Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Status Of ET-AOP 787 At LHR (Part 1)  
User currently offlinedkny From Ethiopia, joined Mar 2004, 714 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 48631 times:

Does anyone know the status of ET-AOP? The bird that caught fire at LHR. Is it being repaired? When will it go back to service?

251 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLofty From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 48540 times:

The last I heard was they are going to build a Temp Building around the tail area and remove the rear section and fit a new section but no idea on time scales.
One option that was looked at was flying low and slow back to the USA but that has been ruled out.


User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1451 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 48276 times:

Quoting dkny (Thread starter):
Does anyone know the status of ET-AOP?

Still parked in the cargo area at LHR AFAIK, it was last time I looked a week or two ago.



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,(..51 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offlineaviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 48069 times:

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 2):
Still parked in the cargo area at LHR AFAIK, it was last time I looked a week or two ago.

Thank you! I have searched the BA engineering base looking for this plane, sounds like I have been looking in the wrong place all along.

Quoting Lofty (Reply 1):
The last I heard was they are going to build a Temp Building around the tail area and remove the rear section and fit a new section

That sounds extremely expensive to do at Heathrow. I am surprised that with the engineering facilities that BA and to a lesser extent Virgin and United have there, they couldn't be accommodated in an existing hangar. I know these people have their own airlines to run but surely a deal could be done?

Quoting Lofty (Reply 1):
One option that was looked at was flying low and slow back to the USA but that has been ruled out.

That would be the best option if possible, or if not to the USA then a more local ferry flight to available engineering facilities. If the structure cannot be reinforced with doubler spars etc. sufficient for a special permit ferry flight with restrictions (e.g. not over Central London!), this gives us an idea of the scale of the damage.



707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 47984 times:

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 3):
That sounds extremely expensive to do at Heathrow. I am surprised that with the engineering facilities that BA and to a lesser extent Virgin and United have there, they couldn't be accommodated in an existing hangar. I know these people have their own airlines to run but surely a deal could be done?

Not for the length of time needed, there's no longer "spare" hangar capacity.

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 3):

That sounds extremely expensive to do at Heathrow.

It's a big tent really. They did something similar at UEL when the damaged Swiss RJ100 was boated across the dock to be repaired on the Royal Albert Dock at London City. A large temporary building was thrown up to allow the engineers to work under cover.


User currently offlinebx737 From Ireland, joined Sep 2001, 687 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 47474 times:

They did the same in Shannon when Futura had their accident there. The tent was built around the 737 and the tail was taken off the aircraft to put it in the tent.

User currently offlineTUGMASTER From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Jul 2004, 723 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 47097 times:

yep...aircraft is parked in the Zulus...616 or similar....

User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 46572 times:

I'm guessing the insurers haven't yet deemed this a total loss?

I guess ET won't be very happy having one of their birds out of service for so long.



Next Flights: LCY-DUB (E70), DUB-LHR (319), LHR-PHL (772), PHL-LAX (321), LAX-HNL (752), HNL-LAX (752), LAX-LHR (388)
User currently offlinetrent900 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 541 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 46292 times:

Quoting Lofty (Reply 1):
One option that was looked at was flying low and slow back to the USA but that has been ruled out.

One of the problems with this option is how bad was internal damage. ie: wiring needed for the operation of the aircraft etc.

Have any internal photos been released yet?

D.


User currently offlineMIAspotter From Spain, joined Nov 2001, 2852 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 46254 times:

Quoting Lofty (Reply 1):
That sounds extremely expensive to do at Heathrow. I am surprised that with the engineering facilities that BA and to a lesser extent Virgin and United have there, they couldn't be accommodated in an existing hangar. I know these people have their own airlines to run but surely a deal could be done?

How about flying it low and slow to Cardiff and fix her up in the BA facility there? or is it too space-constrained?

MIAspotter.



I think, therefore I don´t fly Ryanair.
User currently offlineSpeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 46213 times:

Quoting trent900 (Reply 8):
ave any internal photos been released yet?

Officially from Boeing I haven't seen any - and I bet people have been told they will pay with their lives if they leak them LOL!



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineshuttle9juliet From UK - Scotland, joined Jul 2010, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 45731 times:

Boeing asked to use BA FSU but due to TBJ under renovation they just dont have the hanger space.

I doubt Virgin have either.

Another story which is doing the rounds is that Boeing are going to bring the dreamlifter in, remove the 787 wings and fly it back to Seattle.


User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 1035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 45552 times:

Would a whole 787 fuselage fit inside a Dreamlifter ? Or would that mean another chop ? Presumably the tail will need to come off as well.
Goodness me, surely it's best to give ET-AOP a dignified end rather than put her through all that, as, apart from the learning and R & D benefit being gained for fixing future 787 mishaps, it can't be worth all the effort and cost.


User currently offlinedan23 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 45468 times:

Surely removal of the wings and transport back to Seattle would be far too expensive and time consuming for it to be a realistic option?

User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1451 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 44988 times:

Quoting TUGMASTER (Reply 6):
yep...aircraft is parked in the Zulus...616 or similar....

Yes, Stand 616 is where I last saw it.



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,(..51 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offlineaviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 44199 times:

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 14):
Yes, Stand 616 is where I last saw it.

Does it have any covers over the affected area? I remember there was some debate as to whether the fuselage actually suffered a burn-through or not.



707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 43200 times:

Quoting MIAspotter (Reply 9):
How about flying it low and slow to Cardiff and fix her up in the BA facility there?

BA are currently outsourcing some major 734 maintenance to Lufthansa Technik at SOF and some aircraft painting to IB at MAD. For the last two years they have also leased the old Polar hangar at PIK to supplement their single aisle Airbus maintenance at GLA. So I doubt that have any spare hangar capacity despite adding the ex-BD hangar to their LHR engineering facilities in April last year.


User currently offline22886 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 407 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 39670 times:

A photo of ET-AOP was posted on the facebook page 'LHR: airside' a little while ago. The photo dated 28th August shows it at LHR parked away on the cargo apron at 616, all covered up in storage.
see: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=443676322417361&set=pb.423623891089271.-2207520000.1381187928.&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2F1265999_443676322417361_1294281597_o.jpg&smallsrc=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2F1238038_443676322417361_1294281597_n.jpg&size=2048%2C1152



User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2597 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 38241 times:

Just noticed this tweet from Matt Cawby:

Quote:
Heard there was a Boeing AOG shipment from PAE to LHR on Monday maybe for Ethiopian 787 ET-AOP?
http://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/387360481003855873



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineuta999 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 37231 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It is likely they would have to cut off the rear fuselage behind the wing and bring in a new one, complete with new tail sections. A temporary hanger at BA maintenance, near Hatton Cross built over her.

Is it possible to split a 787 down the middle and marry on a new fuselage? I would have thought it must be, or they will end up writing off more frames after heavy landings, lorry strikes etc.

ET won't want a simple patch and Boeing won't want a hull loss. It won't fly again till summer 2014 anyway.


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 36861 times:

Quoting dan23 (Reply 13):
Surely removal of the wings and transport back to Seattle would be far too expensive and time consuming for it to be a realistic option?

Not possible with the dreamlifter, but transport by ship should be doable.

Quoting uta999 (Reply 19):
It is likely they would have to cut off the rear fuselage behind the wing and bring in a new one, complete with new tail sections.

Perhaps they could even re-use the vertical and horizontal stabilisors.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 36767 times:

Write it off and give 'em a new one. That's what Tesco would do.


Next Flights: LCY-DUB (E70), DUB-LHR (319), LHR-PHL (772), PHL-LAX (321), LAX-HNL (752), HNL-LAX (752), LAX-LHR (388)
User currently offlineBlueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 3059 posts, RR: 23
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 36726 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 21):
Write it off and give 'em a new one. That's what Tesco would do.

  

...and Apple  

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5008 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 36651 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 7):

I'm guessing the insurers haven't yet deemed this a total loss?

I guess ET won't be very happy having one of their birds out of service for so long.

The insurers would avoid a write off at all costs especially if it works out cheaper to repair.

As for ET I bet my money they aren't happy and they'll prefer a new bird.

EK8413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13112 posts, RR: 35
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 36622 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 21):
Write it off and give 'em a new one.
Quoting EK413 (Reply 23):
As for ET I bet my money they aren't happy and they'll prefer a new bird.

Easier said than done, the backlog stretches into 2018 already. Assigning a new one to ET would mean someone else has to wait a bit longer.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 37746 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 20):
Not possible with the dreamlifter, but transport by ship should be doable.

Ok, I was unaware that LHR was a port.. How exactly are you planning to get ET-AOP onto a ship?



BV
User currently offlineuta999 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2010, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 37589 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If Airbus can get a new A380 fuselage through a tiny French village twice a week, I am sure Boeing can get a chopped up 788 down the A30/M25/M3 to Southampton.

They would simply need a temporary road and a hole in the fence at 09R.

If I were ET, I would ask for three early 788s free for domestic African services as compensation.


User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 38152 times:

Quoting uta999 (Reply 26):
If Airbus can get a new A380 fuselage through a tiny French village twice a week, I am sure Boeing can get a chopped up 788 down the A30/M25/M3 to Southampton.

The difference here is that the supply routes for Airbus and the A380 are so intricately designed that infrastructure was upgraded in order to facilitate these conveys. Plus a journey through the French countryside is a little different to navigating around one of the most densely populated regions of Europe.

Maybe they can get a few Chinooks to come and carry it away... It'll be like something from James Bond.



Next Flights: LCY-DUB (E70), DUB-LHR (319), LHR-PHL (772), PHL-LAX (321), LAX-HNL (752), HNL-LAX (752), LAX-LHR (388)
User currently offlineaviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 38084 times:

Quoting uta999 (Reply 26):
If Airbus can get a new A380 fuselage through a tiny French village twice a week, I am sure Boeing can get a chopped up 788 down the A30/M25/M3 to Southampton.

Given that a standard motorway bridge gives a minimum clearance of 16' 6" (5.03 mtr) and there are dozens of them between LHR and Southampton, and within that measurement you have to allow for the height of the transportation vehicle, you would be chopping the 787 fuselage into very small pieces!   



