All Boeing 787's grounded and Boeing halts deliveries

All of the 50 operating Boeing 787 'Dreamliner' aircraft have been grounded amid safety concerns involving its lithium-ion batteries including its main battery and the auxillary power unit (APU) battery (the Boeing 787 is the first Boeing plane to use high capacity Li-on batteries). In its first year of service the airplane has had nothing but problems:

• July 2012 - An engine fails during runway tests, the National Transportation Safety board (NTSB) rules it a contained failure;
• December 4th 2012 - A United Airlines 787 makes an emergency landing after problems with the electrical power distribution panel;
• December 5th 2012 - the Federal Aviation Administration ordered mandatory inspections of 787s after leaking fuel lines on two aircraft which were traced to a faulty assembly;
• December 13th 2012 - Qatar airways 787 is grounded with electrical power distribution problems;
• December 17th 2012 - United finds electrical problem in second 787;
• January 7th 2013 - Fire starts in Li-ion battery pack for the APU of a Japan Airlines 787 after landing in Boston (KBOS);
• January 8th 2013 - United finds improperly installed wiring to same Li-on battery that caught fire on JAL 787. A takeoff was aborted on a JAL 787 after an open fuel valve caused a fuel spill;
• January 9th 2013 - All Nippon airlines cancels a 787 flight after a computer wrongly reported a brake problem;
• January 10th 2013 - 787 flown by Japan's All Nippon Airways develops cracks in cockpit window
• January 16th 2013 - JAL and ANA ground their 787's after an ANA Dreamliner is forced to make an emergency landing where the pilot report a battery malfunction.

Boeing 787 aircraft grounded in Japan - BBC

As of today the US and European aviation agencies have said all the planes should be grounded. They are worried the batteries installed on the aircraft may leak, corroding vital equipment which could potentially cause fires.

ANA 787 after an emergency landing in Japan - http://www.salon.com

Eight airlines currently operate the Boeing 787, totalling 50 aircraft which have all been grounded:

• Air India: 6
• All Nippon Airways (Japan): 17
• Ethiopian Airlines: 4
• Japan Airlines: 7
• LAN Airlines (Chile): 3
• Lot Polish Airlines: 2
• Qatar Airways: 5
• United Airlines (US): 6

After the emergency landing in Japan, investigators have begun removing the battery packs from their aircraft. They say it is deformed and discoloured, and a large amount of liquid electrolyte had leaked from the battery on the interior of the plane's fuselage. The electrolyte is known to be flammable.

Grounding aircraft on this scale hasn't occurred since 1979 when the FAA ordered a general grounding of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 following a fatal crash.

Boeing said it supported the FAA's decision, but added it was confident the 787 was safe. CEO Jim McNerny said:

"We will be taking every necessary step in the coming days to assure our customers and the travelling public of the 787's safety and to return the airplanes to service."

"Boeing deeply regrets the impact that recent events have had on the operating schedules of our customers and the inconvenience to them and their passengers."

Following the issues with the aircraft, it will only be a matter of time before we see the affect that may occur in terms of airlines such as Thomson, British Airways and Virgin who haven't yet had their aircraft delivered reconsidering and cancelling their orders in favour of perhaps the Airbus A330. Which has been flying since 1994 and is a comparable and aircraft to the 787 which has proven its worth.

The success of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner lies in the balance, Boeing needs to sell 1,100 of the aircraft over the next 10 years to break even on their investment into the product. The US company currently dominates the airliner market along with its European rival Airbus.


***************************************************UPDATE 18/03/13************************************************* Boeing has halted all deliveries of the 787 while the safety concerns over the batteries is being addressed.  

Sources:

The Telegraph
BBC news
CBC news
Wikipedia

Airbus A380 Super Jumbo not to appear at the Paris Airshow

The Airbus A380 will not hold a demonstration at the Paris International Air Show next week after a wing tip of the display test aircraft was damaged in an incident today the company has said:


"During ground maneuvers with the Airbus A380 flight test aircraft MSN 004, the aircraft's right hand wing-tip touched a structure near the taxiway," at Le Bourget airport on Sunday afternoon, Airbus said in a statement.


"Airbus experts are currently inspecting the aircraft, but it is already confirmed that the A380 MSN 004 will not perform the flying display at the Le Bourget Air Show 2011," it said.


It was the second setback for Airbus ahead of the show which starts on Monday, after it announced earlier today that its A400M military transport plane will also not be in the display.

F-WWDD the Airbus A380-861 planned for use in the show © Ralf Meyermann on airliners.net

Source: AFP

AF447 brings revised procedures

First of all sorry for not posting for ages, been very busy with exams.

The investigation is still in process:


After the crash of Air France flight 447 into the South Atlantic on 1st June 2009, over two years after the crash, the investigation is still in process.

A recent report in May from the Air Transport Intelligence read that the French investigators have released that the crew of the Airbus A330 maintained a nose-up inputs to the aircraft even after it had stalled. Also the crew set the engine thrust variously to go-around power and idle as they battled to rescue the jet.

The Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses (BEA) has detailed the last few minutes of the flight (below).

The BEA confirms that the captain had left the cockpit to rest about eight minutes before the emergency having discussed about possible turbulence ahead to the relief crew.

The report revealed that in the cruise the pilots changed course by 12° to the left, and as turbulence increased they opted to reduce speed to Mach 0.8 (around 465kts). Two minutes after this change in course, the aircraft's autopilot and autothrust were disengaged, and the aircraft was taken out of the cruise and climbed from 35,000 feet to 38,000 at a vertical speed of 7,000 ft/min! From here the aircraft entered 'alternate' law, because of this, the aircraft entered a dangerous pitch angle as its angle of attack protection was lost by being in 'alternate' law.

Last six minutes of AF447 taken from flight global.com

The aircraft began to roll right, as the pilot countered this roll with a nose-up left input, the A330's stall warning sounded twice - indicating that the aircraft had exceeded its critical angle-of-attack threshold.

The Primary Flight Display (PFD) on the captain's side showed a large decrease in airspeed from 275kts to 60kts, and the aircraft's angle of attack "increased progressively" beyond 10°.

The pilot made nose-down and left and right roll inputs and the vertical speed decreased to 700ft/min with the angle of attack reduced to 4°. This meant that the displayed speed "increased sharply" to 215kts. The BEA said that the non-flying pilot "tried several times to call the captain back".

There was another stall warning and the BEA said the stall warning sounded again. The thrust levers were positioned for take-off/go-around power but the flying pilot "maintained nose-up inputs". The angle of attack continued to increase along with the trimmable horizontal stabiliser which increased from 3° to 13° - where it stayed for the rest of the flight.

When the aircraft reached its maximum altitude of 38,000 feet the angle of attack had increased to 16°.

The captain returned to the cockpit just 90 seconds after the autopilot had been disengaged - by which time the aircraft had began its fatal descent.

When the aircraft passed through back through its cruise altitude the angle of attack had increased to more than 40° with the aircraft descending at 10,000 feet/min. Its pitch did not exceed 15°, its engine power was close to 100% of N1, and the jet oscillated with rolls of up to 40°.

According to the BEA: "The [flying pilot] made an input on the sidestick to the left and nose-up stops, which lasted about 30 seconds,". Also just 20 seconds after the captain had returned to the cockpit, the thrust levers were set to 'idle' position, with the engines delivering 55% of N1.

AF447 had turned an almost three-quarter circle to the right during the emergency and having descended for 3min 30s - struck the ocean surface at just 107kts, with a nose-up pitch of 16.2° and a heading of 270°.

F-GZCP - The Airbus A330-203 involved in the accident seen here landing in Paris Charles de Gaulle (LFPG)
© Vincent Edlinger at airliners.net

Air France emphasised the evidence of a technical malfunction on the Airbus A330 after French investigators detailed the final minutes of the flight. The BEA confirmed there was a sudden change in displayed speeds and that that there was a discrepancy between that shown on the PFD and that on the standby instrument system.

The non-flying pilot said that the aircraft had "lost the speeds" and then mentioned that the aircraft had switched to 'alternate' law - a normal response from the aircraft in the vent of unreliable speed information. The BEA did not mention any reason for these inconsistent speed indications.

But Air France said: "It appears...that the initial problem was the failure of the speed probes which led to the disconnection of the autopilot and the loss of the associated piloting protection systems, and that the aircraft stalled at a high altitude." They did not discuss the crew's response to the stall beyond pointing out that the captain, having left the cockpit to rest, quickly returned to address the situation.

"The crew, made up of three skilled pilots, demonstrated a totally professional attitude and were committed to carrying out their task to the very end and Air France wishes to pay tribute to them," said the carrier. "All the data collected must be now analysed. It will only be at the end of this complex task, which requires patience and precision, that the BEA will be able to establish the causes that led to the disaster."

Revision of safety procedures:

This accident has lead to a recent revision of safety procedures. These concentrated on placing greater emphasis on reducing critical angle of attack which is the critical characteristic of a stall rather than using aircraft power to get out of a stall situation and cause minimum loss of altitude. Put simply, when an aircraft is entering a stall, pilots have been concentrating on increasing engine thrust to combat it, rather than concentrating on keeping air flowing smoothly over the wings and maintaining a sensible pitch angle.

A formal document detailing the revisions pointed out that: "There have been numerous situations where flight crews did not prioritise [nose-down pitch control] and instead prioritised power and maintaining altitude."

Operational experience has shown that doing the above can result in the aircraft stalling. The BEA disclosed that the crew maintained nose-up inputs after the stall but has yet to determine the reason or reach any conclusions. They also set the thrust to take-off/go-around power, in line with Air France's standard operating procedure at the time. However the procedure also required them to reduce pitch altitude, roll the wings level and ensure the speedbrake was retracted.

The revised recovery procedure was agreed between the major airframers Airbus and Boeing, some 12 months after the accident, although a source familiar with the investigation stresses that the change was "not prompted" by the accident.

At the heart of revision is the acceptance that applying high-power for recovery is not necessary in all stall situations and could be ineffective, particularly at cruise altitudes where available thrust would be limited and the engines would require time to spool up.

There is also a risk that a crew may not recognise that an aircraft has crossed the point of near-stall to an actual stall and still use the same ineffective technique for recovery.

The new procedure is designed to cover all aspects of a stall - recovering the angle of attack may require reduction of thrust, regain pitch-down authority, as well as loss of altitude. This procedure removes the priority of increased power and also points out that thrust should be applied smoothly, particularly becuase aircraft with under-wing engines have a tendency to pitch up, increasing the angle of attack when power is applied.


Sources:  Flight global - flight information
                 Flight global - 'technical problem' information
                 Flight global - revised procedures
                 Boeing.com - angle of attack
                 Wikipedia - 'alternate' law