Sign in to follow this  
moeman

Dreamliner problem

Recommended Posts

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7104735/FAA-finds-Boeing-787-jets-wheels-tires-lose-braking-steering-function.html?fbclid=IwAR19Qx4zWgo4O-RRh3EE-H5D7rgA2IMs87VbPYlbsbsTsQvS1FrfWzhbPqQ

EXCLUSIVE: More safety concerns for Boeing as FAA says its 'Dreamliner' planes could lose braking and steering function - taking nearly 100 of the 787 jets out of the air for $5million repairs

  • The Federal Aviation Administration have identified safety flaws in Boeing's 787 jets - called the Dreamliner, DailyMail.com can reveal. 
  • The tires and wheels of the 787-9 and 787-8 jets 'could be susceptible to damage, which could result in a loss of braking on one main landing gear truck'
  • The FAA also found an issue that could see a 'loss of nose wheel steering and loss of directional control on the ground when below rudder effectiveness speed' 
  • Repairs required to fix this particular safety concern will cost more than $5million, the FAA reports 
  • This model is flown by 72 major airlines including United, Virgin Atlantic and American and will affect an estimated 87 airplanes

Boeing has been hit by new safety concerns affecting two further plane models and requiring million of dollars worth of repairs.

It is just two days since the Federal Aviation Administration announced a new problem with the company's 300 grounded 737 MAX jets.

Now, DailyMail.com can disclose, the beleaguered air giant has been handed new Airworthiness Directives by regulators who have identified safety flaws in Boeing's 787 jets - the company's so-called Dreamliner.

According to the FAA the tires/wheels of the recently launched 787-9 and 787-8 'could be susceptible to damage, which could result in a loss of braking on one main landing gear truck, loss of nose wheel steering and loss of directional control on the ground when below rudder effectiveness speed.'

The regulators' directive will be effective from Thursday, June 6 and affects an estimated 87 airplanes on the US registry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the way they write this stuff.  ADs are issued all the time against all aircraft.  A deficiency was found, likely through the SDR process and deemed to pose a great enough risk as to require corrective action.  There is no mention above of a timeline required to make the repairs.  It is an Emergency AD?  Can it be accomplished at a heavy maintenance visit?  is there an hour restriction?  Does it ground the fleet?

So many questions that a layman Joe Passenger doesn't understand but the press makes it out to be some catastrophic issue all because one fleet type has what was deemed a major issue.

Fear mongering.

I have not seen the AD so I dont know the details.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airworthiness Directive (AD) search made easy...

The CAWIS section of the Transport Canada site allows you to do a quick research of the ADs on a particular aircraft.

https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cawis-swimn/AD_as.aspx

Put in the registration of an aircraft and all the applicable ADs are listed.

If you want an AC fin, try C-GHPT, for a Westjet fin try C-GUDH .

The AD in question: https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/AwD-CN/documents/US2019-08-05.PDF

Edited by mrlupin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok so the issue was addressed by a Service Bulleting in July of 2017 and completion of this SB is compliance with the AD.

Paragraph 5 is supposed to give the compliance timeline but references another document to get the information.  This is strange if you are attempting to determine if compliance with the AD has be properly met.  

The whole issue revolves around possible tire failure causing damage by debris to the Nose wheel steering hydraulic lines.  Probably not a common issue.  Remember Airbus had the nose wheel steering issue that caused it to turn 90 degrees and remain there even during the approach.  There is good video of one incident out there.

Again the media making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, boestar said:

Remember Airbus had the nose wheel steering issue that caused it to turn 90 degrees and remain there even during the approach.  There is good video of one incident out there.

Again the media making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

Between Trump and Boeing the media has it easy with little work to do on their part but it’s Boeing who has put themselves under the microscope. No one else to blame.

And here’s that Airbus nose-wheel. At LAX JetBlue A320.

053F358D-D0D1-404A-AF53-BA1A3BDE272C.jpeg

Edited by blues deville

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some comments from another forum re the Dreamliner. Are they Valid or just verbiage?   curious

Just some random observations by someone who has flown the 787 as a pax and for a short while as a pilot.
  • Toilet seat lids falling down mid-peeing session. This is a consistent problem across airlines and independent of turbulence.
  • Humidity improvement? Really? Flown as a pax in equal measure on A330s, A340s, 777s. I didnt notice any difference.
  • IFE screens that don't tilt. Virgin and Norwegian have the same problem. Are there any that do tilt? Pax in front tilts seat. Tough luck with the viewing angle
  • Noise. They are noisier than a 4 engined 20 year old A340 as a pax (seated right over the wing) which is a shame because on the outside they whisper comparitively speaking. Conclusion therefore is that cabin noise damping is lower standard
  • Cup holders on the flight deck. Rediculously short in height, in moderate chops of 5 minutes half the tea/coffee has fallen out.
  • Turbulence in general. The flaperons move for sure but whether or not this helps turbulence is a highly suspect claim IMO
  • Yoke clip springs. Impossible to put a note of paper using the clips provided. So weak and ineffectual. Who provided such rubbish to them?
  • Scratches on the internal and external surfaces of the windshield! When a surface scratches this easily you know it's a pretty cheap material. Unbelievable this. We have 6 month old aircraft with so many scratches caused by the wipers (on the outside) and a combination of things (including the mind boggingly stupid idea of using a hard metal wire frame based sun shade) on the inside. I have flown 25 year old A320 on their original scratch free windshields.
  • VNAV mode (especially on descent) The system just doesn't know how slippery the aircraft is and provides some woeful descent profile calculations. To think this got past testing defies belief.
All in all, some wonderful ideas but poorly executed and lots of evidence of cost cutting wherever you look. Boeing have failed on getting the basics right.

Absolutely agree with every point. Especially the VNAV. What an absolute joke. I'm completely certain they slapped the B777 software in and called it done. Very dicey when starting descent from above FL40, will quite happily take you into excessive rates right into Mmo. You can compensate with lower speeds or earlier descent. So why exactly is it even there? Then the speedbrake message comes out, because apparently after multiple years in service it's just too hard to tweak the software to operate correctly to account for the need for drag. It's to the point where I just fly it in manual modes with the calculated path as a rough guide. No problem, but again, how is this proffered by Boeing engineers in 2019 with a straight face? But then when you ask most line engineers what some fault means, they just shrug. They have no idea either. Do a reset, sign the tech log, kick it out the door. "Solved".

I would also add to your list the cursor-driven FMC. Slower and more fiddly than what it replaces yet considered progress. And plasticky, cheap-feeling finish to...everything. Cockpit sunshades same as they give away as promotions at Tesco, says it all.

Incredible really that this is what a couple hundred million buys and is sold as state of the art. Feels more like cheap, gimmicky **bleep**. Complete with water-cooled electronics, like some kid's overclocked gaming computer.

But hey, you can auto-program SLOP in now. So there's that. And the HUD is...cool I guess?

The ultimate example of when a magnificent brand is destroyed by corporatism. Never thought I'd live long enough to see a Boeing product referred to by colleagues as a flying trash can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boeings' downward trend began when they started using suppliers for Major components.  The lowest bidder is not always the best choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this