Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Sat Jul 17, 2021 12:54 pm

PA727 wrote:
spinotter wrote:
zeke wrote:
There was an AD issued last year aimed at oreveung this following an Ethiopian event in 2016, aparentky there is two holes next to each other that can accept the pin, the simple solution is to put a plug in the incorrect hole so there is only one correct place to place the pin.

Very simple elegant solution.

https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/2019-23- ... 19-23-07_1


An even more elegant solution - construct each of the two or more holes so that only the part meant to fill that hole fits. There could never be an error in that universe of holes.


You're right! I can't think of anything else on this planet that has two holes, in close proximity, with very different purposes. Oh, wait.....


Not always such different purposes. But surely we humans can do better than evolution when it comes to distinguishing the purposes of holes.
 
benbeny
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:19 pm

Revelation wrote:
zeke wrote:
This is not true, both FAA/EASA issued an AD last year for the incorrect hole to be plugged following the same issue causing an Ethiopian 787 nose wheel to collapse, a copy of the AD is posted reply 55.

If the AD had been carried out by BA, the mechanics stature would be irrelevant, only one hold would have been open. The simple action required under the AD is to plug the incorrect hole.

Also many tasks are not performed directly by the mechanic in charge, they are performed "under supervision", even if the mechanic could not physically reach it, he would have been able to see it inserted in the incorrect location if they properly supervised the task.

The AAIB report ( https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-sp ... 7-8-g-zbjb ) points out there was a Lead Engineer and two mechanics (Mech 1, the shorter one and Mech 2, the taller one) involved. Mech 1 pointed to where the NLG pin was supposed to go, Mech 2 installed it. Presumably if he could see the location well enough to point, he could have also visually confirmed Mech 2 put the pin into the right hole. By the time they did the pins for the MLG they had portable steps and Mech 1 was doing the installation with Mech 2 observing.

The report doesn't indicate if the crew consulted any documentation on exactly where the pin was supposed to go or if they went by memory or intuition.

Seems everyone involved could have done a better job. Inserting gear pins is common enough during maintenance, it should have been made more fool proof right from the start. The regulators saw that it happened in the field and issued an AD but with three years to comply. The operator just went with that recommendation despite presumably considering the costly Ethiopian incident and its aftermath. Insurers perhaps should have been involved too, they are the ones footing the bill. The crew doing the work must have had some understanding of the peril of getting it wrong yet they did end up getting it wrong.

Boeing should've designed that hole to be available for access by shorter person too, I think Boeing made questionable design choice this time.
Plugging the other hole is simple, yet only lately implemented and with $2k price tag, while you can probably order that part wholesale from Chinese suppliers for under $10 each. The design choice not to cover that hole and the cost difference is questionable.
 
estorilm
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:40 pm

benbeny wrote:
Revelation wrote:
zeke wrote:
This is not true, both FAA/EASA issued an AD last year for the incorrect hole to be plugged following the same issue causing an Ethiopian 787 nose wheel to collapse, a copy of the AD is posted reply 55.

If the AD had been carried out by BA, the mechanics stature would be irrelevant, only one hold would have been open. The simple action required under the AD is to plug the incorrect hole.

Also many tasks are not performed directly by the mechanic in charge, they are performed "under supervision", even if the mechanic could not physically reach it, he would have been able to see it inserted in the incorrect location if they properly supervised the task.

The AAIB report ( https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-sp ... 7-8-g-zbjb ) points out there was a Lead Engineer and two mechanics (Mech 1, the shorter one and Mech 2, the taller one) involved. Mech 1 pointed to where the NLG pin was supposed to go, Mech 2 installed it. Presumably if he could see the location well enough to point, he could have also visually confirmed Mech 2 put the pin into the right hole. By the time they did the pins for the MLG they had portable steps and Mech 1 was doing the installation with Mech 2 observing.

The report doesn't indicate if the crew consulted any documentation on exactly where the pin was supposed to go or if they went by memory or intuition.

Seems everyone involved could have done a better job. Inserting gear pins is common enough during maintenance, it should have been made more fool proof right from the start. The regulators saw that it happened in the field and issued an AD but with three years to comply. The operator just went with that recommendation despite presumably considering the costly Ethiopian incident and its aftermath. Insurers perhaps should have been involved too, they are the ones footing the bill. The crew doing the work must have had some understanding of the peril of getting it wrong yet they did end up getting it wrong.

