Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Smoke In QR 787, Grounded For Days  
User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2073 posts, RR: 4
Posted (12 months 22 hours ago) and read 36224 times:

And the saga goes on. "Smoke had been reported near an electrical compartment."

http://www.euronews.com/business-new...as-glitches-pile-up-on-boeing-jet/

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/201...vel-incident-sur-un-boeing-787.php

This incident already hapened on 21. July. Are there any further informations about this?

[Edited 2013-07-26 09:12:20]


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
156 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 months 21 hours ago) and read 35999 times:

This has already been commented on in the ET 787 thread.

Another article in the chicago tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...ner-qatar-20130726,0,4293316.story

QR is quoted as saying:
"This is a minor issue for us, and not an incident, so we are not commenting,"
and Boeing is quoted as saying:
"We request that you channel all your enquiries to Qatar Airways."
So I doubt very much whether we're going to get any more information than "Smoke was seen somewhere near an electronics bay".

It is most likely, as QR says, something trivial. The fact that the aircraft has been grounded for 5 days now does not have to mean that it's something more serious - it could just be a lack of spare parts. But I can't help thinking that the fact that QR and Boeing are not saying what the "minor technical issue" was, is going to fuel a lot of speculation, both here and in the press.

Might be better for Boeing if they release some details.


User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2073 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (12 months 21 hours ago) and read 35910 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 1):
Might be better for Boeing if they release some details.

Yes, because it seems that, just in the last 3-4 hours, this "news" is spreading in the media, worldwide.



Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (12 months 21 hours ago) and read 35863 times:

Not much information out there, but I found this interesting since there are claims that that aircraft was surrounded by fire trucks:

A fire-brigade supervisor in Doha said it did not have any record of an incident with an airport-related call last week.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...mliner-qatar-idUSL6N0FW2F120130726

Once again only time will tell, but I already fear the speculation in the meantime...


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (12 months 21 hours ago) and read 35793 times:

Slightly off topic, but Qatar might be having a hard time with 787s this week:

From a tweet by Matt Cawby:

"A7-BCE delivery delayed, got hung up on the air bridge while being pushed back unknown if damage occurred"


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 months 21 hours ago) and read 35776 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 3):
A fire-brigade supervisor in Doha said it did not have any record of an incident with an airport-related call last week.

As I said in the ET 787 thread, that statement does not necessarily mean that the incident didn't occur. It could just be cleverly worded. The reported incident happened on Sunday, which is actually this week not last.


User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2181 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (12 months 21 hours ago) and read 35448 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 4):
A7-BCE delivery delayed, got hung up on the air bridge while being pushed back unknown if damage occurred

A7-BCE is now in the air, so it seems nothing serious happened.



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (12 months 21 hours ago) and read 35287 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 5):
As I said in the ET 787 thread, that statement does not necessarily mean that the incident didn't occur. It could just be cleverly worded.

So for clarification purposes, you put forth this cleverly worded theory to imply what exactly?

Are you claiming that the Doha fire department is involved in some sort of cover up?


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 months 20 hours ago) and read 35098 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 12):
So for clarification purposes, you put forth this cleverly worded theory to imply what exactly?

Are you claiming that the Doha fire department is involved in some sort of cover up?

I'm not claiming or implying anything but, as I said in the other thread, the fire department may just be deliberately avoiding confirming or denying anything.

I agree that, as you suggest, this statement was most likely made as a result of a specific question from Reuters regarding a reported issue with a Qatar 787 on Sunday. That is why I find it interesting that the fire department should choose to add the 'this week' qualifier to their statement, when it is clearly not required.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5445 posts, RR: 29
Reply 9, posted (12 months 20 hours ago) and read 34770 times:

If Boeing is referring queries to QR, and QR isn't talking, and the fire brigade has no info, it would seem to me to be an internal QR thing. Is QR suddenly changing its approach to 787 issues and keeping quiet? That would seem hard to believe, but apparently it's easier to believe there's more to it.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (12 months 20 hours ago) and read 34491 times:

NBCNews.com is reporting "More Dreamliner Ills," including the AI overheating oven, the QR event, and discovery of two more beacons having damaged wires (the wires did not cause fires). Only the discovery of the damaged wires appears to be somewhat newsworthy in light of the ET fire - and the discovery of the damaged wires shows that inspections and directives do what they are supposed to do - find and correct problems. It must be a slow news day

User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5445 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (12 months 19 hours ago) and read 34374 times:

It's not a slow news day, it's a stupid news day.

Yesterday, in both interviews of the WN and AS CEO's about their financial results, they were asked if, in light of all the recent problems at Boeing, they stood by their all Boeing fleet decision (or some such). Really?

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (12 months 19 hours ago) and read 34309 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 13):
That is why I find it interesting that the fire department should choose to add the 'this week' qualifier to their statement, when it is clearly not required.

We don't really know if the fire department added the qualifier as it wasn't a direct quote from Reuters. That said, it doesn't seem emergency services were involved.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 14):
Is QR suddenly changing its approach to 787 issues and keeping quiet? That would seem hard to believe

Well, yes and no. If memory serves, Al Baker was critical of the decision to ground the aircraft and I don't see him going off on a rant involving a possible smoking electric panel - only to draw more unwanted attention and thereby potentially jeopardizing his own operations. His rants were primarily aimed at Boeing during the delays. Now that he operates the aircraft, why fling mud at his own product?

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 15):
Only the discovery of the damaged wires appears to be somewhat newsworthy in light of the ET fire

Details are scarce, but I certainly find the QR 'incident' newsworthy... unlike UA's diversions due engine problems, etc.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3602 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (12 months 15 hours ago) and read 31295 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 1):
This has already been commented on in the ET 787 thread.

It's a different incident, so it deserves its own thread. (The problem is there's not much info about it right now.) Unless you're suggesting we retitle the other thread "All 787 Smoke and Fire Incidents"... which I don't think would go over too well with some people.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 10):
NBCNews.com is reporting "More Dreamliner Ills," including the AI overheating oven, the QR event, and discovery of two more beacons having damaged wires (the wires did not cause fires). Only the discovery of the damaged wires appears to be somewhat newsworthy in light of the ET fire

The overheating oven seems like an odd inclusion, but I would say this QR incident is potentially very newsworthy, and it is very odd that nobody wants to comment on it. If the media wants to do their job, they'll be digging up everything they can get at on this right now. Hopefully it turns out to be a red herring. But we don't know that yet; the rumors from "industry sources" warrant some further information. It would be in everyone's best interests to clarify if those rumors are true or not.

What "minor issues" with a brand new airplane could ground it for a week? Is Boeing really short of spare parts for a plane that's in active production?



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1497 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (12 months 15 hours ago) and read 30742 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 13):
What "minor issues" with a brand new airplane could ground it for a week? Is Boeing really short of spare parts for a plane that's in active production?



JAL who is very forthcoming with information was stuck in BOS for almost a week with a fuel pump change which seems like a minor issue to me. Are we to think they are not telling the truth because that's something that shouldn't take that long?


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (12 months 15 hours ago) and read 30434 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 7):

Are you claiming that the Doha fire department is involved in some sort of cover up?

That is not being suggested, it could be factual, they may not have the report as it may have been sent on. It does not indicate something did or did not happen.

Given the lack of info, it might be a self induced problem. It could be a simple human mistake during routine maintenance like dropping a tool or liquid in the wrong location.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 months 11 hours ago) and read 27454 times:

Silly as it may seam...do 787's have ashtrays at all galley locations?

User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 765 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (12 months 11 hours ago) and read 26977 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 11):
Yesterday, in both interviews of the WN and AS CEO's about their financial results, they were asked if, in light of all the recent problems at Boeing, they stood by their all Boeing fleet decision (or some such). Really?

I love the media.

Do you have a link to this by any chance?



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlineairbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4253 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (12 months 10 hours ago) and read 26741 times:

Interesting article online, also mentioning about ANA that found several wiring problems on the 787 last week:

Quote:
In the last month not a day appears to pass without some news about a glitch, malfunction, or full-blown fire, affecting the ironically named Boeing Dreamliner (resulting in the stock soaring to daily all time highs). Today promises to be no different, with not one, not two, but three separate incidents impacting the airplane.

Reuters reports that Qatar Airways has taken one of its 787 Dreamliners out of service following what it described as a "minor" technical issue. "Minor" as in a burnt-out indicator light, or "Minor" as in the plane nearly fell out of the sky burnt to a crisp? The distinction can be important.

"The airline and Boeing the airplane's manufacturer, declined to give further details but industry sources said they were treating seriously reports that the aircraft had been grounded for days after a problem with an electrical panel. According to web tracking service Flightaware, the aircraft, registered as A7-BCB, has not flown since Sunday, an unsually long downtime for a long-haul jet designed to save fuel bills." Well, it's usually something.

From Reuters:

"This is a minor issue for us, and not an incident, so we are not commenting," a spokeswoman said.

A spokeswoman for Boeing said, "We request that you channel all your enquiries to Qatar Airways."

Two industry sources said smoke had been reported near an electrical compartment while the jet was on the ground in Doha. It was not clear whether passengers were on board at the time, but the aircraft's next flight was carried out by another model.

Two people familar with the matter, asking not to be identified, said smoke had been reported near an electrical compartment while the jet was on the ground in Doha. A failure in a similar bay caused an fire during a test flight in 2010.

A fire-brigade supervisor in Doha said it did not have any record of an incident with an airport-related call last week.
But wait, there's more!

India's aviation regulator said earlier it had started an investigation after an oven in a 787 operated by Air India overheated during a domestic flight, causing smoke. There was no interruption to services.

Japan's ANA, which operates the world's biggest fleet of Dreamliners, also said on Friday it had found damage to the battery wiring on two 787 locator beacons.

Tests have been ordered on the beacons after a parked Ethiopian Airlines-owned 787 Dreamliner caught fire at London's Heathrow this month, causing extensive damage to the plane.

Why are so many "glitches" affecting the Dreamliner? Simple. As the following schematic so aptly demonstrates, the airplane is nothing but a flying representation of the European Union - every component is from a different country, held together by the "monetary cohesion" superglue equivalent of a Boeing assembly, and lots of political shareholder capital.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...all-report-minor-issues-boeing-787



"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (12 months 10 hours ago) and read 26296 times:

Quoting airbuseric (Reply 18):
Interesting article online

Interesting, no...hyperbole, yes...

This illustrates it well:

"Minor" as in a burnt-out indicator light, or "Minor" as in the plane nearly fell out of the sky burnt to a crisp? The distinction can be important.

By definition the latter would not be a minor incident and it is clear media sensationalism - there is absolutely no reason to assume the plane nearly fell out of the sky burnt to a crisp, how utterly stupid to say it.

The fact is, we know very little about A7-BCB, certainly not enough to draw any firm conclusions as yet. What we do know is that the airline says it is a minor incident and the fire department at the airport did not confirm they responded to the described situation.

The crimped wires in the ANA (and now United) ELTs would only seem to back up the theory that the ELT is responsible for the fire at LHR, actually good news for the 787.

The "fire" in the oven of the AI plane wasn't even a fire at all and seems to be related to the oven, not the airplane.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/0...ner-airindia-idINDEE96P07O20130726

The overheating of the oven during a July 24 flight from New Delhi to Kolkata did not cause a fire, an Air India spokesman said

I know in all of these incidents there are still questions; but based on what we know at this point I just don't see how the sky is falling. But I suppose the author of that article is noble in the sense that he did not let the truth get in the way of a good story.  Yeah sure

[Edited 2013-07-26 20:53:30]

User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5445 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (12 months 10 hours ago) and read 26298 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 15):
Given the lack of info, it might be a self induced problem. It could be a simple human mistake during routine maintenance like dropping a tool or liquid in the wrong location.

To me, this type of scenario would fit the description of the responses much better than a smoking gun, but we've seen the way things go for the 787.

Would Boeing normally refer questions to an airline when it's a OEM or safety concern?

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 17):
Do you have a link to this by any chance

I just looked at the pages that I had visited but can't find the links. They were both from CNBC I believe.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (12 months 10 hours ago) and read 26140 times:

The wording of the fire brigade statement is suspiciously fiddly and qualified, the other place reports that 4 fire tenders attended the incident at stand A14 and were witnessed by multiple people. They also say that smoke was coming from panel in the cockpit which would make this a new type of fault if true.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 14):
JAL who is very forthcoming with information was stuck in BOS for almost a week with a fuel pump change which seems like a minor issue to me.

You wouldn't think that a simple fuel pump change would take 5 days.



BV
User currently offlinehawaiian763 From Canada, joined May 2009, 258 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 months 10 hours ago) and read 26113 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 11):

The media just keeps on rolling downhill and over killing stories. If this had happened on say a 737 or 330, the media would have no interest. But of course because it's the 787 and It had a little smoke, the media has to make a big stink about it. Getting a little tired of these overblown stories about the 787


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5445 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (12 months 10 hours ago) and read 25872 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 21):
The wording of the fire brigade statement is suspiciously fiddly and qualified

Sigh.

Quoting hawaiian763 (Reply 22):
The media just keeps on rolling downhill and over killing stories. If this had happened on say a 737 or 330, the media would have no interest. But of course because it's the 787 and It had a little smoke, the media has to make a big stink about it. Getting a little tired of these overblown stories about the 787

To a degree, they HAVE TO report on these stories. If something were to happen - such as a tragic crash - it would seem odd to have not mentioned these things in a newscast based on recent events. But it's one thing to mention it and another to link it to unrelated things, play it up, fan the flames, etc.

Asking WN's CEO if they stood by Boeing (iirc) was simply unintelligent AFAIC. Ditto with Alaska. BUT - there'd be someone asking them "Why didn't you bring this up?" if they didn't say it, and if something were to happen later that would have made the question relevant, they'd not want to be the one who didn't ask.

I despise it - like some of the baiting comments on here - but Boeing put themselves in this position by how they handled the program, so we just need to suck it up and work through it the best we can.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3390 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (12 months 9 hours ago) and read 25618 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 14):
JAL who is very forthcoming with information was stuck in BOS for almost a week with a fuel pump change which seems like a minor issue to me. Are we to think they are not telling the truth because that's something that shouldn't take that long?

The A380 had fuel pump troubles in its early days and they took week(s) to sort out.


User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (12 months 8 hours ago) and read 24958 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 24):

The A380 had fuel pump troubles in its early days and they took week(s) to sort out.

From memory that is not true. AF had problem with their fuel pumps but that was years after EIS.

[Edited 2013-07-26 23:27:31]


BV
User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 765 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (12 months 8 hours ago) and read 25076 times:

I understand that two newly delivered British Airways Boeing 787s have not flown for weeks, sounds very suspicious to me.....

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3390 posts, RR: 4
Reply 27, posted (12 months 7 hours ago) and read 24786 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 25):
From memory that is not true. AF had problem with their fuel pumps but that was years after EIS.

Two seconds with google and BAM!

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/trave...ights/2008-03-26-a380-ground_N.htm


User currently offlineBruceSmith From South Africa, joined May 2011, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (12 months 5 hours ago) and read 23004 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 5):
The reported incident happened on Sunday, which is actually this week not last.

Japan, like a lot of the Asian countries, start the week on Monday, not Sunday like the West does. So Sunday is last week to them.

ISO has also defined the week to start on Monday.


User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (12 months 5 hours ago) and read 22814 times:

Quoting BruceSmith (Reply 28):
Japan, like a lot of the Asian countries, start the week on Monday, not Sunday like the West does. So Sunday is last week to them.

ISO has also defined the week to start on Monday.

And in Doha, the work week is Sunday through Thursday, with weekend being Friday and Saturday... Which is possibly relevant to this statement.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineBruceSmith From South Africa, joined May 2011, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (12 months 5 hours ago) and read 22679 times:

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 29):
And in Doha, the work week is Sunday through Thursday, with weekend being Friday and Saturday... Which is possibly relevant to this statement.

Interesting, my google-fu is bad today. I stand corrected.

I wonder why that was done, maybe to synchronize to the America's late day.


User currently onlinethunderboltdrgn From Sweden, joined Jan 2012, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (12 months 5 hours ago) and read 22653 times:

Quoting BruceSmith (Reply 28):
not Sunday like the West does.

Actually almost all western countries except USA and Canada starts the week with Monday.



Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky
User currently offlineborgcube From South Africa, joined Jun 2009, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (12 months 4 hours ago) and read 22064 times:

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 31):

Actually almost all western countries except USA and Canada starts the week with Monday.

Correct


User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (12 months 4 hours ago) and read 22120 times:

It is not in QRs interest to announce any problems with the 787. They are already running their operation to capacity. They cannot have any more scrutiny of the 787 and further negative press or a grounding. They had just 4 or 5 787s in a fleet of over 120 aircraft when they were grounded in January and it led to major issues with their scheduling and the opening of new routes. QR has no margin to play with when it comes to unexpected groundings etc. especially of more than 2 or 3 planes.

Edit: Well straight from the horse's mouth, from PPRUNE:

"It was an electric issue. Aircraft came out of hanger from maintenance check. Was at A14 with APU running waiting for crew to arrive. Several EICAS messages lead to APU shutdown when ground power was connected which tripped three times. Then smoke from one of the cockpit panels. Panel was removed and found some relays melted. Aircraft is now sealed waiting for Boeing experts to arrive."

[Edited 2013-07-27 02:40:36]

User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (12 months 4 hours ago) and read 21558 times:

Quoting BruceSmith (Reply 30):
I wonder why that was done, maybe to synchronize to the America's late day.

Having lived there it was according to religion that their Friday is the equivalent of our Sunday. In the past their weekend was traditionally Thursday/Friday. However, to fit in with the international business world, they moved the weekend to Friday/Saturday. I doubt it was specifically anything to do with America, but the world in general.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineflyhigh@tom From India, joined Sep 2001, 390 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (12 months 3 hours ago) and read 21339 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 3):
Not much information out there, but I found this interesting since there are claims that that aircraft was surrounded by fire trucks:

A fire-brigade supervisor in Doha said it did not have any record of an incident with an airport-related call last week.

KC135R...i stand by my statement in the ET thread. I talked to my colleague and he confirmed seeing fire trucks. you stand by the news report. i stand by my colleague. ..oh and as far as media is concerned in the part of the world where i live in right now....don't go by everything they say. There is always an official version.  


User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (12 months 3 hours ago) and read 21279 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27):

Two seconds with google and BAM!

5 months after EIS the A380 had a single fuel pump problem that took 2 days to resolve? I'm sure that you have a point but I fail to grasp it. If we are to play this game I guess I have to point out that the JAL fuel pump took 5 days to repair and that the 787 seems prone to fires, at least 5 events so far.



BV
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (12 months ago) and read 18402 times:

Quoting airbuseric (Reply 18):
Interesting article online, also mentioning about ANA that found several wiring problems on the 787

That's an interesting choice of words. That seems more dramatic than the actual statement:

Quoting airbuseric (Reply 18):
Japan's ANA, which operates the world's biggest fleet of Dreamliners, also said on Friday it had found damage to the battery wiring on two 787 locator beacons


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2189 posts, RR: 8
Reply 38, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 17121 times:

After all the media and news about 787 and the word "smoke" or "fire", I guess if something like that happens while on flight (God Forbid) panic will ensue...

Its really sad that the media is using this to make "news", yes I think the 787 has had its share of problems but to make any kind of MX problem on the 787 a "NEWSWORTHY" event is in my opinion, sad and unprofessional.

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently onlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1300 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15966 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 7):
Are you claiming that the Doha fire department is involved in some sort of cover up?

There are several eyewitness who saw fire vehicles (plural) in attendance at the aircraft. The aircraft has been sitting in a hangar ever since, supposedly waiting for a team of Boeing experts to have a poke around her. Now unless they're traveling by steam, my guess they've been on site for the better part of a week now. Yet we've not heard a peep; Boeing are referring to QR, and QR are keeping a lid on things.

But, to the point, my suggestion is that a 'cover up' is exactly what is happening. If you think Qatar, Doha Airport or Qatar Airways operate to the same standards of transparency and corporate governance which prevails in much of the democratic world, you are very mistaken indeed. QR, for all intents and purposes, runs the commercial aviation show in the state of Qatar, including the airport. The press is subject to censorship. AAB has a direct line to the royal family who controls Qatar.

Draw your own conclusions.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 40, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 15276 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 39):
QR, for all intents and purposes, runs the commercial aviation show in the state of Qatar, including the airport. The press is subject to censorship. AAB has a direct line to the royal family who controls Qatar.

Draw your own conclusions.

Now, were there not murmurings from Boeing and the FAA that the AAIB had no IACO rights to investigate the Ethiopian fire because the aircraft was not about to depart? AAIB ignored them of course and launched a full investigation that will produce a report, but will this one? Has the FAA or NTSB even been informed I wonder, maybe some journalists with connections would like to ask their contacts or through official channels.

Something seems to have occurred, we are not getting flat denials, but the industry is being denied a teachable moment that could save lives in the future, Qatar should be ashamed of covering up this incident up and shaming them may be the only way to get them to be open about it.



BV
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 41, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15077 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 40):
Now, were there not murmurings from Boeing and the FAA that the AAIB had no IACO rights to investigate the Ethiopian fire because the aircraft was not about to depart? AAIB ignored them of course and launched a full investigation that will produce a report, but will this one?

Not exactly true, I had mentioned this earlier. The aircraft was not in the course of being operated, so if it is written off, it would not be considered loss due to an accident.

However the UK "Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996" states that the "Chief Inspector may, when he expects to draw air safety lessons from it, carry out, or cause an Inspector to carry out, an investigation into an incident, other than a serious incident". They are acting well within UK law to look at this event.

I am sure you would agree, given that 3 different operators have aircraft with similar pinched wiring in the ELT, they have achieved "air safety lessons" that may have prevented an accident.

The following are rumors only, nothing factual has been released by a verifiable source, it maybe totally inaccurate. The rumors are that event in Doha apparently happened just after a maintenance event, the aircraft had just been towed onto stand with the APU running in a serviceable state for a flight. Allegedly the GPU when connected tripped a number of times and a reduction in the viability on the cockpit was observed similar to the appearance to smoke. Apparently 4 ARFF appliances were observed at stand 14 on that day. A7-BCB was also thought to have been towed to stand 14.

If the sequence of events is accurate, it would not be classified as an aircraft accident. It would however still be reported via normal maintenance service difficulty report process with has both the manufacturer and TCDS issuing state involved.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14906 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 41):
Not exactly true, I had mentioned this earlier.

Pretty sure that it was reported in the NYT that questions were raised, but yes the AAIB has the right under local law to carry out the investigation anyway so the point was not pushed.

Quoting zeke (Reply 41):
I am sure you would agree, given that 3 different operators have aircraft with similar pinched wiring in the ELT, they have achieved "air safety lessons" that may have prevented an accident.

Yes, totally agree but my point here is had she not caught fire publically and then been immediately locked away in a hanger would these valuable lessons have been learned in a timely manner?

Quoting zeke (Reply 41):
The following are rumours only, nothing factual has been released by a verifiable source,

Also my point, we have eyewitness testimony of tenders attending but no explanation from the operator. If there was a 'smoke event' involving the electrical system surely this should be relayed to the FAA & NTSB so that they can add it to the active investigation into the 787 electrical system.

More and more it looks like we are going to have to have deaths before people come clean about the what is going on with the 787, we have had so many 'lucky' accidents so far but luck does not last forever.



BV
User currently offlineosiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3191 posts, RR: 26
Reply 43, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14838 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 42):
More and more it looks like we are going to have to have deaths before people come clean about the what is going on with the 787, we have had so many 'lucky' accidents so far but luck does not last forever.

How do you end up with that after Zeke *clearly* stated:

Quoting zeke (Reply 41):
The rumors are that event in Doha apparently happened just after a maintenance event, the aircraft had just been towed onto stand with the APU running in a serviceable state for a flight. Allegedly the GPU when connected tripped a number of times and a reduction in the viability on the cockpit was observed similar to the appearance to smoke.

Sounds like the issue here was QR maintenance staff screwed up and broke something. Hardly an issue with the 787. Just as MX issues with an engine after improper service aren't an engine issue. There is a lot of 'new' in the 787, for both Boeing and the folks who have to maintain them.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 44, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14672 times:

Quoting osiris30 (Reply 43):
ow do you end up with that after Zeke *clearly* stated:

Quite simple, it is not clear what the issue was or who cause it but knowledge of what it was / who / what caused it could prevent this issue re occurring possibly in flight. Secrecy on faults that cause fire is dangerous to aircraft and the flying public. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?



BV
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 45, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14601 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 42):
Pretty sure that it was reported in the NYT that questions were raised, but yes the AAIB has the right under local law to carry out the investigation anyway so the point was not pushed.

I think the paper then is just uninformed, the NTSB has also investigated incidents that have not occurred during operation, e.g. the uncontained engine failure on an AA 767 during a maintenance ground run.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 42):
If there was a 'smoke event' involving the electrical system surely this should be relayed to the FAA & NTSB so that they can add it to the active investigation into the 787 electrical system.

As the event does not appear to have occurred during the operation of the aircraft, the aircraft operator would have informed their local CAA and the manufacturer. The Local CAA then informs the TCDS issuer (could be either EASA or FAA).

The NTSB may not need to be involved at all.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 42):
Yes, totally agree but my point here is had she not caught fire publically and then been immediately locked away in a hanger would these valuable lessons have been learned in a timely manner?

If the aircraft needs further maintenance, I would expect it to be done in a hanger. Nothing unusual about doing that work in an air conditioned hanger in 40 deg C heat in that part of the world.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 42):
Also my point, we have eyewitness testimony of tenders attending but no explanation from the operator.

The operator is not obligated to explain anything.

Quoting osiris30 (Reply 43):
Sounds like the issue here was QR maintenance staff screwed up and broke something

That may or may not be true, we just do not know.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1497 posts, RR: 8
Reply 46, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14553 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
uite simple, it is not clear what the issue was or who cause it but knowledge of what it was / who / what caused it could prevent this issue re occurring possibly in flight. Secrecy on faults that cause fire is dangerous to aircraft and the flying public. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?



And when it is investigated thoroughly by Boeing (or others) if it is a concern it will be broadcast to any parties that need the information (which is not members of A.net). It's impossible to keep anything quiet these days and the harm to Boeing/QTR would be much worse hiding something now and having it exposed later. With your paranoia it's amazing you can sleep at night.


User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 47, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 14524 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 45):
The operator is not obligated to explain anything.

No but Boeing refers enquiries to the operator so getting information becomes a circular problem.

Quoting zeke (Reply 45):
The NTSB may not need to be involved at all.

Again my point, there is an open investigation into the electrical system so wouldn't it make sense for the NTSB to have a look?

Quoting zeke (Reply 45):
If the aircraft needs further maintenance, I would expect it to be done in a hanger. Nothing unusual about doing that work in an air conditioned hanger in 40 deg C heat in that part of the world.

Nope, nothing unusual about that no, point was if ET aircraft had burned in Doha and then been hidden and investigated in secret would we be having the AD issued and finding of similar faulty installations? If not 787's would currently be flying with a fault that can start a blaze in flight and prove fatal to all aboard.



BV
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5445 posts, RR: 29
Reply 48, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 14356 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
Quite simple, it is not clear what the issue was or who cause it but knowledge of what it was / who / what caused it could prevent this issue re occurring possibly in flight. Secrecy on faults that cause fire is dangerous to aircraft and the flying public. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?

So now we know there was a fire on the QR plane? I thought we were in the dark?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 47):
Nope, nothing unusual about that no, point was if ET aircraft had burned in Doha and then been hidden and investigated in secret would we be having the AD issued and finding of similar faulty installations? If not 787's would currently be flying with a fault that can start a blaze in flight and prove fatal to all aboard.

Frankly, I think you are really crossing a line with your statements.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 509 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14141 times:

Slightly off topic, but didn't QR cargo lose an A300 to a fire in the hangar? There was a pic on a.net but I remember it being pulled a few weeks later.


'What's it doing now?'
User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 50, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 14005 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 48):
So now we know there was a fire on the QR plane? I thought we were in the dark?

Where did I say that? You misrepresent me as usual.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 48):

Frankly, I think you are really crossing a line with your statements.

Then you fail to follow my argument.



BV
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 51, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13902 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 47):
No but Boeing refers enquiries to the operator so getting information becomes a circular problem

Boeing does not own the aircraft, what did you want them to say ?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 47):
Again my point, there is an open investigation into the electrical system so wouldn't it make sense for the NTSB to have a look?

Qatar is its own sovereign nation, the NTSB can only become involved IF invited.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 47):
Nope, nothing unusual about that no, point was if ET aircraft had burned in Doha and then been hidden and investigated in secret would we be having the AD issued and finding of similar faulty installations?

That is a very loaded question, none of that happened. The suggestion something is being hidden in this case I find unwarranted. To me it has the appearance of their standard business practices, and similar to the others work in the region.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10643 posts, RR: 30
Reply 52, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13905 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 48):
So now we know there was a fire on the QR plane? I thought we were in the dark?

It seems like there was a fire:

Quote:
After days of stonewalling it has been confirmed that a Qatar Airways 787 caught fire, according to some reports, in a rear underfloor part of the fuselage, last Sunday as it was moving into position to take off from Doha airport.

The fire has been described as ‘serious’ in some quarters, ‘not serious’ by the airline, and also by one contact as having extensively damaged an important panel in the electrical bay that also caught fire in a test flight Dreamliner in November 2010, causing an emergency diversion to Laredo where that jet was evacuated.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...-hush-up-new-qatar-787-fire-fails/



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 53, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13722 times:

Looks like Electrics is the bogie for the B787.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2852 posts, RR: 25
Reply 54, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13620 times:

Is my mind playing tricks, or was there not an incident early on involving a United frame and ground power hook up ?

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 55, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13496 times:

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 54):
Is my mind playing tricks, or was there not an incident early on involving a United frame and ground power hook up ?

The ground power hook-up is a bit more demanding for the 787 then for non "more-electrical" frames, it consumes about 3 times the power depending on mode. Therefore it loads the connected ground cart heavily (there has to be more then 1 for eg engine start without APU running) and it is well documented these carts can have very different status and spec conformance. This is probably something that goes on for a while until all parties learn the tricks of 787 and ground power hook-up and the sub-standard carts gets weeded out.

It is a dodgy moment which is per definition taking place on the ground with ground personnel and resources present (compared to some earlier incidents) so should not be used to increase the fear of airborne fires. I would guess there are hundreds if not thousands of incidents of ground power carts and frame hook-ups where relays have been toasted on or the other side of the cable   .

[Edited 2013-07-28 03:43:46]


Non French in France
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 56, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13031 times:

Quoting oldeuropean (Thread starter):
And the saga goes on. "Smoke had been reported near an electrical compartment."

Why do I get the sense you love these reports? I'm sorry, but I missed the same enthusiastic posting when the A380 had its engine explosion and subsequent wing spar issues?

Oh and in the interests of FULL DISCLOSURE, I should also mention I'm another one of those "inferior" American engineers.  



[Edited 2013-07-28 06:12:19]


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 57, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12957 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 48):
Frankly, I think you are really crossing a line with your statements.

Agreed, but unfortunately there's way too many posting irresponsible statements. It's sad because those of us who claim to be aviation enthusiasts should know better, IMHO.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3976 posts, RR: 34
Reply 58, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12883 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 14):
it would seem to me to be an internal QR thing.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 55):
This is probably something that goes on for a while until all parties learn the tricks of 787 and ground power hook-up and the sub-standard carts gets weeded out.

Its not really that the carts are sub standard, just that the standards have been raised again.
We used to have ground carts that happily worked on B767 and B744, but then along came B777 and they tripped off.
When you connect the cart to the aircraft, the frequency drops under the load until the cart recovers and goes back to nominal speed. You adjust the cart to run at say 405Hz unloaded. You connect up the aircraft and it drops to 385Hz then runs back up to 400Hz.
On a B767 and earlier this was fine. It is in the limits of the Ground Power Controller on the aircraft. But on the B777 this controlle tripped out at 395Hz, so you connect up the cart, and 5 secs later it trips off. Well now we have got them all working for the B777, and along comes the B787, bigger load, and finer limits. All the carts now need to go from unloaded, to loaded at 90KVA with a drop of less than 5Hz. You have to buy new ones!


User currently offlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2852 posts, RR: 25
Reply 59, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 12743 times:

Tristarsteve, using a pad, so unable to quote you.

Thanks for the explanation; much appreciated.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 12708 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 56):
I missed the same enthusiastic posting when the A380 had its engine explosion and subsequent wing spar issues?

Maybe I was away on another planet at the time but I clearly remember a whole load of "enthusiastic posting" about these particular issues at the time. The big difference, though, is that these A380 issues had a clearly identified cause and, in the case of the wing ribs, were not a safety of flight issue. The 787, on the other hand, seems to be having quite a few fire (or "smoke event") issues within rather a short space of time, some of which have, as yet, no clearly identified underlying cause. It is only natural that people should wish to discuss these - maybe that way, we can learn whether or not they are mere coincidence, normal technical issues, or whether there is some common underlying cause.

I do find it quite depressing how often, when someone disagrees with something posted by another member, rather than presenting an intelligent reasoned opposing opinion, they simply revert to the usual "you wouldn't have raised this if it had been the other manufacturer's aircraft", or to some sort of personal attack. If you really think that the subject of this thread is without merit then why not present some sort of reasoned argument that we can discuss?

This is, after all, a discussion forum. It would be a very boring (and far less informative & educational) place if people only posted things that everyone else agreed with. There are loads of posts made on a.net that I personally disagree with but I'm not daft enough to think that what I personally believe is always right and, even though I've been working in and around this industry for many years, I like the fact that I can learn something new here almost every day from the lively discussion that does go on. Long may it continue.


User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2073 posts, RR: 4
Reply 61, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 12707 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 56):
I'm sorry, but I missed the same enthusiastic posting when the A380 had its engine explosion and subsequent wing spar issues?

Haha, why should I've written another post when we daily saw 8 to10 new negative posts about the A380 from the other side of the pond. 

But kidding aside, in case of the 787 we see some issues, which are definitely more serious than the issues of the A380, mentioned by you. We have seen now several cases of an unexpected fire in a 787, in a short period of time with a limited number of airframes. As an engineer, I assume that you are a smart guy. Don't you see the pattern?

I for my part don't want to sit in a plane, which starts to burn at 40,000 feet.

And I find it suspicious that QR and Boeing now try to hide this incident.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 56):
Oh and in the interests of fairness, I should also mention I'm another one of those "inferior" American engineers.

I'm sorry that I've to rain in your parade, but I can't remember that I ever have written or spoken about "inferior American engineers" or that I think that they, or you for that matter, are inferior.

[Edited 2013-07-28 06:34:47]


Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 62, posted (11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 12368 times:

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 61):
I'm sorry that I've to rain in your parade, but I can't remember that I ever have written or spoken about "inferior American engineers" or that I think that they, or you for that matter, are inferior.

No worries, I didn't lose any sleep over your comments. I believe I was referring to a thread where you implied the superiority of German engineering when discussing a 787 incident and how most Germans wouldn't fly it. I believe it was in reference to the coming Air Berlin aircraft. It appears that the thread may have been deleted for some strange reason...

[Edited 2013-07-28 07:51:45]


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 63, posted (11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 12320 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 60):
Maybe I was away on another planet at the time but I clearly remember a whole load of "enthusiastic posting" about these particular issues at the time.

No I believe it was me that was on another planet, my friend. And I didn't enjoy the criticism of the A380 either. I guess I'm naive to expect those in this forum to know aircraft systems are among the most complex that Man builds and problems will inherently arise with all new aircraft programs. It seems to me it enviably becomes an A vs. B on these pages.

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 60):
I do find it quite depressing how often, when someone disagrees with something posted by another member, rather than presenting an intelligent reasoned opposing opinion, they simply revert to the usual "you wouldn't have raised this if it had been the other manufacturer's aircraft", or to some sort of personal attack. If you really think that the subject of this thread is without merit then why not present some sort of reasoned argument that we can discuss?

I believe I've answered your excellent question above.

[Edited 2013-07-28 07:50:18]


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (11 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 12285 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 60):
I do find it quite depressing how often, when someone disagrees with something posted by another member, rather than presenting an intelligent reasoned opposing opinion, they simply revert to the usual "you wouldn't have raised this if it had been the other manufacturer's aircraft"

That's all well and good for intelligent, well intentioned posts. Unfortunately, we seem to have a vocal group of posters who are grinding axes more than presenting their own reasoned opinions.


User currently offlineevomutant From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 472 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 12162 times:

And equal sized group of "see no evil, hear no evil" fanboys (on both sides).

Swings and roundabouts.

It's why I post so rarely. So much of the debate here is the level of the playground.


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 66, posted (11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 12120 times:

Quoting evomutant (Reply 65):
And equal sized group of "see no evil, hear no evil" fanboys (on both sides).

Swings and roundabouts.

It's why I post so rarely. So much of the debate here is the level of the playground.

I couldn't agree with you more. I present as evidence above comments. Like you, I have limited my comments because the discussions are really taking a nosedive lately.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5445 posts, RR: 29
Reply 67, posted (11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 12042 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 50):
Where did I say that? You misrepresent me as usual.

You said this:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
Secrecy on faults that cause fire is dangerous to aircraft and the flying public.

Your statements may be misrepresented if you continually make them with such ambiguity. For example:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 47):
Nope, nothing unusual about that no, point was if ET aircraft had burned in Doha and then been hidden and investigated in secret would we be having the AD issued and finding of similar faulty installations? If not 787's would currently be flying with a fault that can start a blaze in flight and prove fatal to all aboard.

The inference is that if Boeing/airlines could, they'd let planes fall out of the sky in a fireball. You stitch together "if" statements to create a scenario and then punctuate it with 787/fire/blaze/fatal. I find that a slippery slope to go down, but it's your words, not mine.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 52):
It seems like there was a fire

Very unfortunate.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 11993 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 63):
I guess I'm naive to expect those in this forum to know aircraft systems are among the most complex that Man builds and problems will inherently arise with all new aircraft programs.

Well I'm totally in agreement with you on that one. Having worked on, and more recently managed, many complex technical projects, I can attest to the fact that we're completely losing sight of KISS "keep it simple, stupid". Most hi-tech systems are now far too complicated to be able to even attempt to make them completely fail safe. In many cases they are also becoming too complicated for their operators to fully understand how they will behave in any given set of circumstances.

In my experience, regardless of how much time, effort and good intention is put into the initial design, a system will evolve during development and testing, with the inevitable fixes, changes and enhancements, into a system that is roughly 20% well designed and developed bits held together by the other 80% consisting of patches and work-arounds. Of course, with unlimited time and budgets, most of these projects would take the lessons learnt the first time through and go back to the beginning and re-do the whole thing from scratch. But we live in the real world with deadlines and budgets so most of the systems we have to live with are far from perfect.

Anyway, back on topic, I'm still keeping an open mind about these "incidents" on the 787, especially the QR one. I can't help thinking that perhaps QR are hiding something but I've no idea what - it does look suspiciously Iike another power panel issue but we can't be sure unless they provide more information.

My own opinion, based on the small amount of definitive information available, is that there could be some underlying issue within the 787 electrical system, and my suspicion is that it could be inadequate spike protection. But, I have to say "could be" as, at this stage, I am only guessing. It is also possible that it's just the normal early-life failure of electrical or electronic components - in my experience, assuming a component is properly environmentally protected, if it is going to fail, it is far more likely to fail very early on in it's life than later. So maybe things will start to settle down pretty quickly once the bad components get weeded out.

It's obvious that the 787 is getting a harder time than it probably deserves, and it's also probably getting more flak than any previous aircraft program. That's an unfortunate side effect of the instant information world that we now live in - even the simplest most trivial event can be a world-wide story in seconds. I'm sure the A350 will fare equally as badly when it enters into service.


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 11947 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 64):
That's all well and good for intelligent, well intentioned posts. Unfortunately, we seem to have a vocal group of posters who are grinding axes more than presenting their own reasoned opinions.

Agreed.

But I can't help thinking that, on occasion, some people are a little too oversensitive and infer things from what is written that are not actually there.

[Edited 2013-07-28 08:55:46]

User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 70, posted (11 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 11864 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 70):
But I can't help thinking that, on occasion, some people are a little too oversensitive and infer things from what is written that are not actually there.

Sometimes the Mods delete what they may think are inflammatory threads, in many cases, because of one or two posts. In that case, it's difficult to go back and quote them...

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 69):
Well I'm totally in agreement with you on that one. Having worked on, and more recently managed, many complex technical projects, I can attest to the fact that we're completely losing sight of KISS "keep it simple, stupid". Most hi-tech systems are now far too complicated to be able to even attempt to make them completely fail safe. In many cases they are also becoming too complicated for their operators to fully understand how they will behave in any given set of circumstances.

In my experience, regardless of how much time, effort and good intention is put into the initial design, a system will evolve during development and testing, with the inevitable fixes, changes and enhancements, into a system that is roughly 20% well designed and developed bits held together by the other 80% consisting of patches and work-arounds. Of course, with unlimited time and budgets, most of these projects would take the lessons learnt the first time through and go back to the beginning and re-do the whole thing from scratch. But we live in the real world with deadlines and budgets so most of the systems we have to live with are far from perfect.

Anyway, back on topic, I'm still keeping an open mind about these "incidents" on the 787, especially the QR one. I can't help thinking that perhaps QR are hiding something but I've no idea what - it does look suspiciously Iike another power panel issue but we can't be sure unless they provide more information.

My own opinion, based on the small amount of definitive information available, is that there could be some underlying issue within the 787 electrical system, and my suspicion is that it could be inadequate spike protection. But, I have to say "could be" as, at this stage, I am only guessing. It is also possible that it's just the normal early-life failure of electrical or electronic components - in my experience, assuming a component is properly environmentally protected, if it is going to fail, it is far more likely to fail very early on in it's life than later. So maybe things will start to settle down pretty quickly once the bad components get weeded out.

It's obvious that the 787 is getting a harder time than it probably deserves, and it's also probably getting more flak than any previous aircraft program. That's an unfortunate side effect of the instant information world that we now live in - even the simplest most trivial event can be a world-wide story in seconds. I'm sure the A350 will fare equally as badly when it enters into service.

        



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 71, posted (11 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 11655 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 52):
It seems like there was a fire:

Let me stress again that I am not denying there may have been smoke and/or fire in this incident, but there is zero new information in this blog that confirms it. Where is the confirmation coming from here?

In the blog it says "it has been confirmed..." "...according to some reports". The reports cited in the blog both say the same thing as the Reuters article I posted earlier in this thread. In fact, one of the two is nothing more than a cited repost of the Reuters article. So there is zero new information or confirmation in this blog - just a rehash of what little we already know.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 48):
Frankly, I think you are really crossing a line with your statements.

  

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 69):
My own opinion, based on the small amount of definitive information available, is that there could be some underlying issue within the 787 electrical system, and my suspicion is that it could be inadequate spike protection.

There is certainly some evidence to suggest that may be true.


User currently offlinevoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2070 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (11 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 11622 times:

There may not be any smoke without fire etc. etc. in both the literal and metaphorical (sources) sense, but the main question one can draw meaningful opinions from is:
Is the plane back in service x days after the [non-]incident, or isn't it?



` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (11 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11463 times:

Quoting voodoo (Reply 73):
There may not be any smoke without fire etc. etc. in both the literal and metaphorical (sources) sense, but the main question one can draw meaningful opinions from is:
Is the plane back in service x days after the [non-]incident, or isn't it?

It's certainly suspicious that it's taking so long to get the aircraft back into service but it doesn't necessarily have to mean that there was significant damage. It could just be that a component that broke (I won't say burned, in case I get flamed   ) is a component that is not expected to be replaced very often, and it's taking time to source a replacement.

Remember that this is a new aircraft type so there aren't huge piles of spare parts lying around and Boeing are still in the process of ramping up production so it's quite likely that there will be many components where everything being produced at the moment is committed to the production line.


User currently offlineholzmann From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (11 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11331 times:

Funny. I think my FRA-MUC flight on 21 JUL arrived at the gate next to this Qatar AC before it departed.

This photo was taken at MUC on 21 JUL at around 10:30 AM:

http://i44.tinypic.com/nfrvys.jpg


User currently offlinevoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2070 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (11 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 11179 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 74):

Remember that this is a new aircraft type so there aren't huge piles of spare parts lying around and Boeing are still in the process of ramping up production so it's quite likely that there will be many components where everything being produced at the moment is committed to the production line.

Hmmm you see I would have thought the opposite... There were 787 aircraft and components stashed in every nook and cranny in Seattle while the plane was grounded (production did not cease), not to mention the previous big delays. If anything, every airline has been granted more time than average to prepare and rehearse.



` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5445 posts, RR: 29
Reply 76, posted (11 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 11003 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 74):
(I won't say burned, in case I get flamed )

Lol, funny AND true.

Quoting holzmann (Reply 75):
Funny. I think my FRA-MUC flight on 21 JUL arrived at the gate next to this Qatar AC before it departed.

So it was YOU!!  
Quoting Speedbored (Reply 74):
It's certainly suspicious that it's taking so long to get the aircraft back into service but it doesn't necessarily have to mean that there was significant damage.

It's hard to know what to make of it, but every day that goes by does not bode well for it being a minor issue.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (11 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 10986 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 77):
It's hard to know what to make of it, but every day that goes by does not bode well for it being a minor issue.

Agreed.

It also seems that the official silence on this "minor incident" is doing more harm than good to the 787's reputation, as it is fueling possibly unwarranted speculation. I can't help thinking that, even if this was more than just a "minor incident", it would be better for some details to be released, if only to stop the rumour mill.

[Edited 2013-07-28 12:31:01]

User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2256 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10697 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 26):

...and then, as if by magic....


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2189 posts, RR: 8
Reply 79, posted (11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10697 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 60):
I do find it quite depressing how often, when someone disagrees with something posted by another member, rather than presenting an intelligent reasoned opposing opinion, they simply revert to the usual "you wouldn't have raised this if it had been the other manufacturer's aircraft", or to some sort of personal attack. If you really think that the subject of this thread is without merit then why not present some sort of reasoned argument that we can discuss?

This is, after all, a discussion forum. It would be a very boring (and far less informative & educational) place if people only posted things that everyone else agreed with. There are loads of posts made on a.net that I personally disagree with but I'm not daft enough to think that what I personally believe is always right and, even though I've been working in and around this industry for many years, I like the fact that I can learn something new here almost every day from the lively discussion that does go on. Long may it continue.

We are on the same page, agree 100%

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 61):
I for my part don't want to sit in a plane, which starts to burn at 40,000 feet.

And I find it suspicious that QR and Boeing now try to hide this incident.

Nobody wants that fire at 40K feet, but I concur that the secrecy is fueling a lot of speculation...

Quoting evomutant (Reply 65):
And equal sized group of "see no evil, hear no evil" fanboys (on both sides).

Swings and roundabouts.

It's why I post so rarely. So much of the debate here is the level of the playground.

Just read the A380 thread...again A vs B and the 380 is dead...the childish behavior keeps going

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 69):
I'm sure the A350 will fare equally as badly when it enters into service.

I disagree here I bet Airbus has learnt a lesson on the A380 and the 787.... they are playing it safe as possible Surely the A350 will have some problems but not the delays and MX the 787 has now...

Maybe the QR 787 problem is very simple but with the info availiable and the secrecy and the long out of service time...one has to wonder , what the heck is going on?

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinesphealey From United States of America, joined May 2005, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10705 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 69):
In my experience, regardless of how much time, effort and good intention is put into the initial design, a system will evolve during development and testing, with the inevitable fixes, changes and enhancements, into a system that is roughly 20% well designed and developed bits held together by the other 80% consisting of patches and work-arounds. Of course, with unlimited time and budgets, most of these projects would take the lessons learnt the first time through and go back to the beginning and re-do the whole thing from scratch. But we live in the real world with deadlines and budgets so most of the systems we have to live with are far from perfect.

There's another school of thought that says that that 80% _is_ the design and the improvement, and that no amount of feeding back into a "second system" will ever produce a perfect design. And in fact per Second System Effect might produce a worse design than years of "patching what broke". I read an interview some years ago with the program manager for IBM's mainframe operating system (OS/390 then; zOS now I think) in which he said the very core of the system had never been "redesigned'" as such after OS/360 but had been bug fixed and bug fixed until their were no more bugs left - then locked down.

This is a school that I grow more inclined toward as I grow older but which contradicts quite a bit of modern ISO/PMI thinking about "processes" and "maturity".

sPh


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1340 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10568 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 74):
Remember that this is a new aircraft type so there aren't huge piles of spare parts lying around and Boeing are still in the process of ramping up production so it's quite likely that there will be many components where everything being produced at the moment is committed to the production line.

It is an aircraft in full production, I think 5 a month moving to 7, that means all parts should be available as all parts are in constant production. So early in the lifetime of the frame there should be no version problem, like new frames are fitted with mark 3 and you would need the mark 1 for the old frame. The "missing spare parts excuse" I always find rather lame on a young frame in full production, that would mean that there would be no safety of having somewhere in the line the extra part in case one would be found to be defect anywhere in the production.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 82, posted (11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10547 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 78):
It also seems that the official silence on this "minor incident" is doing more harm than good to the 787's reputation, as it is fueling possibly unwarranted speculation

I personally do not see the problem, many airlines do not let the public in on how they conduct maintenance. This might be taking longer as Qatar might be doing it under a warranty process involving Boeing, rather than using their own resources.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 80):
Surely the A350 will have some problems but not the delays and MX the 787 has now...

I saw a presentation recently where Airbus is only expecting to achieve "normal" levels 2 years after EIS. Airbus does not think it has something superior, things will arise, and they will need to get fixed. They were going into the planning and process of how they would identify and handle that.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 80):
Maybe the QR 787 problem is very simple but with the info availiable and the secrecy and the long out of service time...one has to wonder , what the heck is going on?

Probably trying to understand the issues, it is not that easy something to come in after everything that has happened to then work out the sequence of events.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 725 posts, RR: 4
Reply 83, posted (11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10447 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 77):
It's hard to know what to make of it, but every day that goes by does not bode well for it being a minor issue.

That might be true, but it is equally possible that the days passing is indicative of nothing. As a prior aircraft maintainer, I can say without a doubt that sometimes even minor problems take a while to figure out - and I was working airplanes that were decades old, well understood, and positively primitive compared to today's modern, complex aircraft.

Could the time and silence be a sign of something? Sure, but it could just as easily be nothing.

IMO, this is an interesting topic and a worthwhile discussion, but personally I am not willing to jump to any conclusions at this point in time, based on what little I know right now.

Edited for clarity.

[Edited 2013-07-28 14:00:12]

User currently offlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2852 posts, RR: 25
Reply 84, posted (11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10460 times:

Zeke, I think the problem lies in the fact Qatar have painted themselves into a corner.

Despite eyewitness accounts, Qatar have denied there was an incident or occurrence.

That, predictably led to questioning why the fire service attended, why the AFS denied any turnout, why the aircraft has been hangared and why it hasn't flown since the date no incident or occurrence allegedly happened when the rest of the fleet has been busy.

Far from being a problem for Qatar, this fog of apparent secrecy and denial from them is only going to create doubt and suspicion in the trade and the world's media, which can not be good for Boeing.

I suspect Boeing though are walking on eggshells and playing to AAB's tune on this one, sadly.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8861 posts, RR: 75
Reply 85, posted (11 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10345 times:

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 85):
Despite eyewitness accounts, Qatar have denied there was an incident or occurrence.

That is inaccurate, from the first paragraph, in the first link in the OP.

"Qatar Airways said on Friday it had taken one of its Boeing 787 Dreamliners out of service following what it described as a “minor” technical issue, as pressure mounted on the plane maker over possible new electrical problems with the advanced jet"

http://www.euronews.com/business-new...as-glitches-pile-up-on-boeing-jet/

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 85):
AFS denied any turnout

That is inaccurate, all they said is they had no report at the time.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 85):
why the aircraft has been hangared

That is normal in that part of the world, min temp is 30-35 deg C, and max often 40 deg C plus. If the work is done outside it would be unsafe for humans. Other operators in the area have similar practices.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 85):
why it hasn't flown since the date no incident or occurrence

Undergoing maintenance.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30524 posts, RR: 84
Reply 86, posted (11 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 10134 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 53):
Looks like Electrics is the bogie for the B787.

The 787 is taking electrics to a new level for a commercial airliner, so not surprising they're encountering new issues.


As to the Delay of Game in getting the QR bird back into service, there have been posts in threads about low spares levels for some 787 parts, so that might be part of the issue. I am guessing that the QR incident involved one of the power panels, as they have been an issue on other 787s (including a QR bird on her delivery flight) due to reported poor quality-control at the manufacturer. So this may be a case of there not being sufficient stock of replacement panels available, assuming that each new panel is undergoing more extensive and lengthy QA before it's released to be installed.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1340 posts, RR: 2
Reply 87, posted (11 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10021 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 87):
As to the Delay of Game in getting the QR bird back into service, there have been posts in threads about low spares levels for some 787 parts, so that might be part of the issue. I am guessing that the QR incident involved one of the power panels, as they have been an issue on other 787s (including a QR bird on her delivery flight) due to reported poor quality-control at the manufacturer. So this may be a case of there not being sufficient stock of replacement panels available, assuming that each new panel is undergoing more extensive and lengthy QA before it's released to be installed.

There are two possibilities for no spares availability, there are too few parts produced and that should not only impact spareparts but also production of new frames, or they get used up to fast.
Typical new frames should use few spare parts. Spare parts usage should increase with age.

As I do not believe that Boeing manages its spare part flow so badly, it could be that they get used up to fast, trouble with electrics and an unusual high exchange of parts.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7042 posts, RR: 8
Reply 88, posted (11 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9956 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
Quite simple, it is not clear what the issue was or who cause it but knowledge of what it was / who / what caused it could prevent this issue re occurring possibly in flight.

So if the airline had unqualified personnel performing work / actions on the a/c which resulted in a fire incident, letting everyone know that they had unqualified personnel working on the a/c will ensure that other airlines will follow the rules, it could also have been sub-standard equipment. What I would say is that there is no reason for an airline to hide any problems with the a/c, especially one out-side of the USA where government influence to make the US look good is minimal.

The silence to me says that the incident was of the airlines making and as a result they are keeping it quiet. One thing with modern a/c is the wealth of monitoring tools, just as the LHR incident, even though the 787 has had numerous problems, the specific causes can be identified, only one item is still out-standing - battery incident -. So just because the a/c has a history does not mean that you can blame everything on the a/c as a cover.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1340 posts, RR: 2
Reply 89, posted (11 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9851 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 89):
So if the airline had unqualified personnel performing work / actions on the a/c which resulted in a fire incident, letting everyone know that they had unqualified personnel working on the a/c will ensure that other airlines will follow the rules, it could also have been sub-standard equipment. What I would say is that there is no reason for an airline to hide any problems with the a/c, especially one out-side of the USA where government influence to make the US look good is minimal.

I find it quite unsubstantiated to speculate when something happens to a B 787 about poor maintenance. So was speculated with Ethiopian Airlines and now Qatar Airways. So I assume if United has trouble it is also poor maintenance. And the two battery incidence are surly also poor maintenance at JAL and ANA.
Move on guys all problems only due to poor maintenance.   


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7042 posts, RR: 8
Reply 90, posted (11 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 9748 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 90):
I find it quite unsubstantiated to speculate when something happens to a B 787 about poor maintenance.

The post was not about maintenance but in response to the thought process that the silence on the issue is because there is a fault with the 787 and the airline is covering, on such a high profile a/c with all its associated issues, could Boeing really pay someone to keep quiet?
I speculate if the silence is deliberate, its because the fault is known and it is not the "a/c" fault.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1340 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 9624 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 91):
The post was not about maintenance but in response to the thought process that the silence on the issue is because there is a fault with the 787 and the airline is covering, on such a high profile a/c with all its associated issues, could Boeing really pay someone to keep quiet?
I speculate if the silence is deliberate, its because the fault is known and it is not the "a/c" fault.

You should read your post: unqualified personnel performing work


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 92, posted (11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 9556 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 83):
I personally do not see the problem, many airlines do not let the public in on how they conduct maintenance. This might be taking longer as Qatar might be doing it under a warranty process involving Boeing, rather than using their own resources.

True.

There might simply be a problem with a carrier furnished equipment that isn't easily sourced because the 787 is so new, and in the mean time, QR is taking this opportunity to do other scheduled maintenance and deferred maintenance on the aircraft.

Unless they tell us, we won't know.

We don't know when and why every aircraft in every fleet at every airline is taken out of service, why should a 787 be any different?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7042 posts, RR: 8
Reply 93, posted (11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 9508 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 92):
You should read your post: unqualified personnel performing work

You should have read the post it was in response to so as to get the context of the response.
This is a discussion forum, most do not just post for posting sake but to have a dialog, but to make it easier the post was in response to the quote below, perhaps that will help.
If not then fine, I humble apologize for the spculation.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 44):
Quite simple, it is not clear what the issue was or who cause it but knowledge of what it was / who / what caused it could prevent this issue re occurring possibly in flight. Secrecy on faults that cause fire is dangerous to aircraft and the flying public. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?


User currently offlinenutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 496 posts, RR: 8
Reply 94, posted (11 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9430 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 93):
We don't know when and why every aircraft in every fleet at every airline is taken out of service, why should a 787 be any different?

           


Exactly. There are "incidents" every day at every carrier that take airplanes OOS for days, weeks and in some cases months. I have seen SOC's literally juggle entire aircraft routing schedules to accommodate long-term aircraft OOS issues.



American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3383 posts, RR: 26
Reply 95, posted (11 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9387 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 88):
As I do not believe that Boeing manages its spare part flow so badly, it could be that they get used up to fast, trouble with electrics and an unusual high exchange of parts.

Boeing bases it's spares inventories on past history.. they do not stack everything and major electrical panels are definitely not spared only field replaceable components..


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1340 posts, RR: 2
Reply 96, posted (11 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9328 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 96):
Boeing bases it's spares inventories on past history.. they do not stack everything and major electrical panels are definitely not spared only field replaceable components.

But all this parts are in production for new frames. When you have only a few frames flying the bulk of all produced parts goes for producing new planes, the drain of parts for spares should be relatively small, therefore rather easy to satisfy.
Usually spare part shortage come later in the production cycle, when an unsuspected shorter life cycle eats up spare parts.
As you have no history for the new type, you usually overstock in the beginning.

If major electrical panels are getting defective, I do not say that they are, that would really spell trouble.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 97, posted (11 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9322 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 97):
If major electrical panels are getting defective, I do not say that they are, that would really spell trouble.

As my parents used to say... "and if grandma had wheels she'd be a trolley car."

Where is the information coming from that major electrical panels are defective and being replaced in such numbers they don't have any left?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1340 posts, RR: 2
Reply 98, posted (11 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9302 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 98):
Where is the information coming from that major electrical panels are defective and being replaced in such numbers they don't have any left?

You should follow the discussion. It started out with that the B 787 we are talking about could be waiting for spareparts.


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 99, posted (11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9282 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 87):
I am guessing that the QR incident involved one of the power panels, as they have been an issue on other 787s (including a QR bird on her delivery flight) due to reported poor quality-control at the manufacturer.

Those issues should have been resolved long ago, as Boeing had traced the panel problems to a single manufacturing batch of circuit boards. Unless it's a new type of problem?

Quoting par13del (Reply 89):
the specific causes can be identified, only one item is still out-standing

The Laredo panel fire, err "smoke event" in Boeinglish, was never determined with any certainty - they suspected FOD but didn't find any.

Quoting par13del (Reply 89):
What I would say is that there is no reason for an airline to hide any problems with the a/c

Sure there is: to avoid yet more negative press on the 787 - thereby protecting their own product and investment.

I'm not necessarily saying that's what's going on, but they do appear to be downplaying it, IMO.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 93):
We don't know when and why every aircraft in every fleet at every airline is taken out of service, why should a 787 be any different?

Well, we don't normally know because nobody asks. Here the media inquired about the issue and was basically stonewalled.

Quoting kanban (Reply 96):
Boeing bases it's spares inventories on past history.. they do not stack everything and major electrical panels are definitely not spared only field replaceable components..

If they use past history as an indicator, their inventory should certainly include spare panels. And if the issue was indeed minor, it would probably only necessitate a new circuit board - which should be even quicker to facilitate. The supplier will also likely hold an inventory of spare components.

I think UA's bird was out of service for 5 days when it encountered a panel problem back in December.


User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 100, posted (11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9267 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 78):
It also seems that the official silence on this "minor incident" is doing more harm than good to the 787's reputation, as it is fueling possibly unwarranted speculation.

Harm to whom and from where? If not for speculators hoping for the worst on a.net, nobody would ever know and even fewer would care.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3383 posts, RR: 26
Reply 101, posted (11 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9155 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 97):
But all this parts are in production for new frames. When you have only a few frames flying the bulk of all produced parts goes for producing new planes, the drain of parts for spares should be relatively small, therefore rather easy to satisfy.
Quoting flood (Reply 100):
If they use past history as an indicator, their inventory should certainly include spare panels.

Love it when the outside universe decides what a company should stock as spares or not..
First - there are spares engineers who determine what, when and at what level spares parts will be required.. They also determine interchangeability.
Second - there are inventory planners who determine how much to stock
Third - What is stocked and how many are determined by histories of previous models and sales.

Now electrical panels having no moving parts are not and historically have not been logical spares.. motors, actuators are...

Fourth, Boeing no longer maintains production stores with parts stocked for future builds.. everything arrives and in immediately installed.. so there is no production stock to steal. Further, pulling a part/panel out after installation creates a major production issue as all subsequent jobs and tests must be delayed. Further, a spares configuration is frequently different than a production unit at attach points ( generally undrilled) to ensure proper fit.

Now if an electrical panel is the problem, Boeing would go back to the supplier (Thales?) for a new one and it may have to be built up to a configuration that is not current to match the a/p. Boeing has insisted vendors look at and incorporate Just In Time inventory management as well, so this will not be an off the shelf item.


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2189 posts, RR: 8
Reply 102, posted (11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9151 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 100):
The Laredo panel fire, err "smoke event" in Boeinglish, was never determined with any certainty - they suspected FOD but didn't find any.

Boeinglish !!! man that cracked me up! I guess its equivalent to Airbuspeak.... same kind of mumbo jumbo languages...

Anyways, how long is too long to have a new AC parked due to (insert your theory here)....

just askin´

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 103, posted (11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9129 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 42):
More and more it looks like we are going to have to have deaths before people come clean about the what is going on with the 787, we have had so many 'lucky' accidents so far but luck does not last forever.

Terrific. So now a.net is propagating conspiracy theories. I'm beginning to regret the money I spent on membership.


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 104, posted (11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9084 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 102):
Love it when the outside universe decides what a company should stock as spares or not..

Try again. You said:

Quoting kanban (Reply 96):
Boeing bases it's spares inventories on past history

And past history has shown the panels have been susceptible to faults.

That said, we don't even know if panels were involved.

Quoting cornutt (Reply 104):
Terrific. So now a.net is propagating conspiracy theories.

We've had conspiracy theories involving the 787 ever since NH made an emergency landing and people began suggesting acts of sabotage.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 103):
Boeinglish !!! man that cracked me up! I guess its equivalent to Airbuspeak.... same kind of mumbo jumbo languages...

A skill mastered by both parties  drunk 

[Edited 2013-07-28 20:56:22]

User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 105, posted (11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9059 times:

Quoting flood (Reply 105):
We've had conspiracy theories involving the 787 ever since NH made an emergency landing and people began suggesting acts of sabotage.

Agreed, and that is equally ridiculous. Although it appears that the 787 conspiracy theories actually go all the way back to the day the program was announced.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3383 posts, RR: 26
Reply 106, posted (11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9017 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flood (Reply 105):
Quoting kanban (Reply 96):
Boeing bases it's spares inventories on past history

And past history has shown the panels have been susceptible to faults.

historically over all models this is not true. I believe one panel had a problem which was due to FOD .. although some will loudly debate this from their armchairs., anyway it was over week in getting a replacement after they figured out what happened.

Consider this another way..if there has never been a sale of a spare panel to an airline, would you stock it as a businessman?.. If the panel components are reparable or replaceable would you invest in the whole panel or only the components that were replaceable?.. consider an aircraft actuator which is known to wear out mechanically .. generally the airlines buy 1 spare assembly band 2 or 3 repair seal kits and and bearings.. if they have one in the shop that needs a new rod end or metering pin, they order it. In this case Boeing and the manufacturer have all the replacement pieces needed.. it's a known commodity..


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 107, posted (11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8831 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 107):
historically over all models this is not true

I'm not disputing that, but it's irrelevant as they have been susceptible to faults on the 787.

Laredo wasn't the only incident involving a panel on the 787. As Stitch noted:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 87):
they have been an issue on other 787s (including a QR bird on her delivery flight)

UA's diversion to MSY in December was due to a problem with a panel as well. That said, using your businessman analogy, yes - it would be prudent to do so. At the very least, I would demand such from my supplier. For the time being, anyway, until the problems are resolved.


User currently offline747megatop From United States of America, joined May 2007, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8736 times:

holy smokes, not another smoking 787 again!

User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1340 posts, RR: 2
Reply 109, posted (11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8050 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 102):
Love it when the outside universe decides what a company should stock as spares or not..
First - there are spares engineers who determine what, when and at what level spares parts will be required.. They also determine interchangeability.
Second - there are inventory planners who determine how much to stock
Third - What is stocked and how many are determined by histories of previous models and sales.

Accidents not included, if needed spare parts are not on stock that is enough proof that the manufacturer got it wrong.

Quoting kanban (Reply 102):
Now electrical panels having no moving parts are not and historically have not been logical spares.. motors, actuators are...

It is enough talked how revolutionary the B 787 is, so historical models do not apply but failures during test flights do.

Quoting kanban (Reply 102):
Fourth, Boeing no longer maintains production stores with parts stocked for future builds.. everything arrives and in immediately installed.. so there is no production stock to steal. Further, pulling a part/panel out after installation creates a major production issue as all subsequent jobs and tests must be delayed. Further, a spares configuration is frequently different than a production unit at attach points ( generally undrilled) to ensure proper fit.

We are not talking about fuselage parts here.

Regarding the electrical parts as also most of the moving parts, you do not have a 100% yield out of the production, you usually have to produce more because you nearly always have to test some out. In some areas the producer will produce the expected spare parts with the main production run and store them to insure compatibility.

Quoting kanban (Reply 102):
Now if an electrical panel is the problem, Boeing would go back to the supplier (Thales?) for a new one and it may have to be built up to a configuration that is not current to match the a/p. Boeing has insisted vendors look at and incorporate Just In Time inventory management as well, so this will not be an off the shelf item.

In the case of the fast changing electrical parts I call BS on this. The usual way is to produce extras straight away with the production runs and store the extras. Design is usually a very big part of the cost, the number of produced parts does usually not play a big part in the cost. The needed components are often only available for a few years, so you need stock for spares.
You see it industrial computers for example all the time.
Version changes are not only dictated by new design but also by availability of components.

All these problems usually raise there heads when certain types of equipment are in use several years, not at the beginning of the live of a product.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 110, posted (11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7957 times:

Quoting osiris30 (Reply 43):
Sounds like the issue here was QR maintenance staff screwed up and broke something.

Must have missed it... where does it sound like QR maintenance screwed up and broke something?

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 93):
We don't know when and why every aircraft in every fleet at every airline is taken out of service, why should a 787 be any different?

Because

(1) Its a new aircraft type

(2) It is using many new technologies

(3) Many airlines around the world are depending on it to take them to a new level of economic performance

(4) It has had all kinds of technical and production issues, delaying its EIS by 3+ years

(5) Four or five "smoke" incidents have occurred in a relatively small period of time on a small installed base of aircraft

(6) The aircraft was grounded by regulators for 3 months earlier this year because of some of the said events

(7) Even after the grounding was lifted, more smoke events have happened and therefore anytime a 787 is taken out of service for days, people want to know what the issue was rather than hear silence.

I don't know why people seem surprised that there is so much attention given to technical issues on the 787, given the above. The unfortunate truth is that it has earned it thanks to the pattern of unexplained / one-off / "freak" smoke events.

[Edited 2013-07-29 02:37:47]

User currently offline777Boeing777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (11 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7601 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 56):
Why do I get the sense you love these reports?

Your senses serve you well.

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 61):
I for my part don't want to sit in a plane, which starts to burn at 40,000 feet.

I actually prefer knowing that the airplane I'm flying on will take off with two wings, and land with two wings. Those wings and their structural integrity are kinda important.

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 61):
And I find it suspicious that QR and Boeing now try to hide this incident.

It's been mentioned before in this thread, but QR owns the plane, not Boeing. When QR took delivery of the plane, ownership AND responsibility of the aircraft changed hands. Boeing has been brought in to assist. They have no business commenting on an aircraft that they do not own, but, oh yeah, I forgot .......... it's the 787.


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1121 posts, RR: 13
Reply 112, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7339 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 110):
It is enough talked how revolutionary the B 787 is, so historical models do not apply but failures during test flights do.

Anyone planning to stock extra panels based on ONE flight test event which was almost certainly FOD, would have been fired as an idiot. And rightly so.

Even today I don't know that there is sufficient evidence of systemic problems with the panels (other than the one bad batch, which I suppose have been replaced) to warrant stocking as spares. You seem to have no concept of inventory expense or production control. These things aren't like grommets where you can just run the stamping machine for a few more minutes and have some spares.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1340 posts, RR: 2
Reply 113, posted (11 months 4 weeks ago) and read 7244 times:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 112):
Anyone planning to stock extra panels based on ONE flight test event which was almost certainly FOD, would have been fired as an idiot. And rightly so.

Even today I don't know that there is sufficient evidence of systemic problems with the panels (other than the one bad batch, which I suppose have been replaced) to warrant stocking as spares. You seem to have no concept of inventory expense or production control. These things aren't like grommets where you can just run the stamping machine for a few more minutes and have some spares.

I am selling equipment for aircraft refueling as a side business.

I do think you do not know what you are talking about. This things are like that. You do not build electronics a few years later with the same components.
As an example the other day I had to sell the amplifier and computer as a spare part for the dead men switch on a refueling unit. The "new part" was 23 years old, out of the same production run as the original, the company did the one production run including all the estimated spare parts. If this spare parts are finished there are three possibilities, replace the complete electronics with new ones, find a old unit of a scraped similar model or buy a complete new refueling unit.

I sold to the Navy at Kéflavík Airport in the good old days, you had to guaranty spare parts for twenty years, the spare parts were always produced with the original production run (I sold Alfons Haar equipment).

If you buy electrical components like circuit breakers, the life cycle of the series, that means being able to buy the same components again, is about 5 years, in electronics for processors and similar the life cycle goes down to a year, after that you live on the stockpiles of dealers or have your stockpiles yourself. If you need printed plates for a small production run, and everything below 10,000 is a small run, you do it in one go.

Perhaps you start thinking why it is so lucrative to scrap older airplanes for parts.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30524 posts, RR: 84
Reply 114, posted (11 months 4 weeks ago) and read 7139 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 109):
Accidents not included, if needed spare parts are not on stock that is enough proof that the manufacturer got it wrong.

As with the Main and APU batteries, Boeing appears to have underestimated the replacement rate for power panels, but it's a new SKU for them so they didn't have previous history to base their projections on. And as with the batteries, the power panels have subsequently been revised, so what stocks they may have had on hand might no longer have been usable and the suppliers may be constrained in producing new stock. Boeing also is having to replace older stock in their completed frames, as well, which would be another source of inventory pull.

So it does not strike me as unconceivable that this combination might have resulted in a temporary availability constraint for certain SKUs.


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6944 times:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 112):
Anyone planning to stock extra panels based on ONE flight test event which was almost certainly FOD, would have been fired as an idiot. And rightly so.

When airlines buy aircrafts I guess they expect the manufactures to provede them with spare parts, in fact most likely they are obliged to be able to provide spare parts for aircrafts they produce and for some time after they finish production. They may not have every part stored at part pool at some major airport, but they must be able to send more or less any part from somewhere in the world, apart from major fuselage parts of course.


User currently offline777Boeing777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6905 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 109):
Accidents not included, if needed spare parts are not on stock that is enough proof that the manufacturer got it wrong.

No, not at all. Nobody can predict when a part will fail. Some fail sooner than others and for different reasons. It does make sense to have parts readily available for some components and not for others, and Boeing/suppliers know which ones are most likely to need replacement either early or routinely. If I take my car to get serviced, I may not get a replacement part right away because it is not a part kept available in stock, and will need to be ordered. Similar situation here, too.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 117, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6894 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 110):

But that is only why you want to know or think there is some right to know.

As for the "small number" argument, its an excuse to believe its a matter of world safety.

There are about as many 788s in service than A343, 345, 753, 77L, 744ER, 764 and others but there isn't an entitled right to know about issues with those aircraft. Even though many are variants they contain parts specific to the model. Do w ground the fleet if a 744ER has engine trouble? Or when an A345 has a galley fire? Or when the ELT on the 77L needs to be inspected lest it catch fire (happening now)



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3383 posts, RR: 26
Reply 118, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6641 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 109):
In the case of the fast changing electrical parts I call BS on this. The usual way is to produce extras straight away with the production runs and store the extras.

Traditionally, you are correct, Boeing has moved away from the traditional to just in time manufacture and installation. For background, I was a production stores manager, I was involved in the Just In Time implementation, and prior to that I was an inventory planner for Spares..

I repeat, there are no stores of parts left.. read up on the Toyota Production Method, look at a concept called KANBAN (yes it's my name here for good reason).. Understand that parts for assembly/installation arrive the day the work is scheduled on the bar chart as a kit for the suppliers. The reason for the change was several fold, one the costs of inventory, two the costs of configuration control and upgrade, three the delay in change incorporation due to old stock on hand, and the delay in resolving quality issues requiring a search for all affected parts.

Quoting PITingres (Reply 112):
These things aren't like grommets where you can just run the stamping machine for a few more minutes and have some spares.

Agreed!!.. also even if the same panel had a problem twice, the problem may have been in a different component.. There is little need to suddenly stock items as spares to support quality or design issues.. The first you inspect out of the system, the other will be replaced by service bulletin. further one would not stock all the various panels in the plane because of an issue with one, and these panels actually may be individually configured for specific airlines needs, so one size doesn't fit all

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 113):
I do think you do not know what you are talking about.

see response to first quote.. I can be patient and explain this, however go find a copy of Schonberger's "World Class Manufacturing" or Robert Hall's "Zero Inventories" I think the difference in your case is it sounds like you are a middle man in support process, not the manufacturer.


User currently offlineairnorth From Canada, joined Jun 2011, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6412 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just a quick note on parts and availablilty. The lack of spare parts happens all the time in the automotive world, especially on new vehicles. I can't find the link right now but one good example was when Yellow Cab in Vancouver started using the Toyota Prius, while they had no mechanical issues with the car, but, taxi's are subject to a lot of road rash, accidents etc. The operator of the cab company said that Toyota simply could not supply spare body parts, nothing in inventory.
I'm surprised that people are surprised that parts are in short supply, it seems to happen to me everytime I try and order replacement components!
I'm not surprised at all that this would show up in the Aviation world, especially a newer model of aircraft.


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1121 posts, RR: 13
Reply 120, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6309 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 115):
When airlines buy aircrafts I guess they expect the manufactures to provede them with spare parts, in fact most likely they are obliged to be able to provide spare parts for aircrafts they produce and for some time after they finish production.

Perfectly true and correct. What we seem to be arguing about is whether the manufacturer is expected to have a global supply of all parts just lying around, to be produced immediately upon demand. Unless the part is something expected to wear (moving parts), or something with a history of significant replacement rate (and three or four per x hundred thousand flight hours isn't significant), you don't keep spares lying around to tie up cash in inventory.

I've not read yet of any incident where a replacement was outright unavailable. It may have taken a week to manufacture the part, probably requiring extra manufacturing back along the supply chain, and get it to the broken airplane. I don't think that that is unreasonable for a part with no significant replacement rate history. Unless a part is relatively simple to make, no supplier is going to invest in extra capacity just so that Boeing can set aside a bunch of them for spares.

The picture may be very different later on in the airplane lifecycle. At the end of a production run, yes a supplier may/will continue to manufacture extras for X years' worth of spare parts. That is a completely different scenario though.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6224 times:

I'm beginning to regret even mentioning lack of spare parts as a possible reason for the delay in getting this aircraft back into service as this thread has gone way OT now into a discussion about manufacturing systems.

Please can we just accept that a lack of spares is one possible reason for the delay, among a whole raft of others, and get back to the thread topic? If anyone strongly disagrees with this as a possibility then please feel free to suggest some other plausible reasons and we'll discuss those.

If anyone really feels the need to discuss manufacturing systems / just in time systems / inventory management systems then please feel free to start a new thread.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10643 posts, RR: 30
Reply 122, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6199 times:

Quoting airnorth (Reply 119):
The lack of spare parts happens all the time in the automotive world

AFAIK Ford Genk in Belgium is also working this way. I remember some suppliers went on strike and the whole factory was idle.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 123, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5996 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 117):
There are about as many 788s in service than A343, 345, 753, 77L, 744ER, 764 and others but there isn't an entitled right to know about issues with those aircraft. Even though many are variants they contain parts specific to the model. Do w ground the fleet if a 744ER has engine trouble?

This is the same specious argument you have made several times in various forms in various threads; it did not hold on those occasions, and it does not hold here either:

1. The aircraft you mention are all simple derivatives of well-established aircraft with large installed bases with established underlying technologies, suppliers, manufacturing processes, and track records, and have "earned" reputations that people trust over years of service.

2. None of them have had a pattern of potentially serious issues involving smoke and fire in a relatively short period of time, therefore there is not the expectation of a similar "right to know" about issues with those aircraft. If any of them had experienced something similar, then the situation would have been very different.

When the QF A380 had an uncontained engine failure early in the service history of the A380, it led to the temporary grounding of the rest of the five-plane Qantas A380 fleet, and groundings, inspections and engine replacements on some other Rolls-Royce powered A380s in service with Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines, which was well justified as it was still a new aircraft / engine combination without much of a history to fall back on. I think this answers your hypothetical question about the 744ER engine failure.

However if a 777 has an engine issue years into service (as in the BA ice blockage issue that result in the LHR crash landing), it would not result in a grounding as it is a mature aircraft and engine pairing, and a one-off like that on a mature aircraft does not establish a pattern.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1340 posts, RR: 2
Reply 124, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5555 times:

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 116):
No, not at all. Nobody can predict when a part will fail. Some fail sooner than others and for different reasons. It does make sense to have parts readily available for some components and not for others, and Boeing/suppliers know which ones are most likely to need replacement either early or routinely. If I take my car to get serviced, I may not get a replacement part right away because it is not a part kept available in stock, and will need to be ordered. Similar situation here, too.

You are talking about stock at the dealer. I talk about the availability from the OEM.
If your brand new car breaks down, something one would be pissed about anyway, the dealer orders the part and the answer would be, not available anywhere, that would be the last car of that make you would buy.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6343 posts, RR: 3
Reply 125, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5540 times:

Quoting airnorth (Reply 119):
The operator of the cab company said that Toyota simply could not supply spare body parts, nothing in inventory.

Guess the Chinese and Taiwanese knock-off body parts manufacturers can't keep up with the demand either?    90% of the time in the US, the insurer demands an "aftermarket" replacement part be used, anyways...  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently onlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1557 posts, RR: 3
Reply 126, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5505 times:

FWIW an unnamed Qatar official has now commented, he 'confirms' a panel overheat whether it overheated and tripped a sensor or over heated like your toast overheats and created smoke and fire he wasn't saying, but for the alleged 4 tenders to attend smoke would be a good bet.

So another overheated electrical panel, another electrical fault will be dealt with as an internal matter (don't worry there's no pattern here) and the 787 flies on rolling the dice.

Quote:
But a senior official at Qatar Airways in Doha told AFP there had been a simple technical problem detected when the plane was at Doha airport with no passengers on board.

“It’s a normal electronics problem which required the intervention of technicians to fix it quickly,” said the official, who did not want to be identified.

The plane will be back in service in the next two days, the official added.

Boeing refused to comment.

The industry source said the plane had been out of service since Monday, after the panel apparently overheated.
http://www.ttrweekly.com/site/2013/07/qatar-dreamliner-snags/



BV
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1340 posts, RR: 2
Reply 127, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5602 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 118):
I repeat, there are no stores of parts left.. read up on the Toyota Production Method, look at a concept called KANBAN (yes it's my name here for good reason).. Understand that parts for assembly/installation arrive the day the work is scheduled on the bar chart as a kit for the suppliers. The reason for the change was several fold, one the costs of inventory, two the costs of configuration control and upgrade, three the delay in change incorporation due to old stock on hand, and the delay in resolving quality issues requiring a search for all affected parts.

Boeing is perhaps trying to do that, but you should have a talk with the suppliers of Boeing and if they are stockpiling components.

The Toyota production method is a very efficient model to build cars. The scale of the production is that Toyota builds between 7 and 10 Mill cars a year. A single production run of single parts goes into multiples of thousands.

On the other side we talk about airplanes, as it is they top out at about 500 of a family with about 250 of a single type if you want to compare it to cars you would have to compare to a sports car company building a few every month.

The point of the Toyota production model is costs but costs in mass production.

When you come to smaller series and try the just in time model you will find that the stock just moves from the OEM to the supplier.



Getting away from electronics, we could look at for example roller bearings. FAG makes a production run of a type of roller bearing on average once every two years. In between the stock is with dealers of roller bearings or at FAG. Is the roller bearing for a certain product produced just in time? No it is just delivered just in time to the OEM ordering it, if there would be no stock in the world there would be no production at the OEM.

When you have small production runs you have a case of diminishing returns with making the production runs of single parts smaller.

I could start on hole pages but I get of the track of this thread and stop now, there is perhaps a better arena to discuss this.

[Edited 2013-07-29 17:52:08]

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3383 posts, RR: 26
Reply 128, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5521 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

what is the old saying .. you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink... I'll let it drop here until the issue raises it's head again.

User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5445 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 118):

I repeat, there are no stores of parts left.. read up on the Toyota Production Method, look at a concept called KANBAN (yes it's my name here for good reason).. Understand that parts for assembly/installation arrive the day the work is scheduled on the bar chart as a kit for the suppliers. The reason for the change was several fold, one the costs of inventory, two the costs of configuration control and upgrade, three the delay in change incorporation due to old stock on hand, and the delay in resolving quality issues requiring a search for all affected parts.

KANBAN applies to manufacturing, not support. You can plan to very fine timing when a part is going to be needed in production, but not when it will be needed out in the rest of the world for support. When you consider there have already been issues with the panels, it makes sense to have spares available.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3383 posts, RR: 26
Reply 130, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 129):
When you consider there have already been issues with the panels, it makes sense to have spares available.

go back and read post 101.. there are qualified individuals who determine what to stock and what not to.

Consider this also, there are several different panels as well as customer unique panels.. If one runs out based on one damaged by FOD and orders spares of all panels, one must maintain the configuration continuously if there are no sales.. second do you stock each customer's unique panels? The spares business is to make money not to provide 100% coverage regardless of cost.

Consider that spares parts are also frequently different from production parts, so without attach holes, some with extra edge margin..

If a customer needs a non spared part or assembly, they just have to wait.. Boeing does have expedited processes but building a unique requirement takes time.

When I started the planes still had hat racks.. every customer had a different finish and or unique adaptions.. these were never stocked although they were a big seller because of the customer variations.. so you break one.. wait 2 weeks.

If you want to debate this send me a PM outside this thread.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12850 posts, RR: 100
Reply 131, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5362 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm not commenting much on this thread, but I'm following it. So thanks for contributing to everyone.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 127):

When you have small production runs you have a case of diminishing returns with making the production runs of single parts smaller.

   I work for a vendor who will make an entire year's production for smaller runs in one batch. Its rare to have a high enough production rate to make parts more than four or six batches per year, even for items where we have 4 on every one of a high production airframe. (Yes, over a thousand components per year.) Its just not economical to make smaller batches. Someone warehouses somewhere.

Let's take castings... a certain fraction do not work. (Often 15%) Now, that isn't 15% from each batch. It will be 3% of one batch and then 40% of another.   But for small runs, you do not put in the effort a big company will for a run of say a hundred thousand transmission casings. So somewhere in the chain, someone is warehousing.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 127):
Getting away from electronics,

To further back up your argumnet, lets go back to electronics. Its far more economical to make chips in batches of a hundred waffers (about 400 chips per wafer) than in smaller batches. I know for Pratt, they often buy chips that are *one* chip per engine in batches of ten thousand. Yes... More chips than the entire engine run as buying a few wafers worth of chips is simply not economical and ten thousand custom chips cost twice what a thousand do...

It just isn't possible to make such items continually until the run exceeds the labor of a half dozen people continually. That usually doesn't happen with the limited production runs of aerospace for small parts such the electrical goodies in the 787.


Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 132, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5268 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 130):
Consider this also, there are several different panels

Only two have been problematic, any others are irrelevant.

Quoting kanban (Reply 130):
as well as customer unique panels

Do you have a source for the pair of problematic panels being unique for the customer?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3383 posts, RR: 26
Reply 133, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5228 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flood (Reply 132):
Only two have been problematic, any others are irrelevant.

two panels each having one issue (one being for, the other undefined) is not justification to lay in a spares inventory.. however if one were that inclined, why would you not stock every one? tomorrow we may need a different panel..

There is just no case for building stocks based on what we've seen.. and if there is a design problem they would be scrapped anyway.

Quoting flood (Reply 132):
Do you have a source for the pair of problematic panels being unique for the customer?

From experience, some panels are customized .. sometimes as little as a bi-lingual placard.. other times added or deleted capabilities.. the point is if one were to stock panels, not only would they stock all types, but would also stock all customer variables... there is no crystal ball that predicts the need for any one panel, design level or customer variable..

but let's get away from spares inventory management and go back to the subject which still is undefined.


User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 134, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5175 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 133):
two panels each having one issue (one being for, the other undefined)

Two panels, one suspected FOD and at least a few other issues. Off the top of my head, these involve the QR frame as mentioned by Stitch, UA's bird which diverted to MSY, another UA or QR (?) which hadn't been delivered yet, an ANA frame which had a problem with a circuit board, etc.

Quoting kanban (Reply 133):
the point is if one were to stock panels, not only would they stock all types, but would also stock all customer variables...

That's assuming these require any customization at all. Considering these are the primary power panels, I imagine there is very little, if any customization involved as these are core components.

Quoting kanban (Reply 133):
but let's get away from spares inventory management and go back to the subject which still is undefined.

At least that we can agree on  

Not sure how this turned into a "spares" issue to begin with... the only mention I've seen of spares possibly being an issue leading to delays involved the JAL fuel pump.


User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1340 posts, RR: 2
Reply 135, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4753 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 130):
go back and read post 101.. there are qualified individuals who determine what to stock and what not to.

If a needed spare part is not on stock, again excluding accidents, the qualified individual got it wrong.

That the individual is qualified does not protect him or her from making wrong decisions.


User currently offline777Boeing777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 136, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4650 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 135):
If a needed spare part is not on stock, again excluding accidents, the qualified individual got it wrong.

That the individual is qualified does not protect him or her from making wrong decisions.

Yet you're under the assumption that the qualified individual will be able to predict when any part will fail or need to be replaced. If that were so, I would have asked them for winning lottery numbers long ago. The hard truth is that parts fail, some sooner than others and often for unknown random reasons.


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 137, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4572 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 133):
There is just no case for building stocks based on what we've seen.. and if there is a design problem they would be scrapped anyway.

Aircraft Manufacturers are obliged to make spares available to Airlines, not just brake pads and spark plugs. One possible explanation if Boeing can not ship a panel from somewhere in the world is that they ran out of stock, because the fleet of 787 has bin burning through them at a rate which no one anticipated,


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3383 posts, RR: 26
Reply 138, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4235 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 135):
If a needed spare part is not on stock, again excluding accidents, the qualified individual got it wrong.
Quoting packsonflight (Reply 137):
One possible explanation if Boeing can not ship a panel from somewhere in the world is that they ran out of stock, because the fleet of 787 has bin burning through them at a rate which no one anticipated,

Nice to have arm chair analysts with little time to learn from those who have been involved, yet are vigorous in defending some ideal that isn't practical.

I would suggest people go down to their airline maintenance departments and see how many panels they're stocking, and look at the airframe manufacturers spares catalog.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10643 posts, RR: 30
Reply 139, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

The aircraft involved, A7-BCB, is back in service. It currently operates DOH-FRA.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...ner-787-a7-bcb-is-back-in-the-air/



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 140, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3677 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 139):
The aircraft involved, A7-BCB, is back in service.

Glad to hear it.

Wonder if we'll ever find out exactly what the issue was, or why it took 10 days to rectify.

