Boeing's Nightmareliner strikes again

[Skybird]

German media have started to report - by reference to Indian newspapers - that the 787 again made healdines, a plane of this type lost panels on its belly and flew 2000 km with an open mainframe that way. Neither passengers nor the cockpit noted it. The affected airline was Air India. A replacement was flown to Bangalore, where the plane was grounded, and was build in. The passengers then continued the trip with 9 hours of delay.

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article120921231/Dreamliner-fliegt-2000-Kilometer-mit-Loch-im-Rumpf.html

English news will follow, I'm sure.

Maybe no major issue this time, still: another blow to the already massively degraded reputation of the 787. Japanese airlines have just started a revolution against Boeing by giving the biggest sales order ever in Japanese history - to Airbus Industries, who before were almost excluded from the Japanese market for airliners and could only share 5% of the market with their A320 models. The sales order is about the direct Airbus rival to Boeing's dreamliner.

[AndyJWest]

Where does it say that it "flew 2000 km with an open mainframe"? And how does a single 2-ft square panel missing become "panels"?

It is clearly a maintenance hatch in the unpressurised underwing fairing. Not good to lose it, obviously, but unlikely to be safety critical. As for the cause, I see no reason to assume any sort of design fault at this stage - and people can fail to close hatches etc properly on any manufacturers aircraft.

[Tchocky]

This incident has little to do with the 787 itself. Most likely a maintenance issue that happens countless times all over the world. It's in the papers because of the trend of 787 stories.

The aircraft certainly isn't without it's (large) share of problems, but this story (original Indian news item) neither illuminates or explains.

While the JAL A350 order is still significant, bear in mind they have more 787s ordered than A350. The aircraft complement each other rather than directly compete.

[Tchocky]

It is clearly a maintenance hatch in the unpressurised underwing fairing. Not good to lose it, obviously, but unlikely to be safety critical. As for the cause, I see no reason to assume any sort of design fault at this stage - and people can fail to close hatches etc properly on any manufacturers aircraft.

Look at the BA incident with an A319 out of Heathrow a few months ago. More serious in just about every way. Now,there's nothing wrong with the A319 as an aircraft, this incident shows thatsometimes these things happen.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Where does it say that it "flew 2000 km with an open mainframe"? And how does a single 2-ft square panel missing become "panels"?

It is clearly a maintenance hatch in the unpressurised underwing fairing. Not good to lose it, obviously, but unlikely to be safety critical. As for the cause, I see no reason to assume any sort of design fault at this stage - and people can fail to close hatches etc properly on any manufacturers aircraft.

2-ft square was 2 square metres in traslation of the welt.de linked, but in the original Bangalore Mirror it was 8x4'.

Panels instead of panel I think is just a typo by Sky, as rare as they are.

[Jimbuna]

Sky....I'm convinced you've got shares in one of Boeing's competitors :)

[Skybird]

Where does it say that it "flew 2000 km with an open mainframe"?
In the headline of the German link.

And how does a single 2-ft square panel missing become "panels"?
By your maths on the size. The Bangalore article in the link's picture shows a missing panel much bigger than "2 ft square", and the Bangalore News article in that image mentions "8x4 ft".

[GoldenRivet]

Its not unusual for a large number of boeings to fly over Germany with parts missing and still manage to land at their final destination safely.

[Skybird]

Sky....I'm convinced you've got shares in one of Boeing's competitors :)
No, in fact I prefer - in simulations :) - Boeing's cockpit and ergonomy philosophy over that of Airbus. It's just that I cannot hold bad some grim black humor due to past exchanges of fire between both companies, and my general doubt about the design being ripe with all its battery-depending electrification while they used batteries that are inapt for the demands ion this plane, it has MUCH higher electricity demands than any other. The new nbatteries they now installed, are not new at all, but are just the old ones in more heavily isolated steel cassettes. Which means they are still a critical factor they have been unable to replace - which is no wonder since the design of the plane is such that you just cannot take out the electric system like in other planes and put in another and expect to still have the 787 with its advertised characteristics after the operation. The design was too ambitious for the technology available at that time, and I am pretty certain that its just a question of time before this proves itself once again. The 787 is one of those planes I would always refuse to fly in.

And one thing nobody can deny: this latest in a long chain of bad news about the 787 again adds to the tremendous image disaster Boeing is suffering from this airplane. Considering losses in orders for 787s that go to Airbus now, it costs them probably already billions, and that is not including the costs of the added development work and the improvisations they needed and need to do with the battery system. In comparison, the micro-cracks in the hull of the A380 seem to have not such a big fallout for Airbus so far.

[Betonov]

Its not unusual for a large number of boeings to fly over Germany with parts missing and still manage to land at their final destination safely.

I'm not bothered with missing parts. Todays airplanes are designed with redundancies.

I'm worried about those parts landing somewhere, on someone :o

[Mr Quatro]

Its not unusual for a large number of boeings to fly over Germany with parts missing and still manage to land at their final destination safely.

Pun! You are a pun artist extrondaire :D

Your talking about WWII, right?

[Herr-Berbunch]

:har: Nice one GR.

[soopaman2]

See what happens when you close down your Washington state plants, and export the work to China?


You get what you pay for Boeing, you get the quality you pay for. Wanna pay a tenth for labor? , reap what you sow.

Boeing used to be the pride of the world, now look, nightmareliner, what a horrid name.

Boeing made the best bombers in the world, most reliable planes ever,...Now they make aluminum deathboxes. Thanks China.

(edit: I hope AIRBUS kicks your ass)

[AndyJWest]

Apologies to Skybird for trusting a machine translation. "zwei Quadratmeter" = "two-square-foot"? :o

[Mr Quatro]

Boeing stocks are at all time high

I think the 787 Dreamliner will become a great airplane someday
a plane you can trust and a plane passengers will enjoy flying on.

Boeing will fix the problems ... they will overcome the negative publicity :yep:

[Gargamel]

Its not unusual for a large number of boeings to fly over Germany with parts missing and still manage to land at their final destination safely.

Love it!



http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=omVJ-OK5h_eP0M&tbnid=3sfrJ9v1PIvTnM:&ved=0CAUQjBwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia% 2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fb0%2FB-17_group_in_formation.jpg&ei=Gt9dUq7QLqyh4APcrYGQCg&psig=AFQjCNH-M7DxDDnKU_lShD8hyPaVMM3t5w&ust=1381970074798850

[Admiral Halsey]

Honestly this doesn't worry me that much. What really worries me is the potential death toll if an A380 crashes. Just one of them crashing could potentially be as deadly as the Tenerife disaster or even worse.

[TorpX]

What really worries me is the potential death toll if an A380 crashes. Just one of them crashing could potentially be as deadly as the Tenerife disaster or even worse.
What worries me is where they crash, especially if, you know who, gets into the cockpit.

[TarJak]

I remember back in 2005 when my former employer purchased a bunch of 787s hoping to get the first delivery some time in 2007.

Ultimately the aircraft will overcome its teething problems and become a reliable passenger platform. Its quiet ride better pressurization and fuel economy will make it popular for mid range services. The US market will rebound at some point and sales will pick up.

[Admiral Halsey]

What worries me is where they crash, especially if, you know who, gets into the cockpit.


True but that's less likely then one of them crashing due to mechanical or pilot failure.

[Skybird]

New nightmare news from Boeing for the 787, and new models of the 747 lineage. Boeing has warned operators that plane models using GE engines should avoid flying in areas with thunderstorm, because the deicing of the engines does not work reliable and thus icing is a real threat. According to German media sources.

The news is serious enough that the Japanese carriers immediately reacted and withdrew all their Dreamliners from critical routes where thunderstorms are met frequently.

:dead:

[AndyJWest]

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/boeing-ge-notify-airlines-engine-icing-risk-747-094401072--sector.html

Not thunderstorms in general, but high-altitude thunderstorms. A build-up of ice crystals can cause a temporary loss of power. Not good news, obviously, but not a 'nightmare' for Boeing. Not least because it is the engines that have the problem - manufactured by General Electric.

[TorpX]

I didn't know jet engines were subject to icing problems. I hope they can fix the problem.

[Skybird]

I didn't know jet engines were subject to icing problems.


They are. Japanese Airlines , who has been hit by several of Boeing's 787-reputation killers, therefore withdrew its 787s from the longrange routes they operate in, for these have a raised probability of meeting thunderstorm conditions dangerous for the plane currently, also they withdrew it from several medium and shortrange routes for the same reason.

On radio this morning they said vaguely that some other carriers did accordingly.

Nothing may have happened, but it is just more bad news for Boeing's problematic child, and it does not really help to improve its reputation. People do not care for who manufactured the engines, also it is in Boeing's responsibility to accept engine models by other manufacturers - or not.

[sharkbit]

I didn't know jet engines were subject to icing problems. I hope they can fix the problem.




Engine anti-icing is usually an airframe(Boeing) system. It is the inlets to the engine cowlings that are heated via engine bleed air to prevent ice from forming and being ingested into the engine. I'm not familiar with the GE engines but some of the stator vanes inside the engine may be heated by bleed air but they are not usually the primary anti-icing protection for the engine.

So it is Boeing's problem. Doesn't matter if GE engines are installed or another engine option.

:)