Boeing 787 news

[sn26567]

Is it really business as usual for the Boeing 787? Otherwise, why would the US Dept of Transportation and the FAA have decided this morning to conduct a full review of the Boeing 787 critical systems, including the aircraft’s design, manufacture and assembly? Has it really been that bad for the 777?

It has gone so far that Boeing felt compelled to issue a press release in a hurry after today's decision of US aeronautical authorities:

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=49617

Boeing expresses its confidence in the reliability of the 787, but is there anything else they could do to prevent a further loss of confidence by their customers?

The Asian customers, in any case, remain also remarkably confident. Until the next incident?

[RoMax]

Is it really business as usual for the Boeing 787? Otherwise, why would the US Dept of Transportation and the FAA have decided this morning to conduct a full review of the Boeing 787 critical systems, including the aircraft’s design, manufacture and assembly? Has it really been that bad for the 777?

As I said, the issues with the electrical system may be critical, it doesn't seem to be a design fault, but there seem to be faults in the production of certain parts. Most of these parts are made by Boeing's suppliers, and a very large part of the investigation will focus on these companies and their production processes (as claimed by inside sources, the main failures all come from the same sources). Besides there seem to be problems as well with some of Boeing's production quality. The FAA and Boeing are forced to investigate this. Simular things happened to the 777 and the A380 (wing cracks and a design fault in the RR engines). But with the current use of the internet, these things come to the worldwide attention much faster than in the past. This forces the FAA, NTSB and Boeing to communicate much more than they are used to. That was already the case with the A380, but the 787 is more extreme, because about 1,3 years after first delivery, there are already 50 Dreamliners delivered, much more than the amount of A380's delivered in that time period. That automaticly results in a higher amount of incidents, it only make sense to compare it with the amount flown hours for example.

It has gone so far that Boeing felt compelled to issue a press release in a hurry after today's decision of US aeronautical authorities:

The decision wasn't made today and Boeing knew this was comming. They didn't have to do it in a hurry. They are a publicly traded company, it's normal they communicate about such events. I would be more concerned about a lack of communication.

But my main point was. Suddenly every single incident with the 787 is seen as a worldwide disaster (you know what I mean).

[Streetstream]

Also about the 3 incidents with United and Qatar with a power distribution panel. These all happened with boards that all came from the same manufacturing lot (consisting of 16). That seems like a production failure of the supplier of these boards instead of a design failure.

So there is a fire in a panel. Later there is a fire in a second panel. And Boeing waits until the third fire to swap the panels? Did they not see that the first 2 were from the same lot? Are the panels changed now?

By the way, what about the fuel leakes? Are those also minor incidents that aren't a design fault?

Look, the 787 has the makings of being a great plane. But that doesn't excuse people from minimizing the faults. You say that the A380 had less problems because they have a slower production pace, but besides the crackes in the wings and the 1 engine that blew up (btw, what caused the 787 engine explosing on taxi?) what other problems did they have? I know there would have been more, but i can't escape the feeling that the 787 is a bit of a problem child. The A380 was also launched in the time were social media was booming and yet i didn't hear that much problems.

If you ask me, fires, brake failures, failing to extend the landing gear and fuel leakes are serious problems, so don't try and play it of as just a bad batch of panels delivered by a supplier, because Boeing should have noticed corrected that after the second fire instead of waiting for the third.

Now, Boeing, get your act together and fix those problems, because the 787 is to good to be messed up by stupid fault that i feel come from rushing the production.

[RoMax]

So there is a fire in a panel. Later there is a fire in a second panel. And Boeing waits until the third fire to swap the panels? Did they not see that the first 2 were from the same lot? Are the panels changed now?

These 3 incidents were not fires, but failures of the panels and happened all 3 fast after eachother with newly delivered aircraft. By the time they noticed the first two were from the same lot, the 3rd incident already happened.

By the way, what about the fuel leakes? Are those also minor incidents that aren't a design fault?