707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 37836 times:

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 28):

I can just imagine a 62m long load going up the off ramp and taking the turn from the M25 to M3   no problems at all!

The torturous journey would also be great publicity for Boeing, it doesn't matter if your 787 catches fire, you can drive it to where you got to go.. with a police escort.



BV
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 37651 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 25):
Ok, I was unaware that LHR was a port.. How exactly are you planning to get ET-AOP onto a ship?

Concorde G-BOAA never had a CoA after the CDG accident. It was never updated with the required modifications. So it travelled by barge down the Thames from Isleworth near Heathrow, past the Houses of Parliament


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © J Vasek
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vin Man



and up to Torness on the Firth of Forth near Edinburgh. Then it was transported across some fields to the Museum of Flight, East Fortune. It is on display there today:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mick Bajcar



I can see no reason why, with its tail fin and wings removed, the ET 787 could not be transported by barge to a major British port before crossing the Atlantic.


User currently offlineTUGMASTER From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Jul 2004, 723 posts, RR: 9
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 37130 times:

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 28):
you would be chopping the 787 fuselage into very small pieces!

believe that will be its fate anyway.....


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 36739 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 23):
The insurers would avoid a write off at all costs especially if it works out cheaper to repair.

Surely the insurer would want to avoid a write off ONLY if it was cheaper to repair??



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 36606 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dan23 (Reply 13):
Surely removal of the wings and transport back to Seattle would be far too expensive and time consuming for it to be a realistic option?

even if they could, what happens when it gets to Everett.. it will require special jigs to resemble, and they would not put it back into the production line and muck it all up. AOG teams have adaptable tooling.. maybe not for the 787 yet and getting that made may be the delay..

Disassembling adds to the performance problems later.. a lot of added weight for oversized fasteners and new plates. only those components that are bolted on can you use the old holes. and then there is a nightmare of a task removing sealants and anticorrosion materials on all the affected metal surfaces.


User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2303 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 36596 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 24):
Easier said than done, the backlog stretches into 2018 already. Assigning a new one to ET would mean someone else has to wait a bit longer.

True, but the same goes for putting a new tail section onto this plane. Those tail sections are assigned to the backlog of planes. Unless those factories producing the tail sections can ramp-up more easily than those factories producing the other sections.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13112 posts, RR: 35
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 36493 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 34):
True, but the same goes for putting a new tail section onto this plane. Those tail sections are assigned to the backlog of planes. Unless those factories producing the tail sections can ramp-up more easily than those factories producing the other sections.

Fair enough.

Anyway, someone on Twitter claims ET-AOP will be repaired. Not sure where he heard this:

http://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/status/387549738192867328



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offline817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2597 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 36445 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 35):
Anyway, someone on Twitter claims ET-AOP will be repaired. Not sure where he heard this:

http://twitter.com/AirlineFlyer/stat...67328

Well, according to Matt Cawby, there was an AOG shipment to LHR on Monday, so it kinda makes sense.



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9738 posts, RR: 31
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 36077 times:

Transpoirt by ocean would be an interesting task for a freight forwarder specialized in heavy and outsize loads. If the Conorde made it to a barge the Dreamlifter could do that as well.

Engines, wings and tail fin could fly in a dreamlifter, Airbus would be delighted to supply a Beluga, may be they dream about that Kind of Publicity already. Now, the fuselage would need to be "conserved" to avoid sea water and the climate influenceses on a journey through the Panama Canal

It is all a matter of Money.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1812 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 36022 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 37):
Transpoirt by ocean would be an interesting task for a freight forwarder specialized in heavy and outsize loads. If the Conorde made it to a barge the Dreamlifter could do that as well.

Engines, wings and tail fin could fly in a dreamlifter, Airbus would be delighted to supply a Beluga, may be they dream about that Kind of Publicity already. Now, the fuselage would need to be "conserved" to avoid sea water and the climate influenceses on a journey through the Panama Canal

It is all a matter of Money.

The cost of that operation would be in the millions, literally... Chartering a ship, the engineering costs, logistics, parts etc etc. Being in insurance, I doubt the insurers (most likely Lloyds) will agree to this.

There must be a simpler solution here or I wonder if the insurers will consider this a constructive total loss. Also, the fees for parking the thing at LHR can't be cheap so by the time they get round to such an operation, they will no doubt also be in the millions of £££



Next Flights: LCY-DUB (E70), DUB-LHR (319), LHR-PHL (772), PHL-LAX (321), LAX-HNL (752), HNL-LAX (752), LAX-LHR (388)
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 36058 times:

Wow there's a lot of speculative posts on this. Without being on the inside on this, I imagine it may be cheaper to part it out than repair. However Boeing way well wish to try and repair, partly as a learning experience. There is a positive to be taken from getting this aircraft back into service and compensating ET for the inconvenience. There are a few stored and overweight early B787s that may well become parts donors.

As has been said, there's no hangar space available to do months of work at Heathrow, so a big tent it is   However talk of taking it apart and shipping her by sea is, I would imagine at any rate, prohibitively expensive.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 34):
Those tail sections are assigned to the backlog of planes. Unless those factories producing the tail sections can ramp-up more easily than those factories producing the other sections.

As stated, there are stored B787s way too heavy for airline service that could help....


User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 36011 times:

My bet is on a repair and back in service.

This would also prove invaluable on the experience side of things. I wouldn't be surprised that if repair goes ahead, BA lends a few engineers for the job, being that they have a 787 fleet.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 36029 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's possible the AOG shipment on Monday to LHR will accomplish a temporary fix to allow a ferry certificate to a facility where permanent repairs could be carried out. The BA technical centre in Wales would be the most likely in the UK though there are others. If not, perhaps ferrying the a/c back to CHS or PAE.

User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 36070 times:

An 'AOG shipment to Heathrow' is not necessarily for the ETH aircraft, I am led to believe that there are other Boeings that operate out of there.

[Edited 2013-10-09 07:14:29]

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 36037 times:

How about LH technik? They have the competence to repair cfrp iirc?

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 36127 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 39):
However talk of taking it apart and shipping her by sea is, I would imagine at any rate, prohibitively expensive.

Taking the plane apart is not something you do lightly. Removing each of the close tolerance bolts that holds the section together would require oversizing the fasteners when you re-assemble the parts again. In doing so, you risk of screwing up the hole.

Typically the design allows for one maybe even two oversize, but in doing so you reduce the strength and fatigue life of the joint. (I know, the composites and titanium is better in fatigue but you only have so much strength margin in the design).

Best to minimize the number of fasteners you have to remove and replace. Is this frame one of the early frames that had the wing root mod? If yes then you don't really want to touch that joint again . . . I would venture.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2325 posts, RR: 9
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 36097 times:

Quoting trent900 (Reply 8):
Have any internal photos been released yet?

I bet a blizzard in hell is more likely than us seeing internal damage photos of the ET bird.

To think all this expenses were caused by a small battery inside a metal container with almost no connection to the main electrical systems oh boy! I wonder who is going to pay the deductible....

Seeing that Boeing have some early unusable frames at PAE, I bet they WANT to fix it...but I guess that 787 wont be in the air till next summer.
TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinepugman211 From UK - England, joined Dec 2012, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 35928 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think we need to keep an eye out for the AOG shipment and speculate from there.

User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1601 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 35692 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TC957 (Reply 12):
Goodness me, surely it's best to give ET-AOP a dignified end rather than put her through all that, as, apart from the learning and R & D benefit being gained for fixing future 787 mishaps, it can't be worth all the effort and cost.
Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 21):
Write it off and give 'em a new one. That's what Tesco would do.

I have said it before and I will say it again---it makes no difference if the insurance company considers it a total loss or if the cost of repairs is GREATER than a new bird----none of that matters folks! The CEO of Boeing is on record saying it will be repaired and it will be-----Boeing simply will not take a hull loss on the 787 regardless of cost---let's now move forward and just talk about repairs not if it is going to be repaired.


User currently offlinemax999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1086 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 35377 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 47):
I have said it before and I will say it again---it makes no difference if the insurance company considers it a total loss or if the cost of repairs is GREATER than a new bird----none of that matters folks! The CEO of Boeing is on record saying it will be repaired and it will be-----Boeing simply will not take a hull loss on the 787 regardless of cost---let's now move forward and just talk about repairs not if it is going to be repaired.

Exactly, this is a public relations move on the part of Boeing. They have to demonstrate to all their customers that a small fire is repairable and won't lead to a hull loss. This is part of Boeing's effort to keep people's confidence in the 787 program after years of delays and the battery debacle.



All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 35311 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 47):
The CEO of Boeing is on record saying it will be repaired and it will be

I am not familiar with a quote from the CEO to this effect. Can you pass along? Excited by the news. I don't think anyone wanted this to be a hull loss. It makes things difficult for everyone involved as well as Airbus when it comes to selling their composite aircraft. Customers need to know that these aircraft can be fixed without too much fan fair. Fingers crossed on the fanfare.

tortugamon


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5834 posts, RR: 6
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 35346 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 47):
The CEO of Boeing is on record saying it will be repaired
McNerney said that it can be repaired, not that it will be. With that in mind, I can't imagine that this repair, even if it requires a whole new section 48, would be as expensive as replacement. So I expect it will be repaired.

[Edited 2013-10-09 15:51:39]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 51, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 35241 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 50):

Ok, that makes sense.

tortugamon


User currently offlinedavidho1985 From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2012, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 34972 times:

Even the repair is more much expensive than a new build, Boeing will do it.

Insuance company pay the write-off compensation,
Boeing buy back the frame (as title transferred to insurance company) and do the repair at their own expense,
send it back to ET.

787 can't afford a hull-lost. Same as what QF done for the 744 overrun in Bangkok, all for PR


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 34892 times:

Quoting davidho1985 (Reply 52):
Insuance company pay the write-off compensation,
Boeing buy back the frame (as title transferred to insurance company) and do the repair at their own expense,
send it back to ET.

But would / could an insurance company re-insure a frame that it has already considered a total loss?



BV
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9738 posts, RR: 31
Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 34776 times:

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 38):
The cost of that operation would be in the millions, literally... Chartering a ship, the engineering costs, logistics, parts etc etc. Being in insurance, I doubt the insurers (most likely Lloyds) will agree to this.

