the family tradition.
User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 33439 times:

Still wondering about the diversion to MSY. MEM has an 11,000 runway and the fed ex base.

User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13551 posts, RR: 100
Reply 45, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 32714 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 29):
No its really not ... amazing how 1 diversion brings out the 787 doomsdayers ...

That it is. I will be curious to find out more. I will happily fly on a 787. Preferably in J.  
Quoting dreyes78 (Reply 33):
Now the fire trucks came out to the plane.....

   Come on, if you worked the fire crew, wouldn't you go out at shift change?  
Quoting F9animal (Reply 41):
Had the aircraft been airborne 2 more minutes, it would have gone down.

I will wait to find out more, for the RAT and batteries should have been able to keep her aloft. I'm not against the early landing. If there is any question, I support the pilot's prerogative to put her on the ground. But I want to find out more before such a claim. Something too similar to the DC-10 incident that tarnished a good plane's reputation.

I will ping my Boeing contacts to see what they know.


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 46, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 32454 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 48):
I will wait to find out more, for the RAT and batteries should have been able to keep her aloft.

I think there is evidence that there was ample electrical power on the plane when it landed, something which was not the case in the Laredo incident. Passengers did not comment on a dark cabin, they said their was a slight hick-up and then the IFE rebooted. This would not have happened were we down to the kind of electrical level as in the Laredo incident which I think post 41 is referring to. That was a real nasty incident with an active fire when landing and the plane flying on RAT and with a partial flightdeck.

Here it seems even the IFE was on, I guess one of the solid state power controllers or similar might have gone meaning you where down to one power system covering the frames needs or such. Most probably miles away from Laredo (in more then one sense   Wow! ).

[Edited 2012-12-04 21:09:26]


Non French in France
User currently offlinetype-rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 47, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 32003 times:

On the map it looks like they were closer to MEM than to MSY. I wonder why they didn't go there. MEM can support a 787.

User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 981 posts, RR: 2
Reply 48, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 31070 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 49):

On the map it looks like they were closer to MEM than to MSY. I wonder why they didn't go there. MEM can support a 787.

That might have been a weather related decision. Wasn't there a front crossing MEM about that same time?



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlineboacvc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 30973 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 41):
Had the aircraft been airborne 2 more minutes, it would have gone down.

I initially thought fuel exhaustion, upon reading the sentence above, and only now noticed this news article: (Bloomberg News:
Boeing Dreamliners Leaking Fuel Spur FAA to Order Checks


"2 more minutes" and the use of "this" seems important somehow.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 41):
I will chime in and shed some light on this incident.

Batteries ? Electrical Bus ? cascading systems failure ? CB trips ? I'm intrigued. How about Software failure ? Computer failure ? Nav system failure ?



Up, up and Away!
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 747 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 30565 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 12):
Pilot asked ground crew to check for "discoloration or dripping plastic", yikes.  

That sounds disturbing... unless it is about a run-of-the-mill lightning strike.

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 29):
"Initial inspections showed that there was no fire in the aft electrical equipment bay, where the problem was reported, and no sign of electrical "arcing," or electricity flowing incorrectly, according to a person familiar with the situation"

... and it seems that it is not about lightning strike. Hmm. Would love to know what was going on.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 39):
Had the aircraft been airborne 2 more minutes, it would have gone down.

Are you serious?

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 2):
I asked one of the FA's when they would be making an announcement about the diversion. She was shocked that I knew about it, and asked how did I know.

That sounds strange. Why would there be procedures to prevent the passengers from finding out that there's a diversion?


User currently offlineaviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 29907 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 45):
Something too similar to the DC-10 incident that tarnished a good plane's reputation.

Which particular DC-10 incident was that? There were many.



707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2525 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 29133 times:

If this indeed was a lightning strike, I can't help but wonder when/where in the flight this may have taken place. The a/c climbed to FL410 shortly after departure and presumably was out of the reach of most, if not all weather. Had the strike taken place while climbing out of IAH, you'd think they'd have simply returned to base given UA's facilities there. Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1607 posts, RR: 4
Reply 53, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 28825 times:

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 26):
I can't tell what aircraft the line they stopped at was designed for (I imagine it doesn't say 787 on the pavement!). Interesting that they used airstairs to deplane passengers as opposed to the jetbridge...

Probably a 767 line, since that's roughly the equivalent size. With regards to the airstair, I was thinking the same thing.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlineUnflug From Germany, joined Jan 2012, 542 posts, RR: 2
Reply 54, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 24975 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 39):
I will chime in and shed some light on this incident. It has been very well covered up so to speak. I will make it short and sweet.

There are different assumptions which incident you are refering to. Would you mind to enlighten me?


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 24903 times:

Quoting Unflug (Reply 55):

Add me, it would be very interesting to know what that was about, that sound very serious indeed if true.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 56, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 23962 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 35):
The fact that they are looking for evidence of fire and electrical arcing in a brand new aircraft is concerning to say the least.

Except they're not. They've already looked and found nothing, according to all the press I can find.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 35):
Fires in avionics bays cause premature landings and occasional death.

Except they didn't have a fire in the avionics bay. Even the Laredo incident, according to Boeing, was an arc, not a fire (there isn't anything flammable in the aft equipment bay).

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 36):
Surely there must be some sort of fire indicator in the EE bay.

Not really. You have fault detection and power isolation but there's no fire detector/suppression because there's nothing to burn.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 39):
Had the aircraft been airborne 2 more minutes, it would have gone down.

Bull. And you can quote me on that.



Quoting F9animal (Reply 39):
It was pure skill in the cockpit that got that aircraft on the runway.


I forgot to cover this...this is also bull.

I know both pilots from that event. They're fantastic pilots. But they had an airplane on a stabilized approach on short final in VFR conditions, full thrust capability and full flight controls, and all continued safe-flight-and-landing systems. "All" they had to do (and all they did do) was continue the approach, land, and evacuate. I am, in no way, minimizing what they did...they performed professionally, admirably, and properly. But they did what *any* pilot would have done in that situation and no unusual skills by any piloting standard were required.

Tom.

[Edited 2012-12-05 08:50:55 by SA7700]

User currently offlineholzmann From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23348 times:

Do these things come with a warranty?

Will the 787 be labeled a lemon? Is here a "lemon law" for aircraft?

Will the 787 further degrade the "Made in USA" label? Or that Boeing made a huge mistake to outsource?

If the A350 launches without a hiccup, will the world only want to buy "Made in Europe" airplanes?

So many fun questions!


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23364 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 57):
Except they're not. They've already looked and found nothing, according to all the press I can find

Okay – They aren’t looking for evidence of a fire because they already looked and didn’t find anything ? – that makes sense.

Regardless of if there was a fire or not, the point I actually made was that it’s concerning that the crew suspected that this could be the case. Whatever happened on board this flight must have been pretty serious for them to reach the conclusions they did.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 57):
Except they didn't have a fire in the avionics bay. Even the Laredo incident, according to Boeing, was an arc, not a fire (there isn't anything flammable in the aft equipment bay).

I’m not sure how relevant the specifics of the Laredo incident are, I’ve read reports which back up what has been said in this thread in that the aircraft was minutes away from a crash landing. That's of course not to say this flight was in the same situation.


User currently offlinenkops From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2709 posts, RR: 6
Reply 59, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23233 times:

Quoting dreyes78 (Reply 32):
Now the fire trucks came out to the plane.....

Was probably a good time for the ARFF crews to do some familiarization with a new a/c type... I have seen our ARFF crews do that on diversions after all has settled down



I have no association with Spirit Airlines
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 60, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23168 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 57):
Except they didn't have a fire in the avionics bay. Even the Laredo incident, according to Boeing, was an arc, not a fire (there isn't anything flammable in the aft equipment bay).

Well Boeing doesn't always tell the absolute truth on these matters, neither does it flat out lie of course, it depends on how you define fire I suspect. From memory Boeing said that there was not a fire on landing but the fire service report seemed to contradict that by saying that the cabin was full of smoke. We all know that there is no smoke without fire, lol.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 57):
Except they're not. They've already looked and found nothing, according to all the press I can find.

Current theory seems to be a problem with a generator 'that supplies electrical power to the engines' (?) that is located close to the aft EE bay.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/05...ght-diverted-for-mechanical-issue/



BV
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10674 posts, RR: 14
Reply 61, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 23083 times:

Here's what the NYT has to say.....doesn't sound near as dire as some have stated, unless we're talking about two different incidents:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/bu...arly.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&_r=0



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3674 posts, RR: 12
Reply 62, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 22855 times:

Quoting holzmann (Reply 59):
Will the 787 further degrade the "Made in USA" label? Or that Boeing made a huge mistake to outsource?

The fuel line problems seem to be a USA assembly error. Most of the other problems I've heard about were related to overseas suppliers. So it's a combination of both. Either way it doesn't reflect particularly well on Boeing. Teething problems are one thing, but these are what I'd call "unforced errors" - if you don't install a fuel coupler correctly, that's just a failure in the assembly and inspection process, not something nobody could have foreseen. It really is just poor workmanship, at least in that particular area. And the fuel line issues, at least, don't seem to be uncommon.

This electrical problem should be unrelated to those problems, though; I guess we still don't know what this was.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 63, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 22937 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 39):
I will chime in and shed some light on this incident. It has been very well covered up so to speak.

I'll add to what Tom has already written. There was an FAA pilot in the flight deck at the time of the event, so your theory of a cover-up is an extraordinary accusation - as in a felony.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 41):
Had the aircraft been airborne 2 more minutes, it would have gone down.

As I suspect is the case for Tom, I was directly involved with the aftermath of this event and can state unequivocally your statement is completely false. Testing on ZA002 after the incident showed that had the airplane flown another 2 minutes, at least 2 of the isolated VFSGs would have reset and been supplying power to the main bus, while the faulted segment of the ring-tie bus would have remained isolated. In fact, one of the VFSGs did reconnect after touchdown. In other words, the software would have ultimately done what it was supposed to do, just not as quickly as it was supposed to do it. The power situation on ZA002 was improving at the time of touchdown, not getting worse.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 41):
I got this information from a very reliable source that is very high up in the Boeing Company.

I won't deny the possibility you really heard this from an executive at Boeing. However, few executives at Boeing understand the 787 power system in any detail at all, much less the details of what happened on ZA002. The information you were given about the incident is absolutely 100% wrong.

[Edited 2012-12-05 08:39:02]

User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10674 posts, RR: 14
Reply 64, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 22682 times:

Ok.......just for us dunces, on here.........are we talking about two different incidents......the one referred by the thread starter and another, in the testing phase??


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 65, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 22683 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 59):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 57):
Except they're not. They've already looked and found nothing, according to all the press I can find

Okay – They aren’t looking for evidence of a fire because they already looked and didn’t find anything ? – that makes sense.

OK, I worded that terribly. The pilots asked ARFF to look for evidence of a fire but we don't know why they said that...as I noted farther up, the aft bay doesn't have any fire detection and there were no reports of smoke anywhere. So it's not clear why the crew asked for that, specifically, but they did and ARFF looked and they found nothing. So far as I can find in any public source, there was zero evidence anywhere at any time of there actually being a fire.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 59):

Regardless of if there was a fire or not, the point I actually made was that it’s concerning that the crew suspected that this could be the case.

Absolutely agreed. I would love to know why the crew made that request.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 59):
Whatever happened on board this flight must have been pretty serious for them to reach the conclusions they did.

Slight caveat..whatever happened must have made thew crew *think* it could be pretty serious. Crews don't declare emergencies and divert for no reason. Whether it was actually pretty serious takes data that none of us have yet.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 59):
I’ve read reports which back up what has been said in this thread in that the aircraft was minutes away from a crash landing.

I would love to see any link to any report that says that.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 61):
From memory Boeing said that there was not a fire on landing but the fire service report seemed to contradict that by saying that the cabin was full of smoke. We all know that there is no smoke without fire, lol.

In the case of arcs, you get lots of smoke without fire. This may sound pedantic, but it's a big deal for aviation fire fighting because flammable material, once on fire, needs active suppression or fuel exhaustion to go away. Killing an arc just requires shutting down power. The latter is far easier, and far less dangerous to the aircraft, than the former.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 61):
Current theory seems to be a problem with a generator 'that supplies electrical power to the engines' (?) that is located close to the aft EE bay.

There are no generators close to the aft EE bay. There are two on each engine and two on the APU. Since the generators are driven backwards as starters, it's sort of vaguely true that they also supply power to the engines but that's irrelevant while in flight unless you're doing a cross-start in the air.

Quoting CM (Reply 64):
As I suspect is the case for Tom, I was directly involved with the aftermath of this event and can state unequivocally your statement is completely false.

Correct.

Tom.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 22536 times:

A bit sad if people use an incident to spread false information, it is not ok IMO!

User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6936 posts, RR: 9
Reply 67, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22358 times:

Out of curiosity, how severe was this diversion? Electrical seems be an issue with this aircraft.


"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 68, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22302 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 67):

Out of curiosity, how severe was this diversion?

In what terms? System degradation? Workload? Distance? Pax disruption?

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 67):
Electrical seems be an issue with this aircraft.

Something to keep in mind with the 787, specifically, is that the electrical system covers what would normally be big chunks of ATA 21, 29, 30, and 36. So you need to mentally roll together most of the issues that we normally associate with air conditioning, hydraulic power, ice & rain protection, and pneumatics and lump them all into "electrical".

That said, yes, I'd agree the 787 has a disproportionate share of public electrical stuff, although that's somewhat to be expected just due to the architecture.

Tom.


User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5127 posts, RR: 28
Reply 69, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22325 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 56):
Bull. And you can quote me on that.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 56):
I forgot to cover this...this is also bull.

I know both pilots from that event. They're fantastic pilots. But they had an airplane on a stabilized approach on short final in VFR conditions, full thrust capability and full flight controls, and all continued safe-flight-and-landing systems. "All" they had to do (and all they did do) was continue the approach, land, and evacuate. I am, in no way, minimizing what they did...they performed professionally, admirably, and properly. But they did what *any* pilot would have done in that situation and no unusual skills by any piloting standard were required.

Tom.

Tom, I fully respect your views. No need to be so harsh. Like I said, 2 minutes more, the aircraft would have gone down. This is from a very knowledgeable individual that I know would never fabricate something like this. This individual holds ranks that are credible enough for me to believe.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 60):
Well Boeing doesn't always tell the absolute truth on these matters, neither does it flat out lie of course, it depends on how you define fire I suspect. From memory Boeing said that there was not a fire on landing but the fire service report seemed to contradict that by saying that the cabin was full of smoke. We all know that there is no smoke without fire, lol.

You are correct sir.

Quoting CM (Reply 63):
I'll add to what Tom has already written. There was an FAA pilot in the flight deck at the time of the event, so your theory of a cover-up is an extraordinary accusation - as in a felony.

My definition of a coverup in this case means, well hushed. Again, it is in the best interest for any aircraft maker to divulge minimal details of incidents. Had Boeing or Airbus come out on any close calls and brandished it with full media love, the outcome of the program could be harmed. Which again is why it has been classified as a minor incident by the company.



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 70, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22213 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 64):
Ok.......just for us dunces, on here.........are we talking about two different incidents......the one referred by the thread starter and another, in the testing phase??

Yes. Two separate incidents. It is unfortunate that has not been made more clear in this thread.

During 787 flight test, airplane # ZA002 suffered severe arcing in its aft equipment bay due to a foreign object rattling around in an electrical panel. The bus isolation software did not work as intended and several main generators were isolated from the bus. The airplane landed with RAT deployed and operating on standby power.

The other incident is a UA diversion wich oddurred this week. There is no indication at this point that the two incidents are in any way related.

[Edited 2012-12-05 09:41:52]

User currently offlinebhmdiversion From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22171 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 47):
On the map it looks like they were closer to MEM than to MSY. I wonder why they didn't go there. MEM can support a 787.

MEM is a UAX station and can't handle an aircraft of this size.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10674 posts, RR: 14
Reply 72, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22120 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 70):
Quoting mayor (Reply 64):Ok.......just for us dunces, on here.........are we talking about two different incidents......the one referred by the thread starter and another, in the testing phase??

Yes. Two separate incidents. It is unfortunate that has not been made more clear in this thread.



Thank you. Yes, it is unfortunate because it seems like info from the first incident is making it look like the more recent incident is worse than it was.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 73, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22141 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 69):
Like I said, 2 minutes more, the aircraft would have gone down

You really need to stop repeating this. I won't dispute you heard it from someone. It remains entirely untrue.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 69):
This is from a very knowledgeable individual that I know would never fabricate something like this. This individual holds ranks that are credible enough for me to believe.

Further proof that knowledgeable, high-ranking and otherwise credible people are sometimes wrong.

Unless this person participated in the investigation, looked at the DFDR data from the flight, saw the results from hundreds of attempts to recreate this event in the lab, helped the suppliers modify the design to preclude it from happening again, and then went on the road to help 787 customers understand the event and why flight test would be delayed for a while, then this person does not have more knowledge of the event than I do.


User currently offlineboacvc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22014 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 69):
Like I said, 2 minutes more, the aircraft would have gone down.

Ok, could you please clarify you were referring to the incident that happened December 4, 2012. There were a lot of crosstalk with other poster comments, and the meaning of your "this" became fuzzy.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 39):
I will chime in and shed some light on this incident.
BOACVC10



Up, up and Away!
User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1828 posts, RR: 3
Reply 75, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21375 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 76):

You need to continue to clarify that you're talking about the incident during the test flight and NOT the UA diversion from yesterday.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 76, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21221 times:

Now if the

Quoting F9animal (Reply 69):
This individual holds ranks that are credible enough for me to believe.

As all of us on here are aware that executives are not to be trusted, it is be a sad day when the front line Engineers and Mechanics on A-net can't be trusted.  
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 76):
However, after spending a couple of hours searching I can't find the article, so in this case I'll defer to CM and Tom and accept that this was not the case.



CM and Tom are as close to first hand information on the flight test incident as most of us will ever get.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 76):
The crew themselves reported that the atmosphere in the cabin was thick with a black acrid smelling smoke and that several of the passengers required treatment for smoke inhalation. Further to this, two unidentified people also reported to the media that they had seen flames inside the avionics bay.

Yet, apparently there was no fire....

The arcing incident involved a washer as I recall correctly. Under arcing condition even an aluminum washer will catch fire. Now, typically these power components will also have various insulators isolating the conductors. These insulators (silicone or other non metallic material) while may be fire resistant or fire proof, can and will smoke significantly when exposed to fire or an arcing condition.

Only in the main cabin where the smoke toxicity requirement is applied, are materials required to emit low smoke and toxicity (unless when used is small quantities). The requirement does not flow to the lower lobe where the EE bay resides.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 77, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21200 times:

In regard to the ZA002 flight test incident which occurred on 9-Nov, 2010:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 76):
Further to this, two unidentified people also reported to the media that they had seen flames inside the avionics bay.

There is no access to, or way to view the aft E/E bay from the main deck where the test crew was. What would have been visible to the crew were the flashes from the arcing at the P100 panel, as this light would be visible through the return air grill, and the subsequent smoke which came into the cabin through the same return air grill. There was no damage to the return air grills, so it was conclusively determined there were no flames visible to the crew. The insulation blankets below the P100 panel were charred by material ejected from the panel. As Tom mentioned, these blankets are certified non-flammable, but certainly will produce plenty of smoke under such a circumstance.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 76):
Finally, has it been proven that FOD was the cause?

The best way to answer this is to say it was proven to be FOD, beyond a reasonable doubt. The only way we were able to recreate the event in the lab was with a very small piece of FOD (such as an small aluminum metal shaving), lodged in a very specific place in the power panel. No other scenario we tested created the circumstances seen on ZA002.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 76):
Everything I've read tonight has said it was suspected, but not proven.

We can probably never say with absolute 100% certainty FOD was the cause, as a small piece of conductive FOD would have been completely vaporized on contact with the VFSG power. Regardless, the design solution addresses both the ability of FOD to enter the panel and contact the power, as well as how the the bus/generator software logic isolates a fault. Even if FOD wasn't the cause, the timing and logic of how the software isolates a fault has precluded this event from happening again.


User currently offlinetype-rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 78, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21113 times:

Quoting bhmdiversion (Reply 71):
MEM is a UAX station and can't handle an aircraft of this size.

You mean that the MEM UA station can't handle a plane of this size because it's a United Express station.... The airport itself could handle anything that flies. Look at all the FedEx stuff going in and out of there on a daily basis.

But thanks for the info, that explains it.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 79, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 21157 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 69):
Tom, I fully respect your views. No need to be so harsh.

Although I respect that you got different information, and are fully entitled to post that here, I feel I need to be somewhat direct (not, harsh) because this:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 69):
Like I said, 2 minutes more, the aircraft would have gone down.

is completely untrue. Not kind-of-sort-of untrue, not untrue under certain interpretations or contexts, but flat out wrong.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 69):
This is from a very knowledgeable individual that I know would never fabricate something like this.

