Boeing

  • | | | | | | |

    Pilots Ignore ATC Directions, Hear Audio

    On March 11, 2013, an Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190 en route from Edmonton to Toronto,ON was on approach when ATC informed the pilots to abort the landing. Ground radar indicated something moving on the runway. Pilots continued to make the landing, and ignored ATC.

    Mechanics working on a Sunwing Boeing had left a van running and in gear, which subsequently rolled without a driver across the runway. At some point, the van impacted the Sunwing 737.

    In George’s Point of View


    While we can’t make assumptions, apparently the pilots saw the van safely flew over it and made a secure landing.

    However, there are a lot of errors here that could have been disaster. We are glad no one was injured. Safety first, everyone!

    • The maintenance crew for failing to secure their vehicle.
    • ATC for not using the call sign, even if it was evident to them who they were speaking to.
    • Pilots for ignoring ATC even if they saw the “threat” because there could have been an additional alert

    That said, of course we are glad no one was injured.

    Click Triangle below to hear audio

    [sc_embed_player fileurl=”https://airflightdisaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Air-Canada-178-Ignores-Go-Around.mp3″]

  • | | | | |

    Southwest Airlines Safe Landing after Indicator Alert Error

    Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700 Flight 481 from Las Vegas to Tulsa made an emergency landing at McCarran International Airport.

    The flight diverted back after a cargo hold fire-alert alerted the crew. The flight had left at 1:20, and returned at 2:45. Passengers indicated turbulence as they were returning to Las Vegas. The crew did not explain the situation to the passengers until after landing.

    136 passengers and four crew were aboard. No one was injured. THe problem was an indication alert error. Passengers were rebooked on alternative flights.

  • | |

    Dreamliner Battery Box Solution

    An upgrade to the battery has been reported, and Boeing is adding a fire-resistant battery box to contain the cells, and insulation around that. The box is to vent smoke outside, and will be made of titanium.

    Boeing is still planning on using lithium-ion cells instead of switching to nickel cadmium. The batteries face a series of twenty lab tests before test flights will be permitted.

    The two approved test flights include one for the new battery, and one for the new box.

    Each Dreamliner has one lithium-ion battery to power cockpit systems, and one to power on-ground functions that used to be hydraulic.

    The FAA statement is below:
    WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today approved the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company’s certification plan for the redesigned 787 battery system, after thoroughly reviewing Boeing’s proposed modifications and the company’s plan to demonstrate that the system will meet FAA requirements. The certification plan is the first step in the process to evaluate the 787’s return to flight and requires Boeing to conduct extensive testing and analysis to demonstrate compliance with the applicable safety regulations and special conditions.

    “This comprehensive series of tests will show us whether the proposed battery improvements will work as designed,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We won’t allow the plane to return to service unless we’re satisfied that the new design ensures the safety of the aircraft and its passengers.”

    The battery system improvements include a redesign of the internal battery components to minimize initiation of a short circuit within the battery, better insulation of the cells and the addition of a new containment and venting system.

    “We are confident the plan we approved today includes all the right elements to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the battery system redesign,” said FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta. “Today’s announcement starts a testing process which will demonstrate whether the proposed fix will work as designed.”

    The certification plan requires a series of tests which must be passed before the 787 could return to service. The plan establishes specific pass/fail criteria, defines the parameters that should be measured, prescribes the test methodology and specifies the test setup and design. FAA engineers will be present for the testing and will be closely involved in all aspects of the process.

    The FAA also has approved limited test flights for two aircraft. These aircraft will have the prototype versions of the new containment system installed. The purpose of the flight tests will be to validate the aircraft instrumentation for the battery and battery enclosure testing in addition to product improvements for other systems.

    The FAA will approve the redesign only if the company successfully completes all required tests and analysis to demonstrate the new design complies with FAA requirements. The FAA’s January 16, 2013 airworthiness directive, which required operators to temporarily cease 787 operations, is still in effect, and the FAA is continuing its comprehensive review of the 787 design, production and manufacturing process.

  • | | | |

    Belavia Flight diverts to Samara

    A Belavia Boeing 737-524 en route from Astana to Minsk diverted to Samara.

    Pilots reported a problem in the fuel system. There were 92 passengers aboard, none of whom were reported with any injury. Passengers were assured they would be able to reach their destination.

  • | | |

    NTSB Reports on Dreamliner Battery Fire in Boston

    briefing
    Briefing March 7, 2013

    We no longer have to conjecture about the Japan Airlines 787 battery fire in Boston because the National Transportation Safety Board has released an interim factual report with nearly 500 pages of related documentation.

    A live webcast forum is scheduled for April in Washington to investigate the design, technology and certification lithium-ion batteries.

    Attached is the report which contains the details of what happened, and examination findings to date.

    Interim Report on Battery

  • | | | |

    Virgin Flight Diverts to Melbourne

    On Feb 22, 2013, a Boeing 737-800 Virgin Australia flight was in the air for ten minutes when the crew detected an odor in the cockpit.

    The pilot returned to Melbourne and made a safe landing at 9:09 a.m.

    Passengers were provided alternative flights. There were 129 passengers aboard.

    The incident is under investigation. The source of the odor is not yet known.

  • | | |

    UA Ft Lauderdale-Cleveland Slips off Runway

    On Feb 22, 2013 at 10:45 a.m., a United Airlines Boeing 737 from Fort Lauderdale to Cleveland had landed and was taxiing when it suffered a runway excursion on landing on a slippery runway.

    The plane ran off the runway in slippery winter weather and ended up on soft ground in the grass.

    The Airport said the passengers disembarked without injury and were bussed to the gate.

    The plane sustained some undetermined damage.

  • | | | | |

    Emergency Landing in Karachi

    On Feb 20, 2013, a Pakistan International Airlines – PIA Boeing 747-367 with 465 aboard was en route from Karachi to Jeddah when the pilots reported a fire indication on engine 2. Pilots shut down the affected engine.

    The pilots diverted back to Karachi where they made a safe landing. They were in the air for fifteen minutes.

  • | | | | | |

    SAS Flight Diverts to Stavanger

    On Feb 16, 2013, a Scandinavian Airlines System Boeing 737-883 was en route from Las Palmas to Bergen – Norway when the flight developed problems with the flaps.

    Pilots diverted to Stavanger airport where SAS has mechanics. Ten minutes before landing, passengers were told to keep their heads down.

    Pilots successfully made a fast landing at high speed with no flaps, and though none of the 108 passengers was injured, plenty of them were nervous after ten minutes with their heads down. Then the captain came out and explained what had happened.

    Four buses took passengers to Bergen by bus, but some opted to stay in hotels and fly the rest of the way.

  • | | | | | |

    British Airways Sickened by Fumes in Cockpit Diverts to Las Vegas


    On Feb 14, 2013, an hour into the British Airways (Boeing 747-400) Los Angeles to London flight, the crew smelled smoke in the cockpit. Fumes made the flight crew sick. The captain put on the oxygen mask as they diverted to Las Vegas, where they made a safe landing at 10:20 p.m. Thursday.

    British Airways provided hotel accommodations for the passengers overnight, and alternative flights the next day.

    British Airways says the fumes were not smoke-related. Early indications seem to be a ‘fault with the number three engine.’ Passengers were frustrated by perceived chaos and lack of information once they were on the ground in Las Vegas. Emergency medical services checked over the flight crew on landing; they were hospitalized.

    Last week, a Heathrow-Philadelphia BA Boeing 777 with 158 passengers made an emergency landing in Canada after toxic oil fumes were reported on the flight deck. That plane made the unscheduled stop at Goose Bay, in Newfoundland, in temperatures of -30C.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279971/Boeing-747-Second-BA-jet-forced-make-emergency-landing-toxic-oil-fumes-leak-cockpit.html#ixzz2LCjZX6hC
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    In George’s Point of View


    It happens more frequently than one would expect that a plane has problems with fumes.

    Fumes in a closed air system, fumes that sicken the flight crew–isn’t this something that needs to be investigated? It seems like healthy air–or at least breathable air–is an essential part of flying. It’s not like you’re going to have a happy landing if you’ve suffocated on the way, or if your pilot passed out on the flight. I don’t care if it is cheap aftershave, or de-icer burnoff–whatever it is, let’s hope they get to the root of this too-frequent problem once and for all.

    See Video Below

  • | | | | |

    DELTA Flight Diverts to Dublin

    The Delta Boeing 767-300 en route from Newark to Amsterdam was en route when pilots received and indication and shut down an engine.

    They descended to a safe altitude and continued to Dublin where they made a safe landing

    Passengers were provided an alternative flight.

    http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL34/history/20130212/2310Z/KEWR/EHAM/tracklog

  • | | | |

    Ryanair Emergency Landing at Moss-Rygge


    Nuno Faria

    Ryanair Boeing 737 8AS (WL) en route from Moss-Rygge to London-Stansted had taken off. The crew found a technical problem, and decided to land. Initially they were going to land in Bergen, but instead they returned to the airport of origin.

    Initially, passengers were very calm. They were less calm when they were not told about the change from landing in Bergen until two minutes before they were safe on the ground at Moss-Rygge,

    The flight was in the air about thirty minutes.

  • | | |

    Boeing Test Flights Cleared

    The ten test flights Boeing is being allowed to schedule will be designed to provide more data for inspectors who are still investigating the failed 787 batteries. The NTSB is planning to release a report around March 7.

    First there was a flight to move a 787 from Texas to Washington State, then the Federal Aviation Administration said it would permit the test flights, if flown under stringent rules, in order to to monitor the batteries in while in use.

    The NTSB determined after an exhaustive examination of the JAL lithium-ion battery that the majority of evidence from the flight data recorder and both thermal and mechanical damage pointed to an initiating event in a single cell, out of eight. That cell showed multiple signs of short circuiting, leading to the thermal runaway condition, which then cascaded to other cells. The temperature inside the battery case exceeded 500 degrees Fahrenheit, charring the battery components.

    Currently the assumption is that the potential causes of the initial short circuit include battery charging, battery construction and design, and manufacturing defects.

  • | | | | |

    Boeing Diverts to Shannon

    On Feb 8 2013, a United Boeing 777 was en route from London to Los Angeles when pilots reported that there was smoke the cockpit.

    Pilots dumped fuel and diverted to Shannon airport in Ireland.

    None of the 182 passengers or ten crew was injured.

    They landed with emergency services on standby.

    I wasn’t aboard this flight. But I take this flight all the time on business trips going and coming. There is one a day from London, direct.

    I’m always glad to hear of a safe landing.

  • | |

    Boeing Responds to the NTSB 787 Battery Update


    And This is what Boeing Has to Say

    SEATTLE, Feb. 7, 2013 / — Boeing (NYSE: BA) welcomes the progress reported by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in the 787 investigation, including that the NTSB has identified the origin of the event as having been within the battery. The findings discussed today demonstrated a narrowing of the focus of the investigation to short circuiting observed in the battery, while providing the public with a better understanding of the nature of the investigation.

    The company remains committed to working with the NTSB, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and our customers to maintain the high level of safety the traveling public expects and that the air transport system has delivered. We continue to provide support to the investigative groups as they work to further understand these events and as we work to prevent such incidents in the future. The safety of passengers and crew members who fly aboard Boeing airplanes is our highest priority.

    The 787 was certified following a rigorous Boeing test program and an extensive certification program conducted by the FAA. We provided testing and analysis in support of the requirements of the FAA special conditions associated with the use of lithium ion batteries. We are working collaboratively to address questions about our testing and compliance with certification standards, and we will not hesitate to make changes that lead to improved testing processes and products.

  • | |

    Dreamliners Still Grounded for Batteries

    No one doubts the Boeing Dreamliner problems need to be solved.

    Whether it is lithium-ion batteries thermal runaway or the entire system dealing with those batteries, a solution must be found.

    Will the battery be changed? Will the system be changed? It remains to be seen. Grounding the fleet has been expensive, but less expensive than the cost of human lives should they fail again.

    Have these volatile batteries actually been controlled? Were the batteries in question flawed, or overcharged? When we hear that ten batteries were replaced for low charges, is it possible that the low charges were the correct standard?

    Has anyone asked if someone tampered with the affected batteries to raise the charge?

    Boeing has asked for the FAA to conduct test flights.

    Beginning test flights before the battery type has been replaced or the system replaced may be precipitous. Is adapting the system going to prevent future problems?

    Japan has released a report:

    See Report

  • | | |

    Lithium Ion Batteries Remain a Point of Concern

    Both Airbus and Boeing say the designs for their litium-ion systems are safe, in spite of known risk of flames, explosion, smoke and leakage.

    Those are some pretty hefty “known” risks.

    Now ANA says that prior to the fire, it had replaced batteries on its 787 aircraft some 10 times because of low charges.

    Now the Kanto Aircraft Instrument Co whose system monitors voltage, charging and temperature of lithium-ion batteries is also under scrutiny, in addition to GS Yuasa who makes the batteries.

    The National Transportation Safety Board is conducting a chemical analysis of internal short circuiting and thermal damage of the battery.

    NTSB ISSUES SIXTH UPDATE ON JAL BOEING 787 BATTERY FIRE INVESTIGATION

    January 29, 2013
    WASHINGTON – The National Transportation Safety Board today released the sixth update on its investigation into the Jan. 7 fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 at Logan International Airport in Boston.

    The examination of the damaged battery continues. The work has transitioned from macroscopic to microscopic examinations and into chemical and elemental analysis of the areas of internal short circuiting and thermal damage.

    Examination and testing of the exemplar battery from the JAL airplane has begun at the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center laboratories. Detailed examinations will be looking for signs of in-service damage and manufacturing defects. The test program will include mechanical and electrical tests to determine the performance of the battery, and to uncover signs of any degradation in expected performance.

    As a party contributing to the investigation, Boeing is providing pertinent fleet information, which will help investigators understand the operating history of lithium-ion batteries on those airplanes.

    An investigative group continued to interpret data from the two digital flight data recorders on the aircraft, and is examining recorded signals to determine if they might yield additional information about the performance of the battery and the operation of the charging system.

    In addition to the activities in Washington, investigators are continuing their work in Seattle and Japan.

  • | | | | | |

    Qantas Boeing Diverts to Rockhampton

    A Qantas Boeing 737-800 en route from Brisbane to Townsville made an emergency landing in Rockhampton. Emergency fire crews were on standby.

    Passengers noted turbulence. After the pilot informed passengers of technical difficulties, air masks descended. The pilots descended to a safe altitude prior to landing.

    Online reports indicate the cabin was losing pressure.

    An alternative flight was provided to take passengers to Townsville.

  • | | | | |

    British Airways 747 Diverts to Cardiff

    British Airways Boeing 747 with 158 passengers aboard en route from Houston to London diverted to Cardiff today after developing a “technical problem.” The flight made a safe landing at 10:43 in South Wales with emergency services on standby.

    There were no injuries. The Mayday was attributed to an instrument problem.

    After the plane was inspected, it continued on to Cardiff where it made a safe landing.

  • | | | | | |

    American Diverts To San Juan

    On Jan 28, 2013, American Airlines Boeing 767 Flight 233 with 198 passengers and a crew of 13 was en route from Miami to Brazil when it developed an electrical odor in the cockpit.

    The pilots diverted to Puerto Rico and made a safe landing in San Juan at 5:08 p.m.

    The plane is to remain there overnight for inspection, and on the 29th, take the crew and passengers on to Sao Paolo.

    Hotel accommodations were provided for passengers.

  • | | | | | |

    Will Boeing Switch to Electrical Inquiry?


    Here’s what is bothering me:

    It’s no secret how planes are tested before they are released, to the very extreme so how did this electrical problem issue by the testing? Is my favorite plane manufacturer taking short cuts in quality control?

    The Japan Boeing 787 Dreamliner was delivered on Dec. 20 and had only flown 169 flight hours and 22 flights when one of its two lithium ion batteries caught fire.

    Is the investigation going to turn from the battery to the problem referenced by the whistleblower?

    Battery found not at fault by Safety Investigators in JAPAN

    But is GS Yuasa really off the hook?

    Battery questions:

    • If the battery was too hot, why didn’t it burn up on hours 1-169?
    • If the battery failed, what caused it to catch fire on the 22nd flight? Why that flight?
    • If the battery (which is a backup system replacing post flight hydraulics) only operates on the ground and is only engaged on the ground, why are flights grounded? If the battery is only at use on the ground, is it an actual flight risk or a post-flight risk?
    • Is the solution going to be simply going to the other type of lithium ion battery (nickel metal-hydride technology), or will components or the whole system be replaced?
    • Was this simply a GS Yuasa quality control failure, a batch of bad batteries manufactured by GS Yuasa of Japan in September 2012?

    The entire 787 fleet is grounded. Replacing the battery system might be a “quick” fix but certification could last a year.

    A large format battery can generate heat faster than it dissipates.

    Is venting the battery and monitoring the vents a viable temporary solution that could keep the planes in the air until a system alternative has been certified within the year?

    The current batteries are “prone to spontaneous combustion due to ‘organic electrolyte which makes it volatile and flammable.'”

  • | | | | |

    American Airlines Bird Strike

    Burbank, twenty minutes from my home!

    On Jan 26, 2013, an American Airlines Boeing 738 flight took off from John Wayne Airport en route to Dallas, and suffered a bird strike (or more properly, three of them), and diverted to Los Angeles International Airport where they made a safe landing.

    Impact with the birds occurred around 7:30 a.m. (Does that make them early birds?)

    They landed safely around 8:00 a.m.

    Click if you want to see flight details on Flight Aware

  • | | | |

    Pilot Lands After Copilot Suffers Emergency


    Contact photographer Dmitriy Shapiro
    On January 22, 2013, an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 from Seattle to McCarran was en route when the co-pilot fainted. The pilot requested priority landing. The plane landed in McCarran ten minutes early at about 5:26 p.m.. None of the 146 passengers were injured.

    Alaskan Airlines said that while on board, the co-pilot was checked by a doctor on the flight, and that the co-pilot’s medical records were up to date. He was hospitalized on landing. A news program reported the plane landing on auto-pilot but an Alaskan Airlines official made assurances that the pilot landed the plane.