787 Dreamliner emergency landing during test


#1

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b … es_section

A serious in-flight fire in the electric equipment bay of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner flight test plane forced an emergency landing in Laredo, Texas, Tuesday. All aboard were safely evacuated on slides.

The fire affected the cockpit controls and the jet lost its primary flight displays and its auto-throttle, according to a person familiar with the incident. The flight and engine controls, which on the Dreamliner are all-electric, weren’t fully functional, this person said.

A small emergency power generator called the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) that typically kicks in only when both primary and auxiliary power sources are lost was automatically deployed. The RAT, a device like a small dynamo that drops down from the fuselage and generates power from the air flowing past the aircraft, provides sufficient power for flight controls and other vital systems in an emergency.


#2

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE2/history/20101109/1430Z/KNYL/KLRD Plane #2 from the 787 test website. http://787flighttest.com/


#3

Wow… this was the same aircraft that was here at KMHR prior to heading down to KNYL. Interesting stuff…

BL.


#4

If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t . . . oh, wait a minute.


#5

Yeah and how’s that A380 doing?

Wait till they kill 400 people and then figure out there is something they need to change.


#6

Let’s not start this again…

Bottom line, Both Boeing and Airbus are fighting over that slice of humble pie now; Airbus with the Trent 900 issues, and Boeing with structural issues, the RB211 engine problem, and the Trent 1000 blowing up in their face.

Airbus at least has their plane in service, despite the taunting Boeing fanboys have given them. That can’t be said about the B787, especially with the delays and penalties they’re about to dole out to waiting customers.

Another point: Airbus has an out; customers can opt for the GE/PW engines over the Trent 900. Does the B787 have such an option? I may be wrong, but I don’t believe they do.

And as far as ‘killing 400 people’? The same thing was said to Boeing about the B707, B720, and B741 when they went into service. So one really can’t judge. But let’s have wikipedia run the numbers:

As of September 2010, the 747 has been involved in 124 incidents, including 49 hull-loss accidents, resulting in 2,852 fatalities.

Granted, most to all of them did not involve any engine design flaw, let alone any structural design flaw, but one ‘killing people’ really does stand out to me: CAL611. 225 people on that one, all gone. Metal Fatigue, yes, but bottom line: use of a Boeing jumbo resulted in loss of life.

But on the whole: B747: 2852… A380: 0. I think Airbus is a little bit ahead on this one.

BL.


#7

Yes but the B747 has been in service for 40 some years, A380 1 or 2.


#8

787 has another engine the GE GenX, but the customers decide what engine they want not us.


#9

787 offers GEnx or T1000, and most customers so far (by total engines ordered) have picked GEnx.


#10

+1


#11

The A380 did not go into service on time. It had a 2 year delay, about the same as the 787 currently has.


#12

Same could also be said about the B777. However, The B777 has had 1 fatality (though not related to use). So even with that, B777: 1, A380, 0.

Don’t get me started on the B707 fatalities (2739), B727 fatalities (3704), B737(4097), B757 (700), and B767 fatalities (569)… Oh, wait…

My point is that you just can’t say “Just wait until xxx happens and 400 people get killed” when such an incident hasn’t happened yet. That HAS happened with the B747, and look at all the changes that had to be done. Not a single change outside of engines has been done to the A380; and to be honest, if someone played the fear game with the statement above, no-one would be flying.

Additionally, you shouldn’t beat up one manufacturer because of one incident, when you had the same thing happening to 2 of your favourite manufacturer’s product within a day of the former incident. It leaves you with any lack of standing.

This is why A vs. B arguments really tick me off. Because when it’s thrown back in B’s face, you get a “yeah, but…” and causes you to lose face in your argument.

Like I said, this isn’t Airbus’ fault, nor boeing’s fault. It’s Rolls-Royce’s fault, for all 4 incidents so far (including the Trent 1000). So place the blame where it belongs, okay?

BL.


#13

Back to the topic at hand…

It now appears that all B787s have been grounded. Looks like there was electrical and structural damage to the aircraft, plus a (non) failure of the primary flight displays. But until they understand how all of this happened, all B787s are now grounded. This may or may not affect orders or deliveries (remains to be seen), but these are definitely out for the time being, and perhaps for the next 2 - 4 months.

BL.


#14

If it’s glowing it must be a Boeing ?


#15

ZA001 and ZA005 have been cleared by FAA to return to Seattle. ZA002 will be in Laredo until repairs are done.

Hope they won’t be glowing while they’re going :slight_smile:

Lance