Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Will The Ethiopian 787 Be Repaired?  
User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2309 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 25202 times:

From the first time I saw the burn marks on the Ethiopian 787, I wondered how the aircraft will be repaired. With such heat, I imagine that the resin in the CFRP barrels is damaged beyond a simple patching repair. Pressurising the cabin seems to be an issue also. So will Boeing just replace the entire section?

This also raises the question of having to fly a plane to Washington in order to do hull repairs.


The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
109 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 1, posted (9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 25212 times:

Simples... replace the coffee pot...



Until we know what the problem is, how can we even think of answering this question. And nobody here knows.



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 699 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 25126 times:

Answer is with great difficulty. And I suspect there will be a lot of A-net threads asking the same thing over the coming weeks. We'll just have to be patient and let the investigators do their stuff first and then look out for official press releases. Unless of course, there's an a-netter amongst the investigative team who can update us....
 


User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2309 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 24774 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 1):
Until we know what the problem is, how can we even think of answering this question. And nobody here knows.

My question has nothing to do with what caused the fire, but how to repair the resulting damage.

Quoting TC957 (Reply 2):
We'll just have to be patient and let the investigators do their stuff first and then look out for official press releases.

Yes, but the CFRP repair itself has nothing to do with any investigation. The hull is burned, what caused it to burn doesn't change how it will be repaired. Boeing should (I hope to dear god) have already have procedures in place to repair various damage to the 787s skin.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineBestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 24735 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 3):
My question has nothing to do with what caused the fire, but how to repair the resulting damage.

How do you expect anyone to answer your question without knowing what damage the aircraft has suffered. nobody knows what damage was done in the fire.

Its like asking how do you fix a broken down car without the person you ask knowing whats wrong with it..



The world is really getting smaller these days
User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 24665 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 3):
Yes, but the CFRP repair itself has nothing to do with any investigation. The hull is burned, what caused it to burn doesn't change how it will be repaired. Boeing should (I hope to dear god) have already have procedures in place to repair various damage to the 787s skin.

Boeing have procedures in place to repair various damage caused to the B787 skin & these words came from the horses mouth "Boeing" rep during the Dreamliner tour. We shouldn't speculate as many of us have read apparently the aircraft is to be written off just like VH-OQA 'Nancy Bird' was suppose to be written off but she returned to revenue service after under going extensive repairs in SIN.
Lets wait for the final report once the investigation is complete and then I'm sure Boeing will send a team to access the damage and determine if the aircraft is repairable. We know repairs have been done on the B767 http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/videos/boeing-767/ but this is a different kettle of fish.

EK8413

[Edited 2013-07-14 03:13:49]


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1377 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 21928 times:

Two part epoxy, fiberglass cloth and lot of elbow grease.

Or find a spare Aft. Fuselage section in South Carolina.


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2132 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (9 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21637 times:

They will just replace the crown panel   

User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 444 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21430 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The airplane will fall under the "lemon law" and Boeing will give ET a brand new 787!   

User currently offlinenorthwest 777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21062 times:

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 4):
How do you expect anyone to answer your question without knowing what damage the aircraft has suffered. nobody knows what damage was done in the fire.

His question doesn't require knowing what is wrong with the plane, per se. His question clearly asks if there is damage beyond what a simple 'patch' of sorts could fix (and he is clearly referring to the 'hull' itself) HOW would the Boeing need to fix it. Would they have to hack the ass end of the pig or not. I understood what he was asking, and I'm an idiot.

Now relax.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (9 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21011 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 5):
the aircraft is to be written off

I would not be surprised to see the aircraft return to service. In fact, I would be greatly surprised to not see it flying again.

Cost would not be a factor.

Boeing and Airbus both need the plane back in the air to demonstrate repairs to the CFRP fuselage are possible after hul damage, and hopefully economic.

Otherwise both the B787 and A350 are doomed, and both companies have bet their future on those aircraft.


User currently offlinenorthwest 777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 20944 times:

For what it's worth BestWestern, that post of mine came off as snarky, and I apologize. It wrote differently and more playfully than it reads LOL. By the way, I see both you and I joined the same time, waaaaay back in September of 2000. I don't know about you, but I'm not sure if I should be proud of that, or depressed by that!

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (9 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 20511 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 10):
I would not be surprised to see the aircraft return to service. In fact, I would be greatly surprised to not see it flying again.

Indeed – Boeing's other customers require them to demonstrate the repairability of the new fuselage construction, and Boeing knows it.

There will be no writeoff if it can be helped at all. But it's probably not necessary anyway, unless the heat has crept forward all the way and seriously damaged the crown area across the entire length of the fuselage.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 10):
Boeing and Airbus both need the plane back in the air to demonstrate repairs to the CFRP fuselage are possible after hul damage, and hopefully economic.

Otherwise both the B787 and A350 are doomed, and both companies have bet their future on those aircraft.

Not quite – this incident is actually a strong argument for Airbus' construction with separately replaceable segments – in this case on an A350 you'd only have to replace the crown segment(s) if a patch should not be sufficient. In such a case Boeing may have to replace the entire barrel, maybe even the adjacent one as well if its structural strength is compromised enough.

The repair may be many times more expensive on the 787 than it would be on the A350 if a very large patch in this critical area is not feasible. Not great for Boeing. They will move heaven and earth to keep it below that if they can.

And if you were John Leahy, would you really fail to refer to such a 787 barrel replacement (with all the associated much more extensive disassembly / reassembly) in your repairability presentations on the A350?

This incident hands him a great argument on a silver platter.

[Edited 2013-07-14 13:34:52]

User currently offlineWingtips56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 20452 times:

Have there been any genuine reports about what the damage is... ie., is is burned through, intact but scorched, interior damage, etc.? Is there damage inside the cabin? The only news items I've seen are the initial ones about the 'blaze' and then the reports that it is not attributed to the batteries, but then 90% of the article goes on and on about the previous battery incidents. Nothing about this one, like the cabin was gutted in the fire, the galley is toast, you can see daylight through the ceiling or it's all melted like the Wicked Witch. It's as if nobody has even gone inside yet.

That said, I can see the validity of the with the original post's question being how much could be done at LHR, assuming it's not flyable as is. Could they do the laminate repairs there or even take the plane apart and replace the barrel section there? If it isn't flyable and does require a section swap out, then I can see it's only fate being to cut it up and haul it away. Can it be taken apart and the sections ferried out on the DreamLifter for repair and reassembly by Boeing at PAE or CHS? I'd hate to see it become the LHR Fire Brigade's new training hull.



Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (9 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 20059 times:

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 13):
Have there been any genuine reports about what the damage is... ie., is is burned through, intact but scorched, interior damage, etc.? Is there damage inside the cabin?

Not really as far as I have seen – the earlier "coffe maker" rumour seems to have been a false lead.

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 13):
That said, I can see the validity of the with the original post's question being how much could be done at LHR, assuming it's not flyable as is. Could they do the laminate repairs there or even take the plane apart and replace the barrel section there? If it isn't flyable and does require a section swap out, then I can see it's only fate being to cut it up and haul it away.
BA is getting 787s anyway. They'll jump at the chance to train their maintenance at major 787 repairs right on their doorstep, and they'll have the full support of Boeing behind them.

And Boeing must have designed their repair processes to be feasible at far more sparsely equipped airports than London Heathrow.

Even if they'll have to replace entire barrel sections they'll do that on site. There should be transportable jigs for that purpose either available or designed for implementation. Even british Airbus infrastructure might be usable for some of the work.

Given that the incident happened at all, Heathrow should be close to a best case in terms of location and infrastructure.

[Edited 2013-07-14 13:54:45]

User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1255 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (9 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 19690 times:

Quoting Wingtips56 (Reply 13):
Have there been any genuine reports about what the damage is... ie., is is burned through, intact but scorched, interior damage, etc.? Is there damage inside the cabin?

I asked this same question on another thread. With the kind of heat required to damage the exterior, there had to have been considerable damage to the cabin interior from heat, smoke and water. Gutting the airframe will be expensive.

I have seen aircraft that had substantial hull damage away from a major maintenance facility. What was done then was to provide a temporary fix and the aircraft receives a special ferry permit to fly the airplane to the nearest facility capable of performing the work. BA has considerable maintenance facilities at LHR but I am not sure if they know how to repair the composite. I suppose, in theory, Boeing could fly in an entire tail assembly on one of their Belugas but marrying those two sections without the required jigs would be very difficult. IMHO the aircraft will have to be flown to South Carolina for complete repair. I am not sure how you could do a temporary repair and make the plane safe enough for a trans-Atlantic ferry flight, presumably being flown by Boeing pilots.

It will ne interesting in the coming days to see what happens.



Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29674 posts, RR: 84
Reply 16, posted (9 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 19313 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 12):
Not quite – this incident is actually a strong argument for Airbus' construction with separately replaceable segments – in this case on an A350 you'd only have to replace the crown segment(s) if a patch should not be sufficient. In such a case Boeing may have to replace the entire barrel, maybe even the adjacent one as well if its structural strength is compromised enough.

If the damage is so extensive as to require a barrel swap, if the plane was an A350 I expect they'd have to pull the two sidewall panels in addition to the crown panel. A barrel swap might also be quicker than a panel (much less a three panel) swap due to the lower number of fasteners needing removal and replacement.

Using panels to improve repairability has always struck me as a red herring. IMO, Airbus went with panels because they are very familiar with the process (in Al) and they wanted to reduce risk. I expect there was some Intellectual Property issues, as well, but even if Airbus could have done the A350 with barrels, they likely would not have.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18757 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
If the damage is so extensive as to require a barrel swap, if the plane was an A350 I expect they'd have to pull the two sidewall panels in addition to the crown panel.

Why? there is no indication for that whatsoever. Heat rises up, and by all indications it is highly plausible that it remained concentrated just in the crown area above the cabin ceiling – the side panels in an A350 would most likely have remained unaffected.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
A barrel swap might also be quicker than a panel (much less a three panel) swap due to the lower number of fasteners needing removal and replacement.

Possible. But the structural re-certification would be at least as strenuous, plus all installations below the crown panel would have to be swapped over or be completely replaced vs. nothing to be done there on the A350 beyond reconnecting just everything actually attached to the crown panel.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
Using panels to improve repairability has always struck me as a red herring. IMO, Airbus went with panels because they are very familiar with the process (in Al) and they wanted to reduce risk. I expect there was some Intellectual Property issues, as well, but even if Airbus could have done the A350 with barrels, they likely would not have.

Do you really think replacing at least the tail section if not possibly even the barrel in front of that as well due to the damaged join would be cheaper, quicker and easier than swapping in one or two new crown panels on an A350?

I have some difficulty believing that.

You may get some cost savings in production (somewhere down the road) and some weight savings from the whole barrel construction, but this incident looks to be close to a worst case regarding repairability compared to the alternative.


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18689 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 10):
Quoting EK413 (Reply 5):
the aircraft is to be written off

I would not be surprised to see the aircraft return to service. In fact, I would be greatly surprised to not see it flying again

I never said the aircraft is to be written off. Various forums have made the claim & personally I believe the aircraft will be repaired just like QF A380 VH-OQA 'Nancy Bird'.

EK8413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineOllieJolly From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2012, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18578 times:

I guess if ET still have the receipt they can just send it back, I guess Boeing wouldn't pay for the postage & packaging but perhaps the airline could make a deal with Royal Mail as it would be some nice publicity for them.


Really though, I wondered this myself when I first saw it, because while it isn't "terminal" looking damage, it certainly looks non-airworthy, however I'm sure that things will already be in motion with regards to how ET will have it fixed, because I highly doubt the aircraft would be written off, especially with it being so new.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29674 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18478 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We have yet to confirm that the fuselage was actually opened to the elements. It's been suggested that what people are calling "holes" are actually just paint charring and the structure is still intact. The thickness of the stringers may very well have reduced the thermal transfer to the paint sufficiently to prevent it from being as charred.

[Edited 2013-07-14 16:04:16]

User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18446 times:

Quoting OllieJolly (Reply 19):
I highly doubt the aircraft would be written off, especially with it being so new.

New aircraft have been written off in the past.


A340-642(HGW) MSN 0856 [F-WWCJ] [EY]



EK8413

[Edited 2013-07-14 15:11:18]


Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24061 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18129 times:

Many aircraft have been repaired and returned to service after far more apparent damage than the ET 787.

A TWA 707-331B had the complete cockpit/nose section destroyed in a terrorist bombing at Damascus, Syria in 1969 after the aircraft was hijacked there on a flight from FCO to TLV. A Boeing team flew in a new nose section and repaired the aircraft and it spent another decade or more in TWA service.

Others that come to mind include the AC (still TCA then) DC-8-54F combi that was seriously damaged in a high speed rejected takeoff at LHR in 1963. It overran the runway by about 2,000 feet. A Douglas team repaired the aircraft over the next several months in a BOAC hangar at LHR.

There was also the JAL DC-8-62 that landed in San Francisco Bay about 2 miles short of the runway in 1968. It was repaired by UA and spent another 30 years or more in service, including many years as a freighter after JAL retired it.

There was also the JAL 747-200 that was blown off a snow-covered taxiway at ANC in 1975 and slid backwards down an embankment. A Boeing team also repaired that aircraft on-site in the open air. I recall at the time Boeing said it was their largest-ever on-site repair job.


User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3901 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 18010 times:

To be fair that EY bird was broken pretty cleany in two, with untold stresses on the fuselage.

Probably the best example of an entire "barrel" or section being replaced is N862RW, which was involved in a runway overrun and had its entire front fuselage replaced in CLE.



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 17969 times:

CFRP is just a building material...it's not voodoo. It's been used in aerospace for decades and has been repaired since its first ding.

While this may require more extensive repair than many other incidents, bigger repairs aren't impossible repairs. They can splice in stringers and use as much fuse sheet material as required. Splicing composite parts has been done forever.

Worse structural repairs have been done to aluminum aircraft and other composite structures...just not on a 787.

I'm really very surprised at the amount of 'how will Boeing fix/maintain the dreaded CFRP bits' fear mongering that takes place whenever anything brushes up against a 787.

They'll take as much skin, stringer bits, adhesives and fasteners as required to do the job and in the end, nobody will ever be able to tell it was ever injured at all.

The real important question is not, 'how will they fix it?', but 'how did it start?'...that's the worrying bit.



What the...?
25 Klaus : Is it really plausible that the structural integrity of the CFRP could have remained intact enough (particularly the resin component) even with the p
26 flylku : Sorry, cannot resist, and given what we know this answer is as good as any other: with 500 knot aviation grade duct tape.
27 Stitch : At this point t's no more or less probable than suggestions that the CFRP has been irrevocably and irreparably damaged considering we have no data to
28 Klaus : The external part of the damage is visible – and quite a few properties of materials involved are known. It's not entirely speculation (apart from
29 DocLightning : Transport is also easier, and smaller autoclaves can be used. That was an extreme situation with damage to just about every segment of the airframe.
30 DocLightning : Transport is also easier, and smaller autoclaves can be used. That was an extreme situation with damage to just about every segment of the airframe a
31 Skydrol : White spray paint. This way passengers will never see any burn damage evidence from the departure lounge, prior to boarding this airplane. LD4
32 zeke : The change of composite which are exposed to extreme heat like this called pyrolyzation. It can lead to composite fibers being exposed that are norma
33 Post contains links Goldenshield : Well, if the airline can't repair it, send in this guy! He's been repairing composites for years! http://www.alphazulucomposites.com/
34 davidho1985 : I believe this 787 will be repaired at any cost (even it is much more expensive than replace it with a new one). With the past incidents, both Boeing
35 nomadd22 : They could always start cutting patches for repairs like this out of LN003.
36 bikerthai : Even though the barrel is one "spunned" unit, the frames are not. It is logical that any large area repair will start at the frame splice. The barrel
37 CaptainKramer : I would be very surprised if the investigation by the AAIB of the Ethiopian B787 incident at LHR is not given the highest priority, given the aircraft
38 A380900 : I'm sure info and pics about this one are a closely guarded secret. I'd be surprised if Boeing opted for the "transparency mode" regarding the 787. T
39 Klaus : You think that the authorities would just let a plausibly dangerous design defect slide now? I think it's rather the opposite: Doing that would direc
40 Post contains links LTC8K6 : http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n...-known-787-hull-repair-easier.html Boeing was apparently able to fix a hole punched in the hull of a 787 by a c
41 A380900 : In a word: yes. I do not trust the authorities to make the right calls at this point. Put another way: I won't fly on this aircraft in the next few y
42 Klaus : Personally, I can see your point, but I still don't think that anybody would knowingly sign off on a dangerous defect especially now.
43 bikerthai : Good to hear. Would like more details. The article mentioned heat cure. But I thought that Boeing say that a bolted repair is still an option with th
44 Post contains links LTC8K6 : There's another article on repairing the 787. http://www.compositesworld.com/artic...-composite-repair-builds-on-basics
45 JHwk : It's not that hard to repair the damage. The hard part is to repair it with minimal additional weight. You could add a whole new aluminum frame inside
46 Klaus : Unless a local patch was not enough due to size and location – then it would just be a top panel in an A350 contrary to an entire barrel section fo
47 JoeCanuck : CFRP is not terribly different than fibreglass. In this case, it probably won't be laid up in place but will be repaired with a CRFP skin patch....of
48 Post contains links o0OOO0oChris : Sorry if already posted: Experts ponder how Ethiopian 787 can be repaired
49 JHwk : The life cycle issues I was referring to are fleet-wide, not this airframe. JoeCanuck did a much better job than I on explaining the process (about h
50 Post contains links LTC8K6 : JAL's 787 cfrp repair experiences: http://events.aviationweek.com/html/...203_COMPOSITES_HIROKI_FUKUYAMA.pdf
51 Post contains images bikerthai : Awesome presentation. Wished there was a complete presentation (with audio) available Lightning strike repair!! Well I guess other than the need to r
52 Klaus : I still don't see your point. That was my whole point all along: When a patch should not be enough (either because it would compromise weight and/or
53 Post contains links Stitch : The AAIB interim report makes no mention of the fire breaching the hull and Jon Ostrower at the WSJ is reporting the "a person familiar with the inves
54 Post contains images StressedOut : What a great presentation! It is a classic example of why the post production engineers at Boeing have such great respect for the folks over at JAL a
55 Starlionblue : I think people's personal experience of fiberglass, epoxy and so forth colors their impressions of it. CFRP just seems to brittle compared to good ol
56 Pellegrine : What does it matter!!!? If the laminate were compromised, as it appears to be, it needs to be replaced. We are talking on the order of 50-75 square f
57 bikerthai : I think the quote (second hand) infers that in order to have a burn through of the CFRP, the fire would have been greater, and underneath damage woul
58 Klaus : I can't see Ostrower's point either – A large skin area up top is heavily damaged, regardless of burn through or just excessive heat. That distinct
59 zeke : It might also be uninformed comment, a poster on another thread that claimed to be an insurance industry insider claimed it had already been declared
60 bikerthai : Replacing a barrel may be faster. Replacing a panel may be cheaper . . . it all becomes a trade. Typically even if we design using uni-direction mate
61 zeke : I think the panel would be more expensive, to design, build, test, and certify. Probably looking at 6 engineers 6 months, just to do the design and a
62 Klaus : The damage which actually caused enough damage to the outside of the fuselage to make the paint flake and char. But I would be very surprised if that
63 bikerthai : You wouldn't have to start from scratch. The basic panel configuration would be similar if not the same as the production barrel at the specific loca
64 nomadd22 : I wasn't joking before. The needed section could be cut out of one of the non salable test planes, with only the splice needing engineering.
65 airtechy : Unless you were planning on having to do this on multiple airplanes (heaven forbid!) wouldn't the engineering and tooling cost exceed the cost to just
66 HAWK21M : Have they concluded what caused the fire.....
67 Post contains links LTC8K6 : I keep seeing "pinched ELT wire" but I don't think that is official. Nor has it been explained if it means a wire connected to the ELT, or a wire int
68 Pygmalion : Not sure why this keeps coming up. There are lots of good repair stations and hangars at Heathrow where the airplane is. All you need to have to comp
69 Klaus : BA is a big and experienced Boeing customer and if I'm not mistaken their facilities at Heathrow routinely do all levels of checks on Boeing aircraft
70 zeke : Not even that, if you throw enough time and money at it. It does however require different people, tools, and processes than a metallic aircraft. The
71 ferpe : It shall be the internal wires from the 5 cell battery pack that one connect to the internal electronics that got pinched. Most probably that happene
72 Pygmalion : the only "precision tooling" are the wing and center box join tooling and even they don't register off the floor or rails. The tooling aligns to key
73 Pygmalion : SRM repairs are airline performed repairs that dont need Boeing coordination or additional Boeing approval. The size limit is only a limit on the pre
74 zeke : When was the last time the AOG team did a wet lay up or a scarf repair on a metallic aircraft ? Lets not forgot the need for breathing apparatus and
75 bikerthai : Can we all agree that this will not be a scarf and lay-up repair? This will be specially true if the stringer and frames are damaged by the heat. So i
76 HAWK21M : Why no cb tripped in this case.
77 Post contains images Klaus : Because the short was apparently directly in the cable coming from the batteries. And you're missing a question mark, if that was supposed to be a qu
78 Stitch : The ELT is not energized by the 787's electrical system, so perhaps there is no circuit-breaker to trip?
79 Klaus : There may well be some current limitation of some kind, but it would be on the circuit board – behind the cable that's been shorting out apparently
80 Post contains links Finn350 : Here is a NY Times article that quite nicely summarizes repair options http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/bu...r-repair-teams.html?pagewanted=all
81 Pygmalion : The 777 has CFRP floor beams, vertical fin and stabilizer. The AOG folks have been repairing them for years. They do both scarf and bolted repairs. r
82 bikerthai : No, but some places have more stringent OSHA standards than others. And while cured CFRP is relatively safe, burnt and charred CFRP is not as benign.
83 Aquila3 : Well, I wondered for a while how Honeywell did desisgn this ELT power supply. You have a battery (primary or not) of the size and energy able to dest
84 Klaus : Probably. But if you actually thought that far, you'd first eliminate the pinchable cable in the first place. Sloppy design enabling sloppy maintenan
85 Post contains images bikerthai : This is an easy thing to do now-a-day with CAD design and in-experienced designers. You model the the wire to route just so on the computer and don't
86 Post contains images Klaus : Indeed – but especially you learn how to avoid components which may become a risk, even if that can be tricky. The primary mistake here appears to
87 Post contains links LTC8K6 : There are versions of the batteries used in the ELT that have such protection built in, apparently. They can have PTC resettable fuses if you order t
88 Aquila3 : I have no doubts tha you are more informed than me on the subject at hand, but I would like to know why you say so. This ony for my cultural enrichme
89 Klaus : I don't see the disagreement, actually. I think we're pretty much on the same page overall.
90 LTC8K6 : I had never heard of PTC fuses/devices before looking up the ELT battery and reading the Wiki info. The Wiki article gives a couple of conditions tha
91 Post contains links BaconButty : This article confirms that the ELT had a current limiter that should have prevented the short circuit causing a fire - if indeed it did. http://seattl
92 theducks : QANTAS's VH-OJH repair was essentially a replacement of the front of a 747, performed with limited facilities in Thailand. There's a slide-deck going
93 Post contains images KELPkid : Murphy's law of electricity: A $5000 circuit will selflessly sacrifice itself in an effort to save a 5 cent fuse Fuses don't always work, and sometim
94 LTC8K6 : The short could have been before the current limiter, bypassing it.
95 BaconButty : Not if it was the "pinched wires" that caused the short. The polyswitch is usually located right by the batteries - sometimes heat shrinked in the pa
96 LTC8K6 : My research actually indicated that the ELT used the battery cells without the built in PTC device, suggesting that the protection device is part of t
97 LTC8K6 : Why is a carpet fiber company manufacturing ELT's for Honeywell?
98 LTC8K6 : It's also possible that the battery pack was replaced with a pack that was "equivalent", but not quite, with respect to overcurrent protection.
99 Post contains links LTC8K6 : http://www.mcssl.com/content/173388/HONEYWELL_SPARES/1096801-1.JPG Pack looks like that one with the pull tabs and the connector. Looks difficult to p
100 Post contains links BaconButty : I was going on the statements by the Honeywell spokesman, paraphrased by the Seattle Times: Granted, the fact he wasn't quoted directly leaves a bit
101 LTC8K6 : If you look through the pdf manual, at the illustration for replacing the pack, it looks difficult to pinch the wires between the cover and the case.
102 DocLightning : This mystifies me, too. There are hundreds (thousands?) of consumer electronic devices powered by Li-ion batteries that are user-replaceable. You pop
103 Post contains images Pellegrine : Does anyone have any real updates to this? There seems like a firewall between any real updates or disclosure.
104 aviatorcraig : Does anyone know where this airframe currently is? Shortly after the fire when the initial investigation by the AAIB was being undertaken, it could be
105 Post contains images KELPkid : LHR would be a pretty educated guess.... But as you know, airports are big places. ET is also a very secretive airline, and I don't think they would
106 Post contains images rcair1 : On Agreed - complacency versus conspiracy and negligence. I do - see the point. It goes to trying to infer the amount of damage from a severe lack of
107 Post contains images Klaus : At least nobody here who knows something is actually talking...!
108 Pellegrine : Maybe by year's end, or next spring we will find out. I don't think we'll know until after the a/c is back in service.
109 bristolflyer : How much is parking costing them in the meantime? And who pays for this - insurance?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic How Will The Ethiopian 787 Be Repaired?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will The 787/350 Be The Only CF Airplanes posted Wed Sep 26 2007 18:21:57 by Revo1059
Will The 787 And A350 Make The A380 Look Out Dated posted Mon Feb 22 2010 20:48:48 by 747400sp
What Approach Will The A380 Be Taking Into BHD? posted Sat Sep 5 2009 03:46:29 by Loughrey1
Will The B787 Be Flight Certified In 9 Months? posted Sat Feb 7 2009 15:04:12 by Keesje
What Will The Next Cessna Piston Be? posted Sat Nov 5 2005 12:25:11 by KBFIspotter
How Will Or How Did The A380 Handle Certification? posted Mon Jan 24 2005 20:34:23 by JumboJim747
When Will The A3XX Be Finished? posted Fri Nov 3 2000 15:18:13 by MD11man
Pilot Review: Flying The Boeing 787 posted Thu Dec 13 2012 11:05:33 by LAXintl
Cones On The Wings: 787 posted Wed Nov 14 2012 00:06:41 by dlramp4life
How Safe The Sky Is.. posted Tue Aug 14 2012 12:42:00 by ymincrement

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format