The 787 produced by Boeing has re-entered the spotlight following a new airworthiness directive issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
What’s Happening To The 787
In the regulator’s airworthiness directive, the FAA confirmed it had received multiple nonconformances, visible through excessive gaps and pull-ups found during the assembly and installation of the forward bulkheads.
The FAA says these instances and general conditions are caused by insufficient clamp-up and nonconformance to the process undertaken during manufacturing.
Moreover, gaps were found between the Y-chords and attach angles, which are common to fastener joints. As a result, it allows foreign object debris (FOD) to become trapped between these parts and burrs also to be present.
The FAA states that if these conditions were not addressed, they could result in fatigue cracks, weakening the airframe’s primary structure.
Regulators and plane makers actively want to avoid structure cracking. Weakening of the primary structure limits loads and compromises the integrity of the plane in question.
All variants of the 787 Dreamliner, from the 787-8 to the 787-9 and the high-capacity 787-10 model, are involved in this. To address the condition of the products, aircraft must now be inspected.
More Information On The Issue
This airworthiness directive doesn’t come as a shock to the 787 Dreamliner. The forward bulkhead concerns have been present for some time but were left unaddressed by the key governing regulator.
A bulletin published by Boeing in the back end of 2024 highlighted the requirement for inspecting areas where jet operators may have concerns.
However, Boeing has reaffirmed that this is not a safety concern and does not compromise the 787’s daily flying. Airworthiness directives are meant to act as caution and investigate issues with aircraft types.
In some cases, those airworthiness directives can be more severe. However, on other occasions, they are a precautionary measure to ensure a minor issue gets the relevant attention required so it doesn’t balloon into a bigger problem that can compromise the plane’s structural integrity.
135 of the widebody aircraft have been included; these are US-registered aircraft currently in service. The FAA also expects the total cost for operators to be USD 850 per aircraft, bringing the total to USD 114,500 for the estimated affected fleet.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Daniel Fowkes is a Melbourne-based aviation analyst and journalist with over a decade of industry experience. As founder of Dj’s Aviation, he delivers trusted analysis on aircraft, airline strategy and global aviation trends for djsaviation.net
Leave a Reply
Related Articles
Stay Informed
Get the latest aviation news, analysis and route updates delivered to your inbox.
We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.
Enjoyed this story?
Make us your go-to for aviation news
Add us as a preferred source on Google and see our latest stories first in Top Stories.
Add Us On Your News Feed
As an inspector at the Ridley Park, PA plant, and I speak hypothetically, the use of composite skin and fittings necessitated shims as there is no “flex” when assembling. The problem happens when management bypasses inspector buyoff due to schedule becomes the most important factor. Or, proper emphasis on training was misplaced for expediency: schedule being more important. Because at Ridley Park we had the military getting final buyoff which disallowed this phenomenon.
What are y chords, and angle attachments on the forward pressure bulkhead. Is this bulkhead aluminum? Y chords I can’t imagine, angle attachments yes. I remember Tee chords, but Y chords?
It’s interesting to note that the reviews lately have not ever seen any thing critical of Airbus. Just curious if Boeing should cease building airplanes because Airbus builds only perfect aircraft.