SQTalk  

Go Back   SQTalk > Other Airlines > Other Airlines

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 18th January 2013, 12:28 AM   #31
FN-GM
SQTalk Solitaire PPS
 
FN-GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-Dec-2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,468
Default

Does the FAA have the ability to enforce this on airlines operating outside the United States?
FN-GM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2013, 02:17 AM   #32
mr_botak
SQTalk PPS Club
 
mr_botak's Avatar
 
Join Date: 16-Mar-2008
Posts: 342
Default

No, not if they are not on the US register, but they'd be idiots to ignore it.
mr_botak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2013, 03:22 AM   #33
Lobster
SQTalk Founder
 
Lobster's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-Nov-2006
Location: A long way from home
Programs: SQ,BA,LH,EK,VS
Posts: 1,511
Default

Looks like enough have now followed their lead to grounding all 787s
Lobster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2013, 10:51 AM   #34
CarbonMan
SQTalk Life Solitaire PPS
 
CarbonMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 27-Jul-2011
Location: Singapore mostly
Posts: 2,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FN-GM View Post
Does the FAA have the ability to enforce this on airlines operating outside the United States?
The long arm of US regulators extend way beyond the aviation industry .... <Imperial March from Star Wars playing in the background>
CarbonMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2013, 08:04 PM   #35
boing
SQTalk PPS Club
 
Join Date: 27-Oct-2008
Posts: 649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrekker84 View Post
My two cents: The windshield crack is nothing to note. It happens on hundreds of planes a day. The fact that it happened on a 787 was a freebie to the media, who don't know any better. I'm willing to bet that it's happened a few times already.

The oil leak is something overblown too. That, I'm willing to bet it was a maintenance issue. Probably just an overfill condition.

That said, given all the redundancies that I've seen and are aware of on that plane, I still would say it's one of the safest planes to fly out there.
While I've to agree with you on the windshield issue, the oil leak doesn't seem to be a minor issue.

http://www.zie.nl/video/algemeen/Boe...k/m1mzww3fgrqf

The plume of smoke from the exhaust clearly indicates a broken oil or hydraulic line. Maintenance could safely be ruled out from this case as one can safely assume that no engine components could have been changed on an aircraft this new.

The batteries, lithium ion, are notorious for overheating issues. Lithium ion is the prime suspect in two recent freighter crashes and there was a renewed call to ban lithium ion to be shipped on board aircrafts. I find it ironic that the authorities have allowed Boeing to install lithium ion as a standard equipment despite its notoriety. Would FAA be bold enough to issue an AD to replace the Li-Ion batteries with conventional ones ?

While no issues have cropped up yet so far, I strongly feel the extensive use of composites in fuselage construction is going to be an issue in the near future.

Peace Out.
boing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2013, 07:22 AM   #36
cscs1956
SQTalk PPS Club
 
Join Date: 18-Jun-2007
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_botak View Post
No, not if they are not on the US register, but they'd be idiots to ignore it.
Correct.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...-battery-issue

Airlines must take safety issue seriously.
cscs1956 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th January 2013, 11:02 AM   #37
SQGamespeed
SQTalk PPS Club
 
SQGamespeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: 13-May-2012
Location: AKL/HKG
Programs: KF Gold, MPC Gold, FB Silver, NZ, A3*G, OW, SPG Plat
Posts: 497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarbonMan View Post
The long arm of US regulators extend way beyond the aviation industry .... <Imperial March from Star Wars playing in the background>
Quite true...

Quote:
Originally Posted by boing View Post
While I've to agree with you on the windshield issue, the oil leak doesn't seem to be a minor issue.

http://www.zie.nl/video/algemeen/Boe...k/m1mzww3fgrqf

The plume of smoke from the exhaust clearly indicates a broken oil or hydraulic line. Maintenance could safely be ruled out from this case as one can safely assume that no engine components could have been changed on an aircraft this new.

The batteries, lithium ion, are notorious for overheating issues. Lithium ion is the prime suspect in two recent freighter crashes and there was a renewed call to ban lithium ion to be shipped on board aircrafts. I find it ironic that the authorities have allowed Boeing to install lithium ion as a standard equipment despite its notoriety. Would FAA be bold enough to issue an AD to replace the Li-Ion batteries with conventional ones ?

While no issues have cropped up yet so far, I strongly feel the extensive use of composites in fuselage construction is going to be an issue in the near future.

Peace Out.
Considering that both hydraulics and Li ion batteries were sources of fires in this incidents, me thinks there may have been a close link in at least one case. And there have been warnings all over the place for consumer products using Li ion batteries over the years, so its not like they may not have known but Boeing may have been caught off guard by the lure of the long life of most of these batteries, despite transportation needing different types of power and far greater safety requirements compared to small consumer goods.

And you're right that manufacturers should be wary of relying too much on composites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cscs1956 View Post
Correct.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...-battery-issue

Airlines must take safety issue seriously.
I agree that they REALLY should. These incidents have already soured the safety reputation of the 787 similar to the A380 after its string of problems, from QF's infamous engine blowout (and many other issues with Rolls Royce engines) to cracks in the wing. Needless to say though safety comes before any reputation.

Oh, and after making repairs, they should make sure they don't have poor maintenance right?
SQGamespeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2013, 08:35 AM   #38
scooby5
SQTalk PPS Club
 
scooby5's Avatar
 
Join Date: 20-Jun-2008
Location: Singapore
Programs: KF-Gold
Posts: 886
Send a message via MSN to scooby5 Send a message via Skype™ to scooby5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SQGamespeed View Post
These incidents have already soured the safety reputation of the 787 similar to the A380 after its string of problems, from QF's infamous engine blowout (and many other issues with Rolls Royce engines) to cracks in the wing.

The A380 was never grounded worldwide......or anywhere for that matter. Quick action by both Airbus and Rolls Royce did help in this regards, but the QF engine matter could have been very disasterous for all concerned, with a whole in a fully laden wing and seriously damaged hydraulics.

With regards these batteries, I too am susrpised at their use. I mean, if you can't even prevent an iPhone exploding (my colleague's did) the technology may not be the most suitable for such a critical environment. It was only a few months ago I got an email from CX explaining what precautions needed to be taken while transporting batteries on board so the airlines take it as an issue.

Finally, I don't believe composites will be a problem since it's not like we're talking about a $250 sail dingy or a 1980's kit car here. If done correctly I would have no fear flying in an older composite aircraft when the time comes later.
scooby5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2013, 07:58 PM   #39
cscs1956
SQTalk PPS Club
 
Join Date: 18-Jun-2007
Posts: 657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scooby5 View Post
The A380 was never grounded worldwide......or anywhere for that matter. Quick action by both Airbus and Rolls Royce did help in this regards, but the QF engine matter could have been very disasterous for all concerned, with a whole in a fully laden wing and seriously damaged hydraulics.

With regards these batteries, I too am susrpised at their use. I mean, if you can't even prevent an iPhone exploding (my colleague's did) the technology may not be the most suitable for such a critical environment. It was only a few months ago I got an email from CX explaining what precautions needed to be taken while transporting batteries on board so the airlines take it as an issue.

Finally, I don't believe composites will be a problem since it's not like we're talking about a $250 sail dingy or a 1980's kit car here. If done correctly I would have no fear flying in an older composite aircraft when the time comes later.
European community works quite different from American. As you can also see SQ works quite differently from QF. After the QF incident, QF grounded all A380 until investigation is completed. While SQ announced in the press their A380 is safe and checked (even some of them are still in the air !). Subsequently, these affected engines was replaced with 777 filing into A380 schedule.

So you can see even airlines handle the situation quite differently.
cscs1956 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2013, 08:30 PM   #40
SQtraveller
SQTalk PPS Club
 
Join Date: 26-Aug-2008
Location: Third Rock from the Sun
Posts: 704
Default

post deleted

Last edited by SQtraveller; 20th August 2017 at 04:56 AM..
SQtraveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2013, 07:06 AM   #41
SQtraveller
SQTalk PPS Club
 
Join Date: 26-Aug-2008
Location: Third Rock from the Sun
Posts: 704
Default

post deleted

Last edited by SQtraveller; 20th August 2017 at 04:56 AM..
SQtraveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2013, 05:36 PM   #42
boing
SQTalk PPS Club
 
Join Date: 27-Oct-2008
Posts: 649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scooby5 View Post
Finally, I don't believe composites will be a problem since it's not like we're talking about a $250 sail dingy or a 1980's kit car here. If done correctly I would have no fear flying in an older composite aircraft when the time comes later.
Composites in sail dinghies and cars merely act as cover from the elements and as an aerodynamic fairing for the said vehicles. They are not constantly exposed to forces up to tons. Composites in B787 has an important role as they have to withstand the pressure difference and the constant temperature fluctuation of its operating environment. Composites have been used in commercial aircraft before, but they have not been used to the extent as in B787.

Aluminum would show visual indications of weakness and ramp incidents, AKA ramp rash, in the form of dents. When picked up, structural repairs could be initiated to strengthen the affected area. Composites, on the other hand, do not show signs of knocks as well as aluminum due to their inherent stiffness.
A US agency had already raised its concerns on this before.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...-s-agency.html
boing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2013, 05:38 PM   #43
boing
SQTalk PPS Club
 
Join Date: 27-Oct-2008
Posts: 649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SQtraveller View Post
News over night:
Guardian article link here
Mary Schiavo, a former DoT inspector general, said that the grounding is looking less likely to be days, "but possibly months"
There has been some commentary that the A350 may need to redesign their electrical system as a result of whatever ruling emerges from this as it also uses lithium ion batteries. She makes the point, that while this might be the case, at least Airbus will have the opportunity to fix it "behind closed doors"
If a complete overhaul of its electrical network is mandated, the cost savings B787 brings would be affected badly.
boing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th January 2013, 06:31 AM   #44
SQtraveller
SQTalk PPS Club
 
Join Date: 26-Aug-2008
Location: Third Rock from the Sun
Posts: 704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boing View Post
If a complete overhaul of its electrical network is mandated, the cost savings B787 brings would be affected badly.
post deleted

Last edited by SQtraveller; 20th August 2017 at 04:56 AM..
SQtraveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th January 2013, 06:26 AM   #45
SQtraveller
SQTalk PPS Club
 
Join Date: 26-Aug-2008
Location: Third Rock from the Sun
Posts: 704
Default

post deleted

Last edited by SQtraveller; 20th August 2017 at 04:56 AM..
SQtraveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +8. The time now is 07:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Techadmin: Luke | Hosting: www.lomag.net