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

An open discussion of aviation safety related issues.

Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore

User avatar
Rabbi O'Genius
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:37 am
Location: France

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

Postby Rabbi O'Genius » Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:30 am

I'm going to bet this fire was in the aft galley and didn't involve Li batteries.
It seems it wasn't a galley fire......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23486472
Old news, unrelated to Sicko's post.
The BBC article is from the 29th, referencing Tinseth's blog of the 28th, and the AAIB bulletin of the 18th, all of which are new news in this thread.
....and yes it's related to the Ethiopian 787 not the Qatar one (which should have been clear as I quoted GlennAB1, not Sickbag)
......never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. – John Donne

User avatar
Verbal
Posts: 3318
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Planet Bacterion

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

Postby Verbal » Thu Jan 09, 2014 6:32 pm

Ethiopian 787 flying again after secretive repair of fire damage
Seattle Times 01/09/2014
Author: Dominic Gates
Copyright 2013, The Seattle Times Company All Rights Reserved. Distributed by NewsBank Inc.

Boeing has repaired the Ethiopian Airlines 787 Dreamliner that was severely damaged in a fire at Heathrow Airport and the jet is back in passenger service with the airline.

Boeing spokeswoman Kate Bergman said Wednesday that “the repair and refurbishment took approximately two months and has returned the airplane to full structural integrity, with no degradation to passenger safety or comfort.”

After some test flights in England, the airplane returned to passenger service just before Christmas.

Flightaware, which tracks airplane flights, shows the jet on a Dec. 23 scheduled flight from Frankfurt, Germany, to Ethiopian’s base in Addis Ababa.

Because it’s the first major repair to an airliner made largely from carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic composite, the method and efficacy are of intense interest to the airline industry and especially 787 operators.

The fire broke out July 12 when the airplane was parked and empty.

Investigators say it was likely caused by the incorrect installation of a small lithium battery inside an Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT), an electronic device that transmits location data to satellites in the event of a crash.

The same device is used in most Airbus and Boeing jets, as well as other aircraft made by ATR, Dassault and Lockheed Martin.

The fire caused intense heat damage above the ceiling at the back of the passenger cabin. It scorched a large area of the carbon-fiber skin on the crown of the fuselage in front of the vertical tail fin.

People with knowledge of the repair method said Boeing fabricated a full rear fuselage barrel in its North Charleston, S.C., factory, then cut out a large patch to replace the fire-damaged skin of the Ethiopian jet. It began inserting the patch in mid-October.

Bergman declined to give any details of the repair method.

The United Kingdom Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) continues to investigate the fire’s cause but has released no information since a bulletin a few days after the incident.

That bulletin recommended the disabling of the ELT device in all Boeing 787s until further notice.

Subsequently, aviation regulators ordered airlines worldwide to inspect the ELTs in other airplanes to check for wiring discrepancies.
"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."

User avatar
Rabbi O'Genius
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:37 am
Location: France

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

Postby Rabbi O'Genius » Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:42 pm

It seems the batteries still melt down but the alert and containment systems work.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25737515
......never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. – John Donne

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 » Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:18 am

It seems the batteries still melt down but the alert and containment systems work.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25737515
One cell vented. Not exactly a runaway or "meltdown" as you put it.

User avatar
Rabbi O'Genius
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:37 am
Location: France

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

Postby Rabbi O'Genius » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:54 am

Venting is not benign.
Lithium batteries vent due to excessive internal pressure.
The pressure is typically caused by excessive heat.
The venting just relieves the pressure to prevent the cell wall from rupturing.
But you are right, I don't know whether this "unplanned thermal event" melted anything or not
......never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. – John Donne

User avatar
Verbal
Posts: 3318
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Planet Bacterion

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

Postby Verbal » Wed Jan 15, 2014 4:56 pm

The reviled Mrs. Verbal has been known to have meltdowns, if that helps.
"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."

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

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

Postby OldSowBreath » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:00 pm

The reviled Mrs. Verbal has been known to have meltdowns, if that helps.
Make sure she takes her lithium.

