Thread: Airline News

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

I just spoke to a Flight Engineer friend of mine who works on Boeing 747-400 he has a lot of experience as a technical engineer on the Boeing 767. He also told me this was the newest 767 on LOT,s Fleet his comments below.

Normal gear retraction and lowering is on the centre hydraulic system. The Alternative system unlocks the main gear doors and nose wheel uplocks using an electric motor. Isaac Newton should then take control. If this motor were to fail (or its respective Circuit Breaker pops) after a centre hydraulic failure, then a "no landing gear" scenario could exist.

Unlikely, but entirely possible.

And no redundancy?

I can see all 767's getting grounded for inspection/replacement if that's the case.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And no redundancy?

This motor is the redundancy system.

^I would have thought this would only be a instant grounding issue if the plane took off with the belief that both the central hydraulics and the backup motors were working. flying aircraft with broken redundancy does seem to be something that some airlines are prepared to do.

I am always reminded of a pilot I know who got a employee of the month award for making the biggest cost saving for the airline for that month. He got this as a result of having the waywithall to get his aircraft to a height at which prevented from oxygen masks from deploying after the one and only air compressor he took off with failed in mid flight.

The report on this one will make interesting reading

This from my mate who is a 747 Engineer.....
The C system has three independent pumps powered by two independent sources. Therefore the only likely way for the system to completely fail is total fluid loss.
The landing gear has a Alternate system which relies on electrically releasing the three landing gear uplocks and allowing them to fall under gravity. You cannot selectively lower each landing gear via the Altn system so in all probability the entire Altn system also failed.
On the face of it, there must have been multiple failures on this aircraft. C hydraulic system, Altn Landing gear system? The question will be why.

Great landing by the crew, but I'd hold off on making them heroes until all the facts are known.

I am a glider pilot too... but knowing how to fly a glider probably contributed very little to the safe outcome of this incident.

Looks like red blue and white paints were used for the Thai flag.
Lets see how Thai Airways utilize this aircraft when its delivered late next year.
Will they e able to fill it at the prices they charge to the USA & Europe. The juries out on that.

^No probs. they need the extra business class seating so that they have some seats left to sell after they have given free upgrades to anyone remotely connected to thai inter staff.

^
Sounds about right to me, the nepotism in Thai Airways is absolutely appalling. Many years ago I was on a flight from London to Bangkok (the old airport). It was a Boeing 747-400.
A Thai business man travelling on the flight had a seat in Business Class when he boarded he was very cosy with the Purser kiss on the cheek kinda stuff, I boarded just after him. He booked seats for his his wife and two children in economy they were in the first row behind Business Class.
About 20 minutes after getting airborne his wife must have pressed the call button in economy and gave some excuse for a move into B/C. I was asked to move from my seat in Business Class to enable her and her children to sit next to her husband.

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

^
Sounds about right to me, the nepotism in Thai Airways is absolutely appalling. Many years ago I was on a flight from London to Bangkok (the old airport). It was a Boeing 747-400.
A Thai business man travelling on the flight had a seat in Business Class when he boarded he was very cosy with the Purser kiss on the cheek kinda stuff, I boarded just after him. He booked seats for his his wife and two children in economy they were in the first row behind Business Class.
About 20 minutes after getting airborne his wife must have pressed the call button in economy and gave some excuse for a move into B/C. I was asked to move from my seat in Business Class to enable her and her children to sit next to her husband.

I still remember that news story about 2 years back when they hired a new CEO (I think from kasikorn Bank) and he make the statement in the Bangkok Post that the survival of the airline depended on getting rid of that culture of nepotism and freebies.

Not mr wollop, famous for his 'any contract can be broken' speech and ability to drive free excess luggage to new extremes, by any chance

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

He also told me this was the newest 767 on LOT,s Fleet

As of 1 September, the aircraft had flown 59,327 hours with 7,354 cycles

In operation long enough for the Hydraulic fluid reservoirs to require numerous servicing events.
The Flaps and Air Brakes were deployed on landing, they require hydraulic fluid to actuate.
It would be interesting to know where the heavy maintenance checks were performed.