I said "would be". Being in international Transport I can assure you that such a Transport would be in the high millions but not necessarily in the double digit millions. And I said that it would be interesting to organize.

It's a heavy and outsize load and it would be a deck load most likely, but not necessarily a complete charter. Shipping all the Tools, renting thje space at LHR and whatever Needs to be done there is not small Money either.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1715 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 34593 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 53):
But would / could an insurance company re-insure a frame that it has already considered a total loss?

If declared as airworthy as any other 787 I don't see why not... Surely ET and Boeing will see to it that if repaired, it is done properly without falling out of the sky after a couple of years flying.

Some years ago I had a small fire in my car (someone probably try to steal it, didn't succeed and set fire to the dashboard out of spite perhaps    ) It was extinguished quickly, but the insurance company declared it a total loss. The Renault garage repairman said to me they could repair it with some parts they could source cheaply, for just a few hundred bucks over the write off price. I really liked that car, so I agreed. No problem insuring it again....

Aviation is of course something different, but it shows insurers will insure things even after a write-off.

(Sadly my car was stolen a year later and never saw it again, but that's another matter    )



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineshuttle9juliet From UK - Scotland, joined Jul 2010, 192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 34415 times:

Quoting dan23 (Reply 13):

Thats what i have heard.

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 15):

Saw some white tents next to it this morning when i taxied out.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 34212 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 54):
It's a heavy and outsize load and it would be a deck load most likely,

Not necessarily. The existing rudder and empenage can be removed and re-used. The whole aft cone can be shipped by a Dreamlifter. Remember, it will mostly be empty except insulation and wiring.

Don't know the rigging plan for the fuselage during the repair, but if it's scaffolding and jigs, you can get a local tool shop to fabricate and assemble "in country".

The rest of the "small" tooling and consumables can be shipped by air, except the hazardous stuff. AOG teams like to kit/pack and ship everything they need themselves even if they can get much of what they need locally. (The logistics of getting stuff locally may be too much of a head ache.)

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 34200 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 57):
Saw some white tents next to it this morning when i taxied out.

That's some refugees camped out....


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 59, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 34177 times:

Any further news or leaks on the investigation of what triggered the fire in the first place?

User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1601 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 33914 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 59):
Any further news or leaks on the investigation of what triggered the fire in the first place?

Are you kidding?


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 61, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 33857 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 59):
Any further news or leaks on the investigation of what triggered the fire in the first place?

None other than that Tesla that caught fire when the battery was damaged by road debris.   

They said that the design contained the battery long enough for the driver to pull over and get out.

Does the argument sound familiar?  

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9738 posts, RR: 31
Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 33387 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 57):

Not necessarily. The existing rudder and empenage can be removed and re-used. The whole aft cone can be shipped

It is, technically, still an outsized load. The Dreamlifter, like the Guppy, the Beluga, the Am124(5 all have been deswigned to carry outsized/heavy loads.

That gos for ocean shipping as well. Most ships today are box carriers, whatever does not fit into a 20' and 40' Container or flat is outsized and requires Special handling.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 33043 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 62):

It is, technically, still an outsized load.

I had assumed that when you mentioned deck load, you were referring to ocean going deck shipping . . . which would be most unlikely if you have an AOG.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9738 posts, RR: 31
Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 32917 times:

If you follow the thread, someone mentioned ocean freight back to SEA . I am reflecting on that idea.

The issue is hether the aircraft can be repaired at LHR or has to be shipped back to SEA.

"AOG" is the term giving the prioity for aircraft spare parts needed for a plane sitting on the ground somewhere. AOG ,means that this item must be carried no matter what. It is the number one priority over mail and other class items.

Shipping a complete tail section will not happen on a scheduled flight, it would be a Dreamlifter charter or similar, hence not an AOG.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 32892 times:

Concorde however was a narrowbody, and a narrow narrowbody at that. The bridges in the Upper Thames don't have a huge amount of clearance

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 25):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 20):Not possible with the dreamlifter, but transport by ship should be doable.
Ok, I was unaware that LHR was a port.. How exactly are you planning to get ET-AOP onto a ship?
Quoting VV701 (Reply 30):
Concorde G-BOAA never had a CoA after the CDG accident. It was never updated with the required modifications. So it travelled by barge down the Thames from Isleworth near Heathrow, past the Houses of Parliament

Concorde had a fuselage diameter of 3.3m, the 787 is 6m. This would make all the difference with the bridge clearances on the upper Thames.

With regard to road transport, the logistics are difficult and require a great deal of planning. Even then they may not be possible. Every motorway bridge would have to be bypassed, when they are at junctions its easy, the load just goes up the slip road, across the junction and back down. For cross overs with no interconnection the load has to bypass them entirely. We see this here in Cambridge where an inland factory manufactures yachts and ships them to the coast. The lorries have to come through the middle of Cambridge in order to avoid the motorway bridges.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 66, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 32623 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 65):
Concorde had a fuselage diameter of 3.3m, the 787 is 6m. This would make all the difference with the bridge clearances on the upper Thames.

According to the Port of London Authority the lowest bridge on the Thames between Isleworth and the sea is Twickenham Bridge. They state that the clearance of its main navigational arch is 8.5 meters at low water. Lots Ait Footbridge is the next lowest at 8.9 meters. Hammersmith Bridge clearance is 9.0 meters. Excluding the QE2 Bridge (59.3 meters) and the London Cable Car (61.8 meters) all other bridges have a maximum clearance (depending on the tide) of between 10 and 14.7 meters.

Without any expertise in these matters it would seem to me that a 6m "cylinder" could navigate on a barge a bridge with up to 8.5 meters clearance. But I stand to be corrected


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 32385 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 64):

"AOG" is the term giving the prioity for aircraft spare parts

I guess I was referring to the broader sense of AOG as any aircraft on the ground. Is Boeing treating this situation as an AOG? If yes, then they will not ship it by sea if they can use the Dreamlifter. Remember, they do have one of three Dreamlifters that is used as reserves for maintenance cycles and emergencies such as this.

Also, they would probably not ship to Seattle as it would be a longer journey. Charleston have plenty of space and better weather  

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1624 posts, RR: 1
Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 32259 times:

Who makes the rear fuselage and tail of the 787 and how are they transported to Seattle? If they can get those items to Seattle, I'm sure they can get them to LHR.

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13112 posts, RR: 35
Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 32225 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 68):
Who makes the rear fuselage and tail of the 787 and how are they transported to Seattle? If they can get those items to Seattle, I'm sure they can get them to LHR.

The aft section is build in South Carolina and transported in a Dreamlifter to Seattle.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 70, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 32108 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 66):
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 65):Concorde had a fuselage diameter of 3.3m, the 787 is 6m. This would make all the difference with the bridge clearances on the upper Thames.
According to the Port of London Authority the lowest bridge on the Thames between Isleworth and the sea is Twickenham Bridge. They state that the clearance of its main navigational arch is 8.5 meters at low water. Lots Ait Footbridge is the next lowest at 8.9 meters. Hammersmith Bridge clearance is 9.0 meters. Excluding the QE2 Bridge (59.3 meters) and the London Cable Car (61.8 meters) all other bridges have a maximum clearance (depending on the tide) of between 10 and 14.7 meters.

Without any expertise in these matters it would seem to me that a 6m "cylinder" could navigate on a barge a bridge with up to 8.5 meters clearance. But I stand to be corrected

Heathrow is a bit further up river, the clearances are all in the 6m range above Teddington


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7737 posts, RR: 17
Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 31895 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 70):
Heathrow is a bit further up river, the clearances are all in the 6m range above Teddington

Yes. But as I mentioned before Concorde G-BOAA was transported on a low loader from Heathrow to ISLEWORTH where it was loaded onto a barge. Isleworth is several miles DOWNSTREAM from Teddington. So the clearance of bridges ABOVE Teddington is not relevant. In any case I doubt that a barge large enough to carry a Concorde or, indeed, a 787 fuselage could negotiate Teddington Lock.

To get to Isleworth from Heathrow 'AA was transported along the A4 in an EASTERLY direction towards London and then south on Twickenham Road to Isleworth. It was loaded onto a barge near Isleworth Ait on the other side of the Thames from the Royal Mid Surrey Golf Course just upstream from Kew Gardens.

Check it out on google maps.


User currently offlinestudedave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 31814 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 69):
The aft section is build in South Carolina and transported in a Dreamlifter to Seattle.

You are wrong, and need to look at a map!!! The plant that builds the 787 is in Everett!!!

Being that it is my hometown- it irritates me when people say 'Seattle' all the time.
Everett is where the BIG Boeing plant is. There are something like 40 miles between them.
(Yes- if I was from Renton- I'd say the same about the little Boeing plant.)




StudeDave



Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 73, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 31745 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 64):
"AOG" is the term giving the prioity for aircraft spare parts needed for a plane sitting on the ground somewhere. AOG ,means that this item must be carried no matter what. It is the number one priority over mail and other class items.

The AOG designation is not a mandatory priority system in that there is no law or regulation, It is an agreement between aircraft manufactures and by extension their suppliers with the airlines and forwarders either directly or through associations that shippers will honor the priority freight regardless of destination customer. We used a similar priority on commercial hydrofoils (DIW).. There are times when the cargo can not be accommodated and airlines/forwarders get it on the next available flight. In the past sometimes it meant waiting for a 747 freighter.. stuff that is going where scheduled planes can not deliver is handled through charters.

Quoting studedave (Reply 72):
You are wrong, and need to look at a map!!! The plant that builds the 787 is in Everett!!!

Relax.. Seattle is frequently a generic designation for Puget Sound..


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 733 posts, RR: 2
Reply 74, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 31753 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 73):

Quoting studedave (Reply 72):
You are wrong, and need to look at a map!!! The plant that builds the 787 is in Everett!!!

Relax.. Seattle is frequently a generic designation for Puget Sound..

And PAE's closer to Mukilteo than Everett, anyways.  


User currently offlineMSN007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 31897 times:

The repair process has began.

https://twitter.com/wiloakley1/status/388714515745226752


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 31707 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As long as the support structure isn't compromised, I can see them applying a patch and doing a short hop to a facility which could accomodate the major work needed.

User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 31781 times:

This is all a mute point anyway as

Quoting MSN007 (Reply 75):

The repair process has began.