Besides the regular failures (that also occure on other aircraft), there was a mistake in the production process of some 787's. Boeing warned for that and asked for inspections, after which the FAA followed that advice.

Look, the 787 has the makings of being a great plane. But that doesn't excuse people from minimizing the faults. You say that the A380 had less problems because they have a slower production pace, but besides the crackes in the wings and the 1 engine that blew up (btw, what caused the 787 engine explosing on taxi?) what other problems did they have? I know there would have been more, but i can't escape the feeling that the 787 is a bit of a problem child. The A380 was also launched in the time were social media was booming and yet i didn't hear that much problems.

What I wanted to say is that the incidents of the A380 didn't happen in such a short time period because there weren't so many deliveries in the critical 1-2 year period after EIS. I can think of electrical failures with Emirates and Singapore Airlines to start with. If you followed airliners.net, you would have seen that also with the A380 every single incident made it to the media and that were about as many as with the 787 (the electrical issues of the 787 left asside, for the 10th time). But as they didn't happen so fast after eachother (not all of them) they didn't make it to the worldwide media so easily.

If you ask me, fires, brake failures, failing to extend the landing gear and fuel leakes are serious problems, so don't try and play it of as just a bad batch of panels delivered by a supplier, because Boeing should have noticed corrected that after the second fire instead of waiting for the third.

There was a fire during test operations and now the JAL-fire, no other fire incidents (the panels itself and the surrounding materials can't be burned, the can melt at the max). One ANA-787 got an indication in the cockpit that there was something wrong with the brakes, reason was a broken part (even without that safety indication in the cockpit, they would have been able to stop at all times). Fail to extend the landing gear...I'm sorry but are you serious, that was the first incident because of a broken part as well...happens all the time. The fuel leakes are serious, Boeing responded fast and asked the FAA to 'force' airlines to inspect their 787's.
Boeing is making mistakes in their production (not only their suppliers, you should read my previous post again, it isn't only about the suppliers, is it?!), but nothing more or nothing less than with other programs (for the 11th time, the electrical issues left asside).

[Streetstream]

So you agree that the fuel leakes are caused by a fault in the factory? That fact and the speed (rushing) of it's production are to me indicators that they better slow things down before they really screw up.

Now you act so blasé over the failure of the landing gear, but that is, no matter how you look at it, a serious fault. Now you can keep on saying that there are many in service, but that doesn't change the fact that all these problems happend on planes with just over a year old. You may find that normal, but i don't.

And quoting airline executives isn't really helping the case. What do you expect them to say? That they have unsafe planes in service?

Now, just for the record, i don't think the 787 is a bad plane, i'm only concerned that the are rushing production and placing deadlines on suppliers that are generating an atmosphere where fault can and do occur. I know the program was plaged by delays, but rushing now may not be a good stradegy. And like i said before, i hope Boeing gets things straitend out so that these problems will soon be forgotten, cause none of us wants to see a mayor incident happen that could riun the reputation of the 787.

[RoMax]

And quoting airline executives isn't really helping the case. What do you expect them to say? That they have unsafe planes in service?

Besides the quote about the window crack, I quoted the Japanese authorities who oversee aviation safety in Japan. They say they don't see more incidents with the 787 as with other aircraft and that the incidents that did happen are not seen as very severe (they are only talking about the Japanese airlines) Are you saying that's a biased source?

So you agree that the fuel leakes are caused by a fault in the factory? That fact and the speed (rushing) of it's production are to me indicators that they better slow things down before they really screw up.

They indeed have to solve these production issiues, never denied that! Production went up to 5/month at the end of 2012, they'll keep it like that until mid 2013. That's quite a period the stabilize the production process. If it's enough, I can only say I hope so.

Now you act so blasé over the failure of the landing gear, but that is, no matter how you look at it, a serious fault. Now you can keep on saying that there are many in service, but that doesn't change the fact that all these problems happend on planes with just over a year old. You may find that normal, but i don't.

Parts fail every day. There is a difference between the failure of an essential part and that of 'secondary' parts. The cockpit indication pointed out an issue in the braking system of the landing gear. It proved to be a part related to the computer system that controls the braking system. This is a simple part, something ANA always has in spare (they don't have spare parts of things that don't break down often enough). The 'problem' was that they didn't have that part in that outstation, so they needed to fly over the part from another Japanese airport.
At no single point there was something really wrong with the brakes itself and in the case of emergency back-up systems would take over. Tough it's not something you want to fly around with, so ANA replaced it rightaway.
About the landing failure all the way in the beginning of ANA's commercial services. Yes something was broking, preventing the landing gear from dropping down the way it should. But like every aircraf there is always the back up system to drop down the landing gear with the help of gravity. That's what they did and they landed safely. Of course such thing shouldn't go wrong, but they do go wrong. This incident proved to have nothing to do with a design or production failure.

There were incidents caused by production failures (the fuel leakes and the electrical issues as the most severe). But most of them (braking system, window cracks, landing gear failure, ...) were the 'normal' problems that occur on numerous aircraft. The amount of these incidents with the 787 is probably higher than with any other aircraft currently in operation, but that's what they call "teething problems".
Btw, you should be suprised about the amount of problems that pop-up with brand new aircraft. Especially when they are from a new type like the 787. You would be suprised by the amount of incidents/problems that pop-up with mature aircraft programs like the 737, 777, A320, A330 in the first year after delivery. That amount will be much higher with the 787 currently, of course, just as it was with the A380 when it was introduced, just as it was with the 777, A330, A340, ... when they were introduced.

Look don't understand me wrong. I don't say all these incidents are just normal and Boeing doesn't have to botter about it. But the impact of several of these incidents (for the 12th time, not all) is seriously exagerated and taken out of context.

[Streetstream]

They indeed have to solve these production issiues, never denied that! Production went up to 5/month at the end of 2012, they'll keep it like that until mid 2013. That's quite a period the stabilize the production process. If it's enough, I can only say I hope so.

There were incidents caused by production failures (the fuel leakes and the electrical issues as the most severe). But most of them (braking system, window cracks, landing gear failure, ...) were the 'normal' problems that occur on numerous aircraft.

See that is my first problem with your argument. They are building 5 a month and are having problems and you state that they will keep it at five for six months and by then the production will be improved or 'stabilized'. Now my opinion (which is just my opinion and not a fact) is that you shouldn't set high goals, like building 5 a month, and than try to correct faults to make sure you can increase capacity. My opinion is that you first start out slow and only when production is garanteed 99.99% save, move up at a slow pace. Because as you stated, the fuel leakes and electrical problems are production faults that in my opinion are caused by (understandable seeing the program delay) rushing.

As for the the problems you state, you claim that most problems are parts failures, but as i see it there are just one incident of each problems you mentioned (braking failure, window cracks and landing gear failure) and several of the fuel leaks and electrical faults.

Now, i don't want to battle on and on over this subject and certanly not offend people, because we agree that the 787 is not only a great plane, it is a looker too, but i only have the sense that Boeing is rushing things with the 787 and i hope to god they don't encounter more problems.

BTW, i might have mist it and i only ask because i'm curious, but what did happen with that engine failure while taxiing on the 787. Does anyone know? Are the results in?

[RoMax]

See that is my first problem with your argument. They are building 5 a month and are having problems and you state that they will keep it at five for six months and by then the production will be improved or 'stabilized'. Now my opinion (which is just my opinion and not a fact) is that you shouldn't set high goals, like building 5 a month, and than try to correct faults to make sure you can increase capacity. My opinion is that you first start out slow and only when production is garanteed 99.99% save, move up at a slow pace. Because as you stated, the fuel leakes and electrical problems are production faults that in my opinion are caused by (understandable seeing the program delay) rushing.

It would be the safe option to keep the production at 5/month. But the problem is, Boeing is a commercial company and airlines are commercial companies. They have contracts, very strict contracts. And unless Boeing comes up with a VERY good reason not to raise production, airlines will claim hundreds of millions extra delay compensation. Unless there prove there are reall BIG production problems that really mean a safety issue, production will go up in June/July. Current issues aren't small, but they never were a big safety issue for the aircraft itself and the people on board. In the case of the electrical system, there always were back up systems (there are about 6 power distribution panels, it's always the same that fails, but since the design change during the testfase, the other 5 can back up the failure of one of the panels). Even if the lithium-ion fire occured in-flight, that wouldn't have been a severe safety issue as the location where the battery is located contains few tot none flammable materials (it's just the battery that can burn and surrounding materials that can melt, it has to burn for quite some time before it can reach other surrounding locations that contain flammable materials, the firefighters at BOS needed 40 minutes after the arrived at the aircraft to stop the fire and who knows how long the fire was going on before it was noticed, and still the damage was just within one location and didn't affect other systems). But again I'm not saying, it's all just safe, not at all, you never want to fly with a fire in your aircraft or a failing electrical system. But as long as the NTSB and or FAA don't see reasons to ground the 787's or to point at huge issues, Boeing will have no valid reason not to increase production.

That sounds 'very wrong', but that's the way business works. The first time I had the oppertunity to talk with the Executive Vice President Flight Operations of KLM (responsible for the safety of flight operations), I had the feeling he was a bit crazy...but it's just how business works. You always have to find the right balance between profit and safety and sometimes that goes terribly wrong. But if they go for 100% safe and eventually that proved to be unnecessary, than you also have a serious problem. (that KLM-manager I mentioned could eat some people of the European and Dutch aviation authorities alive because of what happened in 2010 with the ashcloud, with the difference that KLM can't file a commercial complaint against them, contrary to what would happen with Boeing in the 787-case)

As for the the problems you state, you claim that most problems are parts failures, but as i see it there are just one incident of each problems you mentioned (braking failure, window cracks and landing gear failure) and several of the fuel leaks and electrical faults.

Some of the problems may have occured more often, but as they are actualy non-events, not all of them make it to the media, unless you are in a period like this after a more serious incident. The fuel leaks (they were discovered by Boeing itself on their production line, they asked airlines for inspections, but they were not that urgent, the JAL fuel leak was not related to this, Boeing's fault was a faulty connection, the JAL-fuel leak was because of a failed fuel valve, happens more often) and electrical faults happened more often indeed, because they often happened on a certain batch of 787's.
I'm quite sure the airlines that have power distribution panels of the same bad production lot, know this by know and take the needed actions. But even for these aircraft that will not be a reason for immediate grounding.

[Streetstream]

It would be the safe option to keep the production at 5/month. But the problem is, Boeing is a commercial company and airlines are commercial companies. They have contracts, very strict contracts. And unless Boeing comes up with a VERY good reason not to raise production, airlines will claim hundreds of millions extra delay compensation.

So if they could, they would? I know they have contracts, but Boeing signed those contracts. They wern't forced onto them. So if they didn't have the delays on the program, pressure would be less now and they could slow things down, and in my opinion they would. So money wins over safety (relative ofcourse, because the problems, although serious, never endanged the passengers (yet)). And i'm not saying this and acting like Boeing is the only one doing it. I'll bet money that every manufacterer is doing it, surtenly in a domestic economy that is bad and a foreign economy that is booming and that won't wait around.

So i can only express the hope that the 787 will overcome these issues and have a great carreer, but i'm a bit concerned that there they are rushing production (as i stated before).BTW, i'm not some Airbus fanboy (although i am a fan of the A300/A310 and A340/330) that uses every small problem to bash the 787, because i really like the plane (you can't help but love it on looks alone).