In the absence of any info, my guess is still 'power panel' and 'spare parts availability'.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10643 posts, RR: 30
Reply 141, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3648 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 140):
Wonder if we'll ever find out exactly what the issue was, or why it took 10 days to rectify.

Perhaps a failed power panel, similar to the Air India bird.

http://www.livemint.com/Companies/9O...reamliner-delay-for-Air-India.html

[Edited 2013-07-31 04:25:53]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 142, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3624 times:

Quoting Speedbored (Reply 140):
Wonder if we'll ever find out exactly what the issue was, or why it took 10 days to rectify.

Probably not from an authoritative source.

She was out of service only 9 days, not 10 as reported in the article. Not that it really matters. Anyway, good to see her back in the sky...


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7042 posts, RR: 8
Reply 143, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3552 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 137):
if Boeing can not ship a panel from somewhere in the world is that they ran out of stock, because the fleet of 787 has bin burning through them at a rate which no one anticipated,

Is it that they are burning thru the panels faster thna expected or that the modified panels after the FOD issue have not been fully deployed fleet wide?


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12362 posts, RR: 47
Reply 144, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3515 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 143):
Is it that they are burning thru the panels faster thna expected or that the modified panels after the FOD issue have not been fully deployed fleet wide?

The fire incident on ZA002 in 2010?

I can't believe it would take the best part of three years to replace panels in a few planes.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2852 posts, RR: 25
Reply 145, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3479 times:

Are we looking at panel issues, or is it the regulation of power to these panels which is causing the issues?

I'm consistently hearing how sensitive the B787 is to variations in the supply of power, from GPU plug-in to flightdeck panel power-up which, to my mind, is of more concern than if it was just a "bad batch" of P300s.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 146, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3326 times:

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 145):
Are we looking at panel issues, or is it the regulation of power to these panels which is causing the issues?

We don't know because no-one in the know is letting us have that information.

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 145):
I'm consistently hearing how sensitive the B787 is to variations in the supply of power, from GPU plug-in to flightdeck panel power-up

My suspicion is that there is inadequate protection in the system from spikes caused by switching power hungry equipment on/off, or switching between power sources, or plugging in ground power, etc. In order to keep weight down, most of the circuitry will probably have been designed with very little surplus capacity, so some of the more sensitive bits of circuitry are possibly getting zapped by some of these spikes.

The problem with spike protection is that it usually requires relatively heavy components such as capacitors or coils with ferrous cores. It's also a pretty difficult thing to get right without taking a blanket approach of putting lots of it everywhere (which would add quite a lot of weight, and increase power drain).


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7042 posts, RR: 8
Reply 147, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3278 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 144):
I can't believe it would take the best part of three years to replace panels in a few planes.

Is it just replacing them or including adjustments design or otherwise resulting in suppliers having to adjust their production run?
Have to go back and look up to see whether re-design was mentioned after the fire.


User currently offlineSpeedbored From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2013, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3249 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 147):
Have to go back and look up to see whether re-design was mentioned after the fire.

I might be wrong but I seem to recall that the panels were redesigned after the 'FOD' 'smoke event' so I've been assuming that all of the in-service panels are of the new design.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10643 posts, RR: 30
Reply 149, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3254 times:

A bit more info:

Quote:
A delay in shipping one of the components to Qatar Airway’s hub in Doha, Qatar, caused the plane to be taken out of service since July 22, the carrier said in an e-mailed statement today, without specifying which parts were required.

“Qatar Airways confirms that its Boeing 787 Dreamliner A7-BCB has reconvened service after a number of technical components required replacement,” it said. Once the component had arrived, it required three days of post-assembly and testing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-service-after-parts-replaced.html



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2181 posts, RR: 1
Reply 150, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3123 times:

A7-BCB is now back in service, flew to FRA according to FR24.


Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30524 posts, RR: 84
Reply 151, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3060 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 143):
Is it that they are burning thru the panels faster thna expected or that the modified panels after the FOD issue have not been fully deployed fleet wide?
Quoting scbriml (Reply 144):
I can't believe it would take the best part of three years to replace panels in a few planes.
Quoting Speedbored (Reply 148):
I might be wrong but I seem to recall that the panels were redesigned after the 'FOD' 'smoke event' so I've been assuming that all of the in-service panels are of the new design.

That is correct, Speedbored.

Boeing and the contractors made changes to the power panels in 2013 and tested them during the grounding period (the FAA granted them special dispensation to make the flight during that time).

I am assuming that new design is now the production standard and would be used for replacements, as well.


User currently offlinesonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 152, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3022 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 149):

A bit more info:

Quote:
A delay in shipping one of the components to Qatar Airway’s hub in Doha, Qatar, caused the plane to be taken out of service since July 22, the carrier said in an e-mailed statement today, without specifying which parts were required.

“Qatar Airways confirms that its Boeing 787 Dreamliner A7-BCB has reconvened service after a number of technical components required replacement,” it said. Once the component had arrived, it required three days of post-assembly and testing.

I hope this calms down the tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists. Doha is a long way from where the panels are produced and any of a number of reasons can account for a shipping delay.

Once the parts arrived, you can bet AAB has mandated the repair be done precisely and tested rigorously, all the while burning up phone lines to Boeing.

Once this information is factored in, a nine day out of service figure doesn't seem unreasonable.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 153, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2989 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 141):
Perhaps a failed power panel, similar to the Air India bird.

http://www.livemint.com/Companies/9O....html

Thanks for the link. Some interesting info in there. Has the P300 panel failed before? It will indeed be interesting to know if this is the same panel that affected the QR bird.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30524 posts, RR: 84
Reply 154, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2829 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 153):
Has the P300 panel failed before?

I don't recall such a failure and a Google search turned up nothing.

The 787 has, as I recall, five main power panels. P100 receives power from the left engine (this is the panel that caused the ZA002 diversion at Laredo in 2010) and P200 receives power from the right engine. I do not know what the P300 and P400 panels do (they do not appear to be backups to P100 and P200) and I believe P500 is for the APU.

I've read that P700 and P800 support the power electronic cooling system. There is also a P150 panel (and, presumably, a P250 panel), but I don't know their functions, either.


User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2852 posts, RR: 25
Reply 155, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2537 times:

Thanks Speedbored.

Whilst the Dreamliner issues are a matter of frustration for all, as someone out of the Boeing loop, I confess to finding the saga fascinating. Thanks to the input of those like you on the tech. side of the industry, these threads are an invaluable read.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 156, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2403 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 154):
P100 receives power from the left engine (this is the panel that caused the ZA002 diversion at Laredo in 2010)

This to me is not good news... so much better if it is the same panel that failed, at least then you can zero in on the one panel. To have the P300 fail now after a P100 failure earlier suggests either the problem is not limited to one panel, or the root cause may lie somewhere outside of these panels.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days posted Sun Jul 15 2012 05:27:46 by flybry
Condor Cancel Flight In Cancun For 3 Days Now! posted Mon Jan 5 2009 14:29:07 by Plairbus
Condor Cancel Flight In Cancun For 3 Days Now! posted Mon Jan 5 2009 14:29:07 by Plairbus
United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days posted Sun Jul 15 2012 05:27:46 by flybry
Condor Cancel Flight In Cancun For 3 Days Now! posted Mon Jan 5 2009 14:29:07 by Plairbus
Condor Cancel Flight In Cancun For 3 Days Now! posted Mon Jan 5 2009 14:29:07 by Plairbus
Condor Cancel Flight In Cancun For 3 Days Now! posted Mon Jan 5 2009 14:29:07 by Plairbus
MH128 Stuck In Melbourne For 2 Days posted Sun May 18 2008 18:45:53 by Bjornstrom
MH128 Stuck In Melbourne For 2 Days posted Sun May 18 2008 18:45:53 by Bjornstrom
MH128 Stuck In Melbourne For 2 Days posted Sun May 18 2008 18:45:53 by Bjornstrom
Huge 787 Order For Qatar In Sight posted Wed Jul 25 2007 09:21:26 by FCKC
Huge 787 Order For Qatar In Sight posted Wed Jul 25 2007 09:21:26 by FCKC
MH128 Stuck In Melbourne For 2 Days posted Sun May 18 2008 18:45:53 by Bjornstrom
Huge 787 Order For Qatar In Sight posted Wed Jul 25 2007 09:21:26 by FCKC
Huge 787 Order For Qatar In Sight posted Wed Jul 25 2007 09:21:26 by FCKC
Condor Cancel Flight In Cancun For 3 Days Now! posted Mon Jan 5 2009 14:29:07 by Plairbus
Jet Star Passengers Stranded In HNL For 2 Days posted Sun Apr 15 2007 02:51:15 by Safs
Jet Star Passengers Stranded In HNL For 2 Days posted Sun Apr 15 2007 02:51:15 by Safs
MH128 Stuck In Melbourne For 2 Days posted Sun May 18 2008 18:45:53 by Bjornstrom
Jet Star Passengers Stranded In HNL For 2 Days posted Sun Apr 15 2007 02:51:15 by Safs
Jet Star Passengers Stranded In HNL For 2 Days posted Sun Apr 15 2007 02:51:15 by Safs
CO Diverts For Smoke In Cabin posted Thu May 26 2005 19:52:55 by ContinentalCLE
CO Diverts For Smoke In Cabin posted Thu May 26 2005 19:52:55 by ContinentalCLE
MH128 Stuck In Melbourne For 2 Days posted Sun May 18 2008 18:45:53 by Bjornstrom
Pilot Grounded For Letting FA Sit In Cockpit posted Sat Apr 12 2003 13:41:23 by USAJPNflyer
Pilot Grounded For Letting FA Sit In Cockpit posted Sat Apr 12 2003 13:41:23 by USAJPNflyer
N707JT Sitting In YVR For 3 Days posted Thu Jul 4 2002 00:55:10 by Jiml1126
CO Diverts For Smoke In Cabin posted Thu May 26 2005 19:52:55 by ContinentalCLE
CO Diverts For Smoke In Cabin posted Thu May 26 2005 19:52:55 by ContinentalCLE
N707JT Sitting In YVR For 3 Days posted Thu Jul 4 2002 00:55:10 by Jiml1126
Pilot Grounded For Letting FA Sit In Cockpit posted Sat Apr 12 2003 13:41:23 by USAJPNflyer
MAN News 49.. QR 787 Time posted Thu May 16 2013 12:11:11 by david_itl
MAN News 49.. QR 787 Time posted Thu May 16 2013 12:11:11 by david_itl
Do Pilots Still Smoke In The Cockpit? posted Mon May 13 2013 18:04:54 by mcogator
Pilot Grounded For Letting FA Sit In Cockpit posted Sat Apr 12 2003 13:41:23 by USAJPNflyer
N707JT Sitting In YVR For 3 Days posted Thu Jul 4 2002 00:55:10 by Jiml1126
Do Pilots Still Smoke In The Cockpit? posted Mon May 13 2013 18:04:54 by mcogator
MAN News 49.. QR 787 Time posted Thu May 16 2013 12:11:11 by david_itl
N707JT Sitting In YVR For 3 Days posted Thu Jul 4 2002 00:55:10 by Jiml1126
Huge 787 Order For Qatar In Sight posted Wed Jul 25 2007 09:21:26 by FCKC
MAN News 49.. QR 787 Time posted Thu May 16 2013 12:11:11 by david_itl
Do Pilots Still Smoke In The Cockpit? posted Mon May 13 2013 18:04:54 by mcogator
Do Pilots Still Smoke In The Cockpit? posted Mon May 13 2013 18:04:54 by mcogator
Huge 787 Order For Qatar In Sight posted Wed Jul 25 2007 09:21:26 by FCKC
Jet Star Passengers Stranded In HNL For 2 Days posted Sun Apr 15 2007 02:51:15 by Safs
Jet Star Passengers Stranded In HNL For 2 Days posted Sun Apr 15 2007 02:51:15 by Safs
CO Diverts For Smoke In Cabin posted Thu May 26 2005 19:52:55 by ContinentalCLE
CO Diverts For Smoke In Cabin posted Thu May 26 2005 19:52:55 by ContinentalCLE
Pilot Grounded For Letting FA Sit In Cockpit posted Sat Apr 12 2003 13:41:23 by USAJPNflyer
Pilot Grounded For Letting FA Sit In Cockpit posted Sat Apr 12 2003 13:41:23 by USAJPNflyer
N707JT Sitting In YVR For 3 Days posted Thu Jul 4 2002 00:55:10 by Jiml1126
MAN News 49.. QR 787 Time posted Thu May 16 2013 12:11:11 by david_itl
Do Pilots Still Smoke In The Cockpit? posted Mon May 13 2013 18:04:54 by mcogator
N707JT Sitting In YVR For 3 Days posted Thu Jul 4 2002 00:55:10 by Jiml1126
MAN News 49.. QR 787 Time posted Thu May 16 2013 12:11:11 by david_itl
Do Pilots Still Smoke In The Cockpit? posted Mon May 13 2013 18:04:54 by mcogator