But sea shipment is far more possible & cost effective than one would think and as I do this

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 37):
Transpoirt by ocean would be an interesting task for a freight forwarder specialized in heavy and outsize loads

for a living each day, its certainly a task I would love to look into!

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 54):
I said "would be". Being in international Transport I can assure you that such a Transport would be in the high millions but not necessarily in the double digit millions. And I said that it would be interesting to organize.

It's a heavy and outsize load and it would be a deck load most likely, but not necessarily a complete charter. Shipping all the Tools, renting thje space at LHR and whatever Needs to be done there is not small Money either.

It is of course not in the FCL league of cost, but it it can be barged to Antwerp then there is a regular liner service - direct to Everett!! It will cost probably in the region of $150 per cbm plus port costs, cranes & transport each end.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 57):
The rest of the "small" tooling and consumables can be shipped by air,

They could, but would be far cheaper to put them on the same vessel with the fuselage, will only be a small incremental additional cost considering you pay per cbm and a tailfin being flat is not many cbm's. The barge cost and port crews are already paid for so the additional items will cost no more other than maybe a few hours extra loading time, the truck costs will have to be incurred anyway.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 67):
Also, they would probably not ship to Seattle as it would be a longer journey

They would, to be specific right to Everett port!

Quoting VV701 (Reply 71):
To get to Isleworth from Heathrow 'AA was transported along the A4 in an EASTERLY direction towards London and then south on Twickenham Road to Isleworth. It was loaded onto a barge near Isleworth Ait on the other side of the Thames from the Royal Mid Surrey Golf Course just upstream from Kew Gardens.

I have never done this personally, but I believe you are correct. Even moving the item on the road is not the end of the world. You have to buy permits which are not that expensive in the grand scheme of things, which mean you will be restricted to night moves, then you will have to have wires lifted and maybe some street funiture removed. There are always ways around bridges. I wouldnt like to pay for it out of my pocket, but again not a massive expense in the grand scheme of things. And even barges are really not that expensive compared to chartering aircraft and will likely be cheaper than trucking down to Southampton or Tilbury. Forget a UK port, go straight over to Antwerp.

Anyway, all a mute point as it seems it will be repaired, but thought I would share my 2 cents.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1750 posts, RR: 13
Reply 78, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 31702 times:

Why don't you start a "How to Ship an Airplane from LHR" over on the Tech /Ops forum. If not scrapped (least likely) the airplane will be patched and flown to a place where it's easier and cheaper to fix (most likely). If neither of these occur it will be tented (rent back the same tent they used in PAE for the last several years) and fixed to the extent that it's flyable and flown someplace to have the interior redone. The odds of it being shipped by water or air is probably way less than it being scrapped.

User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9738 posts, RR: 31
Reply 79, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 31645 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 73):

The AOG designation is not a mandatory priority system in that there is no law or regulation, It is an agreement between aircraft manufactures and by extension their suppliers with the airlines and forwarders either directly or through associations that shippers will honor the priority freight regardless of destination customer

Thanks for explaining me my profession. My Statement is from a freight forwarders Point of view. That is a Service industry and when I got an AOG shipment on my desk i would check out the FIRAV flights and of course I would check out whether the aircraft could load the item. The Routing decision is made taking all that into account and the booking refers AOG. It hs happened before and it will happen again that even an AOG gets offloaded.

In this particular case we are discussing a major repair Job which is a different matter than a simple AOG. But then I might be explaing you your Profession.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 77):
It is of course not in the FCL league of cost, but it it can be barged to Antwerp then there is a regular liner service - direct to Everett!! It will cost probably in the region of $150 per cbm plus port costs, cranes & transport each end.

correct. Rough estimate over the big thumb with the sea going barge, road Transport to the river et all in the lower single Digit Million area.



Es saugt und blaest der Heinzelmann wo Mutti sonst nur blasen kann. Frueher war mehr Lametta.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13112 posts, RR: 35
Reply 80, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 31343 times:

Quoting studedave (Reply 72):
You are wrong, and need to look at a map!!! The plant that builds the 787 is in Everett!!!

Relax, the sky is not falling.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13112 posts, RR: 35
Reply 81, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 31424 times:

Quoting MSN007 (Reply 75):
The repair process has began.

http://twitter.com/wiloakley1/status/388714515745226752

Excellent, thanks for sharing   

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWT9ytwIQAEurvq.jpg:large



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 82, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 31159 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 77):
They would, to be specific right to Everett port!

First if they did ship it back to Puget Sound, there is no way to offload something that size in Mulkiteo, second the cranes necessary are in Seattle or Tacoma and although there are rail connections to Paine Field the fuselage is too big.

Third, Boeing has never patched and flown an airplane home for repair.. it is designed to be repaired in the field.. not easily but it is done and the aerodynamic qualities maintained. They have even replaced an entire wing in the field. and an entire nose section. JAL has perfected an onsite repair process with localized curing so autoclaves are not required here.


User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 30903 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 82):
First if they did ship it back to Puget Sound, there is no way to offload something that size in Mulkiteo, second the cranes necessary are in Seattle or Tacoma and although there are rail connections to Paine Field the fuselage is too big.

The vessels have their own cranes on board, Everett is a common port for outsize cargo. You would then just truck it to PAE - without taking out any bridges on the way...  

But this is now way off topic as it is confirmed it is being repaired at LHR.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5834 posts, RR: 6
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 30860 times:

Quoting MSN007 (Reply 75):
The repair process has began.

https://twitter.com/wiloakley1/status/388714515745226752

Wonderful to see. Looking forward to seeing ET-AOP on FlightAware again.


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 736 posts, RR: 1
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 30651 times:

Quoting MSN007 (Reply 75):
The repair process has began.

https://twitter.com/wiloakley1/status/388714515745226752

Very interesting, thanks for the link! I am curious about the setup. So first of all, this does not seem to be a tent coming around the plane - it seems like specific scaffolding to do some actual work. Is this for the real repair or for a patch to get her ready to fly to Everett? For replacing the tail section, you would think that a better protected enclosure would be needed. Or are they just starting by removing the fin? And why on earth is there scaffolding on the front part of the plane?


User currently offlinerobffm2 From Germany, joined Dec 2006, 1124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 30610 times:

Quoting MSN007 (Reply 75):

The repair process has began.

https://twitter.com/wiloakley1/status/388714515745226752


That scaffold doesn't look like the suggested tent.


User currently offlineandy33 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 30634 times:

The scaffold looks suspiciously positioned ready for the Ethiopian fleet name to be masked out.

User currently offlineFinn350 From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 711 posts, RR: 1
Reply 88, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 30534 times:

Quoting andy33 (Reply 87):
The scaffold looks suspiciously positioned ready for the Ethiopian fleet name to be masked out.

So they are just going to paint over the fleet name and fin graphics? And the actual repair is still long away?


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 30539 times:

Wouldnt the burn smell linger in that cabin? The would have to rip everything out?

User currently offlineLofty From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 30482 times:

I checked on the 12 Oct and we have 2 very large tents built on either side of the aircraft.

User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2584 posts, RR: 13
Reply 91, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 30418 times:

Quoting andy33 (Reply 87):
The scaffold looks suspiciously positioned ready for the Ethiopian fleet name to be masked out.

Not sure, they could do that with a simple mobile unit. No need for scaffolding to do just that.

To me it seems that the scaffolding could be cladded with tent material, or a tent will be build around the workplace once all the scaffolding is in place.

I noticed at least three "aggreko" units there. I'm not familiar with those, but a quick search on their website learned they are into renting power generation units and temperature/climate control units. Since I don't think you will need three power generation units for this work, so it seems likely that they have been brought in for temperature and climate control functionality. To me that is a pretty strong indicator that that the actual repair process will start shortly.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlinestudedave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 30065 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 73):
Relax.. Seattle is frequently a generic designation for Puget Sound..

Really? Weird. That's the first I'm hearing of that.
But I've only lived up there off and on for 30 some odd years.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 74):
And PAE's closer to Mukilteo than Everett, anyways.

Actually- the field borders both towns. But it does have that pesky Everett address.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 80):
Relax, the sky is not falling.

I suppose you are right-- Netherlands, Belgium, Germany - it's all the same on a map...



Anyway- good to see some work happening to that 787- whatever it might be.
If nothing else it'll be a learning experience for the BIG 'B'. I wish them well.



StudeDave



Classic planes, Classic trains, and Studebakers~~ what else is there???
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 29939 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting studedave (Reply 92):
Really? Weird. That's the first I'm hearing of that.
But I've only lived up there off and on for 30 some odd years.

Been here for 50.. inside the area we know the distinction, go 300 miles away and Seattle is the only point people recognize geographically.. go further and many don't distinguish between Washington state and Washington DC


User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 887 posts, RR: 9
Reply 94, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 29484 times:

Quoting studedave (Reply 92):
I suppose you are right-- Netherlands, Belgium, Germany - it's all the same on a map...

Gee, go easy. To anyone outside the area it's part of greater Seattle. There's no break in the urban area between the two. And since you're being picky, earlier in the thread you overestimated the distance between Seattle and Everett by over 10 miles.

And I do know the difference between the two - lived in Seattle and worked in Everett (and drove up and down the I5 almost every day).


User currently offlinesteady eddie From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 29195 times:

The rather excellent @MPSinthesky has just tweeted this pic which gives a great insight into the repair setup

pic.twitter.com/4c2so08kCz


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 96, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 29176 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 77):

It is of course not in the FCL league of cost, but it it can be barged to Antwerp then there is a regular liner service - direct to Everett!! It will cost probably in the region of $150 per cbm plus port costs, cranes & transport each end.

Not arguing that the cost would be cheaper by sea. For regular production where lead time is known you can schedule such shipment. For this case where the schedule will be in flux and time is of the essence, and every day the plane is down, Boeing have to pay penalty, it is better to ship by air.

As many of us here knows, even the best laid plan by engineering can be messed up by schedules . . .

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 77):

They would, to be specific right to Everett port!

Going from England to Everett would involve . . . going through the Panama Canal, or the Suez canal or around the Cape, all of which add the shipping time by weeks. If they were to ship by sea, then Charleston would be quickest.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 94):
And I do know the difference between the two - lived in Seattle and worked in Everett (and drove up and down the I5 almost every day).

And while you were here, were you ever mistaken for a Kiwi?  

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13112 posts, RR: 35
Reply 97, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 29252 times:

Quoting steady eddie (Reply 95):
pic.twitter.com/4c2so08kCz

Nice find    So now we have tents and a lot of scaffolding.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWig9I1IEAAPWCk.jpg:large



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 29052 times:

Why the scaffolding at the front if the damage is at the back ?

User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1888 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 29043 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 98):
Why the scaffolding at the front if the damage is at the back ?

Likely to remove the airline's graphics during the repair process. An inevitable PR move for an issue like this one.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13112 posts, RR: 35
Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 28947 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 99):
Likely to remove the airline's graphics during the repair process. An inevitable PR move for an issue like this one.

They could have done this earlier, the bird is outside since August.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineFinn350 From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 711 posts, RR: 1
Reply 101, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 28955 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 98):
Why the scaffolding at the front if the damage is at the back ?

I first thought it was for painting over the graphics, but considering all the equipment visible it seems that the actual repair process is about to start. Maybe they need some storage space just outside the front door to facilitate logistics when removing all the cabin fittings etc. from inside out.


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 29018 times:

Are these sheds and scaffolding are good signs or they are getting ready to part out?

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5834 posts, RR: 6
Reply 103, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 28935 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 102):
Are these sheds and scaffolding are good signs or they are getting ready to part out?

There is way more equipment and organization there than would be needed to part out and scrap an aircraft.


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1750 posts, RR: 13
Reply 104, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 28936 times:

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 102):
Are these sheds and scaffolding are good signs or they are getting ready to part out?


If they were going to part it out the engines wouldn't be there in this photo.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1624 posts, RR: 1
Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 28879 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 99):
Likely to remove the airline's graphics during the repair process.

That's a lot of scaffolding to cover up a graphic. Assuming the plane is going back to Ethiopian I can't imagine them painting over the graphic only to reapply it - they could throw a tarp over the fuselage if they wanted to. They also haven't tried to conceal the tail graphic, which I think would be the first thing to conceal if they had a mind to.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 101):
Maybe they need some storage space just outside the front door to facilitate logistics when removing all the cabin fittings etc. from inside out.

This sounds more likely - after all much of the cabin fittings - seats, carpeting, galley, etc. - have been damaged in the rear at least and the entire plane probably stinks of burnt CFRP and other cabin fittings- whatever that smells like.


User currently offlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1150 posts, RR: 3
Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 28948 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting uta999 (Reply 19):

It is likely they would have to cut off the rear fuselage behind the wing and bring in a new one, complete with new tail sections. A temporary hanger at BA maintenance, near Hatton Cross built over her.

Is it possible to split a 787 down the middle and marry on a new fuselage? I would have thought it must be, or they will end up writing off more frames after heavy landings, lorry strikes etc.

ET won't want a simple patch and Boeing won't want a hull loss. It won't fly again till summer 2014 anyway.

Boeing put on a new front fuselage on a TWA 707 that terrorists had blown off that been hijacked in the Middle East in 1969 by the PLO. See TWA 707 hijacked in Wikipedia. This is the link if it works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840_hijacking_(1969)

  



Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7302 posts, RR: 57
Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 28799 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 105):
burnt CFRP

Wondering what that smells like?



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 28543 times:

It's quite telling reading this thread that no one actually knows what's happening. They're not saying much are they?

User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 28407 times:

There's no way that the scaffolding at the front has anything to do with removing the name, that could have been done with a cherrypicker in the time it took to erect the scaffold. To me it also looks then wrong shape to be for removal of interior fitments, if that were the purpose it would be far better to make it deeper but not so long. My guess is that its do with alignment equipment to make sure that the new tail section is correctly mated to the existing structure

User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 28344 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The interesting thing is the middle deck has no access other than the stairs at the end.. Maybe we'll get a better picture in another couple days as they complete the structure. It appears the aft platforms have the beginnings of more levels to support a weather cover.

anyone notice the burn spot has been painted?


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 28194 times:

Quoting fcogafa (Reply 98):
Why the scaffolding at the front if the damage is at the back ?

Not a mod expert, but here is my guess:

In order to remove and replace the tail section, you'll need to secure the whole airframe to lock it down and not have it move, twist, bend on you while the mod is in progress. They will need solid support both at the joint and at the front. Most likely the whole airplane will "off" the gears (will be on jacks, or tooling) during the whole process.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1750 posts, RR: 13
Reply 112, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 27927 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 111):
n order to remove and replace the tail section, you'll need to secure the whole airframe to lock it down and not have it move, twist, bend on you while the mod is in progress. They will need solid support both at the joint and at the front. Most likely the whole airplane will "off" the gears (will be on jacks, or tooling) during the whole process


Agree totally, that scaffolding is way too much "structure" for anything else they might be doing.


User currently offlineairtechy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 27917 times:

My first thought when I saw this pic was that it would be really great to have a webcam pointed at the plane during the repair process.

Jim


User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 27778 times:

I know I'm a bit late on this post but thought I'd chip in anyway.

As Monarch are a Goldcare partner, maybe they could have ferried it to MAN or LTN? Can imagine a lot of it depends on who has spare capacity, both in staffing and space.


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1750 posts, RR: 13
Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 27706 times:

Quoting bthebest (Reply 114):
As Monarch are a Goldcare partner, maybe they could have ferried it to MAN or LTN? Can imagine a lot of it depends on who has spare capacity, both in staffing and space.


As far as the staff is concerned it's probably a totally self sufficient Boeing AOG team. I wouldn't say they do this all the time, but this is what they do, 12 hours a day until whatever airplane they're working on is back in the air no matter how long it takes. Hot and humid India to the frozen north.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13112 posts, RR: 35
Reply 116, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 26780 times:

The Puget Sound Business Journal has a story about the repairs:

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...-prepares-to-fix-fire-damaged.html

[Edited 2013-10-17 07:16:27]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13112 posts, RR: 35
Reply 117, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 26596 times:

Another picture:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWtSpDMCQAEtlMl.jpg:large

http://twitter.com/OldWindsorRebel/status/390496658007392256/photo/1



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 1035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 118, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 26101 times:

So many a-netters and none working on this project then ?
Or are you sworn to secrecy ?   


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 26125 times:

Quoting TC957 (Reply 118):
So many a-netters and none working on this project then ?

If they are working on this project, they are busy working on this project and have no time for A-net . . .  

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1336 posts, RR: 10
Reply 120, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 25996 times:

Quoting andy33 (Reply 87):
The scaffold looks suspiciously positioned ready for the Ethiopian fleet name to be masked out.

Well I think masking out the name is immaterial and late in the day given the amount of news coverage of original incident and subsequent reporting!

As a contributor noted above, the engineers have got the steady the aircraft. To do this they will probably place supporting braces through cabin windows, forward and aft. I'm speculating, I would imagine the forward scaffolding will allow the engineers to work in comfort rather than in the ravages of the British weather and prevent everyone else eyeballing and providing a running commentary on what's going on!


User currently offlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1150 posts, RR: 3
Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 25995 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 120):
As a contributor noted above, the engineers have got the steady the aircraft. To do this they will probably place supporting braces through cabin windows, forward and aft.

Putting supporting braces through the windows is NOT an option. They are not designed to support the aircraft. The aircraft will need to be supported from below and laterally on the sides to prevent any movement of the aircraft.
IMO, Boeing should devise a temporary repair and then fly it back to the United States unpressurized where a permanent repair can be made. Boeing is going to spend more money than the cost to write it off to avoid having the stigma of having a 787 written off for what would seem to be a "minor" problem so early in it's life. If the aircraft did not have a composite fuselage, it would have been repaired a long time ago.   



Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1601 posts, RR: 2
Reply 122, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 25978 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 121):
If the aircraft did not have a composite fuselage, it would have been repaired a long time ago

Oh is that so? Boeing engineers disagree with you


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 25892 times:

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 121):
of having a 787 written off

They can fly it unpressurized to Oshkosh and donate it to EAA. EAA can make lot of money on 787 tours.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 124, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 25777 times:

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 121):
IMO, Boeing should devise a temporary repair and then fly it back to the United States unpressurized where a permanent repair can be made.

Does Boeing have empty hangers in Seattle? Otherwise they will need to set up a tent there anyways. The people will still work overtime. You are just saving the cost of meals and hotels for the team.

To get it ready for a ferry you need engineering and the to perform the work need to get it flyable. Also this adds to downtime and risk.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 123):
They can fly it unpressurized to Oshkosh and donate it to EAA. EAA can make lot of money on 787 tours.

Can't they get LN 1 or 2?


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 125, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 25800 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While AOG team planning was probably prepared for all the 'normal' repairs I doubt that they had foreseen this one.. they probably have too;s and kits for ramp rash, flight surfaces contacting buildings and other planes, even runway excursion and wheels up landings.. It's not every day that they need to repair the crown area.

User currently offlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1150 posts, RR: 3
Reply 126, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25594 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting n471wn (Reply 122):

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 121):
If the aircraft did not have a composite fuselage, it would have been repaired a long time ago

Oh is that so? Boeing engineers disagree with you

Have you ever heard of a scab patch, along with some other structural reinforcements used in the interior of the aircraft. If a rib was damaged, it could possibly be spliced. I did not say fly it to Seattle. Fly it somewhere in the US where it would easier to hanger and repair.
Boeing is going to repair the aircraft no matter what it costs. Their reputation is at stake.   



Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2325 posts, RR: 9
Reply 127, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25813 times:

Quoting TC957 (Reply 118):
So many a-netters and none working on this project then ?
Or are you sworn to secrecy ?   

They are working on Norwegian 787's....  

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 128, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25771 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 126):
Boeing is going to repair the aircraft no matter what it costs.

and they will repair it in the field.. their reputation also demands it.. They have never flow a patch job to another site to finish. Think of it this way.. a FAA approved field repair has the benefits of the 707 barrel roll to future sales. .


User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1750 posts, RR: 13
Reply 129, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days ago) and read 25684 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 128):
and they will repair it in the field.. their reputation also demands it.. They have never flow a patch job to another site to finish. Think of it this way.. a FAA approved field repair has the benefits of the 707 barrel roll to future sales. .