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 » Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:59 pm

Venting is not benign.
Lithium batteries vent due to excessive internal pressure.
The pressure is typically caused by excessive heat.
The venting just relieves the pressure to prevent the cell wall from rupturing.
But you are right, I don't know whether this "unplanned thermal event" melted anything or not
Any component CAN and WILL fail. That is why you develop airplanes to be fault tolerant. In this case the venting feature of the failed cell worked as expected, the new battery containment system worked as expected, and the redesigned aspects of the battery (increased separation of cells) also performed as expected to prevent a "meltdown" or thermal runaway going from cell to cell as it did 12 months ago.

User avatar
Not_Karl
Posts: 2140
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

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

Postby Not_Karl » Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:41 am

The reviled Mrs. Verbal has been known to have meltdowns, if that helps.
Did she vent?
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
Ancient Mariner
Posts: 3657
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

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

Postby Ancient Mariner » Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:23 am

Venting is not benign.
Lithium batteries vent due to excessive internal pressure.
The pressure is typically caused by excessive heat.
The venting just relieves the pressure to prevent the cell wall from rupturing.
But you are right, I don't know whether this "unplanned thermal event" melted anything or not
Any component CAN and WILL fail. That is why you develop airplanes to be fault tolerant. In this case the venting feature of the failed cell worked as expected, the new battery containment system worked as expected, and the redesigned aspects of the battery (increased separation of cells) also performed as expected to prevent a "meltdown" or thermal runaway going from cell to cell as it did 12 months ago.
So it is alright then.
When you say that any component can and will fail one aims to make sure that service or replacement takes place before that happens. In this case failure is accepted in service. Totally wrong, and I am amazed that it is accepted by those who shall ensure aviation safety.
Per

User avatar
Verbal
Posts: 3318
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Planet Bacterion

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

Postby Verbal » Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:32 pm

When you say that any component can and will fail one aims to make sure that service or replacement takes place before that happens. In this case failure is accepted in service. Totally wrong, and I am amazed that it is accepted by those who shall ensure aviation safety.
Redundancy, backups, failsafety and damage tolerance are all design criteria for every airplane. These aren't merely sound practices; they are required by the regulators to show compliance.

Every airplane can still fly with some parts of it not working properly. If a part or system is not on the MEL (minimum equipment list) and it is showing inop, then you fly.

To not anticipate and design for failure is not only poor engineering, it also violates the certification basis of the airplane.
"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."

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 Jan 20, 2014 2:33 am

When you say that any component can and will fail one aims to make sure that service or replacement takes place before that happens. In this case failure is accepted in service. Totally wrong, and I am amazed that it is accepted by those who shall ensure aviation safety.
Redundancy, backups, failsafety and damage tolerance are all design criteria for every airplane. These aren't merely sound practices; they are required by the regulators to show compliance.

Every airplane can still fly with some parts of it not working properly. If a part or system is not on the MEL (minimum equipment list) and it is showing inop, then you fly.

To not anticipate and design for failure is not only poor engineering, it also violates the certification basis of the airplane.
This.

GlennAB1
Posts: 1455
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:00 pm

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

Postby GlennAB1 » Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:24 am

If a part or system is not on the MEL (minimum equipment list) and it is showing inop, then you fly.
Uh, No Sir! Having 26 years experience as an Inspector for several airlines, and dealing with MEL issues almost daily, as an Expert on the subject; The MEL lists items/systems that can be inop, and the aircraft still operate (with restrictions). Items that are not listed in the MEL, that become inop, ground the aircraft, period.
you still have to find a crew willing to fly this "barely airworthy" heap
no such thing as "barely airworthy" it's either Airworthy or Not
100% incorrect Ever hear of Ferry Permit? issued for Non airworthy aircraft
LOL

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

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

Postby Gabriel » Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:36 am

If a part or system is not on the MEL (minimum equipment list) and it is showing inop, then you fly.
Uh, No Sir! Having 26 years experience as an Inspector for several airlines, and dealing with MEL issues almost daily, as an Expert on the subject; The MEL lists items/systems that can be inop, and the aircraft still operate (with restrictions). Items that are not listed in the MEL, that become inop, ground the aircraft, period.
Does the MEL contain items like lavatories, meal heating systems, ceiling lights, windows shades, or IFE screens?
That's a honest question, because I feel (but can be totally wrong) that some of these things might not be in a MEL and the airplane may still be good to go with some of them inop.

GlennAB1
Posts: 1455
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:00 pm

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

Postby GlennAB1 » Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:21 pm

Yes.

Taken from the 727 MEL:

Lavatory Waste Systems - Individual components may be inoperative provided:
a) Associated components are deactivated or isolated, and
b) Associated system components are verified not to have leaks.

Cabin Interior Illumination System - Individual lights may be inoperative provided remaining lighting is sufficient for cabin attendants to perform their duties.

Passenger Cabin Window Shades - Passenger Cabin Window Shades in compartments configured for passengers only are considered a passenger convenience item.

Non-Essential Equipment and Furnishings (NEF) - May be inoperative, damaged or missing provided that the item(s) is deferred in accordance with the NEF deferral program. The NEF program, procedures and processes are outlined in the operator’s (insert name) Manual. (M) and (O) procedures, if required, must be available to the flight crew and included in the operator’s appropriate document.
you still have to find a crew willing to fly this "barely airworthy" heap
no such thing as "barely airworthy" it's either Airworthy or Not
100% incorrect Ever hear of Ferry Permit? issued for Non airworthy aircraft
LOL

capslock
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:34 am

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

Postby capslock » Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:24 pm

apparently a fuel leak on Norwegian, as posted on pprune:
http://www.nordlys.no/nyheter/article7113814.ece

Per, care to give us the details?

User avatar
Ancient Mariner
Posts: 3657
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

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

Postby Ancient Mariner » Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:59 pm

apparently a fuel leak on Norwegian, as posted on pprune:
http://www.nordlys.no/nyheter/article7113814.ece

Per, care to give us the details?
Easily explained, Boeing is responsible for maintenance on Norwegians Screamliners. The deal is called Golden Shower or somesuch. The result is Norwegian pissing off thousands of pax who have been/are beached for anywhere between 1 to 3 days in New York, Miami, Bangkok, Oslo and Stockholm. Norwegians reputation will be going down the drain, fortunately it is clogged by Boing's finest and most advanced products.
Per

capslock
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:34 am

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

Postby capslock » Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:00 pm

Where do they do maintenance on these birds? I was not aware they had contract maintenance centers.

User avatar
Ancient Mariner
Posts: 3657
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

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

Postby Ancient Mariner » Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:38 am

Where do they do maintenance on these birds? I was not aware they had contract maintenance centers.
Don't know where, but these are the Jokers who performs the Golden Shower for Norwegian, they're called Nayak. :roll:
http://www.nayak.aero/
In a press release today Boeing Europe's PR person Chamila Jayaweera states that Boeing is not happy with the Screamliner's performance to date (when a PR person is not happy with their product it sucks and is basically a disaster). She also says that Boeing shares Norwegian's concerns, but that Norwegian's Screamliners performs on par with other operators of the aircraft. (Read, they all have shitloads of problems)
This be the Golden Shower.
«GoldCare Enterprise simplifies airplane ownership with a more efficient business model that reduces costs and enhances predictability. GoldCare Enterprise is a lifecycle management solution encompassing all of the following services [GoldCare Engineering, IT Enterprise Suite og Material Management] plus Line, Phase and Heavy maintenance.»
Latest is that Boeing will throw in another two sub-suppliers in addition to Nayak.
Good luck Mr. Kjos!
Per

User avatar
monchavo
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:21 am

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

Postby monchavo » Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:43 pm

I have been on a Virgin A340 LHR-JFK when the pilot announced that he was considering turning back to LHR because the lavatories on the left side of the plane were inop. I don't know if this was an in-joke (the plane was very lightly loaded).... Odd announcement to make.

User avatar
tds
Posts: 918
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:55 pm
Location: ...a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm

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

Postby tds » Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:59 pm

Perhaps passengers were grumbling about it to the FAs, and this was intended to shut them up?

User avatar
monchavo
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:21 am

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

Postby monchavo » Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:49 pm

yeah possibly. very odd when it happened.

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 » Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:00 pm

Venting is not benign.
Lithium batteries vent due to excessive internal pressure.
The pressure is typically caused by excessive heat.
The venting just relieves the pressure to prevent the cell wall from rupturing.
But you are right, I don't know whether this "unplanned thermal event" melted anything or not
Any component CAN and WILL fail. That is why you develop airplanes to be fault tolerant. In this case the venting feature of the failed cell worked as expected, the new battery containment system worked as expected, and the redesigned aspects of the battery (increased separation of cells) also performed as expected to prevent a "meltdown" or thermal runaway going from cell to cell as it did 12 months ago.
So it is alright then.
When you say that any component can and will fail one aims to make sure that service or replacement takes place before that happens. In this case failure is accepted in service. Totally wrong, and I am amazed that it is accepted by those who shall ensure aviation safety.
Per
In all cases it is accepted that some small percentage of parts will fail before their replacement interval (which may be the airplane life). Anybody telling you their part will never ever fail is probably trying to sell you something. So you design the parts to be reliable, you design your scheduled maintenance program to replace parts before they are expected to fail (based both on testing and analysis of that part, and historical experience with similar parts), and you design the airplane to be ok even if some parts do fail. When parts show themselves to be less than the intended reliability then you go fix the design deficiency or the manufacturing issue that is causing the failures.

GlennAB1
Posts: 1455
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:00 pm

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

Postby GlennAB1 » Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:12 am

Brad is right. Most airlines operate a CAMP, continuous airworthiness maintenance program. The aircraft are continually being serviced, lubricated and inspected. Parts of the aircraft are being given a more detailed inspection while other parts a more general one, but the whole aircraft is continually being looked at. There are in-service wear limits for pretty much everything that moves, and anything showing signs of looseness or wear are checked or replaced.
you still have to find a crew willing to fly this "barely airworthy" heap
no such thing as "barely airworthy" it's either Airworthy or Not
100% incorrect Ever hear of Ferry Permit? issued for Non airworthy aircraft
LOL

User avatar
Ancient Mariner
Posts: 3657
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

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

Postby Ancient Mariner » Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:15 am

Any component CAN and WILL fail. That is why you develop airplanes to be fault tolerant. In this case the venting feature of the failed cell worked as expected, the new battery containment system worked as expected, and the redesigned aspects of the battery (increased separation of cells) also performed as expected to prevent a "meltdown" or thermal runaway going from cell to cell as it did 12 months ago.
So it is alright then.
When you say that any component can and will fail one aims to make sure that service or replacement takes place before that happens. In this case failure is accepted in service. Totally wrong, and I am amazed that it is accepted by those who shall ensure aviation safety.
Per
In all cases it is accepted that some small percentage of parts will fail before their replacement interval (which may be the airplane life). Anybody telling you their part will never ever fail is probably trying to sell you something. So you design the parts to be reliable, you design your scheduled maintenance program to replace parts before they are expected to fail (based both on testing and analysis of that part, and historical experience with similar parts), and you design the airplane to be ok even if some parts do fail. When parts show themselves to be less than the intended reliability then you go fix the design deficiency or the manufacturing issue that is causing the failures.
Agreed, but here the component is NOT designed to be reliable, they designed an enclosure to safeguard the aircraft for when the battery fails. They have not fixed the design deficiency of the component.
As you write: " you design your scheduled maintenance program to replace parts before they are expected to fail". They haven't, because they don't have a clue.
Per


Return to “Aviation Safety Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests