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

An open discussion of aviation safety related issues.

Moderators: el, FrankM, Dmmoore

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 03, 2014 8:59 pm

Back on topic. So when I am at FL390 over the Pacific Ocean near the ETOPS180 point, and the battery has its event in its compartment, what is going to happen?
You would not notice it. If there was venting then the pressure disc would open, any gasses would vent overboard, and the box would be depressurized (meaning no combustion would be possible), and after landing they'd replace the battery.

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

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

Postby GlennAB1 » Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:37 am

I fix everything that I have the means to fix: I change parts on my cars if it can be done in my garage, I re-wire my house, fix my appliances, and yes I build my own computers.

Question: without people hiring you to fix stuff, would you have an alternative income? You seem resentful for customers.

My comment about the baby boomer generation was overly generalizing and overly harsh but I do find that the older generation has a tragic tendency (and ability) to ignore inconvenient facts about the world.
Well, you are to be commended, you're not the average yay-who of your generation.

I've never charged anyone for anything I've fixed.

Is it ignoring facts about the world, or do they possibly have a better understanding of the big picture? Maybe they realize the world is in constant change, it always has been, and always will be. You really think you can slow, reverse, or control global warming? If it truly is human induced, then, so much needs to change. Industry basically needs to shut down. Transportation, too. Population would need to be reduced, well, it would happen on it's own. That would all have to happen worldwide... And then, in the end, we're all doomed anyway... here's an inconvenient fact for ya; One day, life will no longer exist on Earth. You young whippersnappers think you can prevent that?
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: 3644
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

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

Postby Ancient Mariner » Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:25 am

box would be depressurized (meaning no combustion would be possible)
Just curious, whys is that?
Per

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 » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:23 pm

box would be depressurized (meaning no combustion would be possible)
Just curious, whys is that?
Per
He's becoming middle aged...explosion...combustion...both contain s,i,o,n...both are related to fire and heat and oxidation...parlour talking on an aviation forum, scratching your watch and winding your ass and getting your mords wixed.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

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 » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:51 pm

Though if the plane's batteries now refuse to explode, you can always bring your own....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25733142
......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 Feb 05, 2014 6:58 am

box would be depressurized (meaning no combustion would be possible)
Just curious, whys is that?
Per
He's becoming middle aged...explosion...combustion...both contain s,i,o,n...both are related to fire and heat and oxidation...parlour talking on an aviation forum, scratching your watch and winding your ass and getting your mords wixed.
.....?

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 Feb 05, 2014 7:00 am

I fix everything that I have the means to fix: I change parts on my cars if it can be done in my garage, I re-wire my house, fix my appliances, and yes I build my own computers.

Question: without people hiring you to fix stuff, would you have an alternative income? You seem resentful for customers.

My comment about the baby boomer generation was overly generalizing and overly harsh but I do find that the older generation has a tragic tendency (and ability) to ignore inconvenient facts about the world.
Well, you are to be commended, you're not the average yay-who of your generation.

I've never charged anyone for anything I've fixed.

Is it ignoring facts about the world, or do they possibly have a better understanding of the big picture? Maybe they realize the world is in constant change, it always has been, and always will be. You really think you can slow, reverse, or control global warming? If it truly is human induced, then, so much needs to change. Industry basically needs to shut down. Transportation, too. Population would need to be reduced, well, it would happen on it's own. That would all have to happen worldwide... And then, in the end, we're all doomed anyway... here's an inconvenient fact for ya; One day, life will no longer exist on Earth. You young whippersnappers think you can prevent that?
So your position is "I already have cancer so I might as well smoke two packs a day until I die?"

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

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

Postby GlennAB1 » Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:29 am

So your position is "I already have cancer so I might as well smoke two packs a day until I die?"
No, my position is; Don't waste taxpayer's money on stupid research of stuff that's beyond our control.
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

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

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

Postby OldSowBreath » Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:08 pm

Well, I'm a Republican and believe in global climate change, so to lower my carbon footprint, like Al Gore, I'm downsizing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/1 ... tml#s91230

I'll be moving from my double-wide to a single wide.

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 Feb 05, 2014 6:09 pm

So your position is "I already have cancer so I might as well smoke two packs a day until I die?"
No, my position is; Don't waste taxpayer's money on stupid research of stuff that's beyond our control.
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.

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 » Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:14 pm

Just to stay on topic, heard rumours that an Air India Screamliner had to divert to KL due "tech probs". And the Saga continues.
Per

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 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:19 am

Just to stay on topic, heard rumours that an Air India Screamliner had to divert to KL due "tech probs". And the Saga continues.
Per
http://avherald.com/h?article=46f971be&opt=0

Simultaneous triple FMC failure.

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 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:27 am

Just to stay on topic, heard rumours that an Air India Screamliner had to divert to KL due "tech probs". And the Saga continues.
Per
http://avherald.com/h?article=46f971be&opt=0

Simultaneous triple FMC failure.
How the hell can a software malfunction cause the simultaneous malfunction of the all three FMCs? Back up, redundancy, what, what, what?
Any other systems on this thing without redundancy?
Per

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

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

Postby GlennAB1 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:55 am

Just to stay on topic, heard rumours that an Air India Screamliner had to divert to KL due "tech probs". And the Saga continues.
Per
http://avherald.com/h?article=46f971be&opt=0

Simultaneous triple FMC failure.
Yeah.... and the odds of that happening are.... Uhhhh.... probably about the same as a fireproof battery compartment failure.... makes you feel good, don't it.
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

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

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

Postby GlennAB1 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:13 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$.
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: 1659
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

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

Postby Gabriel » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:17 pm

Just to stay on topic, heard rumours that an Air India Screamliner had to divert to KL due "tech probs". And the Saga continues.
Per
http://avherald.com/h?article=46f971be&opt=0

Simultaneous triple FMC failure.
How the hell can a software malfunction cause the simultaneous malfunction of the all three FMCs? Back up, redundancy, what, what, what?
Any other systems on this thing without redundancy?
Per
Yes:
Engines: Run out of ruel and you'll lose all 2/3/4 of them at once (Gimili glider, Air Tran).
Engines: Fly through a flock of geese and you might lose all 2 of them at once (Sully's miracle).
Pitot tubes: Fly through sopercooled rain and all 3 of them will get frozen at once. (Air France).
Pilots: Lose cabin pressure and, mif they don't realize and put on O2 masks, you'll lose all 2 of them at once (Helios).
Autopilots: Have an unreliable airspeed and you'll lose all 3 of them at once.
Ship hull compartments: Scratch aniIceberg and 6 of them can get flooded at once (Titanic)

Redundancy is hardly perfect. There always have been failure modes that will compromise all the redundant elements of a kind at once. And software glitches is not unheard off as a cause of that. It is a known weakness and it has hit before. A nice example is in Clancy's novel Debt of Honor, where an conomic terrorist exploits this weakness to attack Wall Street and ruin the US economy.

That's why iIrbuses, which are highly dependent of flight control computers, have two sets of different design, different manufacturers and different software, and you'll retain some degraded control if you loose all of one kind. Still, there are failure modes that would affect all of them at the same time, like a total loss of electric power (what would happen after 30 minutes if you run out of fuel and the RAT fails). That would render the plane a balsa-like free-flight model (even the emergency mode, an additional redundancy beyond the flight control computers, that leves you just with rudder and end elevator trim, would not work because you would not have hydraulics either).

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 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:30 pm

Sorry Gabriel,
none of your examples are relevant as far as redundancy is concerned. Particularly Titanic.
Per

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 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:22 pm

Sorry Gabriel,
none of your examples are relevant as far as redundancy is concerned. Particularly Titanic.
Per
Please elaborate. Particualry (but not only) Titanic. Why was the hull divided in several sealed/sealable coppartments?

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 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:56 pm

Sorry Gabriel,
none of your examples are relevant as far as redundancy is concerned. Particularly Titanic.
Per
Please elaborate. Particualry (but not only) Titanic. Why was the hull divided in several sealed/sealable coppartments?
The Titanic had 16 watertight compartments, and the ship could stay afloat with up to four of these compartments flooded. After hitting the iceberg, water began flooding the Titanic's forward six compartments. Bulkheads, watertight walls in the compartments meant to keep water from flooding the rest of the ship, were not tall enough to contain the water in the damaged compartments. In just over two and a half hours, the Titanic filled with water and sank.
From National Geographic.
Per

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 3783
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

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

Postby flyboy2548m » Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:03 pm

So, now we have a professional sailor (albeit retired) using NatGeo as a reference. Nice.
Chief Pilot/ACJ Program Manager, Vandelay Industries, Inc

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 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 6:25 pm

So, now we have a professional sailor (albeit retired) using NatGeo as a reference. Nice.
That information is readily available from many credible sources, amongst them the origional drawings. I just tried to keep it familiar for you Americans and tehcnically simple for you pilots.
Per

And NatGeo came No.1 when I googled for the info.

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 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:42 pm

The Titanic had 16 watertight compartments, and the ship could stay afloat with up to four of these compartments flooded. After hitting the iceberg, water began flooding the Titanic's forward six compartments. Bulkheads, watertight walls in the compartments meant to keep water from flooding the rest of the ship, were not tall enough to contain the water in the damaged compartments. In just over two and a half hours, the Titanic filled with water and sank.
From National Geographic.
Per
Uhm, yes. And how is that not redundancy?
The height of the walls was enough for 4 compartments flooded, not more. The height of the walls and bulkhead was enough to prevent water from going out a breached compartment IF the total number of breached compartments was not more than 4.
The titanic had 16 compartments and needed 12 to remain afloat. So 4 compartments were redundant for the function "remain afloat".
More than 4 were breached and flooded? Too bad. That's beyond the design redundancy. Down we go.

By the way, and the rest of my points?

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 » Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:30 am

Gabriel, you winn.
Per

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

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

Postby ocelot » Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:46 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.

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 Feb 09, 2014 11:19 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


Return to “Aviation Safety Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests