Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another 787 Fire this time at LHR

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
    Casual question: Does anyone check the ELT battery before each flight. It is one battery you'd want fresh.
    The battery has a service life of ten years including monthly tests and is good for total operating time of 50 hours. There are two ELTs on the bird (plus I read others on life rafts).

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by B757300 View Post
      Boeing is now recommending that operators of the 717, 737NG, 747-400, 767 and 777 which use the Honeywell ETL to inspect or remove the device from the aircraft.
      I'm beginning to wonder if the electrical wiring system is at fault on the 787 as the problems mount involving batteries, ovens, and instrumentation.

      I'm what is known as a grey beard in the aerospace industry and like myself most of the senior engineers involved in designing earlier aircraft have either retired or died. I still consult and I just received a subsystem specification to review, and I see it contains features that proved to be problematic in the past.

      Comment


      • #78
        Latest rumor is there was a pinched wire in the ELT, as well as on 3 other 787s.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
          The battery has a service life of ten years including monthly tests and is good for total operating time of 50 hours. There are two ELTs on the bird (plus I read others on life rafts).
          So if a plane goes down, that device probably was checked within the last month.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
            Latest rumor is there was a pinched wire in the ELT, as well as on 3 other 787s.
            It's not a rumor-United found one in one of their 787s, as did ANA. United replaced it, and sent the ELT back to Honywell. ANA did the same.

            Here's a great article from the New York Times on the challenges of repairing composite airplane structures: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/bu...ef=global-home

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by UALdave View Post
              It's not a rumor-United found one in one of their 787s, as did ANA. United replaced it, and sent the ELT back to Honywell. ANA did the same.
              Significant amount of ironing here - a safety device put there to help save lives....

              Comment


              • #82
                The beacons are manufactured in Newfoundland, Canada. Interesting; and it's from this latest article on this issue: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9720AK20130803

                From the article: "The Wall Street Journal reported that the Canadian directive would expand inspections to cover all types of planes that use the suspect emergency transmitters, including jets from Boeing, Europe's Airbus and Dassault Aviation."

                Right now, it looks like the fault lies with Honeywell.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by UALdave View Post
                  Right now, it looks like the fault lies with Honeywell.
                  Maybe. But the airplane should be able to survive to a single failure in about any of its components. Think of the battery. A lot of effort was put not only into preventing a failure in the first place, but into assuring a safe continuation of the flight should one happen.

                  And that's especially true in an ETOPS plane.
                  I wonder what would have been the outcome had this failure happened in the middle of the Pacific ocean, 240 minutes away from the closest suitable runway.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    Maybe. But the airplane should be able to survive to a single failure in about any of its components. Think of the battery. A lot of effort was put not only into preventing a failure in the first place, but into assuring a safe continuation of the flight should one happen.

                    And that's especially true in an ETOPS plane.
                    I wonder what would have been the outcome had this failure happened in the middle of the Pacific ocean, 240 minutes away from the closest suitable runway.
                    Very good points; I never thought of all that. I'm still very surprised that the FAA doesn't require ELTs to be installed in airplanes like the 787. I know that there are other ways of finding and identifying a downed airliner, but not requiring ELTs to be installed seems pretty lax to me.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by UALdave View Post

                      Right now, it looks like the fault lies with Canada.
                      Fixed

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by UALdave View Post
                        Very good points; I never thought of all that. I'm still very surprised that the FAA doesn't require ELTs to be installed in airplanes like the 787. I know that there are other ways of finding and identifying a downed airliner, but not requiring ELTs to be installed seems pretty lax to me.
                        For a downed aircraft in the water the ELTs will work if the aircraft is floating but I doubt that that they work under water. For a sunk aircraft the FDR emits a sonic signal for 30+ days.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
                          For a downed aircraft in the water the ELTs will work if the aircraft is floating but I doubt that that they work under water. For a sunk aircraft the FDR emits a sonic signal for 30+ days.
                          OK, well then it does make sense that they're not required by the FAA. A Honeywell subcontractor's plant that makes the 787 ELTs is due to be inspected this week:

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by UALdave View Post
                            A Honeywell subcontractor's plant that makes the 787 ELTs is due to be inspected this week:

                            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...nspection.html
                            It's good that they are advised in advance, so they have time to set the stage, prepare the records, etc...

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              It's good that they are advised in advance, so they have time to set the stage, prepare the records, etc...
                              If they need to be told to set the stage, then the problems are bigger than we thought.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                More 787 wiring problems

                                Today I read a report that an ANA 787 had a problem with wiring in a system to put out fires and found similar problems in two other 787s. The fire extinguisher controls for the left and right engines were crossed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X