Originally Posted by hazz

Not mr wollop, famous for his 'any contract can be broken' speech and ability to drive free excess luggage to new extremes, by any chance

The fact that he has fallen over that proves to me that he must have been good. Some perks for the CEO is one thing. Cutting lavish perks for tens of thousand leeches is something else entirely. And it seems he wanted to cut those.

Not that it was a good idea to carry excessive overluggage.

^it was only 500kg of apples for a temple donation, honest

BA owner agrees to buy airline BMI

[at]import url( http://db3.stc.s-msn.com/br/csl/css/...twtutility.css );




A new deal will see BMI sold to British Airways owner IAG



The owner of British Airways has agreed to buy troubled airline BMI in a move which will increase its hold on the takeover and landing slots at Heathrow airport.
International Airlines Group (IAG), which also owns Spanish Carrier Iberia, has bought the airline from German carrier Lufthansa in a deal which has infuriated rivals such as Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic.
IAG would own more than half of the landing slots at the UK's busiest airport if the deal is completed.
Virgin, which said it had also made a bid for BMI, said: "British Airways' hold over Heathrow is already too dominant and we are very concerned - as the competition authorities should also be - that BA's purchase of BMI would be disastrous for consumer choice and competition."
IAG said the deal is still subject to a binding purchase agreement and regulatory clearance but it envisages a deal could be signed in the first quarter of 2012.
The proposed deal came as IAG forecast it would double operating profits this year despite reporting a 34% fall in the third quarter to 351 million euro (£305 million).
Chief executive Willie Walsh said acquiring BMI would be good for IAG and the British economy but admitted the group did not have an exclusive deal with Lufthansa and also had yet to complete required accounting checks on BMI.
He did not see any regulatory issues arising, even though IAG would control 53% of takeover and landing slots at Heathrow if it completes the deal.
That percentage was still lower than its rival competitors in Europe at their key airports, he claimed, adding that Lufthansa would not have progressed discussions if it was not confident a takeover would be allowed.
He said IAG would use BMI to expand its long-haul network, especially into the fast-growing economies of Asia and Latin America.

Rolls-Royce hit by fresh 'oil leak' on Qantas A380 - Telegraph

"The incident occurred on Friday – a year to the day since a Rolls-Royce engine exploded on a Qantas superjumbo – and industry sources said preliminary investigations have shown it was caused by an oil leak in an external oil pipe.

Passengers on board the plane included Stephen Fry, who told his 3.3m followers on Twitter: "Bugger. Forced to land in Dubai. An engine has decided not to play."

A spokesman for Rolls-Royce said: "We are aware of the incident and are working closely with the customer to provide support and technical assistance." The British engineer would not comment on the cause of the incident or whether a potential problem with the oil pipes had been identified before the landing. The plane, with 258 people on board, had an "oil quantity defect" in one engine, which was switched off as part of standard procedure, according to Qantas. Its engineers are now inspecting the aircraft, and other Qantas A380s remain in service. The Australian airline said the incident was a "one-off" and "completely unrelated" to the engine blow-out last year that caused the entire Qantas fleet to be grounded.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau ruled that last year's A380 explosion was due to a "manufacturing defect" in the Trent 900 engine's pipework, which caused an oil leak.
The incident caps a miserable week for Qantas after it was forced to cancel all flights last weekend due to a labour dispute in Australia."

"(Reuters) - Airbus unveiled a provisional deal on Friday to sell four A380s worth $1.5 billion at list prices to Transaero Airlines, marking the first sale of Europe's superjumbo to a Russian airline.

The country's second-biggest carrier plans to introduce the double-decker jetliner on long-distance flights seating 700 people in three classes, Airbus said.

It will be the second airline to opt for a high-density layout after France's Air Austral, which has said it will use close to the maximum capacity of 853 seats.

The world's largest airliner, which entered service four years ago, has the capacity to carry 525 passengers in a standard three-class layout.

It was initially branded as a cruiseliner with open areas and space for first-class suites, but a market is also opening up for high-density travel to offset high fuel prices while creating some uncertainty over how this should be marketed.

