April 29, 2024

ANA Finds Damaged Battery Wires on Boeing Locator Beacons

Two airlines said on Friday that they had found pinched wires in emergency locator transmitters on Boeing 787s, the same type of damage that has been identified as the likely cause of a fire on another 787 in London this month.

United Airlines said it found the pinched wire, which connects the battery to the transmitter, on one of its six 787s. Christen David, a United spokeswoman, said the airline found the problem in an inspection ordered by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Japan’s All Nippon Airways said it had found a similar problem on one of its 787s. It said the damage was slight.

Both companies said they had removed the transmitters, which would broadcast a plane’s location after a crash, and sent them to the manufacturer, Honeywell Aerospace, to be evaluated.

British investigators probing the fire aboard an Ethiopian Airlines Dreamliner parked at Heathrow Airport on July 12 are focusing a possible pinched wire on an emergency beacon.

All Nippon Airways has taken the built-in locator beacons out of its eight domestically operated Dreamliners with the permission of local regulators and has inspected and put back those on its 12 787s that fly international routes.

The beacons are designed to guide rescuers to downed aircraft, although in most cases close radar tracking and eyewitness reports allow air traffic controllers to pinpoint crash sites.

Also Friday, Qatar Airways said that it had taken one of its Dreamliners out of service following what it described as a minor technical issue, as pressure mounted on the plane maker over possible new electrical problems with the advanced jet.

The airline and Boeing declined to give further details.

According to Web-tracking service Flightaware, the Qatar Airways aircraft, registered as A7-BCB, has not flown since Sunday, an unusually long downtime for a long-haul jet designed to save on fuel bills.

Qatar Airways confirmed an aircraft had been taken out of service, but said no flights had been canceled as a result.

Separately on Friday, federal regulators proposed a $2.75 million civil penalty against Boeing for installing nonconforming fasteners on its 777 jetliner and failing to correct its quality control system for two years.

The Federal Aviation Administration alleged that Boeing found it had been installing fasteners that were insufficiently tapered in September 2008. The plane maker stopped using those fasteners after it discovered the problem but according to the F.A.A. failed to correct some of its manufacturing issues related to these fasteners until November 2010.

The agency said Boeing had failed “to maintain its quality control system in accordance with approved F.A.A. procedures.”

“Boeing repeatedly submitted action plans that set deadlines for the accomplishment of certain corrective actions, but subsequently failed to implement those plans,” the F.A.A. said.

Boeing said that its action plan, filed in November 2010, had “an enhanced corrective action management system that includes a robust database for tracking issues, additional management oversight and a series of regular meetings with the FAA to review all open cases to ensure they closed in a timely manner.”

It added that it was “working closely with the F.A.A. to address any remaining concerns.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/07/26/business/26reuters-ana-dreamliner-beacon.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Battery Is Not Suspected in New Fire on Boeing 787

The British Air Accidents Investigation Branch said in a statement that the fire resulted in smoke throughout the plane and extensive heat damage in the upper part of the rear fuselage. But while the investigators said they had not found the cause of the problems, the damage was not near either of the plane’s lithium-ion batteries. “At this stage,” the statement said, “there is no evidence of a direct causal relationship” between the batteries and the fire.

That initial finding was a big relief to Boeing, its investors and the 13 airlines that have bought the planes, which were grounded for four months worldwide this year after two episodes involving fire or smoke from the batteries. But the eventual findings about the cause of the latest fire, which occurred on an unoccupied Ethiopian Airlines 787 parked at Heathrow Airport on Friday, could still be a setback for Boeing if the investigators find problems with another crucial system on the plane.

The investigation branch said its initial inquiry would most likely take several days, and it did not offer any other comment on possible causes. Other safety experts said the possibilities could include heated elements left in a galley just below where the fire burned through the jet’s carbon-composite skin, a poorly installed part or a short in the plane’s electrical system.

The innovative planes were grounded in mid-January after the incidents involving fire or smoke coming from the new and more volatile types of batteries. But the first 50 planes began flying again between late April to early June after regulators approved a series of fixes, including adding insulation between the battery cells and encasing the batteries inside a steel box.

Ethiopian Airlines said in a statement earlier on Saturday that it was continuing to fly its other 787s because the fire at Heathrow occurred after the jet had been on the ground for eight hours and “was not related to flight safety.” The airline did not comment on the possible cause of the fire.

The other airlines with the planes, including United Airlines and 11 other foreign carriers, have also continued to fly them while the fire at Heathrow is investigated.

The fire caused no injuries, but it disrupted travel, and investors reacted nervously, sending Boeing’s shares down 4.7 percent on Friday.

Smoke came from the plane, named the Queen of Sheba, eight hours after it had been parked in a remote space at Heathrow and about four and a half hours before it was scheduled to depart for Ethiopia. No passengers were on the plane, which was connected to an external ground power source, according to people briefed on the episode.

It was also not clear if any maintenance was under way or how long the fire had been burning, though it was intense enough to burn through the top of the fuselage near the tail. That area is in a complex section where large parts of the plane are joined together. The two lithium-ion batteries, which were used instead of conventional nickel-cadmium batteries to save weight and provide more energy, are under the cockpit and just behind the wings toward the bottom of the plane.

In addition to the British investigators leading the inquiry, a team from Boeing was on site along with representatives from the airline and from two American government agencies, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board.

Boeing, the F.A.A. and the N.T.S.B. had no comment Saturday on the possible cause of the fire, deferring to the British investigators.

Other experts said that some of the plane’s wiring, and the oxygen systems for passengers, would have passed through the damaged area, which was above the rear galley. It was also possible the fire migrated from another part of the plane, they said.

The Financial Times quoted an Ethiopian manager in Britain as saying that maintenance workers had discovered a problem with the plane’s air-conditioning system during a routine inspection and had seen sparks but no flames. The report did not say when the inspection occurred, and aviation-safety officials in the United States were not sure what to make of it.

Thomson Airways, a charter airline, said on Saturday that it had replaced and tested several parts on a 787 that had cut short a flight on Friday. It said the plane would fly again on Sunday.

The 787 has had a history of other mishaps since entering service in November 2011. Several airlines, including United, Qatar Airways and All Nippon Airlines, have been forced to divert flights because of electrical problems or other reasons. Still, airlines have eagerly anticipated the plane, which has cut fuel costs by 20 percent.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/fire-on-boeing-787-dreamliner-at-heathrow-in-london.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks Blog: A ‘Matchmaker’ for Drivers and Parking Spaces

A sign outlines parking rules in New York City.Bloomberg NewsA sign outlines parking rules in New York City.

We’ve all been in this situation: You drive to an important appointment in the city — or a big outing, say, at a sports arena — and waste precious time frantically looking for a parking spot that won’t cost you a day’s wages.

ParkatmyHouse, an online service that began in Britain, is now working on a debut in the United States. It aims to increase the supply of affordable parking by making use of private spots, in driveways or in parking decks, that are available. The concept is similar to the online lodging service Airbnb, except you’re renting parking spaces instead of a room.

Anthony Eskinazi, ParkatmyHouse’s founder and chief executive, said in telephone interview that his company had been operating since 2006 in Britain, where it claims roughly 150,000 registered users and an inventory of some 40,000 parking spaces. Mr. Eskinazi describes the service a “matchmaker” between drivers and parking spaces.

Mr. Eskinazi is beginning to market the service’s operations in the United States, with an initial focus on the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut area, as well as in Boston and Washington. The domestic version of the site is just getting started. When I recently typed “parkatmyhouse” into Google, it showed a link to a Web site that lets you submit a request for an area in which you’d like to find parking. (It also provided a link that led to the British Web site, which could be helpful if, say, you are hunting for a spot near Heathrow Airport.)

Mr. Eskinazi said he was working on lining up owners to list their parking spots on the United States Web site and that visitors would soon be connected automatically to a live search site. (To get an idea of how it will work, he said, you can check out a smattering of live rentals available in the Boston area. But he warns that the site isn’t “Americanized,” so there may, for instance, be some confusing British lingo.)

Mr. Eskinazi said he thought the idea would catch on quickly, as people became more familiar with the so-called “sharing economy. “The U.S. market is huge,” he said, noting that people can spend years on waiting lists for available monthly commuter parking in parts of Connecticut. The company has backing from BMW i Ventures, a venture capital outfit based in New York City.

Here’s how the site works in Britain, and, if Mr. Eskinazi’s efforts pan out, here as well. If you want find a spot to rent, whether for a day, a week or on a regular basis, you type in the relevant Zip code to find available spots, along with information about the rates and other attributes (that is, outdoors, in a garage, lighting and security features, etc). You can rent short-term or long-term, depending on your needs and what’s available. You must register on the site and can ask for more details about the property from the owner before committing. The site provides a contract for you to download.

Renters can pay for their space using a credit or debit card or PayPal, Mr. Eskinazi said. ParkatmyHouse makes a 15 percent commission on each transaction.  (The frequently asked questions on the British site mention a cash payment option, but Mr. Eskinazi said that option would be removed “shortly.”)

In Britain, he said, one renter is a mother who used a parking space for 15 minutes each weekday morning so she can park and walk her child into school. Another is a homeowner who rents her driveway during soccer matches at a nearby stadium.

If you own a spot you want to rent, you can list it — along with its availability and rate — free on the site. Homeowners with just one spot in their driveway can list it, as can businesses with a larger lot that’s vacant on weekends, or churches that have empty spots during the week, he said. “Honestly, it’s whatever you want. We’re completely flexible.”

There are some requirements. You must own the parking space you list or have the legal right to rent it. If your space comes along with an apartment you rent, for instance, you probably need your landlord’s permission to rent out the space. In Britain, at least, landlords are often agreeable if they are given a cut of the parking income, Mr. Eskinazi said.

As a security precaution, the Web site does not list the specific address of the parking space in question. That’s provided later in the transaction. The service also makes other safety suggestions, like asking the renter to provide a description of the vehicle and information about who will be driving it when it shows up.

What do you think of this concept? Would you rent from a private homeowner? Or list your own parking space for rent to strangers?

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=645fe70579c7fcf1a19c6a6f52ca4faa