Classic British Flight Sim

I don't see with new untreid technology wth no data on long term longevity in use, it can be gauranteed to be as longlived as it needs to be since it's such a new airframe.

The tail was removed for ease and the engines I guess were sent elsewhere for overhaul so it will be as good as they can get it, but...

Personally I would have written it off..put it back on the line, effectively fitting a new fuse and used the old one to repair as they have done then static test it.

Damage is one thing, heat damage, well it muddies the water a bit.

I suppose they will keep a good eye on this one.

Quite an extensive flight test - up to FL380 and some sharp turns to check the super glue was ok.

http://ihld.co.uk/ETAOP.jpg

But even more interesting is FR24 log of recent flights - back in service?

http://www.flightradar24.com/reg/etaop

If the airtest is OK I don't see any reason why it wouldn't go straight back into service

As one door opens, another closes ! Air India brake fire at the gate ( !!) at Kolkata . Trouble is, these things don't even have scrap value

That's a fair point Chris, I hadn't thought of that. As Tonks said a few years back a fire is one of the worst things that could happen on-board an aircraft, but I just don't like the idea of one that melts. I know many of the metals on older airlines are incredibly combustible, but I don't think this whole carbon adventure has been fully thought through.

Airframe status raised from stored to active...so it does appear to be back in service.

cstorey wrote:As one door opens, another closes ! Air India brake fire at the gate ( !!) at Kolkata . Trouble is, these things don't even have scrap value

The brake fire wasn't a major issue.

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=162850

According to the reports, the First Officer landed heavy (and hot) and overheated the brakes trying to stop and that caused one of the brake pucks to catch when they were on the way back in. Nothing unusual and not something that couldn't happen to any other airplane when the crew abuses it.

At least from the photo it looks like the plugs worked, unlike the ones on a certain other manufacturer's airplanes that still haven't been fixed.

There are, sadly, many 787 incidents that are not type or design issues, ground vehical collisions, burst tyres etc.

Even one recent problem was mooted as another Dreamliner issue when it was, in fact, an engine issue and as such not common to all Dreamliners whilst at the same type affecting other aircraft types using the same powerplant.

Chris Trott wrote: The brake fire wasn't a major issue.

Any wheel fire is a major issue, and particularly so when it occurs with the aircraft at the gate when a.evacuation is liable to be more difficult and b. it is more difficult for fire appliances to get access to the seat of the fire . It is even more of an issue where the airframe itself is composed of highly combustible materials

I accept that I may be unduly sensitive to this sort of thing - my only emergency in my 23 year career was an in flight fire in the landing gear ( electrical as it turned out) which fortunately was extinguished , but I can assure you that practical experience of it concentrates the mind on the hazards involved !

There have been brake fires that have cause the loss of the whole airframe

To be fair I think Chris meant this particular fire wasn't a major issue.

But never something to be taken lightly.