(Reuters) – Boeing Co’s 787 Dreamliner jet suffered a third mishap in as many days on Wednesday, heightening safety concerns after a string of setbacks for the new aircraft.
==========================================
Some 800 Boeing Dreamliners have been ordered so far and the first Dreamliner entered commercial operation with ANA in late 2011. That was about 3 years later than planned following a string of production issues. The Dreamliner has had a number of teething problems – mainly with electrical systems. Qatar Airways had to correct electrical faults and a United Air flight had to make an emergency landing because of power failure. The FAA had also found some faults with the installation of the fuel system and had called for all Dreamliners to be inspected. Now a JAL aircraft has had a battery fire after landing at Boston – but there were no passengers on board at the time.
A Japan Airlines Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet aircraft is surrounded by emergency vehicles while parked at Logan International Airport in Boston. AP/Stephan Savoia
But the problems experienced so far do not seem to be anything extraordinary compared to what could be expected with a brand new aircraft. The Dreamliner has not – unlike the Airbus A380 – experienced any serious engine problems so far. Another year of flying will probably see all the initial bugs ironed out. Then it will probably take another 5 or 6 years before any generic design issues – due to materials choices for example – start showing up.
NY Times: A Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft with no passengers on board caught fire at Logan International Airport in Boston on Monday when a battery in its auxiliary electrical system exploded, officials said.
A mechanic inspecting the Japan Airlines jet discovered smoke in the cockpit while performing a routine postflight inspection and reported it to airport authorities around 10:30 a.m. Eastern time, said Bob Donahue, the fire chief of the Massachusetts Port Authority.
A fire crew responded and determined that a battery used to power the plane’s electrical systems when the engines are not running had exploded, Chief Donahue said. The mechanic was the only person on board the plane when the smoke was discovered, and no one was hurt by the fire, he added. ….
…… The 787 relies heavily on electrical power to drive onboard systems that in other jet models are run by air pressure generated by the engines. It also experienced electrical problems during testing that prompted a redesign.
The Dreamliner has experienced a string of problems with its electrical systems in recent weeks. On Dec. 4, a United Airlines flight from Houston to Newark made an emergency landing after it appeared that one of its power generators had failed.
On Dec. 13, Qatar Airways said it had grounded one of its three 787 jets because of the same problem United experienced. On Dec. 17, United said that a second 787 in its fleet had developed electrical problems.
It is only to be expected of course but the Boeing 787 Dreamliner will also surely have its share of teething difficulties. They seem relatively minor so far but the aircraft is after all 3 years late. I have not yet flown on the Dreamliner or the Airbus A380 but will not have any qualms about travelling on either when the opportunity arises. But the 4 engines on the A380 Airbus might be less stressful than just the 2 on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner for the first time on a new aircraft!
Chicago Tribune: A brand-new United Airlines “Dreamliner” airplane bound for Newark was diverted Tuesday morning, making an emergency landing in New Orleans because of an undisclosed mechanical problem. On Tuesday, the 7:30 a.m. United flight 1146 from Houston to Newark was diverted to Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport and landed safely there at 9:25 a.m., the airline said. The plane, the third delivered to United recently, carried 174 customers and 10 crew members. Neither United nor Boeing would describe the problem except to say it was a “mechanical issue.”
Seattle Times:The Federal Aviation Administration is ordering airlines to inspect 787 Dreamliners for improperly installed fuel-line connectors that could result in leaks or even fires. The safety directive, to be published Wednesday, gives airlines a week to check fuel-line system fastening wires and 21 days to check connectors inside the pylons that hold the engines. Fuel leaks were reported by airlines on two in-service 787s, and subsequent inspections by Boeing of jets in service or still in production revealed some fuel line connectors were installed incorrectly.
I have used Ryanair from time to time – but only when I have had no other reasonable options. They are not customer friendly at all and not my airline of choice. Siemens has decided to boycott Ryanair. Clearly Ryanair is not pleased but I think Siemens are perfectly within their rights, are quite justified in their actions and even ought to be commended. Cutting costs while adventuring safety must – even for Ryanair – be unacceptable.
It occurs to me that since Ryanair seems to thrive on negative publicity perhaps they secretly welcome this?
Strangely this story is not widely reported in the MSM.
(UPDATE! Airliners.net had something on this story but the page seems to have been deleted. Perhaps legal action is being threatened.
UPDATE 2! Airliners.net has a new forum page where Ryanair is considered in a rather favourable light by commenters. The original page remains deleted. In my suspicious mind I suspect there has been some pressure from Ryanair on the website.)
The German industrial group Siemens, with 400,000 employees worldwide, has decided for a global boycott of Ryanair. But Ryanair has threatened legal action. Siemens Group Management took the decision after Ryanair suffered a number of accidents and incidents in recent times and is a signal to the entire aviation industry.
I am always irritated when the regulations regarding in-flight electronics are announced at the start of a flight. I dutifully switch my phone off not because I have any perception of causing danger but only because I don’t want to be denied travel.
There is no evidence whatsoever that using electronic devices on flights – whether during take-off and landing or while cruising – has any deleterious effects on aircraft navigation or any other technical operations during the flight. But this regulation – like so many others – was based originally on fears. Getting rid of an existing regulation even when there is no evidence that the fear is justified is extremely difficult. Once any irrational – but fear-based – regulation is in place the onus of proof shifts from showing something to be unsafe to proving instead that it is not unsafe. And proving a negative is not very easy.
An FAA regulator is walking down the street snapping his fingers continuously. A guy stops him and asks, “Why are you snapping your fingers all the time?” “To keep wild elephants away.” “That’s ridiculous!“, says the guy. The regulator replies, “Oh, yeah? You don’t see any wild elephants around do you?”
A Sukhoi Superjet SSJ100 crashed into mountains in Indonesia while on a sales tour of Asia. All 45 people on board were killed and it is thought that the entire Sukhoi sales team perished in the crash. The SSJ 100 development was plagued by delaysand the first commercial aircraft was delivered in February 2011.
Fitch Ratings agency expects that the recent Sukhoi Superjet 100 (SSJ-100) crash in Indonesia during its demonstration flight will negatively affect the popularity of this jet brand in the short-term but won’t undermine the overall rating of its manufacturer, the Sukhoi Civil Aircraft.
The SSJ-100 with 40 people on board slammed into a Salak Mount slope in Indonesia on May 9.
Indonesian rescuers have found no survivors at the site of Russia’s Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash on Java’s Salak Island, a rescue official reports. According to him, the bodies will be evacuated from the site by helicopters as it is located 1,500 meters above sea level.
The jet with 45 passengers went off radar during its demonstration flight in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta on May 9. Eight Russians and citizens of five countries were on board
A rescue helicopter found the jet’s fragments on the Salak peak, 65 km of Jakarta.
Rafale de l'Escadron de Chasse 1/7 Provence: Wikipedia
It is not unexpected or unusual in the award of large Indian contracts that the “losing” bidder cries “foul” and claims that the evaluation process was manipulated. From my own experience in the Power industry it is “standard practice” for a losing bidder to enlist the aid of the media, politicians and the courts in crying foul and in trying to get an award to a competitor overturned. Again, from my own experience, such tactics can often delay awards but rarely succeed. Such “spoiling” can cause much rancour with the client and – more often than not – is counter-productive. In marketing and sales for large projects in India, “spoiling” a competitor’s award is rather easy but only delays matters and is not really worthwhile. The real sales skill lies in getting to be the lowest bidder and then beating off the “spoilers”.
Dassault’s Rafale was announced as being the lowest bidder beating the Eurofighter for the $20billion Indian MMRCA contract at the end of January. Now comes the cry of “possible foul” from a Member of the Upper House of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) who is also a member of Parliament’s standing Defence Committee. (The MP, MV Mysura Reddy, is a former member of the Congress Party who left to join the regional Telegu Desam party. He has lost 3 elections for Parliament but has been appointed by his party to the Upper House).
Smeets is actually Dutch filmmaker and animator Floris Kaayk, who worked in collaboration with media production company Revolver on the “media art project” that took the world by storm.
It’s been a dream of scientists ever since the days of Leonardo DiVinci and even Icarus — human-powered flight. But where some of the greatest scientific minds in history have failed, did Jarno Smeets, a mechanical engineer from the Netherlands, finally succeed in building a pair of working human wings?
The above video showing human flight was created by Smeets, and uploaded to YouTube earlier this week. It’s generating an incredible amount of controversy — half from people stunned that such a feat was accomplished, and half from people convinced the feat was a fraud.
Dassault’s success in being selected as the lowest bidder for the Indian MMRCA competition with the Rafale aircraft seems to be having a significant impact in other deals. The Rafale is now the most likely winner of the Brazilian contract for 36 aircraft. The aggressive pricing by Dassault and the active (and very effective) lobbying by the French government is a potent combination. The Rafale has not yet been sold outside France and the Indian and Brazilian deals are critical for the future export life of the Rafale.
In Brazil the Rafale is competing against Boeing’s F-18 and Saab’s Gripen. Though Saab is also desperately looking for export orders for the Gripen, it is unlikely that it can afford to drop its prices by the levels that Dassault obviously can. Boeing on the other hand is not so dependent on the Brazilian orders and is unlikely to drop its price by very much – especially since they will not wish to disturb the already very high price levels they enjoy for exports to the Middle-East. And that probably leaves the Rafale sitting very pretty.
Though David Cameron and the other leaders of the four country consortium which manufactures the Eurofighter Typhoon (UK, Germany, Spain and Italy) have all been somewhat whiny about the selection of the French (Dassault) Rafale for the 126 aircraft Indian MMRCA deal it seems highly unlikely that the Typhoon can make a comeback.
The life-time cost of the contract is evaluated at about $20 billion with an initial contract value of about $10-12 billion. The ToI reports that the Rafale deal was evaluated as being $5 billion (about 25%) cheaper than the Eurofighter. Though the evaluation probably considers a total of about 189 aircraft (126 +63 in phase 2) it still represents a life-cycle cost difference of some $26 million per aircraft and not just the $4-5 million lower initial acquisition cost per aircraft (bid-price). It seems almost impossible for the Eurofighter to match this difference. The first 18 aircraft have to be delivered in “fly-away” condition from mid-2015 onwards. The next 108 aircraft will have to be delivered from HAL in India at about 6 per year initially going up to 20 per year.
Exclusive negotiations between Dassault and the Indian Ministry of Defence start next week.
It was the “substantially higher cost” of acquiring and operating the Eurofighter Typhoon that led to its ejection from the almost $20 billion MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) project to supply 126 fighters to IAF.
Finally the winner of the Indian MMRCA competition has been announced (or at least the L1 bidder) and it seems that the French dumped their prices for the Rafale to beat the Eurofighter by $4-5 million per aircraft. The performance of the Rafale in the Libyan adventure was also to its benefit compared to the Eurofighter Typhoon. Normally in the procurement process, the L1 bidder is called for final discussions to settle the contract and some further price negotiations can be expected. The contract will not be settled till the next fiscal year (after April 2012) and it would be very unusual for the evaluated L1 bidder not to get the contract. This contract is particularly important for Dassault since not only did the Rafale need a boost but also because they are guaranteed a market with the Indian Air Force for at least the next 15 years.
French company Dassault Rafale on Tuesday bagged India’s biggest-ever contract for supplying 126 combat aircraft for the air force, edging out European competitor EADS in the multi-billion dollar deal.
The French firm was declared as the lowest bidder, according to which it will get the contract under India’s defence procurement procedure, sources said. “The French firm Dassault Rafale has emerged as the L-1 (lowest bidder) and cheaper than its european rival EADS (maker of Eurofighter) in the tender and will be offered to supply the aircraft to the IAF,” the source said.
They said the representatives of Dassault here were informed about the development in the morning and further negotiations on price will be held with them in the next 10-15 days.
The contract will be signed only in the next fiscal. According to the Request for Proposal (RFP), the winner of the contract will have to supply 18 of the 126 aircraft to the IAF in 36 months from its facilities and the remaining would be produced at HAL facilities in Bangalore.
Six companies including American F-16 and F-18, Russian MiG 35, Swedish Saab Gripen alongwith Eurofighter and Dassault Rafale were in the race in the beginning. But in April last year, the Defence Ministry shortlisted Dassault and EADS, evicting the American, Russian and Swedish bids.
The process was started with the issuing of a global tender in 2007 after which all the six contenders were subjected to extensive field evaluation trails by the Indian Air Force at several locations across the globe.
The Defence Ministry had earlier cleared the way for opening commercial bids of Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon by approving their offset proposals.
The k2p blog 