c0t0d0s0.org

Just heard on N24, that the Luftfahrtbundesamt found the reason for the go-around with touching the ground in the last year in Hamburg. The Spiegel (a german magazine) will report it: They call it a computer problem. Well ... i´m not so sure of that, and i´m sure that the Luftfahrtbundesamt said something different in their report. Why do i think different? Well ... i remember the last crash with fatalities of the Lufthansa on 14. September 1993 in Warsaw. At that time the Lufthansa Airbus A320 crashed into a small "hill" at the end of the run-way. The reason: The computer of the Airbus didn´t think that the Airbus is on ground and thus it didn´t brake.

At this time the computer programm for the brakes was modified and the activation of the brakes was coupled to an pressure of 2t instead of 12 tons on the landing gears and the airbrakes and the reverse thrust isn´t coupled to the landing gears at all and i´m sure that many landing were more secure of this decision.

When i look at the video of this attempt to land it looks like that both gears touched the ground and thus the Airbus switched in the ground mode. Looks as "works as designed". That isn´t a computer problem. This circumstances was just out of the specification. But as usual ... i´m waiting for the final report.

But i find something strange about this: When even a computer guy like me know about this situation, why does a pilot know about it, as the Hamburger Abendblatt reports it. Okay, i´ve read a lot about it to explain in meetings and seminars about the fact that the ability to specify requirements is finite. There will be always unspecified circumstances.

But well ... the Hamburger Abendblatt wrote, that the Spiegel will report about this. And the Spiegel is pretty well known for being overly negative in regard of Airbus. I remember they have declared the death of Airbus when Boeing announced the 787 They have even the old story about the Airbus being a computer controlled plane, but i assume you can´t talk with a journalist about direct law, alternate law and normal law.

As you may have read in the news, there was a plane crash in Denver. A Continental 737 left the runway in the wrong direction at take off. But this one is a little bit different: Mike Wilson - one of the passengers - twittered about his experience.


I don´t think i would have the nerves to even remember that there is something called "Internet" after surviving plane crash. I´m glad that there wasn´t any fatalities at this crash. As far as a read the incoming news they directly crashed in front of a fire station.

(click to view)

There were some rumours last week about the delamination of the wings, albeit the Flightblogger was able to gather some other informations that this rumours was nonsense. But after almost 15 years in the computer business i´ve got a fine sensor for half-a... dementis. Ben Sandilands writes in Boeing avoids the ‘D’ word about a statement he was able to gather from Jon Ostrower (the flightblogger) which he got from Boeing:

Our tests continue to confirm that the composite construction of the 787, including the wing, is sound. The 787, like every commercial jetliner, is going through a rigorous series of tests to verify the safety and certificability of its structure, systems and operations. The FAA will review the results of this compliance activity prior to certifying the airplane for commercial use.

I don´t think, that´s a good dementi. I would like to hear "There is no delamination. Period." instead of "When we get this plane through certification, you can be sure that there is no problems with the wings"

Okay, we all laughed about the comment of a Boeing guy who stated that the A380 is too quiet. But there seems to be an "too quiet" problem in this aircraft. There is a crew restroom in the A380 for long distance flights. Normally it´s located in the front of the aircraft, but in Emirates machines have this room in the back. The problem: They can´t sleep - the passengers are too loud and there are no engine noises to overlap the passengers.Flightglobal writes:

The pilots say that the lack of engine noise in the A380's cabin compared with other long-haul airliners means they are constantly disturbed by sounds created by passengers, such as crying babies, flushing vacuum toilets and call bells. Passengers also mistake the rest area for a lavatory, and pull the door handle.

(Thanks to Kris for the hint)

Okay, this starts to get ridiclious. Boeing announced another delay in the 787 program according to this article. The first flight is rescheduled to next year and they didn´t announced a new date. The delivery of the first aircrafts in 2009 look impossible for me.

While everybody expected that the IAM strike would have some impact to the schedule, there is another reason: Wrong installation of fasteners. According to Boeing 3% of all fasteners were incorrectly installed.

An estimated 3 percent of the fasteners on four flight-test planes at the Everett plant, plus two others that have been assembled for ground testing, were installed incorrectly and will have to be removed and replaced.

At a count of several hundred-thousands fasteners per aircraft, 3% is a lot of work. Another article at the Wall Street Journal writes:

Engineers have traced it to improper instructions on what type and length of fasteners to use on certain titanium parts. The fasteners, located throughout the airplane, were installed mostly by suppliers at the plants where the major sections of the jet are being built, and affect all fuselage sections built so far

.I start to get some doubts about entering a 787 when it will entering service in the future.

There is a new requirement from the FAA. Any airplane certified after the 28 November has to have a desginated LRBL. It´s one of this security theater things from my point of view. A LRBL is a "least risk bomb location", a location where a bomb explosion would inflict the least damage to the aircraft. I see some problems in such a location.

You have to move the bomb to get it to the LRBL. At first you have to find someone who is brave enough to move around an live explosive device. As we know of several hollywood movies ( ) an explosive device would have an trap fuse, that would trigger the the explosion in the event of moving it around. You should at least keep the existence secret and hidden in the aircrafts operation manual to prevent the addition of such trap fuses to terrorists bombs or the usage of an more potent explosive substance.

At the end: It´s the classic ammunition/armour competition. There is always one winner and it´s always the same competitor: The ammunition.The only way to increase the airliner explosive survivability is to keep of the explosives offboard.

Perhaps it´s just me, but i think there must be really big problems in the 787 program, when Boeing celebrates such small steps as a successful static pressure test.

Relatively short after the crash there were rumours about deployed thrust reversers at one of the engines of the Spanair aircraft and shortly after this you were able to find a photo (login needed) of this engine at the usual discussion areas. Today two spanish newspaper reported according to Aviationweek and the german newssite sueddeutsche.de (based on dpa) that the thrust reverser of one engine were found in the deployed position.

Albeit this would explain some of the reported reactions of the plane, it´s much to early to draw any conclusions. The question is now: Were the reversers in this position before the crash or were they moved in this position by the crash. We have to wait for the final accident report ...

PS: Nevertheless this evoked memories to the LaudaAir 004 crash in me: Mid-air deployment of the reversers in 24,700 feet. Nobody in the aircraft survived the crash.

According to a report at Aviationweek Boeing thinks about to leave the tanker rebidding process. The new proposal gives more credits to a bigger tanker and thus a 767 based tanker wouldn´t be competitive to a A330 based tanker ... and as i wrote before. A 777 based tanker is no alternative for Boeing besides of the short timeframe for this proposal.

Now, however, the Pentagon is pushing for the replacement tankers as soon as possible after multiple delays. It remains unclear if a no-bid position from Boeing would drag out the KC-X competition or it if would compel the Pentagon to attempt a sole-source of the work to Northrop Grumman/EADS.

This is an interesting development. Stopping the former decision with the help of the GOA just do leave the proposal process afterwards will not help to make friends for future proposals ....

I don´t think, that i will fly with the 787 anytime soon ... even in case, this baby will fly next year. There are new delays in the programs. As far as the usual suspects report, a mechanic at Alenia was able to destroy a complete barrel of the fuselage by using wrong fasteners. The damage was so severe, that they wait for a new center fuselage barrel.

Okay, this can happen, but this rises some questions for me as an outsider to this business : How do Boeing expect that an ordinary flight mechanic can repair the 787 on the apron, when a catering truck bumps into the plane or an uncautious loader rams its vehicle into lower deck? When even the people at the factory are unable to repair a damage? And to think it the other way round: Will they throw away such fuselage parts in the future or will they repair this to save some money (Boeing is a public traded company and i think Fight Club was right with it´s presentation of the internal logic of companies). The damage must have been severe enough that Boeing examines it complete schedule as Dreamliner Four plays an important role in the flight test schedule. And this just by the mistake of a single mechanic.

Additionally: This damage happpened at a part of the plane that was problematic for Boeing in the past as reported for example at Design News: Boeing Stiffens 787 Wing Box Spars: More Schedule Delays Possible.

Some strange: AirportBusiness.com reports in "787 partner halts work briefly after FAA audit":

The South Carolina plant that assembles the mid-fuselage of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner halted production for 24 hours beginning Monday night after a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) audit found lax manufacturing procedures that could result in damage to the aircraft sections.
[...]
He said it wasn't surprising the FAA found issues, given the high number of workers there who "never worked on airplanes before.
[...]
"In the beginning ... they were basically looking the other way to get the plane built," said the contractor. "Now people are paying attention to procedures and everything is being done by the letter of the law."

Sorry that i can´t resist ... but: The test flight pilots should wear parachutes not only on first flight

Well, i´m not in the aircraft business and i´m just a interested outsider , but at the moment my confidence as an upcoming consumer in this aircraft is waning at best ...

I´ve collected some comments from the aviation world in the last few days:

• Power-on-Testing on 787
• 787 delays
• The US Air Force tanker deal

Nun hat man sich also ein Ziel gesetzt. Man will fliegen. Es ist der erste Schritt und jede Reise beginnt mit einem solchen. Doch im Flugzeug sitzt man damit noch lange nicht.

The Flight Blogger reports in this article that the first power-on testing of the 787 had started. Interestingly this is one month after the planed delivery based on the original schedule . But good to see that this program makes some progress.