787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

An open discussion of aviation safety related issues.

Moderators: el, FrankM, Dmmoore

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Gabriel » Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:13 pm

How the hell can a software malfunction cause
Software is like a hydraulic system filled with AVGAS. It may appear to work at times, but that just means it's getting ready to detonate.
Understood, but that is where I wonder where the redundancy is, not in Gabriel's various examples.
Per
It's the same thing:

Engines run on fuel. The fuel is bad? All engines suffer.

FMC run on software. The software is bad? All FMCs suffer.

User avatar
PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am
Contact:

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby PurduePilot » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:00 am

How can you say it is beyond our control?
The role of human activity

In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... yr_spm.pdf.
'John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, and various other critics have called the theory that human use of carbon-based fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic global warming or climate change a “hoax.”'

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendric ... e-century/

The reason I don't trust the "Scientists" is because they exist for the most part because of government funding, so it is in their best interest to dream up reasons for funding. That's how they make a living.

"The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years."

They are so sure about Humans being the cause of global warming.... they've covered their a$$e$.
Youre referring to the fact that the confidence is >90% which is not the same as 100%?

User avatar
Sickbag
Posts: 2840
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Spine-fuhrer of Hoboken

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Sickbag » Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:41 am

I don't know about Global Warming, but Global Boring is a undeniable fact ,as proved by the last few pages.
TRUMP: in-presidency structural break-up
within 18 months...

User avatar
ocelot
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:26 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby ocelot » Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:54 am

How the hell can a software malfunction cause
Software is like a hydraulic system filled with AVGAS. It may appear to work at times, but that just means it's getting ready to detonate.
Understood, but that is where I wonder where the redundancy is, not in Gabriel's various examples.
Per
Well... it's hard. For any particular piece of software you can have multiple independent groups build multiple versions; but that's expensive, and even if you strictly prohibit the groups from talking to each other during development there's a tendency for the "independent" versions to manifest the same bugs, because in similar situations people tend to overlook the same kinds of issues and make the same kinds of blunders.

Ultimately the problem with software is that while we talk about it breaking, or failing, it's not really. Software bugs are design-level mistakes; when software "breaks" it's because the system encounters a condition that wasn't accounted for properly when the software was written. In a physical system you might get a pipe break from metal fatigue and an ensuing fuel leak; this can be worked around by having extra pipes. If it were software, there wouldn't be any metal fatigue or manufacturing defects. The issues you'd see would be things like a mistake in the drawings leading to pipes that don't match up at assembly time. Or forgetting to account for thermal contraction of the pipes at cruise temperatures so they all pull loose at once. There's not much redundancy you can manage for these kinds of problems. The best you could do, probably, is have multiple different groups design multiple versions of the "same" aircraft, like we do with software... and have airlines fly one of each for every flight so even if there's a problem at least some of the passengers still get through safely.

(And actually, it's worse than that. Software has so many more states and conditions physical systems do, and they aren't continuous or at all tractable, so it's much easier for problems to lurk and never be seen during development and testing.)

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Gabriel » Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:44 am

That, or formal proofing (which, yes, until we find how P = NP, is not factible in any software that is more complicated than the Space Invaders)

User avatar
reubee
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:36 am
Location: AKL

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby reubee » Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:05 am

That, or formal proofing (which, yes, until we find how P = NP, is not factible in any software that is more complicated than the Space Invaders)
Even Space Invaders had a bug. It wasn't intended that the game speed up as you shot more aliens, but as there were less aliens to draw, there were less demands on the rendering involved in each frame, and hence each frame was drawn quicker.
Image

User avatar
ocelot
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:26 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby ocelot » Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:17 am

Formal validation has come along way in the last 5-10 years; doing avionics software is probably within the realm of possibility now. Of course there's a famous quote:
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it.

OldSowBreath
Posts: 1420
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:16 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby OldSowBreath » Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:04 pm

That, or formal proofing (which, yes, until we find how P = NP, is not factible in any software that is more complicated than the Space Invaders)
Even Space Invaders had a bug. It wasn't intended that the game speed up as you shot more aliens, but as there were less aliens to draw, there were less demands on the rendering involved in each frame, and hence each frame was drawn quicker.
I was a god at Space Invaders. I didn't know about that bug, but now I know why my reflexes are so finely honed.

