Not a great week for JAL...

[TSR2]

I'm not saying it doesn't happen Nigel, I'm saying when I board my flight at Heathrow I don't expect to see the equivalent of a drum of fuel sitting on the ramp under it. I'm just saying that this is a bad thing to happen in what is a new airplane

[NigelC]

It happened as it was taxying which suggests a surge tank venting. Didn't just drop it on the ramp.

I'm just saying that this is a bad thing to happen in what is a new airplane

So OK on, say, an 8 year old 747??

[NigelC]

Bit more research says they have had a couple of problems with a couple of incorrectly assembled fuel couplings.

But the JAL incident at Logan had the aircraft departing after inspection. If it was a fuel coupling problem, they would have had a major delay sourcing a new coupling and fitting it, so I'm still going for surge tank on this one.

[Garry Russell]

There were a number of in flight fires in DC6's when new because it was sucking venting fuel into the cabin intake.

This sort of thing I would expect not at all, but if it did happen and was a design fault then I expect it more on a new one than an old one.

If not a design fault but an error or maintenance issue then it could be on any type at any time.

I just hope they can iron out the bugs without hurting anyone.

[NigelC]

Boeing say the snag rate is no greater than on the introduction of the 777.

I don't think there is design problem with the aeroplane itself, but there is an issue with some components, and possibly a QC issue on assembly. fuel couplings and wiring looms are suggested in some articles.

N

[NigelC]

Of course, in the Ops Control Centre, when your trying to sort out the delays and cover the flying programme, it would be a case of muttering "F"£$ing piece of S*"t!"

[Garry Russell]

It does seem that previous issues, third party componants or assembly have been blamed. Is that the price of outsourcing to 'save money'???

[TSR2]

Its more spreading risk than saving money Garry. If Boeing did this all on their own and their were problems it could collapse the company, by spreading the risk, there is less chance of something bad having such a large effect. this is nothing new, Vickers did it back in the 60's for the same reasons (as did de Havilland's I believe)

[Chris Trott]

BTW, the FAA "review" is a CYA maneuver because the media has been making hay out of these issues, not because of any fundamental issues with the certification process or continuing compliance inspections. Remember, the FAA is a VERY political agency and is under constant attack from multiple sides in public. Sadly, in this day and age, they give in to that pressure too often instead of telling them to go piss off and let the professionals who know what they're doing do their jobs.

As for the problems, I made a quick skim of the FAA incident reports for the last week and saw that several other types had issues of similar or more seriousness (and number of them as well) as the 787. But because they're not "new", they didn't get any media coverage.

Finally, fuel is a funny thing. I've seen a gallon of fuel spill out a vent on an A300 (auto-shutoff failed -not unusual- and before the fueler could get the valve to close, it overflowed) and it looked like 50 had spilled. I've seen 15 gallons (crew wanted the plane "topped off" despite being warned about it) and it looked like 5 had spilled. It all had to do with the surface it was spilled on. The 1 gallon was spilled on a relatively flat concrete surface. The 15 gallons was on tarmac that was "dished" in that area, so the fuel couldn't spread out as much. As Jet-A is extremely thin, it will spread a lot compared to the volume if it's given the chance. Somewhere around 10-15 times that of a similar amount of water.

[airboatr]

the media has been making hay out of these issues,

well they have to make it palatable for the gallopers to eat up.