Another 787 incident

[Roland Perry]

On maiden (resumed) flight, apparently:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760
--
Roland Perry
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
mt...@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Roland Perry wrote:
> On maiden (resumed) flight, apparently:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760

This was near the tail section and the roof portion of fuselage was
burned/badly damaged. Does not appear to be battery related.

The is the big test on whether the all composite single piece fuselage
sections can be repaired. Airbus argued that its more traditional
panels riveted onto structure makes repairs easier than a single piece
fuselage section.

Anyone know whether they intend to fix the burned section of fuselage ?
Or will they write off the fuselage, strip the plane down and use parts
to build a new one ?

[Roland Perry]

In message <51EFEB24...@vaxination.ca>, at 10:56:36 on Wed, 24 Jul
2013, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> remarked:

>> On maiden (resumed) flight, apparently:
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760
>
>This was near the tail section and the roof portion of fuselage was
>burned/badly damaged. Does not appear to be battery related.

Originally said to be a coffee pot in the galley, later reports said it
was the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT). The only energy inside such
a transmitter is presumably from a battery (they are independent of the
plane's regular systems, for obvious reasons).
--
Roland Perry

[JF Mezei]

On 13-07-12 16:05, Roland Perry wrote:

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760

The British AAIB's bulleting requesting inspections of ELTs or turning
them off.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S5-2013%20ET-AOP.pdf


Mr Perry was correct, the ELT did it ! A Honeywell ELT�

Boeing said it had asked operators of 717, Next-Generation 737, 747-400,
767 and 777 airplanes to inspect aircraft.



The AAIB recommends ELTs on 787s to be made "inert" until investigation
is complete.

Is this the only ELT on the aircraft and if so, does this mean that in
the even of a crash, there would be no ELT signal at all ? (in fairness,
have ELTs helped in any of recent aircraft crashes ?)

[Uwe Klein]

JF Mezei wrote:
> On 13-07-12 16:05, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760
>
>
> The British AAIB's bulleting requesting inspections of ELTs or turning
> them off.
>
> http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S5-2013%20ET-AOP.pdf
>
>

> Mr Perry was correct, the ELT did it ! A Honeywell ELTé

>
> Boeing said it had asked operators of 717, Next-Generation 737, 747-400,
> 767 and 777 airplanes to inspect aircraft.

The 787 probably is the only use case where ELT batteries had to be
replaced early in the lifecycle ( customers requiring the full battery
lifetime on their new planes. ) on a regular basis.

Thus probably a combination of less than optimal design ( the design allows
pinching ) and
"make haste" workmanship at Boeing ( or whoever changed the batteries there )

uwe

[JF Mezei]

On 13-07-30 08:04, Uwe Klein wrote:

> The 787 probably is the only use case where ELT batteries had to be
> replaced early in the lifecycle ( customers requiring the full battery
> lifetime on their new planes. ) on a regular basis.
>
> Thus probably a combination of less than optimal design ( the design allows
> pinching ) and
> "make haste" workmanship at Boeing ( or whoever changed the batteries there )

If the ELT used on the 787 is used exclusively on the 787, why did
Boeing include a whole bunch of other aircraft in the AD ?

From a PR point of view, I could see Boeing including the other aircraft
in order to not focus on 787 problems. But that would cost airline
operators a lot of money to disconnect all those ELTs until more study
is done all this to save the 787's image ? Don't think so.

The ELT is made by Honeywell and would generally be independant of
aircraft systems. (But I assume that it does get power from aircraft to
keep its batteries charged ?).

One possible difference would be the environment in which the ELT is
positioned. Could it include extreme heat and cold because it is so
close to the skin ? Would other ELTs be placed close to roof of aircraft
? (On a sunny day, I suspect the skin on roof could get might hot on
tarmac, especially with dark livery).

But Shirley Boeing would have considered this when designing the 787 ?
Where are ELTs located in older aircraft ?

[Uwe Klein]

JF Mezei wrote:
> On 13-07-30 08:04, Uwe Klein wrote:
>
>
>>The 787 probably is the only use case where ELT batteries had to be
>>replaced early in the lifecycle ( customers requiring the full battery
>>lifetime on their new planes. ) on a regular basis.
>>
>>Thus probably a combination of less than optimal design ( the design allows
>>pinching ) and
>>"make haste" workmanship at Boeing ( or whoever changed the batteries there )
>
>
> If the ELT used on the 787 is used exclusively on the 787, why did
> Boeing include a whole bunch of other aircraft in the AD ?
>
> From a PR point of view, I could see Boeing including the other aircraft
> in order to not focus on 787 problems.

I wouldn't put it beyond them to go that way.
_And_ you can probably pinch the battery wires on all these ELTs.
But for now only ELTs installed on 787 aircraft have had issues afaik.

> But that would cost airline
> operators a lot of money to disconnect all those ELTs until more study
> is done all this to save the 787's image ? Don't think so.

Not Boeings money ;-)
I wonder what fringe benefits Boeing has handed out for 787 customers
be rather mum about issues with the type.

Think about what A380 post EIS banalities have been trudged out by the press
and compare to the long time of silence until that battery nonfire in Boston
and the resultant exposure of a long string of previous definitely not banal
problems encountered after EIS. ( And apparently without much improvements
over time. Next month the 787 completes 2 years in airline use!
At that time the A380 was doing 12..14 hours per day in Airline service
and without hours of preventive care applied pre every flight.
afaics the 787s doesn't get beyond 4 hours per day that they were available for
flying )

>
> The ELT is made by Honeywell and would generally be independant of
> aircraft systems. (But I assume that it does get power from aircraft to
> keep its batteries charged ?).

ELT batteries are primary type batteries. ( i.e. not recharable and single use )
They have limited shelflife/servicelife ( 2 .. 7 years dependent on type )
My assumption is that they are field replacable.
Then Boeing must have a bunch of them fitted to various languishing frames
and customers when they finaly get their frame will demand fresh batteries.

>
> One possible difference would be the environment in which the ELT is
> positioned. Could it include extreme heat and cold because it is so
> close to the skin ? Would other ELTs be placed close to roof of aircraft
> ? (On a sunny day, I suspect the skin on roof could get might hot on
> tarmac, especially with dark livery).

No dark livery for Ethopian ;-)

>
> But Shirley Boeing would have considered this when designing the 787 ?
> Where are ELTs located in older aircraft ?

Obviously Boeing is the brightest candle around and
never will misdesign, overlook or even run into unknown unknown trouble.

Then Boeing has for a long time been a PR department with an
airframer arm and select employees that have a hand for utilising gifted
research work. ( i.e. all that aerodynamics research information
found at the DLR in Göttingen in 1945 )

uwe