  
Depending on the interior damage, after the airplane is airworthy again, I could see a flight to some other place for installation of a new interior.


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 736 posts, RR: 1
Reply 130, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days ago) and read 25639 times:

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 121):
If the aircraft did not have a composite fuselage, it would have been repaired a long time ago.

Maybe not so. Depending on the amount of internal fire damage, even if there'd be no structural damage, the rest can be a hell to fix. Re-wiring everything all potentially burned wires is difficult. Fire and smoke in a closed structure... I'm guessing *everything* making up the cabin has to be replaced except the primary structure.

Personal guess: any other aircraft would have been declared a total loss.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 131, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days ago) and read 25612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 129):
Depending on the interior damage, after the airplane is airworthy again, I could see a flight to some other place for installation of a new interior.

Why? They'll just ship the interiors over and install them moving the plane to another site will just set up conspiracy theories.(although the might fly it to it's home base for other upgrades)


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13112 posts, RR: 35
Reply 132, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 25704 times:

Tail fin has been removed.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/57530104@N02/10341011313/



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5008 posts, RR: 4
Reply 133, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 25441 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 132):

Curious as to how they've removed the tail??? Portable crane I take it.

I guess the rumours of building a temporary hangar is true!

EK8413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2494 posts, RR: 8
Reply 134, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 25412 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 132):
Tail fin has been removed.

Predictable, and nice to see the photograph. I said in the initial thread that there is likely damage (or suspicion as such) within the vertical stabilizer due to the location of the visual burn damage.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineteme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1636 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 25229 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

When Airbus announced that they are going with panels instead of barrels. If I recall correctly I said that the solution from A is much easier to repair. It seems that I might be right. Depending the damage to the ribs. Now it seems that the solution from B is to replace the barrel. Now that is something that is hard to get done outside of the factory.


Flying high and low
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31394 posts, RR: 85
Reply 136, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 25097 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting teme82 (Reply 135):
When Airbus announced that they are going with panels instead of barrels. If I recall correctly I said that the solution from A is much easier to repair. It seems that I might be right. Depending the damage to the ribs.

It remains to be seen how "easy" it will be to replace such a massive piece of the airframe. And when it does happen, it will require an equally significant amount of support infrastructure to perform.



Quoting teme82 (Reply 135):
Now it seems that the solution from B is to replace the barrel. Now that is something that is hard to get done outside of the factory.

We have no confirmation as of yet that a new Section 48 will be flown from CHS to LHR.


User currently offlinetimpdx From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 137, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 24927 times:

Dont see any tie downs for the tail....one good gust of wind...so I would assume that box-like thing it sits on is concrete or weighting of some sort.

User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1605 posts, RR: 2
Reply 138, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 24898 times:

Quoting teme82 (Reply 135):
Now it seems that the solution from B is to replace the barrel. Now that is something that is hard to get done outside of the factory.

There is a video floating around of the removal and replacement of the rear end of a 767 from the pressure bulk head back being replaced, in an airline maintenance hanger, and it seemed fairly straight forward.

As mentioned previously, I think the rewiring and smoke damage will be the biggest problem.

Boeing probably know already but it would be interesting to take the damaged barrel back to Boeing and put various loads on it to see how much it was weakened.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineteme82 From Finland, joined Mar 2007, 1636 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 24805 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 138):
in an airline maintenance hanger

They aren't in one doing this.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 136):

We have no confirmation as of yet that a new Section 48 will be flown from CHS to LHR.

Yeah we don't but I would assume that this would be the case. I think that Ruscoe is on to some thing. I would also like to see boeing getting that barrel for factory testing. For figuring out how much the damage compromised the structural integrity of the barrel.



Flying high and low
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 140, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 24826 times:

Ok, so when they have finished the cut and shut on ET-AOP does it automatically regain its AOC or is Heathrow going to be hosting test flights? An awful lot of people live under the flight paths of LHR...


BV
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 141, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 24827 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 134):

Predictable, and nice to see the photograph. I said in the initial thread that there is likely damage (or suspicion as such) within the vertical stabilizer due to the location of the visual burn damage.

OR

It's been removed to facilitate the separation of the fuselage barrels? And just for that reason?

I watched a documentary about repairing a 767's after pressure bulk head. The first thing they did was take the tail fin off.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5008 posts, RR: 4
Reply 142, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 24852 times:

You must be refering to this video. I've watched it a few times.

PTQ: Put Together Quickly
This time-lapse video shows Boeing’s “Aircraft On Ground” team repairing damage to a 767 that was inadvertently shoved into a blast fence by a tow tractor. The AOG team had to pull the airliner in two, insert a new bulkhead, and put it all back together again—in three weeks. Boeing produced the video. (02:18)

http://www.airspacemag.com/video/PTQ...-Together-Quickly.html?device=ipad

EK8413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31394 posts, RR: 85
Reply 143, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 24837 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 138):
There is a video floating around of the removal and replacement of the rear end of a 767 from the pressure bulk head back being replaced, in an airline maintenance hanger, and it seemed fairly straight forward.

I remember that episode of World's Toughest Fixes. It was an Air Seychelles 767 fixed at CDG.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13112 posts, RR: 35
Reply 144, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 24670 times:

Per reports on Twitter, Boeing AOG team say 2 months work to repair the aircraft.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineFinn350 From Finland, joined Jul 2013, 711 posts, RR: 1
Reply 145, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 24563 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 144):
Per reports on Twitter, Boeing AOG team say 2 months work to repair the aircraft.

They must have planned it very carefully, but still that would be a remarkably fast repair considering the damage. Based on the scaffolding I would assume that instead of replacing the whole tail section they will apply a local patch.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 146, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 24499 times:

The row of Agreko generating sets will produce quite an amount of power, far in excess of what would be required to power lighting and machine tools. To me this suggests that they require lot of heat for the curing of composite material, meaning that its a repair rather than replacement. Additionally the two large waste skips indicate that there's lots of the interior/hill being discarded.

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13112 posts, RR: 35
Reply 147, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 24373 times:

Per Airchive.com:

Quote:
Details of the repair remain scant, but according to several credible sources with knowledge of the matter who requested to remain anonymous, Airchive was able to discern the following details:

> The repair is expected to be completed entirely in London-Heathrow.
> A new aft barrel section was made for the repair, from which customized parts have been cut to fit the damaged 787.
> Once the damaged areas are sanded away, the replacement sections will be glued into place.
> Boeing, who declined to comment for this story, is expected to be handling the repair process.

http://airchive.com/blog/2013/10/17/...-boeing-787-repaired-london-patch/



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1750 posts, RR: 13
Reply 148, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 24206 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 140):
Ok, so when they have finished the cut and shut on ET-AOP does it automatically regain its AOC or is Heathrow going to be hosting test flights? An awful lot of people live under the flight paths of LHR...


Sure why not, worse case is they may be restricted on direction of takeoff -- it's a non-event.

Quoting timpdx (Reply 137):
Dont see any tie downs for the tail....one good gust of wind...so I would assume that box-like thing it sits on is concrete or weighting of some sort.


Probably attached to a structure (just like it's attached to the airplane) that is either bolted or weighted to the ground. The "box-like thing" it appears to be sitting on are the concrete barriers to prevent somebody from running into it/weights to hold the attaching structure stable.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 144):
Per reports on Twitter, Boeing AOG team say 2 months work to repair the aircraft.


Probably why they didn't box the tail up and store it someplace. I don't think this will be near as difficult, expensive or time consuming as many people have indicated.


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 149, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 23985 times:

Quoting timpdx (Reply 137):
Dont see any tie downs for the tail....one good gust of wind...so I would assume that box-like thing it sits on is concrete or weighting of some sort.

Its surrounded by concrete blocks that are usually used here to provide temporary barriers beside roads, the blocks are pinned together and are sufficient to restrain a 44 tonne lorry, I think they'll keep the fin in position.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3856 posts, RR: 27
Reply 150, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 23900 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 148):
Probably attached to a structure (just like it's attached to the airplane) that is either bolted or weighted to the ground. The "box-like thing" it appears to be sitting on are the concrete barriers to prevent somebody from running into it/weights to hold the attaching structure stable.

Vertical fins are positioned vertically in a special holding tool using the attach points .. Here they would use the same tool bolted to the tarmac. the blocks are probably to prevent incidental damage from vehicles working in the area..


User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 887 posts, RR: 9
Reply 151, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 23535 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 96):
And while you were here, were you ever mistaken for a Kiwi?

Never a Kiwi, but often a Pom.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 121):
Putting supporting braces through the windows is NOT an option. They are not designed to support the aircraft.

Why do you say this? Boeing has used beams through windows to support AOG repairs of other airplane types in the past, so why are you so emphatic that they can't do this for the 787? I tried to find some photos, but they don't seem to be around, but Boeing has some training films showing several AOG repairs of 747s where this was done.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 121):
IMO, Boeing should devise a temporary repair and then fly it back to the United States unpressurized where a permanent repair can be made.

I'm not picking on you in particular. There seems to be a belief amongst many on this thread that the structural repairs can't or shouldn't be done in the field. See the long diversion discussing dismantling the airplane and shipping it elsewhere. That simply is not how Boeing does things. The Boeing AOG organisation has a large amount of expertise in performing major structural repairs in the field, often much more severe than this case.

For an idea of what they can do, take a look at this article from Boeing, or this article from the Smithsonian. This was just from a quick search for "Boeing AOG" and I'm sure you can find more.

It amazes me just what they can do in the field, and the extent of repairs which are economically viable. For those who think this airplane is only being repaired to save face, check out some of the much more substantial repairs carried out in the past. Are they all to save face?

Quoting teme82 (Reply 135):
When Airbus announced that they are going with panels instead of barrels. If I recall correctly I said that the solution from A is much easier to repair.

This is a red herring. The size of the panels is too large to make a substantial difference. I would be surprised if there is even one repair in the life of the A350 with damage large enough to make replacing a panel worth it but minor enough to make the airplane repairable. I could see a situation where the would splice in a partial panel, but that's what I expect will happen on this airplane anyway.


User currently offlineSkydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 982 posts, RR: 10
Reply 152, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days ago) and read 23372 times:

All kinds of speculation....

Quoting dan23 (Reply 13):
Surely removal of the wings and transport back to Seattle would be far too expensive and time consuming for it to be a realistic option?
Quoting Lofty (Reply 1):
The last I heard was they are going to build a Temp Building around the tail area and remove the rear section and fit a new section but no idea on time scales.
One option that was looked at was flying low and slow back to the USA but that has been ruled out.
Quoting shuttle9juliet (Reply 11):
Another story which is doing the rounds is that Boeing are going to bring the dreamlifter in, remove the 787 wings and fly it back to Seattle.
Quoting uta999 (Reply 19):
It is likely they would have to cut off the rear fuselage behind the wing and bring in a new one, complete with new tail sections. A temporary hanger at BA maintenance, near Hatton Cross built over her.
Is it possible to split a 787 down the middle and marry on a new fuselage? I would have thought it must be, or they will end up writing off more frames after heavy landings, lorry strikes etc.

And apparently Boeing PR / reputation concerns...

Quoting SKAirbus (Reply 21):
Write it off and give 'em a new one.
Quoting EK413 (Reply 23):
The insurers would avoid a write off at all costs especially if it works out cheaper to repair.
As for ET I bet my money they aren't happy and they'll prefer a new bird.
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 39):
Wow there's a lot of speculative posts on this. Without being on the inside on this, I imagine it may be cheaper to part it out than repair. However Boeing way well wish to try and repair, partly as a learning experience. There is a positive to be taken from getting this aircraft back into service and compensating ET for the inconvenience. There are a few stored and overweight early B787s that may well become parts donors.
Quoting n471wn (Reply 47):
I have said it before and I will say it again---it makes no difference if the insurance company considers it a total loss or if the cost of repairs is GREATER than a new bird----none of that matters folks! The CEO of Boeing is on record saying it will be repaired and it will be-----Boeing simply will not take a hull loss on the 787 regardless of cost---let's now move forward and just talk about repairs not if it is going to be repaired.
Quoting max999 (Reply 48):
Exactly, this is a public relations move on the part of Boeing. They have to demonstrate to all their customers that a small fire is repairable and won't lead to a hull loss. This is part of Boeing's effort to keep people's confidence in the 787 program after years of delays and the battery debacle.
Quoting davidho1985 (Reply 52):
Even the repair is more much expensive than a new build, Boeing will do it.
Quoting uta999 (Reply 19):
ET won't want a simple patch and Boeing won't want a hull loss. It won't fly again till summer 2014 anyway.
Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 121):
Boeing is going to spend more money than the cost to write it off to avoid having the stigma of having a 787 written off for what would seem to be a "minor" problem so early in it's life. If the aircraft did not have a composite fuselage, it would have been repaired a long time ago.
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 130):
Personal guess: any other aircraft would have been declared a total loss.
Quoting teme82 (Reply 135):
Depending the damage to the ribs. Now it seems that the solution from B is to replace the barrel. Now that is something that is hard to get done outside of the factory.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 147):
> The repair is expected to be completed entirely in London-Heathrow.
> A new aft barrel section was made for the repair, from which customized parts have been cut to fit the damaged 787.
> Once the damaged areas are sanded away, the replacement sections will be glued into place.
> Boeing, who declined to comment for this story, is expected to be handling the repair process.

I have never quoted so many posts in a thread on a.net, but in this case, it is important, because there seems to be a common theme.

Quoting Speedbird128 (Reply 10):
Quoting trent900 (Reply 8):ave any internal photos been released yet?
Officially from Boeing I haven't seen any - and I bet people have been told they will pay with their lives if they leak them LOL!
Quoting TC957 (Reply 118):
So many a-netters and none working on this project then ?
Or are you sworn to secrecy ?

This entire process has been handled wrong on many levels...

If Boeing is honestly concerned about their reputation, and existing and future 787 customer concerns, this entire incident should have been handled in a more open fashion, instead of treating it like a classified Area 51 project. With the rampant speculation of so many here on a.net (many who are directly involved in the aviation industry), and no concise plan of action announced publicly from the beginning by Boeing, it makes them appear to be unprepared for dealing with a small to medium amount of damage to the structure of this new technology fuselage in a remote location. What happens when a galley truck drives through the side of a 787 in Sydney next week? Months of ambiguity, or a quick, permanent, safe repair to get the plane in service again?

To build customer confidence in the 787, it should have gone more like this:
(on Boeing's 787 web page)

- photos of the fire damage, both interior and exterior (the finger-pointing about the cause of the fire is another topic)
- a clear plan with details of what can be repaired, and what needs to be replaced
- a timeline for the repair work schedule
- photos and videos of the repair work
- most important: showcase how 'easy' a CFRP fuselage is to repair when it is damaged vs. 'old' technology!

Come across as transparent and confident, and build customer confidence. Come across as uncertain and secretive, and lose it all...




LD4



∙ ---{--« ∙ ----{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ---{--« ∙ --{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ----{--« ∙
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 153, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days ago) and read 23303 times:

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 152):

If I was ET I would not want Boeing talking about MY aircraft, releasing pictures, or doing much of anything other than fixing the aircraft. I would want to control all information dissemination. If I were Boeing I would not want a billion dollar customer to be more upset than they are and would not feel compelled to share any information ET did not want shared.

tortugamon


User currently offlineSkydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 982 posts, RR: 10
Reply 154, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 23178 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 153):
If I was ET I would not want Boeing talking about MY aircraft, releasing pictures, or doing much of anything other than fixing the aircraft. I would want to control all information dissemination.

Except ET is not in damage control mode, Boeing is. And from the point of view of the reply above, why not just write the plane off, and supply ET with a replacement ASAP?

Why not? Because Boeing needs to prove to other customers the plane can be repaired. But what difference does it make if they do not disclose how minor (or severe) the internal structural damage was to begin with (or if there was any at all)? Everyone here is hypothesizing about this incident due to lack of information, and it comes across that Boeing was unprepared to deal with such a situation in a remote location (although likely not the case), Boeing needs to shine. And they don't shine well keeping everyone in the dark.

And again, what is the big secret to supress photos of the damage? As far as I know, ET did nothing wrong here, whereas there were dozens of photos on the internet of the interior of the Asiana 777 which crashed in SFO, within a day of the crash, and it is fairly clear their pilot(s) were the cause.



LD4



∙ ---{--« ∙ ----{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ---{--« ∙ --{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ----{--« ∙
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5008 posts, RR: 4
Reply 155, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 22972 times:

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 154):
Except ET is not in damage control mode, Boeing is. And from the point of view of the reply above, why not just write the plane off, and supply ET with a replacement ASAP?

Where is the replacement coming from may I ask? I guess Boeing will pluck it out of fin air.

EK8413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 887 posts, RR: 9
Reply 156, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 22887 times:

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 152):
If Boeing is honestly concerned about their reputation, and existing and future 787 customer concerns, this entire incident should have been handled in a more open fashion, instead of treating it like a classified Area 51 project

It's a pretty large leap to assume that because Boeing isn't releasing a large amount of detail to the public, that this also means that they're keeping prospective and current customers in the dark. Boeing gives a lot more detail about their airplanes to their customers than they release in public, so why should this be any different?

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 152):
What happens when a galley truck drives through the side of a 787 in Sydney next week? Months of ambiguity, or a quick, permanent, safe repair to get the plane in service again?

There are quick bolted repair schemes designed for the fuselage for this exact situation. There are quick bonded repair schemes designed for this situation. This is a completely different scenario to the kind of repair being undertaken here, and it will always be the case that a repair of this magnitude will need to be engineered for the specific situation.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 152):
- photos of the fire damage, both interior and exterior

Will, you would think, come out in AAIB reports.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 152):
- a clear plan with details of what can be repaired, and what needs to be replaced
- a timeline for the repair work schedule
- photos and videos of the repair work
- most important: showcase how 'easy' a CFRP fuselage is to repair when it is damaged vs. 'old' technology!

Why exactly is it pertinent that the public (as opposed to the airlines) receive this level of detail? The public release of such a level of information would be unprecedented.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 147):
> A new aft barrel section was made for the repair, from which customized parts have been cut to fit the damaged 787.
> Once the damaged areas are sanded away, the replacement sections will be glued into place.

Interesting. My opinion had been that they would make a replacement section like this, rather than replacing an entire barrel section, but it is interesting that they are bonding rather than bolting the section in. In this case, I would expect the sections to be joined by scarfing, probably using step sanding to achieve the taper. This page shows some good pictures of that, and the rest of the pages about repairs give a reasonable description for the layman.


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 157, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 22937 times:

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 152):
If Boeing is honestly concerned about their reputation, and existing and future 787 customer concerns, this entire incident should have been handled in a more open fashion, instead of treating it like a classified Area 51 project.

Very well said, and I fully agree.

The QF 32 A380 incident was handled very differently, and it in fact helped build confidence in the structural integrity of the aircraft (the fact that it could survive and be flown even after significant damage to the aircraft after the uncontained engine failure - the aircraft "suffered damage to the nacelle, wing, fuel system, landing gear, flight controls, the controls for engine No.1 and an undetected fire in the left inner wing fuel tank that eventually self-extinguished", as per Wiki. "Shrapnel from the exploding engine punctured part of the wing and damaged the fuel system causing leaks and a fuel tank fire, disabled one hydraulic system and the anti-lock brakes and caused No.1 and No.4 engines to go into a ‘degraded’ mode, damaged landing flaps and the controls for the outer left No.1 engine."

The fact that the aircraft still was able to fly, and was repairable, helped build the A380s reputation that it is a solidly built aircraft. The same approach could have helped Boeing and the 787 a lot.

[Edited 2013-10-19 03:07:39]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 158, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 22865 times:

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 154):
Except ET is not in damage control mode, Boeing is.

I am not sure I see it that way. I personally don't see the cause of the accident as Boeing's fault, others may disagree.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 154):
why not just write the plane off

I imagine it would take 2+ years to get a replacement. The production schedule is set very far in advance and customer provided components often have very long lead times. If the cause of the accident wasn't Boeing's fault, why would it be their responsibility to provide a replacement aircraft? Why write off an aircraft that you can fix. And if you can fix it without taking it back to Boeing, I feel like Boeing may see this as an opportunity to show they can repair aircraft in the field like their AOG teams have been doing for decades on other products.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 154):
Because Boeing needs to prove to other customers the plane can be repaired.

Sure. They have to show that it isn't that much harder than with an Al fuse to fix.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 154):
it comes across that Boeing was unprepared to deal with such a situation in a remote location

I don't get that impression. The aircraft had the event July 12 I think and they researched the problem and it was investigated and within 3 months they have completed that and Boeing is working on the fix? Doesn't sound odd to mean. The dozen AOG teams that fixed batteries in the field for the battery shows that they move key personnel when they need to.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 154):
they don't shine well keeping everyone in the dark.

They need to keep key people up to speed and this relates to ET, the insurance companies, supplier partners, etc. They don't owe their customers' customers (us) anything. Does the traveling public care if a 787 can be repaired quickly in the field? IMO, they do not. They need to keep shareholders in the loop of possible risk/costs but this aircraft represents less than half of one percent of one fiscal quarter of Boeing's revenue so I am not sure how much Boeing needs to release in that regard either.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 154):
And again, what is the big secret to supress photos of the damage?

Its not a secret but it isn't their property. It is not their place. If it was an NTSB led investigation I imagine we would have seen photos. But it isn't Boeing's place.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 154):
the Asiana 777 which crashed in SFO

Right and within three days there were at least three press briefings with a high level of details as well. The ET event was an AAIB, or whatever the British equivalent is, investigation. I believe NTSB participated but they didn't lead. Regardless, if it was up to OZ I am sure there would have been zero pictures published.

tortugamon


User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 159, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 22808 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 158):
I personally don't see the cause of the accident as Boeing's fault, others may disagree.

It does not really matter, in the context of this discussion, whose fault it is. The point is that this incident now requires Boeing to demonstrate the repairability of the aircraft, therefore Boeing has much more at stake here than Honeywell, ET, etc.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 158):
Its not a secret but it isn't their property. It is not their place. If it was an NTSB led investigation I imagine we would have seen photos. But it isn't Boeing's place.

But now that repairs are on, I would assume the AAIB is no longer in control of access to, and information and photos relating to, the damage. It is either ET or Boeing that has an embargo on photos and info, and my guess is it is much more likely Boeing since ET really does not have as much at stake here.

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 156):
Boeing gives a lot more detail about their airplanes to their customers than they release in public, so why should this be any different?

If Boeing indeed had shared more info and photos with other customers, I reckon more info would have found its way to the media and onto the internet.

[Edited 2013-10-19 03:04:45]

User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 887 posts, RR: 9
Reply 160, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 22747 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 159):
If Boeing indeed had shared more info and photos with other customers, I reckon more info would have found its way to the media and onto the internet.

Maybe, but I doubt it. The vast majority of people in the industry are professional enough that they know what is and what is not appropriate to pass around. There are plenty of times that information which is widely known in the engineering community in Boeing doesn't make it on here or out in the public, and that's when thousands of people probably know it.


User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 161, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 22531 times:

Quoting teme82 (Reply 135):
When Airbus announced that they are going with panels instead of barrels. If I recall correctly I said that the solution from A is much easier to repair. It seems that I might be right. Depending the damage to the ribs. Now it seems that the solution from B is to replace the barrel. Now that is something that is hard to get done outside of the factory.

An A350 would potentially be easier to repair, assuming that it's aluminium frame was completely undamaged.

It would be interesting to see a simulation on how the A350s aluminium alloy frame would have coped with a fire so intense, it burned through the composite skin of the 787 or caused such a heat built up, it discoloured the paint. (Do we actually know yet which one it was?)

We are all aware of how aluminium conducts heat. Is it possible that with the same fire on board, left unnoticed for the same length of time, the fire would have propagated much further on an A350? Or perhaps melted/burned the frame in the crown area to such an extent it could have warped or even failed?



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineKengo From Japan, joined Apr 2013, 186 posts, RR: 0
Reply 162, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 22543 times:

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 152):

WOW! You make it sound like if Boeing owe us a step by step explanation on how they will repair ET's 787. Yes, like you, I would love to see a picture by picture on what and how they are handling the repairs but the matter of fact is Boeing has no obligation in sharing this information with the general public. I am pretty much sure that Boeing is communicating with every party that needs to be informed and the general public is not one of them. As others have said, maybe Boeing does not have the final say on what they can release or share with the general public since the investigation is still ongoing and to cloud the matter, not the owner of the 787. Just maybe after all is done, a full release of how the repair was done will be made public by Boeing or by someone with the final authority.


User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 163, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 22461 times:

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 152):
If Boeing is honestly concerned about their reputation

I don't think they are. Their stocks are trading at all time highs.
The people who matter most to them remain confident and continue to invest.

I hope you don't work in PR, as the transparency and honesty you call fall would kill any company you work for.
Photos of the damage and the repair process could turn into a serious problem. The media love to twist a story.
Imagine what a field day they would have with photos of the fire damaged interior of a brand new plane.

As for transparency of the repair. Why? So they can give away their secrets to their competitor?
Get realistic.

Boeing releases PR statements as and when necessary. And looking at their stocks, it is a fair assumption when I say they are doing it right. Regardless of what we might think.

Have you also considered that the client, Ethiopian Airlines in this case, might not want photos of their damaged interior to be published?

Boeing owe us nothing on this incident. They are not hiding anything, they are not being deceitful. They're conducting business as is deemed appropriate And again, judging from their stocks and silence from ET, they're doing it well



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlinemjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 1538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 164, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 22307 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 161):
An A350 would potentially be easier to repair, assuming that it's aluminium frame was completely undamaged.

When did you read up the last time on the A 350? About as much CFRP in the fuselage of the A 350 as the B 787.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13112 posts, RR: 35
Reply 165, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 22372 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 161):
An A350 would potentially be easier to repair, assuming that it's aluminium frame was completely undamaged.

It would be interesting to see a simulation on how the A350s aluminium alloy frame would have coped with a fire so intense, it burned through the composite skin of the 787 or caused such a heat built up, it discoloured the paint. (Do we actually know yet which one it was?)

We are all aware of how aluminium conducts heat. Is it possible that with the same fire on board, left unnoticed for the same length of time, the fire would have propagated much further on an A350? Or perhaps melted/burned the frame in the crown area to such an extent it could have warped or even failed?

Not sure how long you were in hibernate   but it's time for a fact check:

http://oi44.tinypic.com/d786p.jpg



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2776 posts, RR: 2
Reply 166, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 22225 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 165):

That's hilarious, because all too often I hear people give the 787 grief over its usage of CFRP, and using insults involving "plastic." Maybe they just aren't aware. 



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 2279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 167, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 22022 times:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 164):
Quoting garpd (Reply 161):
An A350 would potentially be easier to repair, assuming that it's aluminium frame was completely undamaged.

When did you read up the last time on the A 350? About as much CFRP in the fuselage of the A 350 as the B 787.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 165):
Not sure how long you were in hibernate   but it's time for a fact check:

I don't think garpd is saying A350 has less/no CFRP. A350 has CFRP panels on aluminum frame which should make repairs easier than B787 which has CFRP fuselage modules. Am I way off.


User currently offlineSkydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 982 posts, RR: 10
Reply 168, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 21916 times:

Quoting Kengo (Reply 162):
WOW! You make it sound like if Boeing owe us a step by step explanation on how they will repair ET's 787. Yes, like you, I would love to see a picture by picture on what and how they are handling the repairs but the matter of fact is Boeing has no obligation in sharing this information with the general public. I am pretty much sure that Boeing is communicating with every party that needs to be informed and the general public is not one of them. As others have said, maybe Boeing does not have the final say on what they can release or share with the general public since the investigation is still ongoing and to cloud the matter, not the owner of the 787. Just maybe after all is done, a full release of how the repair was done will be made public by Boeing or by someone with the final authority.
Quoting garpd (Reply 163):
I don't think they are. Their stocks are trading at all time highs.
The people who matter most to them remain confident and continue to invest.

I hope you don't work in PR, as the transparency and honesty you call fall would kill any company you work for.
Photos of the damage and the repair process could turn into a serious problem. The media love to twist a story.
Imagine what a field day they would have with photos of the fire damaged interior of a brand new plane.

As for transparency of the repair. Why? So they can give away their secrets to their competitor?
Get realistic.

Boeing releases PR statements as and when necessary. And looking at their stocks, it is a fair assumption when I say they are doing it right. Regardless of what we might think.

Have you also considered that the client, Ethiopian Airlines in this case, might not want photos of their damaged interior to be published?

Boeing owe us nothing on this incident. They are not hiding anything, they are not being deceitful. They're conducting business as is deemed appropriate And again, judging from their stocks and silence from ET, they're doing it well

Have people's memories become so short they have already forgotten about the 787 Li-Ion battery fires, on customer's airplanes, the photos of the damage (even the burned-out cells) which became public within days, and then Boeing's course of action to correct? The battery incidents were serious enough they could have been the project's doom, but in the case of this ET airplane, it would only be demonstrating repair technique for a new technology.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 159):
If Boeing indeed had shared more info and photos with other customers, I reckon more info would have found its way to the media and onto the internet.

You've hit the nail on the head. Boeing has nothing to gain by providing this type of information to the general public, but emergency workers, investigators, airline employees and others who have had access to the airplane have phones/cameras, and then photos end up anonymously on Picasa, Photobucket, etc. Surely the detailed photos of the burned out cabin of the Asiana 777 were not taken by Boeing or OZ just to be posted on a.net? But they were here within days.

Have seen hundreds of aircraft damage photos which have been e-mailed to me after making their way to the 'net; bird strikes, landing gear collapse, hail damage, tail strikes, cargo and pax doors ripped off, ramp vehicle collisions, and many times photos of the repairs underway to get the airplane back in service... but they have been varying degrees of metal skin/stringer damage. I'm sure the airlines (or agencies responsible for causing damage) also had no intention of making any of these photos public domain either... and many were taken long before cell phones had cameras...

Just curious why the lid is being kept so tight on this incident, that nobody has leaked photos or details, even after months.



LD4

[Edited 2013-10-19 08:45:18]


∙ ---{--« ∙ ----{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ---{--« ∙ --{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ----{--« ∙