Boeing should've designed that hole to be available for access by shorter person too, I think Boeing made questionable design choice this time.
Plugging the other hole is simple, yet only lately implemented and with $2k price tag, while you can probably order that part wholesale from Chinese suppliers for under $10 each. The design choice not to cover that hole and the cost difference is questionable.

The whole thing is ridiculous to me - why not PAINT THE PIN YELLOW and paint a YELLOW CIRCLE around the correct bore / hole location? It would be immediately apparent to even the most brain dead and sleep-deprived mechanic which one to put it in. Ideally the bores shouldn't be even remotely similar as well. This is just engineering 101 from my perspective. Someone designed all this stuff and it never crossed their mind that people would be doing this kinda stuff on a daily basis for decades - a GOOD engineer would say "hey, this is a potential idiot-proofing measure we can take here". THAT is what makes a better product in my mind - intangibles like this which no one thinks about, but when you see them you say "wow, someone really had their head on straight when they built this thing".
 
bennett123
Posts: 10866
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 8:13 pm

https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20050806-0

I thought this issue sounded familiar.

Only in that case it was a FQI. Due to poor design, you could fit the FQI for an ATR42 onto an ATR72.
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 8:18 pm

estorilm wrote:
benbeny wrote:
Revelation wrote:
The AAIB report ( https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-sp ... 7-8-g-zbjb ) points out there was a Lead Engineer and two mechanics (Mech 1, the shorter one and Mech 2, the taller one) involved. Mech 1 pointed to where the NLG pin was supposed to go, Mech 2 installed it. Presumably if he could see the location well enough to point, he could have also visually confirmed Mech 2 put the pin into the right hole. By the time they did the pins for the MLG they had portable steps and Mech 1 was doing the installation with Mech 2 observing.

The report doesn't indicate if the crew consulted any documentation on exactly where the pin was supposed to go or if they went by memory or intuition.

Seems everyone involved could have done a better job. Inserting gear pins is common enough during maintenance, it should have been made more fool proof right from the start. The regulators saw that it happened in the field and issued an AD but with three years to comply. The operator just went with that recommendation despite presumably considering the costly Ethiopian incident and its aftermath. Insurers perhaps should have been involved too, they are the ones footing the bill. The crew doing the work must have had some understanding of the peril of getting it wrong yet they did end up getting it wrong.

Boeing should've designed that hole to be available for access by shorter person too, I think Boeing made questionable design choice this time.
Plugging the other hole is simple, yet only lately implemented and with $2k price tag, while you can probably order that part wholesale from Chinese suppliers for under $10 each. The design choice not to cover that hole and the cost difference is questionable.

The whole thing is ridiculous to me - why not PAINT THE PIN YELLOW and paint a YELLOW CIRCLE around the correct bore / hole location? It would be immediately apparent to even the most brain dead and sleep-deprived mechanic which one to put it in. Ideally the bores shouldn't be even remotely similar as well. This is just engineering 101 from my perspective. Someone designed all this stuff and it never crossed their mind that people would be doing this kinda stuff on a daily basis for decades - a GOOD engineer would say "hey, this is a potential idiot-proofing measure we can take here". THAT is what makes a better product in my mind - intangibles like this which no one thinks about, but when you see them you say "wow, someone really had their head on straight when they built this thing".


Paint will still leave you open to this risk. The most effective way is to make the gear pin the biggest so that when you go to install the pin it will only fit in one hole. Yes you can still fuck that up with effort, but at that point you have to require a lot of effort.
Oh, and stick the damn hole in a place that a people within couple of standard deviations of average height can visually see it without needing a ladder. You can't cover everyone, but it should be doable to cover 95% of people for something as safety vital as this.
 
TUGMASTER
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:56 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:56 pm

.[/quote]
The whole thing is ridiculous to me - why not PAINT THE PIN YELLOW and paint a YELLOW CIRCLE around the correct bore / hole location? ".[/quote]


If I remember correctly, wasn’t the 747 NLG hole Also painted…?, trouble was, it was so dark and dirty up there, unless you knew exactly where to put it, you’d be literally stabbing in the dark for ages….
And those nose well lights…. I’ve seen brighter shoes .!

And to the poster that said put it somewhere it can be seen, it’s very visible from the ground.
And if I’m not mistaken, procedures state you put the pin in from the left side on a 787, which makes it impossible to put it in the wrong hole as the left side has a retaining nut.

Looking back at the aircraft, as if you were gonna put a bar on it

Just my 2cents
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26681
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:10 pm

I'm not sure the designer has much say on the height of the pin above ground, it's a mechanical linkage and the gear's gotta fit into the wheel well, it's not like s/he's got N degrees of freedom on the pin location.

As one of my co-workers likes to say, when man makes something idiot proof, God invents a better idiot.
 
TUGMASTER
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:56 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:25 pm

Revelation wrote:

As one of my co-workers likes to say, when man makes something idiot proof, God invents a better idiot.


And this is why we need like buttons on this site.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8974
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:17 pm

TUGMASTER wrote:
Revelation wrote:

As one of my co-workers likes to say, when man makes something idiot proof, God invents a better idiot.


And this is why we need like buttons on this site.

Another variant is, the trouble with idiots is they’re so damn clever
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Mon Jul 19, 2021 11:29 pm

Revelation wrote:
I'm not sure the designer has much say on the height of the pin above ground, it's a mechanical linkage and the gear's gotta fit into the wheel well, it's not like s/he's got N degrees of freedom on the pin location.

As one of my co-workers likes to say, when man makes something idiot proof, God invents a better idiot.


I understand what you mean but I think it's also a bit of a cop out.

I'm a software dev so I'm very used to users doing absolutely magical things to make systems break. However that does not mean I get to give up. I have to develop code and systems that make the right way to do a thing the easiest way to do a thing. Remember, people will always choose the easiest path. So for safety critical and/or common processes you do what you can to make the right way to do something the easiest way.

You can see this in aircraft design with stuff like the PFD showing the core flight data, or with Airbus having the philosophy of overhead panel being good if lights are off. Make it easy to do the right thing. It isn't perfect but it makes things a hell of a lot better.
 
benbeny
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Thu Jul 22, 2021 3:17 am

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
estorilm wrote:
benbeny wrote:
Boeing should've designed that hole to be available for access by shorter person too, I think Boeing made questionable design choice this time.
Plugging the other hole is simple, yet only lately implemented and with $2k price tag, while you can probably order that part wholesale from Chinese suppliers for under $10 each. The design choice not to cover that hole and the cost difference is questionable.

The whole thing is ridiculous to me - why not PAINT THE PIN YELLOW and paint a YELLOW CIRCLE around the correct bore / hole location? It would be immediately apparent to even the most brain dead and sleep-deprived mechanic which one to put it in. Ideally the bores shouldn't be even remotely similar as well. This is just engineering 101 from my perspective. Someone designed all this stuff and it never crossed their mind that people would be doing this kinda stuff on a daily basis for decades - a GOOD engineer would say "hey, this is a potential idiot-proofing measure we can take here". THAT is what makes a better product in my mind - intangibles like this which no one thinks about, but when you see them you say "wow, someone really had their head on straight when they built this thing".


Paint will still leave you open to this risk. The most effective way is to make the gear pin the biggest so that when you go to install the pin it will only fit in one hole. Yes you can still fuck that up with effort, but at that point you have to require a lot of effort.
Oh, and stick the damn hole in a place that a people within couple of standard deviations of average height can visually see it without needing a ladder. You can't cover everyone, but it should be doable to cover 95% of people for something as safety vital as this.

I agree, 95% reach should be achievable standard for regular maintenance. Making different sized hole or plugging other hole is simple solution too. Bad design choice, should've been predicted before.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26681
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:46 pm

Now that the horse is out of the barn...

British Airways had published a technical leaflet regarding nose-gear lock pin installation in April 2020, three months after the FAA directive, highlighting the correct and incorrect positions. This was re-issued the following December, with an expiry date of 9 June – nine days before the Heathrow event.

The aircraft involved, G-ZBJB, had not undergone the modification. It sustained substantial damage from the nose-gear retraction, not least because, as the jet sank, one of its forward left-hand passenger doors was almost completely torn off by mobile stairs positioned at the open exit.

British Airways plans to “expedite” implementation of the modification in the aftermath of the event, says the Air Accidents Investigation Branch.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/ba- ... 44.article
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2864
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:24 pm

Have they started repairs on this bird yet?
 
FlyingHonu001
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:33 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Thu Jul 22, 2021 3:30 pm

Revelation wrote:
Now that the horse is out of the barn...

British Airways had published a technical leaflet regarding nose-gear lock pin installation in April 2020, three months after the FAA directive, highlighting the correct and incorrect positions. This was re-issued the following December, with an expiry date of 9 June – nine days before the Heathrow event.
retrae
The aircraft involved, G-ZBJB, had not undergone the modification. It sustained substantial damage from the nose-gear retraction, not least because, as the jet sank, one of its forward left-hand passenger doors was almost completely torn off by mobile stairs positioned at the open exit.

British Airways plans to “expedite” implementation of the modification in the aftermath of the event, says the Air Accidents Investigation Branch.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/ba- ... 44.article


A technical briefing to engineers and mechanics explaining the functionality of both holes should be suffice instead of making timeconsuming modifications imho...That should make them think twice into sticking the correct pin in the correct hole.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3299
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Thu Jul 22, 2021 3:37 pm

Revelation wrote:
Now that the horse is out of the barn...

British Airways had published a technical leaflet regarding nose-gear lock pin installation in April 2020, three months after the FAA directive, highlighting the correct and incorrect positions. This was re-issued the following December, with an expiry date of 9 June – nine days before the Heathrow event.

The aircraft involved, G-ZBJB, had not undergone the modification. It sustained substantial damage from the nose-gear retraction, not least because, as the jet sank, one of its forward left-hand passenger doors was almost completely torn off by mobile stairs positioned at the open exit.

British Airways plans to “expedite” implementation of the modification in the aftermath of the event, says the Air Accidents Investigation Branch.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/ba- ... 44.article

If anything, my takehome message is that bureaucratic safety doesn't always translate into safety on the ground.
Had the sealant-fill version been accepted, work would be done much quicker and an accident would be avoided. But the regulator demanded a better solution...
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:23 pm

FlyingHonu001 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Now that the horse is out of the barn...

British Airways had published a technical leaflet regarding nose-gear lock pin installation in April 2020, three months after the FAA directive, highlighting the correct and incorrect positions. This was re-issued the following December, with an expiry date of 9 June – nine days before the Heathrow event.
retrae
The aircraft involved, G-ZBJB, had not undergone the modification. It sustained substantial damage from the nose-gear retraction, not least because, as the jet sank, one of its forward left-hand passenger doors was almost completely torn off by mobile stairs positioned at the open exit.

British Airways plans to “expedite” implementation of the modification in the aftermath of the event, says the Air Accidents Investigation Branch.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/ba- ... 44.article


A technical briefing to engineers and mechanics explaining the functionality of both holes should be suffice instead of making timeconsuming modifications imho...That should make them think twice into sticking the correct pin in the correct hole.


People don't work like that. No matter how well trained or well intentioned people are, they'll make mistakes. That includes you and me too. This is why fields like Human Computer Interaction exist. Why keyed connectors were created. Why checklists were created. Humans are fallible. So system designers must take this into account and create systems that guide and encourage people to do the right thing and discourage the wrong thing.
 
TC957
Posts: 4127
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Sat Aug 07, 2021 8:36 pm

Apparently ZBJB is going to get scrapped. Must have had quite a bang coming down on it's nose then.
Any BA insiders confirm ?
 
JohanTally
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Sat Aug 07, 2021 11:29 pm

TC957 wrote:
Apparently ZBJB is going to get scrapped. Must have had quite a bang coming down on it's nose then.
Any BA insiders confirm ?

If that's the case what a monumental accident. How much would it have costed to retrofit the wrong hole with the plug instead they might be writing off a 787. Currently it shows as the only BA 787 that is parked.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14160
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:17 am

TC957 wrote:
Apparently ZBJB is going to get scrapped.

Why apparently? Where's that info coming from?
 
FlyingHonu001
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:33 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Sun Aug 08, 2021 3:33 pm

Its not surprising, all major carriers are still in recovery mode after 2020. Decommissioning aircraft in order to save some pennies might be a good thing in the long run...
 
TUGMASTER
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:56 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Sun Aug 08, 2021 4:17 pm

FlyingHonu001 wrote:
Its not surprising, all major carriers are still in recovery mode after 2020. Decommissioning aircraft in order to save some pennies might be a good thing in the long run...


Should "JB" be parted out, its not because BA are still in recovery mode and wanting to save pennies, its because the aircraft is beyond economical repair. I'm sure Boeing would not want to see the 1st 787 written off thru.
 
miegapele
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 12:24 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Sun Aug 08, 2021 9:18 pm

They repaired ethiopian but can't fix this? Planes seems to be threated as disposable items these days, it seems.
 
AllNippon767
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:17 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Sun Aug 08, 2021 9:28 pm

In any case, lets not forget that at the moment, 'scrapping' is simply rumours until it is confirmed that is indeed going to be scrapped.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26681
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Sun Aug 08, 2021 9:38 pm

I guess this shows how powerful the 'power of suggestion' is.

Take a deep breath, step back and ask yourself how a parked aircraft that has its nose gear raised is going to end up 'beyond economic repair'.

Please tell me how the accountants at BA and/or their insurance company would come to that conclusion.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16355
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:18 pm

Revelation wrote:

Please tell me how the accountants at BA and/or their insurance company would come to that conclusion.


According to the AAIB bulletin the procedure was not correctly followed, I doubt an insurer would pay for this.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3299
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:26 pm

zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Please tell me how the accountants at BA and/or their insurance company would come to that conclusion.


According to the AAIB bulletin the procedure was not correctly followed, I doubt an insurer would pay for this.

Whoever pays, it is about the value of a used aircraft minus costs of repairs vs value of spare parts.
If, for any reason, BA (or insurance) believes that aircraft will be a lower value and parts are of a high value, then scrapping may be reasonable.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14160
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:58 am

zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Please tell me how the accountants at BA and/or their insurance company would come to that conclusion.

According to the AAIB bulletin the procedure was not correctly followed, I doubt an insurer would pay for this.

This raises a question that I've wondered for a while:

    When an airframe is damaged in an accident deemed pilot/operator error, does insurance pay out on the damaged ship itself?

If so, is it a contractual term, a supplementary coverage, or a legal obligation that causes them to do so?

I'm asking this more in the context of a wing clip, or low-speed pavement overrun; something that doesn't necessarily amount to a total loss and write-off.
 
jbmitt
Posts: 688
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 3:59 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Mon Aug 09, 2021 1:31 am

Insurers cover stupid all the time. It comes down to the covered perils and the contract.

It’s likely covered. It would look bad if they denied coverage for every instance of operator error. What’s the point of insurance then?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 14160
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Mon Aug 09, 2021 2:33 am

jbmitt wrote:
It would look bad if they denied coverage for every instance of operator error. What’s the point of insurance then?

My thoughts as well.

I once worked in fleet auto sales back in the day, and we encouraged all of our customers to purchase supplemental insurances (not from us, just in general) that covered all manner of scenarios, many of which would be the result of negligent/frolicking/errant actions by employees.

They'd cover just about anything, if you paid upfront for supplementary.
I'd be surprised if such a thing didn't exist for airlines, though I don't know that for fact.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2448
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Mon Aug 09, 2021 2:45 pm

zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:

Please tell me how the accountants at BA and/or their insurance company would come to that conclusion.


According to the AAIB bulletin the procedure was not correctly followed, I doubt an insurer would pay for this.

It'd be very surprising; don't aircraft insurance have the equivalent of "full coverage" in the automotive industry? If I crash and total my car by my own fault, my insurance company will pay for its market value, minus deductible; I suspect it's the same in the aviation industry.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16355
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:27 am

WayexTDI wrote:
It'd be very surprising; don't aircraft insurance have the equivalent of "full coverage" in the automotive industry? If I crash and total my car by my own fault, my insurance company will pay for its market value, minus deductible; I suspect it's the same in the aviation industry.


I have owned my own aircraft that were insured, one was involved in a mishap during maintenance where it came off the supporting jacks.

My insurer would not pay as the aircraft was not being operated, and as it was having work done to it it was not airworthy at the time.

So the claim was denied as it was not within the normal operation of an aircraft, and two it did not meet the definition of aircraft under the policy, ie being airworthy.

That is not similar to a roadworthy vehicle being operated as a vehicle having an accident.
 
audidudi
Posts: 2988
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:35 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 5:00 am

zeke wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
It'd be very surprising; don't aircraft insurance have the equivalent of "full coverage" in the automotive industry? If I crash and total my car by my own fault, my insurance company will pay for its market value, minus deductible; I suspect it's the same in the aviation industry.


I have owned my own aircraft that were insured, one was involved in a mishap during maintenance where it came off the supporting jacks.

My insurer would not pay as the aircraft was not being operated, and as it was having work done to it it was not airworthy at the time.

So the claim was denied as it was not within the normal operation of an aircraft, and two it did not meet the definition of aircraft under the policy, ie being airworthy.

That is not similar to a roadworthy vehicle being operated as a vehicle having an accident.

The same thing then applies if your car was in a bodyshop/garage being worked on, and it fell off the hoist...the garage would be responsible and their insurance would cover the damage...hopefully!
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:46 am

JohanTally wrote:
I suspect that the wrong hole also serves a purpose which is why it's there in the first place.

Heinkel wrote:
What is the reason for the second "wrong" hole?

Most pivot pins are hollow for weight saving. A solid pin would not only be heavy but far stronger than required.

LAX772LR wrote:
So then, how high up is the pin?

WayexTDI wrote:
Can someone chime in and tell us how high that hole is?

I had a check on a 787 the other day. I'm just under 6" with my boots on, and the pin location was still about 15 cm above my outstretched hand. I usually stand on the tow fitting or wheel rim to fit the downlock pin.

benbeny wrote:
Boeing should've designed that hole to be available for access by shorter person too, I think Boeing made questionable design choice this time.

It would detrimentally compromise the design of an airliner to make it completely ergonomically correct for maintenance. The 787 nose gear downlock hole is actually one of the lowest I've worked on. Most are much higher. The 747 requires you to use a four foot long pole in your outstretched hand to insert the pin.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Oh, and stick the damn hole in a place that a people within couple of standard deviations of average height can visually see it without needing a ladder. You can't cover everyone, but it should be doable to cover 95% of people for something as safety vital as this.

It's not just height that matters. Wheel wells often get very narrow so it can be hard to see the pin hole even if not too high from the ground. The 737 downlock hole is very close to the ground but for that reason, a pain to get to as you have to stoop so low and get between the nose gear door and gear itself.

Regards, JetMech
 
DartHerald
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:08 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:10 am

jetmech wrote:
I had a check on a 787 the other day. I'm just under 6" with my boots on, and the pin location was still about 15 cm above my outstretched hand. I usually stand on the tow fitting or wheel rim to fit the downlock pin.


You must be the leprechaun who maintains the Aer Lingus fleet!
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 9:50 am

DartHerald wrote:
You must be the leprechaun who maintains the Aer Lingus fleet!

LOL, 6' !

Regards, JetMech
 
celestar345
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 5:35 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 10:32 am

FlyingHonu001 wrote:
A technical briefing to engineers and mechanics explaining the functionality of both holes should be suffice instead of making timeconsuming modifications imho...That should make them think twice into sticking the correct pin in the correct hole.


The Human Factor Dirty Dozen + Murphy's Law = Unless it's physically impossible to do it people will still do it. (And will still attempt despite being physically impossible)

It wasn't the first time it happened - even before Ethiopian there was one 787 suffered the same fate when fitting out as a business jet. No surprise the customer instantly rejected the aircraft....

I did (probably) the same operational check requiring apply hydraulic power and putting the landing gear lever to up position. Three engineers and two mechanics each checked and verified the correct downlock pin installation and we cleared the cabin during the test.

I think the said aircraft would be repaired - remember the Scoot 787 where the upper wing surface was damaged by a Emirates A380 at Singapore a few years ago. Boeing got it repaired and kept all the information to themselves. Seems like nowadays any major damage repair they would only let their AOG team to do the repair work.
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 3100
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 10:47 am

celestar345 wrote:
I think the said aircraft would be repaired - remember the Scoot 787 where the upper wing surface was damaged by a Emirates A380 at Singapore a few years ago. Boeing got it repaired and kept all the information to themselves. Seems like nowadays any major damage repair they would only let their AOG team to do the repair work.


Im sure it could be repaired, but I guess BA and their insurer would take the following into account
G-ZBJB has a relatively low line number, 111 and is already 8 years old (time flies!). The -8 is already the much less popular model compared to the -9, global pandemic has meant that a lot of aircraft values have reduced. BA might be able to get a fresh replacement from Boeing for a very favourable amount, take a white-tail or even an ex Norwegian aircraft. BA might have credits with Boeing for the -10 delivery delays and RR for the engines. To design and cost a bespoke Boeing AOG repair is one thing when there is a shortage of wide-body aircraft, with the wide body market as it currently is, it may not make sense.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2448
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:10 pm

audidudi wrote:
zeke wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
It'd be very surprising; don't aircraft insurance have the equivalent of "full coverage" in the automotive industry? If I crash and total my car by my own fault, my insurance company will pay for its market value, minus deductible; I suspect it's the same in the aviation industry.


I have owned my own aircraft that were insured, one was involved in a mishap during maintenance where it came off the supporting jacks.

My insurer would not pay as the aircraft was not being operated, and as it was having work done to it it was not airworthy at the time.

So the claim was denied as it was not within the normal operation of an aircraft, and two it did not meet the definition of aircraft under the policy, ie being airworthy.

That is not similar to a roadworthy vehicle being operated as a vehicle having an accident.

The same thing then applies if your car was in a bodyshop/garage being worked on, and it fell off the hoist...the garage would be responsible and their insurance would cover the damage...hopefully!

It will be covered.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2448
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:11 pm

zeke wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
It'd be very surprising; don't aircraft insurance have the equivalent of "full coverage" in the automotive industry? If I crash and total my car by my own fault, my insurance company will pay for its market value, minus deductible; I suspect it's the same in the aviation industry.


I have owned my own aircraft that were insured, one was involved in a mishap during maintenance where it came off the supporting jacks.

My insurer would not pay as the aircraft was not being operated, and as it was having work done to it it was not airworthy at the time.

So the claim was denied as it was not within the normal operation of an aircraft, and two it did not meet the definition of aircraft under the policy, ie being airworthy.

That is not similar to a roadworthy vehicle being operated as a vehicle having an accident.

Hold on a second: an aircraft at the gate in between fight is considered not airworthy and outside of normal operation???
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12169
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:17 pm

zeke wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
It'd be very surprising; don't aircraft insurance have the equivalent of "full coverage" in the automotive industry? If I crash and total my car by my own fault, my insurance company will pay for its market value, minus deductible; I suspect it's the same in the aviation industry.


I have owned my own aircraft that were insured, one was involved in a mishap during maintenance where it came off the supporting jacks.

My insurer would not pay as the aircraft was not being operated, and as it was having work done to it it was not airworthy at the time.

So the claim was denied as it was not within the normal operation of an aircraft, and two it did not meet the definition of aircraft under the policy, ie being airworthy.

That is not similar to a roadworthy vehicle being operated as a vehicle having an accident.

There is a big difference in insurance between a private aircraft owned by a private individual and a commercial aircraft owned and operated by a company. Perhaps you should have gone after the maintenance provider’s insurance rather than your own.

Insurance will cover this, along with other operator mishaps. If mishaps too frequent an occurrence their insurance company will drop them or up their rates just like private auto insurance.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16355
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:58 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Hold on a second: an aircraft at the gate in between fight is considered not airworthy and outside of normal operation???


It was on a remote stand undergoing maintenance, that is evidenced by the nose wheel collapse. It had an open defect which was being worked on, that makes it unairworthy. The defect needs to be either cleared, a MEL applied, or similar before the aircraft could be released for flight.

Polot wrote:
There is a big difference in insurance between a private aircraft owned by a private individual and a commercial aircraft owned and operated by a company. Perhaps you should have gone after the maintenance provider’s insurance rather than your own.


The aircraft was owned under a standalone LLC (which is common), it was operated commercially, I never actually flew it. It’s all fine to say go after someone else, however it still will cost legal fees. Going via my insurer means my insurer would have looked after the legal side.
 
Vicenza
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:00 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
Hold on a second: an aircraft at the gate in between fight is considered not airworthy and outside of normal operation???


Incorrect. It was not at a gate, nor between flights. It was undegoing maint at the time.
 
User avatar
gdg9
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:42 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:25 pm

Has anyone confirmed it will be scrapped? Wow.
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2680
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:52 pm

Vicenza wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Hold on a second: an aircraft at the gate in between fight is considered not airworthy and outside of normal operation???


Incorrect. It was not at a gate, nor between flights. It was undegoing maint at the time.


Incorrect. It was being loaded for a flight to Frankfurt, with pilots on board at the time of the occurrence on stand 583. Lots of routine maintenance goes on during turnaround.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1214
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 5:49 pm

gdg9 wrote:
Has anyone confirmed it will be scrapped? Wow.

No one has confirmed this and most people seem to believe that is not true.


Some believe it is impossible that this simple incident could lead to scrappage - but others are arguing that it is improbable to unlikely.
 
User avatar
gdg9
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:42 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 5:57 pm

ADent wrote:
gdg9 wrote:
Has anyone confirmed it will be scrapped? Wow.

No one has confirmed this and most people seem to believe that is not true.


Some believe it is impossible that this simple incident could lead to scrappage - but others are arguing that it is improbable to unlikely.


Perhaps when an excavator is seen at LHR it may be confirmed!
 
ZaphodHarkonnen
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:20 am

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Tue Aug 10, 2021 10:20 pm

jetmech wrote:
JohanTally wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Oh, and stick the damn hole in a place that a people within couple of standard deviations of average height can visually see it without needing a ladder. You can't cover everyone, but it should be doable to cover 95% of people for something as safety vital as this.

It's not just height that matters. Wheel wells often get very narrow so it can be hard to see the pin hole even if not too high from the ground. The 737 downlock hole is very close to the ground but for that reason, a pain to get to as you have to stoop so low and get between the nose gear door and gear itself.

Regards, JetMech


Cheers.

At a minimum it should be easy to visually verify by people in a standard range of height. Even if they have to step back a bit. Of course BA should have also applied the change to block the wrong hole so the mistake could not have been made in the first place.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16355
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Wed Aug 11, 2021 2:03 am

Crosswind wrote:
Incorrect. It was being loaded for a flight to Frankfurt, with pilots on board at the time of the occurrence on stand 583. Lots of routine maintenance goes on during turnaround.


Routine maintenance be is a transit check, a 72 hr check, or clearing defects means the aircraft is unairworthy at that time, those tasks need to be formally completed following the published procedures and then the aircraft is released for flight, only after the aircraft is released for flight can the captain accept the aircraft. The presence of loading or pilots does not make it is airworthy. The fact that is ended up on its nose during a maintenance procedure is very strong evidence that is it not airworthy.

gdg9 wrote:
Perhaps when an excavator is seen at LHR it may be confirmed!


Not for a composite aircraft in the UK, dismantling would need to be performed in a way the fibers are not exposed to workers. That would involve some form of water cutter.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2448
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Wed Aug 11, 2021 2:45 am

zeke wrote:
Crosswind wrote:
Incorrect. It was being loaded for a flight to Frankfurt, with pilots on board at the time of the occurrence on stand 583. Lots of routine maintenance goes on during turnaround.


Routine maintenance be is a transit check, a 72 hr check, or clearing defects means the aircraft is unairworthy at that time, those tasks need to be formally completed following the published procedures and then the aircraft is released for flight, only after the aircraft is released for flight can the captain accept the aircraft. The presence of loading or pilots does not make it is airworthy. The fact that is ended up on its nose during a maintenance procedure is very strong evidence that is it not airworthy.

An aircraft seeing its nose gear retract is no indication of the lack of airworthiness of the aircraft: it has happened many times before when there was no maintenance being performed, just by not following the proper procedures.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16355
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: BA 787-8 Nosewheel collapse at LHR

Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:40 am

WayexTDI wrote:
An aircraft seeing its nose gear retract is no indication of the lack of airworthiness of the aircraft: it has happened many times before when there was no maintenance being performed, just by not following the proper procedures.


I can guarantee you that an aircraft like the 787 sitting on its nose is not airworthy.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos