boeing dreamliner

[SteveP]

a few pilots on here...
in boston yesterday on of the new dreamliners had a small electrical fire.
landed fine, etc.. fire was a battery that they say would only be in use on the ground.

the plane was new ( like 2 weeks old ) and had just arrived from japan.
this is the only plane that can fly direct from boston to the orient.
fully fueled 747 is too heavy for the runway length here.

somebody tell me this isnt a huge issue for this aircraft.

[Ben]

"Ohhhh, it's supposed to be an internal combustion engine. That makes a LOT more sense."

-Boeing engineers

[David Tollefson]

Outsourced design... Sure, according to the upper management (now) it was NEVER a problem...

[holliscx]

Hiccups are part and parcel with new planes; I think it takes years for these sort of things to get ironed out.

I know someone who flew on a 777 from Narita to Newark that a gate agent in Tokyo left his keys in the side of the aircraft. Five hours into the flight I believe the captain noticed a lanyard slapping the side of the plane and turned back.

[Ben]

Hiccups are part and parcel with new planes; I think it takes years for these sort of things to get ironed out.

I know someone who flew on a 777 from Narita to Newark that a gate agent in Tokyo left his keys in the side of the aircraft. Five hours into the flight I believe the captain noticed a lanyard slapping the side of the plane and turned back.

Talked to one of my sister's friends who worked for (I think) GE building jet engines. They had tool cabinets that would be the envy of anyone on here, but with one catch: At the end of the day, their tools were audited, and if so much as one socket was missing, you were basically fired. Because the assumption was that the missing tool was inside the engine somewhere, and the whole thing had to be disassembled to ensure that it wasn't.

(It's entirely possible that I've misremembered details, but you get the gist.)

[Saab2000]

Outsourcing of huge amounts of the engineering of the airplane to disparate contractors is the cause of much of the problem. This is the gist of what I have read while observing the 787 train wreck over the past 5+ years. The hiccups with the 787 are pretty bad from what I understand. The 777 introduction was far smoother. The 747 did have issues as well though in the very, very early stages and it turned to be quite successful. Hopefully Boeing can do the same with the 787.

The 777 was a grand slam success and continues to sell well. Airlines love it and passengers love it and crews love it.

BTW, Boston's runways are plenty long for flights all over the world with the right equipment. I don't know the routes they would take to Asia (Asia is a big place BTW, so the destination would matter). But I am pretty sure many airplanes could make this route from BOS-NRT with no problems, probably even a heavily laden 747. The runways are 10,000 feet long and that's plenty long considering BOS is at sea level and it's rarely baking hot there.

FWIW, the Airbus A380 has not been without some serious issues as well.

As to the tool thing, I remember working at ZRH in the late '90s. We sent a flight to London and about halfway there a mechanic fessed up that he thought he forgot a tool inside the engine. The airplane turned around and came back to Zurich, landed, had the tool removed, refueled and went to London. I don't know the fate of the mechanic, but at least he admitted it. Switzerland has much less of a 'You're Fired!' mentality, so I suspect he kept his job with a good tongue lashing by his boss.

[RickM]

Talked to one of my sister's friends who worked for (I think) GE building jet engines. They had tool cabinets that would be the envy of anyone on here, but with one catch: At the end of the day, their tools were audited, and if so much as one socket was missing, you were basically fired. Because the assumption was that the missing tool was inside the engine somewhere, and the whole thing had to be disassembled to ensure that it wasn't.

(It's entirely possible that I've misremembered details, but you get the gist.)

I worked for GE for many years and still consult/advise on medical device stuff. The process you describe could certainly be a GE protocol. One can argue the merits/detriments of such a protocol all day, but when you're building stuff that people's lives depend on...it's a serious business. My experience would be more along the lines of; One such event and you may not be fired, but it will definitely haunt you on your reviews, etc.. Two times..and your career is over, whether you get let go that day or not. GE makes some pisspoor stuff; light bulbs, washing machines, and the like..but the jet engines, MRI's, locomotives, etc.. are pretty solid.

[spopepro]

Talked to one of my sister's friends who worked for (I think) GE building jet engines. They had tool cabinets that would be the envy of anyone on here, but with one catch: At the end of the day, their tools were audited, and if so much as one socket was missing, you were basically fired. Because the assumption was that the missing tool was inside the engine somewhere, and the whole thing had to be disassembled to ensure that it wasn't.

(It's entirely possible that I've misremembered details, but you get the gist.)

My wife is USAF in a maintenence field. They do, infact, have many massive blue toolboxes with foam cutouts for everything, and yes, multiple people must sign off on everything being back in place. If it isn't in the jet, then it's FOD and either way you're in big trouble.

[busdriver1959]

All new airplanes have problems. The 787 has had quality control issues with parts (big parts) coming from all over the world. Hopefully they won't be tempted to do that again. Have faith in Boeing. They are the only airplane manufacturer in the world. The rest are wannabes. As far as range goes, the 747 isn't that great. We fly 777s to Asia from Memphis every day. We come back from Hong Kong nonstop. Boston shouldn't have a problem with runway length either. We fly to Narita and Seoul off of our shortest runway, 8946 ft.

[Tristan]

As to the tool thing, I remember working at ZRH in the late '90s. We sent a flight to London and about halfway there a mechanic fessed up that he thought he forgot a tool inside the engine. The airplane turned around and came back to Zurich, landed, had the tool removed, refueled and went to London. I don't know the fate of the mechanic, but at least he admitted it. Switzerland has much less of a 'You're Fired!' mentality, so I suspect he kept his job with a good tongue lashing by his boss.

I spent a few years instructing Air Cadets in Canada how to fly gliders. In the maintenance workshops each tool was hung on a shadow board and audited at the end of each job. There were also rules about having to use the instruction manual for servicing - you couldn't rely on your memory from previous jobs incase instructions / torque values etc had changed. Like the AIP the service manual had removable pages and updates would be sent out on a monthly basis.

I once had to ground a glider when the little plastic airplane toy I used to help students visualize manoeuvres before flying fell out of my pocket at a few thousand feet and dropped straight into an inspection hole and started rattling around in the fuselage. I seem to recall having to buy the beer that evening.

The Canadian military also had a policy regarding anyone on the flight line from pilot to the guy who swept the hanger. Basically if you made a mistake that put crew or equipment at risk and fessed up, no problem. Your mistake was anonymously published in a nation-wide newsletter to help others learn from the mistake. If you didn't fess up you were basically hung, drawn and quartered.

[David Tollefson]

Outsourcing of huge amounts of the engineering of the airplane to disparate contractors is the cause of much of the problem. This is the gist of what I have read while observing the 787 train wreck over the past 5+ years. The hiccups with the 787 are pretty bad from what I understand. The 777 introduction was far smoother. The 747 did have issues as well though in the very, very early stages and it turned to be quite successful. Hopefully Boeing can do the same with the 787.

Sadly, upper management is denying this to be the case now (I guess we DO live in a different world) and is telling its engineers that "anyone can do what you do".

[SteveP]

will be interesting.

for the record..
we have never had an asia direct flight from boston before this plane arrived. we have always been told its the runway length.
this plane came from japan.

[busdriver1959]

If you look on a globe and not a flat map, you will see that Boston to Seoul or Tokyo is just a tiny bit longer than Memphis to Seoul or Tokyo. As I said before, we often use our 8946 ft runway. I don't know how passenger carrier's weights run out of Boston but often, freighters are heavier. I think you were lied to.

[Roman]

Today is tuesday, so a fuel leak- mondays are small fires.

Japan Airlines Dreamliner Cuts Flight Short Due to Fuel Leak

[SteveP]

it gets worse... nother day, nother plane.

i dont know from anything about the runway length...
it has been said for years though by the airlines...
so, nobodys lying to me.. ( about this anyway )

if god wanted people to fly to japan he would have put it closer.

[nrs5000]

it gets worse... nother day, nother plane.

i dont know from anything about the runway length...
it has been said for years though by the airlines...
so, nobodys lying to me.. ( about this anyway )

if god wanted bostonians to fly to japan he would have put it closer.

Fixed that for you.

[lukasz]

I've got to say, I flew on one of those Airbus A380s last summer and it was quite nice.

[monadnocky]

Apparently today there was another problem at Logan with a JAL 787:

Fuel leaks from Dreamliner flight to Tokyo - Boston.com

edit: crap, didn't see the above.

[dhoff]

I've got to say, I flew on one of those Airbus A380s last summer and it was quite nice.

just last week i flew on one dubai to ny. most comfortable plane i can remember.

[busdriver1959]

Doesn't sound like the fuel leak was an airplane problem. There are surge tanks out at the end of the wing. They are designed to be a place for excess fuel to go. If enough fuel moves into the surge tank,l the fuel will spill overboard from a vent in the bottom of the wing. If the fueler overfilled the wing tank and the the fuel expanded or sloshed into the surge tank, that's what should happen. Reading between the lines in the Boston.com article, the mechanics didn't fix anything. They just ran it and sent it on it's way. When you are carrying 30-40 thousand gallons, a 40 gallon loss is insignificant.