BA 787 Nosegear Collapse at Heathrow.
Discussion
aeropilot said:
Its stupid design.
Another Boeing clanger, and systemic of modern electronic remote design 'managed' by people that have no hands-on experience.
I see similar day in day out these days in my job compared to 25+ years ago.
Yeap, too much "but it works in my 3D CAD program so it must be perfect" and not enough real-world experience to know that drawings don't always relate 100% perfectly with the reality of physical work.Another Boeing clanger, and systemic of modern electronic remote design 'managed' by people that have no hands-on experience.
I see similar day in day out these days in my job compared to 25+ years ago.
spikeyhead said:
48k said:
Someone on PPrune is saying his friend was the despatcher for this flight, she was onboard in the forward cabin talking to the Captain, FO was in the flight deck when it happened. No warning, they were thrown to the floor, sounds like no injuries fortunately.
Rumour is the locking pin could have been in the wrong hole whilst maintenance was carried out, as described in this proposed Air Worthiness Directive
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/...
I've never worked anywhere that would allow a design like that to be made. If you can put something in the wrong hole, change the design so that you can't. Poke Yoke 101Rumour is the locking pin could have been in the wrong hole whilst maintenance was carried out, as described in this proposed Air Worthiness Directive
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/...
AD Proposal said:
New B787 aircraft arrived for post-delivery mod. The NLG drag brace pivot link hollow bolt will accept the gear pin snuggly from LH side while the correct locking hole is 3 inches away and "unmarked." An inexperienced mechanic could accidentally place the locking pin in the wrong hole leading to gear collapse during ground testing damaging the aircraft and potentially injuring or killing persons in the vicinity of the gear.
Apply sealant or similar mitigation to the LH inside bolt hole, mark correct hole with red outline. Has previous Engineering Authorization been implemented on the fleet?
Apply sealant or similar mitigation to the LH inside bolt hole, mark correct hole with red outline. Has previous Engineering Authorization been implemented on the fleet?
Krikkit said:
According to the Virgin safety alert above, Virgin modified all their 787s with the insert in accordance with the AD (airworthiness directive) mentioned Airworthiness directive here for people interested in the details.
https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Librar...
Interesting that in a previous similar incident it looks like the pin wasn’t inserted into the wrong hole but hadn’t been inserted at all.
dvs_dave said:
What would cause the gear to collapse without the locking pin in though? The plane obviously taxis, takes off and lands perfectly safely without it in, and the gear doesn’t collapse. Why would the mechanism not be automatically locked as part of its deployment process?
Some engineering work possibly where the normal sensors etc are overridden. Normally on the ground there’s an air ground sensing system which stops things like the landing gear lever being operated etc. If you’re resetting some aircraft systems or working on hydraulic pumps or even towning the aircraft then you have the downlock pin to stop the gear collapsing,
Usually the nose gear is more susceptible to this than the main gear as it often has other locks.
hidetheelephants said:
What a really s
te bit of design.
Most aircraft have downlock pins, after the mistake was made on the 787 Boeing directed that the design is changed but operators had a while to do it. As you can see Virgin etc had altered it already but for whatever reason that 787 hadn’t been done yet. te bit of design.If you looked at it, it’s not that easy a mistake to make tbh especially with all the warnings about it. The two holes are completely different diameters. People here are assuming that’s what caused the problem, (incorrect placement of the pin) we don’t actually know yet.
The added trouble at the moment is that everyone in the airlines and airports haven’t been working much and there’s all kinds of things happening due to aircraft not being used as often and employees being less recent.
El stovey said:
The added trouble at the moment is that everyone in the airlines and airports haven’t been working much and there’s all kinds of things happening due to aircraft not being used as often and employees being less recent.
I think you mean less current, but all the more reason for everyone to be up-to-date with the ADs etc. and following the checklists.hidetheelephants said:
El stovey said:
The added trouble at the moment is that everyone in the airlines and airports haven’t been working much and there’s all kinds of things happening due to aircraft not being used as often and employees being less recent.
I think you mean less current, but all the more reason for everyone to be up-to-date with the ADs etc. and following the checklists.When I’m doing the walkaround and inspecting the 787 gear before my next flight I’ll be sure to remember your advice though.
Tony1963 said:
I love the comments about CAD etc being at fault, because yeah, older aircraft had no stupid design issues at all, did they!
If working on aircraft was a breeze, pilots would fix ‘em.
If working on aircraft was a breeze, pilots would fix ‘em.
Indeed.
The 787s is by far the best aircraft I’ve flown and I’ve flown lots of types.
The amount of nasty gotchas in other older types that people don’t ever seem to know about or talk about always amazes me.
Tony1963 said:
I love the comments about CAD etc being at fault, because yeah, older aircraft had no stupid design issues at all, did they!
If working on aircraft was a breeze, pilots would fix ‘em.
We all know older designs had problems too Tony yet absolutely no-one other than yourself is making the mental leap between a few of us talking about the specific problems modern designers face and us apparently denying that we made mistakes before CAD.If working on aircraft was a breeze, pilots would fix ‘em.
For the earlier designers it was far easier to get instant feedback on the issues we currently face during the initial design/build when you're on the shop floor with the experienced builders right next to you (literally feet away).
However now that doesn't happen, that vital feedback line just doesn't exist in the same easy//smooth way (designers often live in a different country than the builders) so, as modern designers get less negative feedback, they start to believe in their CAD more and more until they generally start to believe it over what little feedback they ever do get. It's a new problem with A/C designs which is getting worse and the discussion has absolutely zero to do with "well we made mistakes before CAD".
Anyway, thats been my experience of working alongside A/C and parts designers at BAES and Bombardier as an experienced engineer for a few years anyway, having a conversations of "I know thats how you designed it but that's not how someone will use it so you might have to redesign it" for example. Some designers enjoyed the feedback, lots didn't and the designs were only very rarely changed due to anyone feedback, not just mine.
IanH755 said:
We all know older designs had problems too Tony yet absolutely no-one other than yourself is making the mental leap between a few of us talking about the specific problems modern designers face and us apparently denying that we made mistakes before CAD.
Wow. Most patronising reply I’ve had!I’ve worked on Hunters, Buccaneers, Tornado GR1 and F3, a few airliners, and now Apaches. And I’ll tell you this: the newer aircraft are just easier to work on for servicing and flight line ops. I’ve never been involved in the soul destroying building of aircraft.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff