FlightBlogger Archive 2007-2012

Author: Jon Ostrower

  • Breaking: Comac’s C919 to launch with six customers #Zhuhai10

    zhuhai-header-FINAL_LG.jpg

    C919-launchcustomers.JPG

    ZHUHAI — Comac’s C919 narrowbody is set for its mega debut here at Air Show China with orders from six launch customers, including GE Capital Aviation Services (GECAS).

    While the total size of the order has not yet been disclosed, Air China, China Eastern, China Southern, Hainan Airlines, Chinese lessor CLC and GECAS are lined up to be the first customers for the 160-seat, CFM Leap-X-powered jetliner.

    China’s domestic market is forecast to be the fastest growth market on the planet with 7.9% year-over-year average growth between 2009 and 2029, according to Boeing. Seventy-one percent, or 3,090 of the 4,330 aircraft needed in China over the next two decades are estimated to be narrowbodies supporting the intra-China market.

    An official announcement is expected at 10:30 AM local time here in Southern Eastern China.

    This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

    This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

  • Travel Night and Day: FlightBlogger goes to China – IAD-SFO-HKG

    zhuhai-header-FINAL_LG.jpg

    SAN FRANCISCO — I’m heading West…to go East. After a 5hr hop this afternoon to San Francisco, I’m picking up this Singapore Airlines 777-300ER (Flight 1) for a 14hr 30m flight to Hong Kong for Air Show China in Zhuhai. This aircraft, 9V-SWT, was handed over to SIA at the beginning of 2009 and was the 759th 777 built in Everett. It will be Monday morning by the time I arrive at Chek Lap Kok and then on to nearby Zhuhai by water shuttle.

    This week will undoubtedly prove to be one for the aviation history books with the first order for the Comac C919, while it may be ceremonial, the order represents a significant step for China’s ascent as a commercial aerospace aspirant. We can only hope this week will bring additional technical clarity about the aircraft as well, despite being six years from its entry into service. I’ll have much more on the C919 and ARJ21 as the week unfolds. Next stop, China.

    This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

    This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

  • FAA pilot was flying 787 at the time of in-flight fire

    An FAA pilot was flying ZA002 at the time of the aircraft’s emergency landing in Laredo, Texas, confirm those with direct knowledge of the incident.

    The FAA pilot, whose identity has not been disclosed, was sitting in the left seat of the 787 during its final descent into Laredo. A Boeing Test pilot was sitting in the first officer’s seat on the flight deck.
    While the FAA pilot performed the landing, on any Boeing experimental aircraft, a Boeing test pilot is considered to be in control and responsible for the oversight of the flight.

    Two FAA personnel were part of the crew of 42 aboard ZA002, including the pilot and a systems engineer who was observing in the cabin during the six-plus hour flight to test the aircraft’s nitrogen generation system.
    At this late stage in the flight test campaign, regulatory personnel are almost always involved in evaluating the aircraft for certification credit.

    As the investigation into the fire unfolds and safety and design recommendations are formed, the presence of the FAA pilot and systems engineer on board 787 means regulatory authorities do not have to rely on Boeing’s interpretation of events.
    During the failure of the P100 power panel, which was first noticed as ZA002 crossed through 1000ft above ground level (AGL), multiple engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) messages appeared on flight deck displays before load shedding reduced the available displays to a single screen on the left side of the flight deck. 
    A source with direct knowledge of the incident says both heads up displays (HUD) were disabled as well and another says the location of the sole active display ultimately determined which member of the flight crew landed the aircraft.
    Evaluating how the aircraft responded to the fire is equally important to regulatory authorities as establishing the cause of the fire in the P100 power panel and Boeing maintains the 787 “performed as expected”.

    In addition to the eye-witness accounts of those on board the aircraft, Boeing has significant additional data at its disposal to sift through as ZA002 is a fully instrumented flight test aircraft measuring parameters well beyond a normal commercial aircraft.
    Boeing continues to inspect ZA002 in Laredo, a process the company says will “take several days” to complete, and adds “it is too early to determine if there is significant damage to any structure or adjacent systems.”

    This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

    This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

  • Photos of Note: Dreamliner Two in Laredo

    Photos have surfaced of ZA002 being worked on in Laredo, Texas after a fire in the aircraft’s aft electrical equipment (EE) bay Tuesday crippled the 787 following an emergency landing. The photos, taken by flickr user Stevie.Eliz, were apparently taken yesterday. While the damage to ZA002 was entirely internal, the photos show the deployed ram air turbine (RAT) as well as crews accessing both the forward and rear EE bays.

    Meanwhile, ZA001 remains stranded in South Dakota, while ZA005 is in Victorville, California and ZA003, ZA004 and ZA006 are at Everett (3) and Boeing Field (4 & 6). Earlier in the week a Gulfstream G-IV and Bombardier Challenge 600 series business jets made the trip between Boeing Field and Laredo, which was possibly the dispatch of a new P100 panel.

    FlightBlogger image
    FlightBlogger image
    FlightBlogger image
    FlightBlogger image
    FlightBlogger image

    This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

    This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

  • A Closer Look: 787 fire investigation points to P100 power panel (Update1)

    FlightBlogger image

    Two days after a fire forced the grounding of the 787 test fleet, a power control panel, responsible for distributing electrical power generated by the aircraft’s left engine, is at the center of the investigation.

    Program and supplier sources confirm the panel, known as P100, caught fire as ZA002 was passing through 1000ft during its final approach into Laredo, Texas on Tuesday.

    Boeing disclosed Wednesday that a power control panel was being replaced, but declined to identify if P100 was the source of the fire.

    Boeing declined to comment prior to publication to this report, but later confirmed the P100 panel was significantly damaged by the fire.
    Boeing says: “We have determined that a failure in the P100 panel led to a fire involving an insulation blanket. The insulation self-extinguished once the fault in the P100 panel cleared. The P100 panel on ZA002 has been removed and a replacement unit is being shipped to Laredo. The insulation material near the unit also has been removed.”

    The P100 panel sits on the left side of the aft electrical equipment (EE) bay, and is part of a highly-integrated electrical system that receives 235v ac power from the left engine’s twin 250 kVA engine generators for distribution throughout the aircraft.

    An identical P200 panel performs the same tasks for the right engine’s generators.
    The 787 more-electric systems architecture is driven by up to one megawatt of electricity from the two 250 kVA variable frequency starter generators (VFSG) on each of the 787’s twin General Electric GEnx-1B or Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines. ZA002 is powered by Trent 1000 engines.
    The P100 panel is home to seven main components supplied by Hamilton Sundstrand, including those that are responsible for commanding loads on and off to various systems depending on the need on board the aircraft, as well as components that replace thermal circuit breakers, which provide overload and fault protection.
    Further complicating ZA002‘s return to testing is the damage sustained during the fire, which included dripping of molten metal onto the system wiring and internal fuselage structure, which program sources say is driving Boeing’s inspection of the area surrounding the P100 panel to “determine if other repairs will be necessary.”

    “As part of our investigation,” says Boeing, “We will conduct a detailed inspection of the panel and insulation material to determine if they enhance our understanding of the incident.”

    “In addition, we are determining the appropriate steps required to return the rest of the flight test fleet to flying status.”

    Boeing is continuing to investigate the fire and determine any impact to “the overall program schedule” as it reviews data collected from the incident.

    This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

    This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

  • Flash: 787 test fleet grounded after electrical fire (Update5)

    Boeing has grounded it six 787 test aircraft following Tuesday’s aft electrical bay fire aboard ZA002.
    “We have decided to focus on ground tests while we better understand the incident on ZA002,” says Boeing.
    UPDATE 1:39 PM ET: Here’s my full story on the grounding:

    According to a source briefed on the incident, the fire caused a series of cascading failures including drop out of some of the flight deck displays and autothrottle systems.

    The extent of damage to the aircraft’s systems and composite primary structure has not been officially disclosed by Boeing, but is believed to be extensive, say those familiar with the incident.

    UPDATE 2:45 PM ET: A representative from the Laredo Fire Department Airport Unit says upon boarding ZA002 fire fighters found heavy smoke, but no flames, though test personnel told the firefighters that the fire was still ongoing upon landing at Laredo. 
    UPDATE 3:34 PM ET: The National Transportation Safety Board is officially “monitoring” the situation in Texas, says Keith Holloway, a spokesman for the board and is “assessing information we are getting” from the FAA. The NTSB adds that no board personnel have been dispatched to Laredo. ZA002 has been moved off of the taxiway to a secure area on the airport. An industry source with direct familiarity of the incident says the FAA, NTSB, Boeing interaction is a bit of a “gray area” as the aircraft is in its development phase.
    UPDATE 4:40 PM ET: Did ZA002 lose its Primary Flight Displays? Yes. And No.
    A source familiar with the details of the situation said yesterday the pilots lost the primary flight displays while on approach to Laredo. Boeing disputed the claim this morning, saying the pilot did have a PFD on landing. The 787 flight deck allows both to be true. In load shedding situations the outboard displays which are the typical home for the PFDs, enter a reversionary mode and disable the pilot’s outboard display and first officer’s inboard display. 
    On the pilot’s PFD, which takes up two-thirds of the outboard screen in normal operations, is shifted to a one-half arrangement on the inboard display and combined with the EICAS display. For the first officer, the outboard display goes to a one-half arrangement with the PFD and ND. While the primary flight display would be lost due to the electrical issue, the PFD would be sustained on the left inboard and right outboard display.
    UPDATE 6:06 PM ET: Boeing issues an update on the ZA002 fire. Schedule impact is unknown as the investigation unfolds. 

