nJayMI sure hope it buries it as we are giving RyanAir unpaid publicity
In Ryanair’s Passenger Charter:….
…..Think this helps to put this matter to bed.;)
Hi Cloud9
I sure hope it does as we have given MO’L and RyanAir more free publicity in this thread than he would ever get.
nJayMIt may be useful to merge this thread with …
It may help to merge this thread with existing one at http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=100096
nJayMMust be the recession – it sure is hitting Nokia one of Finland’s other big players
It’s gross as colours – Must be the recession – it sure is hitting Nokia one of Finland’s other big players – the way the scythe is going through Nokia’s workforce worldwide
nJayMHere’s one from today’s FT
Qantas to resume Airbus A380 flights
Qantas is to resume some A380 services from Saturday more than three weeks after one of its Airbus superjumbos made an emergency landing after an engine exploded
http://link.ft.com/r/5F39HH/6VNES5/PPNV6/26S9VJ/9ZJ4FU/XL/h?a1=2010&a2=11&a3=25
Note the journalistic drama by using the word “exploded” – what a bomb inside the engine ? Yuk
nJayMToday’s FT reports some progress at Qantas with A380 flights
Today’s FT reports some progress at Qantas with A380 flights
Qantas to resume Airbus A380 flights
Qantas is to resume some A380 services from Saturday more than three weeks after one of its Airbus superjumbos made an emergency landing after an engine exploded
http://link.ft.com/r/5F39HH/6VNES5/PPNV6/26S9VJ/9ZJ4FU/XL/h?a1=2010&a2=11&a3=25
Note the dramatic journalistic word “exploded” at the end of the snippet. Yuk
nJayMUpdate from Boeing on Wed 24 November 2010
News Release Issued: November 24, 2010 5:52 PM EST
Boeing Initiates Changes to 787 Power Panel, Updates to Software
EVERETT, Wash., Nov. 24, 2010 /PRNewswire/ — Boeing (NYSE: BA) is developing minor design changes to power distribution panels on the 787 and updates to the systems software that manages and protects power distribution on the airplane. These changes come as the result of what has been learned from the investigation of an onboard electrical fire on a test airplane, ZA002, earlier this month in Laredo, Texas.
“We have successfully simulated key aspects of the onboard event in our laboratory and are moving forward with developing design fixes,” said Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of the 787 program. “Boeing is developing a plan to enable a return to 787 flight test activities and will present it to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as soon as it is complete.”
Engineers have determined that the fault began as either a short circuit or an electrical arc in the P100 power distribution panel, most likely caused by the presence of foreign debris. The design changes will improve the protection within the panel. Software changes also will be implemented to further improve fault protection.
The P100 panel is one of five major power distribution panels on the 787. It receives power from the left engine and distributes it to an array of systems.
The 787 team is now assessing the time required to complete the design changes and software updates that are being developed. A revised 787 program schedule is expected to be finalized in the next few weeks.
“Our team is focused on developing these changes and moving forward with the flight test program,” said Fancher. “The team in Laredo is also well along in preparing to return ZA002 to Seattle.”
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements in this report may be “forward-looking” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as “expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “projects,” “believes,” “estimates,” “targets,” “anticipates,” and similar expressions are used to identify these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based upon assumptions about future events that may not prove to be accurate. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or forecasted in these forward-looking statements. As a result, these statements speak to events only as of the date they are made and we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by federal securities laws. Specific factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements we make regarding our guidance relating to future financial and operating performance, the effect of economic conditions in the United States and globally, and general industry conditions as they may impact us or our customers, as well as the other important factors disclosed previously and from time to time in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Contact:
Lori Gunter
787 Communications
+1 206-931-5919
SOURCE Boeing
nJayMSome updates from Boeing on 787
Some recent updates on Boeing 787 following fire –
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1521
EVERETT, Wash., Nov. 16, 2010 /PRNewswire/ — While the investigation into the incident onboard 787 Dreamliner ZA002 continues, Boeing has established a plan to fly two other aircraft, ZA001 and ZA005, back to Seattle from Rapid City, S.D., and Victorville, Calif. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has reviewed and approved the plans.
ZA001 was undergoing refueling in South Dakota when the incident on ZA002 occurred and the company decided to forgo additional flights. ZA005 was on remote deployment for testing in California.
The flights follow a series of inspections on the airplanes’ aft electronics bays. No testing will be performed on the flights.
The team investigating the incident in Laredo has developed a detailed understanding of the ZA002 incident, though more work remains to complete the investigation. In addition to the information already released about the incident, data show that:
The total duration of the incident was less than 90 seconds.
The fire lasted less than 30 seconds.
The airplane concluded the event in a configuration that could have been sustained for the time required to return to an airport suitable for landing from any point in a typical 787 mission profile.
The team in Texas has completed inspection of ZA002 and has begun to prepare to install a new power panel and new insulation material. The team also is repairing minor structural damage that occurred during the event. This damage will be addressed with standard repair techniques in the airplane structural repair manual. The team is currently evaluating the timeline for completion of the repair work.
The incident on ZA002 demonstrated many aspects of the safety and redundancy in the 787 design, which ensure that if events such as these occur, the airplane can continue safe flight and landing.
No decision has been reached on when flight testing of the 787 will resume. Before that decision can be made, we must complete the investigation and assess whether any design changes are necessary. Until that time, Boeing cannot comment on the potential impact of this incident on the overall program schedule.
Contact:
Lori Gunter
787 Communications
+1 206-931-5919
SOURCE Boeing
Also see –
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1515
and
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1513
nJayMIrresponsible newspaper journalists should be re-titled sensationalists
Irresponsible newspaper journalists should be re-titled sensationalists
Give them one story and it escalates to ten – “passenger picks nose on flight causing flight to be diverted”……..
It’s not just the airline/aircraft industry that gets it though.
The auto manufacturers have just recovered from severe bashings too.
Toyota – brakes, floor mats, probably ashtrays and maybe even wheel embelishers if it makes a sensational story.
Facts, evidence and logic simply don’t make good reading, sadly ‘crap’ does though.
nJayMEven Ft journalists write sensation …. Some of us know better I guess
Hi Cking
Even supposedly responsible FT journalists write sensation.
It rocks the stock market, it makes traders money, and so it goes – the money merry-go-around.
Some of us thankfully know better.
Researchers, engineers and good flight crew always overcome all these malicious statements.
Birdstrike can cause havoc to many jet engines (civil or miliary).
nJayMOh sorry, just remembered Ryanair and customer service are not normally uttered in the same breath.
Planemike
Hi Planemike
Your last sentence sums up RyanAir in a one-ner.
Customer service is a ‘two way street’ where honesty and understanding by both parties is usually all it takes to get it right.
In RyanAir’s case since they treat their staff like ‘dirt’ this often reflects on the customer service provided by these disgruntled staff.
As many have said in posts on this forum in numerous threads, as passengers you get the service you pay for; and if you pay for the equivalent of a cheap catering ‘take away service’ then you get the service that payment warrants.
nJayMIt’s taking a lot to get a simple point through …
In the case of any passenger’s anti social behaviour on a fare paying civil airline that breaches the carrier’s legislation and/or breaches the law/s of the parent country or country where the incident occurs; this passenger risks being banned from flying on that airline and facing legal action arising from breaches of civil/national law in the country where the offence is committed.
Just think of it as being similar to a driving ban for drunk driving.
It would be simpler in reducing wasteful publicity on this forum for the two bit RyanAir if most sensible passengers simply boycott the airline.
nJayMYou simply have the type of animal incorrect – it should have been old racehorses
£1 or £100, it still doesn’t give the right of the airline to treat people as cattle.
Hi PeeDee
Please see the funny side of this.
You simply have the type of animal incorrect – it should have read “…..to treat people as old racehorses”, which is what O’Leary should go back to managing and leave airlines to professionals
nJayMI second that
I’ve said this once, and I’ll say it again, and I’ll keep protesting it.
Passengers cannot have it both ways. You cannot travel on a £35m jet for peanuts and expect to be treated different to this. Paying a stupid price for your ticket such as £1 (or even £100) for these types of trips is just not sustainable.
You get what you pay for, and I personally detest Ryanair, and would never fly with them – ever. If you expect to pay peanuts for your ticket, don’t complain when it all goes wrong.
I second that.
We are giving the scumbag O’Leary’s airline far too much publicity as usual.
Anyone that flies RyanAir should have their head examined.
nJayMI believe you are right
I would have thought that by now, without locating the remains of the aircraft and/or the black boxes, all that can be done already has been.
Is anyone still searching for AF447, or has that also been called off?
On this one I believe you have hit the nail on the head. It’s so quiet that it is likely that all searching has been abandoned.
Possibly legal compensation won the day with bereaved families which still sadly leaves a lot technically unanswered.
nJayMHi Cking
When the aircrafts systems detect a parameter going out of limits a signal is sent to the airline maintenance control center. This will be looked at by the engineers there who will decide what to do and contact the crew if neccesary or, more likly contact the maintenance crews meeting the aircraft and talk to them.
In the case of the 380 I don’t think that there were any indications that there was anything wrong. The thinking is now that there was an oil fire in the IP turbine rear bearing chamber that heated the disc up till the properties of the metal were changed causing the disc to burst. No engine has any kind of temperature monitoring in this area so it would not have been picked up.
As for real time trend monitoring, as you say Bombardier are developing it so it will spread to other aircraft in time.
Most airlines spend a lot of time on trend monitoring. Downloading infomation from each aircraft almost on a daily basis. They take oil samples, check filters and magnetic chip detectors. It has to be said the main reason they do it is to save money but it’s “side effect” is to increase aircraft safety.
The actual process within the IT/IS technical arena is quite simply providing for exception reporting with alarm triggers to those monitoring (visual on screens, mobile telephones,etc)
The key is deciding on the parameters for exception triggers which is up to the experts such as yourself.
The QF A380 is very lucky to have a flight crew that got it down with absolutely no casualties.
It will be good to know what caused an oil leak, that then became a fire and the subsequent metal overheating to beyond it’s tolerance levels is simply down to fundamental laws in Physics.
Preventing oil leaks seems to be the real problem to be solved while ofcourse forensically looking at the disc to establish quality assurance at supply.
Let’s hope that this is a wake up call for others to follow Bombadier’s lead; expensive but both do-able and it as you confirm increases safety in the air.
I would love to go back in to the sharp end of IT/IS after my Accounting degree is over as without bragging I was ‘head hunted’ to the EU pre Y2K simply because I used exception reporting and produced the best MTBF figures for servers in the technical speciality I worked.
I did the same in the EU and was quite bold as to daily be in a sculling boat 3 hours response time from my servers knowing that when I left work apart from an act of God everything was okay. If my waterproof pager went off round my neck it meant the system had reached paramenters that were exceptions that set off triggers that auto dialed my pager with the error code.
The systems were built so robust that we even had a satelite office (staffed in rotation) 10 kilometres away with those servers mirroring real time the main servers and the remote servers were housed in a WWII style u-boat bunker
Sign In