"The passenger is still getting a wider and more comfortable seat than on another plane," an Airbus spokeswoman said.

Airbus said the economy seat on its A380 is 5 cm wider than on a Boeing (BA.N) 747 using similar cabin layouts.

Boeing disputes this and says the latest version of its most recognized aircraft, the 747-8, will use an airy design with softer LED lighting, more spacious bins and a redesigned entry-way comarable to its all-new 787 Dreamliner.

"Seat widths on the 747-8 are comparable to the A380, within 2 cm," company spokesman Jim Proulx said.

As well as the A380, Transaero is also considering buying the 747-8, which is due for first delivery in 2012.

"We are in deep talks with Boeing about a potential order for the 747-8. The order for A380s is a separate order and does not have an impact on the talks," an airline spokesman said.

The 747-8 Intercontinental will be the world's longest passenger jet and is designed to seat 467 people in a standard three-class layout. Boeing has applied to have the plane certified to seat 605 people in high-density mode.

It has sold 36 of the passenger aircraft with another 15 committed provisionally to an unidentified customer.

Transaero carried 6.65 million passengers last year, 32.3 percent more than in 2009. It has a fleet of 64 aircraft, almost all of them Boeing.

It will now be considered the launch customer for the A380 in Russia, the CIS and eastern Europe, Airbus said.

Its Domodedovo base outside Moscow is the only Russian airport currently capable of handling the huge plane.

Airbus believes traffic in the region will increase at an average rate of 5.6 per cent per year over the next 20 years.

Transaero will announce its choice of engines for the A380s in the near future, Airbus said. The two rival suppliers are Rolls-Royce (RR.L) and Engine Alliance, a joint venture between General Electric (GE.N) and Pratt & Whitney (UTX.N).

Airbus has sold a total of 236 A380s worldwide.

Industry sources said last month it would sell another 5 aircraft to Qatar Airways, doubling that airline's A380 order, at the Dubai Air Show next month, when the same airline would also opt for Engine Alliance engines."

Two items here. The first the seating capacity, Qantas can only fill a 525 seat A380 with 258 passengers. The second is the choice of the EA engine as opposed to the RR offering. EA engined 308 are substantially in the lead as the engine of choice.

Report questions long-term safety of composite planes
NewScientist

ON 1 NOVEMBER the first aircraft with a pressurised fuselage and wings made from carbon-fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) flew its first passengers from Tokyo to Hiroshima. The All Nippon Airways Boeing 787's composite structure makes it around 15 per cent lighter than a typical aluminium-based plane of that size, increasing fuel efficiency and making aviation greener.

But the media hoopla over the flight disguised some worrying questions about the long-term safety of composite aircraft. On 20 October, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report which, while accepting that the 787 has been certified as airworthy, questions the ability of the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration, to ensure that inspectors are capable of assessing and repairing damage to composite structures over the long life of a plane.

"It is too early to fully assess the adequacy of FAA and industry efforts to address safety-related concerns and to build sufficient capacity to handle composite maintenance and repair," says the GAO.

Until now, only smaller, isolated pieces of secondary structure, such as tail fins and wing leading edges, have been made from composites. The GAO reviewed the scientific literature and interviewed engineers about the evidence underpinning the expansion of composite use to incorporate the whole fuselage. On damage and ageing issues it found the science wanting.

The GAO found that engineers don't know how such materials will behave when damaged, what such damage will look like, and how these factors change as the material ages. Because composite damage is hard to detect - indeed it can be effectively invisible - working out what risk a dent poses is difficult. Too few inspectors are being trained to diagnose such damage, the GAO report adds.

Boeing has no doubts. "We test, we analyse and we demonstrate that even in extreme conditions - which may never be experienced in a full life of service - the airplane is safe and durable," the firm said in a statement.

A composite is made by combining multiple layers of carbon fibres with an epoxy resin. It has a higher strength-to-weight ratio than aluminium and resists corrosion. But it has different fatigue problems: it tends to snap, rather than bend or stretch over time like a metal.

Although the Boeing 787 is deemed safe, the GAO says regulators must focus on assessing composite damage in service. "The long-term ageing behaviour of these composite materials is indeed an unknown," says Philip Irving, an aviation structures specialist at Cranfield University in the UK. "What is going to happen to these structures, which are often bonded as a single piece, in the 30-year lifetime of an aircraft?" Much is known about metal, he says. "There is almost nothing equivalent published on composite-structure damage, visibility and growth - and the necessary research is still under way," he says.

Some of that research is being done by the Commercial Aircraft Composite Repair Committee, says Boeing, an industry-wide effort involving regulators and manufacturers, including Airbus (which is building its own composite fuselage plane, the A350). In the meantime, Irving says ground staff will need to wield one of their most powerful tools to track down damage in composite planes: "Their eyeballs."

Originally Posted by hazz

Report questions long-term safety of composite planes
NewScientist

ON 1 NOVEMBER the first aircraft with a pressurised fuselage and wings made from carbon-fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) flew its first passengers from Tokyo to Hiroshima. The All Nippon Airways Boeing 787's composite structure makes it around 15 per cent lighter than a typical aluminium-based plane of that size, increasing fuel efficiency and making aviation greener.

But the media hoopla over the flight disguised some worrying questions about the long-term safety of composite aircraft. On 20 October, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report which, while accepting that the 787 has been certified as airworthy, questions the ability of the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration, to ensure that inspectors are capable of assessing and repairing damage to composite structures over the long life of a plane.

"It is too early to fully assess the adequacy of FAA and industry efforts to address safety-related concerns and to build sufficient capacity to handle composite maintenance and repair," says the GAO.

Until now, only smaller, isolated pieces of secondary structure, such as tail fins and wing leading edges, have been made from composites. The GAO reviewed the scientific literature and interviewed engineers about the evidence underpinning the expansion of composite use to incorporate the whole fuselage. On damage and ageing issues it found the science wanting.

The GAO found that engineers don't know how such materials will behave when damaged, what such damage will look like, and how these factors change as the material ages. Because composite damage is hard to detect - indeed it can be effectively invisible - working out what risk a dent poses is difficult. Too few inspectors are being trained to diagnose such damage, the GAO report adds.

Boeing has no doubts. "We test, we analyse and we demonstrate that even in extreme conditions - which may never be experienced in a full life of service - the airplane is safe and durable," the firm said in a statement.

A composite is made by combining multiple layers of carbon fibres with an epoxy resin. It has a higher strength-to-weight ratio than aluminium and resists corrosion. But it has different fatigue problems: it tends to snap, rather than bend or stretch over time like a metal.

Although the Boeing 787 is deemed safe, the GAO says regulators must focus on assessing composite damage in service. "The long-term ageing behaviour of these composite materials is indeed an unknown," says Philip Irving, an aviation structures specialist at Cranfield University in the UK. "What is going to happen to these structures, which are often bonded as a single piece, in the 30-year lifetime of an aircraft?" Much is known about metal, he says. "There is almost nothing equivalent published on composite-structure damage, visibility and growth - and the necessary research is still under way," he says.

Some of that research is being done by the Commercial Aircraft Composite Repair Committee, says Boeing, an industry-wide effort involving regulators and manufacturers, including Airbus (which is building its own composite fuselage plane, the A350). In the meantime, Irving says ground staff will need to wield one of their most powerful tools to track down damage in composite planes: "Their eyeballs."

Composites have been in use for a long time, just not on the same scale as the 787, and they have proven reliable. I read into this that the media is trying to sensationalize this GAO report and making a problem out of nothing. More likely the context of the GAO report was suggesting the need for regulators to acquire more expertise about composites, not saying it cannot be done.
Whenever new technology is developed, mechanics, engineers and regulators must update their knowledge to meet the challenge, and the article does not state why that cannot be done here.

An interesting reading about composites in older aircraft came out of the late 2001 crash on an American Airlines Airbus in Queens, New York shortly after the 9/11 attacks. The vertical stabilizer broke off because of either excessive input by the pilot, or poor design by Airbus (depending on who you want to believe). That tail was a composite and it acknowledged it's material did not contribute to or cause the accident.

Originally Posted by BobR

Composites have been in use for a long time, just not on the same scale as the 787, and they have proven reliable. I read into this that the media is trying to sensationalize this GAO report and making a problem out of nothing. More likely the context of the GAO report was suggesting the need for regulators to acquire more expertise about composites, not saying it cannot be done. Whenever new technology is developed, mechanics, engineers and regulators must update their knowledge to meet the challenge, and the article does not state why that cannot be done here.

Agree 100%. If you would not have written this I would write something similar.

Research being done on composites by both Airbus and Boeing. The 787 is basically the guinea pig as from now on due to weight and fuel savings composite aircraft will become the way to go.
The Airbus A-350 which is seen as the replacement of the A-330 series of aircraft will due in 2015? Will take composite aircraft a stage further I believe. Airbus already has a large order in the pipeline from Emirates and some other airlines.

The main issue as I see it is that because not enough is known about composite materials, and how stress plus high speed operations will affect the materials over the short and long term.
This is a learning process for all involved in both aircraft companies, lets just hope that they keep their eye firmly on the ball so to speak.

The FAA was watching the Starship's development closely and was particularly demanding, as the Starship was to be the first FAA-certified composite aircraft. For instance, the FAA required the generation of substantially more aerodynamic loading data than would have been usual for a conventional design, in order to prove that classical loads analysis could conservatively apply to the radical new tandem composite wing design.
The FAA did not have established design-life criteria for composite structures, and designed a rigorous test program involving the cycling of the test structure through damage expected over two anticipated airframe lifetimes (40,000 hours), subjecting it to damage repeatedly and measuring its ability to carry load.
One of the greatest challenges to building and certifying the all-composite airframe was lightning protection. It was found that unprotected composite material could be blown apart by a lightning strike. Substantial study and testing was done; for instance, a fuselage section was subjected to 200,000-amp simulated lightning strikes in Raytheon's test facility. The solution was a mesh of fine wires under the first layer of the composite skin, and a ground-plane system to shield the electronics. Lightning current was allowed to flow through and out, leaving only minor surface and cosmetic damage at the strike point.

More than any other general aviation aircraft of its time, the Starship was a child of the computer age; its design, development, manufacturing, operation and maintenance all relied heavily on computer input. A major portion of the work was done on a system called CATIA, which provided a three-dimensional design environment and interfaced with tooling.

The first full-size Starship made its maiden flight on February 15th, 1986. The second joined the test flight program in June 1986, and the third was ready for flight in the early spring of 1987. In the course of a two-year flight test program, they flew almost 2,000 hours, and on June 14th the Starship received FAA certification. The first production Starship, NC-4, went on flight test late 1988.

The five-and-a-half-year development program cost more than $300 million and millions of man hours. For its investment, which included mastering a new technology, building a new manufacturing facility and training a workforce, Beechcraft/Raytheon only built 53 Starships. Production was halted due to poor commercial demand. Of the 53 built, only a small handful were ever actually sold.

The Production Fleet Today.
5 privately owned Starships are in active service:
7 Starships have been donated to museums:
1 Starship has been donated to a college:
5 Starships have been donated for composite testing:
8 decommissioned Starships are owned by private parties:
2 Starships are in Wichita, KS:
1 Starship is on the lam in Mexico:
24 Starships have been confirmed as dismantled/destroyed:

Originally Posted by thehighlander959

The main issue as I see it is that because not enough is known about composite materials, and how stress plus high speed operations will affect the materials over the short and long term.

Yes I thought someone might come back with a point concerning this.. Flawed design etc. etc.

There is no doubt that the issues with the De Haviland Comet was a major issue during early development of jet aircraft. The main point I believe was how the windows were designed on the airframe being one of the major points.

I believe we ar a lot further developed nowadays, but as I have said previously it will be up to the aircrafy manufacturers to keep their eye on the ball.

However we will just have to watch how the 787 develops over the short term until more composite aeroplanes enter fleet services around the world.