    Initial inspection appears to indicate that a power control panel in the aft electronics bay will need to be replaced on ZA002. We are inspecting the power panel and surrounding area near that panel to determine if other repairs will be necessary.

    This is a developing story and will be updated.

    This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

    This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

  • Breaking: Smoke in ZA002’s cabin forces evacuation (Update5)

    Smoke in the cabin of ZA002, Boeing’s second 787 flight test aircraft prompted an evacuation of the 30-plus test personnel on board. The test aircraft was enroute to Harlingen, Texas for trials of the aircraft’s nitrogen generation system, when smoke was seen in the main cabin. Boeing says ZA002 “continued its approach and landed safely in Laredo, Texas.” Adding that the “crew evacuated the airplane safely.”


    Update 6:57 PM ET:     Boeing says ZA002 is on the ground in Laredo, Texas with its evacuation slides deployed. Boeing is “continuing to collect data” on the source of the smoke, which is currently unknown. The FAA says the aircraft landed at 2:54 PM Central Time.

    Update 7:30 PM ET: A source familiar with the incident says ZA002 touched down in Laredo after a fire broke out in the aft electronics equipment bay causing the flight deck primary flight displays and auto throttle to fail, additionally the ram air turbine was deployed on landing. The aircraft landed in visual flight rules (VFR) conditions.

    ZA002-Laredo.jpegUpdate 8:04 PM ET: Hamilton Sundstrand, which is responsible for the 787’s electrical system, says it is in touch with Boeing and is participating in the investigation. A spokesman for the company had no additional details regarding the incident. 

    Update 10:56 PM ET: Program sources say all planned flight tests for Wednesday have been postponed until Thursday at the earliest. ZA001, ZA005 and ZA006 have been shifted to ground tests as a result of ZA002’s in-flight fire. ZA003 and ZA004 had been previously scheduled to conduct ground testing.

    Update 10:08 AM ET: Boeing released some additional details this morning, including the total occupancy of the aircraft, which stood at 42 at the time of the incident. That number is not uncommon when beginning a remote stay as the plane acts as a ferry for test crews. Boeing says “contrary to some reports” the pilot did not lose primary flight displays during the fire, though did not specify if any of the five were inoperative at the time of the fire.

    Additionally, programmes sources say ZA002 test crews in Texas are being updated on the status of the aircraft in a briefing this morning. 

    This is a developing story and will be updated.

    This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

    This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

  • Trent 900 IP turbine in the spotlight as QF32 investigation unfolds

    FlightBlogger image

    Five days into the investigation of the uncontained engine failure aboard Qantas Flight 32, several reports have focused attention around oil leaks in the intermediate pressure turbine inside the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 that flies under the wing of the the Australian carrier’s A380s. 

    The Trent 900s on Qantas’s A380s, which are officially known as the Rolls-Royce RB211 Trent 972-84, feature a 72,000lb thrust rating, the higher of two available. Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines selected the 70,000lb rating. The Trent 900 is rated at 76,000 and 80,000lbs of thrust, but both are reserved for the larger A380-900 and A380-800F if/when they begin development.
    While the six Qantas A380s remain grounded at this hour, the Australian’s Steve Creedy reports that the investigation has focused on Qantas’s selection of the 72,000lb thrust rating, for its longest routes.

    Engineers believe the higher thrust levels at which the carrier operates its Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines may result in resonating vibrations that cause oil lines to crack.

    The theory has emerged after in-depth inspections uncovered oil in three A380 engines in areas where it should not be present.
    …
    The Qantas A380 involved, which came into service two years ago, was also used for the trans-Pacific story. The oil leaks in the three engines, found in the intermediate pressure turbine area housing a disc similar to the one that disintegrated in last week’s spectacular mid-air drama, caused spotting and pooling that had the potential to spark damaging fires in the engine.

    The hunt is on for the second part of the missing turbine gear, believed to be somewhere on Batam Island in Indonesia. The first part of the geared disk was recovered shortly after the incident last week. David Epstein, Qantas general manager , says of the number two engine: “There doesn’t appear to be a disk there at the moment. Virtually that entire area, the intermediate chamber of the engine, has disappeared.”

    Already grappling with intermediate-pressure turbine and oil build up issues on its Trent 1000, which powers the Boeing 787, Rolls-Royce announced Monday it had definitively determined that the uncontained failures on the 900 and the 1000 were “unconnected”. 

    T900-A380-ECAM.jpgThe intermediate-pressure turbine, which is part of Rolls-Royce three-shaft engine architecture, is unique among the large commercial transport engines. Competitors Pratt & Whitney and General Electric have a two-shaft architecture. The three-shaft architecture allows each part of the engine’s core to spin at an optimized speed. The three shafts, which run concentrically, host the low, intermediate and high pressure elements.
    The intermediate pressure (IP) compressor and turbine, which are hosted on the same shaft, are allowed to rotate faster than the fan, requiring fewer stages. The result is a shorter and lighter engine.
    The Trent 900 architecture features a 116in front fan, which acts as the engine’s single-stage low pressure (LP) compressor, followed by an eight-stage IP compressor, six-stage high-pressure (HP) compressor, single annular tiled combustor with 20 fuel injectors, single-state high pressure turbine (drives the HP compressor), single-stage IP turbine (drives the IP compressor) and a five stage LP turbine (drives the front fan).

    During its 90th birthday celebration this past weekend, Qantas displayed one of its grounded A380s along with past and present members of the carrier’s fleet. Along with an A330 and 747-400, Airbus cracked open the cowl of the Trent 900 on the A380 providing visitors an up-close view of the engine that was busy making less-positive headlines around the globe.

    During this same period, Rolls-Royce issued a Trent 900 service bulletin, NMSB72-G589, whose contents is currently unknown, but it is believed to establish the inspection guidelines for the Qantas, Singapore and Lufthansa fleets. No one outside Airbus, Rolls-Royce, regulatory authorities and operators have seen this document.

    While Singapore and Lufthansa A380 fleets operate unincumbered right now, Qantas believes its fleet could return to service in no less than 72-hours (Thursday evening local time), undoubtedly under the close watch of Airbus, Qantas, Rolls-Royce and the traveling public.

    This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

    This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

  • Boeing restarts 787 deliveries with arrival of wings for Airplane 31

    SEATTLE — Operating as Giant 4151 late Friday afternoon, one of Boeing’s four modified 747-400 Dreamlifters operated by Atlas Air touched down at Paine Field in Everett, Washington carrying a set of wings for the 31st 787, marking the restart of structural deliveries following a two week halt. 

    The wings, built at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ Oye facility in Nagoya, Japan, were flown from Chubu Centrair Airport to Everett with an intermediate tech stop in Anchorage, Alaska. 
    The arrival of the wings for Airplane 31 comes one day after the 787 line advanced, making way for the loading of the structural sections for Airplane 29, an aircraft that will eventually be delivered to Japan’s All Nippon Airways. 
    The advancement of aircraft on the line marks the first time in just over a month the line has moved forward.
    Boeing announced October 25 it halted deliveries after the airframer determined it would opt to prevent any workmanship issues with the 30th Alenia-built horizontal stabilizer from traveling to final assembly. The forward and aft fuselages and wings for Airplane 30 arrived the third week of October prior to the delivery halt. 

    Yet to arrive in Everett is the horizontal stabilizer for the 30th 787, which is set to be delivered to final assembly ahead of the next line move, scheduled for the middle of November when Airplane 30 will be loaded into position one for the wing and body joins.

    This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

    This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.

  • Video: Qantas Flight 32 and A380’s hydraulic system redundancy

    Twenty-four hours after the A380’s first major incident, a continuing question remains around the state of the aircraft upon touchdown in Singapore and to what extent the aircraft’s systems were impacted due to the uncontained failure of engine two. Commercial jetliners for years have been designed with multiple levels of redundancy to endure even the most brutal damage. The A380’s safe return to Singapore is further evidence illustrating how the redundancy of aircraft systems provide an extra margin of designed-in safety to commercial air travel.

    One video posted by Russia Today (and includes Flightglobal’s Cory Matthews footage immediately following the landing of QF32 in Singapore) shows the spoiler operation upon touchdown as filmed from the lower deck of the A380. The video shows only half of the A380’s spoilers deployed upon touchdown, further suggesting damage to the Green Hydraulic system following the engine failure. The lack of operation of the wing slats, is consistent with a failure of the Green hydraulic system as well.

    Also included below (for a bit of technical background) are three slides from the Airbus Flight Deck and Systems Briefing for Pilots which describes the redundant attributes of the A380’s hydraulic system and identifies which flight controls are on which system.

    A380_HSdesc.jpgA380-HS1.jpg
    A380_FCS1.jpg

    This post was originally published to the internet between 2007 and 2012. Links, images, and embedded media from that era may no longer function as intended.

    This post originally appeared at Flightglobal.com from 2007 to 2012.