By definition, he can't be that knowledgeable because he's giving you bad information. He may believe it's true (i.e. he's not fabricating it), he's just wrong.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 69):
Which again is why it has been classified as a minor incident by the company.

Having been there through that incident, I'm curious how or why you think it's been classified as minor.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 76):
It is a little curious though, after reading through various reports and publications regarding this incident and I'm finding alot of contradictory reports. Statements from the firecrew which attended the scene say that passengers evacuated from the aircraft informed them that there was indeed a fire and it was still burning. The crew themselves reported that the atmosphere in the cabin was thick with a black acrid smelling smoke and that several of the passengers required treatment for smoke inhalation. Further to this, two unidentified people also reported to the media that they had seen flames inside the avionics bay.

As CM said, you can't see the aft EE bay from the cabin. If I was in the cabin and saw flashes and smoke, I'd sure as heck think there was as a fire, attempt to fight it in flight, and notify the ARFF crew as such on landing. That does *not* mean there's actually a fire. At the time, I don't think anyone suspected an arc of that magnitude inside a power system. Much much much better to be safe than sorry in a case like that.

Tom.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5794 posts, RR: 28
Reply 80, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 21090 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 69):
Tom, I fully respect your views. No need to be so harsh. Like I said, 2 minutes more, the aircraft would have gone down. This is from a very knowledgeable individual that I know would never fabricate something like this. This individual holds ranks that are credible enough for me to believe.

How can you say that you fully respect his views when you turn right around and tell him he's wrong, or worse, lying? He is intimately involved with the program, knows the pilots, and stated unequivocally what they experienced onboard. The fact that you stand by a claim that is pure heresay from a Boeing executive (who you say aren't always truthful) is mind-blowing.

No one is saying that you are fabricating anything. They are telling you - from their persona experience and from the horse's mouth - what happened and you contradict it. And you wonder why someone is harsh? Unreal...

Quoting F9animal (Reply 69):
Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 60):Well Boeing doesn't always tell the absolute truth on these matters, neither does it flat out lie of course, it depends on how you define fire I suspect. From memory Boeing said that there was not a fire on landing but the fire service report seemed to contradict that by saying that the cabin was full of smoke. We all know that there is no smoke without fire, lol.

You are correct sir.

Yes, the same executive that you stake your reputation on over the very people who are hands-on.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 69):
My definition of a coverup in this case means, well hushed.

Choosing not to broadcast bad news is one thing. You are saying that the plane was two minutes from going down EVEN THOUGH we are being told differently by people in-the-know. That implies that they are LYING. That is not - hushed - that is lying.

Quoting sweair (Reply 66):
A bit sad if people use an incident to spread false information, it is not ok IMO!

This week has been a bad week for the usual suspects coming into these threads and pouring fuel on the fire - or pretending there's a fire in hope's of creating one.

Quoting mayor (Reply 64):
Ok.......just for us dunces, on here.........are we talking about two different incidents......the one referred by the thread starter and another, in the testing phase??

Amazing that people keep asking, yet he keeps disregarding the request. And yet expects respect?

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 78):
As all of us on here are aware that executives are not to be trusted, it is be a sad day when the front line Engineers and Mechanics on A-net can't be trusted.

It's getting crazy here on A.net. You can say anything you want without recourse, so people do.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13551 posts, RR: 100
Reply 81, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 21101 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 81):
Quoting F9animal (Reply 69):
Like I said, 2 minutes more, the aircraft would have gone down.

is completely untrue. Not kind-of-sort-of untrue, not untrue under certain interpretations or contexts, but flat out wrong.

The information I'm getting backs up tdscanuck (I cannot post). The plane 'rapidly recovered speed' as noted in the NYTimes article indicates full control.

Although rebooting IFE is a disaster for some.  
Quoting mayor (Reply 61):
Here's what the NYT has to say.....doesn't sound near as dire as some have stated, unless we're talking about two different incidents:
Quoting CM (Reply 63):
There was an FAA pilot in the flight deck at the time of the event, so your theory of a cover-up is an extraordinary accusation - as in a felony.

Exactly. Let me go on record I think the pilots made the right call to divert. I will not double guess such a decision. But there is a difference between 'better safe than sorry' and 'we're 2 minutes from DOOM!'

This struck me: "But after the United jet landed in New Orleans on Tuesday, no fire or arcing on the wires in the electrical panel was found."

Quoting CM (Reply 63):
I won't deny the possibility you really heard this from an executive at Boeing. However, few executives at Boeing understand the 787 power system in any detail at all, much less the details of what happened on ZA002. The information you were given about the incident is absolutely 100% wrong.

None of the executive would know. They're panicking more for their jobs due to cuts.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 68):
Something to keep in mind with the 787, specifically, is that the electrical system covers what would normally be big chunks of ATA 21, 29, 30, and 36. So you need to mentally roll together most of the issues that we normally associate with air conditioning, hydraulic power, ice & rain protection, and pneumatics and lump them all into "electrical".

   Normally all that hydraulic system issues/tuning is now just electrical with mostly software fixes...   


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently onlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5952 posts, RR: 5
Reply 82, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 20805 times:

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 53):
With regards to the airstair, I was thinking the same thing.

As I'm sure you are aware, the lines are set at the right position so that the jetbridge can be attached easily. In this case there was no 787 line, so wherever they ended up parking it might not have been right for attaching the jetbridge, at least not without spending a long time playing around with it to see what works. Therefore when the aircraft arrived the easiest thing would be to use stairs to get people off in a timely manner, and figure out what to do with the jetbridge later.

Quoting holzmann (Reply 57):
Will the 787 further degrade the "Made in USA" label? Or that Boeing made a huge mistake to outsource?

No. All aircraft have teething problems. Hell, even the legendary 777.

Quoting holzmann (Reply 57):
If the A350 launches without a hiccup

No chance. No aircraft ever does. See the A380.

(Before anyone flames me on (1) AvB or (2) nationalist grounds, I should point out that (1) I generally prefer Airbus products personally, and (2) I was born in the EU and hold an EU passport)

Quoting type-rated (Reply 80):
You mean that the MEM UA station can't handle a plane of this size because it's a United Express station.... The airport itself could handle anything that flies

Of course if it was an absolutely essential emergency landing, then yes MEM could do it. But in this case it seems that there was enough time to safely divert to MSY, so it would be better to go to a mainline station. If nothing else they have the ability to handle it in house. If they'd gone to MEM they would most likely have had to rent some airstairs, pallet lifters etc from FX or DL.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 82):
How can you say that you fully respect his views when you turn right around and tell him he's wrong

You can respect the views of somebody without agreeing with them. I respected the views of both Presidential candidates as legitimate political views that are important to healthy political discourse, but there's no chance in hell that I would ever have voted for one of them.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5794 posts, RR: 28
Reply 83, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 20780 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 84):
(Before anyone flames me on (1) AvB or (2) nationalist grounds, I should point out that (1) I generally prefer Airbus products personally, and (2) I was born in the EU and hold an EU passport)

It's a sad testament to A.net that such a disclaimer needs to be made in a discussion, but I understand why some feel the need to do so.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 84):

You can respect the views of somebody without agreeing with them.

Absolutely. If I have a different point of view, that's one thing. However, in the case of what I was referring to, someone with only second hand information is telling two people with first hand information that they are simply wrong. That's not a different point of view. That's telling them that they are either lying or simply uninformed. I think it's fair to say (and you are welcome to disagree) that they are very well informed and I choose to believe that they are not lying.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2322 posts, RR: 26
Reply 84, posted (2 years 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 20405 times:

Electrical Failure is the word, what exactly, do not know yet. Could have been a burning smell in the cabin, and after the AirTran Everglades incident, a diversion would be a good precautionary thing.


UNITED We Stand
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 85, posted (2 years 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 19915 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 82):
How can you say that you fully respect his views when you turn right around and tell him he's wrong, or worse, lying?

I appreciate the support. In F9Animal's defense, if he received information from a source in a position to know and that he trusted, he would not have a reason to disbelieve it or to not share it. In the case of this specific event, we're in the somewhat unique situation that (with very high probability) CM and I were both in a position to know a great deal more than almost any potential "high up" source.

I reacted harshly because of the magnitude of the inaccuracy; it needed to be corrected clearly and thoroughly; I don't believe that F9animal had any way of knowing how inaccurate it was or spread it with malicious intent.

It is fundamental to a.net that nobody should ever believe anything any other user says as gospel. The best we can do is present our facts with sources when we can, identify opinions, and discuss civilly on the differences.

Tom.


User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5803 posts, RR: 47
Reply 86, posted (2 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 19670 times:

Boeing and United is now saying that one of the 6 starter generators in the aircraft failed. Hardly something that wold lead to bringing down the aircraft in 2 minutes.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3072 posts, RR: 37
Reply 87, posted (2 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 19378 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 88):
Boeing and United is now saying that one of the 6 starter generators in the aircraft failed. Hardly something that wold lead to bringing down the aircraft in 2 minutes.

For clarity, can we stop conflating the UA diversion that occurred on December 4 with the ZA002 flight test incident that occurred on November 9, 2010. Unfortunately, the confusion began here:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 39):
Quoting STEVE7E7 (Reply 20):
Didn't a test 787 suffer a fire in the same electrical bay during flight testing?

I hope for Boeings sake this is an isolated incident.
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 23):
I've just listened to the ATC recordings for this incident - I'm still none the wiser to what went on, but it doesn't look like a minor electrical problem. The crew actually direct ground staff to inspect the outside of the rear avionics bay for evidence of fire..

I will chime in and shed some light on this incident. It has been very well covered up so to speak. I will make it short and sweet. Had the aircraft been airborne 2 more minutes, it would have gone down.

The notion that ZA002 would have gone down has been thoroughly and completely refuted by tdscanuck and CM, two engineers closely involved in the test program and the investigation that followed the ZA002 incident.

All we know about this week's incident is that the flight descended over a period of about 10 minutes and then diverted to MSY, bypassing a number of airports that could have accommodated an emergency landing, and that the crew asked ATC to request an external check of the EE bay area upon landing. I can think of hundreds of scenarios that these meagre facts would support - including Martians and conspiracies.

[Edited 2012-12-05 15:56:27]


Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6137 posts, RR: 9
Reply 88, posted (2 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 19394 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 80):
Quoting bhmdiversion (Reply 71):
MEM is a UAX station and can't handle an aircraft of this size.

You mean that the MEM UA station can't handle a plane of this size because it's a United Express station.... The airport itself could handle anything that flies. Look at all the FedEx stuff going in and out of there on a daily basis.

...which itself is an indication that the plane was not in imanent danger. If they were 2 minutes from disaster they would have diverted to MEM or any airport that was capable of accepting a 787...never mind if it's a UA Mainline station.

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 88):

Boeing and United is now saying that one of the 6 starter generators in the aircraft failed. Hardly something that wold lead to bringing down the aircraft in 2 minutes.

        



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1903 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (2 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 19353 times:



Quoting NYC777 (Reply 88):
Boeing and United is now saying that one of the 6 starter generators in the aircraft failed. Hardly something that wold lead to bringing down the aircraft in 2 minutes.

Is that number for two generators in each engine and two for the APU?
It sounds like the confusing cockpit messages might be more responsible for the divert decision than the actual failure.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 87):
I reacted harshly because of the magnitude of the inaccuracy; it needed to be corrected clearly and thoroughly; I don't believe that F9animal had any way of knowing how inaccurate it was or spread it with malicious intent.

I think that's very charitable. Not knowing doesn't mean there wasn't any way of knowing. People choose what they want to know all the time. Some more than others.

[Edited 2012-12-05 15:55:50]


Andy Goetsch
User currently onlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13203 posts, RR: 16
Reply 90, posted (2 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 19303 times:

To me there is going to a tight standard of any apparent problem, including electrical, which means get the aircraft ASAP to the nearest capable airport, as too many crashes have proven (SR 111 as one of the best examples). We don't know if there was a false fire alarm, a minor problem, what at first was a minor problem and was cascading. This also being a new model and those in the cockpit not as familiar with this a/c's systems, they had an added reason to land quickly. You could also have a flaw in a component or how wiring was done that was particular to this a/c or could be a problem with other 787's. Hopefully the problem will be determined in this incident and is resolvable.

User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 91, posted (2 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 19399 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 91):
Is that number for two generators in each engine and two for the APU?

Yes.

It was an engine VFSG (variable frequency starter generator) which failed. I would take it from comments further up in this thread that some non-essential loads (IFE) were momentarily shed while the power system isolated the failed generator.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3072 posts, RR: 37
Reply 92, posted (2 years 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 19226 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 93):
It was an engine VFSG (variable frequency starter generator) which failed. I would take it from comments further up in this thread that some non-essential loads (IFE) were momentarily shed while the power system isolated the failed generator.

So everything functioned the way it was designed to do (apart from the VFSG, which is why there's redundancy). Almost a non-event.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (2 years 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 19166 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 94):
So everything functioned the way it was designed to do (apart from the VFSG, which is why there's redundancy). Almost a non-event.

If this was a none event why did the crew declare an emergency and suspect fire?

I've no doubt a generator failed, but thats not the whole story here by far.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 94, posted (2 years 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 19071 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 94):
So everything functioned the way it was designed to do (apart from the VFSG, which is why there's redundancy). Almost a non-event.

This I am not so sure of. I no longer work on the program, so I can only speculate with everyone else, but given the circumstances, it seems there is more to it than just a simple VFSG failure.

It may be something simple such as the crew made an overly cautious decision and chose to declare and land (seems unlikely to me). Or it may be there was an indication problem which made the crew believe more was going on than really was (not the first time). Or there may have actually been more going on with the airplane than just a simple VFSG failure.

The request for the ground to look at the aft E/E bay area is truly puzzling, as there is no flight deck message which would make a pilot worry about melting the airplane in this area. Perhaps the pilot also was thinking about the ZA002 event! (see the first possibility above   )

Whatever the case, if it was something other than a routine component failure and a overly-cautious approach to piloting a new airplane, then we'll learn about the cause soon enough.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 95):
I've no doubt a generator failed, but thats not the whole story here by far.

  


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3072 posts, RR: 37
Reply 95, posted (2 years 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 18876 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 95):
why did the crew declare an emergency

Did they? I may have missed it.

Quoting CM (Reply 96):
It may be something simple such as the crew made an overly cautious decision and chose to declare and land (seems unlikely to me). Or it may be there was an indication problem which made the crew believe more was going on than really was (not the first time). Or there may have actually been more going on with the airplane than just a simple VFSG failure.

Fair enough. I've certainly been guilty of the first two.
There's no NTSB docket so far.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 96, posted (2 years 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 18799 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 78):
CM and Tom are as close to first hand information on the flight test incident as most of us will ever get.

True but this means that they are inside the bubble to some extent, Tom is always careful to make the disclaimer of 'publicly available information' which leaves open the possibility that sometimes he is in possession of information that is not public that contradicts the publicly available information, lets call this the Susan Rice paradox. I have been there myself on some projects that made the news so I understand where they are coming from but nether the less this means that their information should not always be viewed as objective truth.

No disrespect meant to Tom or CM (or our Airbus, Pratt or RR moles) but we need to be realistic, they have jobs that they would like to keep.



BV
User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1079 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (2 years 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 18615 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 98):
No disrespect meant to Tom or CM (or our Airbus, Pratt or RR moles) but we need to be realistic, they have jobs that they would like to keep.

So they aren't posting confidential information but I seriously doubt they would post erroneous information on a voluntary basis on a web board.



My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3674 posts, RR: 12
Reply 98, posted (2 years 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 18144 times:

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 99):
So they aren't posting confidential information but I seriously doubt they would post erroneous information on a voluntary basis on a web board.

We're all getting dangerously close to trying to guess another person's personal motivation. Why does *anyone* post *anything* on a web board? We all have our personal reasons. But that's just it - they are personal, and as human beings, we are subject to biases that arise from the reasons we have to be posting here in the first place. There's no way around that. Nobody is 100% objective. We're not robots. That goes for everybody in this thread and any other.

Quoting CM (Reply 96):
but given the circumstances, it seems there is more to it than just a simple VFSG failure.

I remember once flying on a DC-10 that had an engine failure on takeoff and a subsequent fire that was put out in-flight. We declared an emergency (I heard this on channel 9), then returned to the airport with fire engines chasing us down the runway.

The official report later said simply "compressor stall on takeoff, maintenance changed engine". But compressor stalls don't happen for no reason, engines aren't changed for compressor stalls (at least not routinely), emergencies aren't declared over compressor stalls, and fire engines don't follow planes down the runway for compressor stalls.

There is usually more to the story. And that "extra" part may or may not be really relevant, but whenever it seems like somebody's not telling the public something, people are going to assume the worst.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently onlinephxa340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 908 posts, RR: 1
Reply 99, posted (2 years 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 18167 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 95):
I've no doubt a generator failed, but thats not the whole story here by far.

I think that is the whole story. Reuters and the Tribune are reporting that the United Pilots received messages in the cockpit about possible electric failure hence the emergency landing. On a new type with such new technology they probably were overly cautious.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...bre8b500q-20121205,0,4497701.story



Quoting F9animal (Reply 69):
Like I said, 2 minutes more, the aircraft would have gone down.

The fact that your "contact" has been proven wrong and you still stand by your original post is mind boggling.


User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5127 posts, RR: 28
Reply 100, posted (2 years 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 17854 times:

Quoting boacvc10 (Reply 74):
Ok, could you please clarify you were referring to the incident that happened December 4, 2012. There were a lot of crosstalk with other poster comments, and the meaning of your "this" became fuzzy.

I read it, and understand where you are confused. And that is partly my fault here. It was in response to post 20, which was about the 787 during test flights. I was responding to that poster. I accidentally added post 23 to my quote. Sorry!   The slow response is because I work crazy hours, and I do not frequent this site at work. So to clarify, I was referring to the "two minutes" as to a test flight, not UA Ship #902. I apologize for the confusion!

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 85):
Absolutely. If I have a different point of view, that's one thing. However, in the case of what I was referring to, someone with only second hand information is telling two people with first hand information that they are simply wrong. That's not a different point of view. That's telling them that they are either lying or simply uninformed. I think it's fair to say (and you are welcome to disagree) that they are very well informed and I choose to believe that they are not lying.

-Dave

I never once accused them of lying. I simply shared information that was given to me from someone that I highly respect. I had no idea what CM or tdscanuk do for a living (as of the typing of this, I do have an idea of what they do now!), nor was I remotely even calling them liars. I respect and love my wife to the fullest, but I may not always agree with her. Does that make my wife a liar?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 87):
I reacted harshly because of the magnitude of the inaccuracy; it needed to be corrected clearly and thoroughly; I don't believe that F9animal had any way of knowing how inaccurate it was or spread it with malicious intent.

It is fundamental to a.net that nobody should ever believe anything any other user says as gospel. The best we can do is present our facts with sources when we can, identify opinions, and discuss civilly on the differences.

Tom.

Again Tom, I fully respect you. I had no idea what you did for a living, so I would like to apologize for the misunderstanding. I had no intention of firing anyone up, I was just sharing what I was told. I just wanted to share something that I thought was exciting. I am always interested in accidents, crashes, and so on. So the conversation I had with this person was of major interest to me. He may very well be misinformed. He may very well be very accurate. In today's world, conspiracy seems to be the new hot item. Like those that think 9/11/01 was a conspiracy and coverup.   Anyways, thanks for sharing what you know.



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 101, posted (2 years 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 17751 times:

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 99):
So they aren't posting confidential information but I seriously doubt they would post erroneous information on a voluntary basis on a web board.

I think that you need to slice this a bit thinner. They post publicly available information, some of which turns out in hindsight to be incorrect (I have a particular thread in mind here) now, do they post publicly available information that we assume is therefore correct while their private and internal sources tell them something else? I am not in a position to tell you that but I suspect not as on something where we assume that they would have direct knowledge they do not respond to threads.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 102):
Like those that think 9/11/01 was a conspiracy and coverup.

Yeah its quite common for aircraft to buzz around for an hour in the most highly defended airspace the world have ever seen without being challanged...  



BV
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 102, posted (2 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 17469 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 91):
Is that number for two generators in each engine and two for the APU?

Building on CM's post, the VFSGs are on the engines (two on each engine for a total of four) and the ASGs are on the APU (two on the single APU), for a total of six. These are the primary power sources, any one of which can keep all the airplane systems needed for safe flight and landing going.

On top of that, you've got the RAT, the ship's battery, the APU battery, three permanent magnet generators on the engine gearboxes, and an assortment of emergency batteries for individual systems.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 91):
It sounds like the confusing cockpit messages might be more responsible for the divert decision than the actual failure.

Can't tell that without knowing the messages. There are messages for each individual generator so, if it was just a single generator failure as some of the other posts suggest, that should only cause one message.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 98):
Tom is always careful to make the disclaimer of 'publicly available information' which leaves open the possibility that sometimes he is in possession of information that is not public that contradicts the publicly available information

That possibility does exist, yes. It's very common that I know information that isn't public (that would be true for everyone on a.net who actually works in the industry), which is why I'm always careful to refer only to pubicly available information. I do have a leg up because I know what information I'm looking for, so I can more efficiently hunt for public sources.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 99):
I seriously doubt they would post erroneous information on a voluntary basis on a web board.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would not post known erroneous information. I could, and have, posted things that I believed to be true at the time and later found to be false. I try to admit this when it happens, and avoid doing it in the first place, but it does happen.

Tom.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12973 posts, RR: 25
Reply 103, posted (2 years 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17285 times:

Re: ZA002 incident:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 56):
Except they didn't have a fire in the avionics bay. Even the Laredo incident, according to Boeing, was an arc, not a fire (there isn't anything flammable in the aft equipment bay).
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 65):

In the case of arcs, you get lots of smoke without fire. This may sound pedantic, but it's a big deal for aviation fire fighting because flammable material, once on fire, needs active suppression or fuel exhaustion to go away. Killing an arc just requires shutting down power. The latter is far easier, and far less dangerous to the aircraft, than the former.

I guess I'm not 100% with you.

Google's definition of "fire" is "combustion or burning, in which substances combine chemically with oxygen from the air and typically give out bright light, heat, and smoke" and most of the others found using Google are similar to this. So are you saying that in the ZA002 incident there was no combustion or burning?

A report from the time says:

Quote:

Forensic evidence from the fire damage pinpoints Contactor CK2435505, one of two in the P100 panel, as the source of the ignition. The contactors are electrical control boxes that relay the power from the generators on the engine and distribute it as needed. They open circuits or close as power needs fluctuate. Contactor CK2435505, on top of the panel, was “melted” according to a leaked Boeing engineering report, while the lower contactor, CK2421501, suffered “extensive fire and smoke damage to backside.”

Fire from the contactor burned a hole between 12 and 15 in. long in the back of the P100 panel, and badly charred the adjacent fuselage insulation blanket material, which effectively did its job in preventing burn-through to the interior of the 787’s primary composite fuselage skin structure.

Ref: http://aviationnewsdaily.com/2010/12...a-four-month-delay-for-boeing-787/

And the leaked photos (now disappeared from the web) showed to me evidence of combustion and/or burning, thus fire.

I agree there's a difference between "combustion/burning" that stops when electrical current is no longer flowing versus "combustion/burning" that persists after electrical current is no longer flowing, but I'm pretty sure the word "fire" would be used for both, and if one accepts the above report, internal Boeing communications used the word "fire" too.

Of course you don't have to give that report credence, but its specificity, along with the no longer available pictures whose part numbers matched the info in the report, had me convinced.

Re: MSY incident:

Quoting CM (Reply 93):
It was an engine VFSG (variable frequency starter generator) which failed. I would take it from comments further up in this thread that some non-essential loads (IFE) were momentarily shed while the power system isolated the failed generator.

Very glad to hear it was a failure of one component that the system handled correctly.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5794 posts, RR: 28
Reply 104, posted (2 years 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17012 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 87):
It is fundamental to a.net that nobody should ever believe anything any other user says as gospel. The best we can do is present our facts with sources when we can, identify opinions, and discuss civilly on the differences.

Very true. However, I think we also will all use our experience with various posters, including what and how they post, their wording, etc. to make a judgment call when someone makes a claim. My experience tells me one thing in this instance, but certainly I could be wrong.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 98):
No disrespect meant to Tom or CM (or our Airbus, Pratt or RR moles) but we need to be realistic, they have jobs that they would like to keep.

Sure, but I think it's quite likely that instead of calling someone out, as Tom essentially did with F9Animal's source, he would have simply kept his mouth shut or posted information that cast a different light on it. I seriously doubt that he (in this instance) would tell somewhat point blank that they were flat-out wrong unless he believed that they were.

And Tom/CM are only one side of the equation. The other side is going to be the poster making the allegation, and that played just as much, if not more of, a role in this dialogue as the other.

Regardless, it's up to each of us to make up our minds about what we believe, who's got an agenda in coming here (cough cough), etc. I stand by mine.

Quoting F9animal (Reply 102):
I respect and love my wife to the fullest, but I may not always agree with her. Does that make my wife a liar?

If your wife said that she thinks popcorn is the greatest food in the world, you might very well disagree. That doesn't make her a liar.

If your wife said she stayed home all day, but someone in a position at Safeway said they saw her in the produce section and so you then told her "Sorry, I respect you, but you're wrong. You were at Safeway. I was told by someone there.", then yes, I'd say you are calling her a liar.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 105, posted (2 years 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 17045 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 105):
I guess I'm not 100% with you.

Boeing's public communication in the days follwing the ZA002 incident used the word "fire". Myself and many others on the engineering side objected vigorously to the use of that word. Not for PR reasons (although I was concerned with how the public would react to that word), but for the technical reasons Tom has already articulated.

To have a "fire", you must have "combustion". There was no combustion on ZA002. There was significant arcing (plasma is not the same as flame), during which molten metal from the power panel was ejected onto the insulation blankets in the cheek area of the fuselage. That hot material smoldered on and melted through the insulation blankets, eventually settling against the fuselage skin on the upper surface of a couple of stringers. Here again, the hot material melted into and smoldered in the epoxy of the CFRP structure. In all of this, there was no fire, despite significant melting, charring and smoke.

Obviously, the metal from the P100 panel did not catch on fire. In the case of the insulation blanket and the CFRP structure, there was certainly melting, charring and smoke, but no combustion. All of these are materials which are certified non-flammable by testing with a fuel-fed flame - if there had been a fire (in the sense of combustion) onboard ZA002, it would have indicated a real problem with the materials in that area of the airplane.

I suppose the above argument will sound like semantics to some (it certainly did to the communications people at Boeing), but in a truly technical sense, there was no fire onboard ZA002. As for the "where there's smoke there's fire" argument, watch TIG or MIG welding sometime... lots of smoke and light from the plasma of the arc, but no flame. Now dribble some of that molten steel onto your welding glove... lots of smoke and charring, but no flame because the glove is non-flammable.


User currently offlinehuxrules From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (2 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 16706 times:

I'm guessing that the pilots know bout the Laredo incident and just wanted someone to look just in case. Even if they didn't have an indication of a fire I'm sure the Laredo incident was fresh in their minds. Sound like a human thing to do.

User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1385 posts, RR: 1
Reply 107, posted (2 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 16766 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 95):
I've no doubt a generator failed, but thats not the whole story here by far.

Well, here's a scenario just for the sake of wild and unqualified speculation. I came across a comment on another forum where someone posted a 'rumor' stating: "I have it from a source inside United that one of their 787s diverted to MSY this morning due to a triple generator failure. Thats all the info I have at the moment."

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads...generator-failure-inflight.159177/

I'm not familiar with the site, much less with the individual's credibility or that of his sources. Yet it's interesting the comment was posted just a couple of hours after the aircraft landed at MSY and well before any media outlets began mentioning a possible generator failure. Boeing has now stated the aircraft suffered "a" generator failure - which I don't doubt. But in "OEM-speak" this doesn't exclude the possibility of one generator suffering a failure - resulting in another two healthy units going offline, albeit perhaps only temporarily. Maybe we'll see another problem with the electric architecture as was discovered after the Laredo incident, where the system didn't quite respond as designed. What lends such a scenario some plausibility IMO, is that with 3 generators going offline simultaneously, it could explain why the crew may have thought the problem was related to the electric bay and why they directed emergency services there.

At any rate, I do tend to agree there's probably more to the story than a mere single generator failure. But what do I know  


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 108, posted (2 years 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 16478 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 105):
And the leaked photos (now disappeared from the web) showed to me evidence of combustion and/or burning, thus fire.

I spent ages looking for them also, does anyone have them?

I think they were also posted to a thread here, but after spending sometime with the forum search I've found nothing.


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1903 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (2 years 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 16411 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 105):
I guess I'm not 100% with you.

Google's definition of "fire" is "combustion or burning, in which substances combine chemically with oxygen from the air and typically give out bright light, heat, and smoke" and most of the others found using Google are similar to this. So are you saying that in the ZA002 incident there was no combustion or burning?

Fire, combustion and burning are three different things. Smoke can come from something being vaporized by an arc. Even if the smoke was from RUO (Rapid Unplanned Oxidation) It's still not really fire, since fire generally means self sustained burning, and not a reaction that needs an external input, like an arc to keep going.
Ugly definition, I know. That's why we keep smooth talkers like Tom around.

[Edited 2012-12-06 05:20:01]


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 110, posted (2 years 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 16306 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 105):
Google's definition of "fire" is "combustion or burning, in which substances combine chemically with oxygen from the air and typically give out bright light, heat, and smoke" and most of the others found using Google are similar to this. So are you saying that in the ZA002 incident there was no combustion or burning?

CM and nomadd22 did it better than I could. So, "Yeah, what they said."

Quoting flood (Reply 109):
"I have it from a source inside United that one of their 787s diverted to MSY this morning due to a triple generator failure. Thats all the info I have at the moment."

That doesn't square with the claims that the cabin systems stayed up or the RAT status. A 787 is normally running on 4 generators. A triple failure would put it down to a single generator (until the APU came online), which would automatically shed cabin loads, drop the RAT, and autostart the APU.

So far, I haven't seen any claim that the RAT was down and I thought I saw statements that there was just a momentary flicker of cabin systems but that they stayed up, including the IFE. That's just not possible with a single generator.

Tom.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12973 posts, RR: 25
Reply 111, posted (2 years 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 16314 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 107):

Boeing's public communication in the days follwing the ZA002 incident used the word "fire". Myself and many others on the engineering side objected vigorously to the use of that word. Not for PR reasons (although I was concerned with how the public would react to that word), but for the technical reasons Tom has already articulated.

Thanks again for the insight.

I can see it both ways.

Clearly there is a need for the technical professionals to have an exact definition, however in communciation with laymen, perception is paramount. You don't want to lose credibility like Bill Clinton who said he "did not have sex with that woman", yet by most people's definition of sex, he did. As below, I'm trying to figure out where the word "fire" is applicable, but if we go into space where the layman would disagree or be confused, you must be careful. IMHO it's best that a suitable definition or clarification should follow, like saying "melting and smoking occurred but this stopped once electrical power was removed".

Quoting CM (Reply 107):
To have a "fire", you must have "combustion". There was no combustion on ZA002. There was significant arcing (plasma is not the same as flame), during which molten metal from the power panel was ejected onto the insulation blankets in the cheek area of the fuselage.

Sorry to be splitting hairs to the Nth degree, but taking it one step further, the definitions for combustion on-line end up looking like:

combustion [kəmˈbʌstʃən]
n
1. the process of burning
2. (Chemistry) any process in which a substance reacts with oxygen to produce a significant rise in temperature and the emission of light
3. (Chemistry) a chemical process in which two compounds, such as sodium and chlorine, react together to produce heat and light

I wonder if you saying if the EE bay was devoid of oxygen (ie interted) the result would have been the same?

I would think the arcing indeed would produce enough of a rise in temperature to cause melting, but am not sure of the rest of the effects. Like most folks, I've "played with fire", but haven't witnessed what happens when similar experiments happen in a chamber devoid of oxygen. In my mind's eye, I would think oxygen would be needed for the kinds of charring and soot deposit seen in these scenarios.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 111):
Fire and burning aren't the same thing. Smoke can come from something being vaporized by an arc. Even if the smoke was from RUO (Rapid Unplanned Oxidation) It's still not really fire, since fire generally means self sustained burning, and not a reaction that needs an external input, like an arc to keep going.
Ugly definition, I know. That's why we keep smooth talkers like Tom around.

I appreciate your posting, but I'm not sure I'm following. Clearly one can burn dinner in the (electric) oven without fire (mother and grandmother demonstrated that more than once), but most definitions of fire I'm familiar with going back to high school science/chemistry are based on the combination of things with oxygen, so I would call rapid unplanned oxidation a fire.

We all know there are three elements, fire, air and whiskey, since when daddy drinks whiskey he's in his element!  

And I appreciate Tom's contributions - they certainly have taught me a lot over time. As is probably obvious, I ask a lot of questions, so I'm glad someone's out there providing answers!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 112, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 16239 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 110):
I spent ages looking for them also, does anyone have them?

They were posted to a thread here but disappeared almost immediately, the rumours around other forums was that Boeing was claiming IP on them.

I have them somewhere but they are on a different machine I may search them out.



BV
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 113, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 16200 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 83):

None of the executive would know. They're panicking more for their jobs due to cuts.

So far as we have been told, most of the management cuts at Boeing are over on the defense side. Not sure if there's bumping allowed with executives 
Quoting F9animal (Reply 102):
. I had no idea what CM or tdscanuk do for a living (as of the typing of this, I do have an idea of what they do now!), nor was I remotely even calling them liars.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone post their day job on the A.net profile?  

Even then if one works for a company like Boeing, it is very unlikely that one knows everything that goes on in that company.

bt.



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 114, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 16271 times:

This was taken last night.



User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 1
Reply 115, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 16169 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting xjramper (Reply 3):

They diverted because we already have a maintenance crew @ MSY. The airplane could be repaired on the ramp with no actual Hanger space needed. Why Not Divert to MSY?? looks like a prudent decision.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 116, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 16114 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
I wonder if you saying if the EE bay was devoid of oxygen (ie interted) the result would have been the same?

Yes, that's what he's saying. Charring and soot is the result of heat...heat can come from fire or, in this case, an arc.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
I would think the arcing indeed would produce enough of a rise in temperature to cause melting, but am not sure of the rest of the effects.

An electric arc in air is a *lot* hotter than any normal combustion process you're likely to find on an airliner...you need to start burning exotic things like magnesium to get arc-level temperatures. Having a high power electric arc is like having a very good blowtorch in close proximity, in terms of heat damage.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 115):
Even then if one works for a company like Boeing, it is very unlikely that one knows everything that goes on in that company.

I'd say working for any large company guarantees that you don't know everything that goes on.

Tom.


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 117, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 16025 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Okay - since there is such a discussion on 'fire' on 002 - I thought I chime in from a fireman standpoint (26 yrs).

What does it take to make a fire?
We used to talk in terms of the "fire triangle" - a fire requires oxygen, heat, fuel. The idea was we remove any one of those, and the fire went out.

Ten or 20 years ago - we switched to "fire tetrahedron" - which added a 4th component, continuous (exothermic) chemical chain reaction. In other words - for there to be a fire, there must be heat, oxygen, fuel AND a continuous exothermic (heat producing) chain reaction. Remove any of the 4, the fire goes out. This modification was made because there are extinguishing agents that stop the reaction (Halon).

Without the exothermic chain reaction - you do not have a fire. This is, of course, a technical definition - but it is appropriate, I believe, to be technically accurate in a discussion like this.

In the case of ZA002, based in what CM and tdscanuk are saying (and to be clear, I have no inside knowledge), and considering this technical definition - there was no fire. There was heat damage cause by thermal energy from the arc, but not a fire because there was no exothermic chemical chain reaction. There were chemical reactions, but not exothermic, meaning the reaction did not produce heat to sustain combustion. When the external energy was removed, it went out.

Some will call this splitting hairs. They will argue that the heat from the arc was the "heat" in the tetrahedron. Again - I would disagree. That heat was coming from an external source, not the 'fire'. Had it been coming from the fire, the fire would have continued when the electrical energy was stopped.

Now - even in fire science, we are imprecise in this regard during normal conversations. We talk about class "C" fires - which are electrically based fires. In fact, most class C fires are actually class A fires which are started by the heat energy of some electrical failure and are energized (electrically). We worry about class C fire extinguishing agents because they are non-conductive - we will not get shocked when we apply a class C agent on an energized fire. In fact, fires are only class C while there is power. Remove the power and they typically become Class A (or go out). Only when we are investigating a fire do we really consider this detail - and it is usually an electrical arc that starts a class A fire. (BTW - in Europe, I understand they use Class C for what we call Class B - liquids).

Let me give you an example.
We had a power line go down (15KV) and the safeties did not trip - the line remained energized. It landed in a bare area that had no vegetation and sat there arching and bouncing around. There was smoke - and there was flashing - but you could not see flame. Of course, with an energized 15KV line on the ground - we could do nothing but notify the power company to kill the line. Once they did - we looked where it hit and it was very interesting. The heat from the arc had created 'lava tubes' - what once was dirt was melted into glassy rock tubes reaching a foot or more into the ground. They were really cool (actually, they were really hot). But there was no fire. (okay - there probably were little bits of organic material that caught fire and burned up, but nothing of substance). In this case, we did not have fuel - so we did not have fire (or chemical reaction).

In the case of ZA002 - from a technical sense there was no fire. There was heat damage from an arc. Therefore I agree with CM and tdscanuk. For those who would argue and say "but there was a perception of fire in a layman's mind," I would say 2 things.

1) Just because somebody (a layman) says it is a fire, does not mean it is.
2) In a case of mistaken perception - it is the responsibility of the professionals to be even more accurate and clear and try to correct that perception.

It would be inappropriate for a professional to say - no, it was not a fire, but 'the press' or 'people' think it was so I will change my definition of fire to fit their perceptions.

The place where precision is important is in investigations and analysis - you must be accurate and precise.

BTW - I've also worked with the press for 20+ years discussing technical issues (not fire - electrical engineering) and I always strive for technical accuracy. In my experience the reactions from the press are two fold. Either they are interested and try to be technically accurate, or they realize they don't understand (and don't care) and stay away from the subject. The only times I've gotten in trouble (as in they miss-quote or miss-speak) is when I've been to pressure to vary from that accuracy. Note - technically accurate does not mean 'technical speak' - you can do it in everyday language as well.



rcair1
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 118, posted (2 years 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 15989 times:

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 116):

Interesting, if its just a failed generator in the EE bay why have they got the cowlings open? Unless the generators that failed are the permanent magnet generators in the engine gearbox, from Toms post 104.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 104):
On top of that, you've got the RAT, the ship's battery, the APU battery, three permanent magnet generators on the engine gearboxes, and an assortment of emergency batteries for individual systems.
Quoting flood (Reply 109):
"I have it from a source inside United that one of their 787s diverted to MSY this morning due to a triple generator failure. Thats all the info I have at the moment."

And convienienly there are 3 of them.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 112):
That doesn't square with the claims that the cabin systems stayed up or the RAT status. A 787 is normally running on 4 generators. A triple failure would put it down to a single generator (until the APU came online), which would automatically shed cabin loads, drop the RAT, and autostart the APU.

If the permanent magnet generators in the engine gearbox failed would that still cause load shedding?



BV
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 119, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 15740 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 120):
Interesting, if its just a failed generator in the EE bay why have they got the cowlings open? Unless the generators that failed are the permanent magnet generators in the engine gearbox, from Toms post 104.

The VFSGs and the PMGs are both inside the engine cowl.

No loads are shed if a PMG fails. They are basically a standby power device.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 119):

Thanks for that. I'm certainly a layman when it comes to fire science, making this an interesting and very informative post!


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 120, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 15703 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 114):
I have them somewhere but they are on a different machine I may search them out.

It would be very much appreciated if you could find them out. I have to say I find it somewhat intriguing that Boeing would take the time and effort to get the images removed from the public domain, if anything they should help Boeing show that there was no fire and 002 was in never in any danger..


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 121, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 15699 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 119):
When the external energy was removed, it went out.

Exactly. Even early Boeing press releases at the time noted that the "fire" self-extinguished when power was removed.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 119):
Had it been coming from the fire, the fire would have continued when the electrical energy was stopped.

Exactly. That's why a true fire is considerably more dangerous than an electrical arc, at least for an airplane.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 120):
Interesting, if its just a failed generator in the EE bay why have they got the cowlings open?

There are no generators in the EE bay. The generators are on the engines and on the APU. The aft EE bay has the power distribution panels (where the generator wires all go). If they killed a generator you have to open the cowling to replace it.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 120):
And convienienly there are 3 of them.

There is basically no chance that even a triple PMG failure caused this diversion...the flight crew can't see PMG failures directly and the PMGs have no relationship to the aft EE bay.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 120):
If the permanent magnet generators in the engine gearbox failed would that still cause load shedding?

No. The PMG's are backup power for the flight controls only. They don't actually do anything unless all primary power shuts down and, even if they are doing something, they just power the flight control computers. By the time you're on PMG power the cabin has long since gone dark.

Tom.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 122, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 15683 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 122):
I have to say I find it somewhat intriguing that Boeing would take the time and effort to get the images removed from the public domain, if anything they should help Boeing show that there was no fire and 002 was in never in any danger..

Unfortunately, since the term "where there is smoke there is fire" is so ingrained in the general populace, I do not believe they would be able to correctly deduce from those pictures that the charring and melting present was not caused by a combustion fire as they lack the necessary background information that people like tdscanuck, CM and rcair1 have provided us.

As such, it is far more likely, IMO, that people would see these pictures as proof there was a fire aboard ZA002.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 123, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 15654 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 124):
Unfortunately, since the term "where there is smoke there is fire" is so ingrained in the general populace, I do not believe they would be able to correctly deduce from those pictures that the charring and melting present was not caused by a combustion fire as they lack the necessary background information that people like tdscanuck, CM and rcair1 have provided us.

So Boeing removed the photo's because to none-Boeing engineers they appeared to show evidence of a fire?


For example, this is how an analyst described one of the photos:

Quote:
The top of post image shows that there was an intense fire in the thermal blanket immediately adjacent to the laminated fuselage structure comprising sheets of carbon fibre reinforced plastic glued together with epoxy resin.

Stranger still, in this quote Boeing apparently stated the "blaze" lasted only 30 seconds.

Quote:
The image below, the second in the series being circulated to media, shows the destruction of alloy components that occurred in a blaze that Boeing says lasted only 30 seconds.


User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4073 posts, RR: 33
Reply 124, posted (2 years 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 15599 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 96):
Whatever the case, if it was something other than a routine component failure

Engine driven generators do not always fail simply. Quite often they start to misbehave, with fluctuating volts and frequency before they actually fail. It can happen that a component in the aircraft sees bad volts/freq and faults itself before the Generator Controller decides to disconnect the generator.

We had a brand new B737-400 in 1990 that was fitted with new VSCF instead of IDGs. (Variable speed Constant frequency).They were scrapped 5 years later as they caused so much trouble. This B734 had an escalting row of defects. First cabin lights flickering, Then galley power problems then rad alt failure, then the GCU disconnected the Generator.

We also have a FEP (Fixed Electrical Power on the gate) that fails slowly, and has managed to trip off the Instrument Cooling Fans on three different A320. before going off line.

So the failure of the engine generator on this B787 may have produced other failures that gave the crew messages that caused concern.


User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1828 posts, RR: 3
Reply 125, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 15571 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 125):
Stranger still, in this quote Boeing apparently stated the "blaze" lasted only 30 seconds.

Note Boeing probably did not use the word "blaze" that was more likely the author of whatever you just quoted. Boeing probably said the "incident lasted about 30 seconds" or something of that sort. The probability of Boeing using such a sensationalist word about an incident on their aircraft is pretty low.

[Edited 2012-12-06 09:16:42]

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 126, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 15559 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 122):
I have to say I find it somewhat intriguing that Boeing would take the time and effort to get the images removed from the public domain, if anything they should help Boeing show that there was no fire and 002 was in never in any danger..

They wouldn't help demonstrate no fire or lack of danger. As this thread is ably demonstrating, distinguishing heat damage from fire damage is nearly impossible unless you're extremely technically skilled and have access to the actual stuff. Photos just aren't going to do it.

In addition, assessing the danger to the airplane would require knowledge of the detailed power architecture and system design of the 787 and exactly what components were damaged to what degree...none of that comes across in photographs.

Here are some examples of heat damage...you tell me, using just the photos, which ones were fire and which ones weren't:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/220V_plug_arc_damage.jpg/1024px-220V_plug_arc_damage.jpg
http://www.circuitbreakersblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2011-12-29-Images-for-Blog-on-PC-Circuit-Breaker-Arc-Damaged-004.jpg

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 125):
For example, this is how an analyst described one of the photos:

This description actually illustrates the point exactly...the analyst sees severe heat damage and translates that into "intense fire" despite the fact that there is *no* way to tell the difference between heat damage from an arc and heat damage from a fire in that case.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 125):
Stranger still, in this quote Boeing apparently stated the "blaze" lasted only 30 seconds.

"Blaze" came from the reporter, not from Boeing.

An important point to reiterate here is that nobody is claiming that ZA002 didn't suffer a major event that involved an electrical system failure that caused a lot of damage to the airplane. Just that it's important to understand what that incident was, and wasn't, in order to connect it to the current one.

Tom.

[Edited 2012-12-06 09:59:02]

User currently offlineSavannahMark From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 15481 times:

Quoting huxrules (Reply 108):
I'm guessing that the pilots know bout the Laredo incident and just wanted someone to look just in case. Even if they didn't have an indication of a fire I'm sure the Laredo incident was fresh in their minds. Sound like a human thing to do.

While reading over all of these comments, that was exactly my thought as well.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 128, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 15426 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 123):
So Boeing removed the photo's because to non-Boeing engineers they appeared to show evidence of a fire?

Based on tdscanuck's response in 126, such a decision would have been a logical one.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 129, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 15413 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 123):
So Boeing removed the photo's because to none-Boeing engineers they appeared to show evidence of a fire?

Typically Boeing do not release these types of photos. (For obvious reason). If there were photos out there, it may have been taken by a Boeing person and inadvertently released (so easy now-a-day). The photo is still proprietary to Boeing (even if inadvertently released) and they are within their rights to pull the photos. "Legitimate" web sites (including this one) will necessarily have to pull the photos if Boeing requests them to do so.

Now if these photos were provided to the FAA as part of an investigation and documentation, there may be a chance that the report becomes public domain and you can get the photos thru that route. Some one familiar with that part of the regulation will have to chime in on that.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5794 posts, RR: 28
Reply 130, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 15370 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 123):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 124):Unfortunately, since the term "where there is smoke there is fire" is so ingrained in the general populace, I do not believe they would be able to correctly deduce from those pictures that the charring and melting present was not caused by a combustion fire as they lack the necessary background information that people like tdscanuck, CM and rcair1 have provided us.
So Boeing removed the photo's because to none-Boeing engineers they appeared to show evidence of a fire?

He didn't say that. I don't think he can speak to their motives.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 123):
Stranger still, in this quote Boeing apparently stated the "blaze" lasted only 30 seconds.

Quote:The image below, the second in the series being circulated to media, shows the destruction of alloy components that occurred in a blaze that Boeing says lasted only 30 seconds.

They didn't say that - that isn't a direct quote.

I'm not sure what that incident has to do with this one, and there has been a lot of confusion in this thread brought on by someone even bringing that incident up. Can we come back to the actual point of this thread and perhaps start a new thread about that earlier scare?

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 131, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 15353 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 123):
So Boeing removed the photo's because to none-Boeing engineers they appeared to show evidence of a fire?

The photos showed the internal architecture of the power panel which have a unique level of power density - something achieved via a design which is proprietary to Boeing and Zodiac Aerospace. This is why Boeing requested the photos be removed from the web. When a company spends its treasure to develop unique technologies or capabilities, they have an obligation to make every effort to protect it. The photos themselves were Boeing property, as they were taken as a part of the investigation, then leaked to the media without Boeing authorization.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 132, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 15374 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 130):
Can we come back to the actual point of this thread and perhaps start a new thread about that earlier scare?

Fair enough. A recent article on the Seattle PI, quoting United, says that one generator failed and the other five continued to operate, which is what's supposed to happen:
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/bo...n-Boeing-787-diversion-4094469.php
I'm very curious how the situation United described got all the way to a declared emergency and diversion. United's statement also explains the open cowl...you need to open it to replace a generator.

Normal response to a single generator failure, absent other problems, would be:
-EICAS message "ELEC GEN OFF L1" or L2 or R1 or R2 as appropriate
-Power system closes one of the bus tie breakers to connect the bus that was on the failed generator onto a good generator
-Flight crew cycles the generator switch to reset the generator
-If the generator doesn't come back up, start the APU (once started one of the APU generators will take over the role of the failed generator)

Here's a typical aircraft power system layout (this is from a Cranfield University research paper that predates the 787 so it's not the 787 architecture but the 787 follow this general form only with four primary generators and four AC buses):
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S127096381100215X-gr001.jpg

Suppose GEN1 failed in this system. The crew would get a message like "ELEC GEN OFF 1" and the power system would open GCB1 (Generator Control Breaker 1) and close BTB1 and BTB2 (Bus Tie Breakers), so GEN2 would be powering both AC BUS 1 and AC BUS 2. There may be a slight power transient on the BUS 1 systems as the power switches over. When the crew starts the APU, the APU GEN would come online, the ACB (APU Circuit Breaker) would close, and BTB2 would open. So now AC BUS 2 would be running on GEN 2 (as it was before) and AC BUS 1 would be running on APU GEN via BTB1.

Tom.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 133, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 15255 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 130):
They didn't say that - that isn't a direct quote.

They perhaps didn't use the term "blaze" but it doesn't take much searching to find nemours reports quoting Boeing in which they use the term fire. The following is from Flightglobal.

Quote:
Boeing says: "We have determined that a failure in the P100 panel led to a fire involving an insulation blanket. The insulation self-extinguished once the fault in the P100 panel cleared. The P100 panel on ZA002 has been removed and a replacement unit is being shipped to Laredo. The insulation material near the unit also has been removed."
Quoting CM (Reply 131):
The photos showed the internal architecture of the power panel which have a unique level of power density - something achieved via a design which is proprietary to Boeing and Zodiac Aerospace. This is why Boeing requested the photos be removed from the web. When a company spends its treasure to develop unique technologies or capabilities, they have an obligation to make every effort to protect it. The photos themselves were Boeing property, as they were taken as a part of the investigation, then leaked to the media without Boeing authorization.

I mean no disrespect, but put bluntly I don't believe that is the reason the photo's were removed.


User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2616 posts, RR: 7
Reply 134, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 15155 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 118):
Interesting, if its just a failed generator in the EE bay why have they got the cowlings open?

It's possible that the engine cowling being open have nothing at all to do with the incident and there is inspection going on for another reason. There was an AD issued regarding fuel line connections between the pylons and engines. Perhaps it's to do with that? I don't know, I'm just saying there is more than one reason to "pop the hood"

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 96):
No disrespect meant to Tom or CM (or our Airbus, Pratt or RR moles) but we need to be realistic, they have jobs that they would like to keep.

No question, as a lot of us on the board do. As for these two particular gentlemen....I know Tom and will vouche for him being above board and honest - he isn't going to sugar-coat anything to cast Boeing in a nice rosy glow. Now that doesn't mean he's going to com on here and say bad things about his employer or divulge confidential info (he is an intelligent man, not an idiot). But he's not going to come on here and tout the Boeing PR line if he knows that's not true. Take him at his word on the ZA002 incident and appreciate his insights on possible scenarios with this one


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 135, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 15187 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 133):
I mean no disrespect, but put bluntly I don't believe that is the reason the photo's were removed.

And with respect, we need to discuss such matters in another thread and allow this one to return back on topic to United Ship 902.


User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 896 posts, RR: 2
Reply 136, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 15148 times:

For the sake of making this thread easy to follow, .can we stop putting information about ZA002 Test Flight incident in this thread? It's confusing. I'm having trouble putting people's comments in context.


Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3072 posts, RR: 37
Reply 137, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 15150 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 132):
got all the way to a declared emergency

Maybe I've missed it, but I can't find this reported anywhere. Unfortunately, flightaware doesn't show what they were squawking (although even that wouldn't be definitive - I've been asked to squawk 7700 on a PAN call). AvHerald is reporting it as a simple diversion (and they seem to have the other facts straight):

"... the crew reported electrical problems and decided to divert to New Orleans. Later on approach to New Orleans the crew reported they don't really expect anything however requested fire services to especially check the areas aft of the wings, they had some strong electrical current in the cargo areas.

The airline confirmed a mechanical problem, engineers have been dispatched to find out what caused the diversion.

Boeing told The Aviation Herald on Dec 6th 2012: "The airplane remains on the ground as troubleshooting by the United and Boeing team continues. The aft electronics bay was inspected and there were no signs of fire. Likewise the power panels in that bay were inspected and there were no signs of arcing present. One of the airplane's six electric generators did fail. The multiple redundancies built into the 787 ensured that the airplane remained powered. The generator will be replaced, additional checks completed and the airplane returned to service."



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineryanov From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 138, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 15119 times:

Was there even a fire during the ZA002 test flight, or just arcing? Because the article from the NYTimes posted says fire, but I think tdscanuck said that's not true either.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31439 posts, RR: 85
Reply 139, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 15074 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ryanov (Reply 138):
Was there even a fire during the ZA002 test flight, or just arcing?

Asled and answered up thread.

If somebody disagrees, again, start a new thread on that, please.


User currently offlinetarheelwings From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 140, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 15046 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 133):
I mean no disrespect, but put bluntly I don't believe that is the reason the photo's were removed.

It's obvious by now based on your posting that you're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what evidence, testimony, facts, etc are presented......that of course is your right.....but it does get frustrating for the rest of us sometimes  


User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3088 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 15010 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 137):
Maybe I've missed it, but I can't find this reported anywhere.
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 137):
AvHerald is reporting it as a simple diversion (and they seem to have the other facts straight):

You can go to liveatc.net for MSY and listen to the entire atc audio, it occured between 1500-1530Z. The first time the pilot called MSY he checked in as 'United 1146 emergency aircraft', so guess the emergency was already declared to Houston Center. And I referenced the Av Herald article back in reply 21 and said that this was an emergency and not just a diversion, but for some reason, he is not reporting it as such.



[Edited 2012-12-06 11:55:35]


The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineflashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2903 posts, RR: 6
Reply 142, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 14984 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tarheelwings (Reply 140):
It's obvious by now based on your posting that you're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what evidence, testimony, facts, etc are presented......that of course is your right.....but it does get frustrating for the rest of us sometimes

I have to concur with odwyerpw here: please stop hijacking this thread with ZA002 arguments and keep on topic to the UA incident in MSY. We'd all appreciate it.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10674 posts, RR: 14
Reply 143, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 14935 times:

Quoting flashmeister (Reply 142):

I have to concur with odwyerpw here: please stop hijacking this thread with ZA002 arguments and keep on topic to the UA incident in MSY. We'd all appreciate it.

I agree......maybe we should eliminate all posts on this thread that reference ZA002.......the first time it was referenced was when this started to go downhill.......actually the problem was, the first memeber that was talking about ZA002 but never identified what he was talking about as such, so it went merrily along, confusing the hell out of the rest of us and those that came on the thread, later.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 144, posted (2 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 14941 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 135):
And with respect, we need to discuss such matters in another thread and allow this one to return back on topic to United Ship 902.

In order to keep everyone happy I won't post in this thread regarding ZA002 - As soon as I get hold of the photo's I'll start a new thread l and people can then make their own judgement.

Quoting tarheelwings (Reply 140):
It's obvious by now based on your posting that you're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what evidence, testimony, facts, etc are presented......that of course is your right.....but it does get frustrating for the rest of us sometimes  

This is ridiculous. The only evidence Boeing has banned from being on the internet, and the "testimony" is provided by Boeing engineers. So yeah, I'm going to believe what I want to believe and I'm sorry if that frustrates you. Actually no, I'm not sorry at all  


User currently offlineakelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2194 posts, RR: 5
Reply 145, posted (2 years 3 weeks ago) and read 14701 times:

Back to the 787 that diverted to MSY - is it still there? If so where is it? I am flying out of MSY this evening and would like to snap a pic or two if I can.

User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3072 posts, RR: 37
Reply 146, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14491 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 141):
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 137):
Maybe I've missed it, but I can't find this reported anywhere.
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 137):
AvHerald is reporting it as a simple diversion (and they seem to have the other facts straight):

You can go to liveatc.net for MSY and listen to the entire atc audio, it occured between 1500-1530Z. The first time the pilot called MSY he checked in as 'United 1146 emergency aircraft', so guess the emergency was already declared to Houston Center.

Thanks. I just listened to ZHU and MSY. The communication with ZHU was more "precautionary", although the word "emergency" was used. They didn't seem to be squawking 7700, which may be why they announced themselves to MSY as "UA1146 emergency aircraft".

The reason they didn't return to IAH may have been WX - pretty much every other flight in the area was requesting ALT/HDG deviations around severe chop. MSY was clear.

[Edited 2012-12-06 14:05:37]

[Edited 2012-12-06 14:06:26]


Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 147, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14487 times:

Quoting akelley728 (Reply 145):
Back to the 787 that diverted to MSY - is it still there? If so where is it? I am flying out of MSY this evening and would like to snap a pic or two if I can.

Still here. Parked at gate C-11.


User currently offlinePlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 564 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 14412 times:

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 147):
Still here. Parked at gate C-11.

Ugh.. I am supposed be on a 787 from DEN to IAH on Monday. I hope still get to otherwise I am going to have a long day for nothing.


User currently offlineakelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2194 posts, RR: 5
Reply 149, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 14312 times:

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 147):
Still here. Parked at gate C-11.

Darn! I am flying out of Terminal D.  


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 150, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 14302 times:

If pilots are going to over-react and divert due to a non-diversion required electrical problem because of memories of ZA002, Boeing needs to install a camera and temperature monitor in the rear EE bay so pilots can turn them on and get a better grasp on the situation rather than freaking out that their aircraft might be on fire/melting.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3072 posts, RR: 37
Reply 151, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 14204 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 150):
If pilots are going to over-react and divert due to a non-diversion required electrical problem

We don't know that. See, for example:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 124):
Engine driven generators do not always fail simply. Quite often they start to misbehave, with fluctuating volts and frequency before they actually fail. It can happen that a component in the aircraft sees bad volts/freq and faults itself before the Generator Controller decides to disconnect the generator.

We had a brand new B737-400 in 1990 that was fitted with new VSCF instead of IDGs. (Variable speed Constant frequency).They were scrapped 5 years later as they caused so much trouble. This B734 had an escalting row of defects. First cabin lights flickering, Then galley power problems then rad alt failure, then the GCU disconnected the Generator.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineFlyHossD From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 981 posts, RR: 2
Reply 152, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 14238 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 150):
If pilots are going to over-react and divert...

Do we know that they over-reacted? It seems to me that we need more information (facts) before drawing that conclusion.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently onlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1160 posts, RR: 7
Reply 153, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 14172 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 150):
If pilots are going to over-react and divert due to a non-diversion required electrical problem because of memories of ZA002, Boeing needs to install a camera and temperature monitor in the rear EE bay so pilots can turn them on and get a better grasp on the situation rather than freaking out that their aircraft might be on fire/melting.

Spoken like a true arm-chair expert. Who would be first to blame the crew if they had a problem and something terrible happened because they didn't get on the ground fast enough.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12973 posts, RR: 25
Reply 154, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 14115 times:

Apologies to those bothered by thread drift, and thanks to those who taught me something new!  


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3072 posts, RR: 37
Reply 155, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 14068 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 144):
The only evidence Boeing has banned from being on the internet, and the "testimony" is provided by Boeing engineers.

For this, patently obvious, reason:

Quoting CM (Reply 131):
The photos showed the internal architecture of the power panel which have a unique level of power density - something achieved via a design which is proprietary to Boeing and Zodiac Aerospace. This is why Boeing requested the photos be removed from the web. When a company spends its treasure to develop unique technologies or capabilities, they have an obligation to make every effort to protect it.

I wouldn't allow proprietary information to be posted either.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineual747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 595 posts, RR: 0
Reply 156, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 13955 times:

Does anyone know why it's taking so long to get the plane back to KIAH? You basically have an AOG situation which usually means parts flow quickly to the down bird but yet here we are almost 2.5 days later and the aircraft is still at KMSY. What's taking so long?

UAL747-600


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2976 posts, RR: 2
Reply 157, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 13934 times:

Quoting 7gm7 (Reply 31):
Hope so. Similarly, I am on UA flt. 1737 EWR-IAH next Tues 12/11.....same thoughts here...

All I can say is that I was scheduled to fly on ZA002 today as UA 1737 EWR-IAH and, instead, it was operated with a 764. There goes my first 787 flight!  



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 158, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 13870 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 157):
All I can say is that I was scheduled to fly on ZA002 today as UA 1737 EWR-IAH and, instead, it was operated with a 764.

Whatever aircraft you were supposed to fly on, it wasn't ZA002. ZA002 isn't even legal for revenue passenger service, doesn't belong to United, and doesn't have an interior.

Tom.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2976 posts, RR: 2
Reply 159, posted (2 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 13277 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 158):
Whatever aircraft you were supposed to fly on, it wasn't ZA002. ZA002 isn't even legal for revenue passenger service, doesn't belong to United, and doesn't have an interior.

Of course! It was supposed to be #3902, the aircraft still at MSY. Apologies. I shouldn't have posted after being up for over 24 hours coming from BCN then CDG then EWR then IAH. Strange routing, yes, constructed in order to catch my first 787 flight. Oh well.. There will be more chances!



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380