[RoMax]

So if they could, they would? I know they have contracts, but Boeing signed those contracts. They wern't forced onto them. So if they didn't have the delays on the program, pressure would be less now and they could slow things down, and in my opinion they would. So money wins over safety (relative ofcourse, because the problems, although serious, never endanged the passengers (yet)). And i'm not saying this and acting like Boeing is the only one doing it. I'll bet money that every manufacterer is doing it, surtenly in a domestic economy that is bad and a foreign economy that is booming and that won't wait around.

They signed the contracts indeed. But back in the days they singed the biggest contracts, they didn't have the delays yet. Even without the delays, the planning of production ramp-up would be very strict. So I doubt they would slow down that unless there are really serious issues. And of course they can imagine at the start of such a project there will occure production problems, but they also know most of these aren't severe safety issues and they can be resolved without special actions.
Boeing raised production from 1,5/month to 5/month in 2012, I'm quite sure that had its impact. So this half year of production stabilisation will be good and I can only hope it will be enough to flatten out some problems. But of course we still have the second part of 2013 when production will go up to 10/month by the end of December... If Boeing isn't able to that, that will delay deliveries again and airlines will not be happy.

So i can only express the hope that the 787 will overcome these issues and have a great carreer, but i'm a bit concerned that there they are rushing production (as i stated before).BTW, i'm not some Airbus fanboy (although i am a fan of the A300/A310 and A340/330) that uses every small problem to bash the 787, because i really like the plane (you can't help but love it on looks alone).

I do hope they can resolve the problems fast, without too much additional delays. I also hope the FAA-Boeing joint-investigation indeed shows production fails (not that's a good thing, but it would be much better than a design fail, but at this point everything points at problems in production and a big part of it with the power panels of Hamilton Sundstrand).

[Streetstream]

...in production and a big part of it with the power panels of Hamilton Sundstrand).

Hamilton sundstand? Aren't they responsible for the crash of a Embrear Brasilia?

[RoMax]

Hamilton Sundstrand? Aren't they responsible for the crash of a Embrear Brasilia?

That's the one indeed, tough the Hamilton (not Sundstrand yet) of those days is quite different to the Hamilton Sundstrand of today (part of United Technologies Corp).
They are one of the key suppliers of the electrical system of the 787 (like the APU, power panels,...). It's one of the suppliers the FAA will follow VERY closely the next weeks/months. (now I think of it, I remember Boeing had to replace some APU's of undelivered aircraft because there were some things wrong with it, as I said above, these are also from Hamilton).
But there are also other suppliers that provide key components for these systems. I believe one other company works with Hamilton on the power distributing panels, but I don't remember which company.

Anyway, it's one of the big boys in this story.

[Passenger]

Highly recommended : comments from Simon (AvHerald) about the recent 787-800 incidents:

"...This incident together with three ground incidents of Boeing 787-800, that are outside The Aviation Herald's coverage, created an unbelievable and unjustified hysteria throughout global media. A fuel spill, like it happened at Boston, can happen due to overfill during refueling or perhaps a ruptured fuel line on any aircraft. A brakes problem as happened in Japan during flight preparation is not worth mentioning at all but again created hysteria..."

Continues here:
http://avherald.com/h?article=45bfcc30

[RoMax]

http://atwonline.com/international-avia ... egins-0111

[RoMax]

BTW, i might have mist it and i only ask because i'm curious, but what did happen with that engine failure while taxiing on the 787. Does anyone know? Are the results in?

Sorry, missed that question in my previous replies. I'm not sure, I should check what the actual cause was. But I believe it was a production fault of GE in the engine. Inspections on other GEnX engines were asked by FAA/NTSB/Boeing. But eventually only a very limited amount of engines was affected and I believe none of them was already delivered.

That specific aircraft was delivered late December or early January to Air India (the only 787-delivery so far was to Air India, but I don't know if that was this frame or that one was already one of the AI-deliveries in December). Air India claimed they took delivery of it after some extra testing in Charleston (where it was produced).

And to talk about something more positive. Boeing did a B-1 (first test flight) with a LOT 787 today, that's the first B-1 flight for this year. Also important to note, Boeing started to fly 787's of China Southern and Hainan Airlines again (they were stored in the 4th quarter of 2012, because the CAAC is delaying the 787 certification for political reasons). One of the performed testflights even was a certification flight with the CAAC on board, so it seems to be going the good way on that side. Without that CAAC-certification delay, Boeing could have delivered about 5-6 787's to China Southern and Hainan in 2012, but it turned out differently.

[sn26567]

Although Boeing says it is cooperating with the FAA review of the 787, people familiar with the discussions said Boeing fought unsuccessfully for days to head off or deflect the FAA announcement, arguing it was unwarranted and threatened to undermine investor, customer and passenger confidence in the plane.

And, indeed, the review opens the possibility of design or manufacturing changes that could hinder Boeing's production and increase manufacturing costs.

The FAA plans a "comprehensive review of Boeing 787 critical systems," focusing especially on the "design, manufacture and assembly" of electrical components. The review is something the agency hasn't done in at least three decades: a high-priority regulatory re-examination of a jet that has been approved and fully certified to carry passengers.

The FAA said the review is expected to last several months, during which the aircraft will continue flying, unless a major flaw is discovered. The FAA will investigate its own safeguards put in place to control whether the assembly line safety checks were reliable.

Further information from The Wall Street Journal

[crlhub]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/trave ... liner.html

[RoMax]

Although Boeing says it is cooperating with the FAA review of the 787, people familiar with the discussions said Boeing fought unsuccessfully for days to head off or deflect the FAA announcement, arguing it was unwarranted and threatened to undermine investor, customer and passenger confidence in the plane.

Of course they didn't want the FAA to announce this. They are a publicly traded company and such a review doesn't really give Boeing's investors confidence. Neither this is good for peoples confidence in the aircraft.
But that doesn't mean Boeing isn't cooperating with the FAA and NTSB. Boeing will not be happy with finding design and/or production problems, but continuing without actions isn't the right thing to do either.

For the FAA this is important as well. The 787 underwent the most extreme test program of all commercial aircraft currently flying, including a serious look at the production process of all these new materials and technologies. Their findings may point at things they missed during the test program, that's not only important to Boeing but also for themself (for future programs, and for the 787-9 certification that will start later this year) and also for EASA who will have the next big task with certifying the A350.

And I'm quite sure some of Boeing's suppliers will be 'affraid' of this FAA-review as well. Many problems seem to go back as far as the production process of some supliers. Hamilton Sundstrand already made mistakes in the production of the power panels in the past, causing debris to stick into the panels (causing the onboard fire during flight testing). Tough it must be said that this incident also brought up a design fault of Boeing, the failure of one panel may not cause essential systems to go black (making that inflight fire a real emergency and causing the grounding of the 787 test fleet for several weeks). This was resolved as United and Qatar never experienced systems to fail after they got the indication of the panel failure.

[RoMax]

Interesting post on airliners.net, yes of course, it's anonymous so not the best source, but I've read multiple of these claims by anonymous and known sources the latest days, so there must be something in it (mind it's written as a response to someone):

I was an employee on both the 777-200A and the 787-8 programs when they entered service. I can tell you with certainty you are buying into and perpetuating an industry myth. The 787 is operating at a higher disptch reliability than the 777 was at this point in its service life. The problems we faced in 1995 and 1996 on the 777 were also significant, widespread, and just happened to include extreme problems with the backup power generators. Regulators held special reviews, there were those asking if we should keep flying ETOPS, etc, etc. The only real difference from what the 787 is facing today is that without an Internet like we have now, none of the issues ever really made it into the public eye.

Ray Conner and Mike Sinnett were not lying over the past couple days when they stated the 787 program is not experienceing more issues than other new airplane programs. I've looked at the raw numbers and the 787 comes out marginally ahead of the 777.

[Desert Rat]

So you agree that the fuel leakes are caused by a fault in the factory?

.

It might be due to a hard landing as well, most of the time fuel leaks(I'm not talking about spillage) are due to a hard landing.