User avatar
Ancient Mariner
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Ancient Mariner » Sun Mar 09, 2014 6:02 pm

Sorry, wrong forum.
Per

User avatar
J
Posts: 1161
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: South of Canada

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby J » Thu May 22, 2014 9:42 pm

NTSB urges more battery tests for Boeing 787

Excerpt:
The National Transportation Safety Board on Thursday called for lithium-ion batteries on Boeing's 787 Dreamliners to undergo more testing to ensure they are safe.

* * *
he NTSB stopped short of calling lithium-ion batteries or planes flying with them unsafe. The batteries are widely used in cars, laptops and smartphones and have a tendency to overheat through processes that are not well understood by scientists.
The NTSB has not yet determined a root cause for the 787 fire in Boston in January 2013. No one was injured in the fire, or in two other 787 battery incidents, one in January 2014. Regulators grounded the 787 fleet for three months last year while Boeing designed a steel containment box and other measures to stifle battery fires on the innovative jet.

Boeing said it supports efforts to improve certification standards. The FAA was not immediately available to comment.
Boeing also said the tests it conducted in overhauling the 787 battery system last year “are fully consistent with the recommendations made by the NTSB today. We therefore remain confident in the safety and integrity of the comprehensive battery solution which was developed by Boeing, and approved by the FAA, last year.”

* * *
While the NTSB's letter focused on Boeing's 787, the board noted the Airbus A380 and Boeing 777 and 737 also have lithium-ion batteries.

Since certification tests for the various aircraft are not standardized, the NTSB advised the FAA to review testing used to support certification of other aircraft.
“Lithium-ion battery designs on airplanes currently in service might not have adequately accounted for the hazards associated with internal short circuiting,” the NTSB said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 0901.story

User avatar
J
Posts: 1161
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: South of Canada

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby J » Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:17 pm

"Two Engines for the Long Haul"
Boeing 787-9 Earns FAA, EASA Certification
Excerpt:

EVERETT, Wash., June 16, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- The Boeing (NYSE: BA) 787-9 Dreamliner has been certified by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) for commercial service. Boeing is now in the final stages of preparing for the first 787-9 delivery to launch customer Air New Zealand.

* * *

To earn certification for the 787-9, Boeing undertook a comprehensive test program with five airplanes and more than 1,500 hours of flight testing, plus ground and laboratory testing. Following the rigorous and thorough certification process, the FAA and EASA each granted Boeing an Amended Type Certificate for the 787-9, certifying that the design complies with aviation regulations and is safe and reliable.

"Throughout 787-9 development, the dedication and discipline of our entire global team drove outstanding performance," said Mark Jenks, vice president, 787 Airplane Development, Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "From the start of assembly last spring to a flawless first flight and now our on-time certification, we thank everyone on the Boeing and partner team as well as our customers for making 787-9 development so successful."

The FAA also has granted Boeing an Amended Production Certificate, validating that the Boeing production system can produce 787-9s that conform to the design. EASA accepts FAA oversight of Boeing production certificates, just as the FAA accepts EASA oversight of European manufacturers' production certificates.

The new 787-9 Dreamliner will complement and extend the super-efficient 787 family. With the fuselage stretched by 20 feet (6 meters) over the 787-8, the 787-9 will fly more passengers and more cargo farther with the same exceptional environmental performance -- 20 percent less fuel use and 20 percent fewer emissions than similarly sized airplanes. The 787-9 leverages the visionary design of the 787-8, offering passengers features such as large windows, large stow bins, modern LED lighting, higher humidity, a lower cabin altitude, cleaner air and a smoother ride.

Twenty-six customers around the world have ordered 413 787-9s, accounting for 40 percent of all 787 orders.
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-201 ... 05912.html

User avatar
J
Posts: 1161
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: South of Canada

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby J » Tue Jul 28, 2015 6:54 pm

It has been a bad month for Boeings in China. First a Delta 747 gets sent to the boneyard after striking hail. Now Verbal may have to undertake a field repair:

D/FW-bound Dreamliner damaged by hail, returns to Beijing

An American Airlines flight bound for Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport returned to Beijing, China, shortly after takeoff Monday morning after the plane was damaged in a storm.

Flight AA88 encountered a hailstorm that damaged the nose of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, according to an airline spokeswoman.

The flight from Beijing Capital International Airport, with 209 passengers and a crew of 13, "is currently being evaluated by our maintenance team," according to a written statement from the airline.

Fort Worth-based American Airlines launched the D/FW-to-Beijing route in May, and started flying Dreamliners on the route in June.

It is the second hail-related incident involving a large commercial airliner over China in the past month.


A Delta Air Lines Boeing 747 sustained damage July 10 while flying through a hailstorm over China. The plane made an emergency landing in Seoul, South Korea.

Delta eventually sent the damaged 747 to an Arizona desert airport where the airline stores retired jets.
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/ ... ns-to.html

User avatar
J
Posts: 1161
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: South of Canada

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby J » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:11 pm

More on the AA 787. Interesting that unlike the recent 747 hail damage episode it appears the hail did not penetrate the radome.

American Airlines to ferry banged-up Boeing 787 from China to DFW next week


Earlier this week, one of American Airlines’ Boeing 787 was climbing out of Beijing, China, when it encountered a hailstorm that left the new airplane somewhat beat up.

The pilots returned to the Beijing airport, and there the airplane sits while experts from American, Boeing and engine manufacturer GE check it out and do some repairs to get it flying again.

“We expect to ferry the aircraft to Dallas/Fort Worth the early part of next week,” AA spokeswoman Andrea Huguely said Thursday. “We haven’t found anything that we didn’t expect to find. There are no major structural issues.”

As the photo above shows, the airplane most visibly got a dented radome, made of composite materials as is much of the airplane’s surfaces. Huguely said a couple of sections of the windshield were cracked, as were lenses and caps over lights, with some parts of the composite surface receiving dents, and so forth.

“We are working with Boeing and GE and they have people on site working with us,” she said.

Once the repairs necessary to make the airplane airworthy are made in Beijing, the airplane will go to American’s D/FW maintenance base for more repairs and checks.

“We’ll put it back in service once it passes inspection,” she said.

The airplane, tail number N805AN, was delivered to American three months ago. We believe it was the fourth Boeing 787 that American received, based on the database on the All Things 787 blog.

The first of its handful of Dreamliners arrived in late January. The airplanes have been put on the DFW-Beijing, DFW-Shanghai and DFW-Buenos Aires routes so far, as well as the DFW-Chicago run.

According to FlightAware, American Flight 88 from Beijing to Dallas/Fort Worth Airport on Monday afternoon (Beijing time) was about 20 minutes out of Beijing and climbing above 26,000 feet when it began descending. It landed back at Beijing less than 45 minutes after takeoff.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2015 ... week.html/

User avatar
Rabbi O'Genius
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:37 am
Location: France

787 preflight structural makeup in 3....2....1....

Postby Rabbi O'Genius » Thu Oct 01, 2015 9:33 am

787 preflight structural makeup in 3....2....1....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJZk9vNS8NE
......never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. – John Donne

User avatar
Not_Karl
Posts: 2096
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: 787 preflight structural makeup in 3....2....1....

Postby Not_Karl » Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:19 pm

787 preflight structural makeup in 3....2....1....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJZk9vNS8NE
Nice!
Junior Janitor, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Environmental Poisoning Assurance department.

"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.

User avatar
J
Posts: 1161
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: South of Canada

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby J » Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:53 pm

They forgot to put in the seats.

User avatar
J
Posts: 1161
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: South of Canada

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby J » Thu Aug 31, 2017 1:14 pm

Tire failure throws chunks of material into wing punching hole and causing torque tube damage.
The coverage is a bit lurid but includes some photos.

"Chilling pictures have been released showing the extend of the damage suffered to a Jetstar flight from Singapore. The Jetstar Boeing 787 was forced to make an unscheduled landing after departing Singapore airport heading for Melbourne.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -wing.html

User avatar
Rabbi O'Genius
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:37 am
Location: France

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Rabbi O'Genius » Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:47 pm

......never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. – John Donne

elaw
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:01 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby elaw » Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:36 pm

Don't ya love it when the media makes stuff up?

Daily Mail article:
The tyre suffered damage due to a lateral takeoff, that placed increased stress on tyre six.
ATSB report:
A comprehensive review of flight data was conducted to determine if operational techniques, such as lateral acceleration on take-off and touchdown, may have exposed the tyre to increased side load. No occurrences were noted for any of the operator’s aircraft in the 787 fleet.
:roll:
HR consultant, Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby Gabriel » Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:27 pm

The power of summary.

elaw
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:01 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby elaw » Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:45 pm

The power of sensationalism, combined with desperate attempts to appear technically competent.
Fixed. :mrgreen:
HR consultant, Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4251
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: 787 inflight structural breakup in 3....2....1....

Postby 3WE » Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:55 pm

The power of sensationalism, combined with desperate attempts to appear technically competent.
Fixed. :mrgreen:
:clap:
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.


Return to “Aviation Safety Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests