FAA grounding 787 fleet

[Airbus Commander 563]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/02/14/us/ap-us-airbus-batteries.html?_r=0

 

Looks like they've decided that the marginal weight saving were just not worth the hassle.

[CoolP 283]

Well, some certainty on that side. Lets hope the 787 stuff receives the same honour soon. Certainty that is. Rónán, now Airbus will opt for lighter pilots to stay competitive. What? Rumour you say?

[Airbus Commander 563]

Rónán, now Airbus will opt for lighter pilots to stay competitive. What? Rumour you say?

I'm 6'1 and in very good shape I'll have you know. I'm certainly not carrying any excess weight on board the aircraft... :blush:

[CoolP 283]

I wasn't talking about the pilots themselves, but about those comic books they carry. Nice try with the FCOM cover. Boring Atlantic crossings.

 

Nah, lets just see what the pressure from the Airbus guys now 'avoiding' lithium batteries adds to the mess. From a few days back, Airbus only said they had a plan B (wow!) and that designing the lithium out would actually delay the A350 a bit. Now it's the other way around.

 

Only makes sense when looking at how they, now, see the impact of a possible lithium ban or some severe regulations on any future design.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

You can have a safe enough plane but if nobody perceives it like that, you don't sell it that much.

 

The name "Dreamliner" is even working against them, as it is too easy to spin into "nightmare" and anologies of shattered dreams and so on. The single thing that bothers me in this whole 787 program, is the overall difference between the planned schedule and the actual.

 

Here we are with the aircraft pulled out of the air when the first operational test platform was supposed to be rolled out July 8, 2007 with flight testing to begin a month later and the first copies delivered to the airlines the following year.

 

The shortfall points to the incredible errors in judgment made, and the present difficulties may suggest that even now, the unk unks are yet to be solved. More than anything else, to me, it should make many suspect that the worse may be yet to come.

 

Boeing has a conflict of interest by wanting to get the plane back in the air, anyway they can.

 

Even though I am sure that not a single Boeing manager or responsible employee would intentionally do anything to compromise the aircraft's safety, their track record does not induce a lot of confidence among skeptics.

 

The one good thing out of all of this is, that so far, no one died in a 787.

 

Edit: Boeing will fix this, but it is a shame that the bloom is off the rose, so to speak (or am I mixing metaphores).

 

Kind regards,

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

An aircraft is like a fine wine, the older it gets, the better it gets. This is because over time we learn more about the aircraft from experience over the years.

 

The 787 is way to young an aircraft but over time it will be proven as well.

[CoolP 283]

To be fair, the A380 delays weren't looking that good either. And those wing cracks they've later discovered showed a good and bad side. The bad one obviously is the one of the actual damage and the good one, in my eyes, has been the more open handling and somehow humble appearance of the management. Hence the note on not all product shortcomings having to end in a company's nightmare. Mid to long term at least.

 

You have a point on the delays, but I can't tell which later aircraft project, civilian and military, came without them. This doesn't make them better, but puts the 787 stuff in perspective I think. Ask Airbus about their A400. Mr. Enders will run away, speaking four-letter words. :lol:

 

The one good thing out of all of this is, that so far, no one died in a 787.

True. But don't paint the message that black. There's no doubt that the new planes offer a safety gain. The late 90s and our early 2000 years show this. The stuff gets better even with the increased complexity being established.

 

Take the 777, nearing two decades of age. Great plane, very new and uncommon for Boeing when starting. Now, a benchmark.

 

Still, maybe same as you, I wished that we could already discuss the 787 based solution instead of the still running investigation on the actual causes. It's puzzling.

[WR269 367]

To be fair, the A380 delays weren't looking that good either. And those wing cracks they've later discovered showed a good and bad side. The bad one obviously is the one of the actual damage and the good one, in my eyes, has been the more open handling and somehow humble appearance of the management. Hence the note on not all product shortcomings having to end in a company's nightmare. Mid to long term at least.

 

You have a point on the delays, but I can't tell which later aircraft project, civilian and military, came without them. This doesn't make them better, but puts the 787 stuff in perspective I think. Ask Airbus about their A400. Mr. Enders will run away, speaking four-letter words. :lol:

 

 

True. But don't paint the message that black. There's no doubt that the new planes offer a safety gain. The late 90s and our early 2000 years show this. The stuff gets better even with the increased complexity being established.

 

Take the 777, nearing two decades of age. Great plane, very new and uncommon for Boeing when starting. Now, a benchmark.

 

Still, maybe same as you, I wished that we could already discuss the 787 based solution instead of the still running investigation on the actual causes. It's puzzling.

 

The A380's delays were not design based faults. The structural design was not changed, it was an assembly issue. The wiring on the German side did not match the wiring from the French side, and had to be removed and changed. The structure of the aircraft and its technology had no issues.

 

The wing cracks were quickly traced to the material used and a change to the tried and tested has been implemented. Not bad for the largest and heaviest commercial passenger aircraft ever made.

 

The 777 was seamless, but it really offered no new technologies or innovations on design apart Boeing finally putting fbw in one of their aircraft after telling the world there was no need to do so when the A320 came out.

 

The 787 is in another league, the first time Boeing has actually put some real Innovation in the design, structure and technology, and the project is already 3 years late and millions over budget.

 

That, in itself, is understandable. Boeing has for the first time ever, utilised composite materials in areas nobody else has before, not even Airbus, and has found their fair share of problems, making the A380 wing cracks pale in comparison (notwithstanding the fact the A380 wings carry a heck of a lot more load) but it was exciting to see how Boeing would control and execute on the new manufacturing ways with composites. Had the 787 marked a year in service I would have been very curious to find out if the many del animation and cracking problems of the 787 wing box were indeed solved.

 

The sad part is, they took a 3 year delay fixing structural problems, and now another delay addressing things they didn't really consider a problem to begin with.

 

[tf51d 284]

The A380's delays were not design based faults. The structural design was not changed, it was an assembly issue. The wiring on the German side did not match the wiring from the French side, and had to be removed and changed. The structure of the aircraft and its technology had no issues.

 

The wing cracks were quickly traced to the material used and a change to the tried and tested has been implemented. Not bad for the largest and heaviest commercial passenger aircraft ever made.

 

You don't call changing the original material to another a design change? In Feb 2006 it failed it's wing stress test, and the response was to strengthen some ribs and spars, but never redid the stress test. Now, airlines have found cracks and are retrofitting the wings to use all metal parts in place of composites. I definitely would call that a structural design change!!

 

"From the end of 2012, the A380 will feature modified wings that incorporate a revised design for certain ribs following Airbus’s analysis of cracks discovered earlier this year in feet (or brackets) that attach the ribs to the outer skins, known as “covers,” in Airbus parlance. The manufacturer will revert to the use of metal in place of the composites material chosen originally to save weight in the wing-rib panels (or webs) and is planning to provide parts for in-service aircraft modification from early next year. The change brings A380 wing-ribs into line with other Airbus models that have metal wing ribs."

 

http://www.ainonline...nd-it-final-fix

[WR269 367]

 

You don't call changing the original material to another a design change? In Feb 2006 it failed it's wing stress test, and the response was to strengthen some ribs and spars, but never redid the stress test. Now, airlines have found cracks and are retrofitting the wings to use all metal parts in place of composites. I definitely would call that a structural design change!!

 

"From the end of 2012, the A380 will feature modified wings that incorporate a revised design for certain ribs following Airbus’s analysis of cracks discovered earlier this year in feet (or brackets) that attach the ribs to the outer skins, known as “covers,” in Airbus parlance. The manufacturer will revert to the use of metal in place of the composites material chosen originally to save weight in the wing-rib panels (or webs) and is planning to provide parts for in-service aircraft modification from early next year. The change brings A380 wing-ribs into line with other Airbus models that have metal wing ribs."

 

http://www.ainonline...nd-it-final-fix

 

Not really, the cracks did not delay certification and had nothing to do with the stress test, which in fact, the 787 also failed, but in a more spectacular fashion due to de lamination. The 787 wing had to be redesigned at the joint to avoid this, and this indeed added to the certification delay of it.

 

This was half expected, the 787 puts alloys where nobody else had before, and the timeline was over ambitious to start with. There is talk that had the 787 wing been flying still or carried a load comparable to the A380 critical loading, it would be interesting to see of similar cracks present themselves.

 

All speculation obviously, as Boeing has far more pressing issues at the moment.

 

[tf51d 284]

Not really, the cracks did not delay certification and had nothing to do with the stress test, which in fact, the 787 also failed, but in a more spectacular fashion due to de lamination. The 787 wing had to be redesigned at the joint to avoid this, and this indeed added to the certification delay of it.

 

There is a good reason for that. Boeing took the time to redo the test to make sure the redesign worked. Airbus just assumed the strengthening of the wing spars would be enough, and since they didn't retest them, how do we know the problems they have now isn't related?

[WR269 367]

 

There is a good reason for that. Boeing took the time to redo the test to make sure the redesign worked. Airbus just assumed the strengthening of the wing spars would be enough, and since they didn't retest them, how do we know the problems they have now isn't related?

 

You make it sound as if Boeing did this out if the goodness of their heart.

 

The test failed after the 787 had del animation problems. Boeing did not take their time on this, they were already heavily delayed, and what they did was insert rods in the joint as an interim fix to get past certification whilst promising a permanent fix for later. I believe the redesigned joint and bonding were applied eventually.

 

The A380 frame failed at 1.45 and the cutoff was 1.5

 

The airframe tested had the original wing which was not applied to flight test or production aircraft, and it was significantly stronger than the certification test wing.

 

But still, the original design in itself was not the issue. Like I said before, Boeing has put a lot of innovation on this program, I just don't think the product is mature enough to be out there. Maybe a case of too many " world firsts?"

 

[CoolP 283]

Lets see. Comparing program delays and the inability to meet planned production rates should be in order I think. No comment on the wise words about the maturity of a product of the even more impressive in-depth view on 'too many world firsts'. :mellow:

 

The 777 was seamless, but it really offered no new technologies or innovations on design apart Boeing finally putting fbw in one

I think this one speaks for itself.

 

(notwithstanding the fact the A380 wings carry a heck of a lot more load)

Because the A380 is bigger, right? Actually, the wing loading value on the A380 is ~136lb/ft2 while the 787 features ~144lb/ft2. Besides, the same value is even higher on a 747 or even MD11. Details.

 

Are we looking at another A vs. B thread or are we discussing what is really happening and what e.g. a 787 investigation brought up so far? I opt for the latter. No offence.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Are we looking at another A vs. B thread or are we discussing what is really happening and what e.g. a 787 investigation brought up so far? I opt for the latter. No offence.

 

As a former addicted reader of the Airliners dot net forums from the B7E7 and A double decker days, I have to agree 100%. This matter is too serious to revert back to that, in my personal opinion.

 

Kind regards,

[BritishEagle 0]

Latest info about the B787 is at this Boeing site....

 

http://787updates